A Complement to the H-Index: A Metric Based on Primary Authorship

Mapping knowledge landscapes and research frontiers of gastrointestinal microbiota and bone metabolism: a text-mining study

INTRODUCTION

Extensive research efforts have been dedicated to elucidating the intricate pathways by which gastrointestinal microbiota and their metabolites exert influence on the processes of bone formation. Nonetheless, a notable gap exists in the literature concerning a bibliometric analysis of research trends at the nexus of gastrointestinal microbiota and bone metabolism.

METHODS

To address this scholarly void, the present study employs a suite of bibliometric tools including online platforms, CiteSpace and VOSviewer to scrutinize the pertinent literature in the realm of gastrointestinal microbiota and bone metabolism.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Examination of the temporal distribution of publications spanning from 2000 to 2023 reveals a discernible upward trajectory in research output, characterized by an average annual growth rate of 19.2%. Notably, China and the United States emerge as primary contributors. Predominant among contributing institutions are Emory University, Harvard University, and the University of California. Pacifici R from Emory University contributed the most research with 15 publications. In the realm of academic journals, Nutrients emerges as the foremost publisher, followed closely by Frontiers in Microbiology and PLOS One. And PLOS One attains the highest average citations of 32.48. Analysis of highly cited papers underscores a burgeoning interest in the therapeutic potential of probiotics or probiotic blends in modulating bone metabolism by augmenting host immune responses. Notably, significant research attention has coalesced around the therapeutic interventions of probiotics, particularly Lactobacillus reuteri, in osteoporosis, as well as the role of gastrointestinal microbiota in the etiology and progression of osteoarthritis. Keyword analysis reveals prevalent terms including gut microbiota, osteoporosis, bone density, probiotics, inflammation, SCFAs, metabolism, osteoarthritis, calcium absorption, obesity, double-blind, prebiotics, mechanisms, postmenopausal women, supplementation, risk factors, oxidative stress, and immune system. Future research endeavors warrant a nuanced exploration of topics such as inflammation, obesity, SCFAs, postmenopausal osteoporosis, skeletal muscle, oxidative stress, double-blind trials, and pathogenic mechanisms. In summary, this study presents a comprehensive bibliometric analysis of global research on the interplay between gastrointestinal microbiota and bone metabolism, offering valuable insights for scholars, particularly nascent researchers, embarking on analogous investigations within this domain.

Medical researchers' perceptions regarding research evaluation: a web-based survey in Japan

OBJECTIVES

Japanese medical academia continues to depend on quantitative indicators, contrary to the general trend in research evaluation. To understand this situation better and facilitate discussion, this study aimed to examine how Japanese medical researchers perceive quantitative indicators and qualitative factors of research evaluation and their differences by the researchers' characteristics.

DESIGN

We employed a web-based cross-sectional survey and distributed the self-administered questionnaire to academic society members via the Japanese Association of Medical Sciences.

PARTICIPANTS

We received 3139 valid responses representing Japanese medical researchers in any medical research field (basic, clinical and social medicine).

OUTCOMES

The subjective importance of quantitative indicators and qualitative factors in evaluating researchers (eg, the journal impact factor (IF) or the originality of the research topic) was assessed on a four-point scale, with 1 indicating 'especially important' and 4 indicating 'not important'. The attitude towards various opinions in quantitative and qualitative research evaluation (eg, the possibility of research misconduct or susceptibility to unconscious bias) was also evaluated on a four-point scale, ranging from 1, 'strongly agree', to 4, 'completely disagree'.

RESULTS

Notably, 67.4% of the medical researchers, particularly men, younger and basic medicine researchers, responded that the journal IF was important in researcher evaluation. Most researchers (88.8%) agreed that some important studies do not get properly evaluated in research evaluation using quantitative indicators. The respondents perceived quantitative indicators as possibly leading to misconduct, especially in basic medicine (strongly agree-basic, 22.7%; clinical, 11.7%; and social, 16.1%). According to the research fields, researchers consider different qualitative factors, such as the originality of the research topic (especially important-basic, 46.2%; social, 39.1%; and clinical, 32.0%) and the contribution to solving clinical and social problems (especially important-basic, 30.4%; clinical, 41.0%; and social, 52.0%), as important. Older researchers tended to believe that qualitative research evaluation was unaffected by unconscious bias.

CONCLUSION

Despite recommendations from the Declaration on Research Assessment and the Leiden Manifesto to de-emphasise quantitative indicators, this study found that Japanese medical researchers have actually tended to prioritise the journal IF and other quantitative indicators based on English-language publications in their research evaluation. Therefore, constantly reviewing the research evaluation methods while respecting the viewpoints of researchers from different research fields, generations and genders is crucial.

Mapping the Landscape of Brachial Plexus Birth Injury Research: A Comprehensive Bibliometric Study

Brachial plexus birth injury (BPBI) is a relatively common condition that poses a significant challenge to children who endure functional impairments later on. This comprehensive bibliometric analysis sought to quantitatively evaluate the existing literature on BPBI, shedding light on authorship, collaboration, publication trends, and keyword analysis to both inform the medical community and foster future research growth. A thorough search of the Web of Science database yielded 712 relevant documents published between 1986 and 2022. The analysis utilized Biblioshiny (K-Synth Srl, Naples, Italy) for bibliometric data, alongside VOSviewer (Centre for Science and Technology Studies, Leiden University, The Netherlands) and TextRazor (TextRazor Ltd., London, UK) for keyword categorization. The literature had an average annual growth rate of 7.94%, with an average document age of 12 years. Collaborative efforts demonstrated 9.6% international co-authorship, with the United States prominently leading global collaborations. Top producing authors included Yang, Kozin, and Clarke, while the most cited authors were Clarke, Waters, and Curtis. Journals such as the Journal of Pediatric Orthopedics and Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery emerged as key contributors to the literature. Keyword analysis illuminated prevalent categories like "society" and "health," underscoring the multifaceted nature of BPBI research. The findings from this bibliometric analysis highlight the dynamic and collaborative landscape of BPBI research, emphasizing the pressing need for continued contributions to address existing gaps in knowledge, enhance global collaboration, and advance the understanding and treatment of this complex condition. Beyond quantitative metrics, this study holds particular significance in its role as a compass for researchers, practitioners, and policymakers invested in BPBI. By offering insights into influential authors, institutions, and emerging trends, this analysis serves as a valuable resource, guiding future research endeavors, fostering interdisciplinary collaboration, and ultimately contributing to improved outcomes for individuals affected by BPBI. The importance of this study lies not only in its informative content but also in its potential to catalyze a collective effort toward refining treatment modalities, promoting preventative measures, and enhancing the overall quality of care for those navigating the challenges of BPBI.