ArticleEnvironmental science and pollution research international2020
Visualization and analysis of mapping knowledge domain of oxidation studies of sulfide ores.
Article in Environmental science and pollution research international, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Research hotspots and future trends of hot corrosion research: a bibliometric analysis.RSC advances · 2023Review
- Exploring development and evolutionary trends in carbon offset research: a bibliometric perspective.Environmental science and pollution research international · 2021Review
- Scientometric Analysis of Medicinal and Edible PlantFrontiers in pharmacology · 2021Article
- Thermodynamic Model and Kinetic Compensation Effect of Spontaneous Combustion of Sulfur Concentrates.ACS omega · 2020Article
- Reply to the rebuttal to: Li et al. "Dynamic analysis of international green behavior from the perspective of the mapping knowledge domain," Environmental Science and Pollution Research, vol. 26, pp. 6087-6098.Environmental science and pollution research international · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The oxidation of sulfide ores is a common phenomenon. To better understand the current development and status of oxidation studies of sulfide ores (OSSO), a bibliometric analysis of OSSO was conducted by mapping the spatiotemporal distribution of the knowledge domain and the research focus using VOSviewer and Citespace tools. The data were derived from the Web of Science (WOS) core collection database from 2000 to 2018. Study emphases covered publication outputs, countries/regions, organizations, top journals, research focus and keyword co-occurrence network, and theme development. The results include the following findings: (1) The line of the 3-year moving average of publications (3-year MAP), h-index (3-year MAH), and authors (3-year MAA) increased from 2001 to 2018. Conversely, the h-index continuously declined. (2) Asia had the most publications, with 1052, followed by Europe, with 923, and America, with 767. China, the USA, and Australia are the most active countries. (3) The top 10 organizations with the most publications are five Chinese organizations and one organization from each of the following countries: Russia, Australia, France, and India. (4) Hydrometallurgy, Minerals Engineering, Ore Geology Reviews, Geochimica Et Cosmochimica Acta, and Economic Geology are among the top 10 journals that researchers are most concerned about. (5) Cooperation among different organization or different countries is the most effective way to produce the most influential papers. (6) The OSSO is still focused on the process of oxidation by using different methods and techniques. In future work, it is necessary to progress new methods to understand the process of self-heating and prevent spontaneous combustion disaster of sulfide ore which result from OSSO.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31858411What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.