# The Trends and Content of Research Related to the Sustainable Development Goals: A Systemic Review
## 3 Results and Discussions
### The Overview Analysis of SDG-Related Academic Papers since 2013
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Year** & **US** & **UK** & **Spain** & **Australia** & **China** & **Germany** & **India** & **Netherlands** \\ \hline
2013 & 1 & 1.2 & 0 & 0.7 & 0.2 & 1 & 0 & 0.3 \\
2014 & 0.4 & 1 & 0 & 0.7 & 0 & 2 & 0 & 1 \\
2015 & 4.1 & 5 & 0 & 0.5 & 0 & 1.1 & 1 & 0.4 \\
2016 & 18.5 & 6.2 & 0.2 & 2.2 & 2.6 & 4 & 1.6 & 5.4 \\
2017 & 28.9 & 19.7 & 2.5 & 13 & 1.5 & 7.2 & 2.9 & 6.2 \\
2018 & 41.5 & 39.1 & 8 & 17.7 & 5.7 & 10.7 & 6.6 & 11.1 \\
2019 & 47.7 & 49.8 & 19.7 & 22.2 & 20 & 24.7 & 12.8 & 14.3 \\
2020 & 55.3 & 51.1 & 67 & 29.1 & 30.8 & 20.8 & 22.1 & 23.6 \\
2021 & 53.9 & 62.5 & 73 & 38.3 & 52.6 & 23.6 & 29.9 & 16.8 \\
2022 1 & 20.1 & 20.4 & 27.8 & 24.1 & 26.8 & 10.4 & 12.2 & 5 \\ Total FC & 271.4 & 256.1 & 198.2 & 148.4 & 140.1 & 105.6 & 89 & 84.1 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: The top eight countries with the most FCs of publications from 2013 to 2022.  
in terms of the total FCs of the accumulated citations of the papers. The US and the UK still had the highest total FCs, whereas the ranks for other countries changed moderately. Switzerland entered the list, replacing India. These results also echoed those rankings in terms of citations of SDG-related publications, with the work of the US and UK dominating the front areas, regardless of research topics [12; 56; 59; 78; 79]. These numbers and ranks showed how those researchers interested in SDG-related themes thought of valuable references to the studies conducted and published by authors from these countries. Among the countries listed in Tables 2 and 3, most are western countries, except for China and India in Asia. This showed SDGs had been promoted, implemented, and studied much more in these North American and European countries. In terms of linguistic use, China is the only Asian country not using English in academic institutes and universities. This result indicated China's interest and involvement in SDGs during both the development and the implementation stages. In addition to those countries with more related publications, the institutes making significant contributions were also determined. These indicated the leading universities, research institutes, or organizations globally. Using the same algorithms, the top eight institutes with the most FCs of their publications and citations are listed in Tables 4 and 5, respectively. The institute with the most FC of publications was the Chinese Academy of Sciences, demonstrating a status of prominence. This also showed its dominating situation in China, as the publication FC of China was just around half of that for the US. University Utrecht held a similar position as it was the only institute from the Netherlands on the list. The WHO was listed in both lists of most publications and citations, reflecting the attention paid to the health-related SDG 3 [11]. WHO's critical role in promoting and achieving SDGs, especially SDG 3, was emphasized in other bibliometric studies [56; 58; 80]. The leading institutes with the most citations differed from those with most publications. This meant that the institutes listed in Table 5 were relatively authoritative, as their publications were cited most. Some distinguished institutes included the United Nations, Charles University in Prague (Czech), the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine (UK), Columbia University (US), and Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health (US). Information in this regard has rarely been explored in the literature. We believe that these institutes' critical roles in realizing the SDGs' vision cannot be exaggerated.