Difference between revisions of "Journal:A bibliometric analysis of Cannabis publications: Six decades of research and a gap on studies with the plant"

From CannaQAWiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
(Saving and adding more.)
(Saving and adding more.)
Line 37: Line 37:


Despite the importance of ''Cannabis'' for public health and security, no review or bibliometric study about the publications on this species is available in the specialized literature. In order to fill this gap, we intended to qualitatively scrutinize the patterns of scientific publications (research articles and review papers) related to ''Cannabis'' in the last six decades. In this study, we examined the main areas of interest of the researchers studying ''Cannabis'' around the world and the existing gaps concerning the current demands of research, with particular attention to forensic genetics.
Despite the importance of ''Cannabis'' for public health and security, no review or bibliometric study about the publications on this species is available in the specialized literature. In order to fill this gap, we intended to qualitatively scrutinize the patterns of scientific publications (research articles and review papers) related to ''Cannabis'' in the last six decades. In this study, we examined the main areas of interest of the researchers studying ''Cannabis'' around the world and the existing gaps concerning the current demands of research, with particular attention to forensic genetics.
==Materials and methods==
===Search strategy===
Scientific publications related to ''Cannabis'', released from 1960 to 2017, were retrieved from Scopus (http://www.scopus.com) in June 2018. Scopus is a global multidisciplinary database with larger coverage compared to other online platforms such as Web of Science and the Scientific Electronic Library Online. Currently, it covers about 15,000 international peer-reviewed journals in the various fields of science and technology.
A previous search using the same parameters described below was also performed on Web of Science (https://clarivate.com/products/web-of-science/) and on the Scientific Electronic Library Online (SCIELO; www.scielo.org) platforms. When searching in different databases, specific contributions are usually found. However, the information returned from Web of Science and SCIELO in this study was also found in the SCOPUS results, without missing any publications, which confirms the larger coverage of the SCOPUS database, as previously shown by Stefenon ''et al.''<ref name="StefenonThirty13">{{cite journal |title=Thirty years of Brazilian research in Antarctica: Ups, downs and perspectives |journal=Scientometrics |author=Stefenson, V.M.; Roesch, L.F.W.; Pereira, A.B. |volume=95 |issue=1 |pages=325–31 |year=2013 |doi=10.1007/s11192-012-0809-3}}</ref>
As the information registered in SCOPUS was more complete and there were no data lost by excluding the Web of Science and SCIELO records, the study was performed using only data from SCOPUS. In addition, using data recorded from a single platform with such a wide coverage avoids introducing bias by including duplicated publications.
Only research articles and review papers were considered in the present study. Scientific notes and short communications reporting experimental studies were grouped into the research articles category.
The search arguments used were (i) ''Cannabis'' + Biochemical, (ii) ''Cannabis'' + Biology, (iii) ''Cannabis'' + Forensic genetics, (iv) ''Cannabis'' + Genetics, (v) ''Cannabis'' + Molecular markers, and (vi) ''Cannabis'' + Traceability. Using the generic name as a search argument allowed us to assess publications about any of the species/sub-species, as well as their hybrids. The search was performed in the fields “Article title,” “Abstract,” and “Keywords.” Since the search considers just the presence of the argument, and not its meaning, all recorded publications were individually checked in order to exclude studies unrelated to the topic.
===Overall bibliometric analysis===
The results were divided into six decades (1961–1970, 1971–1980, 1981–1990, 1991–2000, 2001–2010, and 2011–2017), by type of publication (research article or review paper), knowledge area (25 different areas according to the SCOPUS classification), and country of origin of the corresponding author.
The evolution in the number of publications was determined through the absolute number of publications and by computing the relative growth rate as RGR = (lnN<sub>2</sub> − lnN</sub>1</sub>)/(t<sub>2</sub> − t<sub>1</sub>), where N<sub>2</sub> and N<sub>1</sub> are the cumulative number of publications in the years t<sub>2</sub> and t<sub>1</sub>, respectively.<ref name="BajwaAScient13">{{cite journal |title=A scientometric assessment of research output in nanoscience and nanotechnology: Pakistan perspective |journal=Scientometrics |author=Bajwa, R.S.; Yaldram, K.; Rafique, S. |volume=94 |issue=1 |pages=333–42 |year=2013 |doi=10.1007/s11192-012-0699-4}}</ref> Graphics and statistical computations were performed using Microsoft Excel spreadsheet software.
===Screening and data summarization===
Titles, abstracts, and objectives of the publications identified by the Scopus platform, as related to the search arguments, were independently screened and the data were summarized by two authors (C.B.D.M. and V.M.S.). The inclusion criteria were: (i) the organism related in the study, (ii) use for studies in ''Cannabis'', and (iii) the principal focus for the study. Differences were resolved by discussion and consultation with a third author (R.P.M.L.).
==Results==
===Overall results in the SCOPUS platform===
Using the defined criteria, the search yielded a total of 1,284 publications, with prevalence of research articles over review papers (74.53% and 23.52% respectively). Scientific notes and short communications represented 0.85% and 1.09% of the total of publications, respectively, and given their nature were grouped with research articles (Table 1).
[[File:Tab1 Matielo Publications2018 6-4.png|1100px]]
{{clear}}
{|
| STYLE="vertical-align:top;"|
{| border="0" cellpadding="5" cellspacing="0" width="1100px"
|-
  | style="background-color:white; padding-left:10px; padding-right:10px;"| <blockquote>'''Tab. 1''' Number of scientific publications recorded from the Scopus platform for each search argument (Cannabis + …) over the whole timespan in each knowledge area and in each continent</blockquote>
|-
|}
|}


