Volume 23, Issue 2 (Summer 2026)
bloodj 2026, 23(2): 135-149 |
Back to browse issues page
Ethics code: IR.MUBABOL.HRI.REC.1398.316
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
yaminfirooz M, Tahmasebi K, Mehri Z, Amiri S. Scientific Mapping of Highly Cited Leukemia Publications: An Analysis of the Relationship Between Network Centrality and Citation Impact. bloodj 2026; 23 (2) :135-149
URL: http://bloodjournal.ir/article-1-1625-en.html
URL: http://bloodjournal.ir/article-1-1625-en.html
Abstract: (430 Views)
A B S T R A C T
Background and Objectives
Scientific mapping is one of the key scientometric approaches used to identify knowledge structures, research trends, collaboration networks, and emerging frontier within scientific disciplines. This study aimed to map the scientific landscape of highly cited leukemia publications and to examine their thematic and citation structures over the period of 2013 to 2022.
Materials and Methods
This cross-sectional scientometric study investigate 377 highly cited publications on leukemia retrieved from the Web of Science database. Bibliometric indicators, citation and co-citation analysis, and scientific network mapping analyses were employed to examine the intellectual structure and development of the field.
Results
Among the retrieved publications, 295 (78.2%) were original research articles and 82 (21.8%) were review. The highest annual output of highly cited publications was recorded in 2022, whereas the highest mean citation rate per article was observed in 2016 (614 citations). Co-citation analysis identified 11 thematic clusters, reflecting a transition in research focus from clinical studies toward molecular genetics, genomic investigations, and CAR-T cell immunotherapies. Citation burst analysis revealed that the publication by Bejar et al. exhibited the strongest citation burst (strength = 5.92). No significant relationship was found between article age and citation frequency (r = −0.042, p = 0.268). Researchers from 70 countries contributed to leukemia-related publications, with the United States ranking first, accounting for 261 articles (69.2%). The journal Blood and researcher Kantarjian HM were identified as the most influential journal and author, respectively. Furthermore, citation counts correlated positively with the number of publications (r = 0.622), degree centrality (r = 0.552), closeness centrality (r = 0.518), and betweenness centrality (r = 0.404) (p < 0.01 for all).
Conclusions
The scientific mapping of highly cited leukemia research indicates that the knowledge core of this field has progressively shifted toward molecular genetics and immunotherapy over the past decade. Moreover, given the declining mediating role of intermediary actors within the scientific collaboration network, the evaluation of leukemia researchers should not rely on a single metric; rather, a multidimensional assessment approach is warranted. These findings may provide valuable insights for research policy-making and strategic planning in leukemia-science production.
Scientific mapping is one of the key scientometric approaches used to identify knowledge structures, research trends, collaboration networks, and emerging frontier within scientific disciplines. This study aimed to map the scientific landscape of highly cited leukemia publications and to examine their thematic and citation structures over the period of 2013 to 2022.
Materials and Methods
This cross-sectional scientometric study investigate 377 highly cited publications on leukemia retrieved from the Web of Science database. Bibliometric indicators, citation and co-citation analysis, and scientific network mapping analyses were employed to examine the intellectual structure and development of the field.
Results
Among the retrieved publications, 295 (78.2%) were original research articles and 82 (21.8%) were review. The highest annual output of highly cited publications was recorded in 2022, whereas the highest mean citation rate per article was observed in 2016 (614 citations). Co-citation analysis identified 11 thematic clusters, reflecting a transition in research focus from clinical studies toward molecular genetics, genomic investigations, and CAR-T cell immunotherapies. Citation burst analysis revealed that the publication by Bejar et al. exhibited the strongest citation burst (strength = 5.92). No significant relationship was found between article age and citation frequency (r = −0.042, p = 0.268). Researchers from 70 countries contributed to leukemia-related publications, with the United States ranking first, accounting for 261 articles (69.2%). The journal Blood and researcher Kantarjian HM were identified as the most influential journal and author, respectively. Furthermore, citation counts correlated positively with the number of publications (r = 0.622), degree centrality (r = 0.552), closeness centrality (r = 0.518), and betweenness centrality (r = 0.404) (p < 0.01 for all).
Conclusions
The scientific mapping of highly cited leukemia research indicates that the knowledge core of this field has progressively shifted toward molecular genetics and immunotherapy over the past decade. Moreover, given the declining mediating role of intermediary actors within the scientific collaboration network, the evaluation of leukemia researchers should not rely on a single metric; rather, a multidimensional assessment approach is warranted. These findings may provide valuable insights for research policy-making and strategic planning in leukemia-science production.
