Bibliometric Analysis of Publications in Scopus-Indexed Public, Environmental and Occupational Health Journals Across Scimago Quartiles (2016–2024)

Bibliometric Analysis of Publications in... | F1000Research "use strict";function _typeof(t){return(_typeof="function"==typeof Symbol&&"symbol"==typeof Symbol.iterator?function(t){return typeof t}:function(t){return t&&"function"==typeof Symbol&&t.constructor===Symbol&&t!==Symbol.prototype?"symbol":typeof t})(t)}!function(){var t=function(){var t,e,o=[],n=window,r=n;for(;r;){try{if(r.frames.__tcfapiLocator){t=r;break}}catch(t){}if(r===n.top)break;r=r.parent}t||(!function t(){var e=n.document,o=!!n.frames.__tcfapiLocator;if(!o)if(e.body){var r=e.createElement("iframe");r.style.cssText="display:none",r.name="__tcfapiLocator",e.body.appendChild(r)}else setTimeout(t,5);return!o}(),n.__tcfapi=function(){for(var t=arguments.length,n=new Array(t),r=0;r 3&&2===parseInt(n[1],10)&&"boolean"==typeof n[3]&&(e=n[3],"function"==typeof n[2]&&n[2]("set",!0)):"ping"===n[0]?"function"==typeof n[2]&&n[2]({gdprApplies:e,cmpLoaded:!1,cmpStatus:"stub"}):o.push(n)},n.addEventListener("message",(function(t){var e="string"==typeof t.data,o={};if(e)try{o=JSON.parse(t.data)}catch(t){}else o=t.data;var n="object"===_typeof(o)&&null!==o?o.__tcfapiCall:null;n&&window.__tcfapi(n.command,n.version,(function(o,r){var a={__tcfapiReturn:{returnValue:o,success:r,callId:n.callId}};t&&t.source&&t.source.postMessage&&t.source.postMessage(e?JSON.stringify(a):a,"*")}),n.parameter)}),!1))};"undefined"!=typeof module?module.exports=t:t()}(); dataLayer = dataLayer || []; // Standard GTM initialization - Google Consent Mode handles consent automatically (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start': new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0], j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src= 'https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl+ '>m_auth=hzk0Vc3qFsQYhCrIoHz68A>m_preview=env-1>m_cookies_win=x';f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f); })(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-MWFK8L5J'); ;window.NREUM||(NREUM={});NREUM.init={distributed_tracing:{enabled:true},privacy:{cookies_enabled:true},ajax:{deny_list:["bam.nr-data.net"]}}; ;NREUM.loader_config={accountID:"438030",trustKey:"438030",agentID:"772317073",licenseKey:"97f8f67f26",applicationID:"772317073"} ;NREUM.info={beacon:"bam.nr-data.net",errorBeacon:"bam.nr-data.net",licenseKey:"97f8f67f26",applicationID:"772317073",sa:1} ;/*! For license information please see nr-loader-spa-1.236.0.min.js.LICENSE.txt */ (()=>{"use strict";var e,t,r={5763:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{P_:()=>l,Mt:()=>g,C5:()=>s,DL:()=>v,OP:()=>T,lF:()=>D,Yu:()=>y,Dg:()=>h,CX:()=>c,GE:()=>b,sU:()=>_});var n=r(8632),i=r(9567);const o={beacon:n.ce.beacon,errorBeacon:n.ce.errorBeacon,licenseKey:void 0,applicationID:void 0,sa:void 0,queueTime:void 0,applicationTime:void 0,ttGuid:void 0,user:void 0,account:void 0,product:void 0,extra:void 0,jsAttributes:{},userAttributes:void 0,atts:void 0,transactionName:void 0,tNamePlain:void 0},a={};function s(e){if(!e)throw new Error("All info objects require an agent identifier!");if(!a[e])throw new Error("Info for ".concat(e," was never set"));return a[e]}function c(e,t){if(!e)throw new Error("All info objects require an agent identifier!");a[e]=(0,i.D)(t,o),(0,n.Qy)(e,a[e],"info")}var u=r(7056);const d=()=>{const e={blockSelector:"[data-nr-block]",maskInputOptions:{password:!0}};return{allow_bfcache:!0,privacy:{cookies_enabled:!0},ajax:{deny_list:void 0,enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10},distributed_tracing:{enabled:void 0,exclude_newrelic_header:void 0,cors_use_newrelic_header:void 0,cors_use_tracecontext_headers:void 0,allowed_origins:void 0},session:{domain:void 0,expiresMs:u.oD,inactiveMs:u.Hb},ssl:void 0,obfuscate:void 0,jserrors:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10},metrics:{enabled:!0},page_action:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:30},page_view_event:{enabled:!0},page_view_timing:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:30,long_task:!1},session_trace:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10},harvest:{tooManyRequestsDelay:60},session_replay:{enabled:!1,harvestTimeSeconds:60,sampleRate:.1,errorSampleRate:.1,maskTextSelector:"*",maskAllInputs:!0,get blockClass(){return"nr-block"},get ignoreClass(){return"nr-ignore"},get maskTextClass(){return"nr-mask"},get blockSelector(){return e.blockSelector},set blockSelector(t){e.blockSelector+=",".concat(t)},get maskInputOptions(){return e.maskInputOptions},set maskInputOptions(t){e.maskInputOptions={...t,password:!0}}},spa:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10}}},f={};function l(e){if(!e)throw new Error("All configuration objects require an agent identifier!");if(!f[e])throw new Error("Configuration for ".concat(e," was never set"));return f[e]}function h(e,t){if(!e)throw new Error("All configuration objects require an agent identifier!");f[e]=(0,i.D)(t,d()),(0,n.Qy)(e,f[e],"config")}function g(e,t){if(!e)throw new Error("All configuration objects require an agent identifier!");var r=l(e);if(r){for(var n=t.split("."),i=0;i {r.d(t,{D:()=>i});var n=r(50);function i(e,t){try{if(!e||"object"!=typeof e)return(0,n.Z)("Setting a Configurable requires an object as input");if(!t||"object"!=typeof t)return(0,n.Z)("Setting a Configurable requires a model to set its initial properties");const r=Object.create(Object.getPrototypeOf(t),Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptors(t)),o=0===Object.keys(r).length?e:r;for(let a in o)if(void 0!==e[a])try{"object"==typeof e[a]&&"object"==typeof t[a]?r[a]=i(e[a],t[a]):r[a]=e[a]}catch(e){(0,n.Z)("An error occurred while setting a property of a Configurable",e)}return r}catch(e){(0,n.Z)("An error occured while setting a Configurable",e)}}},6818:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{Re:()=>i,gF:()=>o,q4:()=>n});const n="1.236.0",i="PROD",o="CDN"},385:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{FN:()=>a,IF:()=>u,Nk:()=>f,Tt:()=>s,_A:()=>o,il:()=>n,pL:()=>c,v6:()=>i,w1:()=>d});const n="undefined"!=typeof window&&!!window.document,i="undefined"!=typeof WorkerGlobalScope&&("undefined"!=typeof self&&self instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&self.navigator instanceof WorkerNavigator||"undefined"!=typeof globalThis&&globalThis instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&globalThis.navigator instanceof WorkerNavigator),o=n?window:"undefined"!=typeof WorkerGlobalScope&&("undefined"!=typeof self&&self instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&self||"undefined"!=typeof globalThis&&globalThis instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&globalThis),a=""+o?.location,s=/iPad|iPhone|iPod/.test(navigator.userAgent),c=s&&"undefined"==typeof SharedWorker,u=(()=>{const e=navigator.userAgent.match(/Firefox[/\s](\d+\.\d+)/);return Array.isArray(e)&&e.length>=2?+e[1]:0})(),d=Boolean(n&&window.document.documentMode),f=!!navigator.sendBeacon},1117:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{w:()=>o});var n=r(50);const i={agentIdentifier:"",ee:void 0};class o{constructor(e){try{if("object"!=typeof e)return(0,n.Z)("shared context requires an object as input");this.sharedContext={},Object.assign(this.sharedContext,i),Object.entries(e).forEach((e=>{let[t,r]=e;Object.keys(i).includes(t)&&(this.sharedContext[t]=r)}))}catch(e){(0,n.Z)("An error occured while setting SharedContext",e)}}}},8e3:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{L:()=>d,R:()=>c});var n=r(2177),i=r(1284),o=r(4322),a=r(3325);const s={};function c(e,t){const r={staged:!1,priority:a.p[t]||0};u(e),s[e].get(t)||s[e].set(t,r)}function u(e){e&&(s[e]||(s[e]=new Map))}function d(){let e=arguments.length>0&&void 0!==arguments[0]?arguments[0]:"",t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]?arguments[1]:"feature";if(u(e),!e||!s[e].get(t))return a(t);s[e].get(t).staged=!0;const r=[...s[e]];function a(t){const r=e?n.ee.get(e):n.ee,a=o.X.handlers;if(r.backlog&&a){var s=r.backlog[t],c=a[t];if(c){for(var u=0;s&&u {let[t,r]=e;return r.staged}))&&(r.sort(((e,t)=>e[1].priority-t[1].priority)),r.forEach((e=>{let[t]=e;a(t)})))}function f(e,t){var r=e[1];(0,i.D)(t[r],(function(t,r){var n=e[0];if(r[0]===n){var i=r[1],o=e[3],a=e[2];i.apply(o,a)}}))}},2177:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{c:()=>f,ee:()=>u});var n=r(8632),i=r(2210),o=r(1284),a=r(5763),s="nr@context";let c=(0,n.fP)();var u;function d(){}function f(e){return(0,i.X)(e,s,l)}function l(){return new d}function h(){u.aborted=!0,u.backlog={}}c.ee?u=c.ee:(u=function e(t,r){var n={},c={},f={},g=!1;try{g=16===r.length&&(0,a.OP)(r).isolatedBacklog}catch(e){}var p={on:b,addEventListener:b,removeEventListener:y,emit:v,get:x,listeners:w,context:m,buffer:A,abort:h,aborted:!1,isBuffering:E,debugId:r,backlog:g?{}:t&&"object"==typeof t.backlog?t.backlog:{}};return p;function m(e){return e&&e instanceof d?e:e?(0,i.X)(e,s,l):l()}function v(e,r,n,i,o){if(!1!==o&&(o=!0),!u.aborted||i){t&&o&&t.emit(e,r,n);for(var a=m(n),s=w(e),d=s.length,f=0;fn,p:()=>i});var n=r(2177).ee.get("handle");function i(e,t,r,i,o){o?(o.buffer([e],i),o.emit(e,t,r)):(n.buffer([e],i),n.emit(e,t,r))}},4322:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{X:()=>o});var n=r(5546);o.on=a;var i=o.handlers={};function o(e,t,r,o){a(o||n.E,i,e,t,r)}function a(e,t,r,i,o){o||(o="feature"),e||(e=n.E);var a=t[o]=t[o]||{};(a[r]=a[r]||[]).push([e,i])}},3239:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{bP:()=>s,iz:()=>c,m$:()=>a});var n=r(385);let i=!1,o=!1;try{const e={get passive(){return i=!0,!1},get signal(){return o=!0,!1}};n._A.addEventListener("test",null,e),n._A.removeEventListener("test",null,e)}catch(e){}function a(e,t){return i||o?{capture:!!e,passive:i,signal:t}:!!e}function s(e,t){let r=arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2]&&arguments[2],n=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0;window.addEventListener(e,t,a(r,n))}function c(e,t){let r=arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2]&&arguments[2],n=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0;document.addEventListener(e,t,a(r,n))}},4402:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{Ht:()=>u,M:()=>c,Rl:()=>a,ky:()=>s});var n=r(385);const i="xxxxxxxx-xxxx-4xxx-yxxx-xxxxxxxxxxxx";function o(e,t){return e?15&e[t]:16*Math.random()|0}function a(){const e=n._A?.crypto||n._A?.msCrypto;let t,r=0;return e&&e.getRandomValues&&(t=e.getRandomValues(new Uint8Array(31))),i.split("").map((e=>"x"===e?o(t,++r).toString(16):"y"===e?(3&o()|8).toString(16):e)).join("")}function s(e){const t=n._A?.crypto||n._A?.msCrypto;let r,i=0;t&&t.getRandomValues&&(r=t.getRandomValues(new Uint8Array(31)));const a=[];for(var s=0;s {r.d(t,{Bq:()=>n,Hb:()=>o,oD:()=>i});const n="NRBA",i=144e5,o=18e5},7894:(e,t,r)=>{function n(){return Math.round(performance.now())}r.d(t,{z:()=>n})},7243:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{e:()=>o});var n=r(385),i={};function o(e){if(e in i)return i[e];if(0===(e||"").indexOf("data:"))return{protocol:"data"};let t;var r=n._A?.location,o={};if(n.il)t=document.createElement("a"),t.href=e;else try{t=new URL(e,r.href)}catch(e){return o}o.port=t.port;var a=t.href.split("://");!o.port&&a[1]&&(o.port=a[1].split("/")[0].split("@").pop().split(":")[1]),o.port&&"0"!==o.port||(o.port="https"===a[0]?"443":"80"),o.hostname=t.hostname||r.hostname,o.pathname=t.pathname,o.protocol=a[0],"/"!==o.pathname.charAt(0)&&(o.pathname="/"+o.pathname);var s=!t.protocol||":"===t.protocol||t.protocol===r.protocol,c=t.hostname===r.hostname&&t.port===r.port;return o.sameOrigin=s&&(!t.hostname||c),"/"===o.pathname&&(i[e]=o),o}},50:(e,t,r)=>{function n(e,t){"function"==typeof console.warn&&(console.warn("New Relic: ".concat(e)),t&&console.warn(t))}r.d(t,{Z:()=>n})},2587:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{N:()=>c,T:()=>u});var n=r(2177),i=r(5546),o=r(8e3),a=r(3325);const s={stn:[a.D.sessionTrace],err:[a.D.jserrors,a.D.metrics],ins:[a.D.pageAction],spa:[a.D.spa],sr:[a.D.sessionReplay,a.D.sessionTrace]};function c(e,t){const r=n.ee.get(t);e&&"object"==typeof e&&(Object.entries(e).forEach((e=>{let[t,n]=e;void 0===u[t]&&(s[t]?s[t].forEach((e=>{n?(0,i.p)("feat-"+t,[],void 0,e,r):(0,i.p)("block-"+t,[],void 0,e,r),(0,i.p)("rumresp-"+t,[Boolean(n)],void 0,e,r)})):n&&(0,i.p)("feat-"+t,[],void 0,void 0,r),u[t]=Boolean(n))})),Object.keys(s).forEach((e=>{void 0===u[e]&&(s[e]?.forEach((t=>(0,i.p)("rumresp-"+e,[!1],void 0,t,r))),u[e]=!1)})),(0,o.L)(t,a.D.pageViewEvent))}const u={}},2210:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{X:()=>i});var n=Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty;function i(e,t,r){if(n.call(e,t))return e[t];var i=r();if(Object.defineProperty&&Object.keys)try{return Object.defineProperty(e,t,{value:i,writable:!0,enumerable:!1}),i}catch(e){}return e[t]=i,i}},1284:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{D:()=>n});const n=(e,t)=>Object.entries(e||{}).map((e=>{let[r,n]=e;return t(r,n)}))},4351:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{P:()=>o});var n=r(2177);const i=()=>{const e=new WeakSet;return(t,r)=>{if("object"==typeof r&&null!==r){if(e.has(r))return;e.add(r)}return r}};function o(e){try{return JSON.stringify(e,i())}catch(e){try{n.ee.emit("internal-error",[e])}catch(e){}}}},3960:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{K:()=>a,b:()=>o});var n=r(3239);function i(){return"undefined"==typeof document||"complete"===document.readyState}function o(e,t){if(i())return e();(0,n.bP)("load",e,t)}function a(e){if(i())return e();(0,n.iz)("DOMContentLoaded",e)}},8632:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{EZ:()=>u,Qy:()=>c,ce:()=>o,fP:()=>a,gG:()=>d,mF:()=>s});var n=r(7894),i=r(385);const o={beacon:"bam.nr-data.net",errorBeacon:"bam.nr-data.net"};function a(){return i._A.NREUM||(i._A.NREUM={}),void 0===i._A.newrelic&&(i._A.newrelic=i._A.NREUM),i._A.NREUM}function s(){let e=a();return e.o||(e.o={ST:i._A.setTimeout,SI:i._A.setImmediate,CT:i._A.clearTimeout,XHR:i._A.XMLHttpRequest,REQ:i._A.Request,EV:i._A.Event,PR:i._A.Promise,MO:i._A.MutationObserver,FETCH:i._A.fetch}),e}function c(e,t,r){let i=a();const o=i.initializedAgents||{},s=o[e]||{};return Object.keys(s).length||(s.initializedAt={ms:(0,n.z)(),date:new Date}),i.initializedAgents={...o,[e]:{...s,[r]:t}},i}function u(e,t){a()[e]=t}function d(){return function(){let e=a();const t=e.info||{};e.info={beacon:o.beacon,errorBeacon:o.errorBeacon,...t}}(),function(){let e=a();const t=e.init||{};e.init={...t}}(),s(),function(){let e=a();const t=e.loader_config||{};e.loader_config={...t}}(),a()}},7956:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{N:()=>i});var n=r(3239);function i(e){let t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]&&arguments[1],r=arguments.length>2?arguments[2]:void 0,i=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0;return void(0,n.iz)("visibilitychange",(function(){if(t)return void("hidden"==document.visibilityState&&e());e(document.visibilityState)}),r,i)}},1214:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{em:()=>v,u5:()=>N,QU:()=>S,_L:()=>I,Gm:()=>L,Lg:()=>M,gy:()=>U,BV:()=>Q,Kf:()=>ee});var n=r(2177);const i="nr@original";var o=Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty,a=!1;function s(e,t){return e||(e=n.ee),r.inPlace=function(e,t,n,i,o){n||(n="");var a,s,c,u="-"===n.charAt(0);for(c=0;c 2?n-2:0),o=2;o {r(A[T],e,w),r(E[T],e,w)})),r(l._A,"fetch",y),t.on(y+"end",(function(e,r){var n=this;if(r){var i=r.headers.get("content-length");null!==i&&(n.rxSize=i),t.emit(y+"done",[null,r],n)}else t.emit(y+"done",[e],n)})),t}const O={},j=["pushState","replaceState"];function S(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("history")}(e);return!l.il||O[t.debugId]++||(O[t.debugId]=1,s(t).inPlace(window.history,j,"-")),t}var P=r(3239);const C={},R=["appendChild","insertBefore","replaceChild"];function I(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("jsonp")}(e);if(!l.il||C[t.debugId])return t;C[t.debugId]=!0;var r=s(t),i=/[?&](?:callback|cb)=([^&#]+)/,o=/(.*)\.([^.]+)/,a=/^(\w+)(\.|$)(.*)$/;function c(e,t){var r=e.match(a),n=r[1],i=r[3];return i?c(i,t[n]):t[n]}return r.inPlace(Node.prototype,R,"dom-"),t.on("dom-start",(function(e){!function(e){if(!e||"string"!=typeof e.nodeName||"script"!==e.nodeName.toLowerCase())return;if("function"!=typeof e.addEventListener)return;var n=(a=e.src,s=a.match(i),s?s[1]:null);var a,s;if(!n)return;var u=function(e){var t=e.match(o);if(t&&t.length>=3)return{key:t[2],parent:c(t[1],window)};return{key:e,parent:window}}(n);if("function"!=typeof u.parent[u.key])return;var d={};function f(){t.emit("jsonp-end",[],d),e.removeEventListener("load",f,(0,P.m$)(!1)),e.removeEventListener("error",l,(0,P.m$)(!1))}function l(){t.emit("jsonp-error",[],d),t.emit("jsonp-end",[],d),e.removeEventListener("load",f,(0,P.m$)(!1)),e.removeEventListener("error",l,(0,P.m$)(!1))}r.inPlace(u.parent,[u.key],"cb-",d),e.addEventListener("load",f,(0,P.m$)(!1)),e.addEventListener("error",l,(0,P.m$)(!1)),t.emit("new-jsonp",[e.src],d)}(e[0])})),t}var k=r(5763);const H={};function L(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("mutation")}(e);if(!l.il||H[t.debugId])return t;H[t.debugId]=!0;var r=s(t),i=k.Yu.MO;return i&&(window.MutationObserver=function(e){return this instanceof i?new i(r(e,"fn-")):i.apply(this,arguments)},MutationObserver.prototype=i.prototype),t}const z={};function M(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("promise")}(e);if(z[t.debugId])return t;z[t.debugId]=!0;var r=n.c,o=s(t),a=k.Yu.PR;return a&&function(){function e(r){var n=t.context(),i=o(r,"executor-",n,null,!1);const s=Reflect.construct(a,[i],e);return t.context(s).getCtx=function(){return n},s}l._A.Promise=e,Object.defineProperty(e,"name",{value:"Promise"}),e.toString=function(){return a.toString()},Object.setPrototypeOf(e,a),["all","race"].forEach((function(r){const n=a[r];e[r]=function(e){let i=!1;[...e||[]].forEach((e=>{this.resolve(e).then(a("all"===r),a(!1))}));const o=n.apply(this,arguments);return o;function a(e){return function(){t.emit("propagate",[null,!i],o,!1,!1),i=i||!e}}}})),["resolve","reject"].forEach((function(r){const n=a[r];e[r]=function(e){const r=n.apply(this,arguments);return e!==r&&t.emit("propagate",[e,!0],r,!1,!1),r}})),e.prototype=a.prototype;const n=a.prototype.then;a.prototype.then=function(){var e=this,i=r(e);i.promise=e;for(var a=arguments.length,s=new Array(a),c=0;c e())),t};function m(e,t){i.inPlace(t,["onreadystatechange"],"fn-",E)}function b(){var e=this,t=r.context(e);e.readyState>3&&!t.resolved&&(t.resolved=!0,r.emit("xhr-resolved",[],e)),i.inPlace(e,f,"fn-",E)}if(function(e,t){for(var r in e)t[r]=e[r]}(o,p),p.prototype=o.prototype,i.inPlace(p.prototype,J,"-xhr-",E),r.on("send-xhr-start",(function(e,t){m(e,t),function(e){h.push(e),a&&(y?y.then(A):u?u(A):(w=-w,x.data=w))}(t)})),r.on("open-xhr-start",m),a){var y=c&&c.resolve();if(!u&&!c){var w=1,x=document.createTextNode(w);new a(A).observe(x,{characterData:!0})}}else t.on("fn-end",(function(e){e[0]&&e[0].type===d||A()}));function A(){for(var e=0;e {r.d(t,{t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.ajax},6660:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{A:()=>i,t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.jserrors,i="nr@seenError"},3081:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{gF:()=>o,mY:()=>i,t9:()=>n,vz:()=>s,xS:()=>a});const n=r(3325).D.metrics,i="sm",o="cm",a="storeSupportabilityMetrics",s="storeEventMetrics"},4649:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.pageAction},7633:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{Dz:()=>i,OJ:()=>a,qw:()=>o,t9:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.pageViewEvent,i="firstbyte",o="domcontent",a="windowload"},9251:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.pageViewTiming},3614:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{BST_RESOURCE:()=>i,END:()=>s,FEATURE_NAME:()=>n,FN_END:()=>u,FN_START:()=>c,PUSH_STATE:()=>d,RESOURCE:()=>o,START:()=>a});const n=r(3325).D.sessionTrace,i="bstResource",o="resource",a="-start",s="-end",c="fn"+a,u="fn"+s,d="pushState"},7836:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{BODY:()=>A,CB_END:()=>E,CB_START:()=>u,END:()=>x,FEATURE_NAME:()=>i,FETCH:()=>_,FETCH_BODY:()=>v,FETCH_DONE:()=>m,FETCH_START:()=>p,FN_END:()=>c,FN_START:()=>s,INTERACTION:()=>l,INTERACTION_API:()=>d,INTERACTION_EVENTS:()=>o,JSONP_END:()=>b,JSONP_NODE:()=>g,JS_TIME:()=>T,MAX_TIMER_BUDGET:()=>a,REMAINING:()=>f,SPA_NODE:()=>h,START:()=>w,originalSetTimeout:()=>y});var n=r(5763);const i=r(3325).D.spa,o=["click","submit","keypress","keydown","keyup","change"],a=999,s="fn-start",c="fn-end",u="cb-start",d="api-ixn-",f="remaining",l="interaction",h="spaNode",g="jsonpNode",p="fetch-start",m="fetch-done",v="fetch-body-",b="jsonp-end",y=n.Yu.ST,w="-start",x="-end",A="-body",E="cb"+x,T="jsTime",_="fetch"},5938:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{W:()=>o});var n=r(5763),i=r(2177);class o{constructor(e,t,r){this.agentIdentifier=e,this.aggregator=t,this.ee=i.ee.get(e,(0,n.OP)(this.agentIdentifier).isolatedBacklog),this.featureName=r,this.blocked=!1}}},9144:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{j:()=>m});var n=r(3325),i=r(5763),o=r(5546),a=r(2177),s=r(7894),c=r(8e3),u=r(3960),d=r(385),f=r(50),l=r(3081),h=r(8632);function g(){const e=(0,h.gG)();["setErrorHandler","finished","addToTrace","inlineHit","addRelease","addPageAction","setCurrentRouteName","setPageViewName","setCustomAttribute","interaction","noticeError","setUserId"].forEach((t=>{e[t]=function(){for(var r=arguments.length,n=new Array(r),i=0;i 1?r-1:0),i=1;i {e.exposed&&e.api[t]&&o.push(e.api[t](...n))})),o.length>1?o:o[0]}(t,...n)}}))}var p=r(2587);function m(e){let t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]?arguments[1]:{},m=arguments.length>2?arguments[2]:void 0,v=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0,{init:b,info:y,loader_config:w,runtime:x={loaderType:m},exposed:A=!0}=t;const E=(0,h.gG)();y||(b=E.init,y=E.info,w=E.loader_config),(0,i.Dg)(e,b||{}),(0,i.GE)(e,w||{}),(0,i.sU)(e,x),y.jsAttributes??