Citation Indexes for Science: A New Dimension in Documentation through Association of Ideas

Is the trend to publish reviews and clinical trials related to the journal impact factor? Analysis in dentistry field

It is generally accepted that the Journal Impact Factor is a quality criterion. The objective was to determine the evolution along the period 2010-2016 of number of different types of papers, reviews and clinical trials, published by dental journals, as well as if they are related with the quartile occupied in the Journal Impact Factor 2017 ranking. To this end, ten journals per quartile belonging to the field Dentistry, Oral Surgery and Medicine in the 2017 Journal Citation Reports were randomly selected. For each journal and year, the total number of narrative reviews, systematic reviews (with and without meta-analysis), meta-analysis, clinical trials and randomized controlled trials were obtained from Pubmed. To achieve our goal, the slope of these variables over time was estimated using the least squares method, after which one-way analysis of variance of mean values was performed. In Dentistry, the journals of the top quartiles show a trend to publish increasing amounts of systematic reviews and meta-analysis, than the ones of the third and fourth quartile. On the other hand, globally, there was virtually no increase in narrative reviews, clinical trials and randomized controlled trial. Possible causes of this behavior are also discussed in this article.

Assessing Impact of Biomedical Scholarship in the Information Age: Observations on the Evolution of Biomedical Publishing and a Proposal for a New Metric

This editorial contains a discussion on the state of the art of biomedical publication and the history and development of indexing, its evolution, and complexity. A traditional method of journal assessment is in use-the journal impact factor-but it is compromised by well-documented deficiencies. Present-day alternatives to the journal impact factor are listed, and a proposal to develop a novel metric of merit in publication, the influence factor, is described.

Which Are the Tools Available for Scholars? A Review of Assisting Software for Authors during Peer Reviewing Process

There is a large amount of Information Technology and Communication (ITC) tools that surround scholar activity. The prominent place of the peer-review process upon publication has promoted a crowded market of technological tools in several formats. Despite this abundance, many tools are unexploited or underused because they are not known by the academic community. In this study, we explored the availability and characteristics of the assisting tools for the peer-reviewing process. The aim was to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the tools available at this time, and to hint at new trends for further developments. The result of an examination of literature assisted the creation of a novel taxonomy of types of software available in the market. This new classification is divided into nine categories as follows: (I) Identification and social media, (II) Academic search engines, (III) Journal-abstract matchmakers, (IV) Collaborative text editors, (V) Data visualization and analysis tools, (VI) Reference management, (VII) Proofreading and plagiarism detection, (VIII) Data archiving, and (IX) Scientometrics and Altmetrics. Considering these categories and their defining traits, a curated list of 220 software tools was completed using a crowdfunded database (AlternativeTo) to identify relevant programs and ongoing trends and perspectives of tools developed and used by scholars.

Current concepts on bibliometrics: a brief review about impact factor, Eigenfactor score, CiteScore, SCImago Journal Rank, Source-Normalised Impact per Paper, H-index, and alternative metrics

BACKGROUND

Understanding the impact of a publication by using bibliometric indices becomes an essential activity not only for universities and research institutes but also for individual academicians. This paper aims to provide a brief review of the current bibliometric tools used by authors and editors and proposes an algorithm to assess the relevance of the most common bibliometric tools to help the researchers select the fittest journal and know the trends of published submissions by using self-evaluation.

METHODS

We present a narrative review answering at least two related consecutive questions triggered by the topics mentioned above. How prestigious is a journal based on its most recent bibliometrics, so authors may choose it to submit their next manuscript? And, how can they self-evaluate/understand the impact of their whole publishing scientific life?

RESULTS

We presented the main relevant definitions of each bibliometrics and grouped them in those oriented to evaluated journals or individuals. Also, we share with our readers our algorithm to assess journals before manuscript submission.

CONCLUSIONS

Since there is a journal performance market and an article performance market, each one with its patterns, an integrative use of these metrics, rather than just the impact factor alone, might represent the fairest and most legitimate approach to assess the influence and importance of an acceptable research issue, and not only a sound journal in their respective disciplines.

