Identifying common grounds for safety and security research: a comparative scientometric analysis focusing on development patterns, similarities, and differences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Safety and security are often considered in complimentary or opposing terms. Discussions on their conceptual meaning have been put forward, and calls for an increased integration of these domains have been made. Nevertheless, there is currently no high-level empirical comparison of the development and contents of these research domains. In this article, the broad scientific literature of safety and security research obtained from Web of Science is analysed, aiming to obtain comparative insights in these respective fields, with a specific focus on the themes, topics and scientific areas where increased integration can be fruitful. Scientific publications are analysed in terms of research trends and geographic distribution, journals’ distribution, scientific categories, and focus topics of safety and security research in 2019. The results indicate a rapidly growing publication trend in both research domains, with an exponential growth since the 1990s. Safety research focuses on medicine/drug safety, patient safety and disease-related safety, with occupational health and safety and safety in socio-technical systems comparatively smaller research domains. Security research focuses on internet of things, physical layer security and cybersecurity/information security. Journals and scientific categories where significant contributions to both safety and security research are made relate mostly to industrial and transport safety and security, food safety, and public, environmental and occupational health. Apart from providing insights to academics and practitioners to the scope and focus areas of safety and security research, the findings also support delineating the scope and focus of the Journal of Integrated Security and Safety Science (JISSS), which aims to bolster connections and integration between these domains. Based on the findings, a focus on safety and security in industrial plants, transportation contexts, and industrially relevant aspects of public, environmental and occupational health, is found to be an appropriate target area for JISSS.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.050 | 0.198 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.160 | 0.195 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".