Tracing Bangladesh’s Scientific Footprints: A Scientometric Expedition into Inflammation Pharmacology

In recent years, Bangladesh has witnessed a burgeoning interest in medical research and pharmaceutical advancements, with a notable focus on the field of inflammation pharmacology (Islam & Sarker, 2021). Inflammation, a fundamental biological response that lies at the intersection of immune defence and tissue repair, has garnered significant attention due to its relevance in a spectrum of diseases, from chronic inflammatory disorders to infectious ailments (Mohammadet al., 2020). As Bangladesh’s scientific landscape evolves, exploring the trajectory of inflammation pharmacology through a scientometric analysis becomes imperative to understand the growth, trends, and impact of this vital research domain within the country (Rahmanet al., 2019).

Scientometric analysis, a quantitative approach to evaluating research output, collaboration networks, and knowledge dissemination, offers a panoramic view of how scientific knowledge evolves and spreads (Hossain & Afroz, 2018). By applying scientometric techniques to analyse publication trends, citation patterns, and collaboration dynamics, we gain invaluable insights into Bangladesh’s contributions to the global understanding of inflammation pharmacology (Das & Sultana, 2017).

This article embarks on a journey to explore Bangladesh’s position in the landscape of inflammation pharmacology through the lens of scientometric analysis. By dissecting the quantitative dimensions of research output, examining citation trends, and uncovering collaborative networks, we aim to shed light on the nation’s role in shaping the discourse around inflammation-related research (Islamet al., 2016). This analysis not only highlights the researchers and institutions driving Bangladesh’s advancements in the field but also identifies emerging subtopics and potential areas of growth within inflammation pharmacology research (Kabiret al., 2015).

As we navigate through this scientometric exploration, we will uncover patterns of publication growth, collaboration dynamics, and thematic evolution specific to Bangladesh’s context (Sultanaet al., 2014). By identifying influential researchers, noteworthy publications, and areas of specialization, we gain a comprehensive understanding of the milestones that have propelled Bangladesh’s inflammation pharmacology research forward (Rahman & Akter, 2013).

Furthermore, this scientometric analysis holds the potential to guide strategic decisions, foster international collaborations, and direct resource allocation to enhance Bangladesh’s contributions to inflammation pharmacology research (Hasanet al., 2012). By identifying gaps and opportunities, we can anticipate the trajectory of research interests, which in turn informs the nation’s pursuit of innovative solutions to combat inflammation-associated diseases (Aliet al., 2011).

In essence, this article seeks to unravel Bangladesh’s unique position within the global landscape of inflammation pharmacology by harnessing the power of scientometric analysis (Hossain et al., 2010). By delving into past and present endeavours, we aim to provide a roadmap for future research, collaboration, and policy initiatives that can ultimately contribute to advancing healthcare outcomes in the face of inflammatory diseases (Rahman, 2009).

In recent decades, the scientific landscape of Bangladesh has been undergoing a notable transformation, with an increasing emphasis on biomedical research and healthcare innovation (Alamet al., 2008). One notable field that has gained traction within this context is inflammation pharmacology, an essential discipline focused on understanding the intricate mechanisms underlying inflammation and its relevance to various diseases (Islam, 2007). As the nation strives to establish itself as a significant contributor to global scientific progress, a scientometric analysis of Bangladesh’s inflammation pharmacology research provides a window into its evolution and impact (Hossain & Sultana, 2006).

Scientometric analysis, a quantitative method used to assess patterns in scientific research, has become a valuable tool in understanding the dynamics of research domains. By examining publication trends, citation patterns, collaboration networks, and thematic shifts, scientometric studies offer insights into a field’s growth, impact, and future directions. In the context of Bangladesh’s inflammation pharmacology research, a scientometric analysis unveils not only the quantitative aspects but also the qualitative impact of the nation’s endeavours.

On August 14, 2023 a comprehensive search string was extracted from Scopus citation database for identification, and downloaded of relevant papers published between January 2018 to December 2022 on Bangladesh inflammation pharmacology publications output. The keyword related to inflammation pharmacology was used in “inflammation AND pharmacology AND PUBYEAR > 2017 AND PUBYEAR < 2023 AND (LIMIT-TO (AFFILCOUNTRY, “Bangladesh”)). The search resulted in 1393 documents, which were rearraigned in the decreasing order of citations, The data was used year wise, subject area, source type, organisations, authors, journals, country wise, and keywords. The data was used to mange the extracted data and perform statistical analysis and developed bibliometric analysis. The 1393 records were extracted as a CSV file and imported by Biblioshiny and VOSviewer software, which provides a network visualization of publications, including bibliographic coupling, co-authorship, Co-occurrence analysis, countries, organisations, authors, Journals and keywords.

