4.7 Article

Evaluating the scientific contributions of biogas technology on rural development through scientometric analysis

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.eti.2021.101879

关键词

Biogas technology; Rural development; Emerging trends; Microbiome; Research gaps; Scientometric analysis

资金

  1. Department of Science and Technology (DST), India, Government of India (GoI) [DST/TMD-EWO/WTI/2K19/EWFH/2019/312]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study conducted a scientometric analysis to understand the research trends and future prospects of biogas technology in rural development. It found that China had the highest number of research publications in this field, with main research hotspots focusing on pretreatment strategies and microbial interactions. The study also highlighted the need for more attention on the economics aspect of biogas technology.
The strength of rural area in pioneering technologies encountering the current challenges of biogas research has been less addressed. Scientometric analysis has been carried out to understand research trends, perspectives and promising future prospects of biogas technology in rural development. 1427 publications have been retrieved from scientific databases and analysed for major contribution of international collaborative partners, current research hotspots and subject areas to assess the evolution of biogas technology. Scientific publications on biogas grew rapidly from last decade wherein China has the highest research publications of 324 with 23.08% significant contribution. Keywords clustering analysis showed pretreatment strategies, influence of substrate mediators and its microbial interaction for process upgradation were the promising main research hotspots. The subject categories, Energy and Fuels is more popularized whereas Economics needs more attention. This study gives and insight on scientific advances and potential research gaps of biogas technology for rural development at global level. (C) 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据