Adjusted Citation Rate, an Alternative Metric to Measure the Impact of General Radiology Journals

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

The journal impact factor (JIF) is often used to assess the prestige of scientific journals. Citations from original articles and reviews as well as citations from noncitable items contribute to the numerator in these calculations. However, since noncitable articles are not included in the denominator, the JIF may be skewed by the types of articles and not accurately reflect the prestige of the journal. The purpose of our study was to develop an alternative and complementary metric by which journals may be assessed. This "adjusted citation rate metric" is based on citations that originate only from citable items in the journal.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We tabulated the number of citations and citable items for original articles from the Web of Science Core Collection for 5 consecutive years (2010-2014) for 20 general radiology journals. The adjusted citation rates (CR) per original article and reviews were calculated using only citations that originated from citable items.

RESULTS

The adjusted CR in 2015 was similar to the JIF in 14 of the 20 journals, higher in four journals, and lower in two journals. Using this system, Radiology, Investigative Radiology, and European Radiology remained first, second, and third respectively among journals published in the field of general radiology. To allow for equal distribution of original articles vs reviews among general radiology journals, we calculated the adjusted CR where the standard distribution of original articles is 50%.

CONCLUSION

Adjusted citation rate is an objective index for assessing journal impact that can serve as an alternative and complementary metric with which to measure the journal impact.

Quantification of knowledge content of a high impact innovation: recombinant DNA

Quantitative analysis of knowledge content of a significant technological innovation is a novel approach to understand the scientific discovery process. Here we describe such an analysis applied to the invention of recombinant DNA technology in the early 1970's. Two focal papers are selected, i.e., Jackson et al., 1972 and Cohen et al., 1973. A knowledge framework called EApc is described to categorize knowledge types and their quantification. The focal papers, along with their reference lists, are used to determine the minimal scientific knowledge necessary for generating the notions central to each focal paper. Attempts are made to trace how each type of knowledge was generated by various research communities. The results are discussed in terms of their potential implications in measuring, evaluating, understanding and managing the scientific research process.

Research on impact evaluation of academic journals from multidimensional perspective

Purpose

The purpose of this paper is to introduce altmetric indicators and combine with traditional citation indicators to comprehensively evaluate the impact of academic journals from the perspective of multidimensional and multi-indicator fusion.

Design/methodology/approach

The authors take international multidisciplinary journals as an example, combining 14 traditional citation indicators of academic journals and introducing 14 altmetric indicators to build a comprehensive evaluation model of the impact of academic journals (academic impact and societal impact). At the same time, the authors systematically construct a journal evaluation indicator system from three dimensions. Then, the indicators data of three dimensions are evaluated by normalized processing, correlation analysis, reliability and validity analysis, PCA and factor analysis.

Findings

Two-dimensional and three-dimensional analyses can exactly provide some useful information for academic journals’ location in the respective coordinate systems. There are strong positive correlations among the measured indicators in the three dimensions, and each indicator has a significant consistency between whole and internal. The correlation coefficient between FD1 and FD2 is 0.888 with a strong positive correlation. It shows that the traditional citation indicators provided by WoS and Scopus database are highly consistent, and they are comparable and alternative in evaluating the academic impact of journals. The correlation coefficients of FD1, FD2 with FD3 are 0.831 and 0.798. There are strong positive correlations among them, which indicate that the evaluation of journals’ societal impact based on altmetrics indicator can be considered as a potential supplement to academic impact evaluation based on citation and to reflect the multidimensional nature of journals impact in an immediate way.

Originality/value

Multidimensional and multi-indicator perspective evaluation can provide references for the selection of impact evaluation indicators and model optimization of academic journals, and also provide new ideas for improving the status of the impact evaluation of academic journals.

Twenty Years of Entropy Research: A Bibliometric Overview

Entropy, founded in 1999, is an emerging international journal in the field of entropy and information studies. In the year of 2018, the journal enjoyed its 20th anniversary, and therefore, it is quite reasonable and meaningful to conduct a retrospective as its birthday gift. In accordance with Entropy’s distinctive name and research area, this paper creatively provides a bibliometric analysis method to not only look back at the vicissitude of the entire entropy topic, but also witness the journal’s growth and influence during this process. Based on 123,063 records extracted from the Web of Science, the work in sequence analyzes publication outputs, high-cited literature, and reference co-citation networks, in the aspects of the topic and the journal, respectively. The results indicate that the topic now has become a tremendous research domain and is still roaring ahead with great potentiality, widely researched by different kinds of disciplines. The most significant hotspots so far are suggested as the theoretical or practical innovation of graph entropy, permutation entropy, and pseudo-additive entropy. Furthermore, with the rapid growth in recent years, Entropy has attracted many dominant authors of the topic and experiences a distinctive geographical publication distribution. More importantly, in the midst of the topic, the journal has made enormous contributions to major research areas, particularly being a spear head in the studies of multiscale entropy and permutation entropy.