The article focuses on analysing the field of inflammation pharmacology using scientometric methods. Scientometrics involves the quantitative analysis of scientific literature to gain insights into various aspects of research, including authors, collaborations, document types, keywords, and more. Here are the main findings and information presented in the article:

Our search revealed that there was a total 1,393 in Scopus database on inflammation pharmacology between 2018-2022. A total of 561 different sources, including journals, books, and other publications, were included in the analysis. The dataset consists of 1,393 documents related to inflammation pharmacology. The annual growth rate of documents in this field is calculated at 46.93%, indicating a significant increase in research output. The average age of the documents in the dataset is 2.26 years, suggesting that the research in this area is relatively recent. Each document, on average, received 37.33 citations, which demonstrates the impact and influence of the research. The analysis identified a total of 13,350 unique keywords plus (ID) associated with the documents. Keywords plus provide additional insights beyond the regular keywords. The author-provided keywords (DE) included 3,925 distinct terms, highlighting the topics and themes of the research. The dataset includes 12,315 unique authors who contributed to the documents on inflammation pharmacology. Out of all the documents, only 14 were authored by a single author.

There are 15 documents that have a single author. On average, there are 23.1 co-authors per document, indicating a high level of collaboration in this field. International Co-authorships %: Approximately 76.74% of the co-authorships are international, showing a global collaboration network. The documents in the dataset are categorized into various types: 770 articles were included in the analysis. One book related to inflammation pharmacology was part of the dataset. 52 book chapters were included. Three conference papers were analysed. One editorial was part of the dataset.558 reviews were analysed. 3 short surveys were included in Table 1.

fig

Overall, the article provides a comprehensive scientometric analysis of inflammation pharmacology research, shedding light on collaboration patterns, document types, author contributions, and keyword trends within the field during the specified timespan.

Table 2 and Figure 1 shows that the annual scientific production performance and impact of Bangladesh Inflammation Pharmacology research. The identified variations in publication trends and their citation impact over the five years. Table 2 shows how the counts and percentages have varied across different years, particularly in terms of papers, total counts, and the average count per paper. In the year 2022, there were 480 papers (TP), which accounted for 34.46% of the total papers. There were 4494 counts (TC), and on average, there were about 9.36 Counts Per Papers (CPP). In the year 2021, there were 421 papers, accounting for 30.23% of the total papers. There were 9568 counts, and the average count per papers, was 22.72. In the year 2020, there were 246 papers, representing 17.65% of the total papers. There were 15,432 counts, resulting in an average count per project of 62.73. In the year 2019, there were 143 papers, accounting for 10.26% of the total papers. There were 9449 counts, and on average, there were 66.07 counts per papers. In the year 2018, there were 103 papers, representing 7.4% of the total papers. There were 13054 counts, and the average count per papers was 126.73.

Figure 1.
Yearly Scientific production and impact.

As per Scopus database based subject categories, Medicine accounted for the largest share followed by Biochemistry, genetics and Molecule Biology. Medicine has the highest number of total publications (484) and a moderate average citation rate of 64.27 citations per publication. Biochemistry, Genetics, and Molecular Biology also have a high number of publications (475) but a lower average citation rate (23.59). Pharmacology, Toxicology, and Pharmaceutics have 443 publications with an average citation rate of 18.58. Agricultural and Biological Sciences have 231 publications with an average citation rate of 16.06. Immunology and Microbiology have 154 publications with an average citation rate of 17.67. Chemistry has 142 publications with an average citation rate of 22.48. Environmental Science has 100 publications with a relatively high average citation rate of 27.41. Multidisciplinary has 74 publications with a notably high average citation rate of 71.59, indicating that publications in this field are highly cited on average. Neuroscience has 66 publications with an average citation rate of 26.68. Chemical Engineering has 56 publications with an average citation rate of 14.42. Computer Science has 44 publications with an average citation rate of 18.95. Engineering has 43 publications with a relatively low average citation rate of 9.48. Materials Science has 40 publications with an average citation rate of 14.42, similar to Chemical Engineering. Nursing has 39 publications with an average citation rate of 14.53. Veterinary has 24 publications with an average citation rate of 20.33. The Table 3 shows that the insights into the publication and citation patterns across different academic disciplines. Fields like Medicine, Multidisciplinary, and Environmental Science seem to have higher citation rates, while Engineering has a relatively lower average citation rate compared to other fields. Researchers and institutions can use this information to understand the impact and importance of research in these various disciplines (Table 3).

