A standardized citation metrics author database annotated for scientific field

Trends in self-citation rates in high-impact neurology, neuroscience, and psychiatry journals

Citation metrics influence academic reputation and career trajectories. Recent works have highlighted flaws in citation practices in the Neurosciences, such as the under-citation of women. However, self-citation rates-or how much authors cite themselves-have not yet been comprehensively investigated in the Neurosciences. This work characterizes self-citation rates in basic, translational, and clinical Neuroscience literature by collating 100,347 articles from 63 journals between the years 2000-2020. In analyzing over five million citations, we demonstrate four key findings: (1) increasing self-citation rates of Last Authors relative to First Authors, (2) lower self-citation rates in low- and middle-income countries, (3) gender differences in self-citation stemming from differences in the number of previously published papers, and (4) variations in self-citation rates by field. Our characterization of self-citation provides insight into citation practices that shape the perceived influence of authors in the Neurosciences, which in turn may impact what type of scientific research is done and who gets the opportunity to do it.

Bibliometric comparison of Nobel Prize laureates: a few suggestions

This study offers insights into a paper by the esteemed editor-in-chief, who conducted a bibliometric comparison of Nobel laureates in physiology, medicine, and chemistry to examine the substantial influence these scientists have had on their respective fields (Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's Arch Pharmacol, 397, 2024, 7169-7185). Analyzing metrics such as laureates' nationalities, ages at productivity peaks, H-index, and age-adjusted H-index, the research highlights distinct career patterns among these distinguished scientists. The present study addresses the limitations of traditional metrics, like the H-index, which may undervalue early-career contributions or multidisciplinary impacts due to its focus on cumulative citations. Alternative indicators such as the H-upper, H-center, and H-tail indices are proposed to capture more balanced aspects of scholarly influence, highlighting top-cited, moderately cited, and broadly influential work, respectively. This study also suggests the value of incorporating composite indices such as the HG-composite and Q2 indices in relevant future studies. A list of other indicators is also provided, which may be employed in similar studies. In the same vein, altmetrics, such as social media engagement, download counts, and mentions in digital and traditional media, further complement these metrics by illustrating the broader, more immediate societal relevance of Nobel laureates' work. The present study proposes a multi-dimensional approach for evaluating research impact, integrating various metrics, and highlighting the need for cross-database comparisons to ensure accurate assessments.

Massive covidization and subsequent decovidization of the scientific literature involved 2 million authors

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to examine the growth trajectory and impact of COVID-19-related papers in the scientific literature and how the scientific workforce engaged in this work.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We used Scopus data to August 1, 2024, and a search string for COVID-19-related publications. Authors of COVID-19 work were mapped against databases of top-cited authors.

RESULTS

Scopus indexed 718,660 COVID-19-related publications. As the proportion of all indexed scientific publications, COVID-19-related publications peaked in September 2021 (4.7%) remained at 4.3%-4.6% for another year and then gradually declined but was still 1.9% in July 2024. COVID-19-related publications included 1,978,612 unique authors: 1,127,215 authors had ≥5 full papers in their career and 53,418 authors were in the top 2% of their scientific subfield. Authors with >10%, >30%, and >50% of their total career citations attributed to COVID-19-related publications were 376,942, 201,702, and 125,523, respectively. As of August 1, 2024, 65 of the top 100 most cited papers published in 2020 were COVID-19-related, declining to 24/100, 19/100, 7/100, and 5/100 for the most cited papers published in 2021, 2022, 2023, and 2024, respectively. Across 174 scientific subfields, 132 had ≥10% of their active influential (top 2% by composite citation indicator) authors publish something on COVID-19 during 2020-2024. Among the 300 authors with highest composite citation indicator specifically for their COVID-19-related publications, 41 were editors or journalists or columnists.

CONCLUSION

COVID-19 massively engaged the scientific workforce in unprecedented ways. As the pandemic ended, there has been a sharp decline in the overall volume and high impact of newly published COVID-19-related publications.

PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY

We evaluated Scopus, a bibliometric database, for the increase and waning of the COVID-19 scientific literature. Until August 1, 2024, we identified 718,660 COVID-19-related publications indexed in Scopus that had involved 1,978,612 unique authors. The rise and subsequent decline pattern of COVID-19 publications was similar to other previous epidemics like Zika, Ebola, and H1N1, but at a far larger, unprecedented scale. 125,523 authors had >50% of their total career citations attributed to COVID-19 papers. 132/174 scientific subfields had at least one of every 10 of their top-cited authors publish something on COVID-19 during 2020-2024. Many influential authors were editors or journalists or columnists. Overall, COVID-19 massively engaged a huge number of authors and created a vast literature. As the interest has now sharply declined, one needs to examine what this immense COVID-19 scientific workforce will do in the future.

Current views and trends of nanomaterials as vectors for gene delivery since the 21st century: a bibliometric analysis

BACKGROUND

Gene therapy is garnering increasing support due to its potential for a "once-delivered, lifelong benefit." The limitations of traditional gene delivery methods have spurred the advancement of bionanomaterials. Despite this progress, a thorough analysis of the evolution, current state, key contributors, focal studies, and future directions of nanomaterials in gene delivery remains absent.

METHODS

This study scrutinizes articles from the Web of Science, spanning 1 January 2 000, to 31 December 2023, employing various online tools for analysis and visualization.

RESULTS

The 21st century has witnessed consistent growth in scholarly work in this domain globally, with notable contributions from China and the US. At the same time, the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS), Harvard University, and Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) have emerged as the most productive institutions, with CAS's academician Weihong Tan becoming the field's leading author. While drug delivery and nanoparticles (NPs) have been central themes for two decades, the research focus has shifted from modifying NPs and ultrafine particles to exploring polymer-hybrid NPs, mRNA vaccines, immune responses, green synthesis, and CRISPR/Cas tools.

CONCLUSIONS

This shift marks the transition from nanomaterials to bionanomaterials. The insights provided by this research offer a comprehensive overview of the field and valuable guidance for future investigations.

Global trends in surgically based treatment of anal fistula in Crohn's disease: a bibliometric and visualization analysis

BACKGROUND

Crohn's disease (CD) is a chronic, recurrent gastrointestinal disorder characterized by a complex etiology. Among its perianal complications, anal fistulas represent a challenging comorbidity. With the increase of surgical options, a comprehensive bibliometric analysis was deemed necessary to consolidate the vast array of research in this field.

