Global research trends of Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus: a bibliometric analysis

Trends in Aflatoxin M1 Global Research: A Bibliometric Analysis Study

Background

Fungal metabolites known as aflatoxin M1 (AFM1) are linked to contaminated milk and milk products. Consuming food contaminated with AFM1 poses major health risks and may even be fatal.

Methods

The retrieved publications were categorized in this bibliometric study using the Web of Science (WoS) database Jan 1, 1970 to Nov 30, 2022 based on a variety of factors, including the time of publication of articles, citation totals, languages, research areas, countries, affiliations, funding agencies, journals, and keywords analysis to identify any hot and developing subjects. Additionally, VOSviewer software version 1.6.18 provided the bibliometric analysis of the global collaboration network and hot research themes.

Results

Overall, 679 published documents were detected. Food Control was the top-line journal in publications on AFM1 research with 540 published articles, while the USA was the best productive country in AFM1 publications as well as the major country with the maximum co-authorship collaboration. This study ensures quantitative and qualitative analyses of the top 25 journals, most cited published articles, most relevant authors and title word occurrences in published documents on AFM1 publications. Over the past two decades, there has been an enormous rise for research conducted on global AFM1.

Conclusion

The assessment of the historical state and development trend in AFM1 scientific research can serve as a roadmap for future research and eventually, serve as a foundation for bettering management practices for territorial decisions, healthcare, and dairy industries.

Gut microbiota and autism spectrum disorders: where do we stand?

BACKGROUND

Children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) often have digestive problems and microbial imbalances in their guts, suggesting that these conditions may play a role in the development of the disorder. Scopus-based research on the gut microbiota and ASD was examined in this bibliometric analysis to shed light on the current state of research and identify potential hotspots for future work in this area.

METHODS

We searched documents from the Scopus database and reference citation analysis to collect published data on the gut microbiota and ASD from 2003 to 2022. The downloaded document records were exported to VOSviewer v.1.6.19 to examine and visualize the collaboration between countries and determine the research hotspots.

RESULTS

The search yielded 958 articles specifically dedicated to gut microbiota and ASD. The number of publications in this field increased rapidly after 2013, with a peak in 2022. The United States (n = 267; 27.87%) was the most active country, followed by China (n = 171; 17.85%) and Italy (n = 96; 10.02). International collaboration was observed, with the USA playing a central role. University College Cork, Ireland, was the most productive institution (n = 24; 2.51%). The National Natural Science Foundation of China was the most active funding agency (n = 76; 7.93%). Nutrients journal had the highest number of publications (n = 28; 2.92%). The articles related to gut microbiota and ASD were highly cited, with an h-index of 108. The research themes identified focused on the modulation of gut microbiota as a potential therapy for children with ASD and gut-brain axis dysfunction in ASD.

CONCLUSIONS

In recent years, the study of gut microbiota and its association with ASD has garnered considerable interest as an emergent field of study. The results of this study substantially enhance our current understanding of the knowledge landscape in this field and illuminate potential avenues for future research. It is essential to emphasize the significance of devoting more resources to the newest and most promising research areas, such as investigating the potential therapeutic benefits of modulating the intestinal microbiota in children with ASD. This research has enormous potential and merits intensified focus and investigation.

Bibliometric Analysis of the Publications on Middle East Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus Published Between 2012-2022

Objective

This study aimed to conduct a bibliometric analysis of the global scientific output related to the Middle East Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus (MERS-CoV) between 2012 and 2022.

Materials and Methods

The Web of Science database was searched for articles on MERS-CoV published between 2012 and 2022 for bibliometric analysis. The parameters such as publication year, publication type, funding agencies, research institutions, journals, impact factors, language, and citation numbers of articles were analyzed.

Results

We included 1475 articles on MERS-CoV from 86 countries. The United States was the most published country on MERS-CoV, with 487 articles. The Saudi Ministry of Health (7.53%), King Saud bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences (6.92%), and The Egyptian Knowledge Bank (6.64%) were the most published institutions. The researchers who published the most on MERS-CoV were from Saudi Arabia. One thousand two hundred six funding agencies funded publications on MERS-CoV, most of which were funded by agencies from the United States.

Conclusion

MERS-CoV remains important because no treatment and no vaccine have been found since it was first detected, and accordingly, it continues to affect the world with new outbreaks and high mortality rates. In addition, experiences with MERS-CoV during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic have guided new research on COVID-19, so scientific interest in MERS-CoV is still ongoing.

Sedimentary DNA for tracking the long-term changes in biodiversity

Understanding long-term dynamics is vitally important for explaining current biodiversity patterns and setting conservation goals in a changing world. However, the changes in biodiversity in time and space, particularly the dynamics at the centuries or even longer time scales, are poorly documented because of a lack of continuous monitoring data. The sedimentary DNA (sedDNA) has a great potential for paleo-community reconstruction, and it has recently been used as a powerful tool to characterize past dynamics in terms of biodiversity over geological timescales. In particular, it is useful for prokaryotes and eukaryotes that do not fossilize; hence, it is revolutionizing the scope of paleoecological research. Here, a "Research Weaving" method was performed with systematic maps and bibliometric webs based on the Web of Science for Science Citation Index Expanded, presenting a comprehensive landscape of the sedDNA that traces biological dynamics. We identified that most sedDNA-based studies have focused on microbial dynamics and on using samples from multitypes of sediments. This review summarized the advantages and common applications of sedDNA, focused on the biodiversity in microbial communities, and provided an outlook for the future of sedDNA research.

Cancer and COVID-19 research studies with team science: a bibliometric study

Team science refers to research initiatives considered in collaboration with scientists from different disciplines or fields. This paper presents a bibliometric analysis for visualization of global research activity concerning the combination of cancer and the COVID-19 pandemic using a team science approach. A bibliometric study was implemented using Web of Science from 2019 to 2021. We analyzed citations to identify description and citations analysis of results, most prolific countries, international research collaboration, most prolific institutions, research areas, most cited papers, and most productive journals. The preliminary data of 2,313 studies that adopted a team science approach were recorded and analyzed. Team science is becoming progressively popular in cancer research. The United States was the most active country, followed by Italy and China. The United States, the United Kingdom, and Italy had the highest level of cooperation with other countries. The most prolific institution was Harvard University, followed by University of London and the University of Texas System. Head and Neck Journal for the Sciences and Specialties of the Head and Neck, Frontiers in Oncology, and eCancerMedicalScience were the most productive journals. Governments, organizations, policymakers, and researchers should pay attention to team science approach at times of disasters such as cancer and COVID-19 to achieve the best strategies for controlling cancer that is currently a world problem.

Bibliometric Analysis of Publications on the Omicron Variant from 2020 to 2022 in the Scopus Database Using R and VOSviewer

Human respiratory infections caused by coronaviruses can range from mild to deadly. Although there are numerous studies on coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), few have been published on its Omicron variant. In order to remedy this deficiency, this study undertook a bibliometric analysis of the publishing patterns of studies on the Omicron variant and identified hotspots. Automated transportation, environmental protection, improved healthcare, innovation in banking, and smart homes are just a few areas where machine learning has found use in tackling complicated problems. The sophisticated Scopus database was queried for papers with the term "Omicron" in the title published between January 2020 and June 2022. Microsoft Excel 365, VOSviewer, Bibliometrix, and Biblioshiny from R were used for a statistical analysis of the publications. Over the study period, 1917 relevant publications were found in the Scopus database. Viruses was the most popular in publications for Omicron variant research, with 150 papers published, while Cell was the most cited source. The bibliometric analysis determined the most productive nations, with USA leading the list with the highest number of publications (344) and the highest level of international collaboration on the Omicron variant. This study highlights scientific advances and scholarly collaboration trends and serves as a model for demonstrating global trends in Omicron variant research. It can aid policymakers and medical researchers to fully grasp the current status of research on the Omicron variant. It also provides normative data on the Omicron variant for visualization, study, and application.

Global research trends in MERS-CoV: A comprehensive bibliometric analysis from 2012 to 2021

Background

The Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) was first reported in Saudi Arabia in 2012. So far, the cases of MERS-CoV have been reported in 27 countries. The virus causes severe health complications, resulting high mortality.

Aim

The current study aimed to evaluate the global research trends and key bibliometric indices in MERS-CoV research from 2012 to 2021.

Methods

A retrospective bibliometric and visualized study was conducted. The Science Citation Index Expanded Edition of Web of Science Core Collection database was utilized to retrieve published scientific literature on MERS-CoV. The retrieved publications were assessed for a number of bibliometric attributes. The data were imported into HistCite^TM and VOSviewer software to calculate the citations count and perform the visualization mapping, respectively. In addition, countries or regions collaboration, keywords analysis, and trend topics in MERS-CoV were assessed using the Bibliometrix: An R-tool.

Results

A total of 1,587 publications, published in 499 journals, authored by 6,506 authors from 88 countries or regions were included in the final analysis. Majority of these publications were published as research article (n = 1,143). Globally, these publications received 70,143 citations. The most frequent year of publication was 2016 (n = 253), while the most cited year was 2014 (11,517 citations). The most prolific author was Memish ZA (n = 94), while the most published journal was Emerging Infectious Diseases (n = 80). The United States of America (USA) (n = 520) and Saudi Arabia (n = 432) were the most influential and largest contributors to the MERS-CoV publications. The extensively studied research area was infectious diseases. The most frequently used author keywords other than search keywords were Saudi Arabia, SARS-CoV-2, COVID-19, epidemiology, transmission, spike protein, vaccine, outbreak, camel, and pneumonia.

