Bibliometric Analysis of Global Scientific Research on SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background and Aim Since late 2019, an unknown-origin pneumonia outbreak detected in Wuhan city, Hubei Province, China. We aimed to build a model to qualitatively and quantitatively assess publications of research of COVID-19 from 2019 to 2020. Materials and Methods Data were obtained from the Web of Science (WOS), PubMed, and Scopus Core Collection on March 02, 2020, and updated on March 10. We conducted a qualitative and quantitative analysis of publication outputs, journals, authors, institutions, countries, cited references, keywords, and terms according to bibliometric methods using VOS viewer c software packages. Results Initially, we identified 227 papers, of which after an exclusion process, 92 studies were selected for statistical analyses. China accounted for the highest proportion of published research (44 papers, 40.48%), followed by the United States (21 papers, 19.32%), and Canada (7 papers, 6.44%). Adjusted by gross domestic product (GDP), ranked first, with 0.003 articles per billion GDP. In total, the top 10 journals published 47 articles, which accounted for 51.08% of all publications in this Feld. A total of 6 studies (05.52%) were supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China. Chinese Academy of Sciences ranked second 2, 2.76%). Conclusion Bibliometric and visualized mapping may quantitatively monitor research performance in science and present predictions. The subject of this study was the fast growing publication on COVID-19. Most studies are published in journals with very high impact factors (IFs) and other journals are more interested in this type of research. Highlights Bibliometric description and mapping provided a birds-eye view of information on Covid-19 related research Readers to comprehend the history of published Covid-19 articles in just a few minutes. We evaluated the research strength of countries and institutions, Scholars might refer to in order to find cooperative institutions. During our research using the selected database, we tried to guarantee comprehension and objectivity.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.190 | 0.520 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".