What makes an informative and publication-worthy scientometric analysis of literature: A guide for authors, reviewers and editors

Abstract

In light of the proliferation of scientometric/bibliometric software and its accessibility to a wide array of researchers, we have witnessed a substantial increase in literature analyses founded in these methods across diverse scientific domains. With these methods gaining popularity, the influx of similar papers seeking publication is expected to continue in the forthcoming years. However, persistent questions remain regarding the benchmarks for a well-justified, informative, and publication-worthy scientometric review paper. This concern resonates not only with authors but also holds significance for editors and reviewers tasked with evaluating the quality, rigour, and relevance of such contributions. In this context, this paper furnishes a concise guide elucidating the fundamental criteria underpinning a publication-worthy scientometric literature analysis. Encompassing the entire spectrum of steps integral to a scientometric review, the guide addresses the rationale and benefits of undertaking such an analysis. This includes all relevant aspects such as scoping, data procurement and search methodologies, visualisation, result delineation and interpretation. Furthermore, this guide addresses a range of prevalent misconceptions and common errors with respect to this genre of scholarly publications. It concludes by proposing a quality checklist that can be used as a standard benchmark for assessing studies that employ methodologies of scientometric literature analysis.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 65 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.