Bibliometric Analysis of Malaysian Authorship: Trends, Patterns, And Prospects
Noor Syazwani Ishak1, Mohd Firdaus Roslan2*, Khairul Hafezad Abdullah1
1 General Studies Department, Sunway College, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
2 Faculty of Management and Economics, Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris, Perak, Malaysia
3 Department of Academic Affairs, Universiti Teknologi MARA, Perlis Branch, Arau Campus, Malaysia
*Corresponding Author: [email protected] Received: 25 March 2023 | Accepted: 1 May 2023 | Published: 1 June 2023
DOI:https://doi.org/10.55057/ajress.2023.5.2.4
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Abstract: Bibliometric analysis has emerged as a crucial instrument for interdisciplinary scholars who aim to comprehend the complex terrain of scientific knowledge. The current study employed a bibliometric analysis to scrutinise bibliometric publications by Malaysian authors.
The bibliometric datasets utilised in this study were collected from the Scopus and Web of Science (WoS) databases. The obtained datasets were subjected to analysis and visualisation through the utilisation of ScientoPy and VOSviewer. The results suggest that Malaysian authors have actively participated in producing bibliometric papers in both Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus databases. Ahmi A. from Universiti Utara Malaysia and Lim W.M. from the Swinburne University of Technology, Sarawak, have published 27 and 25 works, making them the most prolific authors. The terms “CiteSpace”, “artificial intelligence”, “PRISMA”,
“machine learning”, “systematic literature review”, “Biblioshiny”, “Bibliographic coupling”, and “performance analysis” have garnered significant attention in academic circles in 2022. This study presented that India and the United Kingdom exhibit parity in co- author affiliations with Malaysian authors. The most commonly employed author keywords by previous researchers were “bibliometric analysis”, “research evaluation”, “scientometrics”,
“citation analysis”, and “co-authorship analysis”. Future research endeavours could concentrate on delving deeper into these subjects and scrutinising novel topics and domains of interest in bibliometric analysis.
Keywords: Bibliometric Analysis, Malaysian Authorship, Trends, Patterns, Prospects _________________________________________________________________________
1. Introduction
Bibliometric analysis has become an essential tool for interdisciplinary researchers seeking to understand the intricate landscape of scientific knowledge. Researchers have widely adopted bibliometric analysis across diverse fields such as science, engineering, social sciences, and humanities to understand better scientific communication, research productivity, and collaborative patterns (Abdullah & Othman, 2022; Roslan et al., 2023). In addition, bibliometric analysis has been recognised as a valuable tool for identifying research gaps and potential areas for research development in numerous studies (Donthu et al., 2021; Mukherjee et al., 2022).
Bibliometric analysis is significant in evaluating research, as it offers impartial and numerical assessments of research output, influence, and collaborative tendencies (Abdullah et al., 2023;
Ma et al., 2021; Sofian et al., 2023). By examining bibliometric data, scholars, entities providing financial support, and those involved in policy-making can acquire valuable knowledge regarding the merits and limitations of various research domains, detect nascent research patterns, and render judicial determinations regarding financial backing, cooperative efforts, and policy formulation (Sofyan et al., 2022). Furthermore, bibliometric analysis can identify research areas experiencing rapid growth or decline in popularity, as well as those highly influential or impactful, by examining publication and citation patterns (González- Alcaide et al., 2018).
The bibliometric analysis holds significance in the identification of potential collaborators. By examining co-authorship networks and collaboration indices, scholars and policymakers can pinpoint prospective collaborators engaged in comparable fields and share similar research concerns (Ponomariov & Boardman, 2016). Facilitating cross-disciplinary collaborations and partnerships has the potential to foster novel research discoveries and innovations. By combining knowledge and methodologies from different fields, researchers can uncover new insights, develop innovative solutions, and create novel discoveries that would not have been possible within a single discipline (Abdullah & Sofyan, 2023). Cross-disciplinary collaborations can also promote knowledge transfer and the exchange of ideas between different fields, leading to more significant societal impacts and practical applications (Ciesielski et al., 2017).
The utilisation of databases and software is of utmost importance in the execution of bibliometric analysis. Applying comprehensive databases and sophisticated analytical techniques has made bibliometric analysis a powerful instrument for evaluating scholarly achievement, tracking research trends, and identifying emerging areas of inquiry (Abdullah, 2022; La Torre et al., 2017). According to Moral-Muñoz et al. (2020), using the software can assist researchers in recognising patterns and trends in bibliographic data, producing visual representations of research networks, and computing bibliometric indicators such as h-index and citation counts. Several software programmes are commonly used for bibliometric analysis, including VOSviewer, CiteSpace, ScientoPy, and SciMAT.