Conclusion

This study provides an insight into MERS-CoV-related research for scientific community (researchers, academicians) to understand and expand the basic knowledge structure, potential collaborations, and research trend topics. This study can also be useful for policy makers. After the emergence of MERS-CoV, a significant increase in scientific production was observed in the next 4 years (2013–2016). In 2021, the trend topics in MERS-CoV-related research were COVID-19, clinical characteristics, and cytokine storm. Saudi Arabia had the strongest collaboration with the USA, while the USA had the highest collaboration with China.

Between panic and motivation: did the first wave of COVID-19 affect scientific publishing in Mediterranean countries?

Due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic that began in the winter of 2020, all communities and activities globally have been positively or negatively affected. This scientometric study raises an interesting question concerning whether the volume and characteristics of scientific publishing in all disciplines in 23 Mediterranean countries have been impacted by the pandemic and whether variations in the cumulative totals of COVID-19 cases have resulted in significant changes in this context. The Scopus database and SciVal tool supplied the necessary data for the years targeted for comparison (2019 and 2020), and the annual growth rates and differences were computed. The study used the Mann–Whitney test to examine the significance of the differences between the two years and the Spearman and Kendall correlation tests to evaluate the effect of the number of infections on these differences for all aspects of scientific performance. The findings demonstrated that the COVID-19 pandemic served as a powerful incentive, and the Mediterranean region experienced considerable differences in the volume and features of publications during this crisis. The most substantial implications were the significant growth from 3.1 to 9.4% in productivity and the increases in the annual growth rates of international collaboration, by 12% for the collaboration among Mediterranean countries and 10% for collaboration with the top ten epidemic countries. It was also proven that some characteristics of the publications were positively correlated with the total number of infections. This investigation can help university leaders and decision-makers in higher education and research institutions in these countries make decisions and implement measures to bridge the gaps and motivate researchers in all fields to conduct more research during this ongoing pandemic.

NeuroCOVID-19: a critical review

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic has challenged neurologists since its early days. Neurology consultation services were then overloaded by emergency department and intensive-care patients with acute neurological syndromes. These complications are better explained today, but the growing number of patients with reported longstanding neurological symptoms constitute an emerging, complex, and still poorly understood phenomenon.

OBJECTIVE

This review summarizes data on relevant neurological manifestations of acute SARS-CoV-2 infection and lasting post-infectious disease, also known as Long COVID. The complex history of Long COVID is examined to illustrate the upsides and challenges imposed by the active participation of patient communities in the production of medical knowledge.

METHODS

Narrative review.

RESULTS

Infection with the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 is associated with encephalopathy/delirium, cerebrovascular disease, headache, and peripheral nervous system involvement. Long COVID is a living concept jointly defined by patient communities, physicians and scientists, including neurologists.

CONCLUSION

Co-production of Long COVID knowledge between scientists and patients has initiated an era of patient-led research and evidence-based activism that acts as a two-edged sword - putting patient's suffering in the spotlight, but with a tradeoff in methodological consistency.

Contribution of Saudi Arabia to Regional and Global Publications on COVID-19–Related Research: A Bibliometric and Visualization Analysis

Background

At the global level and in Saudi Arabia, COVID-19 remains a major public health problem. The COVID-19 pandemic contributed substantially to a surge in publications on the novel coronavirus responsible for this pandemic. This research is intended to assess the increasing contribution of Saudi Arabia to the global research on COVID-19.

Methods

A bibliometric analysis of all Saudi-affiliated publications on COVID-19 documented between December 2019 and October 2021 was conducted in October 2021 using the Web of Science advanced search builder.

Results

A total of 175,615 global publications on COVID-19 were retrieved in the search. Among these, 9118 (5.2%) publications were from Arab nations. Among the Arab nations, Saudi Arabia (n = 3615) had the highest number of COVID-19 publications, followed by Egypt (n = 2053) and the United Arab Emirates (n = 1057), respectively. Globally, Saudi Arabia ranked 15th among the countries with the highest publication productivity, and the rank was 11th after standardization based on the population size and the gross domestic product. International collaborations were mainly with the researchers from Egypt, followed by the United States, India, Pakistan, and the United Kingdom. King Saud University was the most productive among all institutes in terms of COVID-19-related publications at both local and regional levels.

Conclusion

Saudi Arabia is the leading Arabian nation and one of the top fifteen nations worldwide in terms of COVID-19 research output. Further efforts are warranted from the researchers based in Saudi Arabia in the direction of increasing the quality and the number of publications at the global level. This can be achieved by timely response, proper planning, understating the global research progress, and enhancing the knowledge exchange and collaboration with the other local and international institutes.

Trends in the Use of Augmented Reality, Virtual Reality, and Mixed Reality in Surgical Research: a Global Bibliometric and Visualized Analysis

There have been many major developments in the use of augmented reality (AR), virtual reality (VR), and mixed reality (MR) technologies in the context of global surgical research, yet few reports on the trends in this field have been published to date. This study was therefore designed to explore these worldwide trends in this clinically important field. Relevant studies published from 1 January 2009 through 13 October 2020 were retrieved from the Science Citation Index-Expanded (SCI-E) tool of the Web of Science database. Bibliometric techniques were then used to analyze the resultant data, with visual bibliographic coupling, co-authorship, co-citation, co-occurrence, and publication trend analyses subsequently being conducted with GraphPad Prism 8 and with the visualization of similarities (VOS) software tool. There is no patient and public involved. In total, 6221 relevant studies were incorporated into this analysis. At a high level, clear global annual increases in the number of publications in this field were observed. The USA made the greatest contributions to this field over the studied period, with the highest H-index value, the most citations, and the greatest total link strength for analyzed publications. The country with the highest number of average citations per publication was Scotland. The Surgical Endoscopy And Other Interventional Techniques journal contributed the greatest number of publications in this field. The University of London was the institution that produced the greatest volume of research in this field. Overall, studies could be broadly classified into five clusters: Neurological Research, Surgical Techniques, Technological Products, Rehabilitative Medicine, and Clinical Therapy. The trends detected in the present analysis suggest that the number of global publications pertaining to the use of AR, VR, and MR techniques in surgical research is likely to increase in the coming years. Particular attention should be paid to emerging trends in related fields including MR, extended reality, head-mounted displays, navigation, and holographic images.

Predicting Infectious Diseases: A Bibliometric Review on Africa

Africa has a long history of novel and re-emerging infectious disease outbreaks. This reality has attracted the attention of researchers interested in the general research theme of predicting infectious diseases. However, a knowledge mapping analysis of literature to reveal the research trends, gaps, and hotspots in predicting Africa’s infectious diseases using bibliometric tools has not been conducted. A bibliometric analysis of 247 published papers on predicting infectious diseases in Africa, published in the Web of Science core collection databases, is presented in this study. The results indicate that the severe outbreaks of infectious diseases in Africa have increased scientific publications during the past decade. The results also reveal that African researchers are highly underrepresented in these publications and that the United States of America (USA) is the most productive and collaborative country. The relevant hotspots in this research field include malaria, models, classification, associations, COVID-19, and cost-effectiveness. Furthermore, weather-based prediction using meteorological factors is an emerging theme, and very few studies have used the fourth industrial revolution (4IR) technologies. Therefore, there is a need to explore 4IR predicting tools such as machine learning and consider integrated approaches that are pivotal to developing robust prediction systems for infectious diseases, especially in Africa. This review paper provides a useful resource for researchers, practitioners, and research funding agencies interested in the research theme—the prediction of infectious diseases in Africa—by capturing the current research hotspots and trends.

Bibliometric Analyses of Global Scholarly Output in Dentistry Related to COVID-19

Objective

The aim of this study was to evaluate the bibliometric profile of dental scientific production related to coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) in Scopus (2019-2020).

Materials and Methods

This was a descriptive, observational, comparative, and retrospective study. All manuscripts on COVID-19 in dentistry were published between December 2019 and December 2020. The variables were measured objectively through Scopus (SciVal). For the extraction of the manuscripts, the following keywords were used: "Covid-19" and "Dentistry" with its multiple MeSH terms using the Boolean operators "OR" and "AND". On June 14, 2021, 843 manuscripts corresponding to the period January 2019 to December 2020 were downloaded, normalized, and refined through metadata analysis.

Results

The largest number of manuscripts was published in the International Journal of Current Research and Review, Oral Oncology, Oral Diseases, British Dental Journal, and Journal of Dental Education with 54, 50, 49, 48, and 44 manuscripts, respectively. These are the most productive indexed scientific journals on COVID-19. The most productive institutions were Saveetha University, Universidade de São Paulo, and King's College London, with 42, 33, and 27 manuscripts, respectively. In 2019, there were only two scientific publications on COVID-19. In 2020, the largest amount, 228 manuscripts, were published in Q1 journals, followed by 210 manuscripts in Q3 journals, and only 194 manuscripts were published in Q4 journals.

Conclusions

Currently, there is a notable increase in global academic production in Scopus on the impact of COVID-19 in dentistry, whereas Brazil is the only South American country with three highly productive universities.

Bibliometric Analysis of International Scientific Production on Pharmacologic Treatments for SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 During 2020

Background

COVID-19 is causing a grave global health and economic crisis and the fight against the pandemic has led to unprecedented scientific activity. Bibliometrics could be a useful tool for guiding future researches lines and promoting international collaboration for an effective treatment. For this purpose, we have conducted a bibliometric analysis of scientific publications on drugs and therapies used to treat COVID-19 during 2020.

