IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jagris/v14y2024i3p445-d1353902.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Trends in Soil Science over the Past Three Decades (1992–2022) Based on the Scientometric Analysis of 39 Soil Science Journals

Author

Listed:
  • Lang Jia

    (College of Natural Resources and Environment, Northwest A & F University, Yangling, Xianyang 712100, China)

  • Wenjuan Wang

    (College of Natural Resources and Environment, Northwest A & F University, Yangling, Xianyang 712100, China)

  • Francis Zvomuya

    (Department of Soil Science, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB R3T 2N2, Canada)

  • Hailong He

    (College of Natural Resources and Environment, Northwest A & F University, Yangling, Xianyang 712100, China
    Department of Soil Science, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB R3T 2N2, Canada)

Abstract

As one of the basic disciplines of agricultural, natural resource, and environmental science, soil science has played a critical role in global food security and socio-economic and ecological sustainability. The number of soil science journals and publications has increased remarkably with the development of soil science. However, there is a lack of systematic and comprehensive studies on the developmental trends of soil science based on journals and publications. In this study, 39 journals included under the soil science category in the 2022 Journal Citation Reports, and 112,911 publications in these journals from 1992 to 2022 were subjected to scientometric/bibliometric analysis to determine trends in publication, journal metrics, co-authorship, and research topics, in addition to general journal information. The results show that soil science ushered in a renaissance period with the number of publications, citations, impact factors, and CiteScore demonstrating an increasing trend. America and the Chinese Academy of Sciences had the most publications and citations. The most productive author published more than 400 articles. Soil science research focused mostly on its fundamental impact on the ecological environment based on the strongest citation bursts analysis of keywords. The analysis indicated that open access has increased in popularity. Current soil science journals still face a few common challenges, including an urgent need for a fairer evaluation mechanism on journal quality compared to the traditional use of single metrics as well as equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) in the whole editorial process. Artificial intelligence may bring new tools and more changes to the development of soil science. This study will help soil science researchers to better understand the development status and future trends of soil science. It will also guide authors in journal selection.

