ArticleMethodsX2026
A reproducible bibliometric-content analysis workflow for mapping research fields in computer science.
Article in MethodsX, 2026. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Computer science literature indexed in Scopus and Web of Science has grown at double-digit annual rates, making comprehensive manual synthesis infeasible for individual researchers. Bibliometric workflows partially address this problem but rarely yield the interpretive depth needed to characterize a field's accomplishments or gaps. This paper introduces a two-phase reproducible workflow integrating bibliometric science mapping (Phase 1) with structured thematic content analysis (Phase 2), implemented in R using the bibliometrix package. Phase 1 clusters publications by keyword co-occurrence; these clusters serve as the sampling frame for purposive selection of representative papers, which undergo deductive-inductive thematic coding in Phase 2. Thematic coding of this type typically requires dual-coder reliability checks; a test-retest procedure replaces that requirement, maintaining
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.