IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v17y2025i5p2218-d1605055.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Twenty-Five Years of Scientific Production on Geoparks from the Perspective of Bibliometric Analysis Using PRISMA

Author

Listed:
  • Judith Nyulas

    (Faculty of Geography, Doctoral School of Geography, Babeș-Bolyai University, 400006 Cluj-Napoca, Romania)

  • Ștefan Dezsi

    (Department of Human Geography and Tourism, Faculty of Geography, Babeș-Bolyai University, 400006 Cluj-Napoca, Romania
    Center for Research on Settlements and Urbanism, Babeș-Bolyai University, 400006 Cluj-Napoca, Romania)

  • Adrian-Florin Niță

    (Faculty of Geography, Gheorgheni University Extension, Babeș-Bolyai University, 400006 Cluj-Napoca, Romania)

  • Zsolt Magyari-Sáska

    (Faculty of Geography, Gheorgheni University Extension, Babeș-Bolyai University, 400006 Cluj-Napoca, Romania)

  • Marie-Luise Frey

    (Global Geoparks Network Executive Board and Terra Outreach, Ooserstr. 21, Gerolstein/Vulkaneifel, 54568 Daun, Germany)

  • Alpár Horváth

    (Faculty of Geography, Gheorgheni University Extension, Babeș-Bolyai University, 400006 Cluj-Napoca, Romania)

Abstract

Over the last 25 years, research on geoparks has moved from basic research to comprehensive multidisciplinary studies related to the creation and development of geoparks, integrating the principle of sustainability. This research focuses on exploring geoparks as the core subject. The aim of this study is to synthesize the heterogeneous body of knowledge about geoparks in an exhaustive way by leveraging a multi-database bibliometric approach. The methodology applied is based on quantitative bibliometric analysis using R, including its application for non-coders and ensuring reliability with the PRISMA Statement framework. Ten databases were taken as the sources of research papers: Web of Science, Scopus, PubMed, Nature Journals, SpringerLink, Taylor & Francis , Wiley Journals, IEEE Xplore, and CABI. The method we used has limitations, providing a restricted number of trends aligned and scaled to the database boundary conditions used in analysis. The main goals of quantitative bibliometric analysis are as follows: (1) The impact of data integration—Evaluating how merging the data from the ten databases improves research coverage. (2) Global research trends—Identifying the evolution of geopark-related studies over time. (3) Three-year forecast—Predicting the upcoming research directions using a polynomial regression model. (4) Academic performance—Assessing geographical distribution, citation impact, and productivity using bibliometric laws. (5) Conceptual contribution—Identifying the key research themes that drive future studies and potential areas for exploration. Among these, we highlighted the key elements. The integration of the ten databases provides 63% greater insight into scientific research compared to that of the Web of Science (WoS) database. Geographically, the scientific output spans 102 countries, with China leading in production over the last two decades. The most impactful paper has accumulated 768 citations, while Ruben D.A. and Wu Fandong emerge as the most prolific authors. According to the bibliometric law, the core source of scientific output is Geoheritage. The future research directions are expected to address global challenges, particularly natural disasters in alignment with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Additionally, GIS-based subtopics leveraging advanced technologies for analyzing, mapping, and promoting geological resources represent a promising area for further exploration. The projections indicate that by the end of 2026, scientific production in this field could reach 5226 published papers, underscoring the growing significance of geopark research and interdisciplinary advancements.

