IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0216126.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

New framework for automated article selection applied to a literature review of Enhanced Biological Phosphorus Removal

Author

Listed:
  • Minh Nguyen Quang
  • Tim Rogers
  • Jan Hofman
  • Ana B Lanham

Abstract

Aims: Enhanced Biological Phosphorus Removal (EBPR) is a technology widely used in wastewater treatment to remove phosphorus (P) and prevent eutrophication. Establishing its operating efficiency and stability is an active research field that has generated almost 3000 publications in the last 40 years. Due to its size, including over 119 review articles, it is an example of a field where it becomes increasingly difficult to manually recognize its key research contributions, especially for non-experts or newcomers. Therefore, this work included two distinct but complementary objectives. First, to assemble for the first time a collection of bibliometric techniques into a framework for automating the article selection process when preparing a literature review (section 2). Second, to demonstrate it by applying it to the field of EBPR, producing a bibliometric analysis and a review of the key findings of EBPR research over time (section 3). Findings: The joint analysis of citation networks, keywords, citation profiles, as well as of specific benchmarks for the identification of highly-cited publications revealed 12 research topics. Their content and evolution could be manually reviewed using a selection of articles consisting of approximately only 5% of the original set of publications. The largest topics addressed the identification of relevant microorganisms, the characterization of their metabolism, including denitrification and the competition between them (Clusters A-D). Emerging and influential topics, as determined by different citation indicators and temporal analysis, were related to volatile fatty acid production, P-recovery from waste activated sludge and aerobic granules for better process efficiency and stability (Clusters F-H). Conclusions: The framework enabled key contributions in each of the constituent topics to be highlighted in a way that may have otherwise been biased by conventional citation-based ranking. Further, it reduced the need for manual input and a priori expertise compared to a traditional literature review. Hence, in an era of accelerated production of information and publications, this work contributed to the way that we are able to use computer-aided approaches to curate information and manage knowledge.

