No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Trends in Brain Research: A Bibliometric Analysis
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 07 November 2023
Abstract
Background:
Bibliometrics methods have allowed researchers to assess the popularity of brain research through the ever-growing number of brain-related research papers. While many topics of brain research have been covered by previous studies, there is no comprehensive overview of the evolution of brain research and its various specialties and funding practices over a long period of time.
Objective:
This paper aims to (1) determine how brain research has evolved over time in terms of number of papers, (2) countries' relative and absolute positioning in terms of papers and impact, and (3) how those various trends vary by area.
Methods:
Using a list of validated keywords, we extracted brain-related articles and journals indexed in the Web of Science over the 1991–2020 period, for a total of 2,467,708 papers. We used three indicators to perform: number of papers, specialization, and research impact.
Results:
Our results show that over the past 30 years, the number of brain-related papers has grown at a faster pace than science in general, with China being at the forefront of this growth. Different patterns of specialization among countries and funders were also underlined. Finally, the NIH, the European Commission, the National Natural Science Foundation of China, the UK Medical Research Council, and the German Research Foundation were found to be among the top funders.
Conclusion:
Despite data-related limitations, our findings provide a large-scope snapshot of the evolution of brain research and its funding, which may be used as a baseline for future studies on these topics.
Résumé
Tendances de la recherche sur le cerveau dans le monde : analyse bibliométrique.
Les méthodes d’analyse bibliométrique ont permis aux chercheurs d’évaluer l’intérêt que suscite la recherche sur le cerveau à l’aide du nombre sans cesse croissant de documents dans le domaine. Certes, de nombreux sujets de recherche se rapportant au cerveau ont déjà fait l’objet d’études, mais il n’existe pas de portrait global de l’évolution de la recherche sur le cerveau ni des divers champs de spécialité, pas plus que des pratiques de financement sur une longue période de temps.
L’article visait à déterminer : 1) la manière dont la recherche sur le cerveau avait évolué au fil du temps quant au nombre d’articles; 2) la position relative et absolue des pays en ce qui concerne les articles et leur portée; 3) les différentes tendances selon les champs de recherche.
L’extraction d’articles et de revues sur le cerveau, indexés dans la plateforme Web of Science, de 1991 à 2020, a été effectuée à l’aide d’une liste de mots clés validés; le nombre total de documents ainsi tirés s’élevait à 2 467 708. La performance a été établie à l’aide de trois indicateurs, soit le nombre d’articles, les champs de spécialité et la portée de la recherche.
D’après les résultats de l’étude, le nombre d’articles portant sur le cerveau a connu une croissance supérieure à celle liée à la science en général au cours des 30 dernières années, et c’est la Chine qui se trouve à l’avant-garde de cette croissance. Les pays et les bailleurs de fonds se distinguent également par les différents champs de spécialité. Enfin, les NIH, la Commission européenne, la fondation National Natural Science Foundation of China, le Conseil de recherches médicales du Royaume-Uni et la fondation German Research Foundation figurent parmi les plus grands bailleurs de fonds.
Malgré les restrictions liées aux données, l’étude a permis de donner un bon aperçu de l’évolution de la recherche sur le cerveau et des moyens de financement, aperçu qui pourrait servir d’élément de référence aux études à venir sur ces mêmes sujets.