==References==
==References==

Revision as of 18:21, 19 April 2019

Full article title A bibliometric analysis of Cannabis publications: Six decades of research
and a gap on studies with the plant
Journal Publications
Author(s) Matielo, Christiane B.D.; Sarzi, Deise S.; Justolin, Beatriz; Lemos, Rafael P.M.;
Camargo, Flavio A.O.; Stefenon, Valdir M.
Author affiliation(s) Universidade Federal do Pampa, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro,
Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul
Primary contact Email: valdirstefeno at unipampa dot edu dot br
Year published 2018
Volume and issue 6(4)
Page(s) 40
DOI 10.3390/publications6040040
ISSN 2304-6775
Distribution license Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International
Website https://www.mdpi.com/2304-6775/6/4/40/htm
Download https://www.mdpi.com/2304-6775/6/4/40/pdf (PDF)

Abstract

In this study we performed a bibliometric analysis focusing on the general patterns of scientific publications about Cannabis, revealing their trends and limitations. Publications related to Cannabis, released from 1960 to 2017, were retrieved from the Scopus database using six search terms. The search term “Genetics” returned 53.4% of publications, while “forensic genetics” and “traceability” represented 2.3% and 0.1% of the publications, respectively. However, 43.1% of the studies were not directly related to Cannabis and, in some cases, Cannabis was just used as an example in the text. A significant increase in publications was observed after 2001, with most of the publications coming from Europe, followed by North America. Although the term "Cannabis" was found in the title, abstract, or keywords of 1284 publications, we detected a historical gap in studies on the plant. We expect that increasing interest in this issue and the rise of new biotechnological advances will lead to the development of new studies. This study will help scientists identify overall research needs, detect the scientific areas in evidence concerning Cannabis studies, and find excellent centers of investigation for scientific interchange and collaboration.

Keywords: biotechnological advances, forensic science, hemp, genetics, marijuana, traceability

Introduction

Cannabis sativa L. is the most cultivated, trafficked, and consumed illicit drug in the world.[1][2] The United Nations classifies cannabis as all drugs derived from the plant Cannabis sativa (Cannabaceae) containing the substance ∆-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC). THC is the intoxicant compound of the plant and is responsible for the classification of C. sativa as an illicit drug. The plant also produces cannabidiol (CBD), a compound that has been studied for pharmaceutical and medical purposes.