Methods

Data source: Web of Science. We gathered data on scientific production relating to drugs used to treat COVID-19. We calculated impact factors and analyzed production by institution, country, and journal, visualizing our results in bibliometric networks.

Results

In 1 year, production relating to COVID-19 exceeded 100 000 publications, with over 6,500 on Drugs and COVID-19. Research into hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine, remdesivir, lopinavir and ritonavir, tocilizumab and convalescent plasma is particularly noteworthy. Mean citations/study range from 11.9 to 15.4. Producer institutions fall into three groups: one in the US and centered on Harvard Medical School; another in Europe led by INSERS; and another in China led by Huazhong University of Science and Technology. Production by journal is widespread but the Journal of Medical Virology, International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents, and American Journal of Transplantation are noteworthy.

Conclusions

The volume of research that is currently under way is comparable to the magnitude of the pandemic itself. Such a high volume of studies is infrequent and the impact they have achieved has no known precedent. The producing countries are those with highest incidence of the pandemic and greatest scientific potential; moreover, inter-agency and international collaboration has reached extraordinarily high levels.

Research trends in forensic anthropology: A bibliometric analysis

This paper aims to examine the worldwide research development and trends in forensic anthropology by using bibliometric analysis. Scopus database was used to identify published papers on forensic anthropology from 1948 to 2020. A total of 4,499 records were analyzed for yearly publication productivity, authorship and citation pattern, types of documents, most productive journals, organizations, authors, and countries, frequently cited papers, most used keywords, countries of collaboration, and three-field plot analysis in the domain of forensic anthropology. The results indicated that the highest grand total publications were between the years 2016 and 2019, while the highest multi-authored publications were in the year 2018. The most productive journal, author, organization, and country were the 'Journal of Forensic Sciences' with grand total publications of 934, 'Cattaneo, C.' with 97 publications, 'Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique' with 130 publications, and the United States with 1020 total cited papers, respectively. The document with the highest number of citations was 'Buckberry and Chamberlain, 2002, Am J Phys Anthropol' with a total of 387. Three-field plot analysis regarding the most outstanding keyword-source-country was "Forensic anthropology"- "Journal of Forensic Sciences" and "Forensic Science International"- "USA", "France", and "UK". The predomination of certain countries over others in the field of forensic anthropology limits its prosperity as ethnic variety is of important regard. Research collaborations were mainly observed between the United States and European countries, which highlights the need for strengthening collaborations between developed and developing nations.

Coronavirus

Coronaviruses (CoVs) are a large family of viruses and are endemic in humans and animals, causing respiratory and intestinal infections. CoV has become a challenge in China region due to its recent outbreak at the start of the year 2020. The current outbreak of CoV disease has resulted in many fatalities and has forced the people of Wuhan Province in China to remain confined in their homes. Two other two forms of CoVs were epidemic in 2003 when the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) spread in Hong Kong and the Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) spread in the Middle East region. This scientometric study is an attempt to trace the trends of research associated with “Coronavirus” for a period of 32 years using the Web of Science citation database. The database was searched on February 26, 2020, for CoV publications published from 1989 to 2020. Identified and analyzed parameters include year of publication, publication type, patterns of international collaboration, research institutions, journals, impact factor, h-index, language, and the number of times cited. Most of the research publications were from the United States (35,871), and the University of Hong Kong was the most productive institute (517, 4.10% publications). The Journal of Virology has published the most number of articles on CoV.

Bibliometric Analysis and Systematic Review of Global Coronavirus Research Trends Before COVID-19: Prospects and Implications for COVID-19 Research

Coronaviruses (CoV) cause respiratory and intestinal infections. We conducted this bibliometric analysis and systematical review to explore the CoV-related research trends from before COVID-19. We systematically searched the Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, and Web of Science (WOS) databases for published bibliometric analyses of CoV from database inception to January 24, 2021. The WOS Collection was searched from inception to January 31, 2020, to acquire the CoV-related publications before COVID-19. One-Way ANOVA and Bonferroni multiple-comparison tests were used to compare differences. Visualization mapping and keyword cluster graphs were made to illustrate the research topics and hotpots. We included 14,141 CoV-related publications for the bibliometric analysis and 16 (12 articles) CoV-related bibliometric analyses for the systematic review. Both the systematic review and bibliometric analysis showed (1) the number of publications showed two steep upward trajectories in 2003-2004 and in 2012-2014; (2) the research hotpots mainly focused on the mechanism, pathology, epidemiology, clinical diagnosis, and treatment of the coronavirus in MERS-CoV and SARS-Cov; (3) the USA, and China; the University of Hong Kong; and Yuen KY, came from the University of Hong Kong contributed most; (4) the Journal of Virology had the largest number of CoV related studies. More studies should focus on prevention, diagnosis, and treatment in the future.

A bibliometric analysis of carbon exchange in global drylands

Drylands refer to regions with an aridity index lower than 0.65, and billions of people depend on services provided by the critically important ecosystems in these areas. How ecosystem carbon exchange in global drylands (CED) occurs and how climate change affects CED are critical to the global carbon cycle. Here, we performed a comprehensive bibliometric study on the fields of annual publications, marked journals, marked institutions, marked countries, popular keywords, and their temporal evolution to understand the temporal trends of CED research over the past 30 a (1991-2020). We found that the annual scientific publications on CED research increased significantly at an average growth rate of 7.93%. Agricultural Water Management ranked first among all journals and had the most citations. The ten most productive institutions were centered on drylands in America, China, and Australia that had the largest number and most citations of publications on CED research. "Climate change" and climate-related (such as "drought", "precipitation", "temperature", and "rainfall") research were found to be the most popular study areas. Keywords were classified into five clusters, indicating the five main research focuses on CED studies: hydrological cycle, effects of climate change, carbon and water balance, productivity, and carbon-nitrogen-phosphorous coupling cycles. The temporal evolution of keywords further showed that the areas of focus on CED studies were transformed from classical pedology and agricultural research to applied ecology and then to global change ecological research over the past 30 a. In future CED studies, basic themes (such as "water", "yield", and "salinity") and motor themes (such as "climate change", "sustainability", and "remote sensing") will be the focus of research on CED. In particular, multiple integrated methods to understand climate change and ecosystem sustainability are potential new research trends and hotspots.

Covid-19 and international cooperation: IR paradigms at odds

The Covid-19 pandemic is a global challenge calling for a global response. But the actual responses of states, while exhibiting considerable international cooperation, are predominantly competitive and self-centered. This raises important questions about the utility of our basic intellectual tools—in the form of International Relations Theory (IRT)—for understanding the pattern of these responses. IRT analyzes inter-state dynamics and explains the extent to which states and institutions do or do not cooperate. This critique focuses on theories that stress competition (realism), those that focus on cooperation (liberalism) and those emphasising ideational constructions that could go either way (constructivism and normative theory). It seeks to elucidate the relative strengths of these theories—what they can tell us and what they cannot—in understanding responses to the current pandemic. It concludes that, while all the identified approaches have something to offer, realist theory, which highlights the prioritization of national interests over collective action, provides the most optimal approach for a full understanding of global responses to Covid-19. The analysis helps draw lessons for policy responses to this and other global crises, such as climate change.

Exploring Topics in Bibliometric Research Through Citation Networks and Semantic Analysis

This article surveys topic distributions of the academic literature that employs the terms bibliometrics, scientometrics, and informetrics. This exploration allows informing on the adoption of those terms and publication patterns of the authors acknowledging their work to be part of bibliometric research. We retrieved 20,268 articles related to bibliometrics and applied methodologies that exploit various features of the dataset to surface different topic representations. Across them, we observe major trends including discussions on theory, regional publication patterns, databases, and tools. There is a great increase in the application of bibliometrics as science mapping and decision-making tools in management, public health, sustainability, and medical fields. It is also observed that the term bibliometrics has reached an overall generality, while the terms scientometrics and informetrics may be more accurate in representing the core of bibliometric research as understood by the information and library science field. This article contributes by providing multiple snapshots of a field that has grown too quickly beyond the confines of library science.

Bibliometric Analysis on Geriatric Nursing Research in Web of Science (1900-2020)

Objective

Aging is a growing public health concern for people, organizations, and governments. The current study was undertaken to provide insights into the global research output on geriatric nursing.

Methods

A bibliometric study was implemented using the WoS database for the period from 1900 to 2020. Various tools and measures were used to analyze and visualized.

Results

The search strategy found 4923 papers. The oldest paper was written by Beverly C. Andre in 1953. As team size increases, so does the number of citations. The USA was the active country and the highest number of coauthors. New York University was an active institution. Stig Karlsson was the most active author in Geriatric Nursing with 28 articles from Sweden, followed by Koen Milisen and Sandman, with 26 articles each from Sweden and Belgium. The most frequent words in this field were depression, malnutrition, education, Alzheimer's disease, and dementia. The latest research themes in this field were COVID-19, interprofessional locomotive syndrome, emergency nursing, and public health. The most influential papers were specified. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society was the most active journal.

Conclusions

Geriatric nursing is a rooted field and has received special attention in the last decade. Policymakers, especially in developing countries, should pay attention to geriatric nursing as a specialty of nursing to solve aging issues they would face considering the increasing elderly population.

