volume 126 issue 8 pages 6625-6657

Mapping the intellectual structure of the coronavirus field (2000–2020): a co-word analysis

Publication typeJournal Article
Publication date2021-06-15
scimago Q1
wos Q1
SJR1.152
CiteScore7.6
Impact factor3.5
ISSN01389130, 15882861
Computer Science Applications
Library and Information Sciences
General Social Sciences
Abstract
Over the two last decades, coronaviruses have affected human life in different ways, especially in terms of health and economy. Due to the profound effects of novel coronaviruses, growing tides of research are emerging in various research fields. This paper employs a co-word analysis approach to map the intellectual structure of the coronavirus literature for a better understanding of how coronavirus research and the disease itself have developed during the target timeframe. A strategic diagram has been drawn to depict the coronavirus domain’s structure and development. A detailed picture of coronavirus literature has been extracted from a huge number of papers to provide a quick overview of the coronavirus literature. The main themes of past coronavirus-related publications are (a) “Antibody-Virus Interactions,” (b) “Emerging Infectious Diseases,” (c) “Protein Structure-based Drug Design and Antiviral Drug Discovery,” (d) “Coronavirus Detection Methods,” (e) “Viral Pathogenesis and Immunity,” and (f) “Animal Coronaviruses.” The emerging infectious diseases are mostly related to fatal diseases (such as Middle East respiratory syndrome, severe acute respiratory syndrome, and COVID-19) and animal coronaviruses (including porcine, turkey, feline, canine, equine, and bovine coronaviruses and infectious bronchitis virus), which are capable of placing animal-dependent industries such as the swine and poultry industries under strong economic pressure. Although considerable research into coronavirus has been done, this unique field has not yet matured sufficiently. Therefore, “Antibody-virus Interactions,” “Emerging Infectious Diseases,” and “Coronavirus Detection Methods” hold interesting, promising research gaps to be both explored and filled in the future.
Found 
Found 

Top-30

Journals

1
2
3
4
5
6
Multimedia Tools and Applications
6 publications, 19.35%
PLoS ONE
2 publications, 6.45%
Supply Chain Analytics
2 publications, 6.45%
Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research
1 publication, 3.23%
Frontiers in Medicine
1 publication, 3.23%
Healthcare Analytics
1 publication, 3.23%
Kybernetes
1 publication, 3.23%
Andrologia
1 publication, 3.23%
Mathematical Problems in Engineering
1 publication, 3.23%
Scientometrics
1 publication, 3.23%
Entertainment Computing
1 publication, 3.23%
Artificial Intelligence Review
1 publication, 3.23%
Computers and Industrial Engineering
1 publication, 3.23%
Advanced Biomedical Research
1 publication, 3.23%
IEEE Access
1 publication, 3.23%
Expert Systems with Applications
1 publication, 3.23%
Desalination
1 publication, 3.23%
Educational Technology Research and Development
1 publication, 3.23%
Lecture Notes in Operations Research
1 publication, 3.23%
SAGE Open
1 publication, 3.23%
International Journal of Machine Learning and Cybernetics
1 publication, 3.23%
Archives of Sexual Behavior
1 publication, 3.23%
International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction
1 publication, 3.23%
1
2
3
4
5
6

Publishers

2
4
6
8
10
12
Springer Nature
12 publications, 38.71%
Elsevier
8 publications, 25.81%
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
2 publications, 6.45%
MDPI
1 publication, 3.23%
Frontiers Media S.A.
1 publication, 3.23%
Emerald
1 publication, 3.23%
Wiley
1 publication, 3.23%
Hindawi Limited
1 publication, 3.23%
Medknow
1 publication, 3.23%
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE)
1 publication, 3.23%
SAGE
1 publication, 3.23%
Taylor & Francis
1 publication, 3.23%
2
4
6
8
10
12
  • We do not take into account publications without a DOI.
  • Statistics recalculated weekly.

Are you a researcher?

Create a profile to get free access to personal recommendations for colleagues and new articles.
Metrics
31
Share
Cite this
GOST |
Cite this
GOST Copy
Pourhatami A. et al. Mapping the intellectual structure of the coronavirus field (2000–2020): a co-word analysis // Scientometrics. 2021. Vol. 126. No. 8. pp. 6625-6657.
GOST all authors (up to 50) Copy
Pourhatami A., Kaviyani Charati M., Kargar B., Baziyad H., Kargar M., Olmeda‐Gómez C. Mapping the intellectual structure of the coronavirus field (2000–2020): a co-word analysis // Scientometrics. 2021. Vol. 126. No. 8. pp. 6625-6657.
RIS |
Cite this
RIS Copy
TY - JOUR
DO - 10.1007/s11192-021-04038-2
UR - https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-021-04038-2
TI - Mapping the intellectual structure of the coronavirus field (2000–2020): a co-word analysis
T2 - Scientometrics
AU - Pourhatami, Aliakbar
AU - Kaviyani Charati, Mohammad
AU - Kargar, Bahareh
AU - Baziyad, Hamed
AU - Kargar, Maryam
AU - Olmeda‐Gómez, Carlos
PY - 2021
DA - 2021/06/15
PB - Springer Nature
SP - 6625-6657
IS - 8
VL - 126
PMID - 34149117
SN - 0138-9130
SN - 1588-2861
ER -
BibTex |
Cite this
BibTex (up to 50 authors) Copy
@article{2021_Pourhatami,
author = {Aliakbar Pourhatami and Mohammad Kaviyani Charati and Bahareh Kargar and Hamed Baziyad and Maryam Kargar and Carlos Olmeda‐Gómez},
title = {Mapping the intellectual structure of the coronavirus field (2000–2020): a co-word analysis},
journal = {Scientometrics},
year = {2021},
volume = {126},
publisher = {Springer Nature},
month = {jun},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-021-04038-2},
number = {8},
pages = {6625--6657},
doi = {10.1007/s11192-021-04038-2}
}
MLA
Cite this
MLA Copy
Pourhatami, Aliakbar, et al. “Mapping the intellectual structure of the coronavirus field (2000–2020): a co-word analysis.” Scientometrics, vol. 126, no. 8, Jun. 2021, pp. 6625-6657. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-021-04038-2.