ReviewEnvironmental science and pollution research international2022
An overview of ecological vulnerability: a bibliometric analysis based on the Web of Science database.
Review in Environmental science and pollution research international, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- A Review of Village Ecosystem Vulnerability and Resilience: Implications for the Rocky Desertification Control.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Ecological vulnerability has become one of the hot issues of ecology and environmental science under global change and sustainable development scenarios. However, no study quantitatively analyzes the global scientific performance and hot research areas in this field by adopting the bibliometric method. Based on 935 pieces of literature retrieved from the Web of Science database, we comprehensively analyzed the research on ecological vulnerability in terms of growth trend, research content, publication journal and country, and co-occurrence network of keywords. The results showed that research on ecological vulnerability had experienced rapid growth since 2000, while ecological vulnerability research at the World Heritage sites was still embryonic. The top two productive countries in ecological vulnerability research were America and China, and the top two productive journals were Ecological Indicators and Regional Environmental Change. Study on ecological vulnerability was mainly classified as empirical evaluation and regional synthesis, whereas theoretical research is rare. Based on the summary of the main progress and achievements in ecological vulnerability research, we proposed five scientific issues that remain to be resolved in the field of ecological vulnerability. Overall, this study could shed light on a comprehensive and systematic understanding of ecological vulnerability and provide directions for future research on ecological vulnerability in a rapidly changing world.
Indexed as
Identifiers
35043296What 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.