Mapping coronavirus research: quantitative and visualization approaches

Purpose

The present study aims to measure the global research landscape on coronavirus indexed in the Web of Science from 1989 to 2020. The study examines growth rates, authorship trends, institutional productivity, collaborative networks and prominent authors, institutions and countries.

Design/methodology/approach

The research literature on coronavirus published globally and indexed in the Web of Science core collection was retrieved using the term “Coronavirus” and its related and synonymous terms (e.g. COVID-19, SARS-COV, SARS-COV-2 and severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus) as per the Medical List of Subject Headings. A total of 5,625 publications were retrieved; however, the study was restricted to articles only (i.e. 4,471), and other document types were excluded. Quantitative and visualization techniques were used for data analysis and interpretation. VOSViewer software was employed to map collaborative networks of authors, institutions and countries.

Findings

A total of 4,471 articles have been published on coronavirus by 99 countries of the world with the maximum contribution from the USA, followed by the People's Republic of China. The United States, China, Canada, Netherlands and Germany are the front runners in the collaborative network and form strong sub-networks with other countries as well. More than 1,000 institutions collaborate in the field of coronavirus research among 99 contributing countries. The authorship pattern shows that 97.5% of publications are contributed by authors in collaboration in which 77.5% of publications are contributed by four or more than four authors. The range between degree of collaboration (DC) varies from 0.89 in 1993 to 1 in 2000 with an average of 0.96 from 1989 to 2020. The results confirm that the coronavirus research is carried out in teamwork at the individual, institutional and global levels with high magnitude and density of collaboration. The relative growth of the literature has shown inconsistency as a decreasing trend has been observed from 2007 onwards, thereby increasing the doubling time from 4.2 in the first ten years to 17.3 in the last ten years.

Research limitations

The study is limited to the publications indexed in the Web of Science; the findings cannot be generalized across other databases.

Practical implications

The results of the study may help medical scientists to identify the progress in COVID-19 research. Besdies, it will help to identify the prolific authors, institutions and countries in the development of research.

Social implications

The current COVID-19 pandemic poses urgent and prolonged threats to the health and well-being of the population worldwide. It has not only attacked the health of the people but the economy of nations as well. Therefore, it is feasible to know the research landscape of the disease to conquer the problem.

Originality/value

The current COVID-19 pandemic poses urgent and prolonged threats to the health and well-being of the population worldwide. It has not only attacked the health of the people but also the economy of nations as well. Therefore, it is feasible to know the research landscape of the disease to conquer the problem.

Measuring the funding landscape of COVID-19 research

Purpose

The purpose of the study is to map the funding status of COVID-19 research. The various aspects, such as funding ratio, geographical distribution of funded articles, journals publishing funded research and institutions that sponsor the COVID-19 research are studied. To visualize the country collaboration network and research trends/hotspots in the field of COVID-19 funded research, keyword analysis is also performed. The open-access (OA) status of the funded research on COVID-19 is also discussed.

Design/methodology/approach

The leading indexing and abstracting database, i.e. Web of Science (WoS), was used to retrieve the funded articles published on the topic COVID-19. The scientometric approach, more particularly “funding acknowledgment analysis (FAA),” was used to study the research funding.

Findings

A total of 5,546 publications of varied nature have been published on COVID-19, of which 1,760 are funded, thus indicating a funding ratio of 32%. China is the leading producer of funded research (760, 43.182%) on COVID-19 followed by the USA (482, 27.386%), England (179, 10.17%), Italy (119, 6.761%), Germany (107, 6.08%) and Canada (107, 6.08%). China is also in lead in terms of the funding ratio (60.94%). However, the funding ratio of the USA (31.54%) is at 11th rank behind Canada (40.68%), Germany (34.18%) and England (35.87%). The USA occupies a central position in the collaboration network having the highest score of articles with other countries (n = 489), with the USA–China collaboration ranking first (n = 123). National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) is the largest source of funding for COVID-19 research, supporting 342 (19.432%) publications, followed by the United States Department of Health Human Services (DHHS) and National Institute of Health (NIH), USA with 211 (11.989%) and 200 (11.364%) publications, respectively. However, China's National Key Research and Development Program achieves the highest citation impact (80.24) for its funded publications. Journal of Medical Virology, Science of the Total Environment and EuroSurveillance are the three most prolific journals publishing 63 (3.58%), 35 (1.989%) and 32 (1.818%), respectively, of the sponsored research articles on the COVID-19. A total of 3,138 institutions produce funded articles with Huazhong University of Science Technology and Wuhan University from China at the forefront publishing 92 (5.227%) and 83 (4.716%) publications, respectively. The funded research on COVID-19 is largely available in OA mode (1,674, 95.11%) and mainly through the Green and Bronze routes. The keyword clustering reveals that the articles mainly focus on the impact, structure and clinical characteristics of the virus.

Research limitations/implications

The study's main limitation is that the results are based on the publications indexed by WoS, which has limited coverage compared to other databases. Moreover, all the funding agencies do not require or authors miss to acknowledge funding sources in their publications, which ultimately undermines the number of funded publications. The research publications on COVID-19 are also proliferating; thus, the study's findings shall be valid for a minimum period.

Practical implications

The funding of research on the COVID-19 is highly essential to accelerate innovative research and help countries fight against the global pandemic. The study's findings reflect the efforts made by nations and institutions to remove the financial and accessibility hurdles. It not only underscores the lead of the USA in the research on COVID-19, but also shows China as a forerunner in sponsoring the research, thus, helping to know the contribution of nations toward understanding the dynamics of pandemic and controlling it. The study will help healthcare practitioners and policymakers recognize the areas that remain the focus of sponsored research on COVID-19 and other left-out areas that need to be taken up and thus may help in policy formulation. It further highlights the impact of prolific funding agencies so that efforts may be initiated to increase the impact and thereby the returns of investment. The study can help to map the scientific structure of COVID-19 through the lens of funded research and recognize core inclinations of its development. Overall, a comprehensive analysis has been performed to present the detailed characteristics of sponsored research on emerging area of COVID-19, and it is informative, useful and one of its kind on the theme.

Originality/value

The study explores the funding support of research on COVID-19 and its other aspects, along with the mode of availability.

A Systematic Review and Bibliometric Analysis of the Scientific Literature on the Early Phase of COVID-19 in Italy

Background: Studying the scientific literature about COVID-19 and Italy, one of the first countries to be hit by the pandemic, allows an investigation into how knowledge develops during a public health emergency.

Methods: A systematic review of the literature was conducted to identify articles published on the topic between January and April 2020. Articles were classified according to type of study. Co-occurrence of terms, and geographic and temporal trends were analyzed.

Results: Of the 238 articles included in the systematic review, the majority (37%) focused on hospital and clinical management of COVID-19, while 23.9% were commentaries. Epidemiological studies constituted 45.5% of the articles published by authors with non-Italian affiliations.

Conclusion: The scientific articles on COVID-19 in Italy were varied in type of study, though with limited international impact. The lockdown and the pressure placed on hospitals during the first wave of the pandemic mainly resulted in publications on disease management and commentaries.

Current global research landscape on COVID-19 and depressive disorders: Bibliometric and visualization analysis

BACKGROUND

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has affected daily life globally dramatically over the last year. The impact of the COVID-19 epidemic on mental health is expected to be immense and likely to be long-lasting, raising a range of global problems that need to be addressed accordingly.

AIM

To analyze the Scopus-based depression research and COVID-19, explain the advancement of research nowadays, and comment on the possible hotspots of depression research and COVID-19 to obtain a more global perspective.

METHODS

In this report, bibliometric analysis and visualization are used to explain COVID-19's global research status on depression and provide researchers with a guide to identify future research directions. Relevant studies on depression and COVID-19 were retrieved from the Scopus database. Visualization maps were produced using the VOSviewer software, including research collaboration.

RESULTS

At the time of data collection (November 18, 2020), 77217 documents were released by Scopus to COVID-19 in all areas of research. By limiting the search to depression and COVID-19 (January 2020 up until November 18, 2020), there are 1274 published articles on depression and COVID-19 in the Scopus. The great majority of which are original articles (n = 1049, 82.34%), followed by 118 review articles (9.26%), 66 letters (5.18%). The United States had the highest number of publications at 282 (22.14%), followed by China (19.07%) at 243 and Italy at 121 (9.5%). The major two clusters are signified by mental health outcomes among the general population and mental health outcomes among health care workers.

CONCLUSION

The evidence from this study found that many articles focused on mental health outcomes among the general population and health care workers. With adequate psychological support offered by the government or community agencies, mental health in various communities should be put within the local and global public health agenda. This changing situation involves the scientific community's collaborative efforts to contribute to population monitoring during quarantine and COVID-19 outbreaks and to examine the short- and long-term adverse effects on psychological well-being.

