This study conducts a comprehensive bibliometric review of 123 papers, authored by 359 scholars, on maritime inspection analysis published in 77 scientific journals. The bibliographical data are analyzed in R software using the Bibliometrix tool. The most influential publications, journals, authors, and institutions are identified using citation analysis metrics. Three underlying research clusters are identified using the bibliographic coupling methodology: (i) analytic approach-based, (ii) research methodology-based, and (iii) research field-based clusters. Indeed, research collaboration networks are demonstrated at the institution, author, and country levels to address current tendencies in maritime inspection analysis. Besides the compliance solution studies, the future insights of inspection regimes along with green and smart shipping are extensively discussed. The study has great potential to encourage the forthcoming initiatives and research on inspection analytics and digitalization in maritime, offshore, logistics, and relevant fields.
CariouPWolffF-CMejiaMQ.Port state control inspection deficiencies. In: TalleyWK (ed.) The blackwell companion to maritime economics. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, 2012, pp.656–673.
2.
MansellJNK. Issues of flag state responsibility and proposed remedies. In: MansellJNK (ed.) Flag state responsibility. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer, 2009, pp.219–239.
3.
SilosJMPiniellaFMonederoJ, et al. The role of the classification societies in the era of globalization: a case study. Marit Pol Manage2013; 40: 384–400.
4.
CebiSCelikMCicekK. Prioritization of the VIQ items within SIRE program for an oil tanker ship. In: CIE: 2009 international conference on computers and industrial engineering, 2009, vol. 1–3, p.449+. New York: IEEE.
5.
XiaoYQiGJinM, et al. Efficiency of port state control inspection regimes: a comparative study. Transp Policy2021; 106: 165–172.
6.
PiniellaFAlcaideJIRodríguez-DíazE.Identifying stakeholder perceptions and realities of Paris MoU inspections. WMU J Marit Affairs2020; 19: 27–49.
7.
Emecen KaraEGOkşaşOKaraG.The similarity analysis of port state control regimes based on the performance of flag states. Proc IMechE, Part M: Journal of Engineering for the Maritime Environment2020; 234: 558–572.
8.
CariouPWolffF-C.Do port state control inspections influence flag- and class-hopping phenomena in shipping?J Transport Econ Policy2011; 45: 155–177.
9.
HeijCBijwaardGEKnappS.Ship inspection strategies: effects on maritime safety and environmental protection. Transp Res D Transp Environ2011; 16: 42–48.
10.
DryBMS. Guidelines & standards. https://drybms.org/ (2022, accessed 18 January 2022).
11.
KnappSFransesPH.Comprehensive review of the maritime safety regimes: present status and recommendations for improvements. Transp Rev2010; 30: 241–270.
12.
StanivukTMedićBMedićM.Statistical Review of the Annual Report on the performance of Maritime Safety Inspection in Croatia. Trans Marit Sci2015; 4: 41–51.
13.
YanRWangSPengC.Ship selection in port state control: status and perspectives. Marit Pol Manage2022; 49: 600–615. DOI: 10.1080/03088839.2021.1889067
14.
LiangTPLiuYH.Research Landscape of Business Intelligence and Big Data analytics: A bibliometrics study. Expert Syst Appl2018; 111: 2–10.
15.
BroadusRN. Toward a definition of “bibliometrics.”. Scientometrics1987; 12(5-6): 373–379.
16.
AriaMCuccurulloC.Bibliometrix: an R-tool for comprehensive science mapping analysis. J Inform2017; 11: 959–975.
17.
van EckNJWaltmanL. Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics2010; 84: 523–538.
18.
ZupicIČaterT.Bibliometric Methods in management and organization. Organ Res Methods2015; 18: 429–472.
19.
HänninenMValdez BandaOAKujalaP.Bayesian network model of maritime safety management. Expert Syst Appl2014; 41: 7837–7846.
20.
CzachorowskiKSolesvikMKondratenkoY.The application of blockchain technology in the maritime industry. In: KharchenkoVKondratenkoYKacprzykJ (eds) Green IT engineering: social, business and industrial applications. Cham: Springer, 2019, pp.561–577.
21.
KnappSFransesPH.Econometric analysis on the effect of port state control inspections on the probability of casualty. Can targeting of substandard ships for inspections be improved?Mar Pol2007; 31: 550–563.
22.
HänninenMKujalaP.Bayesian network modeling of Port State control inspection findings and ship accident involvement. Expert Syst Appl2014; 41: 1632–1646.
