Mapping the Development of Biological Sciences and Philosophical Thought: A Bibliometric Analysis of Global Research Trends

Aida Syifaul Fajriyah; Slamet Suyanto

doi:10.24235/sc.educatia.v14i2.24261

Mapping the Development of Biological Sciences and Philosophical Thought: A Bibliometric Analysis of Global Research Trends

Aida Syifaul Fajriyah^(1*), Slamet Suyanto⁽²⁾,

(1) Master of Science Program in Biology Education, Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences, Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta, Indonesia
(2) Department of Biology Education, Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences, Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta, Indonesia
(*) Corresponding Author

Abstract

This study aims to map the development of research at the intersection of biological sciences and philosophical thought, and to identify prevailing global trends within this interdisciplinary field. A bibliometric analysis approach was employed, utilizing data systematically retrieved from the Scopus database. A total of 95 English-language publications issued between 2021 and September 2025 were analyzed using VOSviewer to examine keyword co-occurrence patterns and visualize conceptual relationships among research topics. The findings reveal twelve distinct thematic clusters representing the intellectual structure of the field, encompassing themes such as evolution, philosophy of biology, ethics, biotechnology, and environmental issues. Overlay and density visualization analyses further indicate that topics pertaining to biotechnology, human enhancement, and ethical implications have emerged as prominent and rapidly developing research trends within the contemporary literature. Collectively, these findings demonstrate that the relationship between biological sciences and philosophical thought continues to evolve dynamically in parallel with ongoing scientific and technological advancements. This study further underscores the growing importance of interdisciplinary collaboration between biological sciences and philosophy in addressing the conceptual, ethical, and societal challenges inherent in modern biological research, while simultaneously offering a strategic roadmap for prospective scholarly inquiry at this productive disciplinary interface.

Keywords

Biological sciences, Philosophical thought, Bibliometric analysis, Technology, Development ethics

Full Text:

PDF

References

Aria, M., & Cuccurullo, C. (2017). Bibliometrix: An R-tool for comprehensive science mapping analysis. Journal of Informetrics, 11(4), 959–975. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2017.08.007

Aria, M., Misuraca, M., & Spano, M. (2020). Mapping the evolution of social research and data science on 30 years of social indicators research. Social Indicators Research, 149(3), 803–831. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-020-02281-3

Arnellos, A., & Moreno, A. (2022). Minimal perception in biological systems. Biology & Philosophy, 37(6), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10539-022-09873-5

Bartosch, D., Grandpierre, A., & Peng, B. (Eds.). (2023). Towards a Philosophy of Cosmic Life: New Discussions and Interdisciplinary Views. Springer Nature.. https://doi.org/10.1007/9789819921317

Boyack, K. W., & Klavans, R. (2010). Co-citation analysis, bibliographic coupling, and direct citation. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61(12), 2389–2404. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21419

Brigandt, I. (2013). Integration in biology: Philosophical perspectives on interdisciplinary research. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 44(4), 461–472. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsc.2013.03.019

Brigandt, I., Love, A. C., & Laubichler, M. D. (2015). Integrating evolutionary developmental biology and philosophy of biology. Biological Theory, 10(2), 103–115. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13752-015-0202-0

Burnham, J. F. (2006). Scopus database review and analysis. Biomedical Digital Libraries, 3(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1186/1742-5581-3-1

Calvert, J., & Schyfter, P. (2017). What can science and technology studies learn from synthetic biology? Social Studies of Science, 47(3), 321–330. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312717706561

Can, S. (2023). Critique of transhumanism's concept of humans from the perspective of Islamic thought. Ilahiyat Studies, 14(1), 107-131. https://doi.org/10.12730/is.1274636

Caponi, G. (2019). The natural, the secular and the supernatural. Revista de Humanidades de Valparaiso. https://doi.org/10.22370/rhv2019iss14pp27-55

Ćirković, M. M. (2018). Post-postbiological evolution?. Futures, 99, 28-35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2018.03.010

Dupré, J. (2018). The metaphysics of biology. Interface Focus, 8(6), 20180042. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsfs.2018.0042

Falagas, M. E., Pitsouni, E. I., Malietzis, G. A., & Pappas, G. (2008). Comparison of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar: Strengths and weaknesses. The FASEB Journal, 22(2), 338–342. https://doi.org/10.1096/fj.07-9492LSF

Fernández Mateo, J. (2023). Philosophical implications of human enhancement technologies in modern biotechnology. Science and Engineering Ethics, 29(4), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-023-00449-5

Franklin, L. R. (2015). Exploratory experiments. Philosophy of Science, 72(5), 888–899. https://doi.org/10.1086/508107