Aiming to increase the concentration of THC in the plant, several artificial hybrids such as “Royal AK47,” “Sharksbreath,” “Black Widow,” “Haze Prata,” “Kali Mist,” and “Jack the Ripper” have been developed through genetic selection and breeding of C. sativa.[3][4][5] On the other hand, varieties such as “Cheungsam” were developed aiming at a THC/CBD ratio that is lower than 1.0 for the medicinal use of Cannabis[6], while hemp-based strains such as “Félina 34,” “Futura 77,” “Kompolti,” and “Carmagnola” were developed for cultivation aiming at the production of fibers.[7] Since the morphological differentiation among all those varieties is very difficult, genetic strategies are necessary for their characterization with forensic purposes.

Forensic genetics arose as a result of the union between legal medicine and criminalistics and is most commonly linked to the use of human DNA in criminal investigations. However, the evolution of our society significantly enlarged its framework, and forensic genetics now covers a much wider range of purposes, providing subsidiary evidence in investigations involving cases such as biopiracy, bioterrorism, identification of fraudulent food composition, and identification of illicit drugs.[8]

Besides forensic investigations aiming to differentiate drug and non-drug varieties of Cannabis, forensic genetics can be very useful for determining the geographic origin of seeds/plants, and for identification of traffic routes and illegal plantations. Molecular markers employed for genetic studies in C. sativa have shown that it is possible to correlate the diversity of gene pools with their geographical origin[9][10][11][12], suggesting that these biotechnological tools can be used for forensic purposes.

Taking into account the social impacts of cannabis traffic and its abuse, as well as recent advances in biotechnological methods, it should be expected that scientific studies on forensic genetics related to this species would have significantly increased in recent decades. An increased number of systematic reviews and meta-analyses about the medical and psychological effects of Cannabis have been launched recently in the specialized literature.[13][14][15][16] However, review studies focusing on the general patterns of scientific research of this species reveal trends and limitations are lacking. Such analysis might help scientists and students to identify overall research needs, to detect the scientific areas in evidence concerning Cannabis studies, and to find reputable research centers for scientific interchange and collaboration.

Despite the importance of Cannabis for public health and security, no review or bibliometric study about the publications on this species is available in the specialized literature. In order to fill this gap, we intended to qualitatively scrutinize the patterns of scientific publications (research articles and review papers) related to Cannabis in the last six decades. In this study, we examined the main areas of interest of the researchers studying Cannabis around the world and the existing gaps concerning the current demands of research, with particular attention to forensic genetics.

Materials and methods

Search strategy

Scientific publications related to Cannabis, released from 1960 to 2017, were retrieved from Scopus (http://www.scopus.com) in June 2018. Scopus is a global multidisciplinary database with larger coverage compared to other online platforms such as Web of Science and the Scientific Electronic Library Online. Currently, it covers about 15,000 international peer-reviewed journals in the various fields of science and technology.

A previous search using the same parameters described below was also performed on Web of Science (https://clarivate.com/products/web-of-science/) and on the Scientific Electronic Library Online (SCIELO; www.scielo.org) platforms. When searching in different databases, specific contributions are usually found. However, the information returned from Web of Science and SCIELO in this study was also found in the SCOPUS results, without missing any publications, which confirms the larger coverage of the SCOPUS database, as previously shown by Stefenon et al.[17]

As the information registered in SCOPUS was more complete and there were no data lost by excluding the Web of Science and SCIELO records, the study was performed using only data from SCOPUS. In addition, using data recorded from a single platform with such a wide coverage avoids introducing bias by including duplicated publications.

Only research articles and review papers were considered in the present study. Scientific notes and short communications reporting experimental studies were grouped into the research articles category.