Journal impact factor: a bumpy ride in an open space

The journal impact factor (IF) is the leading method of scholarly assessment in today’s research world. An important question is whether or not this is still a constructive method. For a specific journal, the IF is the number of citations for publications over the previous 2 years divided by the number of total citable publications in these years (the citation window). Although this simplicity works to an advantage of this method, complications arise when answers to questions such as ‘What is included in the citation window’ or ‘What makes a good journal impact factor’ contain ambiguity. In this review, we discuss whether or not the IF should still be considered the gold standard of scholarly assessment in view of the many recent changes and the emergence of new publication models. We will outline its advantages and disadvantages. The advantages of the IF include promoting the author meanwhile giving the readers a visualization of the magnitude of review. On the other hand, its disadvantages include reflecting the journal’s quality more than the author’s work, the fact that it cannot be compared across different research disciplines, and the struggles it faces in the world of open access. Recently, alternatives to the IF have been emerging, such as the SCImago Journal & Country Rank, the Source Normalized Impact per Paper and the Eigenfactor Score, among others. However, all alternatives proposed thus far are associated with their own limitations as well. In conclusion, although IF contains its cons, until there are better proposed alternative methods, IF remains one of the most effective methods for assessing scholarly activity.

Scientific Publications in Dentistry in Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia Between 1996 and 2018: A Bibliometric Analysis

This study aimed to determine the number and quality of scientific publications in dentistry from the Baltic countries of Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia between 1996 and 2018 using bibliometric analysis. Web of Science and Scopus were searched to identify scientific publications in dentistry between 1996 and 2018 by authors from centers in Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia. The annual number of scientific publications, citation rate, and h-index for each publication, and trends in international co-authorship were investigated by country and institution. There were 651 scientific publications in dentistry between 1996 and 2018, by authors from Lithuania (280 publications), Latvia (210 publications), and Estonia (161 publications). Publications from Estonia were ranked highest in qualitative terms (citation rate and h-index), followed by Lithuania, and Latvia. Of 28 authors with at least ten publications, 54% were Lithuanian (15 authors), 25% were Estonian (7 authors), and 21% were Latvian (6 authors). Estonian authors collaborated mainly with Finland (27 publications), Latvian authors with the USA (16 publications), and Lithuanian authors with Canada (26 publications). Most publications came from the academic institutions of the Lithuanian University of Health Sciences (136 publications), the University of Tartu (109 publications), Vilnius University (101 publications), and Riga Stradins University (28 publications). During the past 22 years, authors from Lithuania had the most publications in the field of dentistry, and authors from Estonia had the most cited publications. Authors mainly published in native journals and collaborated with authors in Scandinavia and North America.

Monetary Equivalent Value (MEV) of a Published Article in Psychology

Publishing one's research in peer-reviewed journals is generally acknowledged to be a valuable enterprise. This is particularly the case for academic and research psychologists who rely on publications for career status, stability, and advancement. Psychological researchers can devote extensive amounts of time to planning, conducting, writing up, and getting their research published in respected psychology journals, yet their work efforts in this regard have heretofore never been quantified monetarily. This article introduces the concept of a monetary equivalent value (MEV) of a published article in psychology. An initial basic linear equation is introduced that sets the dollar (or Euro) value of an article based on the median number of hours involved in publishing an article, the mean hourly wage of psychologists, and the 5-year Impact Factor (IF) of the journal in which the article is published. MEVs were calculated for the full range of journals published by the American Psychological Association (APA) that have IF ratings. MEV values varied widely, from a low of $4,562 for an article published in the journal "Dreaming", to a high of $131,613 for an article appearing in "Psychological Bulletin". This article represents the first to explore the MEV as an additional metric to understand the impact of published articles, and as such this exploratory study has numerous limitations. Chief among these is the study's reliance on the controversial Journal Citation Reports (JCR) journal impact factor metric, as well as its extrapolation from a limited medical literature on the average number of hours involved in publishing a study.