={},d.v6&&(y.jsAttributes.isWorker=!0),(0,i.CX)(e,y),g();const T=function(e,t){t||(0,c.R)(e,"api");const h={};var g=a.ee.get(e),p=g.get("tracer"),m="api-",v=m+"ixn-";function b(t,r,n,o){const a=(0,i.C5)(e);return null===r?delete a.jsAttributes[t]:(0,i.CX)(e,{...a,jsAttributes:{...a.jsAttributes,[t]:r}}),x(m,n,!0,o||null===r?"session":void 0)(t,r)}function y(){}["setErrorHandler","finished","addToTrace","inlineHit","addRelease"].forEach((e=>h[e]=x(m,e,!0,"api"))),h.addPageAction=x(m,"addPageAction",!0,n.D.pageAction),h.setCurrentRouteName=x(m,"routeName",!0,n.D.spa),h.setPageViewName=function(t,r){if("string"==typeof t)return"/"!==t.charAt(0)&&(t="/"+t),(0,i.OP)(e).customTransaction=(r||"http://custom.transaction")+t,x(m,"setPageViewName",!0)()},h.setCustomAttribute=function(e,t){let r=arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2]&&arguments[2];if("string"==typeof e){if(["string","number"].includes(typeof t)||null===t)return b(e,t,"setCustomAttribute",r);(0,f.Z)("Failed to execute setCustomAttribute.\nNon-null value must be a string or number type, but a type of was provided."))}else(0,f.Z)("Failed to execute setCustomAttribute.\nName must be a string type, but a type of was provided."))},h.setUserId=function(e){if("string"==typeof e||null===e)return b("enduser.id",e,"setUserId",!0);(0,f.Z)("Failed to execute setUserId.\nNon-null value must be a string type, but a type of was provided."))},h.interaction=function(){return(new y).get()};var w=y.prototype={createTracer:function(e,t){var r={},i=this,a="function"==typeof t;return(0,o.p)(v+"tracer",[(0,s.z)(),e,r],i,n.D.spa,g),function(){if(p.emit((a?"":"no-")+"fn-start",[(0,s.z)(),i,a],r),a)try{return t.apply(this,arguments)}catch(e){throw p.emit("fn-err",[arguments,this,"string"==typeof e?new Error(e):e],r),e}finally{p.emit("fn-end",[(0,s.z)()],r)}}}};function x(e,t,r,i){return function(){return(0,o.p)(l.xS,["API/"+t+"/called"],void 0,n.D.metrics,g),i&&(0,o.p)(e+t,[(0,s.z)(),...arguments],r?null:this,i,g),r?void 0:this}}function A(){r.e(439).then(r.bind(r,7438)).then((t=>{let{setAPI:r}=t;r(e),(0,c.L)(e,"api")})).catch((()=>(0,f.Z)("Downloading runtime APIs failed...")))}return["actionText","setName","setAttribute","save","ignore","onEnd","getContext","end","get"].forEach((e=>{w[e]=x(v,e,void 0,n.D.spa)})),h.noticeError=function(e,t){"string"==typeof e&&(e=new Error(e)),(0,o.p)(l.xS,["API/noticeError/called"],void 0,n.D.metrics,g),(0,o.p)("err",[e,(0,s.z)(),!1,t],void 0,n.D.jserrors,g)},d.il?(0,u.b)((()=>A()),!0):A(),h}(e,v);return(0,h.Qy)(e,T,"api"),(0,h.Qy)(e,A,"exposed"),(0,h.EZ)("activatedFeatures",p.T),T}},3325:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{D:()=>n,p:()=>i});const n={ajax:"ajax",jserrors:"jserrors",metrics:"metrics",pageAction:"page_action",pageViewEvent:"page_view_event",pageViewTiming:"page_view_timing",sessionReplay:"session_replay",sessionTrace:"session_trace",spa:"spa"},i={[n.pageViewEvent]:1,[n.pageViewTiming]:2,[n.metrics]:3,[n.jserrors]:4,[n.ajax]:5,[n.sessionTrace]:6,[n.pageAction]:7,[n.spa]:8,[n.sessionReplay]:9}}},n={};function i(e){var t=n[e];if(void 0!==t)return t.exports;var o=n[e]={exports:{}};return r[e](o,o.exports,i),o.exports}i.m=r,i.d=(e,t)=>{for(var r in t)i.o(t,r)&&!i.o(e,r)&&Object.defineProperty(e,r,{enumerable:!0,get:t[r]})},i.f={},i.e=e=>Promise.all(Object.keys(i.f).reduce(((t,r)=>(i.f[r](e,t),t)),[])),i.u=e=>(({78:"page_action-aggregate",147:"metrics-aggregate",242:"session-manager",317:"jserrors-aggregate",348:"page_view_timing-aggregate",412:"lazy-feature-loader",439:"async-api",538:"recorder",590:"session_replay-aggregate",675:"compressor",733:"session_trace-aggregate",786:"page_view_event-aggregate",873:"spa-aggregate",898:"ajax-aggregate"}[e]||e)+"."+{78:"ac76d497",147:"3dc53903",148:"1a20d5fe",242:"2a64278a",317:"49e41428",348:"bd6de33a",412:"2f55ce66",439:"30bd804e",538:"1b18459f",590:"cf0efb30",675:"ae9f91a8",733:"83105561",786:"06482edd",860:"03a8b7a5",873:"e6b09d52",898:"998ef92b"}[e]+"-1.236.0.min.js"),i.o=(e,t)=>Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty.call(e,t),e={},t="NRBA:",i.l=(r,n,o,a)=>{if(e[r])e[r].push(n);else{var s,c;if(void 0!==o)for(var u=document.getElementsByTagName("script"),d=0;d {s.onerror=s.onload=null,clearTimeout(h);var i=e[r];if(delete e[r],s.parentNode&&s.parentNode.removeChild(s),i&&i.forEach((e=>e(n))),t)return t(n)},h=setTimeout(l.bind(null,void 0,{type:"timeout",target:s}),12e4);s.onerror=l.bind(null,s.onerror),s.onload=l.bind(null,s.onload),c&&document.head.appendChild(s)}},i.r=e=>{"undefined"!=typeof Symbol&&Symbol.toStringTag&&Object.defineProperty(e,Symbol.toStringTag,{value:"Module"}),Object.defineProperty(e,"__esModule",{value:!0})},i.j=364,i.p="https://js-agent.newrelic.com/",(()=>{var e={364:0,953:0};i.f.j=(t,r)=>{var n=i.o(e,t)?e[t]:void 0;if(0!==n)if(n)r.push(n[2]);else{var o=new Promise(((r,i)=>n=e[t]=[r,i]));r.push(n[2]=o);var a=i.p+i.u(t),s=new Error;i.l(a,(r=>{if(i.o(e,t)&&(0!==(n=e[t])&&(e[t]=void 0),n)){var o=r&&("load"===r.type?"missing":r.type),a=r&&r.target&&r.target.src;s.message="Loading chunk "+t+" failed.\n("+o+": "+a+")",s.name="ChunkLoadError",s.type=o,s.request=a,n[1](s)}}),"chunk-"+t,t)}};var t=(t,r)=>{var n,o,[a,s,c]=r,u=0;if(a.some((t=>0!==e[t]))){for(n in s)i.o(s,n)&&(i.m[n]=s[n]);if(c)c(i)}for(t&&t(r);u {i.r(o);var e=i(3325),t=i(5763);const r=Object.values(e.D);function n(e){const n={};return r.forEach((r=>{n[r]=function(e,r){return!1!==(0,t.Mt)(r,"".concat(e,".enabled"))}(r,e)})),n}var a=i(9144);var s=i(5546),c=i(385),u=i(8e3),d=i(5938),f=i(3960),l=i(50);class h extends d.W{constructor(e,t,r){let n=!(arguments.length>3&&void 0!==arguments[3])||arguments[3];super(e,t,r),this.auto=n,this.abortHandler,this.featAggregate,this.onAggregateImported,n&&(0,u.R)(e,r)}importAggregator(){let e=arguments.length>0&&void 0!==arguments[0]?arguments[0]:{};if(this.featAggregate||!this.auto)return;const r=c.il&&!0===(0,t.Mt)(this.agentIdentifier,"privacy.cookies_enabled");let n;this.onAggregateImported=new Promise((e=>{n=e}));const o=async()=>{let t;try{if(r){const{setupAgentSession:e}=await Promise.all([i.e(860),i.e(242)]).then(i.bind(i,3228));t=e(this.agentIdentifier)}}catch(e){(0,l.Z)("A problem occurred when starting up session manager. This page will not start or extend any session.",e)}try{if(!this.shouldImportAgg(this.featureName,t))return void(0,u.L)(this.agentIdentifier,this.featureName);const{lazyFeatureLoader:r}=await i.e(412).then(i.bind(i,8582)),{Aggregate:o}=await r(this.featureName,"aggregate");this.featAggregate=new o(this.agentIdentifier,this.aggregator,e),n(!0)}catch(e){(0,l.Z)("Downloading and initializing ".concat(this.featureName," failed..."),e),this.abortHandler?.(),n(!1)}};c.il?(0,f.b)((()=>o()),!0):o()}shouldImportAgg(r,n){return r!==e.D.sessionReplay||!1!==(0,t.Mt)(this.agentIdentifier,"session_trace.enabled")&&(!!n?.isNew||!!n?.state.sessionReplay)}}var g=i(7633),p=i(7894);class m extends h{static featureName=g.t9;constructor(r,n){let i=!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];if(super(r,n,g.t9,i),("undefined"==typeof PerformanceNavigationTiming||c.Tt)&&"undefined"!=typeof PerformanceTiming){const n=(0,t.OP)(r);n[g.Dz]=Math.max(Date.now()-n.offset,0),(0,f.K)((()=>n[g.qw]=Math.max((0,p.z)()-n[g.Dz],0))),(0,f.b)((()=>{const t=(0,p.z)();n[g.OJ]=Math.max(t-n[g.Dz],0),(0,s.p)("timing",["load",t],void 0,e.D.pageViewTiming,this.ee)}))}this.importAggregator()}}var v=i(1117),b=i(1284);class y extends v.w{constructor(e){super(e),this.aggregatedData={}}store(e,t,r,n,i){var o=this.getBucket(e,t,r,i);return o.metrics=function(e,t){t||(t={count:0});return t.count+=1,(0,b.D)(e,(function(e,r){t[e]=w(r,t[e])})),t}(n,o.metrics),o}merge(e,t,r,n,i){var o=this.getBucket(e,t,n,i);if(o.metrics){var a=o.metrics;a.count+=r.count,(0,b.D)(r,(function(e,t){if("count"!==e){var n=a[e],i=r[e];i&&!i.c?a[e]=w(i.t,n):a[e]=function(e,t){if(!t)return e;t.c||(t=x(t.t));return t.min=Math.min(e.min,t.min),t.max=Math.max(e.max,t.max),t.t+=e.t,t.sos+=e.sos,t.c+=e.c,t}(i,a[e])}}))}else o.metrics=r}storeMetric(e,t,r,n){var i=this.getBucket(e,t,r);return i.stats=w(n,i.stats),i}getBucket(e,t,r,n){this.aggregatedData[e]||(this.aggregatedData[e]={});var i=this.aggregatedData[e][t];return i||(i=this.aggregatedData[e][t]={params:r||{}},n&&(i.custom=n)),i}get(e,t){return t?this.aggregatedData[e]&&this.aggregatedData[e][t]:this.aggregatedData[e]}take(e){for(var t={},r="",n=!1,i=0;i t.max&&(t.max=e),e 2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(e,r,j.t,n),c.il&&((0,t.OP)(e).initHidden=Boolean("hidden"===document.visibilityState),(0,N.N)((()=>(0,s.p)("docHidden",[(0,p.z)()],void 0,j.t,this.ee)),!0),(0,O.bP)("pagehide",(()=>(0,s.p)("winPagehide",[(0,p.z)()],void 0,j.t,this.ee))),this.importAggregator())}}var P=i(3081);class C extends h{static featureName=P.t9;constructor(e,t){let r=!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(e,t,P.t9,r),this.importAggregator()}}var R,I=i(2210),k=i(1214),H=i(2177),L={};try{R=localStorage.getItem("__nr_flags").split(","),console&&"function"==typeof console.log&&(L.console=!0,-1!==R.indexOf("dev")&&(L.dev=!0),-1!==R.indexOf("nr_dev")&&(L.nrDev=!0))}catch(e){}function z(e){try{L.console&&z(e)}catch(e){}}L.nrDev&&H.ee.on("internal-error",(function(e){z(e.stack)})),L.dev&&H.ee.on("fn-err",(function(e,t,r){z(r.stack)})),L.dev&&(z("NR AGENT IN DEVELOPMENT MODE"),z("flags: "+(0,b.D)(L,(function(e,t){return e})).join(", ")));var M=i(6660);class B extends h{static featureName=M.t;constructor(r,n){let i=!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(r,n,M.t,i),this.skipNext=0;try{this.removeOnAbort=new AbortController}catch(e){}const o=this;o.ee.on("fn-start",(function(e,t,r){o.abortHandler&&(o.skipNext+=1)})),o.ee.on("fn-err",(function(t,r,n){o.abortHandler&&!n[M.A]&&((0,I.X)(n,M.A,(function(){return!0})),this.thrown=!0,(0,s.p)("err",[n,(0,p.z)()],void 0,e.D.jserrors,o.ee))})),o.ee.on("fn-end",(function(){o.abortHandler&&!this.thrown&&o.skipNext>0&&(o.skipNext-=1)})),o.ee.on("internal-error",(function(t){(0,s.p)("ierr",[t,(0,p.z)(),!0],void 0,e.D.jserrors,o.ee)})),this.origOnerror=c._A.onerror,c._A.onerror=this.onerrorHandler.bind(this),c._A.addEventListener("unhandledrejection",(t=>{const r=function(e){let t="Unhandled Promise Rejection: ";if(e instanceof Error)try{return e.message=t+e.message,e}catch(t){return e}if(void 0===e)return new Error(t);try{return new Error(t+(0,D.P)(e))}catch(e){return new Error(t)}}(t.reason);(0,s.p)("err",[r,(0,p.z)(),!1,{unhandledPromiseRejection:1}],void 0,e.D.jserrors,this.ee)}),(0,O.m$)(!1,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),(0,k.gy)(this.ee),(0,k.BV)(this.ee),(0,k.em)(this.ee),(0,t.OP)(r).xhrWrappable&&(0,k.Kf)(this.ee),this.abortHandler=this.#e,this.importAggregator()}#e(){this.removeOnAbort?.abort(),this.abortHandler=void 0}onerrorHandler(t,r,n,i,o){"function"==typeof this.origOnerror&&this.origOnerror(...arguments);try{this.skipNext?this.skipNext-=1:(0,s.p)("err",[o||new F(t,r,n),(0,p.z)()],void 0,e.D.jserrors,this.ee)}catch(t){try{(0,s.p)("ierr",[t,(0,p.z)(),!0],void 0,e.D.jserrors,this.ee)}catch(e){}}return!1}}function F(e,t,r){this.message=e||"Uncaught error with no additional information",this.sourceURL=t,this.line=r}let U=1;const q="nr@id";function G(e){const t=typeof e;return!e||"object"!==t&&"function"!==t?-1:e===c._A?0:(0,I.X)(e,q,(function(){return U++}))}function V(e){if("string"==typeof e&&e.length)return e.length;if("object"==typeof e){if("undefined"!=typeof ArrayBuffer&&e instanceof ArrayBuffer&&e.byteLength)return e.byteLength;if("undefined"!=typeof Blob&&e instanceof Blob&&e.size)return e.size;if(!("undefined"!=typeof FormData&&e instanceof FormData))try{return(0,D.P)(e).length}catch(e){return}}}var X=i(7243);class W{constructor(e){this.agentIdentifier=e,this.generateTracePayload=this.generateTracePayload.bind(this),this.shouldGenerateTrace=this.shouldGenerateTrace.bind(this)}generateTracePayload(e){if(!this.shouldGenerateTrace(e))return null;var r=(0,t.DL)(this.agentIdentifier);if(!r)return null;var n=(r.accountID||"").toString()||null,i=(r.agentID||"").toString()||null,o=(r.trustKey||"").toString()||null;if(!n||!i)return null;var a=(0,_.M)(),s=(0,_.Ht)(),c=Date.now(),u={spanId:a,traceId:s,timestamp:c};return(e.sameOrigin||this.isAllowedOrigin(e)&&this.useTraceContextHeadersForCors())&&(u.traceContextParentHeader=this.generateTraceContextParentHeader(a,s),u.traceContextStateHeader=this.generateTraceContextStateHeader(a,c,n,i,o)),(e.sameOrigin&&!this.excludeNewrelicHeader()||!e.sameOrigin&&this.isAllowedOrigin(e)&&this.useNewrelicHeaderForCors())&&(u.newrelicHeader=this.generateTraceHeader(a,s,c,n,i,o)),u}generateTraceContextParentHeader(e,t){return"00-"+t+"-"+e+"-01"}generateTraceContextStateHeader(e,t,r,n,i){return i+"@nr=0-1-"+r+"-"+n+"-"+e+"----"+t}generateTraceHeader(e,t,r,n,i,o){if(!("function"==typeof c._A?.btoa))return null;var a={v:[0,1],d:{ty:"Browser",ac:n,ap:i,id:e,tr:t,ti:r}};return o&&n!==o&&(a.d.tk=o),btoa((0,D.P)(a))}shouldGenerateTrace(e){return this.isDtEnabled()&&this.isAllowedOrigin(e)}isAllowedOrigin(e){var r=!1,n={};if((0,t.Mt)(this.agentIdentifier,"distributed_tracing")&&(n=(0,t.P_)(this.agentIdentifier).distributed_tracing),e.sameOrigin)r=!0;else if(n.allowed_origins instanceof Array)for(var i=0;i 2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(r,n,Z.t,i),(0,t.OP)(r).xhrWrappable&&(this.dt=new W(r),this.handler=(e,t,r,n)=>(0,s.p)(e,t,r,n,this.ee),(0,k.u5)(this.ee),(0,k.Kf)(this.ee),function(r,n,i,o){function a(e){var t=this;t.totalCbs=0,t.called=0,t.cbTime=0,t.end=E,t.ended=!1,t.xhrGuids={},t.lastSize=null,t.loadCaptureCalled=!1,t.params=this.params||{},t.metrics=this.metrics||{},e.addEventListener("load",(function(r){_(t,e)}),(0,O.m$)(!1)),c.IF||e.addEventListener("progress",(function(e){t.lastSize=e.loaded}),(0,O.m$)(!1))}function s(e){this.params={method:e[0]},T(this,e[1]),this.metrics={}}function u(e,n){var i=(0,t.DL)(r);i.xpid&&this.sameOrigin&&n.setRequestHeader("X-NewRelic-ID",i.xpid);var a=o.generateTracePayload(this.parsedOrigin);if(a){var s=!1;a.newrelicHeader&&(n.setRequestHeader("newrelic",a.newrelicHeader),s=!0),a.traceContextParentHeader&&(n.setRequestHeader("traceparent",a.traceContextParentHeader),a.traceContextStateHeader&&n.setRequestHeader("tracestate",a.traceContextStateHeader),s=!0),s&&(this.dt=a)}}function d(e,t){var r=this.metrics,i=e[0],o=this;if(r&&i){var a=V(i);a&&(r.txSize=a)}this.startTime=(0,p.z)(),this.listener=function(e){try{"abort"!==e.type||o.loadCaptureCalled||(o.params.aborted=!0),("load"!==e.type||o.called===o.totalCbs&&(o.onloadCalled||"function"!=typeof t.onload)&&"function"==typeof o.end)&&o.end(t)}catch(e){try{n.emit("internal-error",[e])}catch(e){}}};for(var s=0;s 1?e[1]=i:e.push(i)}else e[0]&&e[0].headers&&s(e[0].headers,n)&&(this.dt=n);function s(e,t){var r=!1;return t.newrelicHeader&&(e.set("newrelic",t.newrelicHeader),r=!0),t.traceContextParentHeader&&(e.set("traceparent",t.traceContextParentHeader),t.traceContextStateHeader&&e.set("tracestate",t.traceContextStateHeader),r=!0),r}}function x(e,t){this.params={},this.metrics={},this.startTime=(0,p.z)(),this.dt=t,e.length>=1&&(this.target=e[0]),e.length>=2&&(this.opts=e[1]);var r,n=this.opts||{},i=this.target;"string"==typeof i?r=i:"object"==typeof i&&i instanceof Y?r=i.url:c._A?.URL&&"object"==typeof i&&i instanceof URL&&(r=i.href),T(this,r);var o=(""+(i&&i instanceof Y&&i.method||n.method||"GET")).toUpperCase();this.params.method=o,this.txSize=V(n.body)||0}function A(t,r){var n;this.endTime=(0,p.z)(),this.params||(this.params={}),this.params.status=r?r.status:0,"string"==typeof this.rxSize&&this.rxSize.length>0&&(n=+this.rxSize);var o={txSize:this.txSize,rxSize:n,duration:(0,p.z)()-this.startTime};i("xhr",[this.params,o,this.startTime,this.endTime,"fetch"],this,e.D.ajax)}function E(t){var r=this.params,n=this.metrics;if(!this.ended){this.ended=!0;for(var o=0;o 2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(e,t,we.t,r),this.importAggregator()}}new class{constructor(e){let t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]?arguments[1]:(0,_.ky)(16);c._A?(this.agentIdentifier=t,this.sharedAggregator=new y({agentIdentifier:this.agentIdentifier}),this.features={},this.desiredFeatures=new Set(e.features||[]),this.desiredFeatures.add(m),Object.assign(this,(0,a.j)(this.agentIdentifier,e,e.loaderType||"agent")),this.start()):(0,l.Z)("Failed to initial the agent. Could not determine the runtime environment.")}get config(){return{info:(0,t.C5)(this.agentIdentifier),init:(0,t.P_)(this.agentIdentifier),loader_config:(0,t.DL)(this.agentIdentifier),runtime:(0,t.OP)(this.agentIdentifier)}}start(){const t="features";try{const r=n(this.agentIdentifier),i=[...this.desiredFeatures];i.sort(((t,r)=>e.p[t.featureName]-e.p[r.featureName])),i.forEach((t=>{if(r[t.featureName]||t.featureName===e.D.pageViewEvent){const n=function(t){switch(t){case e.D.ajax:return[e.D.jserrors];case e.D.sessionTrace:return[e.D.ajax,e.D.pageViewEvent];case e.D.sessionReplay:return[e.D.sessionTrace];case e.D.pageViewTiming:return[e.D.pageViewEvent];default:return[]}}(t.featureName);n.every((e=>r[e]))||(0,l.Z)("".concat(t.featureName," is enabled but one or more dependent features has been disabled (").concat((0,D.P)(n),"). This may cause unintended consequences or missing data...")),this.features[t.featureName]=new t(this.agentIdentifier,this.sharedAggregator)}})),(0,T.Qy)(this.agentIdentifier,this.features,t)}catch(e){(0,l.Z)("Failed to initialize all enabled instrument classes (agent aborted) -",e);for(const e in this.features)this.features[e].abortHandler?.();const r=(0,T.fP)();return delete r.initializedAgents[this.agentIdentifier]?.api,delete r.initializedAgents[this.agentIdentifier]?.[t],delete this.sharedAggregator,r.ee?.abort(),delete r.ee?.get(this.agentIdentifier),!1}}}({features:[J,m,S,class extends h{static featureName=oe;constructor(t,r){if(super(t,r,oe,!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2]),!c.il)return;const n=this.ee;let i;(0,k.QU)(n),this.eventsEE=(0,k.em)(n),this.eventsEE.on(se,(function(e,t){this.bstStart=(0,p.z)()})),this.eventsEE.on(ae,(function(t,r){(0,s.p)("bst",[t[0],r,this.bstStart,(0,p.z)()],void 0,e.D.sessionTrace,n)})),n.on(ce+ne,(function(e){this.time=(0,p.z)(),this.startPath=location.pathname+location.hash})),n.on(ce+ie,(function(t){(0,s.p)("bstHist",[location.pathname+location.hash,this.startPath,this.time],void 0,e.D.sessionTrace,n)}));try{i=new PerformanceObserver((t=>{const r=t.getEntries();(0,s.p)(te,[r],void 0,e.D.sessionTrace,n)})),i.observe({type:re,buffered:!0})}catch(e){}this.importAggregator({resourceObserver:i})}},C,xe,B,class extends h{static featureName=de;constructor(e,r){if(super(e,r,de,!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2]),!c.il)return;if(!(0,t.OP)(e).xhrWrappable)return;try{this.removeOnAbort=new AbortController}catch(e){}let n,i=0;const o=this.ee.get("tracer"),a=(0,k._L)(this.ee),s=(0,k.Lg)(this.ee),u=(0,k.BV)(this.ee),d=(0,k.Kf)(this.ee),f=this.ee.get("events"),l=(0,k.u5)(this.ee),h=(0,k.QU)(this.ee),g=(0,k.Gm)(this.ee);function m(e,t){h.emit("newURL",[""+window.location,t])}function v(){i++,n=window.location.hash,this[ve]=(0,p.z)()}function b(){i--,window.location.hash!==n&&m(0,!0);var e=(0,p.z)();this[pe]=~~this[pe]+e-this[ve],this[ye]=e}function y(e,t){e.on(t,(function(){this[t]=(0,p.z)()}))}this.ee.on(ve,v),s.on(be,v),a.on(be,v),this.ee.on(ye,b),s.on(ge,b),a.on(ge,b),this.ee.buffer([ve,ye,"xhr-resolved"],this.featureName),f.buffer([ve],this.featureName),u.buffer(["setTimeout"+le,"clearTimeout"+fe,ve],this.featureName),d.buffer([ve,"new-xhr","send-xhr"+fe],this.featureName),l.buffer([me+fe,me+"-done",me+he+fe,me+he+le],this.featureName),h.buffer(["newURL"],this.featureName),g.buffer([ve],this.featureName),s.buffer(["propagate",be,ge,"executor-err","resolve"+fe],this.featureName),o.buffer([ve,"no-"+ve],this.featureName),a.buffer(["new-jsonp","cb-start","jsonp-error","jsonp-end"],this.featureName),y(l,me+fe),y(l,me+"-done"),y(a,"new-jsonp"),y(a,"jsonp-end"),y(a,"cb-start"),h.on("pushState-end",m),h.on("replaceState-end",m),window.addEventListener("hashchange",m,(0,O.m$)(!0,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),window.addEventListener("load",m,(0,O.m$)(!0,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),window.addEventListener("popstate",(function(){m(0,i>1)}),(0,O.m$)(!0,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),this.abortHandler=this.