Suggested Citation

  • Minh Nguyen Quang & Tim Rogers & Jan Hofman & Ana B Lanham, 2019. "New framework for automated article selection applied to a literature review of Enhanced Biological Phosphorus Removal," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(5), pages 1-42, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0216126
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0216126
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0216126
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0216126&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0216126?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mads Albertsen & Søren M Karst & Anja S Ziegler & Rasmus H Kirkegaard & Per H Nielsen, 2015. "Back to Basics – The Influence of DNA Extraction and Primer Choice on Phylogenetic Analysis of Activated Sludge Communities," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(7), pages 1-15, July.
    2. Benjamin M. Althouse & Jevin D. West & Carl T. Bergstrom & Theodore Bergstrom, 2009. "Differences in impact factor across fields and over time," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 60(1), pages 27-34, January.
    3. M.J. Cobo & A.G. López-Herrera & E. Herrera-Viedma & F. Herrera, 2011. "Science mapping software tools: Review, analysis, and cooperative study among tools," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 62(7), pages 1382-1402, July.
    4. Ratnadeep Dey & Anurag Roy & Tanmoy Chakraborty & Saptarshi Ghosh, 2017. "Sleeping beauties in Computer Science: characterization and early identification," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 113(3), pages 1645-1663, December.
    5. Philippe Mongeon & Adèle Paul-Hus, 2016. "The journal coverage of Web of Science and Scopus: a comparative analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 106(1), pages 213-228, January.
    6. M.J. Cobo & A.G. López‐Herrera & E. Herrera‐Viedma & F. Herrera, 2011. "Science mapping software tools: Review, analysis, and cooperative study among tools," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 62(7), pages 1382-1402, July.
    7. Lutz Bornmann & Rüdiger Mutz, 2015. "Growth rates of modern science: A bibliometric analysis based on the number of publications and cited references," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 66(11), pages 2215-2222, November.
    8. Kevin W. Boyack & Richard Klavans, 2010. "Co‐citation analysis, bibliographic coupling, and direct citation: Which citation approach represents the research front most accurately?," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 61(12), pages 2389-2404, December.
    9. Kevin W. Boyack & Richard Klavans, 2010. "Co-citation analysis, bibliographic coupling, and direct citation: Which citation approach represents the research front most accurately?," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 61(12), pages 2389-2404, December.
    10. Per Ahlgren & Bo Jarneving, 2008. "Bibliographic coupling, common abstract stems and clustering: A comparison of two document-document similarity approaches in the context of science mapping," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 76(2), pages 273-290, August.
    11. Vincent Larivière & Éric Archambault & Yves Gingras, 2008. "Long‐term variations in the aging of scientific literature: From exponential growth to steady‐state science (1900–2004)," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 59(2), pages 288-296, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Serhat Burmaoglu & Ozcan Saritas, 2019. "An evolutionary analysis of the innovation policy domain: Is there a paradigm shift?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 118(3), pages 823-847, March.
    2. Bhatnagar, S. & Sharma, D., 2022. "Evolution of green finance and its enablers: A bibliometric analysis," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 162(C).
    3. Jinesh Jain & Nidhi Walia & Simarjeet Singh & Esha Jain, 2022. "Mapping the field of behavioural biases: a literature review using bibliometric analysis," Management Review Quarterly, Springer, vol. 72(3), pages 823-855, September.
    4. Warat Winit & Saranya Kantabutra & Sooksan Kantabutra, 2023. "Toward a Sustainability Brand Model: An Integrative Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(6), pages 1-25, March.
    5. Zamani, Mehdi & Yalcin, Haydar & Naeini, Ali Bonyadi & Zeba, Gordana & Daim, Tugrul U, 2022. "Developing metrics for emerging technologies: identification and assessment," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 176(C).
    6. Murat Kocak & Carlos García-Zorita & Sergio Marugán-Lázaro & Murat Perit Çakır & Elías Sanz-Casado, 2019. "Mapping and clustering analysis on neuroscience literature in Turkey: a bibliometric analysis from 2000 to 2017," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 121(3), pages 1339-1366, December.
    7. Mingchun Cao & Ilan Alon, 2020. "Intellectual Structure of the Belt and Road Initiative Research: A Scientometric Analysis and Suggestions for a Future Research Agenda," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(17), pages 1-40, August.
    8. Suparak Suriyankietkaew & Phallapa Petison, 2019. "A Retrospective and Foresight: Bibliometric Review of International Research on Strategic Management for Sustainability, 1991–2019," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-27, December.
    9. Ana Joana Fernandes & Joao J. Ferreira, 2022. "Entrepreneurial ecosystems and networks: a literature review and research agenda," Review of Managerial Science, Springer, vol. 16(1), pages 189-247, January.
    10. Fan, Yangliu & Lehmann, Sune & Blok, Anders, 2022. "Extracting the interdisciplinary specialty structures in social media data-based research: A clustering-based network approach," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 16(3).
    11. Sofia Aparisi-Torrijo & Gabriela Ribes-Giner, 2022. "Female entrepreneurial leadership factors," International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, Springer, vol. 18(4), pages 1707-1737, December.
    12. Sooksan Kantabutra, 2023. "What do We Know about Vision? A Sustainability Lens," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(10), pages 1-27, May.
    13. Aparisi Torrijo, Sofia & Ribes Giner, Gabriela, 2022. "Entrepreneurial leadership factors: a bibliometric analysis for the 2000-2020 period," Cuadernos de Gestión, Universidad del País Vasco - Instituto de Economía Aplicada a la Empresa (IEAE).
    14. Rodolfo Modrigais Strauss Nunes & Susana Carla Farias Pereira, 2022. "Intellectual structure and trends in the humanitarian operations field," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 319(1), pages 1099-1157, December.
    15. Antonio-José Moreno-Guerrero & María Elena Parra-González & Jesús López-Belmonte & Adrián Segura-Robles, 2022. "Science mapping analysis of “cultural” in web of science (1908–2019)," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 56(1), pages 239-257, February.
    16. Ignacio Rodríguez-Rodríguez & José-Víctor Rodríguez & Niloofar Shirvanizadeh & Andrés Ortiz & Domingo-Javier Pardo-Quiles, 2021. "Applications of Artificial Intelligence, Machine Learning, Big Data and the Internet of Things to the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Scientometric Review Using Text Mining," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(16), pages 1-29, August.
    17. Pattarin Sanguankaew & Vichita Vathanophas Ractham, 2019. "Bibliometric Review of Research on Knowledge Management and Sustainability, 1994–2018," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(16), pages 1-20, August.
    18. Weisheng Chiu & Thomas Chun Man Fan & Sang-Back Nam & Ping-Hung Sun, 2021. "Knowledge Mapping and Sustainable Development of eSports Research: A Bibliometric and Visualized Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(18), pages 1-17, September.
    19. Secinaro, Silvana & Calandra, Davide & Lanzalonga, Federico & Ferraris, Alberto, 2022. "Electric vehicles’ consumer behaviours: Mapping the field and providing a research agenda," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 150(C), pages 399-416.
    20. Bornmann, Lutz & Haunschild, Robin, 2022. "Empirical analysis of recent temporal dynamics of research fields: Annual publications in chemistry and related areas as an example," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 16(2).

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0216126. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.