Recent years have seen bibliometric analysis develop into a crucial tool for research appraisal in Malaysia. There has not been a thorough examination of bibliometric articles produced by Malaysian authors in any case. In order to comprehend the state of the research and pinpoint promising areas for future study, a thorough analysis of bibliometric articles by Malaysian authors is required. By offering a bibliometric analysis of bibliometric papers authored by Malaysian authors, this study seeks to close this gap. This study aims to offer a thorough bibliometric analysis of bibliometric articles authored by Malaysian authors. In order to accomplish this goal, the following research inquiries will be investigated:
What is the publication output of Malaysian authors in bibliometric analysis?
What are the research topics and areas covered by Malaysian authors in bibliometric analysis?
What are the collaboration patterns and networks among Malaysian authors in bibliometric analysis?
2. Methodology
This study used a bibliometric analysis approach to analyse bibliometric publications by Malaysian authors. This study gathered bibliometric data from the Scopus and Web of Science (WoS) databases. The retrieved datasets were analysed and visualised using the ScientoPy and
VOSviewer software packages, which produced bibliometric maps and ScientoPy graphical visualisations. The study did not establish a defined timeframe for the indexed publications in both databases. Table 1 simplifies the current bibliometric analysis workflow.
Table 1: Bibliometric analysis workflow
Procedure Description Note
Data collection The datasets utilised for the present bibliometric analysis were obtained from the Scopus and WoS databases. Scholars in the past have utilised both databases due to their multidisciplinary nature and inclusion in a high-impact indexed list of publications, as Abdullah et al. (2023) noted.
The following keywords were used to download the datasets:
“Bibliometric” OR “Scientometric” OR
“citation analysis” OR “publication analysis” OR “research evaluation” OR
“science mapping” OR “research metrics” OR “bibliographic analysis” OR
“scholarly impact analysis” OR
“scientific productivity analysis” OR
“research output analysis”
The keywords were searched within the title field and executed on April 1, 2023.
The datasets obtained for this study were not restricted to any specific time frame, indicating that the downloaded datasets were based on the original indexing of each database up to the present time.
Data preparation The present study involved data preparation by amalgamating datasets from Scopus and WoS databases. The process utilised ScientoPy, leveraging its distinctive capabilities to merge datasets and eliminate redundancies. The methodology is crucial in generating dependable and accurate data sets for utilisation throughout the analysis.
Table 2 provides the preliminary data analysis that indicates the raw datasets and removal of duplicates.
Data analysis The data analysis in this study was conducted per the research questions.
The ScientoPy tool was utilised to conduct an analysis aimed at identifying the publication outputs, significant research topics and areas, as well as high- impact papers. VOSviewer software was utilised to investigate the overlay visualisation of authors’ keywords.
ScientoPy is a Python package that is open-source and designed for bibliometric analysis. It offers a range of tools for processing and analysing bibliographic data, including functions for retrieving data from databases such as Scopus and Web of Science, calculating bibliometric indicators such as citation counts and h-index, and creating visualisations of bibliometric data (Ruiz- Rosero et al., 2019).
VOSviewer is a widely used software tool for conducting bibliometric analysis and generating visual representations of research data. The tool has been developed to generate and present co- authorship and citation networks based on bibliographic data. This facilitates the investigation of collaborative patterns and influence within a specific academic domain. VOSviewer offers diverse visualisation alternatives, encompassing
network maps, cluster maps, and density maps, which users can personalise according to different bibliometric indicators, such as publication frequency, citation counts, and co-authorship (Van Eck & Waltman, 2010).
Interpretation of results
Interpret the bibliometric indicators and maps generated from ScientoPy and VOSviewer to answer the research questions. Analyse the trends and patterns in publication output, research topics, collaboration networks, and research impact of Malaysian scholarship.
Discussion of findings Discuss the implications of the findings, including the strengths and weaknesses of Malaysian scholarship, potential areas for future research, and recommendations for policymakers, funding agencies, and researchers.
Limitations and future work
Identify limitations of the study and suggest directions for future research.
