4.2 Review

Co-Citation Analysis of Articles Published in Substance Abuse Journals: Intellectual Structure and Research Fields (2001-2012)

期刊

JOURNAL OF STUDIES ON ALCOHOL AND DRUGS
卷 77, 期 5, 页码 710-722

出版社

ALCOHOL RES DOCUMENTATION INC CENT ALCOHOL STUD RUTGERS UNIV
DOI: 10.15288/jsad.2016.77.710

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: The purpose of this study is to introduce a new methodology in the field of substance abuse, namely, co-citation analysis, which uses the bibliographic references of publications to establish the main thematic areas being researched and to identify the seminal documents that have contributed to establishing the intellectual foundation of the discipline at the present time. Method: We identified all bibliographic references that were cited in documents published in the substance abuse journals included in the Journal Citation Reports in the 2001-2012 period, generating a co-citation matrix. This matrix was used to perform a co-citation network analysis. Results: The co-citation network analysis led to the identification of 56 prominent research clusters that bring together 698 documents; their subject matter constitutes the foundation of the discipline in the field's journals. Conclusions: Substance abuse research is dominated by a few core topics; chief among them are tools for measuring and diagnosing dependence, as well as therapeutic approaches to treat alcohol abuse and nicotine addiction. Other areas of note include epidemiological studies, research on drug user motivation (particularly among young people), binge drinking, social support mediators and networks, opioid dependence, consumption and effects of cannabis, basic research on brain damage, genetic factors associated with substance use, and the physiological and neurological determinants of abstinence syndrome. The main works of reference that we identified were published in a small number of journals, which establish the intellectual, conceptual, and methodological basis of the discipline.

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

4.2
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