#e,this.importAggregator()}#e(){this.removeOnAbort?.abort(),this.abortHandler=void 0}}],loaderType:"spa"})})(),window.NRBA=o})(); window.jQuery || document.write(' ') CKEDITOR_BASEPATH='https://f1000research.com/js/vendor/ckeditor/' window.reactTheme = 'research'; window.MathJax = { CommonHTML: { linebreaks: { automatic: true } }, 'HTML-CSS': { linebreaks: { automatic: true } }, SVG: { linebreaks: { automatic: true } }, AuthorInit: function() { MathJax.Hub.Register.MessageHook('End Process', function () { let timeout = false; // holder for timeout id const delay = 250; // delay after event is "complete" to run callback const reflowMath = function() { const dispFormulas = document.querySelectorAll('.disp-formula.panel'); if (!dispFormulas) { return; } for (const dispFormula of dispFormulas) { const child = dispFormula.querySelector('.MathJax_Preview').nextSibling.firstChild; const isMultiline = MathJax.Hub.getAllJax(dispFormula)[0].root.isMultiline; if (dispFormula.offsetWidth < child.offsetWidth || isMultiline) { MathJax.Hub.Queue(['Rerender', MathJax.Hub, dispFormula]); } } }; window.addEventListener('resize', function() { clearTimeout(timeout); // clear the timeout timeout = setTimeout(reflowMath, delay); // start timing for event "completion" }); }); }, }; if (window.location.hash == '#_=_'){ window.location = window.location.href.split('#')[0] } !function(f,b,e,v,n,t,s){if(f.fbq)return;n=f.fbq=function() {n.callMethod? n.callMethod.apply(n,arguments):n.queue.push(arguments)} ;if(!f._fbq)f._fbq=n; n.push=n;n.loaded=!0;n.version='2.0';n.queue=[];t=b.createElement(e);t.async=!0; t.src=v;s=b.getElementsByTagName(e)[0];s.parentNode.insertBefore(t,s)}(window, document,'script','https://connect.facebook.net/en_US/fbevents.js'); fbq('init', '1641728616063202'); fbq('track', "PixelInitialized", {}); (function(h,o,t,j,a,r){ h.hj=h.hj||function(){(h.hj.q=h.hj.q||[]).push(arguments)}; h._hjSettings={hjid:2318163,hjsv:6}; a=o.getElementsByTagName('head')[0]; r=o.createElement('script');r.async=1; r.src=t+h._hjSettings.hjid+j+h._hjSettings.hjsv; a.appendChild(r); })(window,document,'https://static.hotjar.com/c/hotjar-','.js?sv='); search file_upload Submit your research search menu close search Browse Gateways & Collections How to Publish Submit your Research My Submissions Article Guidelines Article Guidelines (New Versions) Open Data, Software and Code Guidelines Open Data and Accessible Source Materials Guidelines (HSS) Open Data, Software and Code Guidelines (PSE) Prepublication Checks Production Process Posters and Slides Guidelines Document Guidelines Article Processing Charges Peer Review Finding Article Reviewers About How it Works For Reviewers Our Advisors Policies Glossary FAQs For Developers Newsroom Contact My Research Submissions Content and Tracking Alerts My Details Sign In file_upload Submit your research { "@context": "https://schema.org", "@type": "ScholarlyArticle", "mainEntityOfPage": { "@type": "WebPage", "@id": "https://f1000research.com/articles/14-1468" }, "headline": "Bibliometric Analysis of Publications in Scopus-Indexed Public, Environmental and Occupational Health Journals...", "datePublished": "2025-12-27T10:15:33", "dateModified": "2026-03-04T09:35:38", "author": [ { "@type": "Person", "name": "Mehran Rostami Varnousfaderani" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Shiva Mohammadjani Kumeleh" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Neda Izadi" } ], "publisher": { "@type": "Organization", "name": "F1000Research", "logo": { "@type": "ImageObject", "url": "https://f1000research.com/img/AMP/F1000Research_image.png", "height": 480, "width": 60 } }, "image": { "@type": "ImageObject", "url": "https://f1000research.com/img/AMP/F1000Research_image.png", "height": 1200, "width": 150 }, "description": " Background This bibliometric analysis evaluates health-related research in Public Health, Environmental Health, and Occupational Health (PHEOH) journals indexed in Scopus, categorized by Scimago quartiles (Q1–Q4) from 2016 to 2024. The study aims to identify trends, research productivity, and thematic priorities across these journals. Methods From 654 eligible journals, 100 (25 per quartile) were randomly selected. A total of 70,580 documents were retrieved from Scopus and analysed using Microsoft Excel and VOSviewer (v.1.6.20). Co-occurrence analysis of author and indexed keywords was performed separately for each quartile to identify research hotspots, thematic clusters, and trends over time. Results Q1 journals contributed the highest proportion of publications (37.7%), followed by Q2 (25.4%), Q4 (22.1%), and Q3 (14.8%). The United States dominated output in Q1–Q3 journals, whereas Pakistan led in Q4. Across all quartiles, “COVID-19” was the most frequent and highly connected author keyword, followed by mental health, SARS-CoV-2, and child-related research. Indexed keyword analysis ranked “humans” highest in every quartile. Topics related to SARS-CoV-2 and mental health received the highest average citations. Conclusions The COVID-19 pandemic significantly influenced the research agenda of Public, Environmental, and Occupational Health journals between 2016 and 2024, particularly in higher-quartile outlets. The findings reveal persistent disparities in productivity across journal tiers and geographic regions. " } { "@context": "http://schema.org", "@type": "BreadcrumbList", "itemListElement": [ { "@type": "ListItem", "position": "1", "item": { "@id": "https://f1000research.com/", "name": "Home" } }, { "@type": "ListItem", "position": "2", "item": { "@id": "https://f1000research.com/browse/articles", "name": "Browse" } }, { "@type": "ListItem", "position": "3", "item": { "@id": "https://f1000research.com/articles/14-1468", "name": "Bibliometric Analysis of Publications in Scopus-Indexed Public, Environmental..." } } ] } Home Browse Bibliometric Analysis of Publications in Scopus-Indexed Public, Environmental... ALL Metrics - Views Downloads Get PDF Get XML Cite How to cite this article Rostami Varnousfaderani M, Mohammadjani Kumeleh S and Izadi N. Bibliometric Analysis of Publications in Scopus-Indexed Public, Environmental and Occupational Health Journals Across Scimago Quartiles (2016–2024) [version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2026, 14 :1468 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.174865.2 ) NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. Close Copy Citation Details Export Export Citation Sciwheel EndNote Ref. Manager Bibtex ProCite Sente EXPORT Select a format first Track Share ▬ ✚ Research Article Revised Bibliometric Analysis of Publications in Scopus-Indexed Public, Environmental and Occupational Health Journals Across Scimago Quartiles (2016–2024) [version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations] Mehran Rostami Varnousfaderani https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1877-1308 1 , Shiva Mohammadjani Kumeleh https://orcid.org/0009-0002-0140-2039 2 , Neda Izadi 3 Mehran Rostami Varnousfaderani https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1877-1308 1 , Shiva Mohammadjani Kumeleh https://orcid.org/0009-0002-0140-2039 2 , Neda Izadi 3 PUBLISHED 04 Mar 2026 Author details Author details 1 Epidemiology, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences School of Public Health and Safety, Tehran, Tehran Province, Iran 2 Occupational Health and Safety Engineering, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences School of Public Health and Safety, Tehran, Tehran Province, Iran 3 Research Center for Social Determinants of Health, Research Institute for Metabolic and Obesity Disorders, Research Institute for Endocrine Sciences, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Tehran Province, Iran Mehran Rostami Varnousfaderani Roles: Conceptualization, Software, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Shiva Mohammadjani Kumeleh Roles: Software, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Neda Izadi Roles: Conceptualization, Supervision, Validation, Writing – Original Draft Preparation OPEN PEER REVIEW DETAILS REVIEWER STATUS This article is included in the Global Public Health gateway. This article is included in the Research on Research, Policy & Culture gateway. Abstract Background This bibliometric analysis evaluates health-related research in Public Health, Environmental Health, and Occupational Health (PHEOH) journals indexed in Scopus, categorized by Scimago quartiles (Q1–Q4) from 2016 to 2024. The study aims to identify trends, research productivity, and thematic priorities across these journals. Methods From 654 eligible journals, 100 (25 per quartile) were randomly selected. A total of 70,580 documents were retrieved from Scopus and analysed using Microsoft Excel and VOSviewer (v.1.6.20). Co-occurrence analysis of author and indexed keywords was performed separately for each quartile to identify research hotspots, thematic clusters, and trends over time. Results Q1 journals contributed the highest proportion of publications (37.7%), followed by Q2 (25.4%), Q4 (22.1%), and Q3 (14.8%). The United States dominated output in Q1–Q3 journals, whereas Pakistan led in Q4. Across all quartiles, “COVID-19” was the most frequent and highly connected author keyword, followed by mental health, SARS-CoV-2, and child-related research. Indexed keyword analysis ranked “humans” highest in every quartile. Topics related to SARS-CoV-2 and mental health received the highest average citations. Conclusions The COVID-19 pandemic significantly influenced the research agenda of Public, Environmental, and Occupational Health journals between 2016 and 2024, particularly in higher-quartile outlets. The findings reveal persistent disparities in productivity across journal tiers and geographic regions. READ ALL READ LESS Keywords : Bibliometrics, Scopus, Public health, Occupational health, Environmental health, COVID-19, Scimago quartiles, research trends, Scopus Corresponding Author(s) Neda Izadi ( [email protected] ) Close Corresponding author: Neda Izadi Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Grant information: This study was supported by the Student Research Committee, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Grant No.1404/323/28. The funding agency did not play any role in the planning, conduct, and reporting or in the decision to submit the paper for publication. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Copyright: © 2026 Rostami Varnousfaderani M et al . This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. How to cite: Rostami Varnousfaderani M, Mohammadjani Kumeleh S and Izadi N. Bibliometric Analysis of Publications in Scopus-Indexed Public, Environmental and Occupational Health Journals Across Scimago Quartiles (2016–2024) [version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2026, 14 :1468 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.174865.2 ) First published: 27 Dec 2025, 14 :1468 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.174865.1 ) Latest published: 04 Mar 2026, 14 :1468 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.174865.2 ) Revised Amendments from Version 1 In this revised version, several methodological and interpretative clarifications have been made to improve transparency and analytical precision. The search strategy has been further detailed, with the complete query and Source IDs provided in the Appendix to enhance reproducibility. The description of the bibliometric methodology has been refined to explicitly clarify the use of full counting and quartile-based journal selection criteria. The Introduction and Discussion sections have been strengthened through the inclusion of recent literature (2022–2024) to better contextualize the findings within current bibliometric and post-COVID publication trends. Additionally, interpretations regarding thematic prominence across quartiles have been revised to avoid causal implications and to ensure a more cautious and evidence-based discussion. These revisions collectively improve methodological transparency, conceptual clarity, and alignment with contemporary literature. In this revised version, several methodological and interpretative clarifications have been made to improve transparency and analytical precision. The search strategy has been further detailed, with the complete query and Source IDs provided in the Appendix to enhance reproducibility. The description of the bibliometric methodology has been refined to explicitly clarify the use of full counting and quartile-based journal selection criteria. The Introduction and Discussion sections have been strengthened through the inclusion of recent literature (2022–2024) to better contextualize the findings within current bibliometric and post-COVID publication trends. Additionally, interpretations regarding thematic prominence across quartiles have been revised to avoid causal implications and to ensure a more cautious and evidence-based discussion. These revisions collectively improve methodological transparency, conceptual clarity, and alignment with contemporary literature. See the authors' detailed response to the review by Dwi Fitria Al Husaeni READ REVIEWER RESPONSES Introduction Public, occupational, and environmental health are the driving forces behind this vision, providing the tools to understand health challenges, predict future threats, and design innovative solutions to improve lives. 1 The concept of “health” brings together two essential ideas: “Health” representing overall well-being, and “Hygiene” emphasizing prevention and care. At its core, public health is a collective effort to protect and promote the health of populations. From maintaining hygiene in schools and workplaces to ensuring food safety, it addresses a broad spectrum of issues that affect individual and societal well-being. 2 Research in this field spans topics such as disease epidemiology, vaccination strategies, health policy-making, and the impact of social factors on health. Advanced techniques like data analysis and epidemiological modeling further empower scientists to tackle global health challenges effectively. 3 Occupational health plays a crucial role in ensuring a safer and healthier working environment by predicting, identifying, and managing the risks workers face. It serves as the backbone of the second vital component of the healthcare system. The ultimate goal is to promote both physical and mental well-being for individuals across various professions. 4 Within this field, the focus is on critical issues such as assessing and controlling workplace hazards, preventing occupational diseases, and supporting mental health in work settings. 5 In high-risk industries such as chemicals, mining, and construction, occupational health is essential for identifying and mitigating these dangers. Furthermore, ergonomics, which emphasizes the design of workspaces to prevent physical injuries and musculoskeletal disorders, is a key aspect that cannot be overlooked in creating healthier work environments. 6 Environmental health extensively examines critical factors such as air pollution, water contamination, climate change, and waste management. Managing air pollution presents a significant challenge, as it is directly linked to severe health issues, including respiratory and cardiovascular diseases, as well as cancer. Ensuring access to clean drinking water and effectively treating wastewater are equally vital for preventing infectious diseases and promoting public well-being. 7 , 8 Furthermore, reducing noise pollution and addressing the health risks associated with urban traffic and environmental noise are essential, particularly in densely populated areas. These risks are known to cause sleep disturbances, increased stress levels, and cardiovascular problems. 9 Broadly speaking, research in environmental health lays the groundwork for developing effective public health policies and preventive measures aimed at mitigating the harmful effects of environmental hazards on human well-being. The importance and complexity of these topics have made reputable journals in Public Health, The significance and intricacy of these topics have established reputable journals in Public Health, Environmental Health, and Occupational Health (PHEOH) essential sources for groundbreaking research. These journals are widely recognized for publishing innovative studies that address critical health issues across various disciplines. PHEOH journals concentrate on high-impact research aimed at improving health outcomes for individuals, workplaces, and communities. Their objective is to connect science with practice, offering solutions to real-world challenges while enhancing our understanding of health and sustainability. 10 By emphasizing the interdisciplinary nature of health sciences, these journals promote collaboration among researchers, policymakers, and professionals. They provide a trusted platform for sharing evidence-based insights, helping to shape policies, guide practical applications, and elevate health standards across diverse areas. 11 In the dynamic field of research, the ability to track and analyze academic trends plays a crucial role in advancing scientific knowledge. The concept of “bibliometrics,” derived from the Greek terms “Biblio” (book) and “metric” (measurement), provides a framework for quantitatively studying scholarly work. 12 As a well-established and valuable research tool, bibliometrics enables the objective evaluation of the growth, distribution, and influence of research across various academic domains. Through the use of advanced statistical and mathematical methods, bibliometrics examines a range of scholarly outputs from journals to articles by identifying emerging patterns, tracking the distribution of research, and mapping the development of specific fields of study. 13 Additionally, bibliometric tools allow researchers to gather data from key academic databases such as Scopus, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and PubMed. This data is then organized for analysis, providing clear visual representations that help researchers gain insights into research trends and future directions. 14 , 15 The position of a journal in quartiles, Q1 to Q4, reflects variability in visibility, citation potential, and editorial standards, among other metrics. It is possible to compare the publication pattern across quartiles to determine whether priorities of research, geographical contributions, and thematic hotspots vary systematically across high-impact and lower-impact journals. Such stratification is of particular relevance in PHEOH, as funding availability, regional health priorities, and global crises can all shape research agendas. Up to now, no study has comprehensively compared the entire Scopus-indexed PHEOH journal landscape across all four quartiles using bibliometric analysis. This gap in prior research limits our understanding of how journal tier might influence topic selection, productivity disparities, and knowledge dissemination in these critical fields. Consequently, the present study had four separate aims: 1. Describe the distribution of publications across Scimago quartiles for PHEOH journals from 2016 – 2024. 2. Identify the most productive countries, institutions, and authors within each quartile. 3. Map research hotspots and thematic clusters via keyword co-occurrence analysis. 4. Compare temporal trends and citation impact for dominant topics across journal tiers. The overall objective of this work is to provide researchers, editors, and policymakers with data-based insight concerning the changing research landscape of public, environmental, and occupational health based on the two previous objectives. Methods Journal selection This study targeted all active journals classified under the Scopus subject category “Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health” within the broader area “Medicine”. According to the Scimago Journal & Country Rank database (accessed May 2024), 654 journals met these criteria. To ensure balanced representation across impact levels, journals were stratified by their 2023 Scimago Journal Rank (SJR) quartiles (Q1–Q4). From each quartile, 25 journals were randomly selected using a computer-generated random number sequence, resulting in a final sample of 100 journals. Rationale for sampling strategy Although analysing the entire population of 654 journals would have been ideal, resource and time constraints (particularly the manual verification required for a substantial proportion of lower-quartile journals) made full coverage impractical. The stratified random sampling of 25 journals per quartile was chosen to (a) maintain proportional representation across impact tiers, (b) ensure sufficient statistical power for quartile-level comparisons, and (c) remain consistent with similar large-scale bibliometric studies that typically analyse 80–150 journals when examining stratified journal populations. 