METHODS

We extracted 1608 articles spanning from 1 January 1994, to 1 May 2024, from the Web of Science Core Collection. Using VOSviewer, CiteSpace, and Scimago Graphica for visual analytics, we synthesized key trends across multiple bibliometric indicators, encompassing geographic and institutional contributions, individual authorship, journal prominence, citation metrics, and thematic prevalence.

RESULTS

From the delineated corpus, we identified publications from 325 countries and 5110 research institutions, with the US and UK at the forefront of publication volume and academic impact. The data indicated a leading role for institutions like the Cleveland Clinic and Imperial College London. "Diseases of the Colon and Rectum" emerged as a central journal due to its high publication and citation frequency. Distinctly, the analysis uncovered trending keywords, signifying the field's prioritization on surgical intervention, biologic therapy, imaging modalities, and emerging biological treatments.

CONCLUSION

Our findings elucidate a trajectory toward prominent advancements in CD fistula research. This analysis underscores the field's shift towards integrative treatment strategies, spotlighting the pressing need for comprehensive comparative studies of surgical approaches. It underscores the imperative for robust clinical trials to standardize treatments and extend care to a broader CD patient population.

Why does cardiology have many extreme publishing authors?

Under diverse contributing factors in different scientific micro-environments, the number of authors who publish extreme numbers of full articles in a single year has increased. Cardiology is the subfield that has the largest share of authors with extreme publishing behavior than any other subfield in science (outside physics). Between 2000 and 2022, 137 authors in the subfield of Cardiovascular System (CVS, Science-Metrix classification) have published over 60 full articles in at least one calendar year and are also highly cited. The majority (70/137) are from Europe. All 7 countries with the highest prevalence of CVS extreme publishing authors per million population are European countries. Issues of massive authorship of papers by administrative leaders are discussed, including the arguments in favor of sustaining this practice and a refutation of these arguments. Other major contributors to the phenomenon are publications from clinical trials and epidemiological studies and massive authorship of highly cited guidelines. Micro-environments are instrumental in creating extreme publishing behavior in both developed and less developed countries. Listing of contributions does not solve the problem since contributions are also gamed; metrics that probe gaming are nevertheless available. Eventually, authorship carries both credit and accountability. The number of publications is a metric that can be heavily gamed. Emphasis should be given to what makes a major impact on science and human lives.

Highly cited forensic practitioners in the Nordic countries and their composite citation scores based on six different citation metrics

Forensic science is a multidisciplinary field that involves the use of various scientific methods and techniques for the investigation of crimes. Forensic scientists are often required to testify in court as expert witnesses and explain the meaning of chemical, physical, and/or medical evidence to a judge and jury. This article took advantage of a citation database to identify the most highly cited forensic practitioners in four Nordic countries within the discipline of legal and forensic medicine. The starting point was 7 million scientists indexed in the SCOPUS database, each of whom had their name on at least five entries. Six different citation metrics were used to calculate a person's composite citation score. Those within the top 2% of their primary research discipline were considered highly cited.

Inequality in measuring scholarly success: Variation in the h-index within and between disciplines

Scholars and university administrators have a vested interest in building equitable valuation systems of academic work for both practical (e.g., resource distribution) and more lofty purposes (e.g., what constitutes "good" research). Well-established inequalities in science pose a difficult challenge to those interested in constructing a parsimonious and fair method for valuation as stratification occurs within academic disciplines, but also between them. The h-index, a popular research metric, has been formally used as one such method of valuation. In this article, we use the case of the h-index to examine how the distribution of research metrics reveal within and between discipline inequalities. Using bibliometric data from 1960-2019 on over 50,000 high performing scientists-the top 2% most frequently cited authors-across 174 disciplines, we construct random effects within-between models predicting the h-index. Results suggest significant within-discipline variation in several forms, specifically sole-authorship and female penalties. Results also show that a sole authorship penalty plays a significant role in well-known between-discipline variation. Field-specific models emphasize the "apples-to-oranges," or incommensurable, property of cross-discipline comparison with significant heterogeneity in sole-authorship and female penalties within fields. In conclusion, we recommend continued caution when using the h-index or similar metrics for valuation purposes and the prioritization of substantive valuations from disciplinary experts.

The global research of magnetic resonance imaging in Alzheimer's disease: a bibliometric analysis from 2004 to 2023

Background

Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a common neurodegenerative disorder worldwide and the using of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in the management of AD is increasing. The present study aims to summarize MRI in AD researches via bibliometric analysis and predict future research hotspots.

Methods

We searched for records related to MRI studies in AD patients from 2004 to 2023 in the Web of Science Core Collection (WoSCC) database. CiteSpace was applied to analyze institutions, references and keywords. VOSviewer was used for the analysis of countries, authors and journals.

Results

A total of 13,659 articles were obtained in this study. The number of published articles showed overall exponential growth from 2004 to 2023. The top country and institution were the United States and the University of California System, accounting for 40.30% and 9.88% of the total studies, respectively. Jack CR from the United States was the most productive author. The most productive journal was the Journal of Alzheimers Disease. Keyword burst analysis revealed that "machine learning" and "deep learning" were the keywords that frequently appeared in the past 6 years. Timeline views of the references revealed that "#0 tau pathology" and "#1 deep learning" are currently the latest research focuses.

Conclusion

This study provides an in-depth overview of publications on MRI studies in AD. The United States is the leading country in this field with a concentration of highly productive researchers and high-level institutions. The current research hotspot is deep learning, which is being applied to develop noninvasive diagnosis and safer treatment of AD.

Italy's excellence in research

We analyze excellence in research carried out in Italy using the Highly Ranked Scholars (HRS) ranking of the top 0.05 % of all >30 million scholars. Published by research database ScholarGPS, the ranking is based on classification of over 140 million scholarly publications (weighting each publication and citation by the number of authors, and excluding self-citations). We investigate the outcomes of both prior five-year (2018-2022) and lifetime rankings. Results are informative in many aspects, including in comparison to other nations. The critical analysis of the results may inform policy efforts aimed at opening up a positive long-term economic development perspective for Italy. The analysis may also inform research policy efforts in other countries aimed at connecting research with economic and societal development.

