UNASSIGNED: Ferroptosis has been widely investigated as an emerging drug target, while its combination with nanoscience provides bourgeoning application prospects. The development of ferroptosis regulating nanomedicines have attracted worldwide attentions in recent years. It would be meaningful to describe the relevant publication paradigm.
UNASSIGNED: Herein, a bibliometric analysis was performed using the database of Web of Science Core Collection to clarify the publication paradigm. The development of related publications in the last 6 years was described, and the revolutionary trends were figured out. Ultimately, the possible future exploration directions were proposed.
UNASSIGNED: The bibliometric analysis of 327 documents of interest indicated that the main research focus was in multiple fields including Materials science, Science & technology, Chemistry, and Pharmacology & pharmacy. With widely cooperation and strong funding, the researchers from Chinese organizations contributed most of publications, followed with United States and Australia. Cocitation analysis revealed that several original papers reported the key molecular mechanisms of ferroptosis were considered as the foundation for subsequent studies, and some nanomedicines-related documents were taken as examples and discussed. Mining results showed that the mechanism evaluation of ferroptosis regulation therapy for cancer treatment was the hotspot. Then, several possible future explorations of ferroptosis-related nanoscience were presented and discussed.
UNASSIGNED: The bibliometric profile of nanoscience-ferroptosis research was analyzed in detail. We believe that the bibliometric analysis could act as a robust method for explicating the publication paradigm as a certain field.

In a broad sense, science can be understood as the knowledge contained in scientific manuscripts published in scientific journals. Scientific databases index only those journals that reach certain quality standards. Therefore, research and dissemination of scientific knowledge are essential activities for the growth of science itself. The aim of this manuscript is to assess the situation of medicine and environmental sciences among the bibliometric literature and to put it in perspective with the overall bibliometric publications in all scientific fields. The main countries publishing bibliometric manuscripts are China, USA and Spain. The latter country is ranked three out of the top five institutions according to the Scopus and WoS databases. In both databases, the average scientific collaboration of the top 20 institutions offers the same result, 41%. According to Scopus, the main subject categories in which this research falls are social sciences (38%), computer science (26%) and medicine (23%), while the environmental sciences category has 8%. In the analysis of the Medicine category alone, it has been observed that 136 countries have contributions in this field. The main countries are the United States, China and the United Kingdom. In the field of medicine, the main areas studied were: Epidemiology, Pediatrics, Orthopedics, Cardiology, Neurosurgery, Radiology, Ophthalmology, Oncology, Plastic Surgery and Psychiatry. With respect to environmental sciences, less international dissemination has been found, with only 83 countries having worked in this field. The main ones are China, Spain and the United States. Regarding the top 10 institutions, it can be stated that only Spain and China are relevant. Spain focuses on sustainability and China on the environment. The result of an independent keyword analysis of all published bibliometric manuscripts has shown that the main clusters are: Mapping Science (29%), Research Productivity (23%), Medicine (20%), Environmental Sciences (12%), Psychology (7%), Nursing (6%) and Engineering (4%). In short, medicine and environmental sciences are the most relevant areas in the field of bibliometrics after social sciences and computer sciences.

This study examined compliance with the criteria of transparency and best practice in scholarly publishing defined by COPE, DOAJ, OASPA and WAME in Biomedical Open Access journals indexed in Journal Citation Reports (JCR). 259 Open Access journals were drawn from the JCR database and on the basis of their websites their compliance with 14 criteria for transparency and best practice in scholarly publishing was verified. Journals received penalty points for each unfulfilled criterion when they failed to comply with the criteria defined by COPE, DOAJ, OASPA and WAME. The average number of obtained penalty points was 6, where 149 (57.5%) journals received 6 points and 110 (42.5%) journals 7 points. Only 4 journals met all criteria and did not receive any penalty points. Most of the journals did not comply with the criteria declaration of Creative Commons license (164 journals), affiliation of editorial board members (116), unambiguity of article processing charges (115), anti-plagiarism policy (113) and the number of editorial board members from developing countries (99). The research shows that JCR cannot be used as a whitelist of journals that comply with the criteria of transparency and best practice in scholarly publishing.