4.7 Article

Fuzzy systems research in the United States of America and Canada: A bibliometric overview

Journal

INFORMATION SCIENCES
Volume 617, Issue -, Pages 277-292

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.ins.2022.10.116

Keywords

Fuzzy systems; Bibliometric analysis; Web of Science; United States of America; Canada; Network analysis

Funding

  1. Mexican Council of Science and Technology (CONACYT) [422324, 365275]
  2. Universidad Michoacana de San Nicolas de Hidalgo [16139]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The objective of this paper is to use bibliometric techniques to analyze the development of fuzzy systems research (FSR) in the United States and Canada. The main findings show that Zadeh is the most influential author, Pedrycz is the most productive author, and the United States has made a greater contribution to FSR.
The objective of this paper is to apply bibliometric techniques to analyze the evolution of fuzzy systems research (FSR) in the United States of America and Canada. The aim is to visualize the progression of FSR since Zadeh's first publication of fuzzy sets and the regio-nal impact that these ideas have in the scientific community. This work obtains data retrieved from the Web of Science (WoS) scientific database. Using a hybrid methodology designed to maximize the obtention of representative results, we analyze 20,317 docu-ments published between 1965 and 2020. The main findings show that Zadeh is the most influential author and that Pedrycz is the most productive author at FSR. Journals such as Fuzzy Sets and Systems (FSS) and IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems (TFS) publish most of the FSR articles. The results show a greater contribution by the United States of America compared to Canada in FSR. This analysis contributes to visualization and evolution in the field of study of FSR in diverse regions.(c) 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available