Linking citation and retraction data reveals the demographics of scientific retractions among highly cited authors

Retractions are becoming increasingly common but still account for a small minority of published papers. It would be useful to generate databases where the presence of retractions can be linked to impact metrics of each scientist. We have thus incorporated retraction data in an updated Scopus-based database of highly cited scientists (top 2% in each scientific subfield according to a composite citation indicator). Using data from the Retraction Watch database (RWDB), retraction records were linked to Scopus citation data. Of 55,237 items in RWDB as of August 15, 2024, we excluded non-retractions, retractions clearly not due to any author error, retractions where the paper had been republished, and items not linkable to Scopus records. Eventually, 39,468 eligible retractions were linked to Scopus. Among 217,097 top-cited scientists in career-long impact and 223,152 in single recent year (2023) impact, 7,083 (3.3%) and 8,747 (4.0%), respectively, had at least 1 retraction. Scientists with retracted publications had younger publication age, higher self-citation rates, and larger publication volume than those without any retracted publications. Retractions were more common in the life sciences and rare or nonexistent in several other disciplines. In several developing countries, very high proportions of top-cited scientists had retractions (highest in Senegal (66.7%), Ecuador (28.6%), and Pakistan (27.8%) in career-long citation impact lists). Variability in retraction rates across fields and countries suggests differences in research practices, scrutiny, and ease of retraction. Addition of retraction data enhances the granularity of top-cited scientists' profiles, aiding in responsible research evaluation. However, caution is needed when interpreting retractions, as they do not always signify misconduct; further analysis on a case-by-case basis is essential. The database should hopefully provide a resource for meta-research and deeper insights into scientific practices.

A Comprehensive Bibliometric Analysis of Orchitis Research from 1980 to 2023

Orchitis, an inflammation of the testes, presents significant implications for male fertility and has been a focal area of scientific inquiry over the past four decades. This study employs a comprehensive bibliometric analysis to assess the progression of global research on orchitis from 1980 to 2023. Drawing from a dataset of 1586 publications indexed in the Web of Science Core Collection, we uncover emerging patterns, collaborations, and pivotal works that have shaped the field. The United States, China, and Germany emerge as leading contributors, while the Journal of Urology stands out as a primary publishing avenue. The results highlight the increasing recognition of autoimmune responses, alongside infectious agents, as key contributors to orchitis. Moreover, molecules such as TNF-α, IL-6, and IFN-γ are identified as central to the disease's pathology. The dynamic interplay of testosterone and regulatory T cells is underscored as a determinant of the testicular immune milieu. Notably, disruptions in the blood-testis barrier (BTB) and germ cell apoptosis emerge as pivotal consequences of the condition. This analysis underscores the expansive and multidisciplinary nature of orchitis research, revealing a consistent growth in collaborative endeavors. In summary, our findings catalog the evolution of orchitis research, providing a consolidated perspective on past achievements and signposting future research avenues. Such insights are instrumental for researchers aiming to navigate the complexities of orchitis and its multifaceted impact on male reproductive health.

Update report on the quality of gliomas radiomics: An integration of bibliometric and radiomics quality score

BACKGROUND

Despite the increasing number of publications on glioma radiomics, challenges persist in clinical translation.

AIM

To assess the development and reporting quality of radiomics in brain gliomas since 2019.

METHODS

A bibliometric analysis was conducted to reveal trends in brain glioma radiomics research. The Radiomics Quality Score (RQS), a metric for evaluating the quality of radiomics studies, was applied to assess the quality of adult-type diffuse glioma studies published since 2019. The total RQS score and the basic adherence rate for each item were calculated. Subgroup analysis by journal type and research objective was performed, correlating the total RQS score with journal impact factors.

RESULTS

The radiomics research in glioma was initiated in 2011 and has witnessed a surge since 2019. Among the 260 original studies, the median RQS score was 11, correlating with a basic compliance rate of 46.8%. Subgroup analysis revealed significant differences in domain 1 and its subitems (multiple segmentations) across journal types (P = 0.039 and P = 0.03, respectively). The Spearman correlation coefficients indicated that the total RQS score had a negative correlation with the Journal Citation Report category (-0.69) and a positive correlation with the five-year impact factors (0.318) of journals.

CONCLUSION

Glioma radiomics research quality has improved since 2019 but necessitates further advancement with higher publication standards.

Who is Focusing on Women's Health: A Bibliometric Analysis of Global Research Trends on Overweight in Female Patients with Gynecologic or Breast Cancer

Objective

Obesity has become a significant public health concern, strongly linked to various diseases, particularly gynecologic and breast cancers. This bibliometric review aims to analyze global research trends on overweight women, particularly those with gynecologic and breast cancers, to identify research hotspots, key contributors, and emerging areas of study.

Methods

A comprehensive bibliometric analysis was conducted using the Web of Science Core Collection (WoSCC) database, covering the period from January 2013 to September 2024. Articles were screened and analyzed using tools such as VOSviewer and Biblioshiny platform, with metrics including publication volume, citation analysis, and co-authorship networks. Key areas of focus were global research trends, leading countries, institutions, authors, journals, and keyword analysis.

Results

A total of 1452 publications were analyzed. Research activity on the association between obesity and gynecologic/breast cancer has steadily increased, with the United States leading in publications and citations, followed by China and Italy. Core journals included Breast Cancer Research and Treatment and Gynecologic Oncology. Key research areas identified through keyword analysis include the relationship between body mass index (BMI) and cancer risk, survival rates in cancer patients, physical activity, and the role of adipose tissue inflammation in tumor progression. Emerging topics include extracellular vesicles and cancer-associated fibroblasts.

Conclusion

Global research on the relationship between obesity and female-specific cancers has shown significant growth. The findings highlight BMI, survival, and physical activity as central themes. Future research should explore the molecular mechanisms linking obesity to cancer and evaluate weight loss interventions for cancer prevention and treatment.

The Australian nursing and midwifery academic workforce: A cross-sectional study

AIM

To explore the demographics, employment characteristics, job satisfaction and career intentions of the Australian nursing and midwifery academic workforce.

BACKGROUND

The academic workforce is crucial in preparing the next generation of nurses and midwives. Thus, understanding current satisfaction, challenges, opportunities and intentions is important for recruitment and succession planning.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional online Australian academic nursing and midwifery survey.

METHOD

Respondents were invited to complete an online survey via social media platforms, advertisements on professional websites and circulation via professional associations. Descriptive and inferential statistics were used to analyse the data.

RESULTS

Of the 250 respondents, most were Registered Nurses (n=212), female (n=222), held tenured teaching and research positions (n=126) and were over the age of 50 (n=130). Almost half of respondents held a PhD (n=98), with 55 (43.7 %) of those without a Doctoral qualification indicating no intention in undertaking doctoral studies. Over 85 % (n=213) of respondents indicated working regular unpaid hours. Female respondents had a significantly higher mean annual teaching allocation compared with males who had higher research workload allocations (p=0.033). Job satisfaction and intention to leave academia were linked with workload and perceived value. Job satisfaction was significantly higher among teaching-only and research-only academics (p=0.005).