Keywords
- Type
- Original Article
- Information
- Copyright
- © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Canadian Neurological Sciences Federation
References
Feigin, VL, Nichols, E, Alam, T, et al. Global, regional, and national burden of neurological disorders, 1990-2016: a systematic analysis for the global burden of disease study 2016. Lancet Neurol. 2019;18:459–80. DOI: 10.1016/S1474-4422(18)30499-X.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rehm, J, Shield, KD. Global burden of disease and the impact of mental and addictive disorders. Curr Psychiatry Rep. 2019;21:10. DOI: 10.1007/s11920-019-0997-0.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
European Commission. EU support for research and innovation in the area of the brain. Published 2021. https://research-and-innovation.ec.europa.eu/research-area/health/brain-research_en. Accessed December 6, 2022.Google Scholar
Library of Congress. Decade of the Brain Home Page. Published 2000. https://www.loc.gov/loc/brain/. Accessed December 6, 2022.Google Scholar
WHO WHO. The world health report: 2001: mental health: new Understanding, new hope. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2001, https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/42390.Google Scholar
G-Science Academies. G-Science Academies Statement 2016: Understanding, Protecting, and Developing Global Brain Resources.; 2016. https://www.academie-sciences.fr/pdf/rapport/2016_G7_Brain.pdf. Accessed December 6, 2022.Google Scholar
Grillner, S, Ip, N, Koch, C, et al. Worldwide initiatives to advance brain research. Nat Neurosci. 2016;19:1118–22. DOI: 10.1038/nn.4371.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
NIH NI of H. The Brain Initiative. Published 2021. https://braininitiative.nih.gov/. Accessed December 6, 2022.Google Scholar
Diodato, VP, Gellatly, P. Dictionary of bibliometrics. 1st edn. New York: Routledge; 1994.Google Scholar
Sugimoto, CR, Larivière, V. Measuring research: what everyone needs to know. 1st edn. New York: Oxford University Press; 2018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Archambault, É, Larivière, V. The Limits of bibliometrics for the analysis of the social sciences and humanities literature. In: World Social Science Report. UNESCO. ; 2010:251-254. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000211801. Accessed December 6, 2022.Google Scholar
Larivière, V, Archambault, É., Gingras, Y. Long-term variations in the aging of scientific literature: from exponential growth to steady-state science (1900-2004. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol. 2008;59:288–96. DOI: 10.1002/asi.20744.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nederhof, AJ. Bibliometric monitoring of research performance in the social sciences and the humanities: a review. Scientometrics. 2006;66:81–100. DOI: 10.1007/s11192-006-0007-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Leeuwen, T. Bibliometric research evaluations, web of science and the social sciences and humanities: a problematic relationship? Bibliometr. Prax Forsch. 2013;2:1–18. DOI: 10.5283/bpf.173.Google Scholar
Archambault, É., Vignola-Gagné, É., Côté, G, Larivière, V, Gingrasb, Y. Benchmarking scientific output in the social sciences and humanities: the limits of existing databases. Scientometrics. 2006;68:329–42. DOI: 10.1007/s11192-006-0115-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glänzel, W. A bibliometric approach to social sciences. National research performances in 6 selected social science areas, 1990-1992. Scientometrics. 1996;35:291–307. DOI: 10.1007/BF02016902.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hicks, D. The four literatures of social science. In: Moed, HF, Glänzel, W, Schmoch, U, editors. Handbook of quantitative science and technology research: the use of publication and patent statistics in studies of S&T systems. Netherlands: Springer; 2005, pp. 473–96. DOI: 10.1007/1-4020-2755-9_22
CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hicks, D. The difficulty of achieving full coverage of international social science literature and the bibliometric consequences. Published 1999. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF02457380. Accessed May 15, 2023.Google Scholar
Glänzel, W, Schoepflin, U. A bibliometric study of reference literature in the sciences and social sciences1Parts of this study have been presented at the 5th, International conference on scientometrics and Informetrics, held in river. vol. 35. Forest, Illinois: Inf Process Manag.; 1999, pp. 31–44. DOI: 10.1016/S0306-4573(98)00028-4
Google Scholar
