Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Open Veterinary Journal logoLink to Open Veterinary Journal
. 2024 Nov 30;14(11):2877–2882. doi: 10.5455/OVJ.2024.v14.i11.16

Recent progress in camel research

Ashraf M Abu-Seida 1,2,*, Marwa H Hassan 3, Abdulrahman Abdulkarim 4, Elham A Hassan 2
PMCID: PMC11682766  PMID: 39737032

Abstract

Background:

Camelids play an important role in the preservation of ecosystems, biodiversity, food security, economic growth, adaptation to climate change, and cultural and social aspects. Therefore, the United Nations has named 2024 the International Year of Camelids (IYC).

Aim:

This study aimed to assess the recent progress in camel research and its citation effect as shown in the Scopus database in the IYC.

Methods:

On March 17, 2024, a literature search was done to discover papers indexed in Scopus® using the search terms “camel”, “camelids”, and “Camelus dromedarius”. Automatic and manual screening processes were used.

Results:

Between 1850 and 2024, a total of 15,844 camelid-related papers were published. Approximately 30% of these documents were released within the previous 5 years (2019–2023). Camel research was included into 28 scientific topics. The top five topics were agricultural and biological sciences, medicine, veterinary science, biochemistry, genetics and molecular biology, immunology, and microbiology. The top five authors in camel research were Faye B, Wernery U, Muyldermans S, Kinne J, and Sahani MS. The top five camel research contributors among 159 academic institutions were from King Saud University, King Faisal University, ICAR-National Research Centre on Camel, Bikane, Cairo University, and United Arab Emirates University. Out of 152 nations active in camel research, the top five were the United States, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Undefined, and India. The top five languages were English, French, Chinese, Russian, and German. The camel research was financed by 158 sponsors, with the top five being undefined, the National Natural Science Foundation of China, the Deanship of Scientific Research, King Saud University, the National Institutes of Health, and the National Science Foundation. Camel papers have been published under 161 source titles. The top five sources were: Journal of Camel Practice and Research, Tropical Animal Health and Production, Indian Journal of Animal Sciences, Veterinary Parasitology, and Emirates Journal of Food and Agriculture.

Conclusion:

Although camelids are understudied in scientific studies, there has been a promising increase in camel research over the past 5 years. Furthermore, the IYC may give a unique opportunity to assist scientific research, particularly in low-income countries with large camelid populations.

Keywords: Documents, International year of camelids, Journal of Camel Practice and Research, Scopus, United Nations

Introduction

The United Nations (UN) has declared 2024 as the International Year of Camelids (IYC). Camelids originally emerged in America 45 million years ago. There are six extant species of camelids in over 90 countries in North Africa, South-West and Central Asia, and South America, including dromedary camels, bactrian camels, llamas, alpacas, vicuñas, and guanacos. Camelids, provide a livelihood for millions of families, primarily pastoralists, in dry land and mountainous rangeland environments globally (FAO, 2024).

Camelids have an important role in ecosystem protection, biodiversity conservation, food security, climate change adaptation, economic growth, and cultural as well as social aspects. Moreover, camelids play an important part in achieving the Sustainable Development Goals of hunger reduction, severe poverty eradication, women’s empowerment, and sustainable use of land ecosystems. Camels thrive in locations where other livestock animals cannot providing milk, meat, and wool to communities as well as transportation and organic fertilizer (Gagaoua et al., 2022). Indeed, the IYC presents a unique opportunity to raise awareness of public and politicians’ understanding of camelids’ role in climate change resistance, particularly in highland, desert, and semi-arid areas (FAO, 2024).

Bibliometric approaches are used to assess the current state of research in a certain field (Donthu et al., 2021). The bibliometric analysis makes it much simpler to discover the research specialists, universities, publications, and search terms that receive the most attention and are often referred to in a certain field of study (Haustein and Larivière, 2015). Furthermore, it presents the author’s biography, forecasts new trends in a variety of industries, and evaluates the existing state of research, future prospects, and development patterns in certain subjects (Koskinen et al., 2008).