CONCLUSION

The sustainability of the Australian nursing and midwifery workforce is at risk due to an ageing workforce and some academics' lack of intention in pursuing doctoral studies. Gender inequities emerged as a finding in this study. Workforce strategies are required to address gender disparities and workload imbalances that have an impact on job satisfaction.

Impact of scientific production of Italian scientists in exercises and sport sciences by measuring the author-weighted h-index

This study aimed to measure the consistency of the impact of scientific production, weighted by authorship, of Italian scientists in two academic disciplines (AD) of Exercise and Sports Sciences (ESS) from 2017 to 2022, with a specific focus on the subfield "Sport Sciences", using topic-specific keywords. Through the Scopus database, the scientific products of Italian ESS scientists associated with each keyword were identified. Subsequently, total and relative metric parameters from 2017 to 2022 were collected, including the total and relative number of citations. To evaluate the impact of the publications, the total and relative h-index were calculated, and weighted by considering different categories of authorship. Specific weights were attributed to each category: single author, first author, last author and co-author, following the classifications already in use on Scopus for each author. The trends of total and relative metrics, including citations and h-index, from 2017 to 2022 were analyzed using Spearman's correlation. Non-parametric linear regression analysis was used for the predictive analysis of these trends. Among the 83 identified ESS scientists, a detailed analysis revealed that 31.3% were full professors, 42.1% associate professors, and 26.6% researchers. Less than half of these scientists were directly affiliated with ESS. Despite minority representation, significant positive correlations emerge between total and relative citations from 2017 to 2022 (r = 0.687) and between the weighted total h-index and the weighted relative h-index (r = 0.965). Significant trends emerge in the metric parameters of the same scientists when analyzed separately by AD. The regression results indicate that variations in total citations and the weighted total and relative h-index can predict or explain the observed changes in 2017-2022 (p < 0.05). This result suggests that the production and impact of research in the field of ESS follow the same general trend as production and impact in the specific subfield.

PubMed Computed Authors in 2024: an open resource of disambiguated author names in biomedical literature

SUMMARY

Over 55% of author names in PubMed are ambiguous: the same name is shared by different individual researchers. This poses significant challenges on precise literature retrieval for author name queries, a common behavior in biomedical literature search. In response, we present a comprehensive dataset of disambiguated authors. Specifically, we complement the automatic PubMed Computed Authors algorithm with the latest ORCID data for improved accuracy. As a result, the enhanced algorithm achieves high performance in author name disambiguation, and subsequently our dataset contains more than 21 million disambiguated authors for over 35 million PubMed articles and is incrementally updated on a weekly basis. More importantly, we make the dataset publicly available for the community such that it can be utilized in a wide variety of potential applications beyond assisting PubMed's author name queries. Finally, we propose a set of guidelines for best practices of authors pertaining to use of their names.

AVAILABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION

The PubMed Computed Authors dataset is publicly available for bulk download at: https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/lu/ComputedAuthors/. Additionally, it is available for query through web API at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/research/bionlp/APIs/authors/.

Does Gender Predict Research Productivity? The Case of Prolific Suicidologists

Aims: While there is substantial literature on gender and research productivity, bearing mixed results, no study is available for suicidology. The present investigation fills this gap and focuses on an influential elite. Methods: Data are taken from the Web of Science (WoS). They refer to the most prolific suicidologists (N = 116) with 70 or more works on the subject of suicide cited in WoS. Measures of research productivity include the number of works on suicide, citations to these works, and the h-index. The link between gender and the measures of research productivity is adjusted for years of experience, membership in a local research cluster, and region of the world. Results: Adjusting for the other predictors, males had more publications than females. However, gender did not predict either measure of quality of research (citations, h-index). Years of experience, as well as membership in a research cluster, predicted research productivity in most analyses. Region was unrelated to research productivity. Limitations: Further work on productivity might assess additional potential predictors including marital status, grant funding, and presence of young children. Conclusion: There is no significant difference between the genders in research quality. Similar results have been noted in previous work on prolific scientists.

Panel stacking is a threat to consensus statement validity

Consensus statements can be very influential in medicine and public health. Some of these statements use systematic evidence synthesis but others fail on this front. Many consensus statements use panels of experts to deduce perceived consensus through Delphi processes. We argue that stacking of panel members toward one particular position or narrative is a major threat, especially in absence of systematic evidence review. Stacking may involve financial conflicts of interest, but nonfinancial conflicts of strong advocacy can also cause major bias. Given their emerging importance, we describe here how such consensus statements may be misleading, by analyzing in depth a recent high-impact Delphi consensus statement on COVID-19 recommendations as a case example. We demonstrate that many of the selected panel members and at least 35% of the core panel members had advocated toward COVID-19 elimination (Zero-COVID) during the pandemic and were leading members of aggressive advocacy groups. These advocacy conflicts were not declared in the Delphi consensus publication, with rare exceptions. Therefore, we propose that consensus statements should always require rigorous evidence synthesis and maximal transparency on potential biases toward advocacy or lobbyist groups to be valid. While advocacy can have many important functions, its biased impact on consensus panels should be carefully avoided.

Unveiling the ethical void: Bias in reference citations and its academic ramifications

Citation bias receives scant attention in discussions of ethics. However, inaccurate citation may lead to significant distortions in scientific understanding. Although ethnical and gender citation disparities have been proposed as critical aspects, there are other contributors to citation distortions, like region-based citation bias, that, although less recognized within the scientific community, are equally important. While the foundations of scientific citation include acknowledging pioneers, giving credit to related work, and providing background reading, other more subjective or even questionable criteria are often used when constructing a reference lists. Here, we discuss the potential causes and ethical concerns of citation bias, emphasizing the role of international- or region-based citation bias as one of the most harmful aspects of this ethical breach. We argue that the international scientific community should be aware of this problem and recognize its consequences, which include hindering the accurate dissemination of science, marginalizing underrepresented voices in academia, and impeding scientific progress. We advocate that scientists should compile their reference lists with the same seriousness and integrity they apply to all other aspects of their research.

Doug Altman, medical statistician par excellence: What can radiologists learn from his legacy?

This narrative review describes our experience of working with Doug Altman, the most highly cited medical statistician in the world. Doug was particularly interested in diagnostics, and imaging studies in particular. We describe how his insights helped improve our own radiological research studies and we provide advice for other researchers hoping to improve their own research practice.

