Bibliometric Analysis on COVID-19: A Comparison of Research Between English and Chinese Studies

Jingchun Fan; Ya Gao; Na Zhao; Runjing Dai; Hailiang Zhang; Xiaoyan Feng; Guoxiu Shi; Jinhui Tian; Che Chen; Brett D Hambly; Shisan Bao

doi:10.3389/fpubh.2020.00477

Bibliometric Analysis on COVID-19: A Comparison of Research Between English and Chinese Studies

Front Public Health. 2020 Aug 14:8:477. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2020.00477. eCollection 2020.

Authors

Jingchun Fan^{1

2}, Ya Gao^{3

4}, Na Zhao¹, Runjing Dai¹, Hailiang Zhang¹, Xiaoyan Feng¹, Guoxiu Shi^{1

5}, Jinhui Tian^{3

4}, Che Chen⁶, Brett D Hambly^{1

7}, Shisan Bao^{1

7}

Affiliations

¹ School of Public Health, Gansu University of Chinese Medicine, Lanzhou, China.
² Center for Evidence-Based Medicine, Gansu University of Chinese Medicine, Lanzhou, China.
³ Evidence-Based Medicine Center, School of Basic Medical Sciences, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China.
⁴ Key Laboratory of Evidence-Based Medicine and Knowledge Translation of Gansu Province, Lanzhou, China.
⁵ School of Public Health, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China.
⁶ School of Clinical Medicine, Gansu University of Chinese Medicine, Lanzhou, China.
⁷ Discipline of Pathology, Charles Perkins Centre, Faculty of Medicine and Sciences, School of Medical Sciences, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.

Abstract

Background: As an emerging infectious disease, COVID-19 has garnered great research interest. We aimed to explore the differences between English language and Chinese language Medical/Scientific journals publications, particularly aiming to explore the efficacy/contents of the literature published in English and Chinese in relation to the outcomes of management and characterization of COVID-19 during the early stage of COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: Publications on COVID-19 research were retrieved from both English and Chinese databases. Bibliometric analyses were performed using VOSviewer 1.6.14, and CiteSpace V software. Network maps were generated to evaluate the collaborations between different authors, countries/provinces, and institutions. Results: A total of 143 English and 721 Chinese original research articles and reviews on COVID-19 were included in our study. Most of the authors and institutions of the papers were from China before March 1st, 2020, however, the distribution of authors and institutions were mainly in developed countries or more wealthy areas of China. The range of the keywords in English publications was more extensive than those in Chinese. Traditional Chinese Medicine was seen more frequently in Chinese papers than in English. Of the 143 articles published in English, 54 articles were published by Chinese authors only and 21 articles were published jointly by Chinese and other overseas authors. Conclusions: The publications in English have enabled medical practitioners and scientists to share/exchange information, while on the other hand, the publications in the Chinese language have provided complementary educational approaches for the local medical practitioners to understand the essential and key information to manage COVID-19 in the relatively remote regions of China, for the general population with a general level of education.

Keywords: COVID-19 outbreaks; Chinese; English; SARS-CoV-2; bibliometric.

Publication types

Comparative Study
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

MeSH terms

Bibliometrics*
Biomedical Research* / statistics & numerical data
COVID-19* / epidemiology
Humans
Language*