Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34545520›Full record

ReviewEnvironmental science and pollution research international2021

Four challenges when conducting bibliometric reviews and how to deal with them.

João Paulo Romanelli, Maria Carolina Pereira Gonçalves, Luís Fernando de Abreu Pestana, Jéssica Akemi Hitaka Soares, Raquel Stucchi Boschi, Daniel Fernandes Andrade

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Environmental science and pollution research international, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

26 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Profile ofHuman vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2025
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

João Paulo RomanelliLaboratory of Ecology and Forest Restoration (LERF), "Luiz de Queiroz" College of Agriculture, University of São Paulo, Av. Pádua Dias, 11, Piracicaba, SP, 13418-900, Brazil. joaopromanelli@hotmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8011-2077
Maria Carolina Pereira GonçalvesLaboratory of Enzymatic Technology (LabEnz), Department of Chemical Engineering, Federal University of São Carlos, Rod. Washington Luiz, km 235, São Carlos, SP, 13565-905, Brazil.
Luís Fernando de Abreu PestanaAgronomic Sciences College (FCA), Forest Science Department, São Paulo State University, Av. Universitária, 3780, Botucatu, SP, 18610-034, Brazil.
Jéssica Akemi Hitaka SoaresAgronomic Sciences College (FCA), Forest Science Department, São Paulo State University, Av. Universitária, 3780, Botucatu, SP, 18610-034, Brazil.
Raquel Stucchi BoschiSecretariat for Environmental Management and Sustainability (SGAS), Federal University of São Carlos, Rod. Washington Luís, km 235, São Carlos, SP, 13565-905, Brazil.
Daniel Fernandes AndradeGroup of Applied Instrumental Analysis, Department of Chemistry, Federal University of São Carlos, Rod. Washington Luís, km 235, São Carlos, SP, 13565-905, Brazil.

Funding

Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico 141304/2019-7Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior Finance Code 001Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo 2013/50718-5Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo 2016/17304-0Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo 2018/18416-2Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo 2019/08533-4Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo 2019/23908-4
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The evidence base in environmental sciences is increasing steadily. Environmental researchers have been challenged to handle massive volumes of data to support more comprehensive studies, assess the current status of science, and move research towards future progress. Bibliometrics can provide important insights into the research directions by providing summarized information for several end users. Here, we present an in-depth discussion on the use of bibliometric indicators to evaluate research outputs through four case studies comprising disciplines in environmental sciences. We discuss four big challenges researchers may face when conducting bibliometric reviews and how to deal with them. We also address some primary questions researchers may answer with bibliometric mapping, drawing lessons from the case studies. Lastly, we clarify some misuses of review concepts and suggest methodological principles of systematic reviews and maps to improve the overall quality of bibliometric studies.

Indexed as

BibliometricsEnvironmental ScienceForecastingSystematic Reviews as TopicBibliometric indicatorsBibliometric mappingCase studiesEnvironmental sciencesNetwork analysisResearch trends

Identifiers

PMID34545520

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.