USING VOSVIEWER SOFTWARE IN COLLECTING MATERIALS OF OVERVIEW RESEARCH

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18623/rvd.v23.n1.3958

Abstract

Research overviews play a critical role in scientific inquiry by enabling scholars to systematically map, evaluate, and synthesize existing knowledge related to a specific research problem. A theoretical research overview, in particular, seeks to integrate concepts, methods, and findings from prior studies in order to explain social and scientific phenomena and to identify gaps that warrant further investigation. Despite its importance, conducting a comprehensive and methodologically sound literature overview remains challenging, especially for early-career researchers and graduate students, who often face difficulties in locating, organizing, and critically assessing large volumes of academic publications. Systematic literature searching is therefore an essential stage in the research process, as it provides a structured approach to identifying relevant studies, understanding theoretical foundations, evaluating methodological trends, and assessing the strengths and limitations of existing research. Recent scholarship emphasizes the value of consensus across multiple literature reviews as a key step in ensuring rigor and reliability. At the same time, researchers are increasingly encouraged to engage with open-access data sources that enhance transparency, accessibility, and efficiency in knowledge production. Within this context, scientometric analysis has emerged as a powerful method for examining scientific development across disciplines. By combining quantitative bibliometric techniques with visualization tools, scientometric approaches allow researchers to identify influential publications, authors, institutions, and countries, as well as to track thematic evolution and citation patterns. Although previous studies have successfully applied tools such as VOSviewer using data from databases like Scopus, ScienceDirect, and Google Scholar, there remains a lack of practical guidance on leveraging open-access platforms—particularly OpenAlex—for comprehensive literature collection and analysis. This article addresses this gap by introducing OpenAlex as a valuable and openly accessible data source for systematic literature collection, in combination with VOSviewer software for scientometric analysis. The study demonstrates how researchers can efficiently retrieve, analyze, and visualize scholarly data to gain insights into research trends, citation impact, and knowledge structures. A practical illustration using the keyword “Digital Quantitative Analysis” is provided to guide users through the process. The findings highlight how this approach can significantly reduce time and effort in literature searching while supporting the identification of meaningful research gaps and future research directions.

References

1. Cooper, C., Booth, A., Varley-Campbell, J., Britten, N., & Garside, R. (2018). Defining the process of literature searching in systematic reviews: a literature review of guidance and supporting studies. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 18(1), 1-14.

2. Cutcliffe, J. R. (2000). Methodological issues in grounded theory. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 31(6), 1476-1484.

3. Cutcliffe, J. R. (2005). Adapt or adopt: Developing and transgressing the methodological boundaries of grounded theory. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 51(4), 421-428.

4. Chen, C., Paul, R. J., & O’Keefe, B. (2001). Fitting the jigsaw of citations: information visualization in domain analysis. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 52 (4), 315–330. <https://doi.org/10.1002/1532-2890(2000)9999:9999%3C::aid-asi1074%3E3.0.co;2-2>, accessed December 12, 2023.

5. Hallinger, P., & Chatpinyakoop, C. (2019). A bibliometric review of research on higher education for sustainable development, 1998–2018. Sustainability, 11(8), 2401.

6. Hallinger, P., & Nguyen, V. T. (2020). Mapping the landscape and structure of research on education for sustainable development: A bibliometric review. Sustainability, 12(5), 1947.

7. Hallinger, P., & Suriyankietkaew, S. (2018). Science Mapping of the Knowledge Base on Sustainable Leadership, 1990–2018. Sustainability, 10(12), 4846. https://doi.org/10.3390/issue10124846

8. Kennedy, T. J., & Lingard, L. A. (2006). Making sense of grounded theory in medical education. Medical education, 40(2), 101-108.

9. Le T. T. O, To T. N. L., Ta T. T. H., Tran T. K. C. (2023). The Customer Accounting in Academic Research: Literature Review. ISRG Journal of Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences (ISRGJAHSS), 1 (V) (September - October) 2023, 218-221.

10. Lozano, S., Calzada-Infante, L., & Adenso-Díaz, B. (2019). Complex network analysis of keywords co-occurrence in the recent efficiency analysis literature. Scientometrics, 120, 609–629. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-019-03132-w

11. Luong Cong Nguyen & Nguyen Quoc Phong (2021). Bibliometric analysis in scientific research. Proceedings of the Scientific Conference "Experience in Scientific Research in Economics," City University of Law. Ho Chi Minh, pp120-131, November 22, 2023.

12. McGhee, G., Marland, G. R., & Atkinson, J. (2007). Grounded theory research: literature reviewing and reflexivity. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 60(3), 334-342.

13. Nguyen Tien Trung et al. (2022). "Predation" in scholarly publishing: A biometric study of the Scopus database and recommendations. Education Magazine. , accessed November 22, 2023.

14. Pham H.-H. et al.. (2021). A bibliometric review of research on international student mobilities in Asia with Scopus dataset between 1984 and 2019, Scientometrics, 126 (6), pp. 5201–5224, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192- 021-03965-4

15. Phan Thi Thanh Thao. (2022). Publishing characteristics and typical educational science publications from Vietnam from 1991 – 2019. Vietnam Journal of Educational Sciences, 18 (5), 14-19, https://doi.org/10.15625/2615-8957/12210503>.

16. Radhakrishnan, S., Erbis, S., Isaacs, J. A., & Kamarthi, S. (2017). Novel keyword co-occurrence network-based methods to foster systematic reviews of scientific literature. PLOS ONE, 12(3), e0172778. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0172778

17. Van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2013). VOSviewer manual. Leiden: Univeristeit Leiden, 1(1), 1-53. <https://www.vosviewer.com>.

18. Vu T. T. T, Le T. T. O., Pham T. H. N. (2023). A Systematic Literature Review of Green Finance, International Journal of Advances in Engineering and Management (IJAEM), 5 (9), 377-386

19. Zupic, I., & Čater, T. (2015). Bibliometric methods in management and organization. Organizational Research Methods, 18(3), 429-472. <https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428114562629>, accessed December 12, 2023.

Downloads

Published

2026-01-03

How to Cite

Oanh, L. T. T., Hanh, H. T., Phuong, L. T. M., & Nhung, P. T. H. (2026). USING VOSVIEWER SOFTWARE IN COLLECTING MATERIALS OF OVERVIEW RESEARCH. Veredas Do Direito, 23(1), e233958. https://doi.org/10.18623/rvd.v23.n1.3958