Bibliometric Analysis of Publications in Scopus-Indexed Public, Environmental and Occupational Health Journals Across Scimago Quartiles (2016–2024)

Mehran Rostami Varnousfaderani; Shiva Mohammadjani Kumeleh; Neda Izadi

doi:10.12688/f1000research.174865.2

Home Browse Bibliometric Analysis of Publications in Scopus-Indexed Public, Environmental...

ALL Metrics

Views

Downloads

Get PDF

Get XML

Export

▬

✚

Research Article

Revised

Bibliometric Analysis of Publications in Scopus-Indexed Public, Environmental and Occupational Health Journals Across Scimago Quartiles (2016–2024)

[version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations]

Mehran Rostami Varnousfaderani¹, Shiva Mohammadjani Kumeleh², Neda Izadi³

PUBLISHED 04 Mar 2026

Author details Author details

¹ Epidemiology, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences School of Public Health and Safety, Tehran, Tehran Province, Iran
² Occupational Health and Safety Engineering, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences School of Public Health and Safety, Tehran, Tehran Province, Iran
³ Research Center for Social Determinants of Health, Research Institute for Metabolic and Obesity Disorders, Research Institute for Endocrine Sciences, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Tehran Province, Iran

Mehran Rostami Varnousfaderani
Roles: Conceptualization, Software, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

Shiva Mohammadjani Kumeleh
Roles: Software, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

Neda Izadi
Roles: Conceptualization, Supervision, Validation, Writing – Original Draft Preparation

OPEN PEER REVIEW

REVIEWER STATUS

This article is included in the Research on Research, Policy & Culture gateway.

This article is included in the Global Public Health gateway.

Abstract

Background

This bibliometric analysis evaluates health-related research in Public Health, Environmental Health, and Occupational Health (PHEOH) journals indexed in Scopus, categorized by Scimago quartiles (Q1–Q4) from 2016 to 2024. The study aims to identify trends, research productivity, and thematic priorities across these journals.

Methods

From 654 eligible journals, 100 (25 per quartile) were randomly selected. A total of 70,580 documents were retrieved from Scopus and analysed using Microsoft Excel and VOSviewer (v.1.6.20). Co-occurrence analysis of author and indexed keywords was performed separately for each quartile to identify research hotspots, thematic clusters, and trends over time.

Results

Q1 journals contributed the highest proportion of publications (37.7%), followed by Q2 (25.4%), Q4 (22.1%), and Q3 (14.8%). The United States dominated output in Q1–Q3 journals, whereas Pakistan led in Q4. Across all quartiles, “COVID-19” was the most frequent and highly connected author keyword, followed by mental health, SARS-CoV-2, and child-related research. Indexed keyword analysis ranked “humans” highest in every quartile. Topics related to SARS-CoV-2 and mental health received the highest average citations.

Conclusions

The COVID-19 pandemic significantly influenced the research agenda of Public, Environmental, and Occupational Health journals between 2016 and 2024, particularly in higher-quartile outlets. The findings reveal persistent disparities in productivity across journal tiers and geographic regions.

Keywords

: Bibliometrics, Scopus, Public health, Occupational health, Environmental health, COVID-19, Scimago quartiles, research trends, Scopus

Corresponding author: Neda Izadi

Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Grant information: This study was supported by the Student Research Committee, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Grant No.1404/323/28. The funding agency did not play any role in the planning, conduct, and reporting or in the decision to submit the paper for publication.
The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Copyright: © 2026 Rostami Varnousfaderani M et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

How to cite: Rostami Varnousfaderani M, Mohammadjani Kumeleh S and Izadi N. Bibliometric Analysis of Publications in Scopus-Indexed Public, Environmental and Occupational Health Journals Across Scimago Quartiles (2016–2024) [version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations]. F1000Research 2026, 14:1468 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.174865.2) First published: 27 Dec 2025, 14:1468 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.174865.1) Latest published: 04 Mar 2026, 14:1468 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.174865.2)

Revised Amendments from Version 1

In this revised version, several methodological and interpretative clarifications have been made to improve transparency and analytical precision. The search strategy has been further detailed, with the complete query and Source IDs provided in the Appendix to enhance reproducibility. The description of the bibliometric methodology has been refined to explicitly clarify the use of full counting and quartile-based journal selection criteria.
The Introduction and Discussion sections have been strengthened through the inclusion of recent literature (2022–2024) to better contextualize the findings within current bibliometric and post-COVID publication trends. Additionally, interpretations regarding thematic prominence across quartiles have been revised to avoid causal implications and to ensure a more cautious and evidence-based discussion.
These revisions collectively improve methodological transparency, conceptual clarity, and alignment with contemporary literature.

See the authors' detailed response to the review by Dwi Fitria Al Husaeni

Introduction

Public, occupational, and environmental health are the driving forces behind this vision, providing the tools to understand health challenges, predict future threats, and design innovative solutions to improve lives.¹ The concept of “health” brings together two essential ideas: “Health” representing overall well-being, and “Hygiene” emphasizing prevention and care. At its core, public health is a collective effort to protect and promote the health of populations. From maintaining hygiene in schools and workplaces to ensuring food safety, it addresses a broad spectrum of issues that affect individual and societal well-being.² Research in this field spans topics such as disease epidemiology, vaccination strategies, health policy-making, and the impact of social factors on health. Advanced techniques like data analysis and epidemiological modeling further empower scientists to tackle global health challenges effectively.³

Occupational health plays a crucial role in ensuring a safer and healthier working environment by predicting, identifying, and managing the risks workers face. It serves as the backbone of the second vital component of the healthcare system. The ultimate goal is to promote both physical and mental well-being for individuals across various professions.⁴ Within this field, the focus is on critical issues such as assessing and controlling workplace hazards, preventing occupational diseases, and supporting mental health in work settings.⁵ In high-risk industries such as chemicals, mining, and construction, occupational health is essential for identifying and mitigating these dangers. Furthermore, ergonomics, which emphasizes the design of workspaces to prevent physical injuries and musculoskeletal disorders, is a key aspect that cannot be overlooked in creating healthier work environments.⁶

Environmental health extensively examines critical factors such as air pollution, water contamination, climate change, and waste management. Managing air pollution presents a significant challenge, as it is directly linked to severe health issues, including respiratory and cardiovascular diseases, as well as cancer. Ensuring access to clean drinking water and effectively treating wastewater are equally vital for preventing infectious diseases and promoting public well-being.^7,8 Furthermore, reducing noise pollution and addressing the health risks associated with urban traffic and environmental noise are essential, particularly in densely populated areas. These risks are known to cause sleep disturbances, increased stress levels, and cardiovascular problems.⁹ Broadly speaking, research in environmental health lays the groundwork for developing effective public health policies and preventive measures aimed at mitigating the harmful effects of environmental hazards on human well-being.

The importance and complexity of these topics have made reputable journals in Public Health, The significance and intricacy of these topics have established reputable journals in Public Health, Environmental Health, and Occupational Health (PHEOH) essential sources for groundbreaking research. These journals are widely recognized for publishing innovative studies that address critical health issues across various disciplines. PHEOH journals concentrate on high-impact research aimed at improving health outcomes for individuals, workplaces, and communities. Their objective is to connect science with practice, offering solutions to real-world challenges while enhancing our understanding of health and sustainability.¹⁰ By emphasizing the interdisciplinary nature of health sciences, these journals promote collaboration among researchers, policymakers, and professionals. They provide a trusted platform for sharing evidence-based insights, helping to shape policies, guide practical applications, and elevate health standards across diverse areas.¹¹

In the dynamic field of research, the ability to track and analyze academic trends plays a crucial role in advancing scientific knowledge. The concept of “bibliometrics,” derived from the Greek terms “Biblio” (book) and “metric” (measurement), provides a framework for quantitatively studying scholarly work.¹² As a well-established and valuable research tool, bibliometrics enables the objective evaluation of the growth, distribution, and influence of research across various academic domains. Through the use of advanced statistical and mathematical methods, bibliometrics examines a range of scholarly outputs from journals to articles by identifying emerging patterns, tracking the distribution of research, and mapping the development of specific fields of study.¹³ Additionally, bibliometric tools allow researchers to gather data from key academic databases such as Scopus, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and PubMed. This data is then organized for analysis, providing clear visual representations that help researchers gain insights into research trends and future directions.^14,15

The position of a journal in quartiles, Q1 to Q4, reflects variability in visibility, citation potential, and editorial standards, among other metrics. It is possible to compare the publication pattern across quartiles to determine whether priorities of research, geographical contributions, and thematic hotspots vary systematically across high-impact and lower-impact journals. Such stratification is of particular relevance in PHEOH, as funding availability, regional health priorities, and global crises can all shape research agendas. Up to now, no study has comprehensively compared the entire Scopus-indexed PHEOH journal landscape across all four quartiles using bibliometric analysis. This gap in prior research limits our understanding of how journal tier might influence topic selection, productivity disparities, and knowledge dissemination in these critical fields. Consequently, the present study had four separate aims:

1. Describe the distribution of publications across Scimago quartiles for PHEOH journals from 2016 – 2024.
2. Identify the most productive countries, institutions, and authors within each quartile.
3. Map research hotspots and thematic clusters via keyword co-occurrence analysis.
4. Compare temporal trends and citation impact for dominant topics across journal tiers.

The overall objective of this work is to provide researchers, editors, and policymakers with data-based insight concerning the changing research landscape of public, environmental, and occupational health based on the two previous objectives.