Previously, relatively few bibliometric studies using different databases were undertaken on camels (Rathinasabapathy and Rajendran, 2015; Iglesias Pastrana et al., 2020; Kandeel et al., 2023; Masebo et al., 2023). A recent bibliometric analysis of camel research over the previous century found that interest in camel research has increased in recent years, although research trends in camel health and production demand further support (Kandeel et al., 2023). The authors found that from 1877 to 1965, fewer than ten new articles were issued each year, which surged to 100 publications each year from 1968 to 2005. Since 2010, over 200 new documents have been released annually. King Saud and King Faisal universities made the most significant contributions. The Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) had the greatest proportion of financed projects. Other studies reported that the most common five topics dealing with camel research were “Calf management and milk production”, “Camel health and management system”, “Female and male reproduction”, “Camel behavior and feeding”, and “Camel welfare” (Masebo et al., 2023).

In the context of the worldwide celebration of the IYC, we attempted to clarify the present state of camel research and its citation effect as reflected in the Scopus database in 2024. As a result, this article ranks the authors, affiliations, countries, source titles, and funding agencies participating in camel research, determining the top five. Furthermore, the data from the top five source titles in camel research were compared.

Materials and Methods

On March 17, 2024, a literature search was done to discover papers indexed in Scopus® using the search terms “camel”, “camelids”, and “Camelus dromedarius”. Automatic and manual screening techniques were carried out between 1850 and 2024. Camel research was evaluated based on publication year, subject and document categories, authors, affiliations, nations, languages, funders, and source names. The top five source titles in camel research were selected and analyzed.

Results

On March 17, 2024, the Scopus database had 15,844 documents related to camel research. Approximately 30.1% of these papers were published within the past 5 years (2019–2023). The top 5 years for camel research were 2021 (n = 1,020 documents), 2023 (n = 1,005), 2022 (n = 985), 2020 (n = 960), and 2019 (n = 795).

Camel’s study was included into 28 scientific topics. The top five disciplines were agricultural and biological sciences (n = 5,697 documents), medicine (n = 3,508), veterinary (n = 3,447), biochemistry, genetics, and molecular biology (n = 2,540), and immunology and microbiology (n = 2,260). The top five document kinds were articles (13,238), reviews (n = 868), conference papers (630), book chapters (n = 490), and letters (n = 166). R.J.K. (1850) published the first Scopus-indexed camel research. Hamers-Casterman et al. (1993) published the highly referenced camel research (n = 2,382 citations).

The top five authors in camel research were Faye B, Wernery U, Muyldermans S, Kinne J, and Sahani MS, as indicated in Table 1. Out of 159 academic institutions, the top five camel research affiliations were King Saud University, King Faisal University, ICAR-National Research Centre on Camel, Bikane, Cairo University, and United Arab Emirates University. There were 152 nations active in camel research, with the top five being the United States, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Undefined, and India (Table 1). Camel study materials were published in 36 different languages. The top five languages were: English (n = 14,969), French (n = 198), Chinese (n = 183), Russian (n = 169), and German (n = 125).

Table 1. Top five authors, affiliations, and countries in camel research using the Scopus database on March 17, 2024.

No Top five authors Top five affiliations Top five countries
Name Number of documents Name Number of documents Name Number of documents
1 Faye B 187 King Saud University 597 United States 2,097
2 Wernery U 169 King Faisal University 456 Saudi Arabia 1,840
3 Muyldermans S 88 ICAR-National Research Centre on Camel 331 Egypt 1,649
4 Kinne J 75 Cairo University 326 Undefined 1,299
5 Sahani MS 74 United Arab Emirates University 270 India 1,271
Open in a new tab

Regarding funding, the camel research has received support from 158 sponsors. The top five sponsors were undefined (n = 11,930), the National NSFC (n = 364), the Deanship of Scientific Research at King Saud University (n = 188), the National Institutes of Health (n = 160), and the National Science Foundation (n = 129).