Mapping the intellectual structure of the coronavirus field (2000-2020): a co-word analysis

Over the two last decades, coronaviruses have affected human life in different ways, especially in terms of health and economy. Due to the profound effects of novel coronaviruses, growing tides of research are emerging in various research fields. This paper employs a co-word analysis approach to map the intellectual structure of the coronavirus literature for a better understanding of how coronavirus research and the disease itself have developed during the target timeframe. A strategic diagram has been drawn to depict the coronavirus domain's structure and development. A detailed picture of coronavirus literature has been extracted from a huge number of papers to provide a quick overview of the coronavirus literature. The main themes of past coronavirus-related publications are (a) "Antibody-Virus Interactions," (b) "Emerging Infectious Diseases," (c) "Protein Structure-based Drug Design and Antiviral Drug Discovery," (d) "Coronavirus Detection Methods," (e) "Viral Pathogenesis and Immunity," and (f) "Animal Coronaviruses." The emerging infectious diseases are mostly related to fatal diseases (such as Middle East respiratory syndrome, severe acute respiratory syndrome, and COVID-19) and animal coronaviruses (including porcine, turkey, feline, canine, equine, and bovine coronaviruses and infectious bronchitis virus), which are capable of placing animal-dependent industries such as the swine and poultry industries under strong economic pressure. Although considerable research into coronavirus has been done, this unique field has not yet matured sufficiently. Therefore, "Antibody-virus Interactions," "Emerging Infectious Diseases," and "Coronavirus Detection Methods" hold interesting, promising research gaps to be both explored and filled in the future.

An overview of basic molecular biology of SARS-CoV-2 and current COVID-19 prevention strategies

Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) manifests as extreme acute respiratory conditions caused by a novel beta coronavirus named severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) which is reported to be the seventh coronavirus to infect humans. Like other SARS-CoVs it has a large positive-stranded RNA genome. But, specific furin site in the spike protein, mutation prone and phylogenetically mess open reading frame1ab (Orf1ab) separates SARS-CoV-2 from other RNA viruses. Since the outbreak (February-March 2020), researchers, scientists, and medical professionals are inspecting all possible facts and aspects including its replication, detection, and prevention strategies. This led to the prompt identification of its basic biology, genome characterization, structural and expression based functional information of proteins, and utilization of this information in optimizing strategies to prevent its spread. This review summarizes the recent updates on the basic molecular biology of SARS-CoV-2 and prevention strategies undertaken worldwide to tackle COVID-19. This recent information can be implemented for the development and designing of therapeutics against SARS-CoV-2.

Characterization of an Open-Access Medical News Platform's Readership During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Retrospective Observational Study

Background

There are many alternatives to direct journal access, such as podcasts, blogs, and news sites, that allow physicians and the general public to stay up to date with medical literature. However, there is a scarcity of literature that investigates the readership characteristics of open-access medical news sites and how these characteristics may have shifted during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Objective

This study aimed to assess readership and survey data to characterize open-access medical news readership trends related to the COVID-19 pandemic and overall readership trends regarding pandemic-related information delivery.

Methods

Anonymous, aggregate readership data were obtained from 2 Minute Medicine, an open-access, physician-run medical news organization that has published over 8000 original, physician-written texts and visual summaries of new medical research since 2013. In this retrospective observational study, the average number of article views, number of actions (defined as the sum of the number of views, shares, and outbound link clicks), read times, and bounce rates (probability of leaving a page in <30 s) were compared between COVID-19 articles published from January 1 to May 31, 2020 (n=40) and non–COVID-19 articles (n=145) published in the same time period. A voluntary survey was also sent to subscribed 2 Minute Medicine readers to further characterize readership demographics and preferences, which were scored on a Likert scale.

Results

COVID-19 articles had a significantly higher median number of views than non–COVID-19 articles (296 vs 110; U=748.5; P<.001). There were no significant differences in average read times (P=.12) or bounce rates (P=.12). Non–COVID-19 articles had a higher median number of actions than COVID-19 articles (2.9 vs 2.5; U=2070.5; P=.02). On a Likert scale of 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree), our survey data revealed that 65.5% (78/119) of readers agreed or strongly agreed that they preferred staying up to date with emerging literature about COVID-19 by using sources such as 2 Minute Medicine instead of journals. A greater proportion of survey respondents also indicated that open-access news sources were one of their primary sources for staying informed (86/120, 71.7%) compared to the proportion who preferred direct journal article access (61/120, 50.8%). The proportion of readers indicating they were reading one or less full-length medical studies a month were lower following introduction to 2 Minute Medicine compared to prior (21/120, 17.5% vs 38/120, 31.6%; P=.005).

Conclusions

The readership significantly increased for one open-access medical literature platform during the pandemic. This reinforces the idea that open-access, physician-written sources of medical news represent an important alternative to direct journal access for readers who want to stay up to date with medical literature.

A bibliometric analysis of pandemic and epidemic studies in economics: future agenda for COVID-19 research

With the rapid global spread of the COVID-19 pandemic, researchers from diverse fields of study have contributed markedly in different research aspects. Considering the substantial economic significance of the pandemic at the micro and macro level throughout the world, we review the scientific publications in the discipline of Economics. To draw a broad inference, we analyze a total of 1,636 scientific publications starting from 1974, which covers the period of earlier pandemics or epidemics that have a close association with COVID-19 using bibliometric analysis. Our analysis and mapping reveal key information related to the contributors at different levels, including author, institution, country, and publication sources. Besides, we identify the historical concentration of research using scientific clustering and illustrate transformations at different times. Moreover, recognizing the underlying inadequacy of economics research, we propose several areas of future research. Our findings and suggestions are expected to act as a roadmap to potential research opportunities and notable implications for business and policymakers.

The Arab region's contribution to global COVID-19 research: Bibliometric and visualization analysis

BACKGROUND

At the global level and in the Arab world, particularly in low-income countries, COVID-19 remains a major public health issue. As demonstrated by an incredible number of COVID-19-related publications, the research science community responded rapidly. Therefore, this study was intended to assess the growing contribution of the Arab world to global research on COVID-19.

METHODS

For the period between December 2019 and March 2021, the search for publications was conducted via the Scopus database using terms linked to COVID-19. VOSviewer 1.6.16 software was applied to generate a network map to assess hot topics in this area and determine the collaboration patterns between different countries. Furthermore, the research output of Arab countries was adjusted in relation to population size and gross domestic product (GDP).

RESULTS

A total of 143,975 publications reflecting the global overall COVID-19 research output were retrieved. By restricting analysis to the publications published by the Arab countries, the research production was 6131 documents, representing 4.26% of the global research output regarding COVID-19. Of all these publications, 3990 (65.08%) were original journal articles, 980 (15.98%) were review articles, 514 (8.38%) were letters and 647 (10.55%) were others, such as editorials or notes. The highest number of COVID-19 publications was published by Saudi Arabia (n = 2186, 35.65%), followed by Egypt (n = 1281, 20.78%) and the United Arab Emirates (UAE), (n = 719, 11.73%). After standardization by population size and GDP, Saudi Arabia, UAE and Lebanon had the highest publication productivity. The collaborations were mostly with researchers from the United States (n = 968), followed by the United Kingdom (n = 661). The main research lines identified in COVID-19 from the Arab world are related to: public health and epidemiology; immunological and pharmaceutical research; signs, symptoms and clinical diagnosis; and virus detection.

CONCLUSIONS

A novel analysis of the latest Arab COVID-19-related studies is discussed in the current study and how these findings are connected to global production. Continuing and improving future collaboration between developing and developed countries will also help to facilitate the sharing of responsibilities for COVID-19 in research results and the implementation of policies for COVID-19.

Medical negligence in healthcare organizations and its impact on patient safety and public health: a bibliometric study

Background: Medical negligence is an increasing public health concern among healthcare providers worldwide as it affects patient safety. It poses a significant risk of patient injury, disease, disability, or death. The WHO has recognized deficiencies in patient safety as a global healthcare issue to be addressed. This study aimed to analyze various components of medical negligence research literature. Methods: Bibliographic data visualizations tools like Biblioshiny (RStudio) and VOSviewer were used besides MS Excel to examine the types of documents, annual scientific production, top contributing authors and their impact, authorship patterns and collaboration, top contributing countries and organizations, most significant sources of publication, most cited documents, and most frequently used keywords. Bibliometric methods were used to analyze the bibliographic records of research output on medical negligence downloaded from the Web of Science Core Collection. Results: The annual productivity of medical negligence research was increasing gradually. The most productive period for medical negligence research was 2011-2020. Bird contributed the highest number of publications to medical negligence literature while Brennan emerged as the highly cited author. Single-authored publications on medical negligence were not highly cited. The United States was the highest contributing country and the University of South Florida was the highest contributing organization while Harvard University was a highly cited organization. Nine out of the top ten contributing organizations were academic institutions and most of them belonged to the United States. The most important sources of publication on this topic were The Lancet and British Medical Journal. Localio et al. was the most important research article on medical negligence research. Conclusion: Due to increasing attention on this topic, there was a sharp increase in the research output on medical negligence. This is of significance as the WHO set in motion a patient safety program almost two decades ago.

A scientometric analysis on coronaviruses research (1900-2020): Time for a continuous, cooperative and global approach

Infectious diseases remain a complex, recurring, and challenging public health hazard. Coronaviruses have led to multidimensional consequences on health, mobility, and socio-economic conditions. Despite the significance and magnitude of impact from epidemics to the pandemic, literature is sparse on comprehensive coronaviruses related research performance over time. This study aimed at a scientometric evaluation of coronaviruses related literature including COVID-19. Data related to Coronavirus research was extracted from the Web of Science (WoS). All types of publications (28,846) were included and retrieved. To measure the quantity and quality of the publications, "R-Bibliometrix" package was used for detailed analysis exploring a wide range of indicators. Generally, an increasing trend was observed over time led by the USA and China followed by the United Kingdom, Europe, and few other developed countries. The last two decades contributed around 39.5% of documents while only 06 months of 2020 additionally contributed around 46.5% of total documents. Earlier shorter spikes of increased post epidemic publications followed by decreased productivity were detected in the last 2 decades and showed a lack of continuity-'a research epidemic following a disease epidemic'. Articles (53.4%) were the most common publication type. Journal of Virology, British Medical Journal (BMJ), and Virology were leading sources while BMJ, and Lancet showed increased contributions recently. Overall, similar trends of top authors were observed in terms of productivity, impact, collaborations, funding sources, and affiliations with few exceptions mainly from affected regions. Top 20 countries contributed >89% of documents suggesting a lack of global efforts. Networking was found to be mainly among developed nations with limited contributions from resource-limited countries perhaps requiring more cooperation. Recent post-COVID publications rise is highest, unprecedented, and rapidly growing. Authors strongly recommend recent COVID-19 pandemic as a call for continuous, more cooperative, and collective global research.