Leadership in publishing

Evidence-based oral health care requires a robust base of data that can be trusted, is applicable to the specific clinical scenarios and results in better health outcomes. Scientific publishing is a key aspect as it bridges innovation to clinical application and provides rigorous peer review and quality control to the process. Publishing has been the subject of dramatic changes and innovation and not all of them have contributed in a positive way. This paper discusses few of the critical changes related to readership, content, competitive environment, interrelationship between oral health and the broader areas of science, the shift from Journal ranking to single article bibliometrics and the current measures of social impact of research. The picture shows a rapidly changing and challenging environment for all stakeholders as well as opportunities to provide new levels of impactful leadership.

Research trends in food chemistry: A bibliometric review of its 40 years anniversary (1976-2016)

This study presents a general bibliometric overview of the major scientific developments that have been published in Food Chemistry, since its first issue (1976). The bibliometric data were retrieved from the scopus database. The review identifies the most cited, productive authors, and the leading institutions and countries of the journal, based on bibliometric indicators. The research hot spots in the period from 1976 to 2016 were identified by using the visualization of similarities software (Vosviewer), and the graphical mapping of the authors was developed to visualize networks between authors. A total of 20,050 publications was analysed and the most influential subjects covered by the journal were identified. Topics related to the antioxidant components of foods and the analytical quantification of contaminants or components of food were identified as being most relevant.The bibliometric analyses indicate a significant evolution of the journal in terms of publications, scientometric performance and themes covered.

Evaluation complacency or evaluation inertia? A study of evaluative metrics and research practices in Irish universities

Evaluative metrics have been used for research assessment in most universities and funding agencies with the assumption that more publications and higher citation counts imply increased productivity and better quality of research. This study investigates the understanding and perceptions of metrics, as well as the influences and implications of the use of evaluative metrics on research practices, including choice of research topics and publication channels, citation behavior, and scholarly communication in Irish universities. Semi-structured, in-depth interviews were conducted with researchers from the humanities, the social sciences, and the sciences in various career stages. Our findings show that there are conflicting attitudes toward evaluative metrics in principle and in practice. The phenomenon is explained by two concepts: evaluation complacency and evaluation inertia. We conclude that evaluative metrics should not be standardized and institutionalized without a thorough examination of their validity and reliability and without having their influences on academic life, research practices, and knowledge production investigated. We also suggest that an open and public discourse should be supported for the discussion of evaluative metrics in the academic community.

Bibliometric Analysis of Algal-Bacterial Symbiosis in Wastewater Treatment

In recent years, the algae-bacteria symbiotic system has played a significant role in the sustainable development of wastewater treatment. With the continuous expansion of research outputs, publications related to wastewater treatment via algal-bacterial consortia appear to be on the rise. Based on SCI-EXPANDED database, this study investigated the research activities and tendencies of algae-bacteria symbiotic wastewater treatment technology by bibliometric method from 1998 to 2017. The results indicated that environmental sciences and ecology was the most productive subject categories, followed by engineering. Bioresource Technology was the most prominent journal in this field with considerable academic influence. China (146), USA (139) and Spain (76) had the largest amount of publications. Among them, USA was in a leading position in international cooperation, with the highest h-index (67) in 79 countries/territories. The cooperation between China and USA was the closest. The cooperative publishing rate of the Chinese Academy of Sciences was 83.33%, but most of them were in cooperation with domestic institutions, while international cooperation was relatively limited. Methane production, biofuel production, and extracellular polymeric substance were future focal frontiers of research, and this field had gradually become a multi-perspective and inter-disciplinary approach combining biological, environmental and energy technologies.

Cognitive reserve and dementia A scientometric review

Research into cognitive reserve (CR) and dementia is advancing rapidly. This paper analyses the intellectual structure, emerging trends and relevant shifts in the development of available knowledge. Data collected from the Web-of-Science produced an expanded network of 564 articles and 12,504 citations in the 1998-2017 period. The co-citation network visualized was characterized by a scientometric review using CiteSpace. The results revealed that author Stern Y had the highest number of publications and citations. The network of journals, institutions and countries showed a central-peripheral structure with Neurology, Harvard University and the USA ranked first, respectively. While cognitive reserve remains the most prominent area of research in this field, studies related to functional ability, executive control, mortality data and reserve mechanisms have grown considerably. The identification of critical articles and the development of emerging trends highlights new insights in the area of research, better communicating key findings and facilitating the exploration of data.

