فهرست نشریات علمی دسترسی آزاد ایران

Background  The 2023-2024 Gaza Genocide has generated notable scholarly discourse, influenced by various historical, political, and social contexts. These academic writings, rooted in the longstanding “war of words,” illustrate how language serves as a potent weapon in conflicts. The present study aimed to analyze the academic response to the 2023-2024 War on Gaza, focusing on the different perspectives, opinions, and lexical choices in scholarly articles. Methods  A scoping review and bibliometric analysis were conducted on articles from PubMed, pertaining to the 2023- 2024 War on Gaza, spanning from October 7, 2023, to October 7, 2024. PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) guidelines were used. Individual relevant papers’ data were systematically extracted using a pre-tested form. Articles were categorized based on their stances as pro-Gaza, pro-Israel, or Neutral. Statistical analyses compared the bibliometric data of pro-Gaza and pro-Israel papers, identifying significant associated lexical fields. Factors explaining the different stances were uncovered. Results  Out of 640 articles identified, 221 were included in the review. Among these, 126 (57%), pro-Gaza, 70 (31.7%), pro-Israel, and 25 (11.3%), Neutral. Pro-Gaza papers, often published in high-ranked journals with global affiliations, focused on humanitarian issues, called for a ceasefire and decried the genocide. Conversely, pro-Israel papers, often from local journals and affiliated with Israeli institutions, focused on political and psychosocial aspects, emphasizing selfdefense narratives. Terms independently associated with pro-Gaza positions included “Gaza” in the title, “occupation,” “genocide,” “punishment,” and “ceasefire.” Pro-Israel papers featured “Israel” in the title, references to “October 7,” and mentions of “Hamas.” Conclusion  This study highlights that academic narratives are profoundly influenced by historical contexts, media portrayal, official discourses, and the authors’ socio-political environments. These findings underscore the intricate connection between scholarly discourse and the broader context of chronic occupation, revealing significant limitations in current global health strategies and highlighting the need to integrate humanitarian crises into these frameworks.