Table 2: Data combination and duplicates exclusion Data preprocessing output Information
Number Percentage (%)
Initial results
Raw data from Scopus and Wos
1686 Automatic type-filter publication to
remove non-related document 42 2.50
Total publications after selecting particular document types (Research articles, conference papers, book chapters, review papers, and proceedings)
1644
Publications in WoS 676 41.10
Publication in Scopus 968 58.90
Duplicated removal results
Duplicated publications in both
databases 603 36.70
Duplicated publications from WoS
4 0.60
Duplicated papers from Scopus 599 61.90
Final results
Total publications after eliminating
duplicates 1041
Publications in WoS 672 64.60
Publications in Scopus 369 35.40
Table 2 presents the preliminary findings of the collected data, comprising 1686 unprocessed data obtained from Scopus and WoS publications. The data indicate that 42 publications, accounting for 2.50% of the sample, were excluded due to the automated filtration process based on the document type. Prior to undergoing the stage of duplicate removal, the initial
phase yielded a total of 1644 publications. The study yielded a total of 603 duplicates across both databases. The present study includes 1041 publications, comprising 672 (64.60%) publications indexed in WoS and 369 (35.40%) in Scopus.
3. Results and Discussion
The results and discussion presented in this study were based on three research questions, which aimed to explore the publication output, research topics, and collaboration patterns of bibliometric papers written by Malaysian authors.
What is the publication output of Malaysian authors in bibliometric analysis?
Figure 1 shows the publication output of bibliometric papers written by Malaysian authors in the Scopus and Web of Science (WoS) databases from 1994 to 2022. The data reveals that Malaysian authors have published 603 bibliometric papers in WoS, while 292 papers were published in Scopus.
In WoS, the publication output of Malaysian authors in bibliometric analysis has shown a steady increase over the years. The number of papers published in WoS was negligible before 1994 but has increased consistently. The highest number of papers were published in 2020 (244 papers), followed by 2021 (150 papers) and 2019 (55 papers). This trend suggests that Malaysian researchers have been actively contributing to the field of bibliometric analysis over the years.
In contrast, the publication output of Malaysian authors in Scopus has been relatively lower than WoS. The first bibliometric paper by Malaysian authors was published in Scopus in 1997.
The number of papers published in Scopus has been inconsistent, with a few spikes and drops.
The highest number of papers were published in 2021 (122 papers), followed by 2020 (79 papers) and 2019 (28 papers).
The findings from Figure 1 indicate that Malaysian authors have been extensively engaged in publishing bibliometric papers in both WoS and Scopus databases, with WoS exhibiting a greater publication volume than Scopus. The findings imply that Malaysian academics have made significant contributions to the discipline of bibliometric analysis, and the international research community is gradually recognising their work. This indirectly shows that bibliometric analysis is a suitable and practical methodology for academics and professionals engaged in academic discussion around any area of knowledge (Serrano et al., 2020).
Figure 1: Publication output
Table 3 shows the top ten most productive authors who have published bibliometric papers.
The authors are listed based on the number of published papers. The affiliations are based on their most recent papers that have been indexed in Scopus and WoS. The most productive author is Ahmi A. from Universiti Utara Malaysia, with 27 publications, and Lim W.M. from the Swinburne University of Technology, Sarawak, with 25 publications. The other authors in the list and their affiliations are Ebrahim N.A. from Universiti Malaya, Ahmad S.A. from Universiti Putra Malaysia, Bakri A. from Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Awang R. from Universiti Sains Malaysia, Abdullah K.H. from Universiti Teknologi MARA, Abrizah A. from Universiti Malaya, Shaharuddin N.A. from Universiti Putra Malaysia, and Zainab A.N. from Universiti Malaya. The table provides insight into the most active and productive researchers in the field of bibliometrics in Malaysia.
Table 3 displays the ten most prolific authors contributing to bibliometric papers published in Malaysia. The authors’ affiliations are based in various universities in Malaysia, with Universiti Utara Malaysia having the most significant number of publications attributed to a sole author. The data above yields significant insights into the productivity and impact of researchers from Malaysia in bibliometric studies.