16 – 18 Data retrieval Scopus was queried between 1–15 June 2024 using the SOURCE-ID of the 100 selected journals. The publication period was restricted to 2016–2024 to avoid incomplete 2025 data. All document types (articles, reviews, editorials, letters, etc.) were included to reflect the complete scholarly output of the journals. A total of 70,580 documents were exported in BibTeX and CSV formats, including title, authors, affiliations, author keywords, indexed keywords, publication year, and citation counts. Search strategy transparency Journal selection was based on the Scopus SOURCE-ID (SRCID) of the randomly selected 25 journals per quartile (Q1–Q4). For each quartile, the following general search syntax structure was applied in Scopus: (SRCID() OR SRCID() OR … OR SRCID()) AND PUBYEAR > 2015 AND PUBYEAR < 2026 Parentheses were applied to ensure the correct logical grouping of the SOURCE-IDs. The complete list of the 100 selected journals and their corresponding SOURCE-IDs is provided in Supplementary Appendix 1. No restrictions were applied regarding document type, language, or subject subcategory. All document types indexed in Scopus were included to reflect the comprehensive scholarly output of the selected journals. Due to Scopus export limitations, data for each quartile were exported separately in CSV and BibTeX formats and subsequently prepared for analysis. Data analysis Descriptive statistics were performed using Microsoft Excel. Bibliometric mapping was conducted using VOSviewer version 1.6.20. Separate co-occurrence networks were created for author keywords and indexed keywords for each quartile. The minimum occurrence threshold was iteratively adjusted within a range of 30–50 for each quartile to generate approximately 100 nodes per network, ensuring comparability across quartiles. Co-occurrence networks were constructed using the full counting method with association strength normalization (default VOSviewer setting). Clustering was performed using the modularity-based algorithm with the LinLog layout to enhance cluster separation and thematic interpretability. The following visualizations were generated: • Network visualization with clustering • Overlay visualization by average publication year • Overlay visualization by average citations per document Total link strength (TLS), cluster composition, and temporal trends were extracted for interpretation. Data preprocessing No manual synonym merging or term harmonization was performed before co-occurrence analysis. Author keywords and indexed keywords were analyzed as provided by Scopus to preserve the original author-intended terminology and to avoid introducing subjective bias through manual term aggregation. Institutional names and author identities were retained as indexed in Scopus without additional normalization. As the primary focus of the study was thematic keyword co-occurrence rather than author-level or institution-level network centrality analysis, raw indexing was considered methodologically appropriate. Ethical considerations Only publicly available bibliometric data were used; no human or animal subjects were involved. Results Distribution of Journals and Published Documents Between 2016 and 2024, the 100 selected journals published a total of 70,580 documents indexed in Scopus. The distribution across quartiles was markedly uneven: Q1 journals accounted for 26,583 documents (37.7%), Q2 for 17,869 (25.3%), Q4 for 15,619 (22.1%), and Q3 for 10,509 (14.9%). Thus, the top quartile (Q1) contributed more than one-third of all publications, while Q3 journals had the lowest share. Analysis of the Most Productive Countries, Institutes, and Authors In the Q1 to Q3 categories, the United States was the most productive country, while in the Q4 category, Pakistan was the most productive country. Analysis of organizations revealed that the European Center for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) in Stockholm, Sweden, Harvard Medical School in Boston, United States, Federal Scientific Center for Medical and Preventive Health Risk Management, and the Pak Emirates military hospital National University were the most productive institutes in the Q1 to Q4 journal categories, respectively. Galea S, with 116 documents, Agarwal A., with 54 documents, Zaitseva N.V., with 51 documents, and Panknin Hardy-TH, with 85 documents, were the most productive authors in the Q1 to Q4 journal categories, respectively. Research Hotspots in Public Health, Environmental, and Occupational Health Co-occurrence analysis was conducted to identify high-frequency keywords that show hot topics in each PHEOH journal category. We performed two separate co-occurrence analyses for each category with respect to the author keywords and index keywords. In all four categories, most author keywords represented the main topics of the documents, while most index keywords indicated the study settings. Based on the analysis of author keywords, we identified 6 (100), 4 (101), 7 (105), and 3 (100) clusters (nodes) for Q1 to Q4 categories, respectively. Co-occurrence analysis using index keywords showed 5 (100), 4 (100), 4 (101), and 6 (101) clusters (nodes) for the Q1 to Q4 categories, respectively. It is worth noting that for each co-occurrence analysis, various thresholds were set for the minimum number of times a keyword had to appear to achieve approximately 100 nodes on a thematic map. The most common author keyword across all quartile categories (Q1 to Q4) was “COVID-19”. Furthermore, the keyword with the highest Total Link Strength (TLS) represented the primary focus of research within each quartile. In terms of indexed keywords, “humans” had the highest frequency of occurrence across all categories ( Table 1 ). The top 10 authors and indexed keywords for each quartile, ranked based on frequency, are summarized in Table 1 . Table 1. Scimago Categories and Detailed Node Data Derived from Documents Indexed in Scopus. Journal Category Nodes (Terms) Author Keywords Nodes (Terms) Index Keywords Weight Score Weight Score Citations Year TLS Occurrences Citations Year TLS Occurrences Q1 Covid-19 19.72 2022.01 2078 1287 Human 19.87 2020.33 196146 22567 HIV 18.02 2019.92 1262 894 Female 21.03 2020.17 127234 10665 Mental health 20.26 2020.66 897 713 Male 21.55 2020.15 117490 9535 Public health 18.56 2021.05 1169 632 Article 23.17 2020.47 106891 9510 Epidemiology 20.24 2020.31 773 532 Adult 21.63 2020.30 109612 8837 Depression 17.01 2020.65 628 400 Middle-aged 24.33 2019.98 63435 4570 Harm reduction 15.26 2021.36 383 396 Controlled study 18.80 2020.54 51729 4090 Surveillance 18.70 2021.34 563 306 Adolescent 23.44 2019.95 53589 3937 Sars-covid-2 24.03 2021.97 583 262 Major clinical study 22.80 2020.26 55521 3836 Mortality 15.39 2020.84 301 246 Public health 21.25 2020.09 28447 3695 Q2 Covid-19 11.86 2021.81 904 948 Human 8.50 2020.32 134039 14759 HIV 6.79 2019.52 1088 771 Article 6.84 2020.79 94040 8897 Mental health 10.70 2020.98 311 364 Female 8.02 2020.25 91545 7710 Primary health care 8.81 2020.30 232 353 Male 8.17 2020.22 89863 7515 Epidemiology 9.39 2020.14 436 347 Adult 7.61 2020.35 84111 6859 Public health 7.92 2020.42 226 293 Major clinical study 6.96 2020.47 47412 3531 Prevention 10.05 2020.03 455 271 Cross-sectional study 8.06 2020.45 37288 2958 Risk factors 8.09 2020.59 230 249 Controlled study 7.29 2020.75 34942 2841 Children 12 2020.31 200 249 Middle-aged 8.50 2019.67 40611 2895 Aids 7.95 2017.96 520 223 Brazil 8.23 2019.84 26237 2624 Q3 Covid-19 4.10 2022.14 319 312 Human 6.83 2019.97 56858 7053 Mental health 6.24 2020.89 200 251 Article 6.61 2020.29 49434 5678 HIV 6.27 2019.86 126 137 Male 6.70 2019.84 39670 4304 Evaluation 9.42 2019.64 89 132 Female 6.73 2019.87 36309 3259 Sanitation 7.36 2020.17 159 126 Adult 6.37 2019.96 35105 3107 Physical activity 5.79 2020.52 124 118 Controlled study 5.81 2020.37 33664 3017 Quality improvement 3.14 2020.79 53 115 Middle-aged 7.36 2019.46 14722 1380 High altitude 9.02 2020.55 73 113 Major clinical study 6.31 2019.97 16983 1317 Children 3.83 2020.33 99 112 Procedures 9.80 2018.88 15846 1310 Depression 7.06 2021.34 161 110 Aged 6.56 2019.82 10391 1081 Q4 Covid-19 4.22 2021.94 602 637 Human 5.93 2019.92 48771 5292 Occupational health 4.62 2021.21 178 185 Article 5.72 2020.33 41597 3939 obesity 3.51 2020.08 183 179 Male 6.72 2019.99 39166 3890 epidemiology 3.79 2020.29 151 179 Female 6.67 2020.01 36486 3042 children 2.15 2020.20 104 176 Adult 6.79 2020.05 36022 3021 depression 5.80 2021.26 223 168 Middle-aged 9.30 2019.49 34924 2925 Public health 2.72 2020.35 181 163 Major clinical study 6.88 2020.15 21065 1516 Mental health 7.64 2021.27 201 158 Controlled study 6.04 2020.47 19684 721 Risk factors 4.42 2020.27 123 136 Questionnaire 8.29 2020.17 16090 1395 Quality of life 1.96 2020.44 98 134 Cross-sectional study 7.17 2020.20 12197 985 To view the analysis based on other keywords, see Figures 1 to 12 , and to view the analysis based on the index keyword, see Supplementary File Figures 13 to 24. Figure 1. Thematic Map of Document Production in Q1-Category PHEOH Journals: A Co-Occurrence Analysis of Author Keywords. Figure 2. Thematic Map of Document Production in Q2-Category PHEOH Journals: A Co-Occurrence Analysis of Author Keywords. Figure 3. Thematic Map of Document Production in Q3-Category PHEOH Journals: A Co-Occurrence Analysis of Author Keywords. Figure 4. Thematic Map of Document Production in Q4-Category PHEOH Journals: A Co-Occurrence Analysis of Author Keywords. Figure 5. An Overlay Visualization of the Most Frequent Topics in the Q1 Category, Based on Average Publication Year. Figure 6. An Overlay Visualization of the Most Frequent Topics in the Q2 Category, Based on Average Publication Year. Figure 7. An Overlay Visualization of the Most Frequent Topics in the Q3 Category, Based on Average Publication Year. Figure 8. An Overlay Visualization of the Most Frequent Topics in the Q4 Category, Based on Average Publication Year. Figure 9. An Overlay Visualization of the Most Frequent Topics in the Q1 Category, Based on Average Citation Counts. Figure 10. An Overlay Visualization of the Most Frequent Topics in the Q2 Category, Based on Average Citation Counts. Figure 11. An Overlay Visualization of the Most Frequent Topics in the Q3 Category, Based on Average Citation Counts. Figure 12. An Overlay Visualization of the Most Frequent Topics in the Q4 Category, Based on Average Citation Counts. Temporal trends and citation impact Among the top 10 author keywords in categories Q1 to Q4, “sars-covid-2”, “children”, “evaluation”, and “mental health” were the most cited with an average of 24.03, 12, 9.42, and 7.64citations, respectively ( Table 1 and Figures 9 - 12 ). In addition, “COVID-19” was the most up-to-date topic among the top 10 author keywords in categories Q1, Q2, Q3, and Q4 with an average publication year of 2022.01, 2021.81, 2022.14, and 2021.94, respectively ( Table 1 and Figures 5 - 8 ). Discussion This bibliometric study was conducted to explore the bibliometric characteristics of PHEOH journals across different Scimago categories. Our analysis revealed that the most common author keyword in all quartile categories (Q1 to Q4) was “COVID-19”. Additionally, the keyword with the highest Total Link Strength (TLS) represented the central research focus within each category. Notably, “COVID-19” was also identified as the most current topic among the top 10 author keywords in the Q1, Q2, Q3, and Q4 categories. Based on indexed keywords, “humans” had the highest frequency of occurrence across all quartiles. Furthermore, among the top 10 author keywords in Q1 to Q4, terms such as “SARS-CoV-2,” “children,” “assessment,” and “mental health” received the highest citations. The findings of our study uphold the findings of prior studies: COVID-19 became a focal point in scientific research published from 2016 to 2025. 19 Keywords such as “COVID-19,” “SARS-CoV-2,” and “mental health” consistently stood out, which is not surprising given the radical increase in pandemic-related studies during this time. This has also been noted in other bibliometric research works. The preeminence of COVID-19 publications in well-known scholarly works is confirmed by others’ findings, 19 , 20 who made the same observations about pandemic-related issues in top-tier journals. The common recurrence of “mental health” in Q1 and Q2 journals is probably consistent with widespread concerns about the psychological effects of the pandemic, highlighted. 21 Interestingly, our analysis indicated that research productivity was not equal; the USA in Q1 to Q3 and Pakistan in Q4 emerged as the leading contributors. Regional disparities may be associated with differences in funding conditions for research, the quality of research infrastructure, and the respective country’s access to quality journals. Based on the quartile comparisons and the distribution of publication counts and citation patterns, HIV, mental health, and occupational health emerged as consistently prominent thematic areas within PHEOH journals during the study period. Their high representation and citation impact suggest sustained scholarly attention and thematic centrality within the field. This prominence likely reflects broader global health priorities and evolving research agendas, particularly in the post-COVID-19 period. Because our study specifically compares the bibliometric characteristics of Q1 to Q4 PHEOH journals, it stands out as unique. As a result, a direct and comprehensive comparison of our findings with those from previous studies isn’t feasible. Limitation Like any study, this one has its own set of limitations. To begin with, we relied on Scopus Classification Criteria (SjR) for gathering our data. This means we only included documents from journals specifically categorized under public health, environment, and occupation. As a result, any articles published in journals outside these categories or in journals not indexed in Scopus weren’t part of our analysis. Additionally, because of the sheer number of documents and journals in these categories, combined with a lack of software tools to streamline the process, we had to narrow our analysis. A total of 654 journals were randomly chosen from a collection of 100 journals covering the period from 2016 to 2025 for our analysis. Additionally, the study’s methodology restricted our ability to distinguish among the domains of public health, environment, and occupation, which may be regarded as an additional limitation. Conclusion In summary, this bibliometric analysis highlights how research priorities in PHEOH journals differ across Scimago quartiles. The dominant topic within this category is “COVID-19,” with key themes like SARS-CoV-2, “children,” “assessment,” and “mental health” garnering the most citations. These findings shed light on the current trends and focus areas driving the scientific agendas of PHEOH researchers and journals across various tiers. Consent for publication The authors of this paper have read the final version of the manuscript and approved to submission of the paper to the journal. Using Artificial Intelligence Chatbots None. Data availability No primary datasets were generated or collected in this study. All analyses were based on bibliographic data retrieved from the Scopus database using predefined journal lists and search strategies. all information required to reproduce the study, including the list of selected journals, the data source, the time frame, and the analytical methods, is fully described in the Methods section. Researchers with legitimate access to Scopus can replicate the analyses by following the procedures outlined in this article. Acknowledgments This study is related to the project NO.1404/323/28 from the Student Research Committee, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. We also appreciate the “Student Research Committee” and “Research & Technology Chancellor” in Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences for their financial support of this study. We want to express our sincere gratitude and appreciation to the Department of Epidemiology and Department of Occupational Health and Safety Engineering, School of Public Health and Safety, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences (Ethical code: IR.SBMU.RETECH.RE.1404.436). References 1. Sweileh WM, Zyoud SH, Al-Jabi SW, et al. : Public, environmental, and occupational health research activity in Arab countries: bibliometric, citation, and collaboration analysis. Arch. Public Health. 2015; 73 : 1–12. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 2. Haghdoost AA, Naghibzadeh-Tahami A, Dehnavieh R: Pathology of the Health Sector in Iran’s Health System: A Future Oriented Viewpoint. J. Rafsanjan Univ. Med. Sci. 2024; 23 (1): 76–87. 3. Gary F, Lotas M: A population health approach to health disparities for nurses: Care of vulnerable populations. Springer Publishing Company; 2022. 4. Mosadeghrad AM, Ismailpour MRM, Shahtaheri SJ, et al. : Joint comprehensive plan of action for occupational health. J. Health Safety Work. 2024; 14 (1): 1–19. Publisher Full Text 5. Peckham TK, Baker MG, Camp JE, et al. : Creating a future for occupational health. Ann. Work Expo. Health. 2017; 61 (1): 3–15. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 6. Amponsah-Tawiah K, Mensah J: Occupational health and safety and organizational commitment: Evidence from the Ghanaian mining industry. Saf. Health Work. 2016; 7 (3): 225–230. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 7. Hanjra MA, Blackwell J, Carr G, et al. : Wastewater irrigation and environmental health: Implications for water governance and public policy. Int. J. Hyg. Environ. Health. 2012; 215 (3): 255–269. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 8. Mishra S, Kumar R, Kumar M: Use of treated sewage or wastewater as an irrigation water for agricultural purposes-Environmental, health, and economic impacts. Total Environ. Res. Themes. 2023; 6 : 100051. Publisher Full Text 9. Jacyna M, Wasiak M, Lewczuk K, et al. : Noise and environmental pollution from transport: decisive problems in developing ecologically efficient transport systems. J. Vibroeng. 2017; 19 (7): 5639–5655. Publisher Full Text 10. Atanyan A, Muradyan D, Mkrtchyan M, et al. : Parental oral health knowledge and plaque index of their children in rural communities of Armenia. Eur. J. Pub. Health. 2023; 33 (Supplement_2): ckad160. 785. Publisher Full Text 11. Taneri P, Civaner M, Devane D: Which journal indicator to consider when submitting a paper on Public Health area? Eur. J. Pub. Health. 2023; 33 (Supplement_2): ckad160. 786. Publisher Full Text 12. Farokhizadeh F, Zarei A, Rastgar A, et al. : Designing and Illustrating the Knowledge Network of Digital Banking Studies with a Bibliometric Approach. Scientometric Res. J. 2024; 10 (1, spring & summer): 99–120. 13. Mao G, Zou H, Chen G, et al. : Past, current and future of biomass energy research: A bibliometric analysis. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 2015; 52 : 1823–1833. Publisher Full Text 14. Aria M, Cuccurullo C: bibliometrix: An R-tool for comprehensive science mapping analysis. J. Informet. 2017; 11 (4): 959–975. Publisher Full Text 15. Zarei F, Nourahmadi M, Sadeqi H: Application of recommendation systems in the development of Robo Advisors: A Bibliometrics Method. J. Asset Manag. Financing. 2023; 11 (3): 69–96. 16. Chang Y-W, Nabavi M: Comparison of disciplines, topics, and methods in studies in Journal of Informetrics and Scientometrics from 2016 to 2020. Scientometrics. 2024; 129 (3): 1415–1439. Publisher Full Text 17. Meseko C, Edet UO, Henshaw O, et al. : Bibliometric analysis of highly pathogenic avian influenza research globally from 2003 to 2023. Germs. 2025; 15 (1): 11–25. Publisher Full Text 18. Harzing A-W, Alakangas S: Microsoft Academic: is the phoenix getting wings? Scientometrics. 2017; 110 (1): 371–383. Publisher Full Text 19. Okhovati M, Arshadi H: COVID-19 research progress: Bibliometrics and visualization analysis. Med. J. Islam Repub. Iran. 2021; 35 : 20. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 20. Penninx BWJH, Benros ME, Klein RS, et al. : How COVID-19 shaped mental health: from infection to pandemic effects. Nat. Med. 2022; 28 (10): 2027–2037. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 21. Jones EAK, Mitra AK, Bhuiyan AR: Impact of COVID-19 on Mental Health in Adolescents: A Systematic Review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health. 