References
1. Rajabi L, Rajabi A, Mohammadi A, Khademi R, Khamisipour Gh. The effect of aqueous and ethanolic extracts of Moringa olifera leaves on inhibition of Jurkat and Raji cell lines of acute lymphoblastic leukemia. J Iran Blood Transfuse. 2022; 19 (2) :148-57.
2. Yamashita M, Dellorusso PV, Olson OC, Passegué E. Dysregulated haematopoietic stem cell behaviour in myeloid leukaemogenesis. Nat Rev Cancer. 2020; 20(7): 365-82. [DOI:10.1038/s41568-020-0260-3] [PMID] [PMCID]
3. Chen Y, Cheng L, Lian R, Song Z, Tian J. COVID19 vaccine research focusses on safety,efficacy, immunoinformatics, and vaccine production and delivery: a bibliometric analysis basedon VOSviewer. Biosci Trends. 2021; 15(2): 64-73. [DOI:10.5582/bst.2021.01061] [PMID]
4. Eslamfar M, Marashian S H, Khatibi A, Azmsha T. Evaluation and knowledge mapping of scientific products in the field of sports media in the Web of Science. CJS. 2025; 12 (1) :55-64.
5. Yao RQ, Ren C, Wang JN, Wu GS, Zhu XM, Xia ZF, et al. Publication trends of research on sepsis and host immune response during 1999-2019: a20year bibliometric analysis. Int J Biol Sci. 2020; 16(1): 27-37. [DOI:10.7150/ijbs.37496] [PMID] [PMCID]
6. Huang Y, Chen P, Peng B, Liao R, Huang H, Huang M, et al. The top 100 most cited articles on triple-negative breast cancer: a bibliometric analysis. Clin Exp Med. 2023; 23(2) :175-201. [DOI:10.1007/s10238-022-00800-9] [PMID]
7. Ji Z, Chen L, Yang Q , Tian H, Wu J, Zheng D, et al. Research trend of circulating tumor DNA associated with breast cancer from 2012 to 2021: A bibliometric analysis. Front Oncol. 2023; 13:12:1090503. [DOI:10.3389/fonc.2022.1090503] [PMID] [PMCID]
8. Velez-Estevez A, Garcia-Sanchez P, Moral-Munoz J. A, Cobo M.J. Why do papers from international collaborations get more citations? A bibliometric analysis of Library and Information Science papers. Scientometrics. 2022;(127):7517-7555. [DOI:10.1007/s11192-022-04486-4]
9. Seo B, Kim J, Kim S, Lee E. Bibliometric analysis of studies about acute myeloid leukemia conducted globally from 1999 to 2018. Blood Res. 2020; 55(1):1-9. [DOI:10.5045/br.2020.55.1.1] [PMID] [PMCID]
10. Wang R, Zhao C, Jiang S, Zhang Z, Ban C, Zheng G, et al. Advanced nanoparticles that can target therapy and reverse drug resistance may be the dawn of leukemia treatment: A bibliometrics study. Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 2022; 10: 10: 1027868. [DOI:10.3389/fbioe.2022.1027868] [PMID] [PMCID]
11. Melero-Fuentes D, Aguilar-Moya R, Valderrama-Zurián JC, Gorraiz J. Evolution and effect of meeting abstracts in JCR journals. J Informetr. 2024; 19(1): 101573. [DOI:10.1016/j.joi.2024.101631]
12. Quispe-Vicuna C, Cabanillas-Lazo M, Barja-Ore J, Mauricio-Vilchez C, Guerrero ME, Munive-Degregori A, et al. Blastic plasmacytoid dendritic cell neoplasm: a 10 year bibliometric study. J Appl Hematol. 2023; 14(1): 12-16. [DOI:10.4103/joah.joah_81_22]
13. Umadevi V. Case study-centrality measure analysis on co-authorship network. Journal of Global Research in Computer Science, 2013;4(1) : 67-70. [DOI:10.5120/12870-9853]
14. Yan E, Ding Y. Applying centrality measures to impact analysis: A coauthorship network analysis. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 2009; 60(10): 2107-2118. [DOI:10.1002/asi.21128]
15. Kho ME, Brouwers MC. Application of the systematic review and bibliometric network analysis (SeBriNA) methodology contextualizes evidence. Part 2: rituximab for non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. J Clin Epidemiol. 2012; 65(9): 996-1009. [DOI:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2012.03.008] [PMID]
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