Suggested Citation

  • Judith Nyulas & Ștefan Dezsi & Adrian-Florin Niță & Zsolt Magyari-Sáska & Marie-Luise Frey & Alpár Horváth, 2025. "Twenty-Five Years of Scientific Production on Geoparks from the Perspective of Bibliometric Analysis Using PRISMA," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 17(5), pages 1-30, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:17:y:2025:i:5:p:2218-:d:1605055
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/5/2218/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/5/2218/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva, 2024. "The inaccurate representation of an author’s publishing name, and impact on reference accuracy," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(5), pages 2923-2932, May.
    2. Junwen Zhu & Weishu Liu, 2020. "Comparing like with like: China ranks first in SCI-indexed research articles since 2018," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 124(2), pages 1691-1700, August.
    3. Ian D. Lewis, 2023. "Evolution of Geotourism in Australia from Kanawinka Global Geopark and Australian National Landscapes to GeoRegions and Geotrails: A Review and Lessons Learned," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(6), pages 1-33, June.
    4. Weishu Liu, 2019. "The data source of this study is Web of Science Core Collection? Not enough," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 121(3), pages 1815-1824, December.
    5. 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.
    6. Anna V. Mikhailenko & Natalia N. Yashalova & Dmitry A. Ruban, 2022. "Environmental Pollution in Geopark Management: A Systematic Review of the Literary Evidence," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(8), pages 1-14, April.
    7. Boglárka Németh & Károly Németh & Jon N. Procter, 2021. "Informed Geoheritage Conservation: Determinant Analysis Based on Bibliometric and Sustainability Indicators Using Ordination Techniques," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-31, May.
    8. Miriam Edith Pérez-Romero & José Álvarez-García & Martha Beatriz Flores-Romero & Donaji Jiménez-Islas, 2023. "UNESCO Global Geoparks 22 Years after Their Creation: Analysis of Scientific Production," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-18, March.
    9. Miguel-Angel Vera-Baceta & Michael Thelwall & Kayvan Kousha, 2019. "Web of Science and Scopus language coverage," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 121(3), pages 1803-1813, December.
    10. Vivek Kumar Singh & Prashasti Singh & Mousumi Karmakar & Jacqueline Leta & Philipp Mayr, 2021. "The journal coverage of Web of Science, Scopus and Dimensions: A comparative analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(6), pages 5113-5142, June.
    11. Hui Li & Xingmei Zhang, 2024. "Dr. Anonymous is still there: a revisit of legal scholarly publishing," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(1), pages 681-692, January.
    12. Abdelghani Maddi & Lesya Baudoin, 2022. "The quality of the web of science data: a longitudinal study on the completeness of authors-addresses links," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(11), pages 6279-6292, November.
    13. 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.
    14. Jicun Zhang & Jiyou Fei & Xueping Song & Jiawei Feng, 2021. "An Improved Louvain Algorithm for Community Detection," Mathematical Problems in Engineering, Hindawi, vol. 2021, pages 1-14, November.
    15. Dmitry A. Ruban, 2018. "Karst as Important Resource for Geopark-Based Tourism: Current State and Biases," Resources, MDPI, vol. 7(4), pages 1-8, December.
    16. Dicky Muslim & Zufialdi Zakaria & Heryadi Rachmat & Prahara Iqbal & Ghazi O. Muslim & Mohamad S. Sadewo & Fauzan N. Muslim, 2022. "Identification of Geodiversity and Geosite Assessment around Geohazard Area of Suoh Aspiring Geopark in West Lampung, Sumatra, Indonesia," Resources, MDPI, vol. 11(11), pages 1-14, November.
    17. Keshra Sangwal, 2013. "Some citation-related characteristics of scientific journals published in individual countries," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 97(3), pages 719-741, December.
    18. Judith Nyulas & Ștefan Dezsi & Adrian Niță & Raluca-Andreea Toma & Ana-Maria Lazăr, 2024. "Trends and Future Directions in Analysing Attractiveness of Geoparks Using an Automated Merging Method of Multiple Databases—R-Based Bibliometric Analysis," Land, MDPI, vol. 13(10), pages 1-30, October.
    19. Igor Savchenko & Denis Kosyakov, 2022. "Lost in affiliation: apatride publications in international databases," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(6), pages 3471-3487, June.
    20. Junwen Zhu & Weishu Liu, 2020. "A tale of two databases: the use of Web of Science and Scopus in academic papers," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 123(1), pages 321-335, April.