The top five source titles out of 161 were the Journal of Camel Practice and Research (n = 1,106 documents), Tropical Animal Health and Production (n = 267), Indian Journal of Animal Sciences (n = 135), Veterinary Parasitology (n = 131), and Emirates Journal of Food and Agriculture (n = 118).

Table 2 displays all data for the top five source titles in camel research as of March 17, 2024, according to the Scopus database. The top five most cited source titles were Journal of Camel Practice and Research (n = 4,335 citations), Veterinary Parasitology (n = 4,248), Tropical Animal Health and Production (n = 3,973), Emirates Journal of Food and Agriculture (n = 1,501), and Indian Journal of Animal Sciences (n = 492). However, the average number of citations per document in Veterinary Parasitology, Tropical Animal Health and Production, Emirates Journal of Food and Agriculture, Journal of Camel Practice and Research, and Indian Journal of Animal Sciences was 32.4, 14.9, 12.7, 3.9, and 3.6. Table 3 lists the most referenced documents in the top five source titles for camel research.

Table 2. Data for the top five source titles in camel research using the Scopus database on March 17, 2024.

Items JCPR TAHP IJAS VP EJFA
Total documents 1,106 267 135 131 118
Type of documents Article 959 258 130 126 106
Conference paper 75
Review 25 5 5 4 8
Editorial 26 2 3
Short survey 6 1
Erratum 4 2 1
Note 11
Language English 1,106 267 135 131 118
French 1
Spanish 1
Total citations 4,335 3,973 492 4,248 1,501
Average citations per document 3.9 14.9 3.6 32.4 12.7
Subject area Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1,106 267 135 118
Immunology and Microbiology 267 131 118
Veterinary 135 131
Top author (Number of documents) Wernery U (61) Faye B
(13)		 Sahani MS (18) Hilali M (8) Faye B (34)
Top country (Number of documents) India
(284)		 Saudi Arabia (41) India
(117)		 France (15) France
(40)
Open in a new tab

JCPR, Journal of Camel Practice and Research; TAHP, Tropical Animal Health and Production; IJAS, Indian Journal of Animal Sciences; VP, Veterinary Parasitology; EJFA, Emirates Journal of Food and Agriculture.

Table 3. Highly cited documents in the top five source titles in camel research using Scopus database on March 17, 2024.

No Source title Highly cited document Reference
Title Citations
1 Journal of Camel Practice and Research Effect of camel milk on glycemic control, risk factors and diabetes quality of life in type-1 diabetes: a randomised prospective controlled study 71 Agrawal et al (2003a)
2 Tropical Animal Health and Production An assessment of the productivity for meat and the carcass yield of camels (Camelus dromedarius) and of the consumption of camel meat in the Eastern Region of Ethiopia 73 Kurtu (2004)
3 Indian Journal of Animal Sciences Effect of camel milk on glycemic control, lipid profile and diabetes quality of life in type 1 diabetes: a randomised prospective controlled cross over study. 53 Agrawal et al (2003b)
4 Veterinary Parasitology International collaborative research: significance of tick-borne hemoparasitic diseases to world animal health 260 Uilenberg (1995).
5 Emirates Journal of Food and Agriculture Phenotypic classification of Saudi Arabian camel (Camelus dromedarius) by their body measurements 67 Abdallah and Faye (2012)
Open in a new tab

Discussion

Evaluation of research has grown more important in research policy, management, and funding. Over the last two decades, information communication technologies have revolutionized research and scholarly publications. Moreover, bibliometric indicators have been increasingly popular in the context of research evaluation and research policy in general (Aksnes et al., 2019). In this study, we used data clustering and citation analysis to identify significant researchers, affiliations, countries, funders, and source titles interested in camel research. The current findings may motivate camel researchers, academics, countries, journals, and sponsors, to better their academic reputations. Furthermore, this study allows researchers to identify potential sponsors for their camel research, as well as journals with a high impact factor and an interest in camel research.

