4.6 Review

Energy Storage Ceramics: A Bibliometric Review of Literature

Journal

MATERIALS
Volume 14, Issue 13, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ma14133605

Keywords

energy storage ceramics; bibliometric; lead-free; microstructure; keywords analysis

Funding

  1. National Social Science Fund of China [19BTQ019]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Energy storage ceramics is a highly discussed topic in energy research, with China leading the research in this field. Researchers mainly focus on lead-free ceramics and aspects such as microstructure, thin films, and phase transition in ceramics.
Energy storage ceramics is among the most discussed topics in the field of energy research. A bibliometric analysis was carried out to evaluate energy storage ceramic publications between 2000 and 2020, based on the Web of Science (WOS) databases. This paper presents a detailed overview of energy storage ceramics research from aspects of document types, paper citations, h-indices, publish time, publications, institutions, countries/regions, research areas, highly cited papers, and keywords. A total of 3177 publications were identified after retrieval in WOS. The results show that China takes the leading position in this research field, followed by the USA and India. Xi An Jiao Tong Univ has the most publications, with the highest h-index. J.W. Zhai is the most productive author in energy storage ceramics research. Ceramics International, Journal of Materials Science-Materials in Electronics, and the Journal of Alloys and Compounds are the most productive journals in this field, and materials science-multidisciplinary is the most frequently used subject category. Keywords, highly cited papers, and the analysis of popular papers indicate that, in recent years, lead-free ceramics are prevalent, and researchers focus on fields such as the microstructure, thin films, and phase transition of ceramics.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available