Table 3: Top ten most productive authors
Position Author Affiliation Total
1 Ahmi A. Universiti Utara Malaysia 27
2 Lim, W.M. Swinburne University of Technology, Sarawak 25
3 Ebrahim, N.A. Universiti Malaya 14
4 Ahmad, S.A. Universiti Putra Malaysia 13
5 Bakri, A. Universiti Teknologi Malaysia 12
6 Awang, R. Universiti Sains Malaysia 11
7 Abdullah K.H. Universiti Teknologi MARA 10
8 Abrizah, A. Universiti Malaya 10
9 Shaharuddin, N.A. Universiti Putra Malaysia 10
10 Zainab, A.N. Universiti Malaya 10
Familiarity with the leading authors in bibliometric research holds importance for various reasons. Initially, it can aid in recognising specialists and authorities within the discipline, which can be advantageous in establishing alliances and associations (Abdullah & Abd Aziz, 2020). Collaborating with others can develop more extensive research studies encompassing various viewpoints and methodologies, ultimately leading to progress within the respective field.
Identifying leading authors can aid Malaysian universities, and institutions assess their scholars’ research output and efficacy. The data mentioned above can be utilised to make judicial determinations regarding advancements in career, endowments, and financial prospects. In addition, the data mentioned above may serve as a means to discern the strengths and limitations of bibliometric research conducted in Malaysia. Institutions can utilise this information to concentrate their endeavours on enhancing their capacity in domains where they may be deficient.
What are the research topics and areas covered by Malaysian authors in bibliometric analysis?
The research topics in this study are frequently associated with the author’s chosen keywords, which are thoughtfully selected to mirror the study’s central theme. Keywords are precise and specialised terms utilised by scholars to depict the substance of their research article. They generally embody the investigation’s primary ideas, methodologies, and results. The selection of keywords by authors is influenced by the primary focus of their research and the intended readership (Roslan et al., 2022). Using appropriate keywords can enhance the discoverability and accessibility of researchers’ work among their targeted readership.
Figure 2: The 12 most research topics covered by Malaysian authors
Figure 2 presents Malaysian authors’ top author keywords used in bibliometric analysis papers, their total frequency and the percentage of documents published in the last two years (2021 to 2022) (PDLY). The most frequent author keyword is “Bibliometric”, which is used in 519 papers, accounting for 68.4% of the total papers. This indicates that bibliometric analysis is the Malaysian authors’ most common approach in identifying potential research development and progress in their bibliometric research strategies.
The second and third most frequent keywords are “Scopus” and “VOSviewer”, with 98 and 94 papers, respectively. These tools are widely used for data extraction, visualisation, and analysis in bibliometric research. The high PDLY percentage of VOSviewer (88.3%) indicates that this tool has been gaining popularity among Malaysian authors in recent years.
Other popular author keywords are “Citation analysis” (68 papers), “Systematic review” (55 papers), and “Sustainability” (28 papers). The high PDLY percentages of “Systematic review”
(72.7%) and “COVID-19” (86.4%) indicate that these topics are currently in demand and gaining attention among Malaysian authors. The analysis indicates that Malaysian authors actively participate in bibliometric research and employ various tools and methodologies to examine research trends and impact.
Figure 3: The overlay visualisation of authors’ keywords
Figure 3 depicts the overlay visualisation of the authors’ keywords. The analysis has been observed using the minimum number of occurrences of a keyword was 10, and the results yielded that out of the 2964 keywords, 35 met threshold levels. Based on Figure 4, the most recently used keywords were denoted to be reddish. In this connection, the keywords
“CiteSpace”, “artificial intelligence”, “PRISMA”, “machine learning”, “systematic literature review”, Biblioshiny”, “Bibliographic coupling”, and “performance analysis” have gained much interest since 2022. This indicates that these keywords or research topics are the most current and emerging trends in bibliometric research that show a growing interest in these topics among researchers. This information can be helpful for researchers who want to stay up- to-date with the latest developments and emerging trends in the field of bibliometrics.
Figure 4 shows the distribution of publications by subject area. The subject area with the highest number of publications is Environmental Sciences and Ecology, with 117 publications, followed by Business and Economics, with 98 publications, and Computer Science, with 97 publications. Engineering and Science & Technology - Other Topics complete the top five subject areas with 91 and 87 publications, respectively. The data suggest that Malaysian authors publish in diverse fields, from traditional scientific disciplines such as Chemistry and Physics
to emerging interdisciplinary fields like Environmental Sciences and Ecology and Information Science & Library Science. The findings of this study highlight the diversity and interdisciplinary nature of the research being conducted by Malaysian authors in bibliometric analysis.
Figure 4: Research areas
What are the collaboration patterns and networks among Malaysian authors in bibliometric analysis?
Figure 5 presents data on the nations that exhibit the most significant affiliations among co- authors in the bibliometric investigations incorporated within the review. The presented tabular data displays the aggregate count of co-author affiliations attributed to each country, alongside the proportion of published documents within the recent biennial period of 2021-2022.