Top 100 highly cited sustainability researchers

The announcement of the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) provided a fresh direction to sustainability research that spans different disciplines. Consequently, scholarly databases made available the mapping of research publications to different SDGs, unleashing many opportunities for analysis. In this work, the top 100 Highly Cited Sustainability Researchers (HCSRs) and information related to them, such as the institutions they belong to, the type of these institutions, the geographical diversity of these researchers, and gender representation patterns, are analyzed. Also, from their publications, their publication pattern, including (i) the least and most researched SDGs, (ii) their Open Access publishing pattern, (iii) their collaboration pattern (iv) the pattern of their research impact, are analyzed. The most sought thematic areas of their research, top journals in which they publish, important research categories handled by these journals, etc., are also investigated. The most significant contribution of these researchers and their recent contributions are also discussed. The data indicates a significant disparity in research focus among the top 100 HCSRs, with most concentrating on "Good Health and Well Being," "Zero Hunger," and "Quality Education," while notably fewer researchers focus on "Decent Work and Economic Growth" and "No Poverty," underscoring the need for a more balanced research agenda across all SDGs. The study reveals that the United States, China, and the United Kingdom are the leading contributors to the top 100 HCSRs, suggesting that these countries are predominant in global sustainability research output, while nations like Iran and Saudi Arabia also make notable, albeit smaller, contributions. The institutional affiliations of HCSRs show a significant imbalance, with only 16 from private institutions compared to 84 from public ones. Specifically, it shows that out of the top 100 researchers, 93 are men, while only 7 are women. The analysis of authorship in publications by HCSRs reveals a tendency towards middle and last author positions, underscoring their collaborative and leadership roles within the research community. All these analyses can inform academia, industry, and policymakers about the most significant developments in research regarding SDGs.

Scientometrics and academia

The social significance and quality of every human activity are proportional to its usefulness to the social community. Science belongs to the very top of the processes and events in the history of humankind that strongly influenced the development of society, which over time transformed it and contributed to the common good. Science produced new knowledge that made it possible for billions of people to rise out of poverty, develop industrialization and mass communication, eradicate many dangerous diseases for humankind, and enable humans to leave their footprints on the moon. Science is a human activity that produces new knowledge presented through innovations, patents, and publications, aimed at solving the problems facing humanity. Read more in the PDF.

In Memoriam: Professor Joseph Biederman's Contributions to Child and Adolescent Psychiatry

OBJECTIVE

To provide an overview of Joe Biederman's contributions to child and adolescent psychiatry.

METHOD

Nine colleagues described his contributions to: psychopharmacology, comorbidity and genetics, pediatric bipolar disorder, autism spectrum disorders, Tourette's and tic disorders, clinical and neuro biomarkers for pediatric mood disorders, executive functioning, and adult ADHD.

RESULTS

Joe Biederman left us with many concrete indicators of his contributions to child and adolescent psychiatry. He set up the world's first pediatric psychopharmacology clinic and clinical research program in child adolescent psychiatry. As a young faculty member he began a research program that led to many awards and eventual promotion to full professor at Harvard Medical School. He was for many years the most highly cited researcher in ADHD. He achieved this while maintaining a full clinical load and was widely respected for his clinical acumen.

CONCLUSION

The world is a better place because Joe Biederman was here.

A figure of merit that includes 5 distinct performance indicators to improve research evaluation of academic scholars'

The h index has become a widely known indicator to assess the research impact of academic scholars. However, its application has been associated with some criticism regarding its ability to fully capture the quality and significance of an author's research contributions. In this paper, we present a novel approach to improve the evaluation of authors' publications by means of a Figure-of-Merit (FOM) that includes 5 distinct indicators, of which, an enhanced version of the h index. Named the Enhanced Research Quality Index (ERQI), it addresses the current limitations of existing solutions and offers a more comprehensive evaluation of research quality. The ERQI builds upon the concept that one metric is never sufficient to capture the performance of an academic scholar, while multiple ones are complex to handle and interpret. The proposed ERQI considers the total number of citations, papers and co-authors and can further differentiate researchers with equal h index. By incorporating measurable, and quantitative metrics, ERQI moves away from subjective and indirect factors such as journal reputation, citation context, citation patterns and self-citation righteousness, to offer a more nuanced and accurate representation of research quality. To demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed metric, we conducted a comparative study using a real dataset of 31 researchers in one of the top 3 engineering faculties in Lebanon, and a randomly generated dataset of 1000 author profiles with >1 million citations. Our findings indicate that ERQI provides a more balanced assessment of research quality by reducing the shortcomings of one indicator. Furthermore, it exhibits a multidimensional effect that captures more efficiently the intrinsic value of scholarly contributions. By adopting ERQI, institutions can make informed decisions that recognize both the quantity and quality of an author's research output and can obtain insightful evaluation enabling fairer recognition of academic scholars' impact and innovation.

Impact of medical technologies may be predicted using constructed graph bibliometrics

Scientific research is driven by allocation of funding to different research projects based in part on the predicted scientific impact of the work. Data-driven algorithms can inform decision-making of scarce funding resources by identifying likely high-impact studies using bibliometrics. Compared to standardized citation-based metrics alone, we utilize a machine learning pipeline that analyzes high-dimensional relationships among a range of bibliometric features to improve the accuracy of predicting high-impact research. Random forest classification models were trained using 28 bibliometric features calculated from a dataset of 1,485,958 publications in medicine to retrospectively predict whether a publication would become high-impact. For each random forest model, the balanced accuracy score was above 0.95 and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was above 0.99. The high performance of high impact research prediction using our proposed models show that machine learning technologies are promising algorithms that can support funding decision-making for medical research.

Identifying China's distinctive academic fields among the top 2% of influential scientists: A bibliometric analysis using Rasch KIDMAP

BACKGROUND

Leading scientists worldwide are recognized by their placement in the top 2% based on their career-spanning contributions, as categorized by the Science-Metrix classification. However, there has been little focus on the unique scientific fields and subfields that separate countries. Although the KIDMAP in the Rasch model has been utilized to depict student performance, its application in identifying distinctive academic areas remains unexplored. Our study uses this model to pinpoint unique research domains specific to countries based on the top 2% author data.

METHODS

We sourced our data from Elsevier career-long author database updated until the end of 2022. This encompassed 168 countries, 22 scientific domains, and 174 subdomains in 2021 and 2022 (with a total of 194,983 and 204,643 researchers, respectively). Our approach was threefold: identifying unique fields, subfields, and researchers. Visualizations included scatter plots, KIDMAP, and the Impact Bam Plot (IBP). China distinctive research areas were identified using the Rasch KIDMAP.