Methods

Journal selection

This study targeted all active journals classified under the Scopus subject category “Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health” within the broader area “Medicine”. According to the Scimago Journal & Country Rank database (accessed May 2024), 654 journals met these criteria. To ensure balanced representation across impact levels, journals were stratified by their 2023 Scimago Journal Rank (SJR) quartiles (Q1–Q4). From each quartile, 25 journals were randomly selected using a computer-generated random number sequence, resulting in a final sample of 100 journals.

Rationale for sampling strategy

Although analysing the entire population of 654 journals would have been ideal, resource and time constraints (particularly the manual verification required for a substantial proportion of lower-quartile journals) made full coverage impractical. The stratified random sampling of 25 journals per quartile was chosen to (a) maintain proportional representation across impact tiers, (b) ensure sufficient statistical power for quartile-level comparisons, and (c) remain consistent with similar large-scale bibliometric studies that typically analyse 80–150 journals when examining stratified journal populations.^16–18

Data retrieval

Scopus was queried between 1–15 June 2024 using the SOURCE-ID of the 100 selected journals. The publication period was restricted to 2016–2024 to avoid incomplete 2025 data. All document types (articles, reviews, editorials, letters, etc.) were included to reflect the complete scholarly output of the journals. A total of 70,580 documents were exported in BibTeX and CSV formats, including title, authors, affiliations, author keywords, indexed keywords, publication year, and citation counts.

Search strategy transparency

Journal selection was based on the Scopus SOURCE-ID (SRCID) of the randomly selected 25 journals per quartile (Q1–Q4). For each quartile, the following general search syntax structure was applied in Scopus:

(SRCID() OR SRCID() OR … OR SRCID())

AND PUBYEAR > 2015 AND PUBYEAR < 2026

Parentheses were applied to ensure the correct logical grouping of the SOURCE-IDs. The complete list of the 100 selected journals and their corresponding SOURCE-IDs is provided in Supplementary Appendix 1. No restrictions were applied regarding document type, language, or subject subcategory. All document types indexed in Scopus were included to reflect the comprehensive scholarly output of the selected journals. Due to Scopus export limitations, data for each quartile were exported separately in CSV and BibTeX formats and subsequently prepared for analysis.

Data analysis

Descriptive statistics were performed using Microsoft Excel. Bibliometric mapping was conducted using VOSviewer version 1.6.20. Separate co-occurrence networks were created for author keywords and indexed keywords for each quartile.

The minimum occurrence threshold was iteratively adjusted within a range of 30–50 for each quartile to generate approximately 100 nodes per network, ensuring comparability across quartiles.

Co-occurrence networks were constructed using the full counting method with association strength normalization (default VOSviewer setting). Clustering was performed using the modularity-based algorithm with the LinLog layout to enhance cluster separation and thematic interpretability.

The following visualizations were generated:

• Network visualization with clustering
• Overlay visualization by average publication year
• Overlay visualization by average citations per document

Total link strength (TLS), cluster composition, and temporal trends were extracted for interpretation.

Data preprocessing

No manual synonym merging or term harmonization was performed before co-occurrence analysis. Author keywords and indexed keywords were analyzed as provided by Scopus to preserve the original author-intended terminology and to avoid introducing subjective bias through manual term aggregation.

Institutional names and author identities were retained as indexed in Scopus without additional normalization. As the primary focus of the study was thematic keyword co-occurrence rather than author-level or institution-level network centrality analysis, raw indexing was considered methodologically appropriate.

Ethical considerations

Only publicly available bibliometric data were used; no human or animal subjects were involved.

Results

Distribution of Journals and Published Documents

Between 2016 and 2024, the 100 selected journals published a total of 70,580 documents indexed in Scopus. The distribution across quartiles was markedly uneven: Q1 journals accounted for 26,583 documents (37.7%), Q2 for 17,869 (25.3%), Q4 for 15,619 (22.1%), and Q3 for 10,509 (14.9%). Thus, the top quartile (Q1) contributed more than one-third of all publications, while Q3 journals had the lowest share.

Analysis of the Most Productive Countries, Institutes, and Authors

In the Q1 to Q3 categories, the United States was the most productive country, while in the Q4 category, Pakistan was the most productive country.

Analysis of organizations revealed that the European Center for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) in Stockholm, Sweden, Harvard Medical School in Boston, United States, Federal Scientific Center for Medical and Preventive Health Risk Management, and the Pak Emirates military hospital National University were the most productive institutes in the Q1 to Q4 journal categories, respectively.

Galea S, with 116 documents, Agarwal A., with 54 documents, Zaitseva N.V., with 51 documents, and Panknin Hardy-TH, with 85 documents, were the most productive authors in the Q1 to Q4 journal categories, respectively.

Research Hotspots in Public Health, Environmental, and Occupational Health

Co-occurrence analysis was conducted to identify high-frequency keywords that show hot topics in each PHEOH journal category. We performed two separate co-occurrence analyses for each category with respect to the author keywords and index keywords. In all four categories, most author keywords represented the main topics of the documents, while most index keywords indicated the study settings. Based on the analysis of author keywords, we identified 6 (100), 4 (101), 7 (105), and 3 (100) clusters (nodes) for Q1 to Q4 categories, respectively. Co-occurrence analysis using index keywords showed 5 (100), 4 (100), 4 (101), and 6 (101) clusters (nodes) for the Q1 to Q4 categories, respectively.

It is worth noting that for each co-occurrence analysis, various thresholds were set for the minimum number of times a keyword had to appear to achieve approximately 100 nodes on a thematic map. The most common author keyword across all quartile categories (Q1 to Q4) was “COVID-19”. Furthermore, the keyword with the highest Total Link Strength (TLS) represented the primary focus of research within each quartile. In terms of indexed keywords, “humans” had the highest frequency of occurrence across all categories ( Table 1). The top 10 authors and indexed keywords for each quartile, ranked based on frequency, are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1. Scimago Categories and Detailed Node Data Derived from Documents Indexed in Scopus.

Journal Category	Nodes (Terms)	Author Keywords				Nodes (Terms)	Index Keywords
		Weight		Score			Weight		Score
		Citations	Year	TLS	Occurrences		Citations	Year	TLS	Occurrences
Q1	Covid-19	19.72	2022.01	2078	1287	Human	19.87	2020.33	196146	22567
	HIV	18.02	2019.92	1262	894	Female	21.03	2020.17	127234	10665
	Mental health	20.26	2020.66	897	713	Male	21.55	2020.15	117490	9535
	Public health	18.56	2021.05	1169	632	Article	23.17	2020.47	106891	9510
	Epidemiology	20.24	2020.31	773	532	Adult	21.63	2020.30	109612	8837
	Depression	17.01	2020.65	628	400	Middle-aged	24.33	2019.98	63435	4570
	Harm reduction	15.26	2021.36	383	396	Controlled study	18.80	2020.54	51729	4090
	Surveillance	18.70	2021.34	563	306	Adolescent	23.44	2019.95	53589	3937
	Sars-covid-2	24.03	2021.97	583	262	Major clinical study	22.80	2020.26	55521	3836
	Mortality	15.39	2020.84	301	246	Public health	21.25	2020.09	28447	3695
Q2	Covid-19	11.86	2021.81	904	948	Human	8.50	2020.32	134039	14759
	HIV	6.79	2019.52	1088	771	Article	6.84	2020.79	94040	8897
	Mental health	10.70	2020.98	311	364	Female	8.02	2020.25	91545	7710
	Primary health care	8.81	2020.30	232	353	Male	8.17	2020.22	89863	7515
	Epidemiology	9.39	2020.14	436	347	Adult	7.61	2020.35	84111	6859
	Public health	7.92	2020.42	226	293	Major clinical study	6.96	2020.47	47412	3531
	Prevention	10.05	2020.03	455	271	Cross-sectional study	8.06	2020.45	37288	2958
	Risk factors	8.09	2020.59	230	249	Controlled study	7.29	2020.75	34942	2841
	Children	12	2020.31	200	249	Middle-aged	8.50	2019.67	40611	2895
	Aids	7.95	2017.96	520	223	Brazil	8.23	2019.84	26237	2624
Q3	Covid-19	4.10	2022.14	319	312	Human	6.83	2019.97	56858	7053
	Mental health	6.24	2020.89	200	251	Article	6.61	2020.29	49434	5678
	HIV	6.27	2019.86	126	137	Male	6.70	2019.84	39670	4304
	Evaluation	9.42	2019.64	89	132	Female	6.73	2019.87	36309	3259
	Sanitation	7.36	2020.17	159	126	Adult	6.37	2019.96	35105	3107
	Physical activity	5.79	2020.52	124	118	Controlled study	5.81	2020.37	33664	3017
	Quality improvement	3.14	2020.79	53	115	Middle-aged	7.36	2019.46	14722	1380
	High altitude	9.02	2020.55	73	113	Major clinical study	6.31	2019.97	16983	1317
	Children	3.83	2020.33	99	112	Procedures	9.80	2018.88	15846	1310
	Depression	7.06	2021.34	161	110	Aged	6.56	2019.82	10391	1081
Q4	Covid-19	4.22	2021.94	602	637	Human	5.93	2019.92	48771	5292
	Occupational health	4.62	2021.21	178	185	Article	5.72	2020.33	41597	3939
	obesity	3.51	2020.08	183	179	Male	6.72	2019.99	39166	3890
	epidemiology	3.79	2020.29	151	179	Female	6.67	2020.01	36486	3042
	children	2.15	2020.20	104	176	Adult	6.79	2020.05	36022	3021
	depression	5.80	2021.26	223	168	Middle-aged	9.30	2019.49	34924	2925
	Public health	2.72	2020.35	181	163	Major clinical study	6.88	2020.15	21065	1516
	Mental health	7.64	2021.27	201	158	Controlled study	6.04	2020.47	19684	721
	Risk factors	4.42	2020.27	123	136	Questionnaire	8.29	2020.17	16090	1395
	Quality of life	1.96	2020.44	98	134	Cross-sectional study	7.17	2020.20	12197	985

To view the analysis based on other keywords, see Figures 1 to 12, and to view the analysis based on the index keyword, see Supplementary File Figures 13 to 24.

