4.6 Review

Assessing ecological restoration as a research topic using bibliometric indicators

期刊

ECOLOGICAL ENGINEERING
卷 120, 期 -, 页码 311-320

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoleng.2018.06.015

关键词

VOSviewer; Bibliometric map; Restoration ecology; Soil; Tropical ecosystems; Systemic approach

资金

  1. Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel - Ministry of Education (Capes - MEC)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A bibliometric analysis was performed to evaluate the global scientific production on ecological restoration from the period of 1997 to 2017. This analysis was based on online database of Science Citation Index Expanded Web of Science and a total of 3297 publications was retrieved. The analysis comprised seven main aspects: (1) publication activity, (2) Web of Science categories, (3) journals, (4) countries, (5) authors, (6) organizations and (7) keywords. The results indicated that the annual publications on ecological restoration study have recently increased. The USA play an important role as they have published highly in this field and have been the most frequent partner in international collaborations. American researchers have accumulated most of the publications. The Chinese Academy of Science is the emblematic organization, with 363 published papers. The Restoration Ecology and Ecological Engineering are the two most used journals to disseminate results. The major related research areas are Environmental Science Ecology, Forestry and Biodiversity Conservation. Studies about restoration, pinus ponderosa, climate change, biodiversity and ecosystem services have become the main subject of research along the years. Analyses of keywords suggested that there is a relatively lack of information about soil and tropical ecosystems among the analyzed studies. Overall, this framework proved to be effective to evaluate the recent research trends and to contribute with researchers and governments on management and decision-making on science.

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