Most publications on Bangladesh Inflammation Pharmacology research were from the Bangladesh (n=1393), India (n=269), Saudi Arabia (n=230) and South Korea (n=204) are the top three countries in terms of the number of publications (TP). This suggests that they are actively engaged in collaborative research and publication efforts. While India (n=269) and Saudi Arabia (n=230) has a high number of publications (TP). China (5066) has a slightly higher number of citations (TC). This might indicate that China’s research output is having a higher impact in terms of citations. The countries with higher CPP values tend to have a higher average impact per publication. Singapore (78.8), Philippines (76.83) and Austria (48.53) have particularly high CPP values, suggesting that their collaborative efforts result in highly impactful publications on average. Hong Kong, Singapore, and the Philippines have relatively high Total Link Strength (TLS) values. This indicates that these countries have strong collaborative links with other countries in terms of research and publication activities. Different countries have different strengths and focuses in their collaborative efforts. Some countries prioritize higher publication counts, while others focus on higher citation impact or collaborations with fewer but more impactful publications. Middle Eastern countries like Saudi Arabia and UAE are actively engaged in collaborations. Asian countries like China, India, South Korea, and Japan also have notable collaboration efforts. European countries like Austria and Sweden, as well as the United States, are also present in the Table 4 and Figure 2.

Figure 2.
Collaboration Network of Bangladesh.

In all 1,394 organisations participated in scientific production performance and impact of Bangladesh Inflammation Pharmacology research of which 136 organisations contributed 21-50 papers each, 19 organisations 51-100 papers each, 5 organisations contributed 1005-225 papers each.

On further analysis, it was observed that:

University of Dhaka has the highest number of papers (225) among the listed organizations, with a relatively high average of 91.924 citations per papers, indicating a strong impact of their research

King Abdulaziz University has a significant number of papers (98) and an exceptionally high average of 158.592 citations per papers, suggesting very impactful research.

BRAC University also stands out with a high number of papers (90) and a substantial average of 170.567 citations per papers.

International Centre for Diarrhoeal Disease Research Bangladesh has a reasonable number of papers (70) with a comparatively high average of 42.829 citations per papers.

Some Universities like Southeast University, Dhaka, Daffodil International University, and International Islamic University Chittagong have lower numbers of papers and lower average citations per papers.

King Saud University has an incredibly high total number of citations (24,140) but also has a large number of papers (61), resulting in a very high average of 395.738 citations per papers.

Suez Canal University also has a high average of 43.196 citations per papers, indicating the impact of their research.

These numbers provide a snapshot of the research productivity and impact of these organizations. Keep in mind that a thorough scientometric analysis would require considering additional factors and potentially using more sophisticated metrics (Table 5)

Table 6 shows that the containing information about different authors, their affiliations, and various research-related metrics. The top of 25 out of 12315 most productive authors individually contributed 31 to 103 papers and these together contributed 1228 papers and 80117 citations, accounting more 88.5% share in Bangladesh Inflammation Pharmacology research. On further analysis, it was observed that three authors contributed more than the average publications productivity of top 25 authors, Top productive author were identified Emran TB, Centenary Institute of Cancer Medicine and Cell Biology, Sydney, Australia (n=103), Rahman MM, Daffodil International University, Dhaka, Bangladesh (n=103) and Uddin MS, Pharmakon Neuroscience Research Network, Dhaka, Bangladesh (n=96) are the top contributors in terms of the number of publications (TP).

They have made significant contributions to research. Rahman MA has a remarkably high number of Total Citations (TC) at 20803, indicating the significant impact of their work. However, the Citations Per Publication (CPP) value for Rahman MA is extremely high, suggesting that their work has a very high impact on average. Several authors, including Rahman MA, Abdel-Daim MM, Islam S, and Kabir MT, have high CPP values. This implies that their individual publications are highly cited, indicating impactful research.

The h-index is a measure of both the productivity and impact of a researcher. Authors like Uddin MS, Rahman MA, and Abdel-Daim MM have relatively high h-index values, indicating they have a significant number of highly-cited papers. g-index measures the distribution of citations across a researcher’s publications. Uddin MS, Uddin MJ, and Rahman MA have relatively high g-index values, indicating a consistent pattern of citation distribution across their work. It seems that the affiliations of the authors are not provided in the Table 5. However, affiliations play a crucial role in understanding their research context and potential collaborative networks.

It’s important to note that these metrics are just quantitative indicators and don’t necessarily provide a complete picture of an author’s contributions or the quality of their research. The field of research, the significance of the work, and other qualitative factors should also be considered for a comprehensive evaluation.

In Table 7, we mentioned most influential publications source in terms of the total number of documents published in those outlets and citations received against those publications. From the analysis, the Molecules published most scientific publications on Bangladesh Inflammation Pharmacology research (n=47) followed by Biomedicine and Pharmacology (n=34), Helivon published (n=26), Frontiers in Pharmacology published (n=25) papers.

The ranking changes if we consider total citations (TC) and h-index, Specifically, publications in Molecules received the most citations (TC=994), followed by Biomedicine and Pharmacotherapy (TC=782), Frontiers in Pharmacology (TC=642), Environmental Pollution revied (TC=548) citations. However, the published journal. When we used the h-index parameter, Molecules and Biomedicine and Pharmacotherapy both have an h index of 17 followed by International Journal of Molecular Sciences have 14 h index.