Figure 1. Thematic Map of Document Production in Q1-Category PHEOH Journals: A Co-Occurrence Analysis of Author Keywords.

Figure 2. Thematic Map of Document Production in Q2-Category PHEOH Journals: A Co-Occurrence Analysis of Author Keywords.

Figure 3. Thematic Map of Document Production in Q3-Category PHEOH Journals: A Co-Occurrence Analysis of Author Keywords.

Figure 4. Thematic Map of Document Production in Q4-Category PHEOH Journals: A Co-Occurrence Analysis of Author Keywords.

Figure 5. An Overlay Visualization of the Most Frequent Topics in the Q1 Category, Based on Average Publication Year.

Figure 6. An Overlay Visualization of the Most Frequent Topics in the Q2 Category, Based on Average Publication Year.

Figure 7. An Overlay Visualization of the Most Frequent Topics in the Q3 Category, Based on Average Publication Year.

Figure 8. An Overlay Visualization of the Most Frequent Topics in the Q4 Category, Based on Average Publication Year.

Figure 9. An Overlay Visualization of the Most Frequent Topics in the Q1 Category, Based on Average Citation Counts.

Figure 10. An Overlay Visualization of the Most Frequent Topics in the Q2 Category, Based on Average Citation Counts.

Figure 11. An Overlay Visualization of the Most Frequent Topics in the Q3 Category, Based on Average Citation Counts.

Figure 12. An Overlay Visualization of the Most Frequent Topics in the Q4 Category, Based on Average Citation Counts.

Temporal trends and citation impact

Among the top 10 author keywords in categories Q1 to Q4, “sars-covid-2”, “children”, “evaluation”, and “mental health” were the most cited with an average of 24.03, 12, 9.42, and 7.64citations, respectively ( Table 1 and Figures 9-12).

In addition, “COVID-19” was the most up-to-date topic among the top 10 author keywords in categories Q1, Q2, Q3, and Q4 with an average publication year of 2022.01, 2021.81, 2022.14, and 2021.94, respectively ( Table 1 and Figures 5-8).

Discussion

This bibliometric study was conducted to explore the bibliometric characteristics of PHEOH journals across different Scimago categories. Our analysis revealed that the most common author keyword in all quartile categories (Q1 to Q4) was “COVID-19”. Additionally, the keyword with the highest Total Link Strength (TLS) represented the central research focus within each category. Notably, “COVID-19” was also identified as the most current topic among the top 10 author keywords in the Q1, Q2, Q3, and Q4 categories. Based on indexed keywords, “humans” had the highest frequency of occurrence across all quartiles. Furthermore, among the top 10 author keywords in Q1 to Q4, terms such as “SARS-CoV-2,” “children,” “assessment,” and “mental health” received the highest citations.

The findings of our study uphold the findings of prior studies: COVID-19 became a focal point in scientific research published from 2016 to 2025.¹⁹ Keywords such as “COVID-19,” “SARS-CoV-2,” and “mental health” consistently stood out, which is not surprising given the radical increase in pandemic-related studies during this time. This has also been noted in other bibliometric research works. The preeminence of COVID-19 publications in well-known scholarly works is confirmed by others’ findings,^19,20 who made the same observations about pandemic-related issues in top-tier journals. The common recurrence of “mental health” in Q1 and Q2 journals is probably consistent with widespread concerns about the psychological effects of the pandemic, highlighted.²¹

Interestingly, our analysis indicated that research productivity was not equal; the USA in Q1 to Q3 and Pakistan in Q4 emerged as the leading contributors. Regional disparities may be associated with differences in funding conditions for research, the quality of research infrastructure, and the respective country’s access to quality journals.

Based on the quartile comparisons and the distribution of publication counts and citation patterns, HIV, mental health, and occupational health emerged as consistently prominent thematic areas within PHEOH journals during the study period. Their high representation and citation impact suggest sustained scholarly attention and thematic centrality within the field.

This prominence likely reflects broader global health priorities and evolving research agendas, particularly in the post-COVID-19 period.

Because our study specifically compares the bibliometric characteristics of Q1 to Q4 PHEOH journals, it stands out as unique. As a result, a direct and comprehensive comparison of our findings with those from previous studies isn’t feasible.

Limitation

Like any study, this one has its own set of limitations. To begin with, we relied on Scopus Classification Criteria (SjR) for gathering our data. This means we only included documents from journals specifically categorized under public health, environment, and occupation. As a result, any articles published in journals outside these categories or in journals not indexed in Scopus weren’t part of our analysis.

Additionally, because of the sheer number of documents and journals in these categories, combined with a lack of software tools to streamline the process, we had to narrow our analysis.

A total of 654 journals were randomly chosen from a collection of 100 journals covering the period from 2016 to 2025 for our analysis.

Additionally, the study’s methodology restricted our ability to distinguish among the domains of public health, environment, and occupation, which may be regarded as an additional limitation.

Conclusion

In summary, this bibliometric analysis highlights how research priorities in PHEOH journals differ across Scimago quartiles. The dominant topic within this category is “COVID-19,” with key themes like SARS-CoV-2, “children,” “assessment,” and “mental health” garnering the most citations.

These findings shed light on the current trends and focus areas driving the scientific agendas of PHEOH researchers and journals across various tiers.

Consent for publication

The authors of this paper have read the final version of the manuscript and approved to submission of the paper to the journal.

Using Artificial Intelligence Chatbots

None.

Data availability

No primary datasets were generated or collected in this study. All analyses were based on bibliographic data retrieved from the Scopus database using predefined journal lists and search strategies. all information required to reproduce the study, including the list of selected journals, the data source, the time frame, and the analytical methods, is fully described in the Methods section. Researchers with legitimate access to Scopus can replicate the analyses by following the procedures outlined in this article.

Acknowledgments

This study is related to the project NO.1404/323/28 from the Student Research Committee, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. We also appreciate the “Student Research Committee” and “Research & Technology Chancellor” in Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences for their financial support of this study. We want to express our sincere gratitude and appreciation to the Department of Epidemiology and Department of Occupational Health and Safety Engineering, School of Public Health and Safety, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences (Ethical code: IR.SBMU.RETECH.RE.1404.436).

References

1. Sweileh WM, Zyoud SH, Al-Jabi SW, et al.: Public, environmental, and occupational health research activity in Arab countries: bibliometric, citation, and collaboration analysis. Arch. Public Health. 2015; 73: 1–12. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
2. Haghdoost AA, Naghibzadeh-Tahami A, Dehnavieh R: Pathology of the Health Sector in Iran’s Health System: A Future Oriented Viewpoint. J. Rafsanjan Univ. Med. Sci. 2024; 23(1): 76–87.
3. Gary F, Lotas M: A population health approach to health disparities for nurses: Care of vulnerable populations. Springer Publishing Company; 2022.
4. Mosadeghrad AM, Ismailpour MRM, Shahtaheri SJ, et al.: Joint comprehensive plan of action for occupational health. J. Health Safety Work. 2024; 14(1): 1–19. Publisher Full Text
5. Peckham TK, Baker MG, Camp JE, et al.: Creating a future for occupational health. Ann. Work Expo. Health. 2017; 61(1): 3–15. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
6. Amponsah-Tawiah K, Mensah J: Occupational health and safety and organizational commitment: Evidence from the Ghanaian mining industry. Saf. Health Work. 2016; 7(3): 225–230. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
7. Hanjra MA, Blackwell J, Carr G, et al.: Wastewater irrigation and environmental health: Implications for water governance and public policy. Int. J. Hyg. Environ. Health. 2012; 215(3): 255–269. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
8. Mishra S, Kumar R, Kumar M: Use of treated sewage or wastewater as an irrigation water for agricultural purposes-Environmental, health, and economic impacts. Total Environ. Res. Themes. 2023; 6: 100051. Publisher Full Text
9. Jacyna M, Wasiak M, Lewczuk K, et al.: Noise and environmental pollution from transport: decisive problems in developing ecologically efficient transport systems. J. Vibroeng. 2017; 19(7): 5639–5655. Publisher Full Text
10. Atanyan A, Muradyan D, Mkrtchyan M, et al.: Parental oral health knowledge and plaque index of their children in rural communities of Armenia. Eur. J. Pub. Health. 2023; 33(Supplement_2): ckad160. 785. Publisher Full Text
11. Taneri P, Civaner M, Devane D: Which journal indicator to consider when submitting a paper on Public Health area? Eur. J. Pub. Health. 2023; 33(Supplement_2): ckad160. 786. Publisher Full Text
12. Farokhizadeh F, Zarei A, Rastgar A, et al.: Designing and Illustrating the Knowledge Network of Digital Banking Studies with a Bibliometric Approach. Scientometric Res. J. 2024; 10(1, spring & summer): 99–120.
13. Mao G, Zou H, Chen G, et al.: Past, current and future of biomass energy research: A bibliometric analysis. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 2015; 52: 1823–1833. Publisher Full Text
14. Aria M, Cuccurullo C: bibliometrix: An R-tool for comprehensive science mapping analysis. J. Informet. 2017; 11(4): 959–975. Publisher Full Text
15. Zarei F, Nourahmadi M, Sadeqi H: Application of recommendation systems in the development of Robo Advisors: A Bibliometrics Method. J. Asset Manag. Financing. 2023; 11(3): 69–96.
16. Chang Y-W, Nabavi M: Comparison of disciplines, topics, and methods in studies in Journal of Informetrics and Scientometrics from 2016 to 2020. Scientometrics. 2024; 129(3): 1415–1439. Publisher Full Text
17. Meseko C, Edet UO, Henshaw O, et al.: Bibliometric analysis of highly pathogenic avian influenza research globally from 2003 to 2023. Germs. 2025; 15(1): 11–25. Publisher Full Text
18. Harzing A-W, Alakangas S: Microsoft Academic: is the phoenix getting wings? Scientometrics. 2017; 110(1): 371–383. Publisher Full Text
19. Okhovati M, Arshadi H: COVID-19 research progress: Bibliometrics and visualization analysis. Med. J. Islam Repub. Iran. 2021; 35: 20. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
20. Penninx BWJH, Benros ME, Klein RS, et al.: How COVID-19 shaped mental health: from infection to pandemic effects. Nat. Med. 2022; 28(10): 2027–2037. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
21. Jones EAK, Mitra AK, Bhuiyan AR: Impact of COVID-19 on Mental Health in Adolescents: A Systematic Review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health. 2021; 18(5). PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 2

VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 27 Dec 2025

Author details Author details

Mehran Rostami Varnousfaderani
Roles: Conceptualization, Software, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

Shiva Mohammadjani Kumeleh
Roles: Software, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

Neda Izadi
Roles: Conceptualization, Supervision, Validation, Writing – Original Draft Preparation

Competing interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Grant information

This study was supported by the Student Research Committee, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Grant No.1404/323/28. The funding agency did not play any role in the planning, conduct, and reporting or in the decision to submit the paper for publication.
The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Article Versions (2)

version 2

Revised

Published: 04 Mar 2026, 14:1468

https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.174865.2

version 1

Published: 27 Dec 2025, 14:1468

https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.174865.1

© 2026 Rostami Varnousfaderani M et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Download

Export To

metrics

	Views	Downloads
F1000Research	-	-
PubMed Central Data from PMC are received and updated monthly.	-	-

Citations

SEE MORE DETAILS

CITE

how to cite this article

Rostami Varnousfaderani M, Mohammadjani Kumeleh S and Izadi N. Bibliometric Analysis of Publications in Scopus-Indexed Public, Environmental and Occupational Health Journals Across Scimago Quartiles (2016–2024) [version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations]. F1000Research 2026, 14:1468 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.174865.2)

NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.

track

receive updates on this article

Track an article to receive email alerts on any updates to this article.

Open Peer Review

Current Reviewer Status: ?

Key to Reviewer Statuses VIEW HIDE

ApprovedThe paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested

Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit.

Not approvedFundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions

Version 2

VERSION 2

PUBLISHED 04 Mar 2026

Revised

Views

Reviewer Report 15 Apr 2026

Zulfiya Kannazarova, National Research University, Tashkent, Uzbekistan

Approved with Reservations

https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.197007.r468632

General Recommendation: Minor Revision (with some moderate methodological clarifications required)

This manuscript presents a bibliometric analysis of 70,580 documents from 100 Scopus-indexed journals in Public, Environmental, and Occupational Health (PHEOH), stratified across Scimago quartiles (Q1–Q4). Using VOSviewer, the authors analyze publication output, geographic contributions, and keyword co-occurrence patterns. The study highlights the dominance of COVID-19-related research and identifies disparities in productivity across quartiles and countries.
The topic is relevant and timely, and the manuscript contributes to understanding research trends in PHEOH literature. However, several methodological and interpretative issues require clarification before indexing.

Major Comments:

1. Sampling Strategy and Representativeness
The study includes 100 journals (25 per quartile) out of 654 eligible journals. While the authors justify this based on feasibility, concerns remain: The manuscript does not sufficiently demonstrate that the sample is representative of the entire population. Random selection without stratification (e.g., by region, publisher, or subfield) may introduce sampling bias. The equal number of journals per quartile may distort the actual distribution of journals across quartiles.

Recommendation: Provide additional justification for sample size and selection method, or include a sensitivity discussion on how results might differ with full dataset inclusion.

2. Lack of Keyword Harmonization

The authors explicitly state that no synonym merging or term standardization was performed. This may lead to fragmentation of conceptually identical terms (e.g., “COVID-19” vs. “SARS-CoV-2”). It potentially affects the accuracy of co-occurrence networks and thematic clustering.

Recommendation: Discuss the implications of this choice more critically and consider including a supplementary analysis with harmonized keywords.

3. Interpretation of Indexed Keywords

The finding that “humans” is the most frequent indexed keyword across quartiles is not particularly informative. This likely reflects indexing conventions rather than meaningful thematic trends.

Recommendation: Clarify this limitation and avoid over-interpreting such generic indexed terms.

4. Overemphasis on COVID-19
While the prominence of COVID-19 is expected: The manuscript does not sufficiently explore whether this dominance obscures other important long-term research trends. The analysis would benefit from distinguishing pre-pandemic vs. pandemic vs. post-pandemic periods.

Recommendation: Include a temporal segmentation analysis or expand discussion on how COVID-19 may have distorted thematic priorities.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Yes
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Yes
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Partly
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Yes
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Yes

Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise: Water ScienceMechanical EngineeringAgricultural Engineering

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above.

CITE

Report a concern

Respond or Comment

Views

Reviewer Report 27 Mar 2026

Steffen Lemke, CAU Kiel University, Kiel, Germany

Approved

https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.197007.r466978

The authors present a brief descriptive analysis of the state of recent research in Public Health, Environmental Health, and Occupational Health (PHEOH), based on Scopus data and SCImago journal quartiles covering the output of 100 journals over the years 2016-2024. They use VOSviewer to visualize co-occurrences of frequent author- and indexed keywords, particularly focusing on respective works' average publication years and citation counts.

I believe the article to be methodologically sound and the descriptions of the processes of data collection and processing to be clear. I do however have a number of suggestions that the authors might want to consider for future improvements of the article:

First, as the SCImago quartiles are of such central meaning to the article's methodology, I believe that adding one or two sentences on what precisely a journal's quartile is based on might help readers to better assess the results. The authors already do hint at journal quartiles typically being about aspects like "visibility, citation potential, and editorial standards", but a bit more concrete information on how the quartiles used in the study are calculated exactly would be helpful.

Second, the study includes an "Analysis of the Most Productive Countries, Institutes, and Authors", does however provide only a very brief selection of results concerning these aspects, by only mentioning a few outstanding entities from each category. The informative value of the study could be improved substantially by reporting and discussing more comprehensive data from this sub-analysis, e.g., in tabular form.

Third, the study's discussion remains rather brief. I believe the article could benefit significantly from a more extensive reflection on what the descriptive findings imply about the state of PHEOH research. What can we take from these results for practice? Are there any recommendations for the scholarly community and/or policy makers that the authors can derive from their analysis?

Also, the article contains a few minor language-related issues that I believe should be addressed to improve its comprehensibility:

In the article's very first sentence, what does "this vision" refer to?
The structure of the fourth paragraph's first sentence ("The importance and complexity...") seems erroneous.
In the Introduction's last sentence, the authors refer to "the two previous objectives" - as the preceding list of aims contains four items, a clarification which two of these are meant here might be helpful.
Near the end of the subsection "Research Hotspots in Public Health, Environmental, and Occupational Health", the text at one point mentions "other keywords", where I believe what is meant is "author keywords".

Finally: perhaps that is just me, but I couldn't find the article's supplementary material, which the article refers to in multiple places.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Yes
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Yes
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Yes
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Not applicable
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Yes

Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise: Computer Science; Information Science; Bibliometrics; Scholarly Communcation; Web Science

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

CITE

Report a concern

Respond or Comment

Version 1

VERSION 1

PUBLISHED 27 Dec 2025

Views

Reviewer Report 14 Feb 2026

Dwi Fitria Al Husaeni, Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia, Bandung, West Java, Indonesia

Approved with Reservations

https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.192803.r453053

Article Summary:

This article presents a bibliometric analysis of Scopus-indexed journals in the Public, Environmental, and Occupational Health (PHEOH) category based on the Scimago Quartile classification (Q1–Q4) for the period 2016–2024. Of the 654 journals that met the criteria, the authors selected 100 journals (25 per quartile) through stratified random sampling.

A total of 70,580 documents were analyzed using Microsoft Excel and VOSviewer (v1.6.20). The bibliometric analysis included the distribution of publications across quartiles, the most productive countries, institutions, and authors, keyword co-occurrence analysis (authors and indexed keywords), and temporal trends and citation impact. The results show that Q1 accounts for the largest proportion of publications (37.7%), with the topic "COVID-19" being the most dominant keyword across all quartiles. The keyword "humans" appears most frequently among indexed keywords. Topics related to SARS-CoV-2 and mental health received the highest average citations. The study concludes that the COVID-19 pandemic significantly shaped the PHEOH research agenda across all journal quartiles.