23.
YangZYangZYinJ, et al. A risk-based game model for rational inspections in port state control. Transp Res E Logist Transp Rev2018; 118: 477–495.
24.
GrazianoACariouPWolffFC, et al. Port state control inspections in the European Union: Do inspector’s number and background matter?Mar Pol2018; 88: 230–241.
25.
AkyuzEAkgunICelikM.A fuzzy failure mode and effects approach to analyse concentrated inspection campaigns on board ships. Marit Pol Manage2016; 43: 887–908.
26.
CariouPWolffF-C.Identifying substandard vessels through port state control inspections: a new methodology for concentrated inspection campaigns. Mar Pol2015; 60: 27–39.
27.
CariouPMejiaMQWolffF-C.On the effectiveness of port state control inspections. Transp Res E Logist Transp Rev2008; 44: 491–503.
28.
Navas deMaya BArslanOAkyuzE, et al. Application of data-mining techniques to predict and rank maritime non-conformities in tanker shipping companies using accident inspection reports. Ships Offshore Struct2022; 17: 687–694. DOI: 10.1080/17445302.2020.1862530
29.
LinWCChengHH.Enhancing marine administrative management based on human factor through safety criteria. J Mar Sci Technol2021; 29: 268–279.
30.
HeijCKnappS.Predictive power of inspection outcomes for future shipping accidents – an empirical appraisal with special attention for human factor aspects. Marit Pol Manage2018; 45: 604–621.
31.
XuRLuQLiKX, et al. Web mining for improving risk assessment in port state control inspection. In: Proceedings of the 2007 IEEE international conference on natural language processing and knowledge engineering (NLP-KE’07), 2007, p.427+. New York: IEEE.
32.
AkyurekEBolatP.Ranking port state control detention remarks: professional Judgement and spatial overview. Eur Transp Res Rev2021; 13(1): 19.
33.
WangYXiongXJiaM. Study on target ship selection based on Tokyo MOU. In: Conference proceedings of the 6th international symposium on project management, ISPM2018 (eds HuangDXuHYuH, et al.), 2018, pp.392–396. Marrickville, NSW: Aussino Acad Publ House.
34.
LiouSTLiuC-PChangC-C, et al. Restructuring Taiwan’s port state control inspection authority. Gov Inf Q2011; 28: 36–46.
35.
SotiralisPLouzisKVentikosNP.The role of ship inspections in maritime accidents: an analysis of risk using the bow-tie approach. Proc IMechE, Part O: J of Risk and Reliability2019; 233: 58–70.
36.
OsmanMTTianLChenY, et al. Empirical analysis on port state control inspection for foreign-registered ships in Malaysian ports. Asian J Shipping Logist2021; 37: 127–139.
37.
ChenJZhangSXuL, et al. Identification of key factors of ship detention under Port State Control. Mar Pol2019; 102: 21–27.
38.
GrazianoASchröder-HinrichsJUÖlcerAI.After 40 years of regional and coordinated ship safety inspections: destination reached or new point of departure?Ocean Eng2017; 143: 217–226.
39.
BielićTHessMGrbićL.Unified tanker survey and inspection regime in terms of reducing psychophysical strain of the crew. PROMET2017; 29: 455–461.
40.
BataldenB-MSydnesAK.Auditing in the maritime industry: a case study of the offshore support vessel segment. Saf Sci Monit2015; 19: 3.
41.
BolatFAlpaslanS.Cumulative analysis of port state control based on Paris MoU inspections. Trans Marit Sci2021; 10: 224–246.
42.
YuanCCChungWHCaiC, et al. Application of statistical process control on port state control. J Mar Sci Eng2020; 8: 746.
43.
Şanlıer. Analysis of port state control inspection data: the Black Sea Region. Mar Pol2020; 112: 103757.
44.
FanLLuoMYinJ.Flag choice and port state control inspections—Empirical evidence using a simultaneous model. Transp Policy2014; 35: 350–357.
45.
RandićMMatikaDMožnikD.Swot analysis of deficiencies on ship components identified by port state control inspections with the aim to improve the safety of maritime navigation. Brodogradnja: Teorija i praksa brodogradnje i pomorske tehnike2015; 66: 61–72.
46.
YangZWanCYangZ, et al. Using Bayesian network-based TOPSIS to aid dynamic port state control detention risk control decision. Reliab Eng Syst Saf2021; 213: 107784.
47.