    21. Judith Nyulas & Ștefan Dezsi & Ionel Haidu & Zsolt Magyari-Sáska & Adrian Niță, 2024. "Attractiveness Assessment Model for Evaluating an Area for a Potential Geopark—Case Study: Hațeg UNESCO Global Geopark (Romania)," Land, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-25, January.
    22. Agnieszka Janik & Adam Ryszko & Marek Szafraniec, 2020. "Scientific Landscape of Smart and Sustainable Cities Literature: A Bibliometric Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-39, 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. Dušan Nikolić & Dragan Ivanović & Lidija Ivanović, 2024. "An open-source tool for merging data from multiple citation databases," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(7), pages 4573-4595, July.
    2. Congying Fang & Riken Homma & Tianfu Qiu, 2024. "A Bibliometrics Analysis Related to the Built Environment and Walking," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(7), pages 1-17, March.
    3. Raf Vanderstraeten & Frédéric Vandermoere, 2021. "Inequalities in the growth of Web of Science," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(10), pages 8635-8651, October.
    4. Michael Gusenbauer, 2022. "Search where you will find most: Comparing the disciplinary coverage of 56 bibliographic databases," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(5), pages 2683-2745, May.
    5. 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.
    6. Bobo Zong & Yifan Sun & Linfeng Li, 2024. "Advances, Hotspots, and Trends in Outdoor Education Research: A Bibliometric Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(22), pages 1-21, November.
    7. Dima Jamali & Georges Samara & Lokman I. Meho, 2024. "Determinants of research productivity and efficiency among the Arab world’s accredited business schools," Management Review Quarterly, Springer, vol. 74(4), pages 2511-2543, December.
    8. Shuangqing Sheng & Wei Song & Hua Lian & Lei Ning, 2022. "Review of Urban Land Management Based on Bibliometrics," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(11), pages 1-25, November.
    9. Virginia Milone & Antonio Fusco & Angelamaria De Feo & Marco Tatullo, 2024. "Clinical Impact of “Real World Data” and Blockchain on Public Health: A Scoping Review," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 21(1), pages 1-14, January.
    10. Zhentao Liang & Jin Mao & Kun Lu & Gang Li, 2021. "Finding citations for PubMed: a large-scale comparison between five freely available bibliographic data sources," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(12), pages 9519-9542, December.
    11. Andrzej Lis & Agata Sudolska & Mateusz Tomanek, 2020. "Mapping Research on Sustainable Supply-Chain Management," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(10), pages 1-26, May.
    12. Haochen Qian & Fan Zhang & Bing Qiu, 2023. "Deciphering the Evolution, Frontier, and Knowledge Clustering in Sustainable City Planning: A 60-Year Interdisciplinary Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(24), pages 1-27, December.
    13. Ran Ge & Yu Xia & Liquan Ge & Fei Li, 2025. "Knowledge Graph Analysis in Climate Action Research," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 17(1), pages 1-30, January.
    14. Judith Nyulas & Ștefan Dezsi & Adrian Niță & Raluca-Andreea Toma & Ana-Maria Lazăr, 2024. "Trends and Future Directions in Analysing Attractiveness of Geoparks Using an Automated Merging Method of Multiple Databases—R-Based Bibliometric Analysis," Land, MDPI, vol. 13(10), pages 1-30, October.
    15. Wenting Yang & Jiantong Zhang & Ruolin Ma, 2020. "The Prediction of Infectious Diseases: A Bibliometric Analysis," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(17), pages 1-19, August.
    16. Shir Aviv-Reuven & Ariel Rosenfeld, 2023. "A logical set theory approach to journal subject classification analysis: intra-system irregularities and inter-system discrepancies in Web of Science and Scopus," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(1), pages 157-175, January.
    17. Biru Desta Kassaye & Yitbarek Takele Bayiley & Zerihun Kinde Alemu, 2025. "Returnee migrant entrepreneurship: a bibliometric analysis (1993–2024)," Journal of Global Entrepreneurship Research, Springer;UNESCO Chair in Entrepreneurship, vol. 15(1), pages 1-23, December.
    18. Christine Meschede, 2020. "The Sustainable Development Goals in Scientific Literature: A Bibliometric Overview at the Meta-Level," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(11), pages 1-14, June.
    19. Toluwase Victor Asubiaro & Sodiq Onaolapo, 2023. "A comparative study of the coverage of African journals in Web of Science, Scopus, and CrossRef," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 74(7), pages 745-758, July.
    20. Liu, Weishu, 2021. "Caveats for the use of Web of Science Core Collection in old literature retrieval and historical bibliometric analysis," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 172(C).

    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:jsusta:v:17:y:2025:i:5:p:2218-:d:1605055. 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.