Measuring Scientific Impact With the h-Index: A Primer for Pathologists

Objectives

To describe the h-index as a measure of scientific output.

Methods

The formula for this index is based on (1) the number of papers published by an author and (2) the number of citations per paper. The h-index can be used to evaluate performance by individuals or by groups of scientists working in university departments or research institutes.

Results

While the h-index is both objective and quantitative, it has some deficiencies. It does not take into account first or last author publications, numbers of coauthors, or self-citations. Numerous alternative indices have been proposed to better reflect scientists' contributions in their fields.

Conclusions

Pathologists and clinical laboratory scientists should be familiar with the h-index, as it may be used in decisions about professional advancement.

Edge Factors: Scientific Frontier Positions of Nations

A key decision in scientific work is whether to build on novel or well-established ideas. Because exploiting new ideas is often harder than more conventional science, novel work can be especially dependent on interactions with colleagues, the training environment, and ready access to potential collaborators. Location may thus influence the tendency to pursue work that is close to the edge of the scientific frontier in the sense that it builds on recent ideas. We calculate for each nation its position relative to the edge of the scientific frontier by measuring its propensity to build on relatively new ideas in biomedical research. Text analysis of 20+ million publications shows that the United States and South Korea have the highest tendencies for novel science. China has become a leader in favoring newer ideas when working with basic science ideas and research tools, but is still slow to adopt new clinical ideas. Many locations remain far behind the leaders in terms of their tendency to work with novel ideas, indicating that the world is far from flat in this regard.

Relationship between Journal Impact Factor and Levels of Evidence in Anaesthesia

Evidence-based medicine uses a hierarchy of publication types according to their vulnerability to bias. A widely used measure of journal “quality” is its impact factor, which describes the citation rate of its publications. We investigated the relationship between impact factor for eight anaesthesia journals and publication type with respect to their level of evidence 1-4 using Spearman rank correlation (rho). There were 1418 original publications during 2001 included in the analysis. The number (%) of publication types according to evidence-based medicine level were: level 1: 6 (0.4%), level 2: 533 (38%) level 3: 329 (23%), level 4: 550 (39%). There was no correlation between journal ranking according to impact factor and publication type (rho=–0.03, P=0.25). The correlation between journal rank and the proportion of publications that were randomized trials was –0.35 (P<0.001). The correlation between journal rank and number of publications was 0.65 (P<0.001). The correlation between journal rank and number of level 1 or 2 studies was 0.58 (P<0.001). The overall level of evidence published in anaesthesia journals was high. Journal rank according to impact factor is related to the number of publications, but not the proportion of publications that are evidence-based medicine level 1 or 2.

Forests’ First Decade: A Bibliometric Analysis Overview

Forests is a Swiss open access journal in the field of forestry and forest ecology founded in 2010. Currently, the journal celebrates its 10th anniversary. Therefore, the purpose of this research for the special issue A Decade of Forests Open Access Publishing is to present a whole bibliometric overview of the journal and highlight the state of the art of forestry as an interdisciplinary knowledge area. A bibliometric analysis of 2094 articles, reviews, editorials and corrections was conducted using two different scientific information platforms which publish indexes in online databases: Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus. The most influential countries and their relationship with funding institutions, the most leading and outstanding authors and the most significant articles published in Forests have been analyzed. A complete keyword concurrence network with a graphical visualization and a cluster analysis are adopted for identifying the main trends and opening issues to address in the coming decade, such as genetic diversity, forest productivity, resistance or resilience. This article has identified climate change, remote sensing, biomass and forest management as the main trends in forestry research during the last ten years.