OsmanMTYuliCLiT, et al. Association rule mining for identification of port state control patterns in Malaysian ports. Maritime Policy & Management2021; 48: 1082–1095.
48.
ItohHMatsuokaTOkadaM.Port state control (PSC) targetting system with discriminant analysis. In: Proceedings of the 8th international conference on probabilistic safety assessment and management, PSAM 2006, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA, 2006. ASME Press.
49.
FuJChenXWuS, et al. Mining ship deficiency correlations from historical port state control (PSC) inspection data. PLoS One2020; 15: e0229211.
50.
ChungWHKaoSLChangCM, et al. Association rule learning to improve deficiency inspection in port state control. Marit Policy Manage2020; 47: 332–351.
51.
TsouMC.Big data analysis of port state control ship detention database. J Mar Eng Technol2019; 18: 113–121.
52.
YanRWangSFagerholtK.Coordinated approaches for Port State Control Inspection planning. Marit Policy Manage 2022; 49: 897–912.
53.
WangYZhangFYangZ, et al. Incorporation of deficiency data into the analysis of the dependency and interdependency among the risk factors influencing port state control inspection. Reliab Eng Syst Saf2021; 206: 107277.
54.
WuSChenXShiC, et al. Ship detention prediction via feature selection scheme and support vector machine (SVM). Marit Policy Manage2022; 49: 140–153.
55.
YanRWangSCaoJ, et al. Shipping domain knowledge informed prediction and optimization in Port State Control. Transp Res Part B Methodol2021; 149: 52–78.
56.
FanLZhengLLuoM.Effectiveness of port state control inspection using Bayesian network modelling. Marit Policy Manage2022; 49: 261–278.
57.
FanLZhangZYinJ, et al. The efficiency improvement of port state control based on ship accident Bayesian networks. Proc IMechE, Part O: J Risk and Reliability2019; 233: 71–83.
58.
KimHJHamannRSotiralisP, et al. Bayesian network for risk-informed inspection planning in ships. Beton Stahlbetonbau2018; 113: 116–121.
59.
LoginovskyVAGorobtsovAPKuzminVE.The ISPS code as a component of onboard resources in Bayesian analysis. In: Nielsen D (ed.) Maritime security and MET. Southampton, Billerica: WIT Press, 2005, pp.215–224.
60.
Ruiz-AguilarJJTuriasIJJimenez-Come MariaJ, et al. Hybrid approaches of support vector regression and SARIMA models to forecast the inspections volume. In: Hybrid artificial intelligence systems, HAIS 2014 (eds PolycarpouMDeCarvalhoAPanJS, et al.), 2014, pp.502–514. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
61.
GaoZLuGLiuM, et al. A novel risk assessment system for Port State Control inspection. In: ISI 2008: 2008 IEEE international conference on intelligence and security informatics (eds YangCCChenWHHsuWL, et al.), 2008, pp.242–244. New York: IEEE.
62.
XiaoYWangGLinKC, et al. The effectiveness of the new inspection regime for port state control: application of the Tokyo MoU. Mar Pol2020; 115: 103857.
63.
KnappSFransesPH.Econometric analysis to differentiate effects of various ship safety inspections. Mar Pol2008; 32: 653–662.
64.
DikisKLazakisIMichalaAL, et al. Dynamic risk and reliability assessment for ship machinery decision making. In: WallsLRevieMBedfordT (eds) Risk, reliability and safety. GBR: CRC/Taylor & Francis Group, 2016, pp.685–692.
65.
HuangT-HHuangY-CHuangC-Y, et al. Bridging the East and West. In: Proceedings of the 11th Asia pacific transportation development conference and 29th ICTPA annual conference, Hsinchu, Taiwan, 2016, pp.229–235. Reston, VA: ASCE.
66.
YangTYangCSunZ, et al. PSC ship-selecting model based on improved particle swarm optimization and support vector machine algorithm. J Coast Res2015; 73: 692–697.
67.
YangTSunZWangS, et al. PSC Ship-Selecting Model Based on Improved Particle Swarm Optimization and BP Neural Network Algorithm. In: Algorithms and architectures for parallel processing, ICA3PP 2014 (eds SunXHQuWStojmenovicI, et al.), 2014, pp.425–435. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
68.
YuQTeixeiraÂPLiuK, et al. An integrated dynamic ship risk model based on Bayesian networks and evidential reasoning. Reliab Eng Syst Saf2021; 216: 107993.
69.
