Citation Skew in Plastic Surgery Journals: Does the Journal Impact Factor Predict Individual Article Citation Rate?

Does the journal impact factor predict individual article citation rate in otolaryngology journals?

ObjectiveCitation skew is a phenomenon that refers to the unequal citation distribution of articles in a journal. The objective of this study was to establish whether citation skew exists in Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery (OHNS) journals and to elucidate whether journal impact factor (JIF) was an accurate indicator of citation rate of individual articles.MethodsJournals in the field of OHNS were identified using Journal Citation Reports. After extraction of the number of citations in 2020 for all primary research articles and review articles published in 2018 and 2019, a detailed citation analysis was performed to determine citation distribution. The main outcome of this study was to establish whether citation skew exists within OHNS literature and whether JIF was an accurate prediction of individual article citation rate.ResultsThirty-one OHNS journals were identified. Citation skew was prevalent across OHNS literature with 65% of publications achieving citation rates below the JIF. Furthermore, 48% of publications gathered either zero or one citation. The mean and median citations for review articles, 3.66 and 2, respectively, were higher than the mean and median number of citations for primary research articles, 1 and 2.35, respectively (P < .001). A statistically significant correlation was found between citation rate and JIF (r = 0.394, P = 0.028).ConclusionsThe current results demonstrate a citation skew among OHNS journals, which is in keeping with findings from other surgical subspecialties. The majority of publications did not achieve citation rates equal to the JIF. Thus, the JIF should not be used to measure the quality of individual articles. Otolaryngologists should assess the quality of research through the use of other metrics, such as the evaluation of sound scientific methodology, and the relevance of the articles.

A Comparison of Plastic Surgery Authorship Trends Under Single Versus Double-Blinded Review

INTRODUCTION

Research is key to academic advancement in plastic surgery. However, access to publication opportunities may be inequitable as seen in other fields. We compared authorship trends of plastic surgery manuscripts that underwent single-blinded review (SBR) versus double-blinded review (DBR) to identify potential disparities in publication opportunities.

METHODS

Publications from two plastic surgery journals using SBR and two using DBR from September 2019 to September 2021 were evaluated. Name and institution of the article's first and senior author and journal's editor-in-chief (EIC) were recorded. Chi-squared and Fisher's exact analyses were used to compare author characteristics between SBR and DBR articles.

RESULTS

Of 2500 manuscripts, 65.7% underwent SBR and 34.3% underwent DBR. SBR articles had higher percentages of women as first authors (31.9% versus 24.3%, P < 0.001) but lower percentages of first (50.7% versus 71.2%, P < 0.001) and senior (49.6% versus 70.3%, P < 0.001) authors from international institutions. First (26.0% versus 12.9%, P < 0.001) and senior (27.9% versus 18.0%, P = 0.007) authors of SBR articles tended to have more plastic surgery National Institutes of Health funding. Journals using SBR tended to have higher rates of authorship by EICs or authors sharing institutions with the EIC (P ≤ 0.005).

CONCLUSIONS

While associated with greater female first authorship suggesting potential efforts toward gender equity in academia, SBR of plastic surgery articles tends to favor authors from institutions with higher National Institutes of Health funding and disadvantage authors from international or lower-resourced programs. Careful consideration of current peer-review proceedings may make publication opportunities more equitable.

Determinants of impact factor and Eigenfactor score in otolaryngology journals

Objective

This study aims to identify determinants of high impact, measured by Impact Factor (IF) and Eigenfactor score, among otolaryngology journals.

Methods

Bibliometric data of "otorhinolaryngology" journals were collected from the Journal Citation Reports (JCR) database. For the years 2009-2020, we collected normalized Eigenfactor score, 5-year IF, immediacy index, fraction of IF from journal-self citation, proportion and magnitude of published citable articles, and total citation counts. High-IF and -Eigenfactor journals were considered those within the top-quartile of that metric each respective year.