Buchan, AM, Jurczyk, E, Isserlin, R, Bader, GD. Global neuroscience and mental health research: a bibliometrics case study. Scientometrics. 2016;109:515–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yeung, AWK, Goto, TK, Leung, WK. At the leading front of neuroscience: a bibliometric study of the 100 most-cited articles. Front Hum Neurosci. 2017;11:363. DOI: 10.3389/fnhum.2017.00363.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yeung, AWK, Goto, TK, Leung, WK. The changing landscape of neuroscience research, 2006-2015: a bibliometric study. Front Neurosci. 2017;11;120:1–10. DOI: 10.3389/fnins.2017.00120.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chen, H, Wan, Y, Jiang, S, Cheng, Y. Alzheimer’s disease research in the future: bibliometric analysis of cholinesterase inhibitors from 1993 to 2012. Scientometrics. 2014;98:1865–77. DOI: 10.1007/s11192-013-1132-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dong, R, Wang, H, Ye, J, Wang, M, Bi, Y. Publication Trends for Alzheimer’s Disease Worldwide and in China: A 30-Year Bibliometric Analysis. Front Hum Neurosci. 2019;13. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnhum.2019.00259. Accessed December 6, 2022.Google Scholar
Wu, F, Wang, X, Li, X, et al. The Most Cited Original Articles in Brain Imaging of Children With Cerebral Palsy: A Bibliometric Analysis Between 1984 and 2019. Front Neurol. 2020;11. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fneur.2020.00955. Accessed December 6, 2022.Google Scholar
Yeung, AWK, Wong, NSM, Lau, H, Eickhoff, SB. Human brain responses to gustatory and food stimuli: a meta-evaluation of neuroimaging meta-analyses. NeuroImage. 2019;202:116111. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2019.116111.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yeung, AWK, Goto, TK, Keung Leung, W. A bibliometric review of research trends in neuroimaging. Curr Sci. 2017;112:725. DOI: 10.18520/cs/v112/i04/725-734.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hu, K, Chen, C, Meng, Q, Williams, Z, Xu, W. Scientific profile of brain-computer interfaces: bibliometric analysis in a 10-year period. Neurosci Lett. 2016;635:61–6. DOI: 10.1016/j.neulet.2016.10.022.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wang, M, Li, W, Tao, Y, Zhao, L. Emerging trends and knowledge structure of epilepsy during pregnancy research for 2000-2018: a bibliometric analysis. PeerJ. 2019;7:e7115. DOI: 10.7717/peerj.7115.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zyoud, SH, Smale, S, Waring, WS, Sweileh, WM, Al-Jabi, SW. Global research trends in microbiome-gut-brain axis during 2009-2018: a bibliometric and visualized study. BMC Gastroenterol. 2019;19:158. DOI: 10.1186/s12876-019-1076-z.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Duan, L, Gao, Y, Shao, X, Tian, C, Fu, C, Zhu, G. Research on the Development of Theme Trends and Changes of Knowledge Structures of Drug Therapy Studies on Major Depressive Disorder Since the 21st Century: A Bibliometric Analysis. Front Psychiatry. 2020;11. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyt.2020.00647. Accessed December 6, 2022.Google Scholar
Yeung, AWK, Tzvetkov, NT, Atanasov, AG. When Neuroscience Meets Pharmacology: A Neuropharmacology Literature Analysis. Front Neurosci. 2018;12. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnins.2018.00852. Accessed December 6, 2022.Google Scholar
Hu, K, Moses, ZB, Xu, W, Williams, Z. Bibliometric profile of deep brain stimulation. Br J Neurosurg. 2017;31:587–92. DOI: 10.1080/02688697.2017.1324109.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Li, L, Ma, X, Pandey, S, et al. The most-cited works in severe traumatic brain injury: a bibliometric analysis of the 100 most-cited articles. World Neurosurg. 2018;113:e82–e87. DOI: 10.1016/j.wneu.2018.01.164.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mojgani, P, Jalali, M, Keramatfar, A. Bibliometric study of traumatic brain injury rehabilitation. Neuropsychol Rehabil. 2022;32:51–68. DOI: 10.1080/09602011.2020.1796714.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Qi, B, Jin, S, Qian, H, Zou, Y. Bibliometric analysis of chronic traumatic encephalopathy research from 1999 to 2019. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17:5411. DOI: 10.3390/ijerph17155411.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Leefmann, J, Levallois, C, Hildt, E. Neuroethics 1995-2012. A Bibliometric Analysis of the Guiding Themes of an Emerging Research Field. Front Hum Neurosci. 2016;10. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnhum.2016.00336. Accessed December 6, 2022.Google Scholar
Chen, YM, Wang, XQ. Bibliometric analysis of exercise and neuropathic pain research. J Pain Res. 2020;13:1533–45. DOI: 10.2147/JPR.S258696.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Albusac-Jorge, M, Giménez-Rodríguez, FJ. Citation index and scientific production on the neuroscience of music: a bibliometric study. Psychomusicol Music Mind Brain. 2015;25:416–22. DOI: 10.1037/pmu0000128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alhibshi, AH, Alamoudi, WA, Haq, IU, Rehman, SU, Farooq, RK, Shamrani, FJA. Bibliometric analysis of neurosciences research productivity in Saudi Arabia from 2013-2018. Neurosci J. 2020;25:134–43. DOI: 10.17712/nsj.2020.2.20190087.Google ScholarPubMed
