ArticleEnvironmental science and pollution research international2021
Advances of waste management practices in India and China along with bibliometric assessment of their research outcomes.
Article 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. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This paper presents the progress made by India and China in the field of waste management and its disposal since l996 to 2020. To access it, bibliometric analysis has been carried out using SCOPUS linked SCImago electronic database. Different bibliometric indicators such as documents, citable documents, external and self-citations, and external and self-citations per document along with their annual corresponding growth (ACG) have been calculated in order to explore the progresses made in both the countries. China has contributed 16.3% and India 4.3% to the total documents produced worldwide during 1996-2020 in waste management with the average ACG of 26.42% and 15.37%, respectively, during the same time span. Also, the average ACG for self-citations of published research documents is more than that of external citations for both the countries. In addition to that, the average self-citation magnitude reported for China (28,475) is more than that of India (5223), whereas this trend reverses in the case of average external citation per document with values 16.9 and 28.94, respectively. Moreover, the waste management practices being followed in both countries have also been compared and also presented so that it could be beneficial for the country which is relatively not good in the same.
Indexed as
Identifiers
34647213What 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.