4.5 Article

Global trends of solid waste research from 1997 to 2011 by using bibliometric analysis

Journal

SCIENTOMETRICS
Volume 96, Issue 1, Pages 133-146

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11192-012-0911-6

Keywords

Solid waste; Bibliometric; SCI; Engineering; MSW

Funding

  1. Natural Science Foundation of China [51278212]
  2. Eleventh Five-year National Technology Supporting Plan Program of China [2006BAC06B04]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study explores a bibliometric approach to quantitatively assessing current research trends on solid waste, by using the related literature published between 1997 and 2011 in journals of all the subject categories of the Science Citation Index. The articles acquired from such literature were concentrated on the general analysis by publication type and language, characteristics of articles outputs, country, subject categories and journals, and the frequency of title-words and keywords used. Over the past 15 years, there had been a notable growth trend in publication outputs, along with more participation of countries/territories. The seven major industrialized countries (G7) published the majority of the world articles, while their article share was being replacing by other countries represented by BRIC countries. An analysis of the title-words, author keywords and keywords plus showed that municipal solid waste and sludge were the major research types of solid wastes and anaerobic digestion, wastewater and heavy metals were recent major topics of solid waste research. Meanwhile, the analysis indicated the analysis technologies, represented by solid-phase extraction and tandem mass-spectrometry, were more and more widely used for solid waste research. Besides, life cycle assessment and health risk assessment were the most two frequently environmental assessment tools used for solid waste research in the 15-year research period.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available