Evaluation

In general, the article's systematic structure and argumentation flow are quite clear. However, there are weaknesses in the literature's novelty. The proportion of old references is still dominant. Based on the bibliography (pages 14–15), References before 2018 9 articles (43%), References 2018–2021 7 articles (33%), References 2022–2025 5 articles (24%). This means that less than 30% of the references come from the last 3 years (2022–2025). For a bibliometric study discussing trends up to 2024, this proportion is relatively low. The latest literature related to the Development of the latest bibliometric methodology, the structural impact of COVID-19 on global publications, the latest SJR-based journal quartile and stratification analysis, should be increased, especially from 2022–2024. Authors can add a minimum of 5–8 recent (≤3 years) relevant references. Strengthen the Introduction and Discussion sections with a synthesis of the latest literature, not just early COVID-19 studies (2020–2021).
The bibliometric design with stratified interquartile sampling is appropriate and logical. The use of VOSviewer for co-occurrence analysis conforms to standard bibliometric practices. However, there are limitations in technical transparency that impact replication.
The methods section is not detailed enough to guarantee full replication. Methodological deficiencies include the omission of a list of 100 journals. Furthermore, the authors state that journals were randomly selected from 654 journals. However, they do not provide a list of journal SOURCE-IDs in the article. There is also no appendix listing the selected journals. The search syntax (search string) is not displayed. It is not explained whether filters were applied to specific document types, languages, or affiliation cleaning. Furthermore, the authors do not explain whether the data was exported in a single batch or multiple batches. The keyword threshold determination is also not transparent. The article mentions a threshold of 30–50 to produce ±100 nodes, but does not explain the specific thresholds per quartile. The technical rationale for selecting LinLog/modularity is not explained. It does not explain whether synonym cleaning was performed (e.g., COVID-19 vs. SARS-CoV-2). There is no data preprocessing information. Was institutional name normalization performed? Was author duplication cleaning performed? How were term variations combined (e.g., "covid 19" vs. "covid-19")? The author could add an explanation of the VOSviewer parameters used (counting method, normalization, clustering resolution) when displaying the visualization. Without this information, the study cannot be independently replicated.
The conclusions regarding COVID-19 dominance and productivity disparities between quartiles are supported by tables and visualizations (Table 1, Figures 1–12). However, the claim that HIV and mental health topics "have a greater chance of being accepted" (page 10) is speculative and needs to be tempered or supported by additional data. This study makes an interesting contribution by systematically comparing bibliometric characteristics across quartiles, a relatively rare undertaking. The design of the study is relevant, and the methodology is generally sound. However, for the article to be scientifically sound and fully reproducible, significant improvements in the transparency of the methods and updating of the literature are needed.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Partly
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Yes
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

No
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Not applicable
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Yes

Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise: bibliometric, Information Systems, Computer Science, Computer Science Education, Learning Technology

CITE

Report a concern

Author Response 04 Mar 2026

Mehran Rostami Varnousfaderani, Epidemiology, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences School of Public Health and Safety, Tehran, Iran

04 Mar 2026

Author Response
1. In general, the article's systematic structure and argumentation flow are quite clear. However, there are weaknesses in the literature's novelty. The proportion of old references is still dominant.
... Continue reading
In general, the article's systematic structure and argumentation flow are quite clear. However, there are weaknesses in the literature's novelty. The proportion of old references is still dominant. Based on the bibliography (pages 14–15), References before 2018 9 articles (43%), References 2018–2021 7 articles (33%), References 2022–2025 5 articles (24%). This means that less than 30% of the references come from the last 3 years (2022–2025). For a bibliometric study discussing trends up to 2024, this proportion is relatively low. The latest literature related to the Development of the latest bibliometric methodology, the structural impact of COVID-19 on global publications, the latest SJR-based journal quartile and stratification analysis, should be increased, especially from 2022–2024. Authors can add a minimum of 5–8 recent (≤3 years) relevant references. Strengthen the Introduction and Discussion sections with a synthesis of the latest literature, not just early COVID-19 studies (2020–2021).

Answer: We sincerely thank the referee for this valuable suggestion. We agree that including more recent sources would enhance the relevance and scientific credibility of the article. In response, we have carefully updated the sections in question by incorporating more recent studies (2022-2024).

The bibliometric design with stratified interquartile sampling is appropriate and logical. The use of VOSviewer for co-occurrence analysis conforms to standard bibliometric practices. However, there are limitations in technical transparency that impact replication.

The methods section is not detailed enough to guarantee full replication. Methodological deficiencies include the omission of a list of 100 journals. Furthermore, the authors state that journals were randomly selected from 654 journals. However, they do not provide a list of journal SOURCE-IDs in the article. There is also no appendix listing the selected journals. The search syntax (search string) is not displayed. It is not explained whether filters were applied to specific document types, languages, or affiliation cleaning. Furthermore, the authors do not explain whether the data was exported in a single batch or multiple batches. The keyword threshold determination is also not transparent. The article mentions a threshold of 30–50 to produce ±100 nodes, but does not explain the specific thresholds per quartile. The technical rationale for selecting LinLog/modularity is not explained. It does not explain whether synonym cleaning was performed (e.g., COVID-19 vs. SARS-CoV-2). There is no data preprocessing information. Was institutional name normalization performed? Was author duplication cleaning performed? How were term variations combined (e.g., "covid 19" vs. "covid-19")? The author could add an explanation of the VOSviewer parameters used (counting method, normalization, clustering resolution) when displaying the visualization. Without this information, the study cannot be independently replicated.

Answer: We sincerely thank the reviewer for highlighting the importance of methodological transparency and reproducibility. We fully agree that bibliometric studies must provide sufficient technical detail to allow independent replication. Accordingly, we have substantially revised and expanded the Methods section to improve transparency. Specifically:
Search Strategy Clarification
The exact search syntax structure used in Scopus has now been explicitly reported. Parentheses have been specified to ensure the correct logical grouping of SOURCE-IDs. The complete list of the 100 selected journals and their corresponding SOURCE-IDs has been provided in Supplementary Appendix 1.
Filtering and Data Export
We have clarified that no restrictions were applied regarding document type, language, or subcategory. We have specified that the data were exported separately for each quartile due to Scopus export limitations.
Threshold Determination
The process of iteratively adjusting minimum keyword occurrence thresholds (range: 30–50) to generate approximately 100 nodes per network has now been clearly described.
VOSviewer Parameter Specification
The counting method (full counting), normalization method (association strength), clustering approach (modularity-based clustering), and LinLog layout selection have now been explicitly reported.
Data Preprocessing Transparency
We have clarified that no manual synonym merging or institutional normalization was performed. Keywords were analyzed in their raw indexed form to preserve author-intended terminology and to avoid introducing subjective bias through manual aggregation. This approach enhances reproducibility, as future researchers can replicate the analysis using the same raw database export.
These revisions substantially improve the technical transparency of the manuscript and ensure that the study can now be independently replicated. We appreciate the reviewer’s constructive suggestions, which have strengthened the methodological rigor of the manuscript.

The conclusions regarding COVID-19 dominance and productivity disparities between quartiles are supported by tables and visualizations (Table 1, Figures 1–12). However, the claim that HIV and mental health topics "have a greater chance of being accepted" (page 10) is speculative and needs to be tempered or supported by additional data. This study makes an interesting contribution by systematically comparing bibliometric characteristics across quartiles, a relatively rare undertaking. The design of the study is relevant, and the methodology is generally sound. However, for the article to be scientifically sound and fully reproducible, significant improvements in the transparency of the methods and updating of the literature are needed.

Answer: We thank the reviewer for this important observation. We agree that the original wording could imply differential editorial acceptance probability, which was not directly assessed in our study. Accordingly, we have revised the Discussion section to remove speculative language and to clarify that our findings reflect thematic prominence and structural importance within the field rather than acceptance probability.
In general, the article's systematic structure and argumentation flow are quite clear. However, there are weaknesses in the literature's novelty. The proportion of old references is still dominant. Based on the bibliography (pages 14–15), References before 2018 9 articles (43%), References 2018–2021 7 articles (33%), References 2022–2025 5 articles (24%). This means that less than 30% of the references come from the last 3 years (2022–2025). For a bibliometric study discussing trends up to 2024, this proportion is relatively low. The latest literature related to the Development of the latest bibliometric methodology, the structural impact of COVID-19 on global publications, the latest SJR-based journal quartile and stratification analysis, should be increased, especially from 2022–2024. Authors can add a minimum of 5–8 recent (≤3 years) relevant references. Strengthen the Introduction and Discussion sections with a synthesis of the latest literature, not just early COVID-19 studies (2020–2021).

Answer: We sincerely thank the referee for this valuable suggestion. We agree that including more recent sources would enhance the relevance and scientific credibility of the article. In response, we have carefully updated the sections in question by incorporating more recent studies (2022-2024).

The bibliometric design with stratified interquartile sampling is appropriate and logical. The use of VOSviewer for co-occurrence analysis conforms to standard bibliometric practices. However, there are limitations in technical transparency that impact replication.

The methods section is not detailed enough to guarantee full replication. Methodological deficiencies include the omission of a list of 100 journals. Furthermore, the authors state that journals were randomly selected from 654 journals. However, they do not provide a list of journal SOURCE-IDs in the article. There is also no appendix listing the selected journals. The search syntax (search string) is not displayed. It is not explained whether filters were applied to specific document types, languages, or affiliation cleaning. Furthermore, the authors do not explain whether the data was exported in a single batch or multiple batches. The keyword threshold determination is also not transparent. The article mentions a threshold of 30–50 to produce ±100 nodes, but does not explain the specific thresholds per quartile. The technical rationale for selecting LinLog/modularity is not explained. It does not explain whether synonym cleaning was performed (e.g., COVID-19 vs. SARS-CoV-2). There is no data preprocessing information. Was institutional name normalization performed? Was author duplication cleaning performed? How were term variations combined (e.g., "covid 19" vs. "covid-19")? The author could add an explanation of the VOSviewer parameters used (counting method, normalization, clustering resolution) when displaying the visualization. Without this information, the study cannot be independently replicated.

