Scopus based bibliometric and scientometric analysis of occupational therapy publications from 2001 to 2020
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<ns7:p> <ns7:bold>Background:</ns7:bold> Occupational therapy (OT) is one of the allied health professions that had its first journals way back in 1920. The main objective of this study was to find out the publication trend in the field of OT research for the period of 2001-2020 using the principles of bibliometrics and scientometrics. </ns7:p> <ns7:p> <ns7:bold>Methods:</ns7:bold> The data was retrieved from Scopus from the past 20-years (2001-2020). VOSviewer software was used to find year-wise publications in OT-specific and non-OT-specific Journals along with top journals, countries, organisations, authors, cited articles, and highly used keywords. </ns7:p> <ns7:p> <ns7:bold>Results:</ns7:bold> There was a steady growth of OT articles from the past 20-years. Scopus indexes 16 OT-specific journals are identified. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, British Journal of Occupational Therapy Journal, Australian Occupational Therapy Journal, Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy and Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy are the leading publications and citations. Comparison of OT-specific and non-OT journals inferred that the OT-specific papers are three times more published in non-OT journals. There is a trend in publishing multidisciplinary medical journals than OT journals. The US publishes the highest number of articles, followed by the UK, Australia, Canada, and Germany. Though the US alone produced a considerable number of articles (9517), only five organisations are listed in the top-20, compared to Canada (n=6) and Australia (n=5). Australia represents the highest published authors (n=11/20), and Canada represents a highly cited author from the top-cited publications. The “occupational therapy”, “rehabilitation”, “stroke”, “physical therapy,” and “activities of daily living” are the five common keywords used by OT authors. This study lists top-20 journals along with their CiteScore and Journal Impact Factor. </ns7:p> <ns7:p> <ns7:bold>Conclusions:</ns7:bold> This study will help the budding researchers in OT to select a suitable quality journal for publication and, further, helpful for research promotion, researcher incentivising, grant allocations, and policymakers in the OT field. </ns7:p>
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | Bibliometrics Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | low |
| gpt | Bibliometrics Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | high |
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 | 0.013 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.277 | 0.539 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.028 | 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
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".