Abstract
This article presents the first in-depth bibliometric analysis of scholarly literature on the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, with a particular emphasis on its role in Central Asia. Utilizing data from the Scopus database for the period 2001-2024, the study applies PRISMA-based selection criteria to ensure methodological rigor. It employs VOSviewer for the visualization of co-authorship networks, citation patterns, and thematic clusters. The findings indicate a steady increase in academic interest in the SCO since the mid-2000s, with notable publication peaks coinciding with key geopolitical shifts in Eurasia. Core publication venues include Europe-Asia Studies, Central Asian Survey, and Journal of Contemporary China. Citation analysis highlights a group of foundational texts that focus on authoritarian norm diffusion, regional security, and China’s evolving strategic posture in Central Asia. Thematic cluster mapping identifies five primary research constellations: regional governance, security cooperation, China’s foreign policy, South Asian dynamics, and energy and infrastructure connectivity. These clusters reflect a gradual diversification of SCO scholarship beyond security-centric narratives toward broader considerations of development, normative contestation, and geopolitical realignment. The study reveals a pronounced epistemic imbalance: the majority of influential contributions originate from institutions in the Global North, primarily the United States, China, Russia, and the United Kingdom, while Central Asian scholars remain underrepresented. This asymmetry underscores ongoing challenges in knowledge localization and raises questions about the inclusiveness of international relations as a discipline. Methodologically, the article demonstrates the utility of bibliometric tools in mapping the structure of knowledge production, while conceptually it contributes to debates on asymmetric regionalism and decolonizing global IR. The research calls for greater engagement with non-Western epistemologies and more inclusive scholarly participation from Central Asia itself. These findings offer important implications for both the academic study of multilateralism and the practical design of regional cooperation frameworks in Eurasia.