RESULTS

Key insights include the following: The US prevailing dominance in scientific domains in both 2021 and 2022. China distinct contribution in the "Enabling & Strategic Technologies" domain. China notable emphasis on the "Complementary & Alternative Medicine" subfield in 2022. Dr Phillip Low from the Mayo Clinic (US) emerged as a leading figure in the General & Internal Medicine research domain.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite trailing the US in global research achievements, China showcased pronounced expertise in specific scientific areas, such as the "Complementary & Alternative Medicine" subfield in 2022, when compared to China other subfields based on the level of academic performance (-3.09 logits). Future research could benefit from incorporating KIDMAP visuals to gauge other countries' strengths in various research sectors, expanding beyond the China-centric focus in this study.

Quantitative research assessment: using metrics against gamed metrics

Quantitative bibliometric indicators are widely used and widely misused for research assessments. Some metrics have acquired major importance in shaping and rewarding the careers of millions of scientists. Given their perceived prestige, they may be widely gamed in the current "publish or perish" or "get cited or perish" environment. This review examines several gaming practices, including authorship-based, citation-based, editorial-based, and journal-based gaming as well as gaming with outright fabrication. Different patterns are discussed, including massive authorship of papers without meriting credit (gift authorship), team work with over-attribution of authorship to too many people (salami slicing of credit), massive self-citations, citation farms, H-index gaming, journalistic (editorial) nepotism, journal impact factor gaming, paper mills and spurious content papers, and spurious massive publications for studies with demanding designs. For all of those gaming practices, quantitative metrics and analyses may be able to help in their detection and in placing them into perspective. A portfolio of quantitative metrics may also include indicators of best research practices (e.g., data sharing, code sharing, protocol registration, and replications) and poor research practices (e.g., signs of image manipulation). Rigorous, reproducible, transparent quantitative metrics that also inform about gaming may strengthen the legacy and practices of quantitative appraisals of scientific work.

The 100 Leading Contributors to English-Language Gerontological Journals: An International Study of Scholarly Impact

The two aims of this study were to: 1) identify the 100 most impactful contributors to English-language gerontological journals, and 2) map their respective disciplinary affiliations to help illuminate the perspectives shaping gerontological discourse. Toward that end, we conducted a secondary data analysis of a publicly available database of the world's leading scientists. After extracting all scientists in the gerontological category, we rank ordered them according to a composite measure of scholarly impact that controls for self-citations and author order while also calculating other bibliometric statistics. Disciplinary affiliations were assigned based upon the Classification of Instructional Programs codes developed by the National Center for Education Statistics at the United States Department of Education. The results reveal the mean contributor to the gerontological literature published 241.15 (SD = 203.95) papers and - after correcting for self-citations - had an h-index of 50.05 (SD = 25.00), and an hm-index 23.67 (SD = 7.50). A diverse array of professional affiliations characterized the contributors with a plurality being located in the health professions category, followed by the biological and biomedical science, and social sciences categories. The results reveal that gerontology is home to some of the world's leading scientists. Leveraging their expertise can help advance the field's collective knowledge development.

A global exploratory comparison of country self-citations 1996-2019

Self-citations are a key topic in evaluative bibliometrics because they can artificially inflate citation-related performance indicators. Recently, self-citations defined at the largest scale, i.e., country self-citations, have started to attract the attention of researchers and policymakers. According to a recent research, in fact, the anomalous trends in the country self-citation rates of some countries, such as Italy, have been induced by the distorting effect of citation metrics-centered science policies. In the present study, we investigate the trends of country self-citations in 50 countries over the world in the period 1996-2019 using Scopus data. Results show that for most countries country self-citations have decreased over time. 12 countries (Colombia, Egypt, Indonesia, Iran, Italy, Malaysia, Pakistan, Romania, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Thailand, and Ukraine), however, exhibit different behavior, with anomalous trends of self-citations. We argue that these anomalies should be attributed to the aggressive science policies adopted by these countries in recent years, which are all characterized by direct or indirect incentives for citations. Our analysis confirms that when bibliometric indicators are integrated into systems of incentives, they are capable of affecting rapidly and visibly the citation behavior of entire countries.

In defense of quantitative metrics in researcher assessments

Qualitative assessments of researchers are resource-intensive, untenable in nonmeritocratic settings, and error-prone. Although often derided, quantitative metrics could help improve research practices if they are rigorous, field-adjusted, and centralized.

Hotspots and Trends in Research on Treating Pain with Electroacupuncture: A Bibliometric and Visualization Analysis from 1994 to 2022

Purpose

Electroacupuncture is widely used to pain management. A bibliometric analysis was conducted to identify the hotspots and trends in research on electroacupuncture for pain.

Methods

We retrieved studies published from 1994-2022 on the topic of pain relief by electroacupuncture from the Web of Science Core Collection database. We comprehensively analysed the data with VOSviewer, CiteSpace, and bibliometrix. Seven aspects of the data were analysed separately: annual publication outputs, countries, institutions, authors, journals, keywords and references.

Results

A total of 2030 papers were analysed, and the number of worldwide publications continuously increased over the period of interest. The most productive country and institution in this field were China and KyungHee University. Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine was the most productive journal, and Pain was the most co-cited journal. Han Jisheng, Fang Jianqiao, and Lao Lixing were the most representative authors. Based on keywords and references, three active areas of research on EA for pain were mechanisms, randomized controlled trials, and perioperative applications. Three emerging trends were functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), systematic reviews, and knee osteoarthritis.

Conclusion

This study comprehensively analysed the research published over the past 28 years on electroacupuncture for pain treatment, using bibliometrics and science mapping analysis. This work presents the current status and landscape of the field and may serve as a valuable resource for researchers. Chronic pain, fMRI-based mechanistic research, and the perioperative application of electroacupuncture are among the likely foci of future research in this area.

Gender imbalances among top-cited scientists across scientific disciplines over time through the analysis of nearly 5.8 million authors

We evaluated how the gender composition of top-cited authors within different subfields of research has evolved over time. We considered 9,071,122 authors with at least 5 full papers in Scopus as of September 1, 2022. Using a previously validated composite citation indicator, we identified the 2% top-cited authors for each of 174 science subfields (Science-Metrix classification) in 4 separate publication age cohorts (first publication pre-1992, 1992 to 2001, 2002 to 2011, and post-2011). Using NamSor, we assigned 3,784,507 authors as men and 2,011,616 as women (for 36.1% gender assignment uncertain). Men outnumbered women 1.88-fold among all authors, decreasing from 3.93-fold to 1.36-fold over time. Men outnumbered women 3.21-fold among top-cited authors, decreasing from 6.41-fold to 2.28-fold over time. In the youngest (post-2011) cohort, 32/174 (18%) subfields had > = 50% women, 97/174 (56%) subfields had > = 30% women, and 3 subfields had = <10% women among the top-cited authors. Gender imbalances in author numbers decreased sharply over time in both high-income countries (including the United States of America) and other countries, but the latter had little improvement in gender imbalances for top-cited authors. In random samples of 100 women and 100 men from the youngest (post-2011) cohort, in-depth assessment showed that most were currently (April 2023) working in academic environments. 32 women and 44 men had some faculty appointment, but only 2 women and 2 men were full professors. Our analysis shows large heterogeneity across scientific disciplines in the amelioration of gender imbalances with more prominent imbalances persisting among top-cited authors and slow promotion pathways even for the most-cited young scientists.

