A comparison of 3 productive authors' research domains based on sources from articles, cited references and citing articles using social network analysis

Analyzing collaboration and impact: A bibliometric review of four highly published authors' research profiles on collaborative maps

The concept of impact beam plots (IBPs) has been introduced in academia as a means to profile individual researchers. Despite its potential, there has been a lack of comprehensive analysis that evaluates the research profiles of highly published authors through the lens of collaborative maps. This study introduces a novel approach, the rating scale for research profiles (RSRP), to create collaborative maps for prolific authors. The initial hypothesis posited that each of the research profiles would attain a grade A, necessitating empirical verification. This research employed collaborative maps to analyze the publication patterns of authors using the Web of Science database, focusing on co-authorship patterns and the impact of their scholarly work. The study relied on various bibliometric indicators, such as publication count, citation metrics, h-index, and co-authorship networks, to provide a detailed assessment of the contributions made by each author in their field. Additionally, authors' IBPs were generated and assessed alongside collaborative maps, using a grading scale ranging from A (excellent) to F (lacking any articles as first or corresponding author). The analysis confirmed that all 4 research profiles achieved a grade A, with their centroids located in the third quadrant, indicating a high level of scholarly impact. The h-indexes for the authors were found to be 38, 51, 53, and 59, respectively. Notably, Dr Tseng from Taiwan showed a distinct pattern, with a significant number of solo-authored publications in the second quadrant, in contrast to the other 3 authors who demonstrated a greater emphasis on collaboration, as evidenced by their positioning in the first quadrant. The study successfully demonstrates that RSRP and IBPs can be effectively used to analyze and profile the research output of highly published authors through collaborative maps. The research confirms the initial hypothesis that all 4 profiles would achieve a grade A, indicating an excellent level of scholarly impact and a strong presence in their respective fields. The utility of collaborative maps can be applied to bibliometric indicators in assessing the contributions and impact of scholars in the academic community.

Evaluating cluster analysis techniques in ChatGPT versus R-language with visualizations of author collaborations and keyword cooccurrences on articles in the Journal of Medicine (Baltimore) 2023: Bibliometric analysis

BACKGROUND

Analyses of author collaborations and keyword co-occurrences are frequently used in bibliographic research. However, no studies have introduced a straightforward yet effective approach, such as utilizing ChatGPT with Code Interpreter (ChatGPT_CI) or the R language, for creating cluster-oriented networks. This research aims to compare cluster analysis methods in ChatGPT_CI and R, visualize country-specific author collaborations, and then demonstrate the most effective approach.

METHODS

The research focused on articles and review pieces from Medicine (Baltimore) published in 2023. By August 20, 2023, we had gathered metadata for 1976 articles using the Web of Science core collections. The efficiency and effectiveness of cluster displays between ChatGPT_CI and R were compared by evaluating their time consumption. The best method was then employed to present a series of visualizations of country-specific author collaborations, rooted in social network and cluster analyses. Visualization techniques incorporating network charts, chord diagrams, circle bar plots, circle packing plots, heat dendrograms, dendrograms, and word clouds were demonstrated. We further highlighted the research profiles of 2 prolific authors using timeline visuals.

RESULTS

The research findings include that (1) the most active contributors were China, Nanjing Medical University (China), the Medical School Department, and Dr Chou from Taiwan when considering countries, institutions, departments, and individual authors, respectively; (2) the highest cited articles originated from Medicine (Baltimore) accounting for 4.53%: New England Journal of Medicine, PLOS ONE, LANCET, and The Journal of the American Medical Association, with respective contributions of 3.25%, 2.7%, 2.52%, and 1.54%; (3) visual cluster analysis in R proved to be more efficient and effective than ChatGPT_CI, reducing the time taken from 1 hour to just 3 minutes; (4) 7 cluster-focused networks were crafted using R on a custom platform; and (5) the research trajectories of 2 prominent authors (Dr Brin from the United States and Dr Chow from Taiwan) and articles themes in Medicine 2023 were depicted using timeline visuals.

CONCLUSIONS

This research highlighted the efficient and effective methods for conducting cluster analyses of author collaborations using R. For future related studies, such as keyword co-occurrence analysis, R is recommended as a viable alternative for bibliographic research.

Differences in productivity and collaboration patterns on spine-related research between neurosurgeons and orthopedic spine surgeons: Bibliometric analysis

BACKGROUND

Spinal surgeries are commonly performed by neurosurgeons and orthopedic spine surgeons, with many spine-related articles published by them. However, there has been limited research that directly compares their research achievements. This article conducted a comparative analysis of spine-related research achievements between neurosurgeons and orthopedic spine surgeons. This study examines differences in productivity and impact on spine-related research between them using these measures, particularly with a novel clustering algorithm.

