Skip to main content
Log in

Four challenges when conducting bibliometric reviews and how to deal with them

  • Review Article
  • Published:
Environmental Science and Pollution Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The evidence base in environmental sciences is increasing steadily. Environmental researchers have been challenged to handle massive volumes of data to support more comprehensive studies, assess the current status of science, and move research towards future progress. Bibliometrics can provide important insights into the research directions by providing summarized information for several end users. Here, we present an in-depth discussion on the use of bibliometric indicators to evaluate research outputs through four case studies comprising disciplines in environmental sciences. We discuss four big challenges researchers may face when conducting bibliometric reviews and how to deal with them. We also address some primary questions researchers may answer with bibliometric mapping, drawing lessons from the case studies. Lastly, we clarify some misuses of review concepts and suggest methodological principles of systematic reviews and maps to improve the overall quality of bibliometric studies.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this published article.

Abbreviations

Systematic review:

“rigorous summary of research literature on a given topic that has been conducted using structured, transparent, and reproducible methods. The term could be used to indicate any review that uses approaches involved in a systematic review (i.e., systematic review approach)” (Nakagawa et al. 2018)

Systematic map:

“literature summary conducted using strict, systematic standards. It summarizes the characteristics of studies from a broad research field in a database, figure, or graph. Can identify knowledge gaps and knowledge clusters”. (Nakagawa et al. 2018)

References

Download references

Funding

The researchers are grateful to the “Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo” (Fapesp, grants 2013/50718-5, 2018/18416-2, 2016/17304-0, 2019/23908-4 and 2019/08533-4), in party by “Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior” (CAPES - Finance Code 001), and “Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico” (CNPq, grant 141304/2019-7), for providing financial support.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

JPR, MCPG, and DFA conceived the ideas and designed methodology; JPR, MCPG, and DFA collected the data. All the authors led to the writing of the manuscript. All the authors contributed critically to the drafts and gave final approval for publication.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to João Paulo Romanelli.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Responsible Editor: Philippe Garrigues

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Romanelli, .P., Gonçalves, M.C.P., de Abreu Pestana, L.F. et al. Four challenges when conducting bibliometric reviews and how to deal with them. Environ Sci Pollut Res 28, 60448–60458 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-16420-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-16420-x

Keywords

Navigation