Identifying the Leading Global Contributors to Scholarship in Religion Journals: A Bibliometric Study

This study identified the 100 most impactful global contributors to religion journals and mapped their respective disciplinary affiliations. To conduct this investigation, we performed a secondary data analysis of a Scopus-derived database featuring the world's leading scientists. The mean contributor published 51.93 papers, had an h-index of 13.57, and an hm-index 11.50. Most contributors were located in the USA with the most common disciplinary affiliations being religion, non-specialized (n = 22), sociology, non-specialized (n = 21), sociology of religion (n = 20), and theology (n = 11). The results reveal that religion discourse is populated by some of the leading scholars in the world. Leveraging their expertise can help advance the field's knowledge development.

Bibliometric Insights in Advances of Chordoma: Global Trends and Research Development in the Last Decade

Chordoma is a rare tumor, but has a serious effect on the quality of life of patients. This study aims to assess the overall knowledge structure and trends in the development of chordoma research using a bibliometric analysis and visualization tool. Research datasets were acquired from the Web of Science. VOS viewer and CiteSpace visualization software were used to demonstrate collaborations and correlations. Annual trends in publications, distribution, H-index status, co-authorship status, and research hotspots were analyzed. A total of 1844 publications from 2012 to 2022 were included. The number of chordoma-related publications increased year by year. The United States contributed the most publications (717) and had the highest total citations (10130) and H-index (50), followed by China. The United States was also the country most frequently involved in international cooperation. The most productive organization involved in chordoma research was Massachusetts General Hospital. World Neurosurgery (114) published the most papers on chordoma. Hornicek FJ was the most productive author over the last decade (41). Initially, diagnosis and the location of onset captured the attention of the research society. Quality of life, risk factors, disability, minimally invasive surgical techniques, molecular targeted therapy, and radiotherapy technology are the research hotspots in recent years. Indeed, this study provides important insights into the overall landscape of chordoma research and also contributes to the further investigation of the international frontier of chordoma.

Self-referencing rates in biological disciplines

The use of citation counts (among other bibliometrics) as a facet of academic research evaluation can influence citation behavior in scientific publications. One possible unintended consequence of this bibliometric is excessive self-referencing, where an author favors referencing their own publications over related publications from different research groups. Peer reviewers are often prompted by journals to determine whether references listed in the manuscript under review are unbiased, but there is no consensus on what is considered "excessive" self-referencing. Here, self-referencing rates are examined across multiple journals in the fields of biology, genetics, computational biology, medicine, pathology, and cell biology. Median self-referencing rates are between 8-13% across a range of journals within these disciplines. However, self-referencing rates vary as a function of total number of references, number of authors, author status/rank, author position, and total number of publications for each author. Importantly, these relationships exhibit interdisciplinary and journal-dependent differences that are not captured by examining broader fields in aggregate (e.g., Biology, Chemistry, Physics, etc.). These results provide useful statistical guidelines for authors, editors, reviewers, and journals when considering referencing practices for individual publications, and highlight the effects of additional factors influencing self-referencing rates.

Exploring high scientific productivity in international co-authorship of a small developing country based on collaboration patterns

The number of published scientific paper grows rapidly each year, totaling more than 2.9 million annually. New methodologies and systems have been developed to analyze scientific production and performance indicators from large quantities of data available from the scientific databases, such as Web of Science or Scopus. In this paper, we analyzed the international scientific production and co-authorship patterns for the most productive authors from Serbia based on the obtained Web of Science dataset in the period 2006-2013. We performed bibliometric and scientometric analyses together with statistical and collaboration network analysis, to reveal the causes of extraordinary publishing performance of some authors. For such authors, we found significant inequality in distribution of papers over journals and countries of co-authors, using Gini coefficient and Lorenz curves. Most of the papers belong to multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary, and the field of applied sciences. We have discovered three specific collaboration patterns that lead to high productivity in international collaboration. First pattern corresponds to mega-authorship papers with hundreds of co-authors gathered in specific research groups. The other two collaboration patterns were found in mathematics and multidisciplinary science, mainly application of graph theory and computational methods in physical chemistry. The former pattern results in a star-shaped collaboration network with mostly individual collaborators. The latter pattern includes multiple actors with high betweenness centrality measure and identified brokerage roles. The results are compared with the later period 2014-2023, where high scientific production has been observed in some other fields, such as biology and food science and technology.

The gender citation gap: Why and how it matters

The weight of evidence suggests that articles written by men and women receive citations at comparable rates. This suggests that research quality or gender-based bias in research evaluation and citing behaviors may not be the reason why academic women accumulate fewer citations than men at the career level. In this article, I outline a career perspective that highlights women's disadvantages in career progression as the root causes for the gender citation gap. I also consider how the gender citation gap may perpetuate the unequal pay between genders in science. My analysis of two different datasets, one including paper and citation information for over 130,000 highly cited scholars during the 1996-2020 period and another including citation and salary information for nearly 2,000 Canadian scholars over the 2014-2019 period, shows several important findings. First, papers written by women on average receive more citations than those written by men. Second, the gender citation gap grows larger with time as men and women progress in their careers, but the opposite pattern holds when research productivity and collaborative networks are considered. Third, higher citations lead to higher pay, and gender differences in citations explain a significant share of the gender wage gap. Findings demonstrate the critical need for more attention toward gender differences in career progression when investigating the causes and solutions for gender disparities in science.

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.

Who are the most highly cited forensic scientists in the United States?

