• Sam Yu-Chieh Ho, Tsair-Wei Chien, Chien-Cheng Huang, and Kang-Ting Tsai.
• Department of Emergency Medicine, Chi-Mei Medical Center, Tainan, Taiwan.
• Medicine (Baltimore). 2022 Nov 4; 101 (44): e31335e31335.

BackgroundAn individual's research domain (RD) can be determined from objective publication data (e.g., medical subject headings and Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms) by performing social network analysis. Bibliographic coupling (such as cocitation) is a similarity metric that relies on citation analysis to determine the similarity in RD between 2 articles. This study compared RD consistency between articles as well as their cited references and citing articles (ARCs).MethodsA total of 1388 abstracts were downloaded from PubMed and authored by 3 productive authors. Based on the top 3 clusters in social network analysis, similarity in RD was observed by comparing their consistency using the major MeSH terms in author articles, cited references and citing articles (ARC). Impact beam plots with La indices were drawn and compared for each of the 3 authors.ResultsSung-Ho Jang (South Korea), Chia-Hung Kao (Taiwan), and Chin-Hsiao Tseng (Taiwan) published 445, 780, and 163 articles, respectively. Dr Jang's RD is physiology, and Dr Kao and Dr Tseng's RDs are epidemiology. We confirmed the consistency of the RD terms by comparing the major MeSH terms in the ARC. Their La indexes were 5, 5, and 6, where a higher value indicates more extraordinary research achievement.ConclusionRD consistency was confirmed by comparing the main MeSH terms in ARC. The 3 approaches of RD determination (based on author articles, the La index, and the impact beam plots) were recommended for bibliographical studies in the future.Copyright © 2022 the Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.

6 keywords...

hide…