A Bibliometric Profile of the Remote Sensing Open Access Journal Published by MDPI between 2009 and 2018

Remote Sensing Open Access Journal (RS OAJ) is an international leading journal in the field of remote sensing science and technology. It was first published in the year 2009 and is currently celebrating tenth year of publications. In this research, a bibliometric analysis of RS OAJ was conducted based on 5588 articles published during the 10-year (2009–2018) time-period. The bibliometric analysis includes a comprehensive set of indicators such as dynamics and trends of publications, journal impact factor, total cites, eigenfactor score, normalized eigenfactor, CiteScore, h-index, h-classic publications, most productive countries (or territories) and institutions, co-authorship collaboration about countries (territories), research themes, citation impact of co-occurrences keywords, intellectual structure, and knowledge commutation. We found that publications of RS OAJ presented an exponential growth in the past ten years. From 2010 to 2017 (for which complete years data were available), the h-index of RS OAJ is 67. From 2009–2018, RS OAJ includes publications from 129 countries (or territories) and 3826 institutions. The leading nations contributing articles, based on 2009–2018 data, and listed based on ranking were: China, United States, Germany, Italy, France, Spain, Canada, England, Australia, Netherlands, Japan, Switzerland and Austria. The leading institutions, also for the same period and listed based on ranking were: Chinese Academy of Sciences, Wuhan University, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing Normal University, The university of Maryland, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, China University of Geosciences, United States Geological Survey, German Aerospace Centre, University of Twente, and California Institute of Technology. For the year 2017, RS OAJ had an impressive journal impact factor of 3.4060, a CiteScore of 4.03, eigenfactor score of 0.0342, and normalized eigenfactor score of 3.99. In addition, based on 2009–2018, data co-word analysis determined that “remote sensing”, “MODIS”, “Landsat”, “LiDAR” and “NDVI” are the high-frequency of author keywords co-occurrence in RS OAJ. The main themes of RS OAJ are multi-spectral and hyperspectral remote sensing, LiDAR scanning and forestry remote sensing monitoring, MODIS and LAI data applications, Remote sensing applications and Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR). Through author keywords citation impact analysis, we find the most influential keyword is Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV), followed, forestry, Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI), terrestrial laser scanning, airborne laser scanning, forestry inventory, urban heat island, monitoring, agriculture, and laser scanning. By analyzing the intellectual structure of RS OAJ, we identify the main reference publications and find that the themes are about Random Forests, MODIS vegetation indices and image analysis, etc. RS OAJ ranks first in cited journals and third in citing, this indicates that RS OAJ has the internal knowledge flow. Our results will bring more benefits to scholars, researchers and graduate students, who hopes to get a quick overview of the RS OAJ. And this article will also be the starting point for communication between scholars and practitioners. Finally, this paper proposed a nuanced h-index (nh-index) to measure productivity and intellectual contribution of authors by considering h-index based on whether the one is first, second, third, or nth author. This nuanced approach to determining h-index of authors is powerful indicator of an academician’s productivity and intellectual contribution.

Estudos altmétricos no Brasil: uma análise a partir dos currículos da Plataforma Lattes-CNPq

Resumo Campo das metrias da informação com nove anos de existência, a altmetria existe no Brasil há seis anos. Se o campo for considerado de forma mais ampla, tomando-se, como exemplo, estudos cientométricos a partir de dados cibermétricos ou webométricos, é possível identificar trabalhos mais antigos. Entretanto, o processo de delimitação do referido campo se deu em 2010, quando Jason Priem cunhou o termo “altmetrics” via Twitter, tendo o mencionado vocábulo chegado ao Brasil como “altmetria” em 2013. No estudo bibliométrico exploratório aqui apresentado é utilizada a base de currículos Lattes para identificar artigos e comunicações em congressos de pesquisadores, com ou sem doutorado, que atuam no campo da altmetria no Brasil. Ademais, serão também identificadas as suas grandes áreas, além de áreas de atuação, distribuição geográfica e a evolução de fontes de dados e as temáticas ao longo dos anos. Para tanto, foi efetuada a identificação dos currículos por intermédio da busca avançada na Plataforma Lattes, utilizando-se os termos “altmetria”, “altmétrico”, “altmétrica”, “altmetric” ou “altmetrics”. Os 94 currículos encontrados, sendo 37 de doutores e 57 de não doutores, tiveram seus conteúdos filtrados pelos termos de busca utilizados. Foram identificados 26 artigos em periódicos e 36 comunicações em congressos. Dos 94 pesquisadores, 53 deles produziram apenas em altmetria e 41 produziram valendo-se da intercessão com Facebook, Twitter ou Mendeley. O campo é dominado por pesquisadores da grande área de Ciências Sociais Aplicadas, destacando-se a Ciência da Informação e, em menor grau, a área da Comunicação. As abordagens vêm evoluindo, percorrendo um caminho que vai desde aquelas mais teóricas até as práticas, avaliativas, críticas e as contextualizações institucionais e regionais.