METHODS

We gathered 2148 articles written by neurosurgeons and orthopedic spine surgeons from the Web of Science core collections, covering the period from 2013 to 2022. To analyze author collaborations, we employed the follower-leader clustering algorithm (FLCA) and conducted cluster analysis. A 3-part analysis was carried out: cluster analysis of author collaborations; mean citation analysis; and a category, journal, authorship, L-index (CJAL) score based on article category, journal impact factors, authorships, and L-indices. We then utilized R to create visual displays of our findings, including circle bar charts, heatmaps with dendrograms, 4-quadrant radar plots, and forest plots. The mean citations and CJAL scores were compared between neurosurgeons and orthopedic spine surgeons.

RESULTS

When considering first and corresponding authors, orthopedics authors wrote a greater proportion of the articles in the article collections, accounting for 75% (1600 out of 2148). The CJAL score based on the top 10 units each also favored orthopedic spine surgeons, with 71% (3626 out of 6139) of the total score attributed to them. Using the FLCA, we observed that orthopedic spine surgeons tended to have more collaborations across countries. Additionally, while citation per article favored orthopedic spine surgeons with standard mean difference (= -0.66) and 95%CI: -0.76, -0.56, the mean CJAL score in difference (= 0.34) favored neurosurgeons with 95%CI: 0.24 0.44.

CONCLUSION

Orthopedic spine surgeons have a higher number of publications, citations, and CJAL scores in spine research than those in neurosurgeons. Orthopedic spine surgeons tend to have more collaborations and coauthored papers in the field. The study highlights the differences in research productivity and collaboration patterns between the 2 authors in spine research and sheds light on potential contributing factors. The study recommends the use of FLCA for future bibliographical studies.

A comprehensive approach for clustering analysis using follower-leading clustering algorithm (FLCA): Bibliometric analysis

BACKGROUND

There are 3 issues in bibliometrics that need to be addressed: The lack of a clear definition for author collaborations in cluster analysis that takes into account collaborations with and without self-connections; The need to develop a simple yet effective clustering algorithm for use in coword analysis, and; The inadequacy of general bibliometrics in regard to comparing research achievements and identifying articles that are worth reading and recommended for readers. The study aimed to put forth a clustering algorithm for cluster analysis (called following leader clustering [FLCA], a follower-leading clustering algorithm), examine the dissimilarities in cluster outcomes when considering collaborations with and without self-connections in cluster analysis, and demonstrate the application of the clustering algorithm in bibliometrics.

METHODS

The study involved a search for articles and review articles published in JMIR Medical Informatics between 2016 and 2022, conducted using the Web of Science core collections. To identify author collaborations (ACs) and themes over the past 7 years, the study utilized the FLCA algorithm. With the 3 objectives of; Comparing the results obtained from scenarios with and without self-connections; Applying the FLCA algorithm in ACs and themes, and; Reporting the findings using traditional bibliometric approaches based on counts and citations, and all plots were created using R.

RESULTS

The study found a significant difference in cluster outcomes between the 2 scenarios with and without self-connections, with a 53.8% overlap (14 out of the top 20 countries in ACs). The top clusters were led by Yonsei University in South Korea, Grang Luo from the US, and model in institutes, authors, and themes over the past 7 years. The top entities with the most publications in JMIR Medical Informatics were the United States, Yonsei University in South Korea, Medical School, and Grang Luo from the US.

CONCLUSION

The FLCA algorithm proposed in this study offers researchers a comprehensive approach to exploring and comprehending the complex connections among authors or keywords. The study suggests that future research on ACs with cluster analysis should employ FLCA and R visualizations.

Global research trends in artificial intelligence for critical care with a focus on chord network charts: Bibliometric analysis

BACKGROUND

The field of critical care-related artificial intelligence (AI) research is rapidly gaining interest. However, there is still a lack of comprehensive bibliometric studies that measure and analyze scientific publications on a global scale. Network charts have traditionally been used to highlight author collaborations and coword phenomena (ACCP). It is necessary to determine whether chord network charts (CNCs) can provide a better understanding of ACCP, thus requiring clarification. This study aimed to achieve 2 objectives: evaluate global research trends in AI in intensive care medicine on publication outputs, coauthorships between nations, citations, and co-occurrences of keywords; and demonstrate the use of CNCs for ACCP in bibliometric analysis.

METHODS

The web of science database was searched for a total of 1992 documents published between 2013 and 2022. The document type was limited to articles and article reviews, and titles and abstracts were screened for eligibility. The characteristics of the publications, including preferred journals, leading research countries, international collaborations, top institutions, and major keywords, were analyzed using the category-journal rank-authorship-L-index score and trend analysis. The 100 most highly cited articles are also listed in detail.

