Bibliometric analysis assessed publication output and citation trends in IJERPH, highlighting impacts of delisting from Web of Science.
<ns3:p>Background: The International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health (IJERPH), a peer-reviewed, open-access journal launched in 2004 by the Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute (MDPI), experienced rapid growth due to its broad scope and accessibility. However, its delisting from Clarivate’s Web of Science in 2023, prompted by concerns over editorial scope, marked a pivotal shift in its trajectory.Aim of the study: This study conducted a bibliometric analysis of IJERPH’s publication output from 2004 to 2023, examining citation trends, authorship networks, geographical contributions, and thematic shifts to assess its scientific influence and the impact of its removal from Web of Science.Materials and methods: Original research articles published in IJERPH between January 1, 2004, and December 31, 2023, were retrieved from the Scopus database. Bibliometric indicators, including publication trends, citation impact, collaboration networks, and thematic evolution, were analyzed using Bibliometrix 4.1 and VOSviewer 1.6.20. Results: The analysis revealed a sharp increase in publication volume, particularly after 2019, with China, the United States, Spain, and Taiwan emerging as leading contributors. The journal’s output peaked in 2022, driven by a surge in COVID-19-related studies. Thematic analysis identified four key research clusters: (1) COVID-19 and mental health, (2) physical activity and obesity, (3) public health and environmental risk, and (4) quality of life and health promotion.Conclusions: This bibliometric analysis showed IJERPH’s rapid expansion and global reach, particularly after 2019. However, its delisting from Web of Science in 2023 disrupted citation momentum, reduced its appeal as a publishing venue, and raised concerns regarding its long-term visibility. This case illustrates the challenges of balancing rapid growth in open-access publishing with maintaining trust within the scientific community.</ns3:p>
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Koo et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: