4.6 Article

Autonomous vehicles: scientometric and bibliometric review*

期刊

TRANSPORT REVIEWS
卷 39, 期 1, 页码 9-28

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/01441647.2018.1518937

关键词

utonomous vehicles; bibliometrics; scientometrics; review; CiteSpace

资金

  1. Post Graduate Program in Administration of Federal University of Lavras (UFLA - Brazil)
  2. Terrestrial Mobility Laboratory (LMT / UFLA - Brazil)
  3. Laboratoire Genie Industriel (LGI / Centrale Supelec - France)
  4. Fundacao de Amparo a Pesquisa de Minas Gerais (Fapemig - Brazil)
  5. Coordenacao de Aperfeicoamento de Pessoal de Nivel Superior (CAPES - Brazil)
  6. Ecole Centrale Supelec (Universite Paris-Saclay)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper presents a scientometric and bibliometric review of the research on autonomous vehicles (AVs) to identify its main characteristics, evolution, and potential trends for future studies. Relevant articles were searched on WoS, yielding a research corpus of 10,580 papers, and the software CiteSpace was subsequently used for analysis. The results showed that AV research is heterogeneous and registered a growing demand over time. Multidisciplinarity is present, with 96 science fields being identified. As in any other sector, it is necessary to understand broader aspects of this industry such as the market factors surrounding it, as well as other economic and managerial issues. In this sense, we observed a migration of the research field from multidisciplinarity to pluridisciplinarity with a greater number of studies focusing on the latter. We understand that terminology standardisation contributes to achieving pluridisciplinarity. As such, it is important to highlight that sustainability, public policies, liability, and safety, as well as business issues such as performance and business models are some of the tendencies in the field of AVs. For future studies, we suggest a more in-depth analysis of publications in terms of individual search terms, as well as the sub-areas identified as trends in this paper.

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

4.6
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