Global naturopathy research as reflected by Scopus during 2000-2019
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this study is to analyze research output in the naturopathy field at the global level and to examine the various trends in scientific literature available on naturopathy using bibliometric analysis. Design/methodology/approach The data was collected from the SciVerse Scopus database published from 2000 through 2019. The search was conducted using Medical Subject headings entry terms, i.e. “Naturopathy” OR “Naturopathic Medicine” using the “Document” search option. The search results comprised of documents that had these above search terms in their article title, abstract and keywords. The retrieved documents were then analyzed concerning different parameters like the growth of publications, authorship patterns, productive countries and institutions, highly cited papers, top prolific authors, funding agencies and document types. Findings The results of this study reveal that a total of 1,099 documents were published during 20-year time span. The most preferred publication type is research articles 683 (62.14%). Germany, USA, Australia, India and Canada were the most productive countries in terms of the number of scientific documents. The findings also show that the most preferred journal in the field of naturopathy is MMW Fortschritte der Medizin, with 115 documents followed by Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine with 58 documents. In contrast, the journal BMC Complementary and Alternative Medicine had the highest citations per paper (17.85). For the 20-year study period, the average value for the degree of collaboration was calculated as 0.57, indicating 54% of the total publications in naturopathy were multi-authored. The value of the collaboration coefficient (CC) signifies the levels of multi-authored papers. CC was highest in the year 2019 (0.55) indicating that the publications were contributed in collaboration rather than in isolation and the number of multi-authored/mega-authored papers outnumbered the single authors in the collection of all authors in the year 2019. Bastyr University, USA was the most productive Institution. Journal articles were the most preferred form of publication. Practical implications This study traces various trends in the research behavior and preferences of researchers in the field of naturopathy. It thus can be of immense help to identify strong areas in naturopathy research. Further, this study will help the librarians to identify the core/preferred journals in naturopathy. Originality/value This paper makes an endeavor to carry an extensive bibliometric study that provides an overview of emerging trends in naturopathy research.
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 | 0.006 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.067 | 0.125 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".