Voinova VV, Vasina DV, Bonartsev AP. Mesenchymal stem cells in wound healing: A bibliometric analysis as a powerful research tool. World J Stem Cells 2024; 16(9): 827-831 [PMID: 39351262 DOI: 10.4252/wjsc.v16.i9.827]
Reader's ID:
06292574
Submitted on:
October 03, 2024, 09:25
Reader Expertise:
Reader’s expertise on the topic of the manuscript
Conflicts-of-Interest Statement:
Does the reader have a conflict of interest?
Reader Comment Standards for Published Articles:
1 Title
Does the title reflect the main subject/hypothesis of the manuscript?
2 Abstract
Does the abstract summarize and reflect the work described in the manuscript?
3 Key Words
Do the key words reflect the focus of the manuscript?
4 Background
Does the manuscript adequately describe the background, present status and significance of the study?
5 Methods
Does the manuscript describe methods (e.g., experiments, data analysis, surveys, and clinical trials, etc.) in adequate detail?
6 Results
Are the research objectives achieved by the experiments used in this study?
Has the study made meaningful contributions towards research progress in this field?
7 Discussion
Does the manuscript interpret the findings adequately and appropriately, highlighting the key points concisely, clearly and logically?
Are the findings and their applicability/relevance to the literature stated in a clear and definite manner?
Is the Discussion accurate and does it discuss the paper’s scientific significance and/or relevance to clinical practice sufficiently?
8 Illustrations and Tables
Are the figures, diagrams and tables sufficient, good quality and appropriately illustrative of the paper contents?
Do figures require labeling with arrows, asterisks, etc., or better legends?
9 Biostatistics
Does the manuscript meet the requirements of biostatistics?
10 Units
Does the manuscript meet the requirements of use of SI units?
11 References
Does the manuscript appropriately cite the latest, important and authoritative references in the Introduction and Discussion sections?
Does the author self-cite, omit, incorrectly cite and/or over-cite references?
12 Quality of manuscript organization and presentation
Is the manuscript concisely and coherently organized and presented?
Are the style, language and grammar accurate and appropriate?
13 Ethics statements
For all manuscripts involving human studies and/or animal experiments, author(s) must submit the related formal ethics documents that were reviewed and approved by their local ethical review committee. Did the manuscript meet the requirements of ethics?
Scientific Quality:
The overall quality of the manuscript, based on the above-listed criteria, should be evaluated and classified according to the following five categories
Language Quality:
Language quality (style, grammar, and spelling) should be evaluated and classified according to the following five categories.
Reader Comments:
Comment on “Mesenchymal stem cells in wound healing: A bibliometric analysis as a powerful research tool”
Shuang Wu, Hong Cai*
Corresponding author: Hong Cai, Department of Dermatology, Air Force Medical Center, PLA, Beijing, 100142, P. R. China. ch1031@163.com
Affiliation:
Department of Dermatology, Department of Dermatology, Air Force Medical Center, PLA. No.30 of Fucheng Road. Beijing 100142, China.
Key Words:
Bibliometric analysis; Mesenchymal stem cells; Wound healing;
To the Editor: We read the editorial by Vera et al [1]with great interest. In this editorial, the author conducted a keyword comparison and analysis of basic research published in BPG from 2023 to 2024, utilizing the bibliometric analysis approach of Shi et al[2]. This emphasizes the effectiveness of bibliometric analysis as a research tool. Additionally, the author examined several other articles on BPG, excluding WJSC, that were not included in Shi et al.'s bibliometric analysis. The findings indicate that although the application of bibliometric analysis in basic research remains limited, it can help identify key research directions and challenges in the field, advance the application of MSCs in the treatment of chronic wounds, and facilitate comprehensive analysis of related literature to better understand the current state of research and future development potential.
First, the author conducted a keyword analysis of basic research on diabetic foot published in BPG, utilizing the bibliometric analysis by Shi et al. to highlight the value of bibliometric analysis in this field, which can provide clear directions for research hotspots. However, while Shi et al. used the Web of Science Core Collection database, the author of this article relied solely on the database affiliated with BPG for keyword comparisons. This discrepancy might introduce potential biases in the analysis results due to differences in research directions and acceptance criteria between journals[3,4].
Second, the author also pointed out limitations in Shi et al.'s bibliometric analysis: the analysis primarily focused on journals related to diabetic foot, while literature from other relevant fields was excluded from the search. This implies that some articles pertaining to stem cell therapy for diabetic foot may not have been incorporated, underscoring the necessity of expanding the search scope in future bibliometric analyses.
Third, the author specifically analyzed literature on stem cell therapy for diabetic foot published in BPG during 2023-2024, while Shi et al.'s bibliometric analysis covered related literature from 2000 to 2023, thereby including a broader time span and a more extensive range of keywords. As basic research evolves, there may be past hotspot keywords that are now rarely used, or new research hotspots published in BPG that were not included in Shi et al.'s bibliometric analysis[5].
In summary, this is an editorial that employs bibliometric analysis to conduct a keyword analysis of relevant papers published in BPG from 2023 to 2024, elucidating the role of bibliometric analysis in basic research. If the analysis were to consider the acceptance criteria of different journals and the issue of timeliness more extensively, the conclusions could potentially be more compelling.
References
1 Voinova VV, Vasina DV, Bonartsev AP. Mesenchymal stem cells in wound healing: A bibliometric analysis as a powerful research tool. World J Stem Cells 2024; 16: 827–831. [PMID: 39351262 DOI: 10.4252/wjsc.v16.i9.827]
2 Shi H-S, Yuan X, Wu F-F, Li X-Y, Fan W-J, Yang X, Hu X-M, Liu G-B. Research progress and challenges in stem cell therapy for diabetic foot: Bibliometric analysis and perspectives. World J Stem Cells 2024; 16: 33–53. [PMID: 38292441 DOI: 10.4252/wjsc.v16.i1.33]
3 Frank E. Authors’ Criteria for Selecting Journals. JAMA 1994; 272: 163–164. [DOI: 10.1001/jama.1994.03520020089026]
4 Garfield E. The History and Meaning of the Journal Impact Factor. JAMA 2006; 295: 90–93. [DOI: 10.1001/jama.295.1.90]
5 Tversky A, Kahneman D. Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. Science 1974; 185: 1124–1131. [DOI: 10.1126/science.185.4157.1124]
Reply from the Editorial Office:
First, thank you very much for your professional comments on the article published in World Journal of Stem Cells.
Second, we read your comments with great interest. You are welcome to format your valuable comments into a Letter to the Editor and submit it online to World Journal of Stem Cells at https://www.f6publishing.com. There are no restrictions on the number of words, figures (color, B/W) or authors for a Letter to the Editor. In addition, the article processing charge will be exempted for this Letter to the Editor. As with all articles published by the Baishideng Publishing Group, the Letter to the Editor will be published online after completing peer review. The guidelines for a Letter to the Editor can be found at: https://www.wjgnet.com/bpg/GerInfo/219.
Finally, we look forward to receiving your high-quality Letter to the Editor, which will promote academic communication and lead the development of this discipline.