Cultural heritage research has seen a significant surge in scholarly interest across various disciplines in recent decades. This growth is evident in the establishment of new research centers, academic programs, and international collaborations. Publications play a vital role in advancing this scholarship, with a notable increase in peer-reviewed articles. While the field has become more international, it retains its roots in the humanities, particularly in antiquarianism and the development of archaeology. Historically, cultural heritage research has often served nationalistic agendas, shaping national identities and state-building efforts. The 20th century witnessed increased international cooperation, particularly through UNESCO, promoting heritage conservation and legislation. The latter part of the 20th and early 21st centuries saw a critical turn in heritage studies, challenging established narratives and incorporating perspectives from marginalized groups and memory studies. Contemporary research expands on these themes, considering heritage as a discursive practice, embodied experience, and a source of social well-being and sustainable futures. While the volume of publications is substantial in databases like ProQuest, a comprehensive analysis of high-quality research (as reflected in WOS indexing) and its correlation with the shifting cultural heritage regime since 2003 is lacking. This article aims to address this gap by examining publication patterns and the intellectual structure of cultural heritage research within WOS, treating WOS as a tool for knowledge management in academia.

Existing literature extensively documents the historical development of cultural heritage research, from its roots in antiquarianism to the modern interdisciplinary field. Studies explore the role of cultural heritage in nation-building, the impact of international governance structures like UNESCO, and the critical turn in heritage studies, which challenges traditional narratives and promotes inclusivity. Several review articles exist on specific topics like the social and economic value of heritage, societal impact, climate change effects, and heritage diplomacy. However, a comprehensive analysis of the overall publication volume and its patterns concerning structural changes in the field is absent. A few studies have employed bibliometric analyses to explore subfields such as heritage tourism, historical wall paintings, and intangible cultural heritage. This current study builds upon this prior research, adding critical analysis of WOS's role as a tool for knowledge management and addressing limitations of bibliometric analysis.

This study employs bibliometric analysis, a method used to identify trends, emerging topics, and collaboration patterns in research fields. The researchers utilized performance analysis to profile research constituents (authors, institutions, journals, and countries) and science mapping to visually represent relationships between these constituents using VOSviewer software. Data was gathered from the Web of Science (WOS) using the topic search string 'cultural heritage' limited to the 'Humanities Multidisciplinary' category. Initially, the search yielded 27,205 results, which were refined to include only articles published after 2003, resulting in a final dataset of 1843 articles. VOSviewer software (version 1.6.16) was used to conduct co-authorship analyses at the author, institutional, and country levels, along with co-occurrence analysis of keywords. This allowed the visualization of collaboration networks and the identification of thematic clusters within the research field. Data on research areas, languages, and journals were extracted and analyzed from the WOS dataset. A thesaurus was created to handle variations in keyword spellings and institutional names. Statistical correlations between variables (link strength, citations, number of publications) were also calculated.

The study reveals a significant exponential growth in cultural heritage research publications since 2017, with a concentration of publications in recent years (2017-2022 accounting for 82% of the dataset). Italy, England, and Spain are the most prolific countries, contributing significantly to the publication volume. The University of London and University College London stand out as leading institutions. Three journals (International Journal of Cultural Heritage, Heritage, and ACM Journal on Computing and Cultural Heritage) accounted for a substantial portion of the publications and citations, suggesting high influence within the field. The most-cited articles often incorporated critical perspectives on mainstream approaches to heritage preservation, highlighting the influence of critical heritage studies. Despite the critical turn, the research remains Eurocentric, correlating with the significant funding from European sources like the European Commission, UK Research and Innovation, and the Italian National Research Council. Analysis of co-authorship networks at author, institutional, and country levels showed limited cross-national collaboration, with researchers often collaborating in small, institutionally clustered groups. Co-authorship was positively correlated with the number of citations, indicating the increased visibility of collaborative efforts. Keyword co-occurrence analysis revealed thematic clusters focused on digital technologies, sustainability, community participation, and the political and social dimensions of cultural heritage. A subset of articles explicitly addressing knowledge revealed a focus on knowledge management, digital heritage, and the inclusion of diverse perspectives.

The findings highlight the significant growth and evolution of cultural heritage research, reflecting technological advancements, increased awareness of sustainability and social justice, and the adoption of critical heritage studies perspectives. The Eurocentric bias suggests a need for greater inclusivity and cross-continental collaboration. The strong positive correlation between co-authorship and citation counts emphasizes the importance of collaborative efforts. The concentration of publications in a few leading journals indicates the influence of those specific outlets within the field. The emergence of thematic clusters centered on digital technologies, participatory approaches, and critical perspectives reflects the current key concerns and debates within cultural heritage studies. The study's focus on WOS-indexed publications presents a specific view of the field, which may not represent the entire spectrum of cultural heritage research.

This study offers valuable insights into the structure and patterns of cultural heritage research in the humanities, as indexed by WOS. It highlights a growing field, characterized by technological advancements, a critical perspective, and a continuing Eurocentric bias. Increased collaboration, particularly across continents, is crucial for broader inclusivity and a more representative view of the field. Future research should explore specific topics within cultural heritage using bibliometric methods to further understand the field's evolution and address its limitations. Investigating the complexity of knowledge production in this domain presents an exciting avenue for further investigation.

This study focuses solely on peer-reviewed journal articles indexed in WOS, potentially excluding valuable contributions from books, book chapters, and articles in non-English languages. The reliance on WOS data introduces potential biases inherent in the database's selection criteria and indexing practices. The study's findings might not fully reflect the diversity of perspectives or research activities across the global landscape of cultural heritage studies. Further limitations relate to the potential inconsistencies in handling institutional affiliations within the dataset despite the efforts made to address these.