Search

Seamless learning has a significance that has been increasing in recent years, and an increasing number of studies on the subject in the literature draws attention. This study aimed to examine the research on seamless learning between 1996 and 2020 with the bibliometric analysis method. The Scopus database was used in the collection of the data. After various screening processes, a total of 389 publications were included in the analysis. Descriptive analysis and bibliometric analysis were used in the analysis of the data. The distribution of publications by years, types of publications, sources, and languages were analyzed in the research. Additionally, visual maps were created with analyses of co-author, cocitation, and co-word. At the end of the study, it was seen that there has been an increase in the number of publications from the past to the present, articles and papers were predominant, and that most of the studies were carried out in English. As a result of bibliometric analysis, it was concluded that the most efficient countries in seamless learning were the United Kingdom, the United States, and Singapore. Also, it has been determined that the National Institute of Education, Center for International Education and Exchange, and Kyushu University institutions are dominant. The most frequently mentioned authors cited in studies in many different fields are M. Sharples, L.-H. Wong, and H. Ogata. According to the co-word analysis, the keywords seamless learning, mobile learning, ubiquitous learning, and mobile-assisted language learning stand out in the field of seamless learning.

Pectoral nerve blocks (Pecs I and Pecs II) are superficial thoracic wall blocks which block the pectoral and intercostal nerves. They can be used as analgesia/anesthesia for breast surgery and other procedures/surgeries involving the anterior chest wall (arteriovenous graft creation surgery, minimally invasive cardiac surgery and thoracotomy, etc.). The aim of this study is to evaluate publications in the scientific field of pectoral nerve blocks. ISI Web of Knowledge-Science was used for the analysis. All scientific works published included in the Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-E) from 1975 to January 27, 2019, were analyzed. A retrospective search was performed using key words "pectoral nerve block," "PECS I," "PECS II," "pecs block," "PECS block,""Pecs I," "Pecs II," "PECS 1," "PECS 2," and "modified pecs I block." We further analyzed these results by the "analyze" function of the software in terms of number of papers for each country, type of documentation, number of publications per year, and name of journals and authors. The number of citations to published works was also calculated by using the citation function of the same software. 72 papers were found related to pectoral nerve block. The biggest contribution was from India (24.28%), and followed by Japan (14.28%), USA (14.28%), Canada (7.14%), Egypt (7.14%), Italy (5.71%), and South Korea (5.71%). The total number of publications increased sharply in years from 2014 (n = 1) to 2018 (n = 28). We have detected that papers on the use of pecs block in breast cancer surgery, which is one of the most common surgical procedure in the world, are few in the literature. With this study, we hope to increase the awareness on this area. We believe that pecs block applications will become widespread with the increasing use of ultrasound in anesthesia and the increase in education in this field. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Research collaboration is promoted by governments and research funders, but if the relative prevalence and merits of collaboration vary internationally then different national and disciplinary strategies may be needed to promote it. This study compares the team size and field normalized citation impact of research across all 27 Scopus broad fields in the 10 countries with the most journal articles indexed in Scopus 2008–2012. The results show that team size varies substantially by discipline and country, with Japan (4.2) having two‐thirds more authors per article than the United Kingdom (2.5). Solo authorship is rare in China (4%) but common in the United Kingdom (27%). While increasing team size associates with higher citation impact in almost all countries and fields, this association is much weaker in China than elsewhere. There are also field differences in the association between citation impact and collaboration. For example, larger team sizes in the Business, Management & Accounting category do not seem to associate with greater research impact, and for China and India, solo authorship associates with higher citation impact in this field. Overall, there are substantial international and field differences in the extent to which researchers collaborate and the extent to which collaboration associates with higher citation impact. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]