Sustainability and Retail: Analysis of Global Research

In recent years, the topic of sustainability has gained prominence in many retail sectors. Sustainability is a key element for retailers, who have seen that sustainable development could become an important source of competitive advantage. The purpose of this work is to highlight state of the art sustainability in retailing, for which a bibliometric analysis has been carried out using Web of Science online and Scopus database. Our findings show the most influential countries, journals, authors, and areas of knowledge interested in the topic. By using a fractional counting method to analyze co-occurrence of the author’s keywords, this paper identifies the most frequent terms and seven clusters. This article represents a contribution by identifying the main trends in sustainability and retail research and proposes future research initiatives, such as: analyze under which conditions the sustainability initiatives give better results to retailers; selection of suppliers and supply chain management; evaluate different types of sustainable products; store sustainable management; sustainability actions and retailers image; how to communicate the sustainability actions of retailers; how sustainability actions influence different types of brands; and international and cross-cultural analysis.

Citation classics in pediatrics: a bibliometric analysis

BACKGROUND

Citation analysis provides insights into the history and developmental trajectory of scientific fields. Our objective was to perform an analysis of citation classics in the journals of pediatric specialty and to examine their characteristics.

METHODS

Initially, all the journals listed under the category of pediatrics (n = 120) were identified using Journal Citation Reports. Web of science database was then searched (1950-2016) to select the top-100 cited articles in the above identified pediatric journals. The top-100 cited article were categorized according the study design, sub-specialty, country, institutional affiliation, and language.

RESULTS

The top-100 articles were published in 18 different journals, with Pediatrics having the highest numbers (n = 40), followed by The Journal of Pediatrics (n = 17). The majority (n = 62) of classics were published after 1990. The most cited article had citation count of 3516 and the least cited had a citation count of 593. The USA (n = 71) was the most commonly represented country, and 60 institutions contributed to 100 articles. Fifteen authors contributed to more than one classic as first or second author. Observational study (n = 55) was the commonest study design across all decades, followed by reviews (n = 12), scale development studies (n = 11), and guidelines (n = 11). Among the pediatric sub-specialties, growth and development articles were highly cited (n = 24), followed by pediatric psychiatry and behavior (n = 21), endocrinology (n = 15), and neonatology (n = 12).

CONCLUSIONS

The top-100 cited articles in pediatrics identify the impactful authors, journals, institutes, and countries. Observational study design was predominant-implying that inclusion among citation classics is not related to soundness of study design.

Identification of key films and personalities in the history of cinema from a Western perspective

The success of a film is usually measured through its box-office revenue or through the opinion of professional critics; such measures, however, may be influenced by external factors, such as advertisement or trends, and are not able to capture the impact of a film over time. Thanks to the recent availability of data on references among movies, some researchers have started to use citations patterns as an alternative method for ranking movies. In this paper, we propose a novel ranking method for films based on the network of references among movies, calculated by combining four well known centrality indexes: in-degree, closeness, harmonic and PageRank. Our objective is to measure the success of a movie by accounting how much it has influenced other movies produced after its release, from both the artistic and the economic point of view. We apply our method on a subset of the IMDb (Internet Movie Database) citation network consisting of around 47,000 international movies, and we derive a list of films that can be considered milestones in the history of cinema. For each movie we also collect data on its year of release, genres and countries of production, to analyze trends and patterns in the film industry according to such features. We also collect data on 20,000 directors and almost 400,000 performers (actors and actresses), and we use the network of references and our score of movies for evaluating their career, and for ranking them. Since the IMDb dataset we employ is highly biased toward European and North American movies and personalities, our findings can be considered relevant principally for Western culture.

