Paper · 2026 · Discover Sustainability

Mapping the landscape of Kewda studies: a bibliometric review and content analysis

Chandrika Prasad Das; Maheswar Sethi; Suman Bindu; et al.

0
claims
0
verbatim quotes
0
citations
0
research areas
✓
Open access · cc-by-nc-nd

Abstract

This study aims to present a systematic overview of scholarly work on Kewda using bibliometric and content analysis. Kewda (Pandanus fascicularis) is a unique aromatic and economically significant plant species, widely cultivated in coastal regions of India, particularly Odisha, for its essential oil and diverse industrial applications. This study identifies the most influential publications, authors, institutions, and countries in this domain based on 92 relevant studies retrieved from the Scopus and Web of Science databases between 1982 and 2025. The findings highlight patterns in Kewda research, including output growth, leading contributors, highly cited works, key journals, and geographical distribution, supplemented by cluster mapping, collaboration networks, and keyword co-occurrence analysis. The results reveal a growing scholarly focus on the plant’s phytochemical and pharmacological properties, with limited integration of socio-economic, environmental, and value-chain perspectives. Research has largely focused on cultivation practices, essential oil extraction methods, phytochemical composition, pharmacological properties, and applications in perfumery and aromatherapy. This study also proposes future research avenues and research streams, stressing the importance of interdisciplinary perspectives and global collaboration to enhance cultivation practices, processing methods, value-chain development, and the sustainable use of Kewda resources.

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by-nc-nd. Read at the source ↗

The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.

Claims 0

Judged adjacent: other boundary case — claims were not extracted. This is a scope decision by the model, not a statement about the paper’s findings.