ArticleJournal of autism and developmental disorders2026
Is Workplace Inclusion a Distinct Research Domain? A Comparative Bibliometric Study of Autism and Employment Literature.
Article in Journal of autism and developmental disorders, 2026. 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeWorkplace inclusion has gained prominence in autism-employment research, but it remains unclear whether it represents an extension of outcome-focused scholarship or a structurally distinct subdomain. We examined whether the two traditions can be consistently distinguished across bibliometric dimensions, and whether inclusion-oriented growth exceeds overall expansion of autism research output.
methodsA comparative bibliometric study used two curated corpora retrieved from Scopus and Web of Science (February 23, 2026): inclusion-oriented (INCL; n = 514) and outcome-oriented (OUT; n = 310), totaling 824 unique publications after deduplication. Structural differentiation was examined using document-level bibliographic coupling with Louvain community detection, complemented by modularity and cluster-corpus association tests. Author, journal, and keyword overlap were quantified using Jaccard indices. Annual counts were normalized against total ASD publication output in Scopus.
resultsThe coupling network yielded 22 clusters (Q = 0.426). Cluster membership was strongly associated with corpus affiliation, χ²(21) = 105.87, p < .001, Cramér's V = 0.556. Author overlap was low (J = 0.057), journal overlap modest (J = 0.179), and keyword overlap moderate (J = 0.26). The inclusion-oriented share of ASD output grew approximately 4.1-fold from 2011 to 2015 to 2021-2025, against 1.6-fold for outcome-oriented research and 2.4-fold for the broader field.
conclusionMultiple bibliometric indicators consistently differentiate outcome-oriented and inclusion-oriented corpora, indicating distinct but conceptually adjacent strands of scholarship. Inclusion-oriented research has grown at a rate substantially exceeding overall field expansion. Findings provide hypothesis-generating evidence consistent with disciplinary diversification and highlight the need for integrative frameworks linking vocational rehabilitation and organizational inclusion research.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42340635What 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.