The most highly cited forensic practitioners in the United States were identified using a publicly available citation database that used six different citation metrics to calculate each person's composite citation score. The publication and citation data were gleaned from Elsevier's SCOPUS database, which contained information about ~7 million scientist each of whom had at least five entries in the database. Each individual was categorized into 22 scientific fields and 176 subfields, one of which was legal and forensic medicine (LFM). The database contained citation records for 13,388 individuals having LFM as their primary research discipline and 282 of these (2%) were classified as being highly cited. Another 99 individuals in the database had LFM as their secondary discipline, making a total of 381 highly cited forensic practitioners from 35 different countries. The career-long publication records of each individual were compared using their composite citation scores. Of the 381 highly cited scientists, 93 (24%) had an address somewhere in the United States. The various branches of forensics they specialized in were anthropology, criminalistics, DNA/genetics, odontology, pathology, statistics/epidemiology, and toxicology. The two most highly cited scientists, according to their composite citation score, were both specialists in DNA/genetics. Bibliometric methods are widely used for evaluating research performance in academia and a similar approach might be useful in jurisprudence, such as when an expert witness is instructed to testify in court and explain the meaning of scientific evidence.

International publication trends in the application of artificial intelligence in ophthalmology research: an updated bibliometric analysis

Background

The literature on artificial intelligence (AI)-related topics has been expanding rapidly over the last two decades, showing that AI is a crucial force in advancing ophthalmology. This analysis aims to provide a dynamic and longitudinal bibliometric analysis of AI-related ophthalmic papers.

Methods

The Web of Science was searched to retrieve papers regarding the application of AI in ophthalmology published in the English language up to May 2022. The variables were analyzed using Microsoft Excel 2019 and GraphPad Prism 9. Data visualization was performed using VOSviewer and CiteSpace.

Results

In this study, a total of 1,686 publications were analyzed. Recently, AI-related ophthalmology research has increased exponentially. China was the most productive country in this research field, with 483 articles, but the United States of America (446 publications) contributed most to the sum of citations and the H-index. The League of European Research Universities, Ting DSW, and Daniel SW were the most prolific institution and researchers. This field is primarily concerned with diabetic retinopathy (DR), glaucoma, optical coherence tomography, and the classification and diagnosis of fundus pictures. Current hotspots in AI research include deep learning, diagnosing and predicting systemic disorders by fundus images, incidence and progression of ocular diseases, and outcome prediction.

Conclusions

This analysis thoroughly reviews AI-related research in ophthalmology to help academics better comprehend the growth and possible practice consequences of AI. The association between eye and systemic biomarkers, telemedicine, real-world studies, and the development and application of new AI algorithms, such as visual converters, will continue to be research hotspots over the next few years.

Impact of the number and rank of coauthors on h-index and π-index. The part-impact method

The publication activity of 20 Price-medallists was analysed by calculating several scientometric indices from data of elite sets of their publications. The following elite sets (i.e. most cited papers within the total) were obtained: π-set (where the number of papers is equal to √P, and P is the number of total papers), h-set (in which the number of papers equals to the Hirsch index), 2π-set, 2h-set, and the set of papers (ECP) which are cited more frequently than the average. The percentage share of papers and citations was found to increase in the mentioned rank of the elite sets, except ECP-set. The number of publications and citations in the elite sets was calculated also by different part-impact methods for sharing credit among the coauthors. The applied methods take into account the number or number and rank of coauthors in the by-line of the papers. It was demostrated that any of the methods changes both π and h-index significantly related to the value calculated by attributing total credit to the evaluated individual. The changes strongly depend on the number of coauthors and rank of the studied author in the by-line of the papers. Consequently, in assessing personal contribution of scientists by scientometric indices, sharing credit of publications and citations among the coauthors of publications seems to be highly relevant. Selecting the appropriate impact sharing method depends on the purpose of the evaluation.

Knowledge graph analysis and visualization of artificial intelligence applied in electrocardiogram

Background: Electrocardiogram (ECG) provides a straightforward and non-invasive approach for various applications, such as disease classification, biometric identification, emotion recognition, and so on. In recent years, artificial intelligence (AI) shows excellent performance and plays an increasingly important role in electrocardiogram research as well. Objective: This study mainly adopts the literature on the applications of artificial intelligence in electrocardiogram research to focus on the development process through bibliometric and visual knowledge graph methods. Methods: The 2,229 publications collected from the Web of Science Core Collection (WoSCC) database until 2021 are employed as the research objects, and a comprehensive metrology and visualization analysis based on CiteSpace (version 6.1. R3) and VOSviewer (version 1.6.18) platform, which were conducted to explore the co-authorship, co-occurrence and co-citation of countries/regions, institutions, authors, journals, categories, references and keywords regarding artificial intelligence applied in electrocardiogram. Results: In the recent 4 years, both the annual publications and citations of artificial intelligence in electrocardiogram sharply increased. China published the most articles while Singapore had the highest ACP (average citations per article). The most productive institution and authors were Ngee Ann Polytech from Singapore and Acharya U. Rajendra from the University of Technology Sydney. The journal Computers in Biology and Medicine published the most influential publications, and the subject with the most published articles are distributed in Engineering Electrical Electronic. The evolution of research hotspots was analyzed by co-citation references' cluster knowledge visualization domain map. In addition, deep learning, attention mechanism, data augmentation, and so on were the focuses of recent research through the co-occurrence of keywords.

The Most Cited Articles and Authors in Refractive Surgery

PURPOSE

To provide a comprehensive analysis of the most highly cited articles and authors in refractive surgery.

METHODS

The Scopus database was searched for articles pertaining to refractive surgery using multiple search terms to identify the top 100 most cited articles in refractive surgery. A publicly available database of more than 100,000 scientists that provides standardized information on multiple variables resulting in a composite indicator (C score) was searched to identify refractive surgery authors. A refractive surgery-specific composite score was created using only the authors' publications that were directly related to refractive surgery.

RESULTS

The 100 most cited articles and 40 refractive surgery authors with the highest ranked C score were identified. The article with the most citations by Trokel et al has garnered nearly 800 citations to date. All articles included in the top 100 had 200 or more citations. The peak publication years were 1998 to 2001. Laser in situ keratomileusis (22), photorefractive keratectomy (18), and postoperative corneal ectasia and/or corneal biomechanics (16) were the most represented topics. Emory University generated the most articles (7) and the majority of publications (48%) originated in the United States. Steven E. Wilson, MD, had the highest refractive C score and Jorge L. Alió, MD, PhD, had the most refractive surgery articles and citations. Among all authors listed, the average number of refractive surgery publications was 97, with 35% of the group having more than 100 refractive surgery articles published. All authors on the list had more than 2,000 citations for their refractive surgery articles, whereas 38% had 4,000 or more citations.

CONCLUSIONS

This list provides a comprehensive assessment of the most cited articles and authors in refractive surgery and demonstrates key focuses and trends in the field over time. [J Refract Surg. 2023;39(2):78-88.].