Mapping the Use of Bibliometric Software and Methodological Transparency in Literature Review Studies: A Comparative Analysis of China-Affiliated and Non-China-Affiliated Research Communities (2015–2024)

The growing use of bibliometric methods in literature reviews has intensified concerns about methodological transparency and consistency. This study compares English-language reviews authored by China-affiliated and non-China-affiliated researchers between 2015 and 2024. Through bibliometric content analysis and co-word network mapping, it evaluates the following: (1) the use and purposes of bibliometric software; (2) the clarity of methodological reporting, including software versions, threshold settings, data preprocessing, and database selection; (3) the extent to which limitations are acknowledged and recommendations proposed; and (4) the dominant conceptual themes shaping research practices. The analysis covers 50 highly cited reviews (25 per group) and 4000 additional papers for thematic mapping. Findings show both convergence and divergence: while tools such as VOSviewer, CiteSpace, Gephi, and Bibliometrix are widely adopted, non-China-affiliated studies exhibit greater transparency and reflexivity, whereas China-affiliated research often emphasizes output metrics and underreports methodological challenges. These contrasts reflect broader epistemological norms and research cultures. This study underscores the need for unified reporting standards and contributes to meta-research by offering practical guidance to improve the transparency, comparability, and rigor of bibliometric-supported literature reviews.