COVID-19 research progress: Bibliometrics and visualization analysis

Background: Coronavirus primarily targets the human respiratory system, COVID-19 (Coronavirus disease 2019) triggered in China in the late 2019. In March 2020, WHO announced the COVID-19 pandemic. This study aims to analyze and visualize the scientific structure of the COVID-19 publications using co-citation and co-authorship. Methods: This is a scientometric study. Web of Science Core Collection (WoSCC) was searched for all documents regarding COVID-19, MERS-Cov, and SARS-Cov from the beginning to 2020. An Excel spreadsheet was applied to gather and analyze the data and the CiteSpace was used to visualize and analyze the data. Results: A total of 5159 records were retrieved in WoSCC. The structure of the network indicated that the network mean silhouette was low (0.1444), implying that the network clusters' identity is not identifiable with high confidence. The network modularity was 0.7309. The cluster analysis of the co-citation network on documents from 2003 to 2020 provided 188 clusters. The largest cluster entitled, "the Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus" had 255 nodes. The coauthorship network illustrated that the most prolific countries, USA, China, and Saudi Arabia, have focused on a specific field and have formed separate clusters. Conclusion: The present study identified the important topics of research in the field of COVID-19 based on co-citation networks as well as the analysis of clusters of countries' collaborations. Despite the similarities in the production behavior in prolific countries, their thematic focus varies so that a country like China plays a role in "Quantitative Detection" cluster, while USA is the leading country in the "Biological Evaluation" cluster.

Completeness of reporting for COVID-19 case reports, January to April 2020: a meta-epidemiologic study

BACKGROUND

The quality of case reports, which are often the first reported evidence for a disease, may be negatively affected by a rush to publication early in a pandemic. We aimed to determine the completeness of reporting (COR) for case reports published on coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).

METHODS

We conducted a systematic search of the PubMed database for all single-patient case reports of confirmed COVID-19 published from Jan. 1 to Apr. 24, 2020. All included case reports were assessed for adherence to the CARE (Case Report) 31-item checklist, which was used to create a composite COR score. The primary outcome was the mean COR score assessed by 2 independent raters. Secondary outcomes included whether there was a change in overall COR score with certain publication factors (e.g., publication date) and whether there was a linear relation between COR and citation count and between COR scores and social media attention.

RESULTS

Our search identified 196 studies that were published in 114 unique journals. We found that the overall mean COR score was 54.4%. No one case report included all of the 31 CARE checklist items. There was no significant correlation between COR with either citation count or social media attention.

INTERPRETATION

We found that the overall COR for case reports on COVID-19 was poor. We suggest that journals adopt common case-reporting standards to improve reporting quality.

Viral Pandemics of the Last Four Decades: Pathophysiology, Health Impacts and Perspectives

The twenty-first century has witnessed some of the deadliest viral pandemics with far-reaching consequences. These include the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) (1981), Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus (SARS-CoV) (2002), Influenza A virus subtype H1N1 (A/H1N1) (2009), Middle East Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus (MERS-CoV) (2012) and Ebola virus (2013) and the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) (2019-present). Age- and gender-based characterizations suggest that SARS-CoV-2 resembles SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV with regard tohigher fatality rates in males, and in the older population with comorbidities. The invasion-mechanism of SARS-CoV-2 and SARS-CoV, involves binding of its spike protein with angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) receptors; MERS-CoV utilizes dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP4), whereas H1N1 influenza is equipped with hemagglutinin protein. The viral infections-mediated immunomodulation, and progressive inflammatory state may affect the functions of several other organs. Although no effective commercial vaccine is available for any of the viruses, those against SARS-CoV-2 are being developed at an unprecedented speed. Until now, only Pfizer/BioNTech's vaccine has received temporary authorization from the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency. Given the frequent emergence of viral pandemics in the 21st century, proper understanding of their characteristics and modes of action are essential to address the immediate and long-term health consequences.

Coronavirus: An insight into global research until outbreak of COVID-19 and its implications for the future

Background

The currently prevailing global threat of COVID-19 caused the publication numbers on coronaviruses to explode. The awareness of the scientific and public community is enormous. But what about the sense of all these undertakings and what can be learned about the future for a better understanding? These questions were answered with established bibliometric analyses of the time until the avalanche of publications unfolded.

Methods

Chronological, geographical aspects of publication output on coronavirus were also evaluated under the influence of epidemiological and socio-economic parameters.

Results

The trend in publication and citation numbers shows the strong influence of the past pandemics SARS and MERS with an untypical decline afterward. Research is becoming increasingly multidisciplinary over time. The USA and China, as the countries with the highest number of publications, are being displaced by other countries in the consideration of socio-economic and epidemiological aspects, which shows the effect of regional interest in corona research. A significant correlation was found between the number of SARS cases per country and related publications, while no correlation was found for MERS cases and articles.

Conclusions

The results underline the need for sustainable and forward-looking approaches that should not end with the containment of COVID-19.

Bibliometric profile of global scientific research on digoxin toxicity (1849-2015)

Digoxin is a cardiac glycoside derived from the common foxglove digitalis purpurea and has been available for several centuries as a medicinal agent. Despite extensive patient experience over many years, there remains some controversy regarding the possibility that digoxin might have a deleterious effect on survival. This study was constructed to assess trends in digoxin toxicity research using well-established qualitative and quantitative bibliometric indicators. The current study is based on publications that have been indexed in Scopus. Articles referring to the subject of digoxin toxicity between 1849 and 2015 were assessed according to the document type, publication language, countries/territories, institutions, journal, impact factors, total number of citations, h-index, average number of citations per publication, and international collaborations. There were 2900 publications that included 2542 (87.7%) original research articles, while 5.3% were reviews and 4.6% letters. The country of origin was the USA in 849 publications, Germany in 241, the UK in 150, and France in 143. The USA and the UK had the highest number of international collaborations. The average number of citations per publications related to digoxin toxicity was 8.1, and the h-index was 59. The USA and Canada had the highest h-indices by country at 46 and 22, respectively. This study presents the first bibliometric analysis on digoxin toxicity publications. The USA was the most important contributors to digoxin toxicity literature with the greatest international collaboration, largest number of articles and highest h-index, followed by Germany and the UK. There has been a trend towards reduced publication numbers related to digoxin toxicity at global level, although it is still an important issue and we present the current research themes related to digoxin toxicity that were identified.

Evaluating research performance of Coronavirus and Covid-19 pandemic using scientometric indicators

Purpose

This study is an attempt to evaluating the growth of scientific literature in the domain of coronavirus and Covid-19 pandemic research based on scientometric indicators: prolific countries and relative citation impact (RCI); influential institutions; author analysis and network, h-index and citation; DC (degree of collaboration), CC (collaboration coefficient), MCI (modified collaboration index) in the subject domain of coronavirus and Covid-19 research.

Design/methodology/approach

The authors adopted approaches to obtain the literature data from Scopus database from 2000 to 2020 by conducting a systematic search using keywords related to the studied subject domain. In total, 15,297 numbers of records were considered for the literature analysis considering the real significant growth of this subject domain. This study presented the scientometric analysis of these publications. Furthermore, statistical correlations have been used to understand the collaboration pattern. Visualization tool VOSviewer is used to construct the co-author network.

Findings

The present study found that 53.57% (8,195) of the research documents published on the open-access platform. Journal of Virology was found to be most preferred journal by the researcher producing around 839(5.48%) articles. USA and China dominate in the research output, and the University of Hong Kong has produced the highest number of research paper 547(3.58%). A significant portion of the research documents are published in the subject domain of medicine (49.70%), followed by immunology and microbiology (35.72%), and biochemistry, genetics and molecular biology subject domains (22.32%). There has been an unparalleled proliferation of publications on COVID-19 since January 2020 and also a significant distribution of research funds across the globe.

Research limitations/implications

The study exclusively examines 15,297 research outputs which have been indexed in the Scopus database from 2000 to 2020 (till 01 April 2020). Thus, documents published in any other different channels and sources which are not covered in Scopus are excluded from the purview of research.

Practical implications

It will be beneficial for researchers and practitioners worldwide for understanding the growth of scientific literature in the coronavirus and COVID-19 and identifying potential collaborator.

Originality/value

Considering the global impact and social distress due to the outbreak of COVID-19 pandemic, this study is significant in the present scenario for identifying the growth of scientific literature in this field and evolving of this domain of research around the globe. The research results are useful to identify valuable research patterns from publications and of developments in the field of coronavirus and COVID-19.