RESULTS

Between 2018 and 2022, there was a sharp increase in publications, which accounted for 92.8% (1849/1992) of all papers included in the study. The United States and China were responsible for nearly 50% (936/1992) of the total publications. The leading countries, institutes, departments, authors, and journals in terms of publications were the US, Massachusetts Gen Hosp (US), Medical School, Zhongheng Zhang (China), and Science Reports. The top 3 primary keywords denoting research hotspots for AI in critically ill patients were mortality, model, and intensive care unit, with mortality having the highest burst strength (4.49). The keywords risk and system showed the highest growth trend (0.98) in counts over the past 4 years.

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides valuable insights into the potential for ACCP and future research opportunities. For AI-based clinical research to become widely accepted in critical care practice, collaborative research efforts are necessary to strengthen the maturity and robustness of AI-driven models using CNCs for display.

Analyzing author collaborations by developing a follower-leader clustering algorithm and identifying top co-authoring countries: Cluster analysis

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to explore suitable clustering algorithms for author collaborations (ACs) in bibliometrics and investigate which countries frequently coauthored with others in recent years. To achieve this, the study developed a method called the Follower-Leading Clustering Algorithm (FLCA) and used it to analyze ACs and cowords in the Journal of Medicine (Baltimore) from 2020 to 2022.

METHODS

This study extracted article metadata from the Web of Science and used the statistical software R to implement FLCA, enabling efficient and reproducible analysis of ACs and cowords in bibliometrics. To determine the countries that easily coauthored with other countries, the study observed the top 20 countries each year and visualized the results using network charts, heatmaps with dendrograms, and Venn diagrams. The study also used chord diagrams to demonstrate the use of FLCA on ACs and cowords in Medicine (Baltimore).

RESULTS

The study observed 12,793 articles, including 5081, 4418, and 3294 in 2020, 2021, and 2022, respectively. The results showed that the FLCA algorithm can accurately identify clusters in bibliometrics, and the USA, China, South Korea, Japan, and Spain were the top 5 countries that commonly coauthored with others during 2020 and 2022. Furthermore, the study identified China, Sichuan University, and diagnosis as the leading entities in countries, institutes, and keywords based on ACs and cowords, respectively. The study highlights the advantages of using cluster analysis and visual displays to analyze ACs in Medicine (Baltimore) and their potential application to coword analysis.

CONCLUSION

The proposed FLCA algorithm provides researchers with a comprehensive means to explore and understand the intricate connections between authors or keywords. Therefore, the study recommends the use of FLCA and visualizations with R for future research on ACs with cluster analysis.

A leading author of meta-analysis does not have a dominant contribution to research based on the CJAL score: Bibliometric analysis

BACKGROUND

There have been nearly 200 thousand meta-analysis articles indexed by web of science (WoS) since 2013. To date, a bibliometric analysis of leading authors of meta-analyses that contribute to the field has not been conducted. Analyzing trend patterns in article citations and comparing individual research achievements (IRAs) are required following the extraction of meta-analysis articles. Using trend analysis, this study aims to verify the hypotheses that; The leading author has a dominant research achievement and; Recent articles that deserve worth reading can be identified.

METHODS

In the WoS collection, we identified the top 20 authors with the most articles related to meta-analysis. Using coword analysis, 2882 articles were collected to cluster author collaborations and identify the top 3 authors with the highest weighted centrality degrees. Based on the CJAL (category, journal raking by impact factor, authorship, and L-index on article citation) score and absolute advantage coefficient (AAC), we compared the IRAs and identified the author who dominated the field significantly beyond the next 2 authors. In WoS collection, coword analysis was used to highlight the characteristics of research domains for the top authors contributing to meta-analyses. The selection of articles that deserve reading is based on a temporal heatmap.

RESULTS

The top 2 authors were Young-Ho Lee (South Korea), Patompong Ungprasert (U.S.), and Brendon Stubbs (US) with CJAL scores of 240.71, 230.99, and 240.71, respectively. Based on the weak dominance coefficient (AAC = 0.49 < 0.50), it is evident that the leading meta-analysis author does not possess a significant dominant position over the next 2 leading authors in IRAs. Coword analysis was used to illustrate the characteristics of the 3 authors research domains. The 3 articles worth reading were selected based on a trend analysis of the last 4 years using the temporal heatmap.

CONCLUSION

A coword analysis of meta-analysis studies identified 3 leading authors. There was no evidence that 1 author possessed a dominant position due to the lower AAC (=0.49 < 0.50) for the leading author. As we have demonstrated in this study, the CJAL score and the AAC can be applied to many bibliographical studies in the future.