Results

High-IF and -Eigenfactor otolaryngology journals displayed higher 5-year IFs, immediacy indexes, and IF without self-citation (p < .05 for all years) including total citations counts and citable articles when ranked by Eigenfactor (p < .05 for all years). Otolaryngology IF correlated with 5-year IF and immediacy index within the same year (p < .05 for all years) and from previous years (p < .05 for all years; p < .05 for 2017-2018; p > .05 for 2009-2016). Eigenfactor correlated with 5-year IF, total citation counts, and citable articles within the same year (p < .05 for all years) and previous years (p < .05 for 2013-2018). Multilinear regression revealed that 5-year IF (p < .05 for 2009-2018) and immediacy index from the prior 2 years (p < .05 for 2017-2018; p > .05 for 2009-2016) predicted 2019 IF. Similarly, 5-year IF, total citation counts, and citable articles (p < .05 for 2013-2018) predicted 2019 Eigenfactor score.

Conclusion

Sustained publication of impactful articles is the dominant driver of high IF and Eigenfactor score. Eigenfactor score reflects a unique evaluation of otolaryngology journals; ranking otolaryngology journals by their Eigenfactor scores significantly alters journal ranking compared to ranking by IF.

Level of evidence

NA.

Fatigue During Pregnancy: A Bibliometric Analysis

OBJECTIVE

This study uses a systematic review with bibliometric analysis methods to investigate the characteristics of the most cited research papers in the field of nursing fatigue and pregnancy.

METHODS

In the Web of Science (WoS) database. We used the keywords "fatigue" and "pregnancy" to search for articles published from 2000 to 2020, limited to SSCI and Science Citation Index (SCI) journal-type articles. This study identifies the most cited studies in the WoS database based on PRISMA guidelines (Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses). These studies form the research data, then visualized and analyzed using a retrospective bibliometric analysis and VOSviewer.

RESULTS

The studies in the dataset were analyzed in 319 different journals in 51 countries between 2000 and 2020. The study was found that the United States (US) was the country with the highest yield. The most frequent keywords were postpartum, depression, sleep, and postpartum depression.

CONCLUSION

The research results further laid the foundation of bibliometrics for scholars and identified researchers, scientific journals, countries, and hot topics for fatigue-related pregnancy literature. Journals with high impact factors contain the most cited research and open new horizons for research in the nursing field of pregnancy-related fatigue, thus providing research inspiration for investigators in this field.

Distribution of Article Citation Frequency, Citation Skew, and Impact Factor in Otolaryngology Journals

The objectives of this study were to determine the degree of citation skew in otolaryngology journals and how article citation distribution affects their impact factors (IFs). Forty-one "otorhinolaryngology" journals in the Clarivate Journal Citation Reports database were identified and their article citation data from 2017 to 2020 extracted. Article citation frequency was remarkably similar across most journals, consistent with the narrow distribution of IFs (mean [SD], 1.9 [0.9]). Although the percentage of a journal's articles cited more than its IF during the IF citation window (mean [SD] of 32.4% [7.9%] of journals' articles)-reflecting citation skew-was not correlated with IF, the percentage of a journal's articles that were cited at least once (mean [SD] of 62.5% [15.3%] of articles) was highly correlated (ρ = 0.92, P < .001) with its IF. Although citation skew exists, otolaryngology journals' overall portfolios of published works-not a small number of highly cited articles causing citation skew-likely predominate their IFs.

Citation Activity of Journal of Korean Medical Science in 2011-2020: Reflection on the Most and Least Cited Items

BACKGROUND

The Journal of Korean Medical Science (JKMS) is a weekly periodical published by the Korean Academy of Medical Sciences. JKMS invites global researchers to submit articles covering various areas in general medicine. The present article's aim was to analyze citations of JKMS articles in 2011-2020 for updating editorial policies.

METHODS

Citation records of JKMS articles were tracked in Web of Science (WoS), Clarivate^® from August 2021 to June 2022.

RESULTS

In 2011-2020, JKMS published 2,880 articles, including 2,757 (96.0%) ever cited. All reviews (57/57) and 96% of original research reports (2,184 out of 2,264) received at least one citation. Brief communications, opinions, and images were least cited items. Of 36 subject categories covered by JKMS, only biomedical engineering was significantly less advantageous citation-wise. Five articles published in 2012-2017 attracted more than 100 citations. Most other articles were cited less than 50 times. Article categories of nationwide epidemiology, disease or patient registries, clinical trials, and infectious diseases were distinguished as well cited. Of 378 articles published in 2020, 10 were cited at least 100 times; all these ten items were related to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 and coronavirus disease 2019. In the past 5 years, studies on health care laws, management, and some specific topics in clinical specialties were not cited. The citation trends in WoS, Crossref, and Scopus were similar while PubMed Central records were roughly twice less.

