Reply to “Knowledge-map analysis and bladder cancer immunotherapy: Comment”

We thank Daungsupawong et al.¹ and Bao et al.² for their interesting comments on our recently published manuscript “Knowledge-map analysis and bladder cancer immunotherapy.”³

Daungsupawong et al.¹ proposed that “One potential shortcoming of this study is that it only focused on bibliometric analysis without delving into the actual findings and outcomes of the research papers examined. A systematic review or meta-analysis of current studies in the field of bladder cancer immunotherapy could be a future direction for this research.” We think that Bibliometrics and meta-analysis focus on different areas of a field. Bibliometrics mainly analyzes the discovery process and research status of a hot research field in recent years or recent decades at a broad level. A meta-analysis is a systematic evaluation and statistical analysis of a controversial issue in a field. The two research objects and purposes are different, each has advantages and disadvantages, so there is no comparison.

Bao et al.² argued that “We believe that it may not be rigorous to select all these sub-databases when searching for articles that meet the screening criteria. In contrast, SCI-Expanded is currently the most widely accepted, widely used, and most suitable one.” We believe that the choice between WoSCC and SCI-expanded has little impact on the outcome. The main purpose of our research is to download files in related fields through WoSCC and analyze them using VOSviewer software. Based on our extensive search of bibliometrics articles, the use of WoSCC databases remains mainstream. Some high-level bibliometrics articles also confirm our view.^4–9

Bao et al.² claim that “Some researchers believe that Topic Search (TS) is not well suited for bibliometric analyses. The “Keywords Plus” are generated by WoSCC’s automated computer algorithm, not by the authors. Based on some articles we have previously read, using “TI,” “AB,” and “AK” might be a better approach as screening criteria.” We find that Topic Search (TS) mainly includes Title (TI), Abstract (AB), Author Keywords (AK) and Keyword Plus (KP). We believe that “KP” will make search terms more comprehensive. Through a large number of literatures related to bibliometric analysis, we find that many literatures have their own unique retrieval methods. We found that some high-quality bibliometrics also use “TS” as a search term, similar to our study.^6–10

Bao et al.² suggested that “Authors to use wildcards (e.g. “*”) to enhance the search strategy. The wildcard character “*” can be substituted for any other character for variable keyword endings.” We consider that the use of wildcards (e.g. “*”) can be used to enhance search strategy and is a constructive suggestion. Currently, there is no consensus on whether to use wildcards. Some bibliometrics studies argue that wildcards are unnecessary and not used. The search terms designed in their study not only express the central idea, but are also relatively concise and not overly cumbersome.^5–10

Bao et al.² also submitted some new figures and tables based on their search strategy. We think the discrepancy between Bao’s results and ours may be due to different retrieval data and software. We should look at the conclusions reached by each of us objectively and cannot simply say whose conclusions are more accurate. We also welcome scholars to discuss the diversity of findings in bibliometric analyses of bladder cancer immunotherapy.

Thanks again for their interesting comments. We will take their advice when writing similar articles in the future.

Funding Statement

The work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China [82072835].

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).