The search arguments used were (i) Cannabis + Biochemical, (ii) Cannabis + Biology, (iii) Cannabis + Forensic genetics, (iv) Cannabis + Genetics, (v) Cannabis + Molecular markers, and (vi) Cannabis + Traceability. Using the generic name as a search argument allowed us to assess publications about any of the species/sub-species, as well as their hybrids. The search was performed in the fields “Article title,” “Abstract,” and “Keywords.” Since the search considers just the presence of the argument, and not its meaning, all recorded publications were individually checked in order to exclude studies unrelated to the topic.

Overall bibliometric analysis

The results were divided into six decades (1961–1970, 1971–1980, 1981–1990, 1991–2000, 2001–2010, and 2011–2017), by type of publication (research article or review paper), knowledge area (25 different areas according to the SCOPUS classification), and country of origin of the corresponding author.

The evolution in the number of publications was determined through the absolute number of publications and by computing the relative growth rate as RGR = (lnN2 − lnN1)/(t2 − t1), where N2 and N1 are the cumulative number of publications in the years t2 and t1, respectively.[18] Graphics and statistical computations were performed using Microsoft Excel spreadsheet software.

Screening and data summarization

Titles, abstracts, and objectives of the publications identified by the Scopus platform, as related to the search arguments, were independently screened and the data were summarized by two authors (C.B.D.M. and V.M.S.). The inclusion criteria were: (i) the organism related in the study, (ii) use for studies in Cannabis, and (iii) the principal focus for the study. Differences were resolved by discussion and consultation with a third author (R.P.M.L.).

Results

Overall results in the SCOPUS platform

Using the defined criteria, the search yielded a total of 1,284 publications, with prevalence of research articles over review papers (74.53% and 23.52% respectively). Scientific notes and short communications represented 0.85% and 1.09% of the total of publications, respectively, and given their nature were grouped with research articles (Table 1).


Tab1 Matielo Publications2018 6-4.png

Tab. 1 Number of scientific publications recorded from the Scopus platform for each search argument (Cannabis + …) over the whole timespan in each knowledge area and in each continent