Answer: We sincerely thank the reviewer for highlighting the importance of methodological transparency and reproducibility. We fully agree that bibliometric studies must provide sufficient technical detail to allow independent replication. Accordingly, we have substantially revised and expanded the Methods section to improve transparency. Specifically:
Search Strategy Clarification
The exact search syntax structure used in Scopus has now been explicitly reported. Parentheses have been specified to ensure the correct logical grouping of SOURCE-IDs. The complete list of the 100 selected journals and their corresponding SOURCE-IDs has been provided in Supplementary Appendix 1.
Filtering and Data Export
We have clarified that no restrictions were applied regarding document type, language, or subcategory. We have specified that the data were exported separately for each quartile due to Scopus export limitations.
Threshold Determination
The process of iteratively adjusting minimum keyword occurrence thresholds (range: 30–50) to generate approximately 100 nodes per network has now been clearly described.
VOSviewer Parameter Specification
The counting method (full counting), normalization method (association strength), clustering approach (modularity-based clustering), and LinLog layout selection have now been explicitly reported.
Data Preprocessing Transparency
We have clarified that no manual synonym merging or institutional normalization was performed. Keywords were analyzed in their raw indexed form to preserve author-intended terminology and to avoid introducing subjective bias through manual aggregation. This approach enhances reproducibility, as future researchers can replicate the analysis using the same raw database export.
These revisions substantially improve the technical transparency of the manuscript and ensure that the study can now be independently replicated. We appreciate the reviewer’s constructive suggestions, which have strengthened the methodological rigor of the manuscript.

The conclusions regarding COVID-19 dominance and productivity disparities between quartiles are supported by tables and visualizations (Table 1, Figures 1–12). However, the claim that HIV and mental health topics "have a greater chance of being accepted" (page 10) is speculative and needs to be tempered or supported by additional data. This study makes an interesting contribution by systematically comparing bibliometric characteristics across quartiles, a relatively rare undertaking. The design of the study is relevant, and the methodology is generally sound. However, for the article to be scientifically sound and fully reproducible, significant improvements in the transparency of the methods and updating of the literature are needed.

Answer: We thank the reviewer for this important observation. We agree that the original wording could imply differential editorial acceptance probability, which was not directly assessed in our study. Accordingly, we have revised the Discussion section to remove speculative language and to clarify that our findings reflect thematic prominence and structural importance within the field rather than acceptance probability.
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close
Report a concern
Respond or Comment

COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT

Author Response 04 Mar 2026

Mehran Rostami Varnousfaderani, Epidemiology, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences School of Public Health and Safety, Tehran, Iran

04 Mar 2026

Author Response
1. In general, the article's systematic structure and argumentation flow are quite clear. However, there are weaknesses in the literature's novelty. The proportion of old references is still dominant.
... Continue reading
In general, the article's systematic structure and argumentation flow are quite clear. However, there are weaknesses in the literature's novelty. The proportion of old references is still dominant. Based on the bibliography (pages 14–15), References before 2018 9 articles (43%), References 2018–2021 7 articles (33%), References 2022–2025 5 articles (24%). This means that less than 30% of the references come from the last 3 years (2022–2025). For a bibliometric study discussing trends up to 2024, this proportion is relatively low. The latest literature related to the Development of the latest bibliometric methodology, the structural impact of COVID-19 on global publications, the latest SJR-based journal quartile and stratification analysis, should be increased, especially from 2022–2024. Authors can add a minimum of 5–8 recent (≤3 years) relevant references. Strengthen the Introduction and Discussion sections with a synthesis of the latest literature, not just early COVID-19 studies (2020–2021).

Answer: We sincerely thank the referee for this valuable suggestion. We agree that including more recent sources would enhance the relevance and scientific credibility of the article. In response, we have carefully updated the sections in question by incorporating more recent studies (2022-2024).

The bibliometric design with stratified interquartile sampling is appropriate and logical. The use of VOSviewer for co-occurrence analysis conforms to standard bibliometric practices. However, there are limitations in technical transparency that impact replication.

The methods section is not detailed enough to guarantee full replication. Methodological deficiencies include the omission of a list of 100 journals. Furthermore, the authors state that journals were randomly selected from 654 journals. However, they do not provide a list of journal SOURCE-IDs in the article. There is also no appendix listing the selected journals. The search syntax (search string) is not displayed. It is not explained whether filters were applied to specific document types, languages, or affiliation cleaning. Furthermore, the authors do not explain whether the data was exported in a single batch or multiple batches. The keyword threshold determination is also not transparent. The article mentions a threshold of 30–50 to produce ±100 nodes, but does not explain the specific thresholds per quartile. The technical rationale for selecting LinLog/modularity is not explained. It does not explain whether synonym cleaning was performed (e.g., COVID-19 vs. SARS-CoV-2). There is no data preprocessing information. Was institutional name normalization performed? Was author duplication cleaning performed? How were term variations combined (e.g., "covid 19" vs. "covid-19")? The author could add an explanation of the VOSviewer parameters used (counting method, normalization, clustering resolution) when displaying the visualization. Without this information, the study cannot be independently replicated.

Answer: We sincerely thank the reviewer for highlighting the importance of methodological transparency and reproducibility. We fully agree that bibliometric studies must provide sufficient technical detail to allow independent replication. Accordingly, we have substantially revised and expanded the Methods section to improve transparency. Specifically:
Search Strategy Clarification
The exact search syntax structure used in Scopus has now been explicitly reported. Parentheses have been specified to ensure the correct logical grouping of SOURCE-IDs. The complete list of the 100 selected journals and their corresponding SOURCE-IDs has been provided in Supplementary Appendix 1.
Filtering and Data Export
We have clarified that no restrictions were applied regarding document type, language, or subcategory. We have specified that the data were exported separately for each quartile due to Scopus export limitations.
Threshold Determination
The process of iteratively adjusting minimum keyword occurrence thresholds (range: 30–50) to generate approximately 100 nodes per network has now been clearly described.
VOSviewer Parameter Specification
The counting method (full counting), normalization method (association strength), clustering approach (modularity-based clustering), and LinLog layout selection have now been explicitly reported.
Data Preprocessing Transparency
We have clarified that no manual synonym merging or institutional normalization was performed. Keywords were analyzed in their raw indexed form to preserve author-intended terminology and to avoid introducing subjective bias through manual aggregation. This approach enhances reproducibility, as future researchers can replicate the analysis using the same raw database export.
These revisions substantially improve the technical transparency of the manuscript and ensure that the study can now be independently replicated. We appreciate the reviewer’s constructive suggestions, which have strengthened the methodological rigor of the manuscript.

The conclusions regarding COVID-19 dominance and productivity disparities between quartiles are supported by tables and visualizations (Table 1, Figures 1–12). However, the claim that HIV and mental health topics "have a greater chance of being accepted" (page 10) is speculative and needs to be tempered or supported by additional data. This study makes an interesting contribution by systematically comparing bibliometric characteristics across quartiles, a relatively rare undertaking. The design of the study is relevant, and the methodology is generally sound. However, for the article to be scientifically sound and fully reproducible, significant improvements in the transparency of the methods and updating of the literature are needed.

Answer: We thank the reviewer for this important observation. We agree that the original wording could imply differential editorial acceptance probability, which was not directly assessed in our study. Accordingly, we have revised the Discussion section to remove speculative language and to clarify that our findings reflect thematic prominence and structural importance within the field rather than acceptance probability.
In general, the article's systematic structure and argumentation flow are quite clear. However, there are weaknesses in the literature's novelty. The proportion of old references is still dominant. Based on the bibliography (pages 14–15), References before 2018 9 articles (43%), References 2018–2021 7 articles (33%), References 2022–2025 5 articles (24%). This means that less than 30% of the references come from the last 3 years (2022–2025). For a bibliometric study discussing trends up to 2024, this proportion is relatively low. The latest literature related to the Development of the latest bibliometric methodology, the structural impact of COVID-19 on global publications, the latest SJR-based journal quartile and stratification analysis, should be increased, especially from 2022–2024. Authors can add a minimum of 5–8 recent (≤3 years) relevant references. Strengthen the Introduction and Discussion sections with a synthesis of the latest literature, not just early COVID-19 studies (2020–2021).

Answer: We sincerely thank the referee for this valuable suggestion. We agree that including more recent sources would enhance the relevance and scientific credibility of the article. In response, we have carefully updated the sections in question by incorporating more recent studies (2022-2024).

The bibliometric design with stratified interquartile sampling is appropriate and logical. The use of VOSviewer for co-occurrence analysis conforms to standard bibliometric practices. However, there are limitations in technical transparency that impact replication.

The methods section is not detailed enough to guarantee full replication. Methodological deficiencies include the omission of a list of 100 journals. Furthermore, the authors state that journals were randomly selected from 654 journals. However, they do not provide a list of journal SOURCE-IDs in the article. There is also no appendix listing the selected journals. The search syntax (search string) is not displayed. It is not explained whether filters were applied to specific document types, languages, or affiliation cleaning. Furthermore, the authors do not explain whether the data was exported in a single batch or multiple batches. The keyword threshold determination is also not transparent. The article mentions a threshold of 30–50 to produce ±100 nodes, but does not explain the specific thresholds per quartile. The technical rationale for selecting LinLog/modularity is not explained. It does not explain whether synonym cleaning was performed (e.g., COVID-19 vs. SARS-CoV-2). There is no data preprocessing information. Was institutional name normalization performed? Was author duplication cleaning performed? How were term variations combined (e.g., "covid 19" vs. "covid-19")? The author could add an explanation of the VOSviewer parameters used (counting method, normalization, clustering resolution) when displaying the visualization. Without this information, the study cannot be independently replicated.