Worldwide Research on Circular Economy and Environment: A Bibliometric Analysis

The relevance of circular economy to environmental science has led to a notable increase of research works during the last few years. It is very important to know the evolution of the publications that relate these two concepts, as well as the main areas of knowledge in which these investigations are framed. The purpose is to understand and highlight the state of art of circular economy and the role and relationship of the environment. Bibliometric analysis allows to evaluate developments in knowledge on a specific subject and assesses the scientific influence of researches and sources. This paper analyses the worldwide research dynamics on circular economy in the period from 2006 to 2017. A bibliometric analysis of 743 articles was completed. The most productive journals in this field were Journal of Cleaner Production. The five most productive countries were China, United Kingdom, Italy, the Netherlands, and Germany. Works on the circular economy and environment has considerable potential and it is open to research fields as sustainability or industrial production. The findings of this study could prove useful for studies into environmental circular economy, as they show a global sight of this line of study. Thus, the article represents a contribution to identify the main trends in circular economy research and environment and, from there, propose future research initiatives.

Knowledge silos: assessing knowledge sharing between specialties through the vestibular schwannoma literature

OBJECTIVEIt is common for a medical disorder to be managed or researched by individuals who work within different specialties. It is known that both neurosurgeons and neurotologists manage vestibular schwannoma (VS) patients. While overlap in specialty focus has the potential to stimulate multidisciplinary collaboration and innovative thinking, there is a risk of specialties forming closed-communication loops, called knowledge silos, which may inhibit knowledge diffusion. This study quantitatively assessed knowledge sharing between neurosurgery and otolaryngology on the subject of VS.METHODSA broad Web of Science search was used to download details for 4439 articles related to VS through 2016. The publishing journal's specialty and the authors' specialties (based on author department) were determined for available articles. All 114,647 of the article references were categorized by journal specialty. The prevalence of several VS topics was assessed using keyword searches of titles.RESULTSFor articles written by neurosurgeons, 44.0% of citations were from neurosurgery journal articles and 23.4% were from otolaryngology journals. The citations of otolaryngology authors included 11.6% neurosurgery journals and 56.5% otolaryngology journals. Both author specialty and journal specialty led to more citations of the same specialty, though author specialty had the largest effect. Comparing the specialties' literature, several VS topics had significantly different levels of coverage, including radiosurgery and hearing topics. Despite the availability of the Internet, there has been no change in the proportions of references for either specialty since 1997 (the year PubMed became publicly available).CONCLUSIONSPartial knowledge silos are observed between neurosurgery and otolaryngology on the topic of VS, based on the peer-reviewed literature. The increase in access provided by the Internet and searchable online databases has not decreased specialty reference bias. These findings offer lessons to improve cross-specialty collaboration, physician learning, and consensus building.

Positive results bias in pediatric ophthalmology scientific publications

Previous studies in several fields of medicine, including general ophthalmology, have revealed a positive results bias, demonstrating an association between the results of a trial and the impact factor (IF) of the journal in which it was published. We hypothesized that randomized clinical studies in pediatric ophthalmology with positive results have a greater chance of publication in journals with a higher IF than those with negative results. We analyzed 174 randomized, controlled trials conducted in the field of pediatric ophthalmology, which were retrieved from PubMed. Each study was classified as having either a positive or a negative result. A positive result was defined as a study in which there was a statistically significant difference between groups (P < 0.05). No difference was found in IF between negative and positive outcomes, after statistically adjusting for the number of subjects and year of publication. We concluded that, unlike general ophthalmology, positive results bias probably does not occur in the field of pediatric ophthalmology.

Lack of Improvement in Scientific Integrity: An Analysis of WoS Retractions by Chinese Researchers (1997-2016)

This study investigated the status quo of article retractions by Chinese researchers. The bibliometric information of 834 retractions from the Web of Science SCI-expanded database were downloaded and analysed. The results showed that the number of retractions increased in the past two decades, and misconduct such as plagiarism, fraud, and faked peer review explained approximately three quarters of the retractions. Meanwhile, a large proportion of the retractions seemed typical of deliberate fraud, which might be evidenced by retractions authored by repeat offenders of data fraud and those due to faked peer review. In addition, a majority of Chinese fraudulent authors seemed to aim their articles which contained a possible misconduct at low-impact journals, regardless of the types of misconduct. The system of scientific evaluation, the "publish or perish" pressure Chinese researchers are facing, and the relatively low costs of scientific integrity may be responsible for the scientific integrity. We suggested more integrity education and severe sanctions for the policy-makers, as well as change in the peer review system and transparent retraction notices for journal administrators.