Artículos

Literature reviews summarize existing literature, uncover research gaps, and offer future research directions, thus aiding in theoretical and methodological development. Informetric research including bibliometric, scientometric, webometric, cybermetric, patentometric, and altmetric methods are becoming increasingly prevalent in conducting literature review studies. Looking at the common informetric literature review methods—citation, co-citation, co-author, bibliographic coupling, and content co-occurrence analyses, this study aims to serve as a guide in using content co-occurrence also known as co-word analysis to conduct literature reviews. This study outlines a variety of informetric research methods and how they are utilized to conduct review and evidence-based conceptual studies. In addition to the analyses, the study highlights different informetric software packages like Bibliometrix, Biblioshiny, Leximancer, NVivo, and CiteSpace including their comparison. The study further discusses contributions of algorithm-based content analyses including offering taxonomies, definitions, classifications, typologies, comparisons, and theoretical development to constitute integrative literature reviews. Finally, this study offers step-by-step guidelines for conducting a review study using VOSviewer content co-occurrence analysis while providing a systems view of informetric research in social science. The study also notes the emergence of generative artificial intelligence (AI) like Open AI’s ChatGPT, Google’s Bard, Elicit, Scite, Research Rabbit, and ChatPDF among others, and its potential in contributing to the literature review methods and, as such, being an interesting direction for future research.

Background: The reporting and data system (RADS) has been researched across the world since it was first developed. This study used bibliometrics to analyze the research trends and current status of this field over the past almost 23 years and explored possible future research hotspots. Methods: We searched the Web of Science (WOS) literature on RADSs from January 1, 2000, to November 1, 2022, and evaluated the findings visually with VOSviewer (1.6.18), CiteSpace (6.1.3), and the “bibliometrix” package in R version 4.2.1. Results: We included 6,239 publications from 88 countries and regions. The number of published has shown an overall growth trend, especially since 2016. The United States was the country with the highest number of publications and citations. The top 10 most productive institutions in RADS research were mainly from South Korea and the United States. Kim EK was the most published author, and Turkbey B had the most cited publication. European Radiology had the most publications on the subject, while Radiology was the most influential journal. Magnetic resonance imaging, carcinoma, ultrasound, RADS, mammography, breast neoplasms, and diagnosis were the most common keywords. Artificial intelligence (AI) appears to be an emerging hotspot in the research of RADS. Conclusions: This study provides an overview of the development status of research into RADSs over the past 23 years. Research into RADSs has included various systems of the body, with the most studied being the breast, prostate, liver, and thyroid. In terms of auxiliary diagnosis, there is an increasing amount of research into the application of AI in RADSs, which along with the interpretability of AI, will be a hotspot of research in the following years.

The academic landscape has witnessed significant transformations in recent years, primarily attributed to advancements in IT tools, which have advantages and drawbacks in the world of publications. The transition from traditional university library searches to the digital era, with access to various information sources such as Pubmed, Scopus, Web of Science and Google Scholar, has revolutionized research practices. Thanks to technology, researchers, academics and students now enjoy rapid and vast information access, facilitating quicker manuscript preparation and boosting bibliometric parameters. To identify authors “self-distorted” bibliometric parameters, different indices following the Hirsch index (h-index) (based on citations) have been proposed. The new “fi-score” evaluates the reliability of citation counts for individual authors and validates the accuracy of their h-index, comparing the number of citations to the h-index value to highlight value that is not within the norm and probably influenced or distorted by authors themselves. It examines how authors’ citations impact their h-index, although they are not self-citing. The study calculated the fi-score on a sample of 194,983 researchers. It shows that the average value of the fi-score is 25.03 and that a maximum value admissible as good must not exceed 32. The fi-score complements existing indexes, shedding light on the actual scientific impact of researchers. In conclusion, bibliometric parameters have evolved significantly, offering valuable insights into researchers’ contributions. The fi-score emerges as a promising new metric, providing a more comprehensive and unbiased evaluation of scholarly impact. By accounting for the influence of citations and self-citations, the fi-score addresses the limitations of traditional indices, empowering academic communities to recognize better and acknowledge individual contributions.

There seems to be increasing interest in publication practices amongst philosophers of science, as they recognize the important role that publication plays in their professional lives and the responsibilities they have for maintaining some control over the process and practices.The increase in interest is manifested in two ways.First, philosophers of science are talking about publication practices more-practices such as open access, transformative journals, and predatory publishing-and they are talking about how these practices impact on our community, authors and readers.Recently, for example, David Teira, Chiara Lisciandra, and Sophia Cruwell organized an online conference on open access and transformative journals.The session included a roundtable discussion involving four editors of journals who serve the history and philosophy of science community, broadly conceived.The discussion made it clear that there are at least two ways of approaching this issue.On the one hand, the publishers have their plans about where journal publishing is going.And open access fits into their vision in a certain way.On the other hand, the various editors have their own ideas about the role of open access in the future of our profession.To be clear, the various editors involved were not all of one mind, nor did they share the same concerns and hopes.But concerns were expressed that the interests of the publishers may not always align with the interests of the community of researchers whose work is being published in these journals.A recent development that was not discussed at the conference, but one deserving the attention of philosophers of science, is the marked rise in predatory publishers.I will not name names, but each week I receive numerous invitations to publish in journals that promise very quick review times, and equally quick production times.So, if I were a scholar in need of a quick publication, say, in one month from now, the opportunities appear to be almost endless.How do I know these are predatory journals?The invitation letters often begin with something like “Dear Esteemed Scholar”, or they express an urgency that is quite foreign to the slow pace of the publication norms in philosophy.