Fu, R., Xu, H., Lai, Y., Sun, X., Zhu, Z., Zang, H., & Wu, Y. (2022). A VOSviewer-based bibliometric analysis of prescription refills. Frontiers in Medicine, 9, 856420. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2022.856420

Gambarotto, A. (2022). Teleology and biological organization in Kant and modern biology. History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences, 44(2), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40656-022-00485-9

Ge, Y., & XU, Z. Is Odum’s Ecological Thought Holism?. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 34(15), 4151-4159. https://doi.org/10.5846/stxb201303120394

Kitcher, P. (2004). Philosophy of biology. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 101(1), 571–575. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0307757101

Knuuttila, T., & Loettgers, A. (2014). Varieties of noise: Analogical reasoning in synthetic biology. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 48, 76–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsc.2014.08.003

Laland, K. N., Uller, T., Feldman, M., Sterelny, K., Müller, G., Moczek, A., Jablonka, E., & Odling-Smee, J. (2015). The extended evolutionary synthesis: Its structure, assumptions and predictions. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 282(1813), 20151019. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2015.1019

Lorenzano, P. (2023). Philosophy of biology in Latin America: Epistemic diversification and regional development. History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences, 45(3), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40656-023-00536-7

Martins, J., Gonçalves, R., & Branco, F. (2022). A bibliometric analysis and visualization of e-learning adoption using VOSviewer. Universal Access in the Information Society, 22(2), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-022-00953-0

Mayr, E. (1982). The growth of biological thought: Diversity, evolution, and inheritance. Harvard University Press.

Mazzocchi, F. (2015). Could Big Data be the end of theory in science? EMBO Reports, 16(10), 1250–1255. https://doi.org/10.15252/embr.201541001

Mongeon, P., & Paul-Hus, A. (2016). The journal coverage of Web of Science and Scopus: A comparative analysis. Scientometrics, 106(1), 213–228. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1765-5

Müller, G. B. (2007). Evo-devo: Extending the evolutionary synthesis. Nature Reviews Genetics, 8(12), 943–949. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrg2219

Cambridge Philosophical Society. (1928). Biological Reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society (Vol. 3). Cambridge University Press.. https://doi.org/10.1017/S146479310100567X

Nyhart, L. K., & Lidgard, S. (2021). Revisiting George Gaylord Simpson’s “The role of the individual in evolution”(1941). Biological Theory, 16(4), 203-212. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13752-021-00386-7

Okasha, S. (2006). Evolution and the levels of selection. Oxford University Press.

O’Malley, M. A. (2017). Philosophy of microbiology. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 61, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsc.2016.11.004

Pal, S., Kumar, V., & Kumar, V. (2025). Scientific mapping of global research trends on Jain philosophy: A bibliometric analysis. Journal of Data Science, Informetrics, and Citation Studies. https://doi.org/10.5530/jcitation.20250171

Pigliucci, M. (2007). Do we need an extended evolutionary synthesis? Evolution, 61(12), 2743–2749. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1558-5646.2007.00246

Ratti, E. (2020). Philosophy of systems biology. Biology & Philosophy, 35(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10539-019-9702-8

Reinsborough, M. (2020). Art-Science collaboration in an EPSRC/BBSRC-funded synthetic biology UK research centre. Nanoethics, 14(1), 93-111. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-020-00367-3

Runehov, A. (2008). Cyborgs and smart mice how human can they get?. European Journal of Science and Theology, 4(1), 5-17.

Sandler, R. (2014). The ethics of species. Environmental Ethics, 36(2), 145–162. https://doi.org/10.5840/enviroethics201436217

Small, H. (1973). Co-citation in the scientific literature: A new measure of the relationship between two documents. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 24(4), 265–269. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.4630240406

Sterelny, K., & Griffiths, P. E. (1999). Sex and death: An introduction to philosophy of biology. University of Chicago Press.

Van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2010). Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics, 84(2), 523–538. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-0146-3

Van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2011). Text mining and visualization using VOSviewer. ISSI Newsletter, 7(3), 50–54.

Van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2014). Visualizing bibliometric networks. In Y. Ding, R. Rousseau, & D. Wolfram (Eds.), Measuring scholarly impact: Methods and practice (pp. 285–320). Springer.

Zhang, L. (2024). AGI is Waking Up!: From the thought lab of science fiction. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-97-4515-9

Zupic, I., & Čater, T. (2015). Bibliometric methods in management and organization studies. Organizational Research Methods, 18(3), 429–472. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428114562629

DOI: 10.24235/sc.educatia.v14i2.24261