The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Visualizing a field of research: A methodology of systematic scientometric reviews
Open accessAbstract
Systematic scientometric reviews, empowered by computational and visual analytic approaches, offer opportunities to improve the timeliness, accessibility, and reproducibility of studies of the literature of a field of research. On the other hand, effectively and adequately identifying the most representative body of scholarly publications as the basis of subsequent analyses remains a common bottleneck in the current practice. What can we do to reduce the risk of missing something potentially significant? How can we compare different search strategies in terms of the relevance and specificity of topical areas covered? In this study, we introduce a flexible and generic methodology based on a significant extension of the general conceptual framework of citation indexing for delineating the literature of a research field. The method, through cascading citation expansion, provides a practical connection between studies of science from local and global perspectives. We demonstrate an application of the methodology to the research of literature-based discovery (LBD) and compare five datasets constructed based on three use scenarios and corresponding retrieval strategies, namely a query-based lexical search (one dataset), forward expansions starting from a groundbreaking article of LBD (two datasets), and backward expansions starting from a recently published review article by a prominent expert in LBD (two datasets). We particularly discuss the relevance of areas captured by expansion processes with reference to the query-based scientometric visualization. The method used in this study for comparing bibliometric datasets is applicable to comparative studies of search strategies.
Overview
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
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Distributed Representations of Words and Phrases and their Compositionality
Mikolov, T., Sutskever, I., Chen, K., Corrado, G., & Dean, J. (2013) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1310.4546 · Cited by 24,533
Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping
van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2010) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-009-0146-3 · Cited by 21,484
WordNet: a lexical database for English
Miller, G. A. (1995) · Communications of the ACM · doi:10.1145/219717.219748 · Cited by 14,015 · cited 2×
“Search systems have utilized additional resources such as WordNet (36) and domain ontologies (37, 38) to enhance users’ original terms with their synonyms and/or closely related concepts.”
BackgroundSearching for intellectual turning points: progressive knowledge domain visualization
Chen, C. (2004) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.0307513100 · Cited by 2,791
Self-citationCitation Indexing for Studying Science
GARFIELD, E. (1970) · Nature · doi:10.1038/227669a0 · Cited by 391
Climate Change Research in View of Bibliometrics
Haunschild, R., Bornmann, L., & Marx, W. (2016) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0160393 · Cited by 341 · cited 1×
“Similarly, VOSviewer was used in reviews of topics such as citizen science [16] and climate change [17].”
Method
Cited by
Application of Nanoparticles Alleviates Heavy Metals Stress and Promotes Plant Growth: An Overview
Zhou, P., Adeel, M., Shakoor, N., Guo, M., Hao, Y., Azeem, I., Li, M., Liu, M., & Rui, Y. (2020) · Nanomaterials · doi:10.3390/nano11010026 · Cited by 304
Deep Learning-Based Applications for Safety Management in the AEC Industry: A Review
Hou, L., Chen, H., Zhang, G. (., & Wang, X. (2021) · Applied Sciences · doi:10.3390/app11020821 · Cited by 76
Visual Analysis of Colorectal Cancer Immunotherapy: A Bibliometric Analysis From 2012 to 2021
Ma, L., Ma, J., Teng, M., & Li, Y. (2022) · Frontiers in Immunology · doi:10.3389/fimmu.2022.843106 · Cited by 72
A bibliometric analysis of the advance of artificial intelligence in medicine
Lin, M., Lin, L., Lin, L., Lin, Z., & Yan, X. (2025) · Frontiers in Medicine · doi:10.3389/fmed.2025.1504428 · Cited by 36
Civil Infrastructure Digital Twins: Multi-Level Knowledge Map, Research Gaps, and Future Directions
Naderi, H., & Shojaei, A. (2022) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2022.3223557 · Cited by 31
Metadata
- Authors
- Chen, C., & Song, M.
- Venue
- PLOS ONE
- Publisher
- Public Library of Science (PLoS)
- Published
- 2019-10-31
- Volume
- 14
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- e0223994
- ISSN
- 1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2989530049
- Cited by
- 1,333
- References
- 6
- FWCI
- 16.39
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Visualizing a field of research: A methodology of systematic scientometric reviews. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1371/journal.pone.0223994
- The paper
- Chen, C., & Song, M. (2019). Visualizing a field of research: A methodology of systematic scientometric reviews. PLOS ONE. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0223994
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.