Answer: We sincerely thank the reviewer for highlighting the importance of methodological transparency and reproducibility. We fully agree that bibliometric studies must provide sufficient technical detail to allow independent replication. Accordingly, we have substantially revised and expanded the Methods section to improve transparency. Specifically:
Search Strategy Clarification
The exact search syntax structure used in Scopus has now been explicitly reported. Parentheses have been specified to ensure the correct logical grouping of SOURCE-IDs. The complete list of the 100 selected journals and their corresponding SOURCE-IDs has been provided in Supplementary Appendix 1.
Filtering and Data Export
We have clarified that no restrictions were applied regarding document type, language, or subcategory. We have specified that the data were exported separately for each quartile due to Scopus export limitations.
Threshold Determination
The process of iteratively adjusting minimum keyword occurrence thresholds (range: 30–50) to generate approximately 100 nodes per network has now been clearly described.
VOSviewer Parameter Specification
The counting method (full counting), normalization method (association strength), clustering approach (modularity-based clustering), and LinLog layout selection have now been explicitly reported.
Data Preprocessing Transparency
We have clarified that no manual synonym merging or institutional normalization was performed. Keywords were analyzed in their raw indexed form to preserve author-intended terminology and to avoid introducing subjective bias through manual aggregation. This approach enhances reproducibility, as future researchers can replicate the analysis using the same raw database export.
These revisions substantially improve the technical transparency of the manuscript and ensure that the study can now be independently replicated. We appreciate the reviewer’s constructive suggestions, which have strengthened the methodological rigor of the manuscript.

The conclusions regarding COVID-19 dominance and productivity disparities between quartiles are supported by tables and visualizations (Table 1, Figures 1–12). However, the claim that HIV and mental health topics "have a greater chance of being accepted" (page 10) is speculative and needs to be tempered or supported by additional data. This study makes an interesting contribution by systematically comparing bibliometric characteristics across quartiles, a relatively rare undertaking. The design of the study is relevant, and the methodology is generally sound. However, for the article to be scientifically sound and fully reproducible, significant improvements in the transparency of the methods and updating of the literature are needed.

Answer: We thank the reviewer for this important observation. We agree that the original wording could imply differential editorial acceptance probability, which was not directly assessed in our study. Accordingly, we have revised the Discussion section to remove speculative language and to clarify that our findings reflect thematic prominence and structural importance within the field rather than acceptance probability.
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close
Report a concern

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 2

VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 27 Dec 2025

Open Peer Review

Reviewer Status

Reviewer Reports

	Invited Reviewers
	1	2	3
Version 2 (revision) 04 Mar 26		read	read
Version 1 27 Dec 25	read

Dwi Fitria Al Husaeni, Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia, Bandung, Indonesia
Steffen Lemke, CAU Kiel University, Kiel, Germany
Zulfiya Kannazarova, National Research University, Tashkent, Uzbekistan

Comments on this article

All Comments(0)

Add a comment

Browse by related subjects

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

2 Views

15 Apr 2026 | for Version 2

Zulfiya Kannazarova, National Research University, Tashkent, Uzbekistan

2 Views Cite this report Responses(0)

Approved With Reservations

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Yes
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Yes
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Partly
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Yes
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Yes

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

Water ScienceMechanical EngineeringAgricultural Engineering

Respond to this report

Responses (0)

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

4 Views

27 Mar 2026 | for Version 2

Steffen Lemke, CAU Kiel University, Kiel, Germany

4 Views Cite this report Responses(0)

Approved

In the article's very first sentence, what does "this vision" refer to?
The structure of the fourth paragraph's first sentence ("The importance and complexity...") seems erroneous.
In the Introduction's last sentence, the authors refer to "the two previous objectives" - as the preceding list of aims contains four items, a clarification which two of these are meant here might be helpful.
Near the end of the subsection "Research Hotspots in Public Health, Environmental, and Occupational Health", the text at one point mentions "other keywords", where I believe what is meant is "author keywords".

Finally: perhaps that is just me, but I couldn't find the article's supplementary material, which the article refers to in multiple places.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Yes
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Yes
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Yes
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Not applicable
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Yes

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

Computer Science; Information Science; Bibliometrics; Scholarly Communcation; Web Science

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

Respond to this report

Responses (0)

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

14 Views

14 Feb 2026 | for Version 1

Dwi Fitria Al Husaeni, Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia, Bandung, West Java, Indonesia

14 Views Cite this report Responses(1)

Approved With Reservations

In general, the article's systematic structure and argumentation flow are quite clear. However, there are weaknesses in the literature's novelty. The proportion of old references is still dominant. Based on the bibliography (pages 14–15), References before 2018 9 articles (43%), References 2018–2021 7 articles (33%), References 2022–2025 5 articles (24%). This means that less than 30% of the references come from the last 3 years (2022–2025). For a bibliometric study discussing trends up to 2024, this proportion is relatively low. The latest literature related to the Development of the latest bibliometric methodology, the structural impact of COVID-19 on global publications, the latest SJR-based journal quartile and stratification analysis, should be increased, especially from 2022–2024. Authors can add a minimum of 5–8 recent (≤3 years) relevant references. Strengthen the Introduction and Discussion sections with a synthesis of the latest literature, not just early COVID-19 studies (2020–2021).
The bibliometric design with stratified interquartile sampling is appropriate and logical. The use of VOSviewer for co-occurrence analysis conforms to standard bibliometric practices. However, there are limitations in technical transparency that impact replication.
The methods section is not detailed enough to guarantee full replication. Methodological deficiencies include the omission of a list of 100 journals. Furthermore, the authors state that journals were randomly selected from 654 journals. However, they do not provide a list of journal SOURCE-IDs in the article. There is also no appendix listing the selected journals. The search syntax (search string) is not displayed. It is not explained whether filters were applied to specific document types, languages, or affiliation cleaning. Furthermore, the authors do not explain whether the data was exported in a single batch or multiple batches. The keyword threshold determination is also not transparent. The article mentions a threshold of 30–50 to produce ±100 nodes, but does not explain the specific thresholds per quartile. The technical rationale for selecting LinLog/modularity is not explained. It does not explain whether synonym cleaning was performed (e.g., COVID-19 vs. SARS-CoV-2). There is no data preprocessing information. Was institutional name normalization performed? Was author duplication cleaning performed? How were term variations combined (e.g., "covid 19" vs. "covid-19")? The author could add an explanation of the VOSviewer parameters used (counting method, normalization, clustering resolution) when displaying the visualization. Without this information, the study cannot be independently replicated.
The conclusions regarding COVID-19 dominance and productivity disparities between quartiles are supported by tables and visualizations (Table 1, Figures 1–12). However, the claim that HIV and mental health topics "have a greater chance of being accepted" (page 10) is speculative and needs to be tempered or supported by additional data. This study makes an interesting contribution by systematically comparing bibliometric characteristics across quartiles, a relatively rare undertaking. The design of the study is relevant, and the methodology is generally sound. However, for the article to be scientifically sound and fully reproducible, significant improvements in the transparency of the methods and updating of the literature are needed.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Partly
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Yes
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

No
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Not applicable
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Yes

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

bibliometric, Information Systems, Computer Science, Computer Science Education, Learning Technology

Respond to this report

Responses (1)

Author Response

04 Mar 2026

Mehran Rostami Varnousfaderani, Epidemiology, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences School of Public Health and Safety, Tehran, Iran

In general, the article's systematic structure and argumentation flow are quite clear. However, there are weaknesses in the literature's novelty. The proportion of old references is still dominant. Based on the bibliography (pages 14–15), References before 2018 9 articles (43%), References 2018–2021 7 articles (33%), References 2022–2025 5 articles (24%). This means that less than 30% of the references come from the last 3 years (2022–2025). For a bibliometric study discussing trends up to 2024, this proportion is relatively low. The latest literature related to the Development of the latest bibliometric methodology, the structural impact of COVID-19 on global publications, the latest SJR-based journal quartile and stratification analysis, should be increased, especially from 2022–2024. Authors can add a minimum of 5–8 recent (≤3 years) relevant references. Strengthen the Introduction and Discussion sections with a synthesis of the latest literature, not just early COVID-19 studies (2020–2021).

Answer: We sincerely thank the referee for this valuable suggestion. We agree that including more recent sources would enhance the relevance and scientific credibility of the article. In response, we have carefully updated the sections in question by incorporating more recent studies (2022-2024).

The bibliometric design with stratified interquartile sampling is appropriate and logical. The use of VOSviewer for co-occurrence analysis conforms to standard bibliometric practices. However, there are limitations in technical transparency that impact replication.
The methods section is not detailed enough to guarantee full replication. Methodological deficiencies include the omission of a list of 100 journals. Furthermore, the authors state that journals were randomly selected from 654 journals. However, they do not provide a list of journal SOURCE-IDs in the article. There is also no appendix listing the selected journals. The search syntax (search string) is not displayed. It is not explained whether filters were applied to specific document types, languages, or affiliation cleaning. Furthermore, the authors do not explain whether the data was exported in a single batch or multiple batches. The keyword threshold determination is also not transparent. The article mentions a threshold of 30–50 to produce ±100 nodes, but does not explain the specific thresholds per quartile. The technical rationale for selecting LinLog/modularity is not explained. It does not explain whether synonym cleaning was performed (e.g., COVID-19 vs. SARS-CoV-2). There is no data preprocessing information. Was institutional name normalization performed? Was author duplication cleaning performed? How were term variations combined (e.g., "covid 19" vs. "covid-19")? The author could add an explanation of the VOSviewer parameters used (counting method, normalization, clustering resolution) when displaying the visualization. Without this information, the study cannot be independently replicated.