India and the United Kingdom have an equal number of co-author affiliations, with both countries having 87 affiliations, the highest number among all the countries. Notably, the proportion of publications produced within the past two years in India is comparatively higher (92%), suggesting a more significant recent research activity among Indian scholars. The United States is ranked third in the number of affiliations, totalling 70. Additionally, a relatively high proportion of documents were published within the last two years, amounting to 80%.
Australia and Pakistan exhibit similar co-author affiliations, with a notable proportion of their publications released within the past two years (82.1% and 85.1%, respectively). China exhibits 63 affiliations with co-authors and has published 76.2% of its documents within the past two years. Saudi Arabia exhibits 53 co-author affiliations and a comparatively elevated proportion of publications released within the preceding two years, amounting to 81.1%.
Indonesia exhibits 51 co-author affiliations, with a predominant proportion of publications released within the past two years amounting to 92.2%. Italy exhibits the lowest count of co- author affiliations among the top nine countries, amounting to 35. However, it has a comparatively elevated proportion of documents published within the last two years, which is 91.4%.
Figure 5: Country affiliated by co-authors
The findings indicate that bibliometric research is a worldwide undertaking, with scholars from a wide array of nations participating. The data suggest that scholars from India, the United Kingdom, and the United States have recently exhibited significant engagement in this domain.
4. Conclusion
The present study highlights Malaysian authors’ noteworthy scholarly contributions to bibliometric analysis. The findings are derived from an analysis of 603 bibliometric papers in the WoS database and 292 in the Scopus database from 1994 to 2022. The scholarly productivity of authors from Malaysia indexed in the Web of Science (WoS) database has exhibited a consistent upward trend, culminating in the most substantial volume of publications in 2020. On the contrary, it can be observed that the Scopus publication output of authors from Malaysia has exhibited a comparatively lower trend than that of WoS, albeit with intermittent fluctuations. The Malaysian scholarly community has made significant strides in bibliometric analysis, with their research gaining recognition on a global scale.
The study identifies the top ten authors who have demonstrated high productivity in bibliometric analysis and provides a list of their respective affiliations. Identifying prominent authors can assist Malaysian universities, and institutions in evaluating their scholars’ research productivity and effectiveness. The bibliometric analysis conducted by Malaysian authors encompasses diverse research topics, which are aligned with the authors’ selected keywords that are carefully chosen to reflect the central theme of the study. The data provides meaningful insights regarding the productivity and impact of researchers from Malaysia in bibliometric studies.
A constraint of the research lay in its exclusive concentration on bibliometric papers authored by Malaysian scholars and disseminated through Scopus and Web of Science databases. It is plausible that additional bibliometric papers authored by individuals from Malaysia may have been published in alternative databases or beyond the scope of the databases as mentioned above, thereby eluding inclusion in the present investigation. Furthermore, this research solely examines the volume of published papers without assessing the calibre of the papers or their influence on the domain of bibliometrics.
Based on the results and discussion presented, future research directions related to bibliometric analysis in Malaysia may include the following:
i. Investigation of the impact of Malaysian authors’ bibliometric research on the advancement of the field, including citation analysis and co-authorship network analysis.
ii. Exploration of the relationship between the research output of Malaysian authors in bibliometric analysis and the academic and research policies in Malaysia.
In terms of research topics and areas covered by Malaysian authors in bibliometric analysis, the study reveals that Malaysian authors have covered a wide range of topics, including research evaluation, scientometrics, social network analysis, citation analysis, and research collaboration. The most frequent author keywords used by Malaysian authors in the bibliometric analysis are bibliometric analysis, research evaluation, scientometrics, citation analysis, and co-authorship analysis. Therefore, future research directions may focus on exploring these topics in more depth and investigating new topics and areas of interest in bibliometric analysis.