CONCLUSION

Most of JKMS articles are cited during 5 years post publication, with 1.4% non-citation rate. The obtained results suggest that inviting review articles in clinical sciences, research reports on hot medical topics, and nationwide database analyses may attract more author interest and related citations.

Diversity Drives Innovation: The Impact of Female-Driven Publications

BACKGROUND

Gender disparities are pervasive in academic plastic surgery. Previous research demonstrates articles authored by women receive fewer citations than those written by men, suggesting the presence of implicit gender bias.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to describe current citation trends in plastic surgery literature and assess gender bias. The expectation was that women would be cited less frequently than their male peers.

METHODS

Articles published between 2017 and 2019 were collected from 8 representative plastic surgery journals stratified by impact factor. Names of primary and senior authors of the 50 most cited articles per year per journal were collected and author gender was determined via online database and internet search. The median numbers of citations by primary and senior author gender were compared by Kruskal-Wallis test.

RESULTS

Among 1167 articles, women wrote 27.3% as primary author and 18% as senior author. Women-authored articles were cited as often as those authored by men (P > 0.05) across all journal tiers. Articles with a female primary and male senior author had significantly more citations than articles with a male primary author (P = 0.038).

CONCLUSIONS

No implicit gender bias was identified in citation trends, a finding unique to plastic surgery. Women primary authors are cited more often than male primary authors despite women comprising a small fraction of authorship overall. Additionally, variegated authorship pairings outperformed homogeneous ones. Therefore, increasing gender diversity within plastic surgery academia remains critical.

Impact of Predatory Journals in Plastic Surgery Literature: Researchers Beware

BACKGROUND

Predatory journals have exploited the open access publishing model and are considered as a major threat to the integrity of scientific research. The goal of this study was to characterize predatory publishing practices in plastic surgery.

METHODS

To identify potentially predatory journals in the field of plastic surgery, the authors searched the Cabells' Predatory Reports and Beall's List using preidentified keywords. For presumed legitimate open access journals, the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) was queried. The characteristics of potentially predatory journals were compared to those of legitimate open access plastic surgery journals.

RESULTS

The authors identified a total of 25 plastic surgery-focused journals. Out of the 25 potentially predatory journals, only 15 journals had articles published within the last 5 years, with a mean number of articles of 33 ± 39 (range, 2 to 159 articles). The mean number of predatory violations according to Cabells' criteria was 6.8 ± 1.4 (range, 3 to 9). Using the DOAJ database, the authors identified a total of 24 plastic surgery-related journals. Compared to potentially predatory journals, journals from the DOAJ were more likely to be indexed in PubMed (0 versus 50 percent, respectively, p < 0.0001). Time to publication was significantly higher in journals from the DOAJ (17 ± 7 versus 4 ± 1 weeks; p = 0.006). Despite higher article processing charges in the DOAJ group, this difference was not statically significant ($1425 ± $717 versus $1071 ± $1060; p = 0.13).

CONCLUSIONS

Predatory journals are pervasive in the medical literature and plastic surgery is no exception. Plastic surgeons should practice due diligence when choosing a target journal for their articles. Journals with predatory practices should be distinguished from legitimate open access publication platforms.

Navigating the Gray of Academic Publication: Avoiding Predatory Publishers and Creating Your "Whitelist"

ABSTRACT

Academic publishing has undergone a transition from print-based, subscription access journals targeted toward physicians and scientists to the widely accessible, open access (OA) format made possible by the Internet. The objectives of OA broadly include audience expansion and improved public access to publicly funded research, reduction of limitations on content reuse and alteration, and prompt turnaround from submission to publication. Despite well-intended founding principles, unexpected disadvantages of the OA model have arisen including the emergence of predatory journals, which exploit the author-pays publishing model with the deceptive promise of reputable publishing platforms. Predatory journals can be difficult to discern from the legitimate yet unsophisticated novice journal, which represents a destructive influence on the credibility of surgeons and scientists within many specialties. As an author, when the highly reputable, "whitelisted" journals in our field are not available or interested in the scope of our work, how can we ensure authenticity of those journals that exist in the gray area between legitimate and illegitimate? Given these questions, the goal of this article is to demystify the history and selected issues that surround academic publication including content access, licensing, indexing, and journal metrics. With this background, we then evaluate highly visible OA journals in plastic and reconstructive surgery and build a basic framework, which authors can use to evaluate a journal for legitimacy and visibility.

