4.8 Review

Characteristics and trends of research on waste-to-energy incineration: A bibliometric analysis, 1999-2015

Journal

RENEWABLE & SUSTAINABLE ENERGY REVIEWS
Volume 66, Issue -, Pages 95-104

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.rser.2016.07.006

Keywords

Bibliometrics; Incineration; Statistical analysis; Co-words analysis; Waste-to-energy

Funding

  1. Project of National Science and Technology Pillar Program of China [2014BAC261305-01]
  2. Natural Science Foundation of China [41571522, 71273185]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study aims to provide an up-to-date contemporary bibliometric view of the waste-to-energy incineration literature and a correlative analysis of this field. Based on the bibliometric method, a statistical analysis was undertaken on, papers published from 1999 to 2015 in Science Citation Index (SCI) and the Social Science Citation Index (SSCI). There were 4348 publications in the field of waste-to-energy incineration. The number of publications per year has increased steadily since 2009. China produced 15.71% of all pertinent articles followed by Japan with 11.37% and USA with 7.97%. China has played a key role in the collaboration network of 30 most productive countries and regions. In addition, the cooperation within the European countries was notable. However, China ranked first in all aspects except h-index. This means China's impact (number of citations) in this field could be further strengthened though its quantity (number of publications) was the highest. Five clusters were identified from keywords networks, i.e. Central Cluster node (combustion), Cluster(I) (central nodes were fly ash,heavy metal(s) and bottom ash), Cluster(II) (central nodes were dioxin-related substances), Clusters(III) (central nodes focused on waste management), and Cluster(IV) chemistry methods. These findings are useful for the future endeavor of waste-to-energy incineration academic research. (C) 2016 Elsevier Ltd. 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

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available