Developing a novel algorithm for comparing cluster patterns in networks on journal articles during and after COVID-19: Bibliometric analysis.

BACKGROUND: Cluster analysis is vital in bibliometrics for deciphering large sets of academic data. However, no prior research has employed a cluster-pattern algorithm to assess the similarities and differences between 2 clusters in networks. The study goals are 2-fold: to create a cluster-pattern comparison algorithm tailored for bibliometric analysis and to apply this algorithm in presenting clusters of countries, institutes, departments, authors (CIDA), and keywords on journal articles during and after COVID-19. METHODS: We analyzed 9499 and 5943 articles from the Journal of Medicine (Baltimore) during and after COVID-19 in 2020 to 2021 and 2022 to 2023, sourced from the Web of Science (WoS) Core Collection. Follower-leading clustering algorithm (FLCA) was compared to other 8 counterparts in cluster validation and effectiveness and a cluster-pattern-comparison algorithm (CPCA) was developed using the similarity coefficient, collaborative maps, and thematic maps to evaluate CIDA cluster patterns. The similarity coefficients were categorized as identical, similar, dissimilar, or different for values above 0.7, between 0.5 and 0.7, between 0.3 and 0.5, and below 0.3, respectively. RESULTS: Both stages displayed similar trends in annual publications and average citations, although these trends are decreasing. The peak publication year was 2020. Similarity coefficients of cluster patterns in these 2 stages for CIDA entities and keywords were 0.73, 0.35, 0.80, 0.02, and 0.83, respectively, suggesting the existence of identical patterns (>0.70) in countries, departments, and keywords plus, but dissimilar (<0.5) and different patterns (<0.3) found in institutes and 1st and corresponding authors, during and after COVID-19. CONCLUSIONS: This research effectively created and utilized CPCA to analyze cluster patterns in bibliometrics. It underscores notable identical patterns in country-/department-/keyword based clusters, but dissimilar and different in institute-/author- based clusters, between these 2 stages during and after COVID-19, offering a framework for future bibliographic studies to compare cluster patterns beyond just the CIDA entities, as demonstrated in this study.

Identifying China's distinctive academic fields among the top 2% of influential scientists: A bibliometric analysis using Rasch KIDMAP.

BACKGROUND: Leading scientists worldwide are recognized by their placement in the top 2% based on their career-spanning contributions, as categorized by the Science-Metrix classification. However, there has been little focus on the unique scientific fields and subfields that separate countries. Although the KIDMAP in the Rasch model has been utilized to depict student performance, its application in identifying distinctive academic areas remains unexplored. Our study uses this model to pinpoint unique research domains specific to countries based on the top 2% author data. METHODS: We sourced our data from Elsevier career-long author database updated until the end of 2022. This encompassed 168 countries, 22 scientific domains, and 174 subdomains in 2021 and 2022 (with a total of 194,983 and 204,643 researchers, respectively). Our approach was threefold: identifying unique fields, subfields, and researchers. Visualizations included scatter plots, KIDMAP, and the Impact Bam Plot (IBP). China distinctive research areas were identified using the Rasch KIDMAP. RESULTS: Key insights include the following: The US prevailing dominance in scientific domains in both 2021 and 2022. China distinct contribution in the "Enabling & Strategic Technologies" domain. China notable emphasis on the "Complementary & Alternative Medicine" subfield in 2022. Dr Phillip Low from the Mayo Clinic (US) emerged as a leading figure in the General & Internal Medicine research domain. CONCLUSIONS: Despite trailing the US in global research achievements, China showcased pronounced expertise in specific scientific areas, such as the "Complementary & Alternative Medicine" subfield in 2022, when compared to China other subfields based on the level of academic performance (-3.09 logits). Future research could benefit from incorporating KIDMAP visuals to gauge other countries' strengths in various research sectors, expanding beyond the China-centric focus in this study.