Characteristics of academic publications, preprints, and registered clinical trials on the COVID-19 pandemic

The COVID-19 pandemic has unleashed a deluge of publications. For this cross-sectional study we compared the amount and reporting characteristics of COVID-19-related academic articles and preprints and the number of ongoing clinical trials and systematic reviews. To do this, we searched the PubMed database of citations and abstracts for published life science journals by using appropriate combinations of medical subject headings (MeSH terms), and the COVID-19 section of the MedRxiv and BioRxiv archives up to 20 May 2020 (21 weeks). In addition, we searched Clinicaltrial.gov, Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, EU Clinical Trials Register, and 15 other trial registers, as well as PROSPERO, the international prospective register of systematic reviews. The characteristics of each publication were extracted. Regression analyses and Z tests were used to detect publication trends and their relative proportions. A total of 3635 academic publications and 3805 preprints were retrieved. Only 8.6% (n = 329) of the preprints were already published in indexed journals. The number of academic and preprint publications increased significantly over time (p<0.001). Case reports (6% academic vs 0.9% preprints; p<0.001) and letters (17.4% academic vs 0.5% preprints; p<0.001) accounted for a greater share of academic compared to preprint publications. Differently, randomized controlled trials (0.22% vs 0.63%; p<0.001) and systematic reviews (0.08% vs 5%) made up a greater share of the preprints. The relative proportion of clinical studies registered at Clinicaltrials.gov, Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, and EU Clinical Trials Register was 57.9%, 49.5%, and 98.9%, respectively, most of which were still “recruiting”. PROSPERO listed 962 systematic review protocols. Preprints were slightly more prevalent than academic articles but both were increasing in number. The void left by the lack of primary studies was filled by an outpour of immediate opinions (i.e., letters to the editor) published in PubMed-indexed journals. Summarizing, preprints have gained traction as a publishing response to the demand for prompt access to empirical, albeit not peer-reviewed, findings during the present pandemic.

The Prediction of Infectious Diseases: A Bibliometric Analysis

OBJECTIVE

The outbreak of infectious diseases has a negative influence on public health and the economy. The prediction of infectious diseases can effectively control large-scale outbreaks and reduce transmission of epidemics in rapid response to serious public health events. Therefore, experts and scholars are increasingly concerned with the prediction of infectious diseases. However, a knowledge mapping analysis of literature regarding the prediction of infectious diseases using rigorous bibliometric tools, which are supposed to offer further knowledge structure and distribution, has been conducted infrequently. Therefore, we implement a bibliometric analysis about the prediction of infectious diseases to objectively analyze the current status and research hotspots, in order to provide a reference for related researchers.

METHODS

We viewed "infectious disease*" and "prediction" or "forecasting" as search theme in the core collection of Web of Science from inception to 1 May 2020. We used two effective bibliometric tools, i.e., CiteSpace (Drexel University, Philadelphia, PA, USA) and VOSviewer (Leiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands) to objectively analyze the data of the prediction of infectious disease domain based on related publications, which can be downloaded from the core collection of Web of Science. Then, the leading publications of the prediction of infectious diseases were identified to detect the historical progress based on collaboration analysis, co-citation analysis, and co-occurrence analysis.

RESULTS

1880 documents that met the inclusion criteria were extracted from Web of Science in this study. The number of documents exhibited a growing trend, which can be expressed an increasing number of experts and scholars paying attention to the field year by year. These publications were published in 427 different journals with 11 different document types, and the most frequently studied types were articles 1618 (83%). In addition, as the most productive country, the United States has provided a lot of scientific research achievements in the field of infectious diseases.

CONCLUSION

Our study provides a systematic and objective view of the field, which can be useful for readers to evaluate the characteristics of publications involving the prediction of infectious diseases and for policymakers to take timely scientific responses.

Mapping the situation of research on coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19): a preliminary bibliometric analysis during the early stage of the outbreak

BACKGROUND

The novel coronavirus, named as 2019-nCoV or coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), has recently appeared in China and has spread worldwide, presenting a health threat to the global community. Therefore, it is important to understand the global scientific output of COVID-19 research during the early stage of the outbreak. Thus, to track the current hotspots, and highlight future directions, we performed a bibliometric analysis to obtain an approximate scenario of COVID-19 to date.

METHODS

Relevant studies to COVID-19 were obtained from the Scopus database during the early stage of the outbreak. We then analysed the data by using well-established bibliometric indices: document type, country, collaboration patterns, affiliation, journal name, and citation patterns. VOSviewer was applied to map and determine hot topics in this field.

RESULTS

The bibliometric analysis indicated that there were 19,044 publications on Scopus published on COVID-19 during the early stage of the outbreak (December 2019 up until June 19, 2020). Of all these publications, 9140 (48.0%) were articles; 4192 (22.0%) were letters; 1797 (9.4%) were reviews; 1754 (9.2%) were editorials; 1728 (9.1%) were notes; and 433 (2.3%) were others. The USA published the largest number of publications on COVID-19 (4479; 23.4%), followed by China (3310; 17.4%), Italy, (2314; 12.2%), and the UK (1981; 10.4%). British Medical Journal was the most productive. The Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Tongji Medical, and Harvard Medical School were the institutions that published the largest number of COVID-19 research. The most prevalent topics of research in COVID-19 include "clinical features studies", "pathological findings and therapeutic design", "care facilities preparation and infection control", and "maternal, perinatal and neonatal outcomes".

CONCLUSIONS

This bibliometric study may reflect rapidly emerging topics on COVID-19 research, where substantial research activity has already begun extensively during the early stage of the outbreak. The findings reported here shed new light on the major progress in the near future for hot topics on COVID-19 research including clinical features studies, pathological findings and therapeutic design, care facilities preparation and infection control, and maternal, perinatal and neonatal outcomes.

Scientometric trends for coronaviruses and other emerging viral infections

BACKGROUND

COVID-19 is the most rapidly expanding coronavirus outbreak in the past 2 decades. To provide a swift response to a novel outbreak, prior knowledge from similar outbreaks is essential.

RESULTS

Here, we study the volume of research conducted on previous coronavirus outbreaks, specifically SARS and MERS, relative to other infectious diseases by analyzing >35 million articles from the past 20 years. Our results demonstrate that previous coronavirus outbreaks have been understudied compared with other viruses. We also show that the research volume of emerging infectious diseases is very high after an outbreak and decreases drastically upon the containment of the disease. This can yield inadequate research and limited investment in gaining a full understanding of novel coronavirus management and prevention.

CONCLUSIONS

Independent of the outcome of the current COVID-19 outbreak, we believe that measures should be taken to encourage sustained research in the field.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19): an evidence map of medical literature

BACKGROUND

Since the beginning of the COVID-19 outbreak in December 2019, a substantial body of COVID-19 medical literature has been generated. As of June 2020, gaps and longitudinal trends in the COVID-19 medical literature remain unidentified, despite potential benefits for research prioritisation and policy setting in both the COVID-19 pandemic and future large-scale public health crises.

METHODS

In this paper, we searched PubMed and Embase for medical literature on COVID-19 between 1 January and 24 March 2020. We characterised the growth of the early COVID-19 medical literature using evidence maps and bibliometric analyses to elicit cross-sectional and longitudinal trends and systematically identify gaps.

RESULTS

The early COVID-19 medical literature originated primarily from Asia and focused mainly on clinical features and diagnosis of the disease. Many areas of potential research remain underexplored, such as mental health, the use of novel technologies and artificial intelligence, pathophysiology of COVID-19 within different body systems, and indirect effects of COVID-19 on the care of non-COVID-19 patients. Few articles involved research collaboration at the international level (24.7%). The median submission-to-publication duration was 8 days (interquartile range: 4-16).

CONCLUSIONS

Although in its early phase, COVID-19 research has generated a large volume of publications. However, there are still knowledge gaps yet to be filled and areas for improvement for the global research community. Our analysis of early COVID-19 research may be valuable in informing research prioritisation and policy planning both in the current COVID-19 pandemic and similar global health crises.

Coronavirus mapping in scientific publications: When science advances rapidly and collectively, is access to this knowledge open to society?

The COVID-19 pandemic is creating a global health emergency. Mapping this health emergency in scientific publications demands multiple approaches to obtain a picture as complete as possible. To progress in the knowledge of this pandemic and to control its effects, international collaborations between researchers are essentials, as well as having open and immediate access to scientific publications, what we called “coopetition”. Our main objectives are to identify the most productive countries in coronavirus publications, to analyse the international scientific collaboration on this topic, and to study the proportion and typology of open accessibility to these publications. We have analyzed 18,875 articles indexed in Web of Science. We performed the descriptive statistical analysis in order to explore the performance of the more prolific countries and organizations, as well as paying attention to the last 2 years. Registers have been analyzed separately via the VOSviewer software, drawing a network of links among countries and organizations to identify the starred countries and organizations, and the strongest links of the net. We have explored the capacity of researchers to generate scientific knowledge about a health crisis emergency, and their global capacity to collaborate among them in a global emergency. We consider that science is moving rapidly to find solutions to international health problems but access to this knowledge by society is not so quick due to several limitations (open access policies, corporate interests, etc.). We have observed that papers from China in the last 3 months (from January 2020 to March 2020) have a strong impact compared with papers published in years before. The United States and China are the major producers of documents of our sample, followed by all European countries, especially the United Kingdom, Germany, the Netherlands, and France. At the same time, the leading role of Saudi Arabia, Canada or South Korea should be noted, with a significant number of documents submitted but very different dynamics of international collaboration. The proportion of international collaboration is growing in all countries in 2019–2020, which contrasts with the situation of the last two decades. The organizations providing the most documents to the sample are mostly Chinese. The percentage of open access articles on coronavirus for the period 2001–2020 is 59.2% but if we focus in 2020 the figures increase up to 91.4%, due to the commitment of commercial publishers with the emergency.