Forero, DA, Trujillo, ML, González-Giraldo, Y, Barreto, GE. Scientific productivity in neurosciences in Latin America: a scientometrics perspective. Int J Neurosci. 2020;130:398–406. DOI: 10.1080/00207454.2019.1692837.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hoppen, NHF, de Vanz S.A., S. Neurosciences in Brazil: a bibliometric study of main characteristics, collaboration and citations. Scientometrics. 2016;109:121–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mongeon, P, Paul-Hus, A. The journal coverage of web of science and scopus: a comparative analysis. Scientometrics. 2016;106:213–28. DOI: 10.1007/s11192-015-1765-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamilton, KS. Subfield and level classification of journals. Haddon Heights: CHI Research; 2003.Google Scholar
Archambault, É., Caruso, J, Côté, G, Larivière, V. Bibliometric analysis of leading countries in energy research. Proc. of the 12th Int. Conf. of the Int. Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics (ISSI), 2009, pp. 80–91.Google Scholar
Bornmann, L, Mutz, R. Growth rates of modern science: a bibliometric analysis based on the number of publications and cited references. J Assoc Inf Sci Technol. 2015;66:2215–22. DOI: 10.1002/asi.23329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
NIH NI of H. Estimates of Funding for Various Research, Condition, and Disease Categories (RCDC). Published March 31, 2023. https://report.nih.gov/funding/categorical-spending#/. Accessed May 15, 2023.Google Scholar
Bargmann, CI, Newsome, WT. The brain research through advancing innovative neurotechnologies (BRAIN) initiative and neurology. JAMA Neurol. 2014;71:675–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jorgenson, LA, Newsome, WT, Anderson, DJ, et al. The BRAIN initiative: developing technology to catalyse neuroscience discovery. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2015;370:20140164. DOI: 10.1098/rstb.2014.0164.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Human Brain Project. Overview. Published 2023. https://www.humanbrainproject.eu/en/science/overview/. Accessed May 15, 2023.Google Scholar
Brain/Mind. Objectives | Brain/MINDS. Published 2023. https://brainminds.jp/en/overview/objectives. Accessed May 15, 2023.Google Scholar
Normile, D. Here’s how China is challenging the U.S. and European brain initiatives. Published May 22, 2018. https://www.science.org/content/article/heres-how-china-challenging-us-and-european-brain-initiatives. Accessed May 16, 2023.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poo, MM, Du, JL, Ip, NY, Xiong, ZQ, Xu, B, Tan, T. China brain project: basic neuroscience, brain diseases, and brain-inspired computing. Neuron. 2016;92:591–6. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuron.2016.10.050.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wagner, CS, Whetsell, TA, Leydesdorff, L. Growth of international collaboration in science: revisiting six specialties. Scientometrics. 2017;110:1633–52. DOI: 10.1007/s11192-016-2230-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petersen, RC, Aisen, PS, Beckett, LA, et al. Alzheimer’s disease neuroimaging initiative (ADNI): clinical characterization. Neurology. 2010;74:201–9. DOI: 10.1212/WNL.0b013e3181cb3e25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mahmood, SS, Levy, D, Vasan, RS, Wang, TJ. The framingham heart study and the epidemiology of cardiovascular disease: a historical perspective. Lancet Lond Engl. 2014;383:999–1008. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)61752-3.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Larivière, Vincent, Shu, Fei, Cassidy Sugimoto. The Coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak highlights serious deficiencies in scholarly communication. Impact of Social Sciences. Published March 5, 2020. https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2020/03/05/the-coronavirus-covid-19-outbreak-highlights-serious-deficiencies-in-scholarly-communication/. Accessed May 16, 2023.Google Scholar
Shu, F, Liu, S, Larivière, V. China’s research evaluation reform: what are the consequences for global science? Minerva. 2022;60:329–47. DOI: 10.1007/s11024-022-09468-7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Torrey, EF, Simmons, WW, Hancq, ES, Snook, J. The continuing decline of clinical research on serious mental illnesses at NIMH. Psychiatr Serv Wash DC. 2021;72:1342–4. DOI: 10.1176/appi.ps.202000739.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cummings, J, Feldman, HH, Scheltens, P. The “rights” of precision drug development for Alzheimer’s disease. Alzheimers Res Ther. 2019;11:76. DOI: 10.1186/s13195-019-0529-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simard et al. supplementary material
Figure S1
File
147.2 KB