Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37287881›Full record

ArticleScientometrics2023

Visibility, impact, and applications of bibliometric software tools through citation analysis.

Robert Tomaszewski

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Scientometrics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 12 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed, 12 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

28 citing papers in PubMed, 12 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Review
  14. Breastfeeding and Father Support: Bibliometric Analysis.Journal of human lactation : official journal of International Lactation Consultant Association · 2026
    Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

1 author.

Robert TomaszewskiCalifornia State University, Fullerton, 800 North State College Blvd, Fullerton, CA 92831 USA.ORCID 0000-0001-6916-1265

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study examines the visibility, impact, and applications of bibliometric software tools in the peer-reviewed literature through a "Cited Reference Search" using the Web of Science (WOS) database. A total of 2882 citing research articles to eight bibliometric software tools were extracted from the WOS Core Collection between 2010 and 2021. These citing articles are analyzed by publication year, country, publication title, publisher, open access level, funding agency, and WOS category. Mentions of bibliometric software tools in Author Keywords and KeyWords Plus are also compared. The VOSviewer software is utilized to identify specific research areas by discipline from the keyword co-occurrences of the citing articles. The findings reveal that while bibliometric software tools are making a noteworthy impact and contribution to research, their visibility through referencing, Author Keywords, and KeyWords Plus is limited. This study serves as a clarion call to raise awareness and initiate discussions on the citing practices of software tools in scholarly publications.

Indexed as

Author keywordsBibliometric softwareCitation analysisKeyWords plusScholarly publicationsVOSviewer

Identifiers

PMID37287881
PMCPMC10234239

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.