Understanding the limitations of the journal impact factor

The Message of the Glasgow Coma Scale: A Comprehensive Bibliometric Analysis and Systematic Review of Clinical Practice Guidelines Spanning the Past 50 years

BACKGROUND

Despite the ubiquitous use of the Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) worldwide, no study to date has objectively and quantitatively assessed its impact on the scientific literature and clinical practice. Therefore, we comprehensively analyzed scientific publications and clinical practice guidelines employing the GCS to gauge its clinical and academic impact, identify research hotspots, and inform future research on the topic.

METHODS

A cross-sectional bibliometric analysis was performed on Scopus to obtain relevant publications incorporating the GCS from 1974 to 2022. In addition, a systematic review of existing clinical practice guidelines in PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Trip Database was performed. Validated bibliometric parameters including article title, journal, publication year, authors, citation count, country, institution, keywords, impact factor, and references were assessed. When evaluating clinical practice guidelines, the sponsoring organization, country of origin, specialty, and publication year were assessed.

RESULTS

A total of 37,633 articles originating from 3924 different scientific journals spanning 1974-2022 were included in the final analysis. The compound annual growth rate of publications referencing the GCS was 16.7%. Of 104 countries, the United States had the highest total number of publications employing the GCS (n = 8517). World Neurosurgery was the scientific periodical with the highest number of publications on the GCS (n = 798). The top trending author-supplied keyword was "traumatic brain injury" (n = 3408). The 97 included clinical practice guidelines most commonly employed the GCS in the fields of internal medicine (n = 22, 23%), critical care (n = 21, 22%), and neurotrauma (n = 19, 20%).

CONCLUSIONS

At the turn of the 50th anniversary of the GCS, we provided a unique and detailed description of the "path to success" of the GCS both in terms of its scientific and clinical impact. These results have not only a historical but also an important didactic value. Ultimately our detailed analysis, which revealed some of the factors that led the GCS to become such a widespread and highly influential score, may assist future researchers in their development of new outcome measures and clinical scores, especially as such tools become increasingly relevant in an evidence-based data-driven age.

Global acute-on-chronic liver failure trends during 2012-2022: A bibliometric study

Introduction

Acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF) is a clinical syndrome with high short-term mortality. ACLF has been increasingly studied in recent years; however, a bibliometric analysis of the entire ACLF field has not been conducted. This study assesses current global trends and hotspots in ACLF research.

Materials and methods

The core Web of Science database was searched for all ACLF-related publications conducted during 2012-2022. The data included information on the author, country, author keywords, publication year, citation frequency, and references. Microsoft Excel was used to collate the data and calculate percentages. VOSviewer software was used for citation and density visualization analysis. Histogram rendering was performed using GraphPad Prism Version 8.0 and R software was used to supplement the analysis.

Result

A total of 1609 ACLF-related articles from 67 different countries were identified. China contributed the most literature, followed by the United States. However, Chinese literature only had the 4th highest number of citations, indicating that cooperation with other countries needs to be strengthened. The Journal of Hepatology had the highest number of ACLF-related citations. Prognosis was one of the most common author keywords, which may highlight current research hotspots. Bacterial infection was a common keyword and was closely related to prognosis.

Conclusion

This bibliometric analysis suggests that future research hotspots will focus on the interplay among bacterial infection, organ failure, and prognosis.

Examination of the Current Impact Factor of the Journal of Craniofacial Surgery and Analysis of its Change by Years

In the Journal Citation Reports, it is shared various metrics from the previous year for the journals indexed in the Web of Science. On June 28, 2023, the 2022 data of the journals were shared. In this study, it was aimed to comprehensively examine the current impact factor of the Journal of Craniofacial Surgery , which has an important place in its field, and to determine the change observed in the impact factor values over the years. In conclusion, it has been observed that the values of the journal impact factor of the Journal of Craniofacial Surgery have been on an increasing trend, especially in the last 10 years. On the other hand, this value showed a slight decrease in 2022 data, but a similar decrease was observed in many journals in the literature. It is thought that the decreases in journal impact factor for 2022 data may be due to more general reasons, not journal scale. In addition, the values of the impact factor of the Journal of Craniofacial Surgery for the years 1997 to 2022 show that it has maintained its current position in the field of science for a long time.