Global mapping of cholera Vibrio and outbreaks in the Pre-Millennium Development Goals (MDG)/Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) and MDGs/SDGs era of 1990-2019

Vibrio species and cholera outbreak yet remain a frequent health emergency despite progress made in integrated implementation of the MDGs/SDGs/WASH worldwide. Hence, this study aimed at appraising the impacts of MDGs/SDGs/WASH campaigns on the mitigation of cholera outbreak and associated consequences. The study mapped scientific production related to Vibrio outbreak from 1990 to 2019, identified trend, institutional/international concerted efforts toward outbreak research/response and gaps for future preparedness. Relevant documents were identified from the Web of Science database using an optimised title-field specific search Boolean that accommodated all pre-set inclusion criteria for the study. A total of 901 documents were identified including 869 available abstracts were retrieved for content-review of human incidence cases, mortality, culprit Vibrio species, strains, and biotypes. Explanatory analysis showed that the trend of outbreak documents approximately increased in 6th order quadratic relationship (R² = 0.7948) from 1990 to 2019 with an annual growth rate of 3.21% and a mean value of 30.0 ± 18.0 per year. Other details revealed an increased and undulating case report/mortality rate of cholera outbreaks especially in the MDGs/SDGs era. Decadal comparison of Vibrio outbreak during the period showed significant variation in documents distribution (Kruskal-Wallis p = 0.00077). based on countries' efforts, the USA, ranked first in terms of article numbers (191), publication frequency (24.6(%) and total citations (5962). Four prevailing conceptual frameworks were identified in the outbreak documents with global community interest revealed as the largest topical coverage. All conceptual frameworks consisted in Vibrio characterisation, methodology-related, intervention-related, geographic-related concepts and some replete with health and climate-change depicting concepts. Also, the study observed high mortality in Vibrio outbreaks during 1990-1999 (29080 deaths), and 2010-2019 (386606 deaths) compared to 2000-2009 (7705 deaths) (Kruskal-Wallis, p < 0.05). High number of outbreaks due to V. cholerae and V. parahaemolyticus and a limited outbreaks attributed to emerging strains. In conclusion, vibrio outbreak has not lived up to various investment put into its control from various programme evolutions. The broad spectrum Vibrio vaccines that could cater for outbreak caused by common and emerging strains is inevitable and a significant thrust for future research.

Coronavirus: Bibliometric analysis of scientific publications from 1968 to 2020

Background: The World Health Organization declared the outbreak of COVID-19as a public health emergency of international concern on January 30, 2020. Therefore, relevant research metrics would be an added value for understanding the virus for researchers. Methods: Research outputs related to the Coronavirus were retrieved from the Web of Science database from January 1968 to March 2020 and were analyzed using MS-office, Word Cloud generator, VOS viewer, and ArcGIS software. The analysis was based on the number of research publications per year, contributing author's clustering pattern, most preferred journals, leading publication, document type, broad research areas, commonly used keywords, the geographical distribution of publications, commonly used languages, and productive institutes. Results: The search retrieved 6424 Coronavirus research publications. The number of articles found in the year 1968 was 1, but it was 275 in 2019. A total of 33 clusters of authors contributed to studies on COVID-19 across the globe. The Journal of Virology had the most productivityon Coronavirus publications (n=810). An article published by Ksiazek TG et al in the New England Journal of Medicine had the maximum citation (n=2175); 90% of the research outputs were articles, broadly classified under Infectious diseases (n=5341); and the most commonly used keyword was 'Coronavirus'. The higher number of publications was from the USA (n=2345) and the commonly used language was English (n=5948), and the most productive institute was the University of Hong Kong (n=506). Conclusion: The results of the study showed that the growth pattern was not uniform, the United States, and the University of Hong Kong have played a major role in the contribution of Coronavirus research. Even though this depicts a higher scientific growth, it is an alarming sign to the community for preparedness. Under the prevailing situation of seeking better prevention, treatment and vaccination for COVID-19, in-depth research in the above portrayed metrics would be an added knowledge for the researchers.

Time to Acceptance of 3 Days for Papers About COVID-19

Time to acceptance from submission and time to publication (publication lag) determines how quickly novel information is made available to other scientists and experts. In the medical field, the review process and revisions usually takes 3–4 months; the total time from submission to publication is 8–9 months. During the COVID-19 pandemic, information should be available much faster. The analysis of 833 documents published on SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 prior to 19 March 2020 shows that these times shrunk by a factor of ten. The median time to acceptance was three days for all publications, six days for research papers and reviews, four days for case studies and two days for other publication types. The median publication lag was nine days for all publications together, 11 days for research papers, nine days for case studies, 13 days for reviews and seven days for other publications. This demonstrates that the publication process—if necessary—can be sped up. For the sake of scientific accuracy, review times should not be pushed down, but the time from acceptance to actual publication could be shorter.

The status and trends of coronavirus research: A global bibliometric and visualized analysis

OBJECTIVES

The infectious pneumonia caused by the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) occurred in Wuhan, Hubei Province, China, from December 2019 and spread the whole country and even other 24 countries. Coronavirus research is of significance to overcome the epidemic. Our study aims to investigate the global status and trends of coronavirus research.

METHOD

Publications related to the studies of coronavirus research from January 1, 2003 to February 6, 2020 were retrieved from the Science Citation Index-Expanded (SCI-E) of the Web of Science database. A total of 9294 publications were included. The data source was studied and indexed by bibliometric methodology. For visualized study, bibliographic coupling analysis, co-authorship analysis, co-citation analysis, co-occurrence analysis and the analysis of publication trends in coronavirus research were conducted by VOS (visualization of similarities) viewer and GraphPadPrism 6 software.

RESULTS

The number of publications about coronavirus research increased sharply in 2004 for SARS outbreak and increased again in 2012 for MERS outbreak. The USA made the highest contributions to the global research with the most total number of publications, total citation frequency, and the highest H-index, while Netherlands had the highest average citation per item. Journal of Virology had the largest publication numbers. The University of Hong Kong is the most contributive institution with the most publications. The main research orientation and funding agency were virology and United States Department of Health Human Services. Keywords of all related studies could be divided into 4 clusters: "Pathological research," "Epidemiology research," "Clinical research," and "Mechanism research."

CONCLUSIONS

The outbreak of the epidemic could promote coronavirus research, meanwhile, coronavirus research contributes to overcoming the epidemic. Attention should be drawn to the latest popular research, including "Spike protein," "Receptor binding domain," and "Vaccine." Therefore, more and more efforts will be put into mechanism research and vaccine research and development, which can be helpful to deal with the epidemic.

Research Progress of Coronavirus Based on Bibliometric Analysis

Background: COVID-19 has become one of the most serious global epidemics in the 21st Century. This study aims to explore the distribution of research capabilities of countries, institutions, and researchers, and the hotspots and frontiers of coronavirus research in the past two decades. In it, references for funding support of urgent projects and international cooperation among research institutions are provided. Method: the Web of Science core collection database was used to retrieve the documents related to coronavirus published from 2003 to 2020. Citespace.5.6.R2, VOSviewer1.6.12, and Excel 2016 were used for bibliometric analysis. Results: 11,036 documents were retrieved, of which China and the United States have contributed the most coronavirus studies, Hong Kong University being the top contributor. Regarding journals, the Journal of Virology has contributed the most, while in terms of researchers, Yuen Kwok Yung has made the most contributions. The proportion of documents published by international cooperation has been rising for decades. Vaccines for SARS-CoV-2 are under development, and clinical trials of several drugs are ongoing. Conclusions: international cooperation is an important way to accelerate research progress and achieve success. Developing corresponding vaccines and drugs are the current hotspots and research directions.

Current status of global research on novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19): a bibliometric analysis and knowledge mapping

Background: Novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) is a major global health concern due to its pathogenicity and widespread distribution around the world. Despite a growing interest, little is known about the current state of research on COVID-19. This bibliometric study evaluated the contemporary scientific literature to assess the evolution of knowledge on COVID-19, identify the leading research stakeholders, and analyze the conceptual areas of knowledge development in this domain. Methods: Bibliometric data on COVID-19 related studies published until April 1, 2020, were retrieved from Web of Science core collection. Further, a quantitative evaluation and visualizations of knowledge areas in COVID-19 research were created by statistical and text-mining approaches using bibliometric tools and R software. Results: A total of 422 citations were retained in this study, including journal articles, reviews, letters, and other publications. The mean number of authors and citations per document was 3.91 and 2.47, respectively. Also, the top ten articles, authors, and journals were identified based on the frequencies of citations and publications. Networks of contributing authors, institutions, and countries were visualized in maps, which highlight discrete developments in research collaborations. Major areas identified through evaluating keywords and text data included genetic, epidemiological, zoonotic, and other biological topics associated with COVID-19. Conclusions: Current status of COVID-19 research shows early development in different areas of knowledge. More research should be conducted in less-explored areas, including socioeconomic determinants and impacts of COVID-19. Also, global research collaboration should be encouraged for strengthening evidence-based decision-making preventing and addressing the COVID-19 pandemic and aftermath.