References
Abdullah, K. H. (2022). Publication Trends in Biology Education: A bibliometric review of 63 years. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 19(2), 465-480.
https://www.tused.org/index.php/tused/article/view/1190
Abdullah, K. H., & Abd Aziz, F. S. (2020), Publication trends of safety knowledge research: a bibliometric. International Journal of Innovation, Creativity and Change, 14(4), 927- 945. https://www.ijicc.net/images/Vol_14/Iss_4/14460_Abdullah_2020_E_R.pdf Abdullah, K. H., & Othman, S. Z. (2022). A bibliometric mapping of five decades research in
telecommuting. International Journal of Information Science and Management (IJISM), 20(2), 229-245. https://dorl.net/dor/20.1001.1.20088302.2022.20.2.14.9 Abdullah, K. H., & Sofyan, D. (2023). Machine learning in safety and health research: a
scientometric analysis. International Journal of Information Science and Management (IJISM), 21(1), 17-37. https://doi.org/10.22034/ijism.2022.1977763.0 Abdullah, K. H., Roslan, M. F., & Ilias, M. (2023). A bibliometric analysis of literature review
articles published by malaysian authors. Jurnal Penyelidikan Sains Sosial (JOSSR), 6(18), 8-26. http://www.jossr.com/PDF/JOSSR-2023-18-03-02.pdf
Ciesielski, T. H., Aldrich, M. C., Marsit, C. J., Hiatt, R. A., & Williams, S. M. (2017).
Transdisciplinary approaches enhance the production of translational
knowledge. Translational research, 182, 123-134.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trsl.2016.11.002
Donthu, N., Kumar, S., Mukherjee, D., Pandey, N., & Lim, W. M. (2021). How to conduct a bibliometric analysis: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research, 133, 285-296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.04.070
González-Alcaide, G., Gorraiz, J., & Hervás Oliver, J. L. (2018). On the use of bibliometric indicators for the analysis of emerging topics and their evolution: Spin-offs as a case study. El profesional de la información, 27(3), 35-52.
https://doi.org/10.3145/epi.2018.may.04
La Torre, G., Sciarra, I., Chiappetta, M., & Monteduro, A. (2017). New bibliometric indicators for the scientific literature: an evolving panorama. La Clinica terapeutica, 168(2), e65-e71. https://doi.org/10.7417/ct.2017.1985
Ma, C., Su, H., & Li, H. (2021). Global research trends on prostate diseases and erectile dysfunction: a bibliometric and visualized study. Frontiers in oncology, 10, 627891.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2020.627891
Moral-Muñoz, J. A., Herrera-Viedma, E., Santisteban-Espejo, A., & Cobo, M. J. (2020).
Software tools for conducting bibliometric analysis in science: An up-to-date
review. Profesional de la Información, 29(1), 1-20.
https://doi.org/10.3145/epi.2020.ene.03
Mukherjee, D., Lim, W. M., Kumar, S., & Donthu, N. (2022). Guidelines for advancing theory and practice through bibliometric research. Journal of Business Research, 148, 101- 115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.04.042
Ponomariov, B.L., & Boardman, C. (2016). What is co-authorship? Scientometrics, 109, 1939- 1963. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-2127-7
Roslan, M. F., Abd Razak, M. R., Abdullah, K. H., Ishak, N. S., & Dani, R. (2023). A bibliometric perspective of safety awareness research in 48 years. International Journal of Advanced Multidisciplinary Research and Studies, 3(2), 922-928.
https://www.multiresearchjournal.com/arclist.php?list=2023.3.2&id=1117
Roslan, M. Z. H., Sofyan, D., Oluwatoyin, I. M., Rojo, J. R., & Abdullah, K. H. (2022). A scientometric review of disaster education: Does it matter?. Journal of Metrics Studies and Social Science, 1(2), 101-111. https://doi.org/10.56916/jmsss.v1i2.241
Ruiz-Rosero, J., Ramírez-González, G., & Viveros-Delgado, J. (2019). Software survey:
ScientoPy, a scientometric tool for topics trend analysis in scientific publications. Scientometrics, 121(2), 1165-1188. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192- 019-03213-w
Serrano, L., Sianes, A., & Ariza-Montes, A. (2019). Using bibliometric methods to shed light on the concept of sustainable tourism. Sustainability, 11(24), 6964.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su11246964
Sofian, F. N. R. M., Abdullah, K. H., & Mohd-Sabrun, I. (2023). Research on Corporate Reputation: A Bibliometric Review of 43 Years (1977-2020). International Journal of Information, 21(2), 31-54. https://doi.org/10.22034/ijism.2023.1977558.0
Sofyan, D., Abdullah, K. H., & Hafiar, H. (2022). The philosophy of sport and physical education: Four decade publication trends via scientometric evaluation. Physical Education Theory and Methodology, 22(3), 437-449.
https://doi.org/10.17309/tmfv.2022.3.20
Van Eck, N., & Waltman, L. (2010). Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for
bibliometric mapping. scientometrics, 84(2), 523-538.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-0146-3
