Cluster analysis and network visualization of journals, authors, keywords, and themes of monkeypox research (1989–2022): an updated bibliometric review

PurposeThere have been numerous publications on human monkeypox since it was reported. With the help of bibliometric analysis, this study examined research hotspots and future trends related to human monkeypox. Science mapping was used in this study to identify influential monkeypox researchers, institutions, articles, keywords, thematic structures, and clusters of articles.Design/methodology/approachBased on a validated search query, bibliometric analysis of data collected from Web of Science from 1989 to September 2022 was conducted. Using the “Title-Keyword-Abstract” search option, the search query consisted of keywords “Monkeypox” OR “Monkeypox virus” OR “monkeypox” OR “monkey pox” OR “MPXV.” With the state-of-the-art tools Bibliometrix package of R Studio and VOSviewer, performance analysis and science mapping, as a part of standard bibliometric research of monkeypox research were conducted.FindingsResearchers published 708 monkeypox papers from 1989 to September 2022, with American researchers publishing 460 papers. Further, USA had the highest international cooperation in terms of collaborative research output. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is a global leader in monkeypox research since it is the most prolific and collaborative organization. There have been the most published papers on monkeypox in the Journal of Virology. Damon Inger K is also the most prolific and influential researcher in monkeypox research, with the highest number of publications and citations. In total, 1,679 keywords were identified in the study. From the cluster analysis four themes were identified in monkeypox research. They are (1) clinical features, (2) monkeypox virus epidemiology, (3) monkeypox virus vaccine defense, and (4) monkeypox virus-related treatment measures.Originality/valueAnalysis of collaboration, findings, networks of research, and visualization separates this study from traditional metrics analysis. Currently, there are no similar studies with similar objectives based on the authors' knowledge.