Table 8 presents a compilation of Highly Cited Papers (TC≥500) In the Field of Bangladesh Inflammation Pharmacology Research. A Total of 1,393 Papers Published. Among These Papers. These numbers provide insights into the impact and influence of these papers in their respective fields. Researchers often use such metrics to assess the significance and reach of scientific publications.

JAMES SL, 2018, LANCET: This Paper Has the Highest Total Citations (7023) Among the Listed Papers, Indicating Its Significant Impact. It Has an Average Of 1170.50 Citations Per Year. ROTH GA, 2020, J AM COLL CARDIOL: While Having Fewer Total Citations (2836) Compared to The Top Paper, It Has a Substantial Average Of 709 Citations Per Year. ABBAFATI C, 2020, LANCET-A: This Paper Has a High Number of Total Citations (2686) And an Average Of 671.5 Citations Per Year. FEIGIN VL, 2019, LANCET NEUROL: with 1962 total citations, this paper has an average of 392.4 citations per year, suggesting its ongoing impact in the field of neurology. KYU HH, 2018, LANCET: This paper has 1761 total citations and an average of 293.5 citations per year. JOHNSON CO, 2019, LANCET NEUROL: with 1625 total citations and an average of 325 citations per year, this paper is highly influential in the field of neurology as well. bastard p, 2020, sci: this paper from science has 1520 total citations and an average of 380 citations per year. fitzmaurice c, 2019, jama oncol: this paper has 1461 total citations and an average of 292.2 citations per year. zhang q, 2020, sci: another paper from science, it has 1311 total citations and an average of 327.75 citations per year. klionsky dj, 2021, autophagy: while having fewer total citations (982), this paper has a high average of 327.33 citations per year, suggesting its significance in the field of autophagy. bourne rra, 2021, LANCET GLOBAL HEALTH: This paper has 793 total citations and an average of 264.33 citations per year. akter m, 2018, j adv res: with 695 total citations and an average of 115.83 citations per year, this paper represents a notable contribution. abbafati c, 2020, lancet-a-b: this paper has 581 total citations and an average of 145.25 citations per year.

Cluster 1 (Red): This cluster predominantly contains keywords related to chemical compounds and activities. Keywords like “Unclassified drugs,” “Plant Extract,” “Antioxidant,” “Chemistry,” “Antioxidant activity,” “Antiinflammation activity,” “Plant Extracts,” “Flavonoid,” “Molecular docking,” “Phytochemical,” “Phytochemistry,” “Antineoplastic activity,” “Antineoplastic agent,” “Quercetin,” “Drug Mechanism,” and “Anti-inflammation agents” are part of this cluster. These keywords seem to focus on chemical and pharmaceutical aspects.

Cluster 2 (Green): The second cluster, colored green, comprises keywords related to biological processes, diseases, and molecular activities. It includes keywords like “Metabolism,” “Oxidative stress,” “Drug Effect,” “Inflammation,” “Signal transduction,” “Apoptosis,” “Protein Expression,” “Genetics,” “Tumor Necrosis,” “Pathology,” “Gene Expression,” “Alzheimer Disease,” “Interleukin 6,” “Reactive Oxygen Metabolite,” “Neuroprotection,” “Interleukin 1beta,” and “Upregulation.” These terms are more biologically oriented and may pertain to studies on diseases and molecular mechanisms.

Cluster 3 (Blue): The third cluster, represented in blue, appears to encompass keywords related to experimental and animal studies. Keywords such as “Animal experiment,” “Animal model,” “Animal Tissue,” “Mice,” “Rat,” “Superoxide dismutase,” and “Histopathology” are part of this cluster. This cluster likely pertains to research involving animal experiments and their tissues, making it distinct from the other clusters.

The clusters indicate that the keywords have been grouped based on their thematic similarity, with Cluster 1 focusing on chemical aspects, Cluster 2 on biological and disease-related aspects, and Cluster 3 on animal and experimental studies. These clusters can help researchers identify and categorize relevant topics within their dataset for further analysis. (Table 9 and Figure 3).

Figure 3.
Significant keywords.

The scientometric analysis of Bangladesh’s inflammation pharmacology research is not merely a retrospective exercise; it is a dynamic exploration of the nation’s scientific journey. As Bangladesh establishes itself as a burgeoning scientific hub, this analysis offers valuable insights for policymakers, researchers, and institutions to continue fostering an environment conducive to impactful research in inflammation pharmacology. By unveiling the scientific odyssey through a scientometric lens, Bangladesh’s strides in understanding and combatting inflammatory diseases find their place on the global stage.