Suggested Citation

  • Lang Jia & Wenjuan Wang & Francis Zvomuya & Hailong He, 2024. "Trends in Soil Science over the Past Three Decades (1992–2022) Based on the Scientometric Analysis of 39 Soil Science Journals," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 14(3), pages 1-32, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jagris:v:14:y:2024:i:3:p:445-:d:1353902
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0472/14/3/445/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0472/14/3/445/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Chaomei Chen, 2006. "CiteSpace II: Detecting and visualizing emerging trends and transient patterns in scientific literature," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 57(3), pages 359-377, February.
    2. Peter Vinkler, 2008. "Correlation between the structure of scientific research, scientometric indicators and GDP in EU and non-EU countries," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 74(2), pages 237-254, February.
    3. Nees Jan Eck & Ludo Waltman, 2010. "Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 84(2), pages 523-538, August.
    4. Hilary I. Okagbue & Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva, 2020. "Correlation between the CiteScore and Journal Impact Factor of top-ranked library and information science journals," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 124(1), pages 797-801, July.
    5. Hui Fang, 2021. "Analysis of the new scopus CiteScore," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(6), pages 5321-5331, June.
    6. Xiangwei Wang & Yizhe Yang & Jianglong Lv & Hailong He, 2023. "Past, present and future of the applications of machine learning in soil science and hydrology," Soil and Water Research, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 18(2), pages 67-80.
    7. Hui Fang, 2023. "A modification of citation-based journal indexes," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(2), pages 1119-1132, February.
    8. Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva & Aamir Raoof Memon, 2017. "CiteScore: A cite for sore eyes, or a valuable, transparent metric?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 111(1), pages 553-556, April.
    9. Mohamed Boufarss & Mikael Laakso, 2020. "Open Sesame? Open access priorities, incentives, and policies among higher education institutions in the United Arab Emirates," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 124(2), pages 1553-1577, August.
    10. Mingers, John & Leydesdorff, Loet, 2015. "A review of theory and practice in scientometrics," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 246(1), pages 1-19.
    11. Richard Van Noorden, 2016. "Controversial impact factor gets a heavyweight rival," Nature, Nature, vol. 540(7633), pages 325-326, December.
    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. Belussi, Fiorenza & Orsi, Luigi & Savarese, Maria, 2019. "Mapping Business Model Research: A Document Bibliometric Analysis," Scandinavian Journal of Management, Elsevier, vol. 35(3).
    2. Raminta Pranckutė, 2021. "Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus: The Titans of Bibliographic Information in Today’s Academic World," Publications, MDPI, vol. 9(1), pages 1-59, March.
    3. Floris Goerlandt & Jie Li & Genserik Reniers, 2021. "The Landscape of Risk Perception Research: A Scientometric Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(23), pages 1-26, November.
    4. Gisleine Carmo & Luiz Flávio Felizardo & Valderí Castro Alcântara & Cristiane Aparecida Silva & José Willer Prado, 2023. "The impact of Jürgen Habermas’s scientific production: a scientometric review," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(3), pages 1853-1875, March.
    5. Juan Ruiz-Rosero & Gustavo Ramirez-Gonzalez & Jesus Viveros-Delgado, 2019. "Software survey: ScientoPy, a scientometric tool for topics trend analysis in scientific publications," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 121(2), pages 1165-1188, November.
    6. Wang, Xinxin & Xu, Zeshui & Qin, Yong & Skare, Marinko, 2021. "Service networks for sustainable business: A dynamic evolution analysis over half a century," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 543-557.
    7. Wang, Xinxin & Qin, Yong & Xu, Zeshui & Škare, Marinko, 2022. "A look at the focus shift in innovation literature due to Covid-19 pandemic," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 145(C), pages 1-20.
    8. Jacob Wood & Gohar Feroz Khan, 2015. "International trade negotiation analysis: network and semantic knowledge infrastructure," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 105(1), pages 537-556, October.
    9. Lutz Bornmann & Robin Haunschild & Sven E. Hug, 2018. "Visualizing the context of citations referencing papers published by Eugene Garfield: a new type of keyword co-occurrence analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 114(2), pages 427-437, February.
    10. Yucheng Zhang & Zhiling Wang & Lin Xiao & Lijun Wang & Pei Huang, 2023. "Discovering the evolution of online reviews: A bibliometric review," Electronic Markets, Springer;IIM University of St. Gallen, vol. 33(1), pages 1-22, December.
    11. Gaviria-Marin, Magaly & Merigó, José M. & Baier-Fuentes, Hugo, 2019. "Knowledge management: A global examination based on bibliometric analysis," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 140(C), pages 194-220.
    12. Yulei Xie & Ling Ji & Beibei Zhang & Gordon Huang, 2018. "Evolution of the Scientific Literature on Input–Output Analysis: A Bibliometric Analysis of 1990–2017," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-17, September.
    13. Duan, Zhengxiao & Zhang, Yanni & Deng, Jun & Shu, Pan & Yao, Di, 2023. "A systematic exploration of mapping knowledge domains for free radical research related to coal," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 282(C).
    14. Zhichao Wang & Valentin Zelenyuk, 2021. "Performance Analysis of Hospitals in Australia and its Peers: A Systematic Review," CEPA Working Papers Series WP012021, School of Economics, University of Queensland, Australia.
    15. Zoltán Krajcsák, 2021. "Researcher Performance in Scopus Articles ( RPSA ) as a New Scientometric Model of Scientific Output: Tested in Business Area of V4 Countries," Publications, MDPI, vol. 9(4), pages 1-23, October.
    16. Mehdi Toloo & Rouhollah Khodabandelou & Amar Oukil, 2022. "A Comprehensive Bibliometric Analysis of Fractional Programming (1965–2020)," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-21, May.
    17. Ming Tang & Huchang Liao & Zhengjun Wan & Enrique Herrera-Viedma & Marc A. Rosen, 2018. "Ten Years of Sustainability (2009 to 2018): A Bibliometric Overview," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-21, May.
    18. Ying Huang & Wolfgang Glänzel & Lin Zhang, 2021. "Tracing the development of mapping knowledge domains," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(7), pages 6201-6224, July.
    19. Ludo Waltman & Nees Jan Eck, 2012. "A new methodology for constructing a publication-level classification system of science," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 63(12), pages 2378-2392, December.
    20. Zhigao Liu & Yimei Yin & Weidong Liu & Michael Dunford, 2015. "Visualizing the intellectual structure and evolution of innovation systems research: a bibliometric analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 103(1), pages 135-158, April.

    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:gam:jagris:v:14:y:2024:i:3:p:445-:d:1353902. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.