2021; 18 (5). PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text Comments on this article Comments (0) Version 2 VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 27 Dec 2025 ADD YOUR COMMENT Comment Author details Author details 1 Epidemiology, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences School of Public Health and Safety, Tehran, Tehran Province, Iran 2 Occupational Health and Safety Engineering, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences School of Public Health and Safety, Tehran, Tehran Province, Iran 3 Research Center for Social Determinants of Health, Research Institute for Metabolic and Obesity Disorders, Research Institute for Endocrine Sciences, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Tehran Province, Iran Mehran Rostami Varnousfaderani Roles: Conceptualization, Software, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Shiva Mohammadjani Kumeleh Roles: Software, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Neda Izadi Roles: Conceptualization, Supervision, Validation, Writing – Original Draft Preparation Competing interests No competing interests were disclosed. Grant information This study was supported by the Student Research Committee, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Grant No.1404/323/28. The funding agency did not play any role in the planning, conduct, and reporting or in the decision to submit the paper for publication. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Article Versions (2) version 2 Revised Published: 04 Mar 2026, 14:1468 https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.174865.2 version 1 Published: 27 Dec 2025, 14:1468 https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.174865.1 Copyright © 2026 Rostami Varnousfaderani M et al . This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Download Export To Sciwheel Bibtex EndNote ProCite Ref. Manager (RIS) Sente metrics Views Downloads F1000Research - - PubMed Central info_outline Data from PMC are received and updated monthly. - - Citations open_in_new 0 open_in_new 0 open_in_new SEE MORE DETAILS CITE how to cite this article Rostami Varnousfaderani M, Mohammadjani Kumeleh S and Izadi N. Bibliometric Analysis of Publications in Scopus-Indexed Public, Environmental and Occupational Health Journals Across Scimago Quartiles (2016–2024) [version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2026, 14 :1468 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.174865.2 ) NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS track receive updates on this article Track an article to receive email alerts on any updates to this article. TRACK THIS ARTICLE Share Open Peer Review Current Reviewer Status: ? Key to Reviewer Statuses VIEW HIDE Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Version 2 VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 04 Mar 2026 Revised Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Kannazarova Z. Reviewer Report For: Bibliometric Analysis of Publications in Scopus-Indexed Public, Environmental and Occupational Health Journals Across Scimago Quartiles (2016–2024) [version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2026, 14 :1468 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.197007.r468632 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-1468/v2#referee-response-468632 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 15 Apr 2026 Zulfiya Kannazarova , National Research University, Tashkent, Uzbekistan Approved with Reservations VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.197007.r468632 General Recommendation: Minor Revision (with some moderate methodological clarifications required) This manuscript presents a bibliometric analysis of 70,580 documents from 100 Scopus-indexed journals in Public, Environmental, and Occupational Health (PHEOH), stratified across Scimago quartiles (Q1–Q4). Using VOSviewer, ... Continue reading READ ALL General Recommendation: Minor Revision (with some moderate methodological clarifications required) This manuscript presents a bibliometric analysis of 70,580 documents from 100 Scopus-indexed journals in Public, Environmental, and Occupational Health (PHEOH), stratified across Scimago quartiles (Q1–Q4). Using VOSviewer, the authors analyze publication output, geographic contributions, and keyword co-occurrence patterns. The study highlights the dominance of COVID-19-related research and identifies disparities in productivity across quartiles and countries. The topic is relevant and timely, and the manuscript contributes to understanding research trends in PHEOH literature. However, several methodological and interpretative issues require clarification before indexing. Major Comments: 1. Sampling Strategy and Representativeness The study includes 100 journals (25 per quartile) out of 654 eligible journals. While the authors justify this based on feasibility, concerns remain: The manuscript does not sufficiently demonstrate that the sample is representative of the entire population. Random selection without stratification (e.g., by region, publisher, or subfield) may introduce sampling bias. The equal number of journals per quartile may distort the actual distribution of journals across quartiles. Recommendation: Provide additional justification for sample size and selection method, or include a sensitivity discussion on how results might differ with full dataset inclusion. 2. Lack of Keyword Harmonization The authors explicitly state that no synonym merging or term standardization was performed. This may lead to fragmentation of conceptually identical terms (e.g., “COVID-19” vs. “SARS-CoV-2”). It potentially affects the accuracy of co-occurrence networks and thematic clustering. Recommendation: Discuss the implications of this choice more critically and consider including a supplementary analysis with harmonized keywords. 3. Interpretation of Indexed Keywords The finding that “humans” is the most frequent indexed keyword across quartiles is not particularly informative. This likely reflects indexing conventions rather than meaningful thematic trends. Recommendation: Clarify this limitation and avoid over-interpreting such generic indexed terms. 4. Overemphasis on COVID-19 While the prominence of COVID-19 is expected: The manuscript does not sufficiently explore whether this dominance obscures other important long-term research trends. The analysis would benefit from distinguishing pre-pandemic vs. pandemic vs. post-pandemic periods. Recommendation: Include a temporal segmentation analysis or expand discussion on how COVID-19 may have distorted thematic priorities. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Yes Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Yes Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Partly If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Yes Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Yes Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Yes Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: Water ScienceMechanical EngineeringAgricultural Engineering I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Kannazarova Z. Reviewer Report For: Bibliometric Analysis of Publications in Scopus-Indexed Public, Environmental and Occupational Health Journals Across Scimago Quartiles (2016–2024) [version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2026, 14 :1468 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.197007.r468632 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-1468/v2#referee-response-468632 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Lemke S. Reviewer Report For: Bibliometric Analysis of Publications in Scopus-Indexed Public, Environmental and Occupational Health Journals Across Scimago Quartiles (2016–2024) [version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2026, 14 :1468 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.197007.r466978 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-1468/v2#referee-response-466978 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 27 Mar 2026 Steffen Lemke , CAU Kiel University, Kiel, Germany Approved VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.197007.r466978 The authors present a brief descriptive analysis of the state of recent research in Public Health, Environmental Health, and Occupational Health (PHEOH), based on Scopus data and SCImago journal quartiles covering the output of 100 journals over the years 2016-2024. ... Continue reading READ ALL The authors present a brief descriptive analysis of the state of recent research in Public Health, Environmental Health, and Occupational Health (PHEOH), based on Scopus data and SCImago journal quartiles covering the output of 100 journals over the years 2016-2024. They use VOSviewer to visualize co-occurrences of frequent author- and indexed keywords, particularly focusing on respective works' average publication years and citation counts. I believe the article to be methodologically sound and the descriptions of the processes of data collection and processing to be clear. I do however have a number of suggestions that the authors might want to consider for future improvements of the article: First, as the SCImago quartiles are of such central meaning to the article's methodology, I believe that adding one or two sentences on what precisely a journal's quartile is based on might help readers to better assess the results. The authors already do hint at journal quartiles typically being about aspects like "visibility, citation potential, and editorial standards", but a bit more concrete information on how the quartiles used in the study are calculated exactly would be helpful. Second, the study includes an "Analysis of the Most Productive Countries, Institutes, and Authors", does however provide only a very brief selection of results concerning these aspects, by only mentioning a few outstanding entities from each category. The informative value of the study could be improved substantially by reporting and discussing more comprehensive data from this sub-analysis, e.g., in tabular form. Third, the study's discussion remains rather brief. I believe the article could benefit significantly from a more extensive reflection on what the descriptive findings imply about the state of PHEOH research. What can we take from these results for practice? Are there any recommendations for the scholarly community and/or policy makers that the authors can derive from their analysis? Also, the article contains a few minor language-related issues that I believe should be addressed to improve its comprehensibility: In the article's very first sentence, what does "this vision" refer to? The structure of the fourth paragraph's first sentence ("The importance and complexity...") seems erroneous. In the Introduction's last sentence, the authors refer to "the two previous objectives" - as the preceding list of aims contains four items, a clarification which two of these are meant here might be helpful. Near the end of the subsection "Research Hotspots in Public Health, Environmental, and Occupational Health", the text at one point mentions "other keywords", where I believe what is meant is "author keywords". Finally: perhaps that is just me, but I couldn't find the article's supplementary material, which the article refers to in multiple places. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Yes Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Yes Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Yes If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Not applicable Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Yes Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Yes Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: Computer Science; Information Science; Bibliometrics; Scholarly Communcation; Web Science I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Lemke S. Reviewer Report For: Bibliometric Analysis of Publications in Scopus-Indexed Public, Environmental and Occupational Health Journals Across Scimago Quartiles (2016–2024) [version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2026, 14 :1468 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.197007.r466978 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-1468/v2#referee-response-466978 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Version 1 VERSION 1 PUBLISHED 27 Dec 2025 Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Husaeni DFA. Reviewer Report For: Bibliometric Analysis of Publications in Scopus-Indexed Public, Environmental and Occupational Health Journals Across Scimago Quartiles (2016–2024) [version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2026, 14 :1468 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.192803.r453053 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-1468/v1#referee-response-453053 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 14 Feb 2026 Dwi Fitria Al Husaeni , Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia, Bandung, West Java, Indonesia Approved with Reservations VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.192803.r453053 Article Summary: This article presents a bibliometric analysis of Scopus-indexed journals in the Public, Environmental, and Occupational Health (PHEOH) category based on the Scimago Quartile classification (Q1–Q4) for the period 2016–2024. Of the 654 journals that met ... Continue reading READ ALL Article Summary: This article presents a bibliometric analysis of Scopus-indexed journals in the Public, Environmental, and Occupational Health (PHEOH) category based on the Scimago Quartile classification (Q1–Q4) for the period 2016–2024. Of the 654 journals that met the criteria, the authors selected 100 journals (25 per quartile) through stratified random sampling. A total of 70,580 documents were analyzed using Microsoft Excel and VOSviewer (v1.6.20). The bibliometric analysis included the distribution of publications across quartiles, the most productive countries, institutions, and authors, keyword co-occurrence analysis (authors and indexed keywords), and temporal trends and citation impact. The results show that Q1 accounts for the largest proportion of publications (37.7%), with the topic "COVID-19" being the most dominant keyword across all quartiles. The keyword "humans" appears most frequently among indexed keywords. Topics related to SARS-CoV-2 and mental health received the highest average citations. The study concludes that the COVID-19 pandemic significantly shaped the PHEOH research agenda across all journal quartiles. Evaluation In general, the article's systematic structure and argumentation flow are quite clear. However, there are weaknesses in the literature's novelty. The proportion of old references is still dominant. Based on the bibliography (pages 14–15), References before 2018 9 articles (43%), References 2018–2021 7 articles (33%), References 2022–2025 5 articles (24%). This means that less than 30% of the references come from the last 3 years (2022–2025). For a bibliometric study discussing trends up to 2024, this proportion is relatively low. The latest literature related to the Development of the latest bibliometric methodology, the structural impact of COVID-19 on global publications, the latest SJR-based journal quartile and stratification analysis, should be increased, especially from 2022–2024. Authors can add a minimum of 5–8 recent (≤3 years) relevant references. Strengthen the Introduction and Discussion sections with a synthesis of the latest literature, not just early COVID-19 studies (2020–2021). The bibliometric design with stratified interquartile sampling is appropriate and logical. The use of VOSviewer for co-occurrence analysis conforms to standard bibliometric practices. However, there are limitations in technical transparency that impact replication. The methods section is not detailed enough to guarantee full replication. Methodological deficiencies include the omission of a list of 100 journals. Furthermore, the authors state that journals were randomly selected from 654 journals. However, they do not provide a list of journal SOURCE-IDs in the article. There is also no appendix listing the selected journals. The search syntax (search string) is not displayed. It is not explained whether filters were applied to specific document types, languages, or affiliation cleaning. Furthermore, the authors do not explain whether the data was exported in a single batch or multiple batches. The keyword threshold determination is also not transparent. The article mentions a threshold of 30–50 to produce ±100 nodes, but does not explain the specific thresholds per quartile. The technical rationale for selecting LinLog/modularity is not explained. It does not explain whether synonym cleaning was performed (e.g., COVID-19 vs. SARS-CoV-2). There is no data preprocessing information. Was institutional name normalization performed? Was author duplication cleaning performed? How were term variations combined (e.g., "covid 19" vs. "covid-19")? The author could add an explanation of the VOSviewer parameters used (counting method, normalization, clustering resolution) when displaying the visualization. Without this information, the study cannot be independently replicated. The conclusions regarding COVID-19 dominance and productivity disparities between quartiles are supported by tables and visualizations (Table 1, Figures 1–12). However, the claim that HIV and mental health topics "have a greater chance of being accepted" (page 10) is speculative and needs to be tempered or supported by additional data. This study makes an interesting contribution by systematically comparing bibliometric characteristics across quartiles, a relatively rare undertaking. The design of the study is relevant, and the methodology is generally sound. However, for the article to be scientifically sound and fully reproducible, significant improvements in the transparency of the methods and updating of the literature are needed. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Partly Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Yes Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? No If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Not applicable Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Yes Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Yes Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: bibliometric, Information Systems, Computer Science, Computer Science Education, Learning Technology I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Husaeni DFA. Reviewer Report For: Bibliometric Analysis of Publications in Scopus-Indexed Public, Environmental and Occupational Health Journals Across Scimago Quartiles (2016–2024) [version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2026, 14 :1468 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.192803.r453053 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-1468/v1#referee-response-453053 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Author Response 04 Mar 2026 Mehran Rostami Varnousfaderani , Epidemiology, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences School of Public Health and Safety, Tehran, Iran 04 Mar 2026 Author Response In general, the article's systematic structure and argumentation flow are quite clear. However, there are weaknesses in the literature's novelty. The proportion of old references is still dominant. ... Continue reading In general, the article's systematic structure and argumentation flow are quite clear. However, there are weaknesses in the literature's novelty. The proportion of old references is still dominant. Based on the bibliography (pages 14–15), References before 2018 9 articles (43%), References 2018–2021 7 articles (33%), References 2022–2025 5 articles (24%). This means that less than 30% of the references come from the last 3 years (2022–2025). For a bibliometric study discussing trends up to 2024, this proportion is relatively low. The latest literature related to the Development of the latest bibliometric methodology, the structural impact of COVID-19 on global publications, the latest SJR-based journal quartile and stratification analysis, should be increased, especially from 2022–2024. Authors can add a minimum of 5–8 recent (≤3 years) relevant references. Strengthen the Introduction and Discussion sections with a synthesis of the latest literature, not just early COVID-19 studies (2020–2021). Answer: We sincerely thank the referee for this valuable suggestion. We agree that including more recent sources would enhance the relevance and scientific credibility of the article. In response, we have carefully updated the sections in question by incorporating more recent studies (2022-2024). The bibliometric design with stratified interquartile sampling is appropriate and logical. The use of VOSviewer for co-occurrence analysis conforms to standard bibliometric practices. However, there are limitations in technical transparency that impact replication. The methods section is not detailed enough to guarantee full replication. Methodological deficiencies include the omission of a list of 100 journals. Furthermore, the authors state that journals were randomly selected from 654 journals. However, they do not provide a list of journal SOURCE-IDs in the article. There is also no appendix listing the selected journals. The search syntax (search string) is not displayed. It is not explained whether filters were applied to specific document