Preliminary guideline for reporting bibliometric reviews of the biomedical literature (BIBLIO): A minimum requirements
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: A bibliometric review of the biomedical literature could be essential in synthesizing evidence if thoroughly conducted and documented. Although very similar to review papers in nature, it slightly differs in synthesizing the data when it comes to providing a pile of evidence from different studies into a single document. This paper provides a preliminary guideline for reporting bibliometric reviews of the biomedical literature (BIBLIO). METHODS: The BIBLIO was developed through two major processes: literature review and the consensus process. The BIBLIO started with a comprehensive review of publications on the conduct and reporting of bibliometric studies. The databases searched included PubMed, Scopus, Web of Sciences, and Cochrane Library. The process followed the general recommendations of the EQUATOR Network on how to develop a reporting guideline, of which one fundamental part is a consensus process. A panel of experts was invited to identify additional items and was asked to choose preferred options or suggest another item that should be included in the checklist. Finally, the checklist was completed based on the comments and responses of the panel members in four rounds. RESULTS: The BIBLIO includes 20 items as follows: title (2 items), abstract (1 item), introduction/background (2 items), methods (7 items), results (4 items), discussion (4 items). These should be described as a minimum requirements in reporting a bibliometric review. CONCLUSIONS: The BIBLIO for the first time provides a preliminary guideline of its own kind. It is hoped that it could contribute to the transparent reporting of bibliometric reviews. The quality and utility of BIBILO remain to be investigated further.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The bibliometric analysis was reported based on BIBLIO guidelines, scientific mapping guidance, and expansive and inclusive practices for the selection of bibliometric indicators.
“This bibliometric analysis is reported based on the guidelines on methodological transparency and robust quantitative approaches advocated advocated from a recently developed framework named BIBLIO [21], along with more detailed guidance on scientific mapping [22,23] and the adoption of expansive and inclusive practices for the selection of bibliometric indicators [24].”
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 71 · Cited by 433
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- [31]Thackray A Elkana YJ Lederberg JK K.Merton R Thackray A Zuckerman H Measurement in the historiography of science Toward a metric of science: the advent of science indicator 1978 New York John Wiley & Sons 11 30
- Authors
- Montazeri, A., Mohammadi, S., M.Hesari, P., Ghaemi, M., Riazi, H., & Sheikhi-Mobarakeh, Z.
- Affiliations
- Academic Center for Education, Culture and Research (IR)
- Tehran University of Medical Sciences (IR)
- Shahid Beheshti University (IR)
- Corresponding author
- Montazeri, Ali
- Venue
- Systematic Reviews
- Published
- 2023-12-15
- Volume
- 12
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 239-239
- ISSN
- 2046-4053 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC10722750
- OpenAlex
- W4389786568
- Cited by
- 433
- References
- 71
- Citations by year
- 2026: 242 · 2025: 142 · 2024: 49
- FWCI
- 80.21
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Locations
- Systematic Reviews (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › scientometrics and bibliometrics research
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Clinical practice guidelines implementation
- Keywords
- bibliometric review, reporting guidelines, EQUATOR Network, consensus building, reporting transparency, bibliometric analysis, evidence synthesis, biomedical literature
- MeSH terms
- Humans, Bibliometrics, Guidelines as Topic, Consensus, Checklist
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review