Research Productivity among Plastic Surgeons in the State of Israel: h-index and M-quotient Assessment

The h-index has been proven in the US and Canada to be a solid tool to assess the quality and impact of individual scientific work in the field of plastic surgery. M-quotient is an additional metric that mitigates the h-index's inherent bias toward more seasoned researchers. The objective of this study was evaluating the relationship between h-index and M-quotient and research productivity among plastic surgeons in the state of Israel.

Methods

A list of all Israeli board-certified plastic surgeons registered in the Israeli Society of Plastic and Aesthetic Surgery was obtained from the organization's website. Relevant demographic and academic factors of each surgeon were retrieved. The Scopus database was queried to determine each surgeon's h-index and M-quotient, among other bibliometric parameters.

Results

Our study included 173 plastic surgeons, 90% of whom were men. In total, 49.7% were working in academically affiliated hospitals; 14.4% of the surgeons had an academic rank. The mean h-index was 6.13; mean M-quotient was 0.27. Statistical analysis demonstrated a positive correlation between total number of publications (P < 0.0001), total number of citations (P < 0.0001), the surgeon's seniority (P < 0.0001), academic rank (P = 0.007), appointed as past/present plastic surgery department director (P < 0.0001), and working in an academic affiliated hospital (P < 0.025). The same parameters were found to have a positive correlation with M-quotient.

Conclusions

The h-index is an effective measure to compare plastic surgeons' research productivity in Israel. M-quotient is an ancillary tool for the assessment of research productivity among plastic surgeons, with the advent of neutralizing the surgeon's seniority.

Citation inequality and the Journal Impact Factor: median, mean, (does it) matter?

Skewed citation distribution is a major limitation of the Journal Impact Factor (JIF) representing an outlier-sensitive mean citation value per journal The present study focuses primarily on this phenomenon in the medical literature by investigating a total of n = 982 journals from two medical categories of the Journal Citation Report (JCR). In addition, the three highest-ranking journals from each JCR category were included in order to extend the analyses to non-medical journals. For the journals in these cohorts, the citation data (2018) of articles published in 2016 and 2017 classified as citable items (CI) were analysed using various descriptive approaches including e.g. the skewness, the Gini coefficient, and, the percentage of CI contributing 50% or 90% of the journal’s citations. All of these measures clearly indicated an unequal, skewed distribution with highly-cited articles as outliers. The %CI contributing 50% or 90% of the journal’s citations was in agreement with previously published studies with median values of 13–18% CI or 44–60% CI generating 50 or 90% of the journal’s citations, respectively. Replacing the mean citation values (corresponding to the JIF) with the median to represent the central tendency of the citation distributions resulted in markedly lower numerical values ranging from − 30 to − 50%. Up to 39% of journals showed a median citation number of zero in one medical journal category. For the two medical cohorts, median-based journal ranking was similar to mean-based ranking although the number of possible rank positions was reduced to 13. Correlation of mean citations with the measures of citation inequality indicated that the unequal distribution of citations per journal is more prominent and, thus, relevant for journals with lower citation rates. By using various indicators in parallel and the hitherto probably largest journal sample, the present study provides comprehensive up-to-date results on the prevalence, extent and consequences of citation inequality across medical and all-category journals listed in the JCR.

What drives citations of frontier application publications?

A large body of literature exists on analysis of citation and reviews of application of efficiency frontier. However, the reviews that assessed the determinants of citation counts did not focus on frontier applications. We contribute to the literature by identifying the drivers of citations of frontier application publications on Ghana. We employed two-part mixture modelling with inverse hyperbolic sine (IHS) transformation of the second part, which was found to be more appropriate than single equation IHS transformation modelling, for our data. Use of stochastic frontier analysis or data envelopment analysis did not drive citations counts. However, quality of journals in which frontier application studies were published and accessibility of the journals to readers, drive citation counts. Authors, institutions and funders of studies on frontier applications may consider these over collaborations, in seeking growth in citation counts.