Ukić BoljatHSliškovićMJelaskaI, et al. Analysis of pollution related deficiencies identified through PSC inspections for the period 2014–2018. Sustainability2020; 12: 5956.
70.
LiuCDengMXieG.Storage design of marine ship inspection data based on cloud platform. In: Proceedings of the 2019 4th International conference on intelligent information processing, Trento, Italy, 2019, pp.461–465. PervasiveHealth.
71.
AkyurekEBolatP.Port state control at European Union under pandemic outbreak. Eur Transp Res Rev2020; 12: 66.
72.
KnappSvan de VeldenM.Global ship risk profiles: safety and the marine environment. Transp Res D Transp Environ2011; 16: 595–603.
73.
ChiZJunS. Automatically optimized and self-evolutional ship targeting system for port state control. In: 2010 IEEE international conference on systems, man and cybernetics (SMC 2010), 2010. New York: IEEE.
74.
FuJChenXWuS, et al. Ship detention situation prediction via optimized analytic hierarchy process and naïve Bayes model. Math Probl Eng2020; 2020: 1–11.
75.
CariouPMejiaMQWolffF-C.An econometric analysis of deficiencies noted in port state control inspections. Marit Pol Manage2007; 34: 243–258.
76.
PerepelkinMKnappSPerepelkinG, et al. An improved methodology to measure flag performance for the shipping industry. Mar Pol2010; 34: 395–405.
77.
LiyingZ.A comparative study of ‘Hong Kong Flag’ ship registration. Asia Pac Law Rev2010; 18: 197–211.
78.
MansellJNK. Measures of flag state administrative and social performance. In: MansellJNK (ed.) Flag state responsibility. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer, 2009, pp.153–177.
79.
ThurstonALymberyG.Establishing a partnership approach to managing coastal assets. In: Innovative coastal zone management: sustainable engineering for a dynamic coast - 7th international coastal management conference, 2012, pp.3–11, London, UK: ICE.
80.
BijwaardGEKnappS.Analysis of ship life cycles—The impact of economic cycles and ship inspections. Mar Pol2009; 33: 350–369.
81.
BoissonP.Classification societies and safety at sea - back to basics to prepare for the future. Mar Pol1994; 18: 363–377.
82.
GrbicLēulinJPerkovicT.SIRE inspections on oil tankers. TransNav Int J Mar Navig Saf Sea Transp2018; 12: 359–362.
83.
MaK.Tanker inspection and a risk-based approach. In: Proceedings of the eighth international offshore and polar engineering conference (eds GrundyPKooJLangenI, et al.), 1998, vol. 4, pp.504–512. Cupertino: International Society Offshore & Polar Engineers.
84.
XueCTangL.Organisational support and safety management: a study of shipboard safety supervision. Econ Labour Relat Rev2019; 30: 549–565.
85.
GuoqiangZYunqingC. Research on risk-oriented internal audit in administrative institution projects: a case study of Changjiang maritime safety administration. In: Proceedings of the 12th international conference on innovation and management (eds WangYXuH), 2015, pp.949–953. Wuhan: Wuhan Univ Technology Press.
86.
HeijCKnappS.Evaluation of safety and environmental risk at individual ship and company level. Transp Res D Transp Environ2012; 17: 228–236.
87.
IshakICJohariAAMazlanN, et al. The correlation between management approaches towards oil spill preparedness and response: a case study in Lumut, Perak, Malaysia. AIP Conf Proc2018; 2020: 020057.
88.
TaçBÖAkyüzEÇelikM. A model proposal on analysing and enhancement of ship emergency preparedness level. J Transp Logist2018; 3: 35–51.
89.
TacBOAkyuzECelikM.Analysis of performance influence factors on shipboard drills to improve ship emergency preparedness at sea. Int J Shipping Transp Logist2020; 12: 92.
90.
BicenSCelikM.A RAM extension to enhance ship planned maintenance system. Aust J Marit Ocean Aff. Epub ahead of print 15 May 2022. DOI: 10.1080/18366503.2022.2075575
91.
CelikMLavasaniSMWangJ.A risk-based modelling approach to enhance shipping accident investigation. Saf Sci2010; 48: 18–27.
92.
GrbićLČulinJBielićT.Inspections on board oil tankers: present situation and suggestion for improvement. Pomorstvo2018; 32: 132–140.
93.
YanRMoHGuoX, et al. Is port state control influenced by the COVID-19? Evidence from inspection data. Transp Policy2022; 123: 82–103.