Answer: We sincerely thank the reviewer for highlighting the importance of methodological transparency and reproducibility. We fully agree that bibliometric studies must provide sufficient technical detail to allow independent replication. Accordingly, we have substantially revised and expanded the Methods section to improve transparency. Specifically:
Search Strategy Clarification
The exact search syntax structure used in Scopus has now been explicitly reported. Parentheses have been specified to ensure the correct logical grouping of SOURCE-IDs. The complete list of the 100 selected journals and their corresponding SOURCE-IDs has been provided in Supplementary Appendix 1.
Filtering and Data Export
We have clarified that no restrictions were applied regarding document type, language, or subcategory. We have specified that the data were exported separately for each quartile due to Scopus export limitations.
Threshold Determination
The process of iteratively adjusting minimum keyword occurrence thresholds (range: 30–50) to generate approximately 100 nodes per network has now been clearly described.
VOSviewer Parameter Specification
The counting method (full counting), normalization method (association strength), clustering approach (modularity-based clustering), and LinLog layout selection have now been explicitly reported.
Data Preprocessing Transparency
We have clarified that no manual synonym merging or institutional normalization was performed. Keywords were analyzed in their raw indexed form to preserve author-intended terminology and to avoid introducing subjective bias through manual aggregation. This approach enhances reproducibility, as future researchers can replicate the analysis using the same raw database export.
These revisions substantially improve the technical transparency of the manuscript and ensure that the study can now be independently replicated. We appreciate the reviewer’s constructive suggestions, which have strengthened the methodological rigor of the manuscript.

The conclusions regarding COVID-19 dominance and productivity disparities between quartiles are supported by tables and visualizations (Table 1, Figures 1–12). However, the claim that HIV and mental health topics "have a greater chance of being accepted" (page 10) is speculative and needs to be tempered or supported by additional data. This study makes an interesting contribution by systematically comparing bibliometric characteristics across quartiles, a relatively rare undertaking. The design of the study is relevant, and the methodology is generally sound. However, for the article to be scientifically sound and fully reproducible, significant improvements in the transparency of the methods and updating of the literature are needed.

Answer: We thank the reviewer for this important observation. We agree that the original wording could imply differential editorial acceptance probability, which was not directly assessed in our study. Accordingly, we have revised the Discussion section to remove speculative language and to clarify that our findings reflect thematic prominence and structural importance within the field rather than acceptance probability.

View more View less

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article:

Approved - the paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested

Approved with reservations - A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit.

Not approved - fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions

[1] 1. Sweileh WM, Zyoud SH, Al-Jabi SW, et al.: Public, environmental, and occupational health research activity in Arab countries: bibliometric, citation, and collaboration analysis. Arch. Public Health. 2015; 73: 1–12. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[2] 2. Haghdoost AA, Naghibzadeh-Tahami A, Dehnavieh R: Pathology of the Health Sector in Iran’s Health System: A Future Oriented Viewpoint. J. Rafsanjan Univ. Med. Sci. 2024; 23(1): 76–87.

[3] 3. Gary F, Lotas M: A population health approach to health disparities for nurses: Care of vulnerable populations. Springer Publishing Company; 2022.

[4] 4. Mosadeghrad AM, Ismailpour MRM, Shahtaheri SJ, et al.: Joint comprehensive plan of action for occupational health. J. Health Safety Work. 2024; 14(1): 1–19. Publisher Full Text

[5] 5. Peckham TK, Baker MG, Camp JE, et al.: Creating a future for occupational health. Ann. Work Expo. Health. 2017; 61(1): 3–15. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[6] 6. Amponsah-Tawiah K, Mensah J: Occupational health and safety and organizational commitment: Evidence from the Ghanaian mining industry. Saf. Health Work. 2016; 7(3): 225–230. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[7] 7. Hanjra MA, Blackwell J, Carr G, et al.: Wastewater irrigation and environmental health: Implications for water governance and public policy. Int. J. Hyg. Environ. Health. 2012; 215(3): 255–269. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[8] 8. Mishra S, Kumar R, Kumar M: Use of treated sewage or wastewater as an irrigation water for agricultural purposes-Environmental, health, and economic impacts. Total Environ. Res. Themes. 2023; 6: 100051. Publisher Full Text

[9] 9. Jacyna M, Wasiak M, Lewczuk K, et al.: Noise and environmental pollution from transport: decisive problems in developing ecologically efficient transport systems. J. Vibroeng. 2017; 19(7): 5639–5655. Publisher Full Text

[10] 10. Atanyan A, Muradyan D, Mkrtchyan M, et al.: Parental oral health knowledge and plaque index of their children in rural communities of Armenia. Eur. J. Pub. Health. 2023; 33(Supplement_2): ckad160. 785. Publisher Full Text

[11] 11. Taneri P, Civaner M, Devane D: Which journal indicator to consider when submitting a paper on Public Health area? Eur. J. Pub. Health. 2023; 33(Supplement_2): ckad160. 786. Publisher Full Text

[12] 12. Farokhizadeh F, Zarei A, Rastgar A, et al.: Designing and Illustrating the Knowledge Network of Digital Banking Studies with a Bibliometric Approach. Scientometric Res. J. 2024; 10(1, spring & summer): 99–120.

[13] 13. Mao G, Zou H, Chen G, et al.: Past, current and future of biomass energy research: A bibliometric analysis. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 2015; 52: 1823–1833. Publisher Full Text

[14] 14. Aria M, Cuccurullo C: bibliometrix: An R-tool for comprehensive science mapping analysis. J. Informet. 2017; 11(4): 959–975. Publisher Full Text

[15] 15. Zarei F, Nourahmadi M, Sadeqi H: Application of recommendation systems in the development of Robo Advisors: A Bibliometrics Method. J. Asset Manag. Financing. 2023; 11(3): 69–96.

[16] 16. Chang Y-W, Nabavi M: Comparison of disciplines, topics, and methods in studies in Journal of Informetrics and Scientometrics from 2016 to 2020. Scientometrics. 2024; 129(3): 1415–1439. Publisher Full Text

[17] 17. Meseko C, Edet UO, Henshaw O, et al.: Bibliometric analysis of highly pathogenic avian influenza research globally from 2003 to 2023. Germs. 2025; 15(1): 11–25. Publisher Full Text

[18] 18. Harzing A-W, Alakangas S: Microsoft Academic: is the phoenix getting wings? Scientometrics. 2017; 110(1): 371–383. Publisher Full Text

[19] 19. Okhovati M, Arshadi H: COVID-19 research progress: Bibliometrics and visualization analysis. Med. J. Islam Repub. Iran. 2021; 35: 20. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[20] 20. Penninx BWJH, Benros ME, Klein RS, et al.: How COVID-19 shaped mental health: from infection to pandemic effects. Nat. Med. 2022; 28(10): 2027–2037. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[21] 21. Jones EAK, Mitra AK, Bhuiyan AR: Impact of COVID-19 on Mental Health in Adolescents: A Systematic Review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health. 2021; 18(5). PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

Bibliometric Analysis of Publications in Scopus-Indexed Public, Environmental and Occupational Health Journals Across Scimago Quartiles (2016–2024)

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Keywords

Revised Amendments from Version 1

Introduction

Methods

Journal selection

Rationale for sampling strategy

Data retrieval

Search strategy transparency

Data analysis

Data preprocessing

Ethical considerations

Results

Distribution of Journals and Published Documents

Analysis of the Most Productive Countries, Institutes, and Authors

Research Hotspots in Public Health, Environmental, and Occupational Health

Table 1. Scimago Categories and Detailed Node Data Derived from Documents Indexed in Scopus.

Figure 1. Thematic Map of Document Production in Q1-Category PHEOH Journals: A Co-Occurrence Analysis of Author Keywords.

Figure 2. Thematic Map of Document Production in Q2-Category PHEOH Journals: A Co-Occurrence Analysis of Author Keywords.

Figure 3. Thematic Map of Document Production in Q3-Category PHEOH Journals: A Co-Occurrence Analysis of Author Keywords.

Figure 4. Thematic Map of Document Production in Q4-Category PHEOH Journals: A Co-Occurrence Analysis of Author Keywords.

Figure 5. An Overlay Visualization of the Most Frequent Topics in the Q1 Category, Based on Average Publication Year.

Figure 6. An Overlay Visualization of the Most Frequent Topics in the Q2 Category, Based on Average Publication Year.

Figure 7. An Overlay Visualization of the Most Frequent Topics in the Q3 Category, Based on Average Publication Year.

Figure 8. An Overlay Visualization of the Most Frequent Topics in the Q4 Category, Based on Average Publication Year.

Figure 9. An Overlay Visualization of the Most Frequent Topics in the Q1 Category, Based on Average Citation Counts.

Figure 10. An Overlay Visualization of the Most Frequent Topics in the Q2 Category, Based on Average Citation Counts.

Figure 11. An Overlay Visualization of the Most Frequent Topics in the Q3 Category, Based on Average Citation Counts.

Figure 12. An Overlay Visualization of the Most Frequent Topics in the Q4 Category, Based on Average Citation Counts.

Temporal trends and citation impact

Discussion

Limitation

Conclusion

Consent for publication

Using Artificial Intelligence Chatbots

Data availability

Acknowledgments

References

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Open Peer Review

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Open Peer Review

Reviewer Status

Reviewer Reports

Comments on this article

Browse by related subjects

Competing Interests Policy

Stay Updated