On March 17, 2024, a Scopus-based search revealed 471,975 and 149,201 publications dealing with cattle and equine, respectively. However, in the same database and on the same day, 15,844 articles were published about camels, as indicated in the current study. Therefore, as compared to other large animals such as cattle and equines, camels are understudied in scientific studies. Nonetheless, the number of camel research publications has increased significantly during the recent 5 years (2019–2023). Similar findings were reported by earlier authors (Kandeel et al., 2023). This rise might be attributable to greater awareness of camelids’ potential and investment in the camelid industry, such as enhanced research, capacity development, and the adoption of new methods and technology (FAO, 2024). Moreover, camelids have received more attention from the research community than other farmed animals (Orlando, 2016).

The United States, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and India are among the top five nations for camel research. The observed data are consistent with earlier studies of camel livestock contributions by nations (Kandeel et al., 2023). In the United States, only 3,000 camels are scattered across private farms but camel milk has gained popularity as a treatment for diabetes, colitis, and other somatic illnesses (Adams, 2019). It was not a surprise that Saudi Arabia was among the top five nations, affiliations, and supporters. Saudi Arabia has made great progress in higher education, notably in research, development, and knowledge production during the previous decade. The Saudi government is working hard to provide appropriate funding to the education industry and build new academic institutions (Pavan, 2016). Funding agencies and research groups play critical roles in advancing scientific study (Azeem et al., 2021). In addition, Saudi Arabia has been identified as one of the countries with the highest proportion of camel livestock (Faye, 2020). Although Egypt is classified as a camel country, it is experiencing diminishing growth with a low proportion of camel livestock (Faye, 2020). India has significant camelid populations and academics engaged in camel studies.

Furthermore, it is unsurprising that English is the primary language in camel research. English is the worldwide language of science, and the majority of title sources utilize it in their published works. The employment of one global language of science has had an extraordinary influence on scientific communication (Drubin and Kellogg, 2012).

The quantitative part of research performance focuses on number of research productivity, whereas the qualitative aspect focuses on citation analysis (Herther, 2009; Ellegaard and Wallin, 2015). The Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar databases provide diverse citation indices for analyzing scientific activity. These databases have grown in popularity among academics and scientists (Adriaanse and Rensleigh, 2013). The citations demonstrate equitable sharing and exchange of intellectual work (Davis, 2011). We relied on the Scopus database for this study because it contains a larger database of peer-reviewed publications and covers a broader range of fields. Furthermore, its sophisticated search tools, such as author disambiguation and tracking an author’s research output over time, are beneficial (Burnham, 2006). In this regard, previous bibliometric studies have been conducted on camels and depended upon other databases like CAB Direct Online database (Rathinasabapathy and Rajendran, 2015) and the Science Direct directory (Iglesias Pastrana et al., 2020)

According to document counts, the Journal of Camel Practice and Research ranks first with 1,106 articles, accounting for about 7% of total global production in camel research. This might be owing to the journal’s unique character, which publishes articles on both New and Old World camelids. The competitive journals in the field of camel research are Tropical Animal Health and Production, Indian Journal of Animal Sciences, Veterinary Parasitology, and Emirates Journal of Food and Agriculture.

Citations are increasingly being used as performance indicators in research policies and systems (Aksnes et al., 2019). The citation impact metric measures the amount of citations in scientific articles. It is the total number of citations to publications divided by the number of articles (Moed, 2010). Veterinary Parasitology has the most average citations per document among the top five source titles, at 32.4. This might be attributable to the journal’s vast readership and high impact factor, which attracts high-quality research. Top-tier journals are valued more highly in academia than mid-tier journals, as evidenced by their impact factor. The impact-factor-adjusted score is crucial since manuscripts published in top journals have a higher rejection rate, resulting in higher ranks (Moed, 2010).

The main study’s limitation is that it only included publications published on Scopus. This is done to ensure that any camel research published is of high quality and a large number of journals are covered. This might also be considered a limitation because many more papers are published in journals that are not covered by Scopus. Finally, a better understanding of the number of camel-related research studies that have been performed, as well as the top camel research authors, affiliations, nations, sponsors, and source titles will help to improve the type of research that should be conducted in the future.

