"What about Military Decision-Making?": A Bibliometric Review of Published Articles.

Ivan D'Alessio, Umberto Aitella, Anna Maria Giannini, Jessica Burrai

Abstract readReview

In one paragraph

Review in Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it

0cells of the map it votes in

0citing papers in PubMed

–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

4 authors.

Ivan D'AlessioDepartment of Psychology, Faculty of Medicine and Psychology, Sapienza University of Rome, 00185 Rome, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-3239-2494

Umberto AitellaDepartment of Psychology, Faculty of Medicine and Psychology, Sapienza University of Rome, 00185 Rome, Italy.ORCID 0009-0007-1815-586X

Anna Maria GianniniDepartment of Psychology, Faculty of Medicine and Psychology, Sapienza University of Rome, 00185 Rome, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-0614-4457

Jessica BurraiDepartment of Psychology, Faculty of Medicine and Psychology, Sapienza University of Rome, 00185 Rome, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-3223-4421

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Decision-making processes in the military domain constitute a strategic field of research in cognitive psychology, although there are currently few scientific publications addressing the topic. Professionals in the field and interested parties need access to data on military decision-making processes to understand where and how the scientific community is directing its investigations on the issue. Military decision-making is a strategic field of study because the military is crucial to the security and defense of a country or community. This work aims to be a point of reference for those involved in various capacities in military decision-making, providing key data regarding research trends over the years, the geographical distribution of scientific productivity, methodologies employed, annual statistics, and the prevalence of the most-investigated terms and topics. Therefore, this study serves as a bibliometric analysis of the literature on military decision-making publihed from 1992 to 2023 on the Scopus and Web of Science databases.

Indexed as

army decision making bibliometric reviewbibliometric analysisdefence decision-making analysismilitary decision-makingmilitary decision-making review

Identifiers

PMID39062337

DOI10.3390/bs14070514

PMCPMC11273624

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata

LicenceCC BY

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.