References

  1. ↑ Almeida, P.P.; Novaes, M.A.F.P.; Bressan, R.A. et al. (2008). "Review: Executive functioning and cannabis use". Brazilian Journal of Psychiatry 30 (1): 69–76. doi:10.1590/S1516-44462008000100013. PMID 18373021. 
  2. ↑ United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (2017). World Drug Report 2017. United Nations. ISBN 9789211482928. https://www.unodc.org/wdr2017/index.html. 
  3. ↑ Small, E.; Cronquist, A. (1976). "A practical and natural taxonomy for cannabis". Taxon 25 (4): 405–35. doi:10.2307/1220524. 
  4. ↑ van Bakel, H.; Stout, J.M.; Cote, A.G. et al. (2011). "The draft genome and transcriptome of Cannabis sativa". Genome Biology 12 (10): R102. doi:10.1186/gb-2011-12-10-r102. PMC PMC3359589. PMID 22014239. http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pmcentrez&artid=PMC3359589. 
  5. ↑ Oh, H.; Seo, B.; Lee, S. et al. (2016). "Two complete chloroplast genome sequences of Cannabis sativa varieties". Mitochondrial DNA Part A 27 (4): 2835–7. doi:10.3109/19401736.2015.1053117. PMID 26104156. 
  6. ↑ Park, S.K.; Seo, J.B.; Lee, M.Y. (2012). "Proteomic profiling of hempseed proteins from Cheungsam". Biochimica et Biophysica Acta 1824 (2): 374-82. doi:10.1016/j.bbapap.2011.10.005. PMID 22040604. 
  7. ↑ Struik, P.C.; Amaduccia, S.; Bullard, M.J. et al. (2000). "Agronomy of fibre hemp (Cannabis sativa L.) in Europe". Industrial Crops and Products 11 (2–3): 107–18. doi:10.1016/S0926-6690(99)00048-5. 
  8. ↑ Arenas, M.; Pereira, F.; Oliveira, M. et al. (2017). "Forensic genetics and genomics: Much more than just a human affair". PLoS Genetics 13 (9): e1006960. doi:10.1371/journal.pgen.1006960. PMC PMC5608170. PMID 28934201. http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pmcentrez&artid=PMC5608170. 
  9. ↑ Faeti, V.; Mandolino, G.; Ranalli, P. (1996). "Genetic diversity of Cannabis sativa germplasm based on RAPD markers". Plant Breeding 115 (5): 367–70. doi:10.1111/j.1439-0523.1996.tb00935.x. 
  10. ↑ Kojoma, M.; Iida, O.; Makino, Y. (2002). "DNA fingerprinting of Cannabis sativa using inter-simple sequence repeat (ISSR) amplification". Planta Medica 68 (1): 60–3. doi:10.1055/s-2002-19875. PMID 11842329. 
  11. ↑ Gilmore, S.; Peakall, R.; Robertson, J. (2007). "Organelle DNA haplotypes reflect crop-use characteristics and geographic origins of Cannabis sativa". Forensic Science International 172 (2–3): 179–90. doi:10.1016/j.forsciint.2006.10.025. PMID 17293071. 
  12. ↑ Houston, R.; Birck, M.; Hughes-Stamm, S. et al. (2016). "Evaluation of a 13-loci STR multiplex system for Cannabis sativa genetic identification". International Journal of Legal Medicine 130 (3): 635–47. doi:10.1007/s00414-015-1296-x. PMID 26661945. 
  13. ↑ Zhang, M.W.; Ho, R.C. (2015). "The Cannabis Dilemma: A Review of Its Associated Risks and Clinical Efficacy". Journal of Addiction 2015: 707596. doi:10.1155/2015/707596. PMC PMC4619948. PMID 26539302. http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pmcentrez&artid=PMC4619948. 
  14. ↑ Gunn, J.K.; Rosales, C.B.; Center, K.E. et al. (2016). "Prenatal exposure to cannabis and maternal and child health outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis". BMJ Open 6 (4): e009986. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2015-009986. PMC PMC4823436. PMID 27048634. http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pmcentrez&artid=PMC4823436. 
  15. ↑ Volkow, N.D.; Swanson, J.M.; Evins, A.E. et al. (2016). "Effects of Cannabis Use on Human Behavior, Including Cognition, Motivation, and Psychosis: A Review". JAMA Psychiatry 73 (3): 292-7. doi:10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2015.3278. PMID 26842658. 
  16. ↑ Walsh, Z.; Gonzalez, R.; Crosby, K. et al. (2017). "Medical cannabis and mental health: A guided systematic review". Clinical Psychology Review 51: 15-29. doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2016.10.002. PMID 27816801. 
  17. ↑ Stefenson, V.M.; Roesch, L.F.W.; Pereira, A.B. (2013). "Thirty years of Brazilian research in Antarctica: Ups, downs and perspectives". Scientometrics 95 (1): 325–31. doi:10.1007/s11192-012-0809-3. 
  18. ↑ Bajwa, R.S.; Yaldram, K.; Rafique, S. (2013). "A scientometric assessment of research output in nanoscience and nanotechnology: Pakistan perspective". Scientometrics 94 (1): 333–42. doi:10.1007/s11192-012-0699-4. 

Notes

This presentation is faithful to the original, with only a few minor changes to presentation. Some grammar and punctuation was cleaned up to improve readability. In some cases important information was missing from the references, and that information was added.

Retrieved from "https://www.cannaqa.wiki/index.php?title=Journal:A_bibliometric_analysis_of_Cannabis_publications:_Six_decades_of_research_and_a_gap_on_studies_with_the_plant&oldid=14714"