Conclusion

Although camelids are marginalized animals in scientific study, there has been a hopeful increase in camel research during the last 5 years. Academics must write on new and innovative notions to attract global attention and citations. The IYC may encourage all governments, the UN system, organizations, and other stakeholders to increase funding for camel research, particularly in poor nations with large camelid populations.

Acknowledgments

Not applicable.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Funding

The study did not receive any external funds.

Authors’ contributions

AMA supervised the work and prepared the tables. AMA, MHH, and AA collected the data and wrote the original manuscript. AMA and EAH analyzed the data and wrote the final manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Data availability

The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available in the current version of the manuscript.

References

  1. Abdallah, H.R. and Faye, B. 2012. Phenotypic classification of Saudi Arabian camel (Camelus dromedarius) by their body measurements. Emirates J. Food Agric. 24(3), 272–280. [Google Scholar]
  2. Adams, C. 2019. Camel crazy: a quest for miracles in the mysterious world of camels. Novato, CA: New World Library. [Google Scholar]
  3. Adriaanse, L.S. and Rensleigh, C. 2013. Web of science, scopus and google scholar: a content comprehensiveness comparison. Elect. Libr. 31(6), 727–744. [Google Scholar]
  4. Agrawal, R.P., Swami, S.C., Beniwal, R., Kochar, D.K., Sahani, M.S., Tuteja, F.C. and Ghouri, S.K. 2003a. Effect of camel milk on glycemic control, risk factors and diabetes quality of life in type-1 diabetes: a randomised prospective controlled study. J. Camel Pract. Res. 10(1), 45–50. [Google Scholar]
  5. Agrawal, R.P., Swami, S.C., Beniwal, R., Kochar, D.K., Sahani, M.S., Tuteja, F.C. and Ghouri, S.K. 2003b. Effect of camel milk on glycemic control, lipid profile and diabetes quality of life in type 1 diabetes: a randomised prospective controlled cross over study. Indian J. Anim. Sci. 73(10), 1105–1110. [Google Scholar]
  6. Aksnes, D.W., Langfeldt, L. and Wouters, P. 2019. Citations, citation indicators, and research quality: an overview of basic concepts and theories. Sage Open. 9(1), 1–17; https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244019829575 . [Google Scholar]
  7. Azeem, M., Ahmed, M., Haider, S. and Sajjad, M. 2021. Expanding competitive advantage through organizational culture, knowledge sharing and organizational innovation. Technol. Soc. 66, 101635; doi: 10.1016/j.techsoc.2021.101635. [Google Scholar]
  8. doi: 10.1186/1742-5581-3-1. Burnham, J.F. 2006. Scopus database: a review. Biomed. Digit. Libr. 3, 1;: 10.1186/1742-5581-3-1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. doi: 10.1096/fj.11-183988. Davis, P.M. 2011. Open access, readership, citations: a randomized controlled trial of scientific journal publishing. F.A.S.E.B. J. 25(7), 2129–2134. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Donthu , N., Kumar, S., Mukherjee, D., Pandey, N. and Lim, W.M. 2021. How to conduct a bibliometric analysis: an overview and guidelines. J. Bus. Res. 133, 285–296; doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.04.070. [Google Scholar]
  11. doi: 10.1091/mbc.E12-02-0108. Drubin, D.G. and Kellogg, D.R. 2012. English as the universal language of science: opportunities and challenges. Mol Biol. Cell. 23(8), 1399; doi: 10.1091/mbc.E12-02-0108. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. doi: 10.1007/s11192-015-1645-z. Ellegaard, O. and Wallin, J.A. 2015. The bibliometric analysis of scholarly production: How great is the impact? Scientometrics 105(3), 1809–1831. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. FAO (2024). https://www.fao.org/camelids-2024/about/en . FAO, Rome, Italy. [Google Scholar]
  14. Faye, B. 2020. How many large camelids in the world? A synthetic analysis of the world camel demographic changes. Pastoralism. 10, 1–20; doi: 10.1186/s13570-020-00176-z. [Google Scholar]