types, languages, or affiliation cleaning. Furthermore, the authors do not explain whether the data was exported in a single batch or multiple batches. The keyword threshold determination is also not transparent. The article mentions a threshold of 30–50 to produce ±100 nodes, but does not explain the specific thresholds per quartile. The technical rationale for selecting LinLog/modularity is not explained. It does not explain whether synonym cleaning was performed (e.g., COVID-19 vs. SARS-CoV-2). There is no data preprocessing information. Was institutional name normalization performed? Was author duplication cleaning performed? How were term variations combined (e.g., "covid 19" vs. "covid-19")? The author could add an explanation of the VOSviewer parameters used (counting method, normalization, clustering resolution) when displaying the visualization. Without this information, the study cannot be independently replicated. Answer: We sincerely thank the reviewer for highlighting the importance of methodological transparency and reproducibility. We fully agree that bibliometric studies must provide sufficient technical detail to allow independent replication. Accordingly, we have substantially revised and expanded the Methods section to improve transparency. Specifically: Search Strategy Clarification The exact search syntax structure used in Scopus has now been explicitly reported. Parentheses have been specified to ensure the correct logical grouping of SOURCE-IDs. The complete list of the 100 selected journals and their corresponding SOURCE-IDs has been provided in Supplementary Appendix 1. Filtering and Data Export We have clarified that no restrictions were applied regarding document type, language, or subcategory. We have specified that the data were exported separately for each quartile due to Scopus export limitations. Threshold Determination The process of iteratively adjusting minimum keyword occurrence thresholds (range: 30–50) to generate approximately 100 nodes per network has now been clearly described. VOSviewer Parameter Specification The counting method (full counting), normalization method (association strength), clustering approach (modularity-based clustering), and LinLog layout selection have now been explicitly reported. Data Preprocessing Transparency We have clarified that no manual synonym merging or institutional normalization was performed. Keywords were analyzed in their raw indexed form to preserve author-intended terminology and to avoid introducing subjective bias through manual aggregation. This approach enhances reproducibility, as future researchers can replicate the analysis using the same raw database export. These revisions substantially improve the technical transparency of the manuscript and ensure that the study can now be independently replicated. We appreciate the reviewer’s constructive suggestions, which have strengthened the methodological rigor of the manuscript. The conclusions regarding COVID-19 dominance and productivity disparities between quartiles are supported by tables and visualizations (Table 1, Figures 1–12). However, the claim that HIV and mental health topics "have a greater chance of being accepted" (page 10) is speculative and needs to be tempered or supported by additional data. This study makes an interesting contribution by systematically comparing bibliometric characteristics across quartiles, a relatively rare undertaking. The design of the study is relevant, and the methodology is generally sound. However, for the article to be scientifically sound and fully reproducible, significant improvements in the transparency of the methods and updating of the literature are needed. Answer: We thank the reviewer for this important observation. We agree that the original wording could imply differential editorial acceptance probability, which was not directly assessed in our study. Accordingly, we have revised the Discussion section to remove speculative language and to clarify that our findings reflect thematic prominence and structural importance within the field rather than acceptance probability. In general, the article's systematic structure and argumentation flow are quite clear. However, there are weaknesses in the literature's novelty. The proportion of old references is still dominant. Based on the bibliography (pages 14–15), References before 2018 9 articles (43%), References 2018–2021 7 articles (33%), References 2022–2025 5 articles (24%). This means that less than 30% of the references come from the last 3 years (2022–2025). For a bibliometric study discussing trends up to 2024, this proportion is relatively low. The latest literature related to the Development of the latest bibliometric methodology, the structural impact of COVID-19 on global publications, the latest SJR-based journal quartile and stratification analysis, should be increased, especially from 2022–2024. Authors can add a minimum of 5–8 recent (≤3 years) relevant references. Strengthen the Introduction and Discussion sections with a synthesis of the latest literature, not just early COVID-19 studies (2020–2021). Answer: We sincerely thank the referee for this valuable suggestion. We agree that including more recent sources would enhance the relevance and scientific credibility of the article. In response, we have carefully updated the sections in question by incorporating more recent studies (2022-2024). The bibliometric design with stratified interquartile sampling is appropriate and logical. The use of VOSviewer for co-occurrence analysis conforms to standard bibliometric practices. However, there are limitations in technical transparency that impact replication. The methods section is not detailed enough to guarantee full replication. Methodological deficiencies include the omission of a list of 100 journals. Furthermore, the authors state that journals were randomly selected from 654 journals. However, they do not provide a list of journal SOURCE-IDs in the article. There is also no appendix listing the selected journals. The search syntax (search string) is not displayed. It is not explained whether filters were applied to specific document types, languages, or affiliation cleaning. Furthermore, the authors do not explain whether the data was exported in a single batch or multiple batches. The keyword threshold determination is also not transparent. The article mentions a threshold of 30–50 to produce ±100 nodes, but does not explain the specific thresholds per quartile. The technical rationale for selecting LinLog/modularity is not explained. It does not explain whether synonym cleaning was performed (e.g., COVID-19 vs. SARS-CoV-2). There is no data preprocessing information. Was institutional name normalization performed? Was author duplication cleaning performed? How were term variations combined (e.g., "covid 19" vs. "covid-19")? The author could add an explanation of the VOSviewer parameters used (counting method, normalization, clustering resolution) when displaying the visualization. Without this information, the study cannot be independently replicated. Answer: We sincerely thank the reviewer for highlighting the importance of methodological transparency and reproducibility. We fully agree that bibliometric studies must provide sufficient technical detail to allow independent replication. Accordingly, we have substantially revised and expanded the Methods section to improve transparency. Specifically: Search Strategy Clarification The exact search syntax structure used in Scopus has now been explicitly reported. Parentheses have been specified to ensure the correct logical grouping of SOURCE-IDs. The complete list of the 100 selected journals and their corresponding SOURCE-IDs has been provided in Supplementary Appendix 1. Filtering and Data Export We have clarified that no restrictions were applied regarding document type, language, or subcategory. We have specified that the data were exported separately for each quartile due to Scopus export limitations. Threshold Determination The process of iteratively adjusting minimum keyword occurrence thresholds (range: 30–50) to generate approximately 100 nodes per network has now been clearly described. VOSviewer Parameter Specification The counting method (full counting), normalization method (association strength), clustering approach (modularity-based clustering), and LinLog layout selection have now been explicitly reported. Data Preprocessing Transparency We have clarified that no manual synonym merging or institutional normalization was performed. Keywords were analyzed in their raw indexed form to preserve author-intended terminology and to avoid introducing subjective bias through manual aggregation. This approach enhances reproducibility, as future researchers can replicate the analysis using the same raw database export. These revisions substantially improve the technical transparency of the manuscript and ensure that the study can now be independently replicated. We appreciate the reviewer’s constructive suggestions, which have strengthened the methodological rigor of the manuscript. The conclusions regarding COVID-19 dominance and productivity disparities between quartiles are supported by tables and visualizations (Table 1, Figures 1–12). However, the claim that HIV and mental health topics "have a greater chance of being accepted" (page 10) is speculative and needs to be tempered or supported by additional data. This study makes an interesting contribution by systematically comparing bibliometric characteristics across quartiles, a relatively rare undertaking. The design of the study is relevant, and the methodology is generally sound. However, for the article to be scientifically sound and fully reproducible, significant improvements in the transparency of the methods and updating of the literature are needed. Answer: We thank the reviewer for this important observation. We agree that the original wording could imply differential editorial acceptance probability, which was not directly assessed in our study. Accordingly, we have revised the Discussion section to remove speculative language and to clarify that our findings reflect thematic prominence and structural importance within the field rather than acceptance probability. Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT Author Response 04 Mar 2026 Mehran Rostami Varnousfaderani , Epidemiology, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences School of Public Health and Safety, Tehran, Iran 04 Mar 2026 Author Response In general, the article's systematic structure and argumentation flow are quite clear. However, there are weaknesses in the literature's novelty. The proportion of old references is still dominant. ... Continue reading In general, the article's systematic structure and argumentation flow are quite clear. However, there are weaknesses in the literature's novelty. The proportion of old references is still dominant. Based on the bibliography (pages 14–15), References before 2018 9 articles (43%), References 2018–2021 7 articles (33%), References 2022–2025 5 articles (24%). This means that less than 30% of the references come from the last 3 years (2022–2025). For a bibliometric study discussing trends up to 2024, this proportion is relatively low. The latest literature related to the Development of the latest bibliometric methodology, the structural impact of COVID-19 on global publications, the latest SJR-based journal quartile and stratification analysis, should be increased, especially from 2022–2024. Authors can add a minimum of 5–8 recent (≤3 years) relevant references. Strengthen the Introduction and Discussion sections with a synthesis of the latest literature, not just early COVID-19 studies (2020–2021). Answer: We sincerely thank the referee for this valuable suggestion. We agree that including more recent sources would enhance the relevance and scientific credibility of the article. In response, we have carefully updated the sections in question by incorporating more recent studies (2022-2024). The bibliometric design with stratified interquartile sampling is appropriate and logical. The use of VOSviewer for co-occurrence analysis conforms to standard bibliometric practices. However, there are limitations in technical transparency that impact replication. The methods section is not detailed enough to guarantee full replication. Methodological deficiencies include the omission of a list of 100 journals. Furthermore, the authors state that journals were randomly selected from 654 journals. However, they do not provide a list of journal SOURCE-IDs in the article. There is also no appendix listing the selected journals. The search syntax (search string) is not displayed. It is not explained whether filters were applied to specific document types, languages, or affiliation cleaning. Furthermore, the authors do not explain whether the data was exported in a single batch or multiple batches. The keyword threshold determination is also not transparent. The article mentions a threshold of 30–50 to produce ±100 nodes, but does not explain the specific thresholds per quartile. The technical rationale for selecting LinLog/modularity is not explained. It does not explain whether synonym cleaning was performed (e.g., COVID-19 vs. SARS-CoV-2). There is no data preprocessing information. Was institutional name normalization performed? Was author duplication cleaning performed? How were term variations combined (e.g., "covid 19" vs. "covid-19")? The author could add an explanation of the VOSviewer parameters used (counting method, normalization, clustering resolution) when displaying the visualization. Without this information, the study cannot be independently replicated. Answer: We sincerely thank the reviewer for highlighting the importance of methodological transparency and reproducibility. We fully agree that bibliometric studies must provide sufficient technical detail to allow independent replication. Accordingly, we have substantially revised and expanded the Methods section to improve transparency. Specifically: Search Strategy Clarification The exact search syntax structure used in Scopus has now been explicitly reported. Parentheses have been specified to ensure the correct logical grouping of SOURCE-IDs. The complete list of the 100 selected journals and their corresponding SOURCE-IDs has been provided in Supplementary Appendix 1. Filtering and Data Export We have clarified that no restrictions were applied regarding document type, language, or subcategory. We have specified that the data were exported separately for each quartile due to Scopus export limitations. Threshold Determination The process of iteratively adjusting minimum keyword occurrence thresholds (range: 30–50) to generate approximately 100 nodes per network has now been clearly described. VOSviewer Parameter Specification The counting method (full counting), normalization method (association strength), clustering approach (modularity-based clustering), and LinLog layout selection have now been explicitly reported. Data Preprocessing Transparency We have clarified that no manual synonym merging or institutional normalization was performed. Keywords were analyzed in their raw indexed form to preserve author-intended terminology and to avoid introducing subjective bias through manual aggregation. This approach enhances reproducibility, as future researchers can replicate the analysis using the same raw database export. These revisions substantially improve the technical transparency of the manuscript and ensure that the study can now be independently replicated. We appreciate the reviewer’s constructive suggestions, which have strengthened the methodological rigor of the manuscript. The conclusions regarding COVID-19 dominance and productivity disparities between quartiles are supported by tables and visualizations (Table 1, Figures 1–12). However, the claim that HIV and mental health topics "have a greater chance of being accepted" (page 10) is speculative and needs to be tempered or supported by additional data. This study makes an interesting contribution by systematically comparing bibliometric characteristics across quartiles, a relatively rare undertaking. The design of the study is relevant, and the methodology is generally sound. However, for the article to be scientifically sound and fully reproducible, significant improvements in the transparency of the methods and updating of the literature are needed. Answer: We thank the reviewer for this important observation. We agree that the original wording could imply differential editorial acceptance probability, which was not directly assessed in our study. Accordingly, we have revised the Discussion section to remove speculative language and to clarify that our findings reflect thematic prominence and structural importance within the field rather than acceptance probability. In general, the article's systematic structure and argumentation flow are quite clear. However, there are weaknesses in the literature's novelty. The proportion of old references is still dominant. Based on the bibliography (pages 14–15), References before 2018 9 articles (43%), References 2018–2021 7 articles (33%), References 2022–2025 5 articles (24%). This means that less than 30% of the references come from the last 3 years (2022–2025). For a bibliometric study discussing trends up to 2024, this proportion is relatively low. The latest literature related to the Development of the latest bibliometric methodology, the structural impact of COVID-19 on global publications, the latest SJR-based journal quartile and stratification analysis, should be increased, especially from 2022–2024. Authors can add a minimum of 5–8 recent (≤3 years) relevant references. Strengthen the Introduction and Discussion sections with a synthesis of the latest literature, not just early COVID-19 studies (2020–2021). Answer: We sincerely thank the referee for this valuable suggestion. We agree that including more recent sources would enhance the relevance and scientific credibility of the article. In response, we have carefully updated the sections in question by incorporating more recent studies (2022-2024). The bibliometric design with stratified interquartile sampling is appropriate and logical. The use of VOSviewer for co-occurrence analysis conforms to standard bibliometric practices. However, there are limitations in technical transparency that impact replication. The methods section is not detailed enough to guarantee full replication. Methodological deficiencies include the omission of a list of 100 journals. Furthermore, the authors state that journals were randomly selected from 654 journals. However, they do not provide a list of journal SOURCE-IDs in the article. There is also no appendix listing the selected journals. The search syntax (search string) is not displayed. It is not explained whether filters were applied to specific document types, languages, or affiliation cleaning. Furthermore, the authors do not explain whether the data was exported in a single batch or multiple batches. The keyword threshold determination is also not transparent. The article mentions a threshold of 30–50 to produce ±100 nodes, but does not explain the specific thresholds per quartile. The technical rationale for selecting LinLog/modularity is not explained. It does not explain whether synonym cleaning was performed (e.g., COVID-19 vs. SARS-CoV-2). There is no data preprocessing information. Was institutional name normalization performed? Was author duplication cleaning performed? How were term variations combined (e.g., "covid 19" vs. "covid-19")? The author could add an explanation of the VOSviewer parameters used (counting method, normalization, clustering resolution) when displaying the visualization. Without this information, the study cannot be independently replicated. Answer: We sincerely thank the reviewer for highlighting the importance of methodological transparency and reproducibility. We fully agree that bibliometric studies must provide sufficient technical detail to allow independent replication. Accordingly, we have substantially revised and expanded the Methods section to improve transparency. Specifically: Search Strategy Clarification The exact search syntax structure used in Scopus has now been explicitly reported. Parentheses have been specified to ensure the correct logical grouping of SOURCE-IDs. The complete list of the 100 selected journals and their corresponding SOURCE-IDs has been provided in Supplementary Appendix 1. Filtering and Data Export We have clarified that no restrictions were applied regarding document type, language, or subcategory. We have specified that the data were exported separately for each quartile due to Scopus export limitations. Threshold Determination The process of iteratively adjusting minimum keyword occurrence thresholds (range: 30–50) to generate approximately 100 nodes per network has now been clearly described. VOSviewer Parameter Specification The counting method (full counting), normalization method (association strength), clustering approach (modularity-based clustering), and LinLog layout selection have now been explicitly reported. Data Preprocessing Transparency We have clarified that no manual synonym merging or institutional normalization was performed. Keywords were analyzed in their raw indexed form to preserve author-intended terminology and to avoid introducing subjective bias through manual aggregation. This approach enhances reproducibility, as future researchers can replicate the analysis using the same raw database export. These revisions substantially improve the technical transparency of the manuscript and ensure that the study can now be independently replicated. We appreciate the reviewer’s constructive suggestions, which have strengthened the methodological rigor of the manuscript. The conclusions regarding COVID-19 dominance and productivity disparities between quartiles are supported by tables and visualizations (Table 1, Figures 1–12). However, the claim that HIV and mental health topics "have a greater chance of being accepted" (page 10) is speculative and needs to be tempered or supported by additional data. This study makes an interesting contribution by systematically comparing bibliometric characteristics across quartiles, a relatively rare undertaking. The design of the study is relevant, and the methodology is generally sound. However, for the article to be scientifically sound and fully reproducible, significant improvements in the transparency of the methods and updating of the literature are needed. Answer: We thank the reviewer for this important observation. We agree that the original wording could imply differential editorial acceptance probability, which was not directly assessed in our study. Accordingly, we have revised the Discussion section to remove speculative language and to clarify that our findings reflect thematic prominence and structural importance within the field rather than acceptance probability. Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close Report a concern COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Comments on this article Comments (0) Version 2 VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 27 Dec 2025 ADD YOUR COMMENT Comment keyboard_arrow_left keyboard_arrow_right Open Peer Review Reviewer Status info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Reviewer Reports Invited Reviewers 1 2 3 Version 2 (revision) 04 Mar 26 read read Version 1 27 Dec 25 read Dwi Fitria Al Husaeni , Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia, Bandung, Indonesia Steffen Lemke , CAU Kiel University, Kiel, Germany Zulfiya Kannazarova , National Research University, Tashkent, Uzbekistan Comments on this article All Comments (0) Add a comment Sign up for content alerts Sign Up You are now signed up to receive this alert Browse by related subjects keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2026 Kannazarova Z. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 15 Apr 2026 | for Version 2 Zulfiya Kannazarova , National Research University, Tashkent, Uzbekistan 0 Views copyright © 2026 Kannazarova Z. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (0) Approved With Reservations info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions General Recommendation: Minor Revision (with some moderate methodological clarifications required) This manuscript presents a bibliometric analysis of 70,580 documents from 100 Scopus-indexed journals in Public, Environmental, and Occupational Health (PHEOH), stratified across Scimago quartiles (Q1–Q4). Using VOSviewer, the authors analyze publication output, geographic contributions, and keyword co-occurrence patterns. The study highlights the dominance of COVID-19-related research and identifies disparities in productivity across quartiles and countries. The topic is relevant and timely, and the manuscript contributes to understanding research trends in PHEOH literature. However, several methodological and interpretative issues require clarification before indexing. Major Comments: 1. Sampling Strategy and Representativeness The study includes 100 journals (25 per quartile) out of 654 eligible journals. While the authors justify this based on feasibility, concerns remain: The manuscript does not sufficiently demonstrate that the sample is representative of the entire population. Random selection without stratification (e.g., by region, publisher, or subfield) may introduce sampling bias. The equal number of journals per quartile may distort the actual distribution of journals across quartiles. Recommendation: Provide additional justification for sample size and selection method, or include a sensitivity discussion on how results might differ with full dataset inclusion. 2. Lack of Keyword Harmonization The authors explicitly state that no synonym merging or term standardization was performed. This may lead to fragmentation of conceptually identical terms (e.g., “COVID-19” vs. “SARS-CoV-2”). It potentially affects the accuracy of co-occurrence networks and thematic clustering. Recommendation: Discuss the implications of this choice more critically and consider including a supplementary analysis with harmonized keywords. 3. Interpretation of Indexed Keywords The finding that “humans” is the most frequent indexed keyword across quartiles is not particularly informative. This likely reflects indexing conventions rather than meaningful thematic trends. Recommendation: Clarify this limitation and avoid over-interpreting such generic indexed terms. 4. Overemphasis on COVID-19 While the prominence of COVID-19 is expected: The manuscript does not sufficiently explore whether this dominance obscures other important long-term research trends. The analysis would benefit from distinguishing pre-pandemic vs. pandemic vs. post-pandemic periods. Recommendation: Include a temporal segmentation analysis or expand discussion on how COVID-19 may have distorted thematic priorities. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Yes Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Yes Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Partly If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Yes Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Yes Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Yes Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Water ScienceMechanical EngineeringAgricultural Engineering I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. reply Respond to this report Responses (0) Kannazarova Z. Peer Review Report For: Bibliometric Analysis of Publications in Scopus-Indexed Public, Environmental and Occupational Health Journals Across Scimago Quartiles (2016–2024) [version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2026, 14 :1468 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.197007.r468632) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-1468/v2#referee-response-468632 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2026 Lemke S. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 27 Mar 2026 | for Version 2 Steffen Lemke , CAU Kiel University, Kiel, Germany 0 Views copyright © 2026 Lemke S. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (0) Approved info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions The authors present a brief descriptive analysis of the state of recent research in Public Health, Environmental Health, and Occupational Health (PHEOH), based on Scopus data and SCImago journal quartiles covering the output of 100 journals over the years 2016-2024. They use VOSviewer to visualize co-occurrences of frequent author- and indexed keywords, particularly focusing on respective works' average publication years and citation counts. I believe the article to be methodologically sound and the descriptions of the processes of data collection and processing to be clear. I do however have a number of suggestions that the authors might want to consider for future improvements of the article: First, as the SCImago quartiles are of such central meaning to the article's methodology, I believe that adding one or two sentences on what precisely a journal's quartile is based on might help readers to better assess the results. The authors already do hint at journal quartiles typically being about aspects like "visibility, citation potential, and editorial standards", but a bit more concrete information on how the quartiles used in the study are calculated exactly would be helpful. Second, the study includes an "Analysis of the Most Productive Countries, Institutes, and Authors", does however provide only a very brief selection of results concerning these aspects, by only mentioning a few outstanding entities from each category. The informative value of the study could be improved substantially by reporting and discussing more comprehensive data from this sub-analysis, e.g., in tabular form. Third, the study's discussion remains rather brief. I believe the article could benefit significantly from a more extensive reflection on what the descriptive findings imply about the state of PHEOH research. What can we take from these results for practice? Are there any recommendations for the scholarly community and/or policy makers that the authors can derive from their analysis? Also, the article contains a few minor language-related issues that I believe should be addressed to improve its comprehensibility: In the article's very first sentence, what does "this vision" refer to? The structure of the fourth paragraph's first sentence ("The importance and complexity...") seems erroneous. In the Introduction's last sentence, the authors refer to "the two previous objectives" - as the preceding list of aims contains four items, a clarification which two of these are meant here might be helpful. Near the end of the subsection "Research Hotspots in Public Health, Environmental, and Occupational Health", the text at one point mentions "other keywords", where I believe what is meant is "author keywords". Finally: perhaps that is just me, but I couldn't find the article's supplementary material, which the article refers to in multiple places. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Yes Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Yes Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Yes If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Not applicable Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Yes Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Yes Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Computer Science; Information Science; Bibliometrics; Scholarly Communcation; Web Science I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. reply Respond to this report Responses (0) Lemke S. Peer Review Report For: Bibliometric Analysis of Publications in Scopus-Indexed Public, Environmental and Occupational Health Journals Across Scimago Quartiles (2016–2024) [version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2026, 14 :1468 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.197007.r466978) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-1468/v2#referee-response-466978 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2026 Husaeni D. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 14 Feb 2026 | for Version 1 Dwi Fitria Al Husaeni , Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia, Bandung, West Java, Indonesia 0 Views copyright © 2026 Husaeni D. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (1) Approved With Reservations info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Article Summary: This article presents a bibliometric analysis of Scopus-indexed journals in the Public, Environmental, and Occupational Health (PHEOH) category based on the Scimago Quartile classification (Q1–Q4) for the period 2016–2024. Of the 654 journals that met the criteria, the authors selected 100 journals (25 per quartile) through stratified random sampling. A total of 70,580 documents were analyzed using Microsoft Excel and VOSviewer (v1.6.20). The bibliometric analysis included the distribution of publications across quartiles, the most productive countries, institutions, and authors, keyword co-occurrence analysis (authors and indexed keywords), and temporal trends and citation impact. The results show that Q1 accounts for the largest proportion of publications (37.7%), with the topic "COVID-19" being the most dominant keyword across all quartiles. The keyword "humans" appears most frequently among indexed keywords. Topics related to SARS-CoV-2 and mental health received the highest average citations. The study concludes that the COVID-19 pandemic significantly shaped the PHEOH research agenda across all journal quartiles. Evaluation In general, the article's systematic structure and argumentation flow are quite clear. However, there are weaknesses in the literature's novelty. The proportion of old references is still dominant. Based on the bibliography (pages 14–15), References before 2018 9 articles (43%), References 2018–2021 7 articles (33%), References 2022–2025 5 articles (24%). This means that less than 30% of the references come from the last 3 years (2022–2025). For a bibliometric study discussing trends up to 2024, this proportion is relatively low. The latest literature related to the Development of the latest bibliometric methodology, the structural impact of COVID-19 on global publications, the latest SJR-based journal quartile and stratification analysis, should be increased, especially from 2022–2024. Authors can add a minimum of 5–8 recent (≤3 years) relevant references. Strengthen the Introduction and Discussion sections with a synthesis of the latest literature, not just early COVID-19 studies (2020–2021). The bibliometric design with stratified interquartile sampling is appropriate and logical. The use of VOSviewer for co-occurrence analysis conforms to standard bibliometric practices. However, there are limitations in technical transparency that impact replication. The methods section is not detailed enough to guarantee full replication. Methodological deficiencies include the omission of a list of 100 journals. Furthermore, the authors state that journals were randomly selected from 654 journals. However, they do not provide a list of journal SOURCE-IDs in the article. There is also no appendix listing the selected journals. The search syntax (search string) is not displayed. It is not explained whether filters were applied to specific document types, languages, or affiliation cleaning. Furthermore, the authors do not explain whether the data was exported in a single batch or multiple batches. The keyword threshold determination is also not transparent. The article mentions a threshold of 30–50 to produce ±100 nodes, but does not explain the specific thresholds per quartile. The technical rationale for selecting LinLog/modularity is not explained. It does not explain whether synonym cleaning was performed (e.g., COVID-19 vs. SARS-CoV-2). There is no data preprocessing information. Was institutional name normalization performed? Was author duplication cleaning performed? How were term variations combined (e.g., "covid 19" vs. "covid-19")? The author could add an explanation of the VOSviewer parameters used (counting method, normalization, clustering resolution) when displaying the visualization. Without this information, the study cannot be independently replicated. The conclusions regarding COVID-19 dominance and productivity disparities between quartiles are supported by tables and visualizations (Table 1, Figures 1–12). However, the claim that HIV and mental health topics "have a greater chance of being accepted" (page 10) is speculative and needs to be tempered or supported by additional data. This study makes an interesting contribution by systematically comparing bibliometric characteristics across quartiles, a relatively rare undertaking. The design of the study is relevant, and the methodology is generally sound. However, for the article to be scientifically sound and fully reproducible, significant improvements in the transparency of the methods and updating of the literature are needed. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Partly Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Yes Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? No If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Not applicable Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Yes Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Yes Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise bibliometric, Information Systems, Computer Science, Computer Science Education, Learning Technology I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. reply Respond to this report Responses (1) Author Response 04 Mar 2026 Mehran Rostami Varnousfaderani, Epidemiology, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences School of Public Health and Safety, Tehran, Iran In general, the article's systematic structure and argumentation flow are quite clear. However, there are weaknesses in the literature's novelty. The proportion of old references is still dominant. Based on the bibliography (pages 14–15), References before 2018 9 articles (43%), References 2018–2021 7 articles (33%), References 2022–2025 5 articles (24%). This means that less than 30% of the references come from the last 3 years (2022–2025). For a bibliometric study discussing trends up to 2024, this proportion is relatively low. The latest literature related to the Development of the latest bibliometric methodology, the structural impact of COVID-19 on global publications, the latest SJR-based journal quartile and stratification analysis, should be increased, especially from 2022–2024. Authors can add a minimum of 5–8 recent (≤3 years) relevant references. Strengthen the Introduction and Discussion sections with a synthesis of the latest literature, not just early COVID-19 studies (2020–2021). Answer: We sincerely thank the referee for this valuable suggestion. We agree that including more recent sources would enhance the relevance and scientific credibility of the article. In response, we have carefully updated the sections in question by incorporating more recent studies (2022-2024). The bibliometric design with stratified interquartile sampling is appropriate and logical. The use of VOSviewer for co-occurrence analysis conforms to standard bibliometric practices. However, there are limitations in technical transparency that impact replication. The methods section is not detailed enough to guarantee full replication. Methodological deficiencies include the omission of a list of 100 journals. Furthermore, the authors state that journals were randomly selected from 654 journals. However, they do not provide a list of journal SOURCE-IDs in the article. There is also no appendix listing the selected journals. The search syntax (search string) is not displayed. It is not explained whether filters were applied to specific document types, languages, or affiliation cleaning. Furthermore, the authors do not explain whether the data was exported in a single batch or multiple batches. The keyword threshold determination is also not transparent. The article mentions a threshold of 30–50 to produce ±100 nodes, but does not explain the specific thresholds per quartile. The technical rationale for selecting LinLog/modularity is not explained. It does not explain whether synonym cleaning was performed (e.g., COVID-19 vs. SARS-CoV-2). There is no data preprocessing information. Was institutional name normalization performed? Was author duplication cleaning performed? How were term variations combined (e.g., "covid 19" vs. "covid-19")? The author could add an explanation of the VOSviewer parameters used (counting method, normalization, clustering resolution) when displaying the visualization. Without this information, the study cannot be independently replicated. Answer: We sincerely thank the reviewer for highlighting the importance of methodological transparency and reproducibility. We fully agree that bibliometric studies must provide sufficient technical detail to allow independent replication. Accordingly, we have substantially revised and expanded the Methods section to improve transparency. Specifically: Search Strategy Clarification The exact search syntax structure used in Scopus has now been explicitly reported. Parentheses have been specified to ensure the correct logical grouping of SOURCE-IDs. The complete list of the 100 selected journals and their corresponding SOURCE-IDs has been provided in Supplementary Appendix 1. Filtering and Data Export We have clarified that no restrictions were applied regarding document type, language, or subcategory. We have specified that the data were exported separately for each quartile due to Scopus export limitations. Threshold Determination The process of iteratively adjusting minimum keyword occurrence thresholds (range: 30–50) to generate approximately 100 nodes per network has now been clearly described. VOSviewer Parameter Specification The counting method (full counting), normalization method (association strength), clustering approach (modularity-based clustering), and LinLog layout selection have now been explicitly reported. Data Preprocessing Transparency We have clarified that no manual synonym merging or institutional normalization was performed. Keywords were analyzed in their raw indexed form to preserve author-intended terminology and to avoid introducing subjective bias through manual aggregation. This approach enhances reproducibility, as future researchers can replicate the analysis using the same raw database export. These revisions substantially improve the technical transparency of the manuscript and ensure that the study can now be independently replicated. We appreciate the reviewer’s constructive suggestions, which have strengthened the methodological rigor of the manuscript. The conclusions regarding COVID-19 dominance and productivity disparities between quartiles are supported by tables and visualizations (Table 1, Figures 1–12). However, the claim that HIV and mental health topics "have a greater chance of being accepted" (page 10) is speculative and needs to be tempered or supported by additional data. This study makes an interesting contribution by systematically comparing bibliometric characteristics across quartiles, a relatively rare undertaking. The design of the study is relevant, and the methodology is generally sound. However, for the article to be scientifically sound and fully reproducible, significant improvements in the transparency of the methods and updating of the literature are needed. Answer: We thank the reviewer for this important observation. We agree that the original wording could imply differential editorial acceptance probability, which was not directly assessed in our study. Accordingly, we have revised the Discussion section to remove speculative language and to clarify that our findings reflect thematic prominence and structural importance within the field rather than acceptance probability. View more View less Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. reply Respond Report a concern Husaeni DFA. Peer Review Report For: Bibliometric Analysis of Publications in Scopus-Indexed Public, Environmental and Occupational Health Journals Across Scimago Quartiles (2016–2024) [version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2026, 14 :1468 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.192803.r453053) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-1468/v1#referee-response-453053 Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved - the paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations - A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved - fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Adjust parameters to alter display View on desktop for interactive features Includes Interactive Elements View on desktop for interactive features Competing Interests Policy Provide sufficient details of any financial or non-financial competing interests to enable users to assess whether your comments might lead a reasonable person to question your impartiality. Consider the following examples, but note that this is not an exhaustive list: Examples of 'Non-Financial Competing Interests' Within the past 4 years, you have held joint grants, published or collaborated with any of the authors of the selected paper. You have a close personal relationship (e.g. parent, spouse, sibling, or domestic partner) with any of the authors. You are a close professional associate of any of the authors (e.g. scientific mentor, recent student). You work at the same institute as any of the authors. You hope/expect to benefit (e.g. favour or employment) as a result of your submission. You are an Editor for the journal in which the article is published. Examples of 'Financial Competing Interests' You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, any of the following from any commercial organisation that may gain financially from your submission: a salary, fees, funding, reimbursements. You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, shared grant support or other funding with any of the authors. You hold, or are currently applying for, any patents or significant stocks/shares relating to the subject matter of the paper you are commenting on. Stay Updated Sign up for content alerts and receive a weekly or monthly email with all newly published articles Register with F1000Research Already registered? Sign in Not now, thanks close PLEASE NOTE If you are an AUTHOR of this article, please check that you signed in with the account associated with this article otherwise we cannot automatically identify your role as an author and your comment will be labelled as a “User Comment”. If you are a REVIEWER of this article, please check that you have signed in with the account associated with this article and then go to your account to submit your report, please do not post your review here. If you do not have access to your original account, please contact us . All commenters must hold a formal affiliation as per our Policies . The information that you give us will be displayed next to your comment. User comments must be in English, comprehensible and relevant to the article under discussion. We reserve the right to remove any comments that we consider to be inappropriate, offensive or otherwise in breach of the User Comment Terms and Conditions . Commenters must not use a comment for personal attacks. When criticisms of the article are based on unpublished data, the data should be made available. I accept the User Comment Terms and Conditions Please confirm that you accept the User Comment Terms and Conditions. Affiliation ✕ refresh Please enter your institution. Note: To add your institution or organisation, start typing the name and then select the correct name from the list. Where applicable, the name will appear in both the original language and in English. Do not paste in the name. If the name does not appear in the drop-down list, we will display the information you have entered. ✕ refresh Country/Region * USA UK Canada China France Germany Afghanistan Aland Islands Albania Algeria American Samoa Andorra Angola Anguilla Antarctica Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Armenia Aruba Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bermuda Bhutan Bolivia Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana Bouvet Island Brazil British Indian Ocean Territory British Virgin Islands Brunei Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Canada Cape Verde Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad Chile China Christmas Island Cocos (Keeling) Islands Colombia Comoros Congo Cook Islands Costa Rica Cote d'Ivoire Croatia Cuba Cyprus Czech Republic Democratic Republic of the Congo Denmark Djibouti Dominica Dominican Republic Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Falkland Islands Faroe Islands Federated States of Micronesia Fiji Finland France French Guiana French Polynesia French Southern Territories Gabon Georgia Germany Ghana Gibraltar Greece Greenland Grenada Guadeloupe Guam Guatemala Guernsey Guinea Guinea-Bissau Guyana Haiti Heard Island and Mcdonald Islands Holy See (Vatican City State) Honduras Hong Kong Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran Iraq Ireland Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jersey Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati Kosovo (Serbia and Montenegro) Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Lao People's Democratic Republic Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libya Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Macao Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Marshall Islands Martinique Mauritania Mauritius Mayotte Mexico Minor Outlying Islands of the United States Moldova Monaco Mongolia Montenegro Montserrat Morocco Mozambique Myanmar Namibia Nauru Nepal Netherlands Antilles New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Niue Norfolk Island North Korea North Macedonia Northern Mariana Islands Norway Oman Pakistan Palau Palestinian Territory Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Pitcairn Poland Portugal Puerto Rico Qatar Reunion Romania Russian Federation Rwanda Saint Helena Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Pierre and Miquelon Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Samoa San Marino Sao Tome and Principe Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Slovakia Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia South Africa South Georgia and the South Sandwich Is South Korea South Sudan Spain Sri Lanka Sudan Suriname Svalbard and Jan Mayen Swaziland Sweden Switzerland Syria Taiwan Tajikistan Tanzania Thailand The Gambia The Netherlands Timor-Leste Togo Tokelau Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Turks and Caicos Islands Tuvalu UK USA Uganda Ukraine United Arab Emirates United States Virgin Islands Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela Vietnam Wallis and Futuna West Bank and Gaza Strip Western Sahara Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe Please select your country/region. You must enter a comment. Competing Interests Please disclose any competing interests that might be construed to influence your judgment of the article's or peer review report's validity or importance. Competing Interests Policy Provide sufficient details of any financial or non-financial competing interests to enable users to assess whether your comments might lead a reasonable person to question your impartiality. Consider the following examples, but note that this is not an exhaustive list: Examples of 'Non-Financial Competing Interests' Within the past 4 years, you have held joint grants, published or collaborated with any of the authors of the selected paper. You have a close personal relationship (e.g. parent, spouse, sibling, or domestic partner) with any of the authors. You are a close professional associate of any of the authors (e.g. scientific mentor, recent student). You work at the same institute as any of the authors. You hope/expect to benefit (e.g. favour or employment) as a result of your submission. You are an Editor for the journal in which the article is published. Examples of 'Financial Competing Interests' You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, any of the following from any commercial organisation that may gain financially from your submission: a salary, fees, funding, reimbursements. You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, shared grant support or other funding with any of the authors. You hold, or are currently applying for, any patents or significant stocks/shares relating to the subject matter of the paper you are commenting on. Please state your competing interests The comment has been saved. An error has occurred. Please try again. Cancel Post var lTitle = "Bibliometric Analysis of Publications in...".replace("'", ''); var linkedInUrl = "http://www.linkedin.com/shareArticle?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/14-1468/v2" + "&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle) + "&summary=" + encodeURIComponent('Read the article by '); var deliciousUrl = "https://del.icio.us/post?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/14-1468/v2&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle); var redditUrl = "http://reddit.com/submit?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/14-1468/v2" + "&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle); linkedInUrl += encodeURIComponent('Rostami Varnousfaderani M et al.'); var offsetTop = /chrome/i.test( navigator.userAgent ) ? 4 : -10; var addthis_config = { ui_offset_top: offsetTop, services_compact : "facebook,twitter,www.linkedin.com,www.mendeley.com,reddit.com", services_expanded : "facebook,twitter,www.linkedin.com,www.mendeley.com,reddit.com", services_custom : [ { name: "LinkedIn", url: linkedInUrl, icon:"/img/icon/at_linkedin.svg" }, { name: "Mendeley", url: "http://www.mendeley.com/import/?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/14-1468/v2/mendeley", icon:"/img/icon/at_mendeley.svg" }, { name: "Reddit", url: redditUrl, icon:"/img/icon/at_reddit.svg" }, ] }; var addthis_share = { url: "https://f1000research.com/articles/14-1468", templates : { twitter : "Bibliometric Analysis of Publications in Scopus-Indexed Public,.... Rostami Varnousfaderani M et al., published by " + "@F1000Research" + ", https://f1000research.com/articles/14-1468/v2" } }; if (typeof(addthis) != "undefined"){ addthis.addEventListener('addthis.ready', checkCount); addthis.addEventListener('addthis.menu.share', checkCount); } $(".f1r-shares-twitter").attr("href", "https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=" + addthis_share.templates.twitter); $(".f1r-shares-facebook").attr("href", "https://www.facebook.com/sharer/sharer.php?u=" + addthis_share.url); $(".f1r-shares-linkedin").attr("href", addthis_config.services_custom[0].url); $(".f1r-shares-reddit").attr("href", addthis_config.services_custom[2].url); $(".f1r-shares-mendelay").attr("href", addthis_config.services_custom[1].url); function checkCount(){ setTimeout(function(){ $(".addthis_button_expanded").each(function(){ var count = $(this).text(); if (count !== "" && count != "0") $(this).removeClass("is-hidden"); else $(this).addClass("is-hidden"); }); }, 1000); } close How to cite this report {{reportCitation}} Cancel Copy Citation Details $(function(){R.ui.buttonDropdowns('.dropdown-for-downloads');}); $(function(){R.ui.toolbarDropdowns('.toolbar-dropdown-for-downloads');}); $.get("/articles/acj/174865/197007") new F1000.Clipboard(); new F1000.ThesaurusTermsDisplay("articles", "article", "197007"); $(document).ready(function() { $( "#frame1" ).on('load', function() { var mydiv = $(this).contents().find("div"); var h = mydiv.height(); console.log(h) }); var tooltipLivingFigure = jQuery(".interactive-living-figure-label .icon-more-info"), titleLivingFigure = tooltipLivingFigure.attr("title"); tooltipLivingFigure.simpletip({ fixed: true, position: ["-115", "30"], baseClass: 'small-tooltip', content:titleLivingFigure + " " }); tooltipLivingFigure.removeAttr("title"); $("body").on("click", ".cite-living-figure", function(e) { e.preventDefault(); var ref = $(this).attr("data-ref"); $(this).closest(".living-figure-list-container").find("#" + ref).fadeIn(200); }); $("body").on("click", ".close-cite-living-figure", function(e) { e.preventDefault(); $(this).closest(".popup-window-wrapper").fadeOut(200); }); $(document).on("mouseup", function(e) { var metricsContainer = $(".article-metrics-popover-wrapper"); if (!metricsContainer.is(e.target) && metricsContainer.has(e.target).length === 0) { $(".article-metrics-close-button").click(); } }); var articleId = $('#articleId').val(); if($("#main-article-count-box").attachArticleMetrics) { $("#main-article-count-box").attachArticleMetrics(articleId, { articleMetricsView: true }); } }); var figshareWidget = $(".new_figshare_widget"); if (figshareWidget.length > 0) { window.figshare.load("f1000", function(Widget) { // Select a tag/tags defined in your page. In this tag we will place the widget. _.map(figshareWidget, function(el){ var widget = new Widget({ articleId: $(el).attr("figshare_articleId") //height:300 // this is the height of the viewer part. [Default: 550] }); widget.initialize(); // initialize the widget widget.mount(el); // mount it in a tag that's on your page // this will save the widget on the global scope for later use from // your JS scripts. This line is optional. //window.widget = widget; }); }); } close Error Close Add Reset F1000.MICROSERVICES.AFFILIATION = ''; $(document).ready(function () { $('.js-affiliations-form').each((index, form) => { new AffiliationForm({ formId: form.id, institutionErrorSelector: '.comment-enter-institution', departmentErrorSelector: '.comment-enter-department', placeSelector: '.js-add-comment-place', stateSelector: '.js-add-comment-state', zipCodeSelector: '.js-add-comment-zipcode', countrySelector: '.js-add-comment-country', countryErrorSelector: '.comment-enter-country', }); }); }); $(document).ready(function () { var reportIds = { "464404": 0, "454302": 0, "466975": 0, "454303": 0, "466974": 0, "454300": 0, "466973": 0, "454301": 0, "466972": 0, "454298": 0, "468635": 0, "466971": 0, "454299": 0, "468634": 0, "466970": 0, "454296": 0, "468633": 0, "454297": 0, "468632": 1, "466980": 0, "466979": 0, "466978": 4, "454304": 0, "466977": 0, "454305": 0, "466976": 0, "468663": 0, "468662": 0, "453054": 0, "453055": 0, "453052": 0, "453053": 12, "468667": 0, "453051": 0, "468666": 0, "468665": 0, "468664": 0, "453060": 0, "453058": 0, "453059": 0, "453056": 0, "453057": 0, "464975": 0, "464974": 0, "464973": 0, "464982": 0, "464981": 0, "464980": 0, "464979": 0, "464978": 0, "464977": 0, "464976": 0, "447326": 0, "447327": 0, "457055": 0, "447334": 0, "457062": 0, "447335": 0, "457063": 0, "447332": 0, "457060": 0, "447333": 0, "457061": 0, "447330": 0, "457058": 0, "447331": 0, "457059": 0, "457056": 0, "447328": 0, "447329": 0, "457057": 0, "457064": 0, }; $(".referee-response-container,.js-referee-report").each(function(index, el) { var reportId = $(el).attr("data-reportid"), reportCount = reportIds[reportId] || 0; $(el).find(".comments-count-container,.js-referee-report-views").html(reportCount); }); var uuidInput = $("#article_uuid"), oldUUId = uuidInput.val(), newUUId = "6605fa1e-8d84-4580-aee0-1118bcd7a79d"; uuidInput.val(newUUId); $("a[href*='article_uuid=']").each(function(index, el) { var newHref = $(el).attr("href").replace(oldUUId, newUUId); $(el).attr("href", newHref); }); }); An innovative open access publishing platform offering rapid publication and open peer review, whilst supporting data deposition and sharing. Browse Gateways Collections How it Works Contact For Developers Cookie Notice Privacy Notice RSS Submit Your Research Follow us © 2012-2026 F1000 Research Ltd. ISSN 2046-1402 | Legal | Partner of Research4Life • CrossRef • ORCID • FAIRSharing R.templateTests.simpleTemplate = R.template(' $text $text $text $text $text '); R.templateTests.runTests(); var F1000platform = new F1000.Platform({ name: "f1000research", displayName: "F1000Research", hostName: "f1000research.com", id: "1", editorialEmail: "[email protected]", infoEmail: "[email protected]", usePmcStats: true }); $(function(){R.ui.dropdowns('.dropdown-for-authors, .dropdown-for-about, .dropdown-for-myresearch');}); // $(function(){R.ui.dropdowns('.dropdown-for-referees');}); $(document).ready(function () { if ($(".cookie-warning").is(":visible")) { $(".sticky").css("margin-bottom", "35px"); $(".devices").addClass("devices-and-cookie-warning"); } $(".cookie-warning .close-button").click(function (e) { $(".devices").removeClass("devices-and-cookie-warning"); $(".sticky").css("margin-bottom", "0"); }); $("#tweeter-feed .tweet-message").each(function (i, message) { var self = $(message); self.html(linkify(self.html())); }); $(".partner").on("mouseenter mouseleave", function() { $(this).find(".gray-scale, .colour").toggleClass("is-hidden"); }); }); Sign In Remember me Forgotten your password? Sign In Cancel Email or password not correct. Please try again Please wait... $(function(){ // Note: All the setup needs to run against a name attribute and *not* the id due the clonish // nature of facebox... $("a[id=googleSignInButton]").click(function(event){ event.preventDefault(); $("input[id=oAuthSystem]").val("GOOGLE"); $("form[id=oAuthForm]").submit(); }); $("a[id=facebookSignInButton]").click(function(event){ event.preventDefault(); $("input[id=oAuthSystem]").val("FACEBOOK"); $("form[id=oAuthForm]").submit(); }); $("a[id=orcidSignInButton]").click(function(event){ event.preventDefault(); $("input[id=oAuthSystem]").val("ORCID"); $("form[id=oAuthForm]").submit(); }); }); If you've forgotten your password, please enter your email address below and we'll send you instructions on how to reset your password. The email address should be the one you originally registered with F1000. Email address not valid, please try again You registered with F1000 via Google, so we cannot reset your password. To sign in, please click here . If you still need help with your Google account password, please click here . You registered with F1000 via Facebook, so we cannot reset your password. To sign in, please click here . If you still need help with your Facebook account password, please click here . Code not correct, please try again Reset password Cancel Email us for further assistance. Server error, please try again. If your email address is registered with us, we will email you instructions to reset your password. If you think you should have received this email but it has not arrived, please check your spam filters and/or contact for further assistance. Please wait... Register $(document).ready(function () { signIn.createSignInAsRow($("#sign-in-form-gfb-popup")); $(".target-field").each(function () { var uris = $(this).val().split("/"); if (uris.pop() === "login") { $(this).val(uris.toString().replace(",","/")); } }); });