  15. doi: 10.3390/ani12020162. Gagaoua, M., Dib, A.L. and Bererhi, E.H. 2022. Recent advances in dromedary camels and their products. Animals. 12, 1–3; doi: 10.3390/ani12020162. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. doi: 10.1038/363446a0. Hamers-Casterman, C., Atarhouch, T., Muyldermans, S., Robinson, G., Hammers, C., Bajyana, S.E., Bendahman, N. and Hammers, R. 1993. Naturally occurring antibodies devoid of light chains. Nature 363(6428), 446–448; doi: 10.1038/363446a0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Haustein, S. and Larivière, V. 2015. The use of bibliometrics for assessing research: possibilities, limitations and adverse effects. Incentives and Performance. New York, NY: Springer. pp, 121–139. [Google Scholar]
  18. Herther, N.K. 2009. Research evaluation and citation analysis: key issues and implications. Elect. Libr. 27(3), 361–375. [Google Scholar]
  19. doi: 10.3390/ani10050780. Iglesias Pastrana, C., Navas González, F.J., Ciani, E., Barba Capote, C.J. and Delgado Bermejo, J.V. 2020. Effect of research impact on emerging camel husbandry, welfare and social-related awareness. Animals 10, 780; doi: 10.3390/ani10050780. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. doi: 10.3389/fvets.2023.1157667. Kandeel, M., Morsy, M.A., Abd El-Lateef, H.M., Marzok, M., El-Beltagi, H.S., Al Khodair, K.M., Soliman, W.E., Albokhadaim, I. and Venugopala, K.N. 2023. A century of “camel research”: a bibliometric analysis. Front. Vet. Sci. 10, 1157667; doi: 10.3389/fvets.2023.1157667 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. doi: 10.1080/08039480801961667. Koskinen, J., Isohanni, M., Paajala, H., Jääskeläinen, E., Nieminen, P., Koponen, H., Tienari, P. and Miettunen, J. 2008. How to use bibliometric methods in evaluation of scientific research? An example from Finnish schizophrenia research. Nordic J. Psych. 62, 136–143; doi: 10.1080/08039480801961667. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. doi: 10.1023/b:trop.0000009520.34657.35. Kurtu, M.Y. 2004. An assessment of the productivity for meat and the carcass yield of camels (Camelus dromedarius) and of the consumption of camel meat in the eastern region of Ethiopia. Trop. Anim. Health Prod. 36(1), 65–76; doi: 10.1023/b:trop.0000009520.34657.35. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. doi: 10.3389/fvets.2023.1277512. Masebo, N.T., Zappaterra, M., Felici, M., Benedetti, B. and Padalino, B. 2023. Dromedary camel’s welfare: literature from 1980 to 2023 with a text mining and topic analysis approaches. Front. Vet. Sci. 10, 1277512; doi: 10.3389/fvets.2023.1277512. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Moed, H.F. 2010. Measuring contextual citation impact of scientific journals. J. Inform. 4(3), 265–277. [Google Scholar]
  25. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1606340113. Orlando, L. 2016. Back to the roots and routes of dromedary domestication. Proceed. Natl. Acad. Sci. 113, 6588–6590; doi: 10.1073/pnas.1606340113. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Pavan, A. 2016. Higher education in Saudi Arabia: rooted in heritage and values, aspiring to progress. Int. Res. Higher Educ. 1(1), 91–100. [Google Scholar]
  27. Rathinasabapathy, G. and Rajendran, L. 2015. Mapping of world-wide camel research publications: a scientometric analysis. J. Libr. Inform. Commun. Technol. 5, 35–40. [Google Scholar]
  28. R.J.K. (1850). Camels in gaul. Notes and Queries. s1-II(56), 421. [Google Scholar]
  29. doi: 10.1016/0304-4017(94)03107-8. Uilenberg, G. 1995. International collaborative research: significance of tick-borne hemoparasitic diseases to world animal health. Vet. Parasitol. 57(1–3), 19–41; doi: 10.1016/0304-4017(94)03107-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Data Availability Statement

The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available in the current version of the manuscript.

Articles from Open Veterinary Journal are provided here courtesy of Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Tripoli

RESOURCES