Fifty Most-Cited Research Articles in Elbow Surgery: A Modern Reading List

Purpose

Bibliometric analysis is a common method for evaluating current trends within a scientific field. The primary aim of this study was to define and analyze the 50 most frequently cited articles in the field of elbow surgery, both of all time and those published during the 21st century.

Methods

We searched the Journal Citation Report to identify articles related to elbow surgery within academic journals. Articles were sorted by total citations. The overall top 50 articles and those published since 2000 were identified, and data were collected, including title, journal of publication, publication year, country of publication, citation density, level of evidence, article type, institution, and sex of the lead and senior authors, and inclusion on the reference list for the Orthopaedic In-Training Examination within the last 5 years. Descriptive statistics were reported, and correlation analysis was performed using Spearman test.

Results

For the most-cited elbow surgery articles, "fracture" was overall the most reported topic, whereas "lateral epicondylosis" and "fracture" were equal for those published since 2000. The United States was the most represented overall and for articles published since 2000. Women comprised 1/50 (2%) of lead authors overall, increasing to 8/50 (16%) for articles published during the 21st century. Most articles in during both periods contained level IV evidence, with level I evidence appearing infrequently (4%). Six percent of the most-cited articles of all time had appeared on the reference list of the Orthopaedic In-Training Examination within the past 5 years.

Conclusions

The top 50 most-cited elbow surgery articles often assess fracture and lateral epicondylosis, most commonly originating from the United States. Level IV retrospective series comprises over half of the articles on this list. Women remain underrepresented as authors.

Clinical Relevance

This study provides a modern reading list for upper-extremity surgeons about impactful elbow surgery articles.

Who publishes imaging articles in non-imaging journals? A large sample data-mining study

OBJECTIVES

To assess the weight of imaging and imaging specialists (i.e., affiliated to a radiology/nuclear medicine department) in publications in non-imaging journals.

METHODS

All articles indexed in English on the Embase database between 1989 and 2019 were extracted. The number and affiliation of authors were determined. A naive Bayesian classifier algorithm was trained to classify abstracts as "imaging" or "non-imaging." The main outcome was the number and position of imaging specialists in the authorship of imaging articles published in non-imaging journals. Analyses per medical specialties and per journal impact factor (IF) were performed.

RESULTS

A total of 15,787,825 articles were included with 968,259 (6%) "imaging" articles. The proportion of imaging articles increased over time (+ 370%), quicker than the overall academic output. The proportion of imaging specialist among authors grew from 0.58% in 1989-1994 to 1.54% in 2015-2019. About 20% of imaging articles had ≥ 1 imaging specialist among authors. The proportion of imaging articles decreased with the IF (7.3% for IF 0-2.5 vs. 5.1% for IF > 10, p < 0.001), but the proportion of imaging specialist authors in imaging papers with ≥ 1 imaging specialist author increased with the IF (40% for IF 0-2.5, 53% for IF > 10, p < 0.001). There was significant variability across medical specialties.

CONCLUSIONS

The weight of imaging articles and imaging specialist among authors in non-imaging journals has increased over time but remains limited. Most of the authors of imaging publications are not imaging specialists. Imaging specialists among authors in imaging papers are associated with a greater IF.

KEY POINTS

• The proportion of imaging specialist authors in non-imaging journals, though small, has increased significantly. • Marked differences are observed according to medical specialties and the reputation/impact factor of the journal. • Collaboration between imaging specialists and non-specialists is associated with publication in higher impact journals.

Orthodontic Wires: A 12-Year Bibliometric Study

Aims and Objectives

To perform a bibliometric study to identify and evaluate articles associated with "orthodontic wires" indexed in six databases (PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, Scopus, Lilacs, and Google Scholar) from 2010 to 2022.

Materials and Methods

The search strategy in PubMed combined different medical subject heading terms with free-text words and was adjusted for each selected database. The retrieved documents were original English articles containing the keywords used in the search strategies related to orthodontic wires. Collected data consisted of journal name, nationality, field, JIF-2 and JIF-5, SJR, CiteScore, Q and H-index, and categorization of the study.

Results

In total, 417 articles were retrieved from the initial search. After the exclusion criteria, 257 articles remained. The most common theme was mechanical properties, with basic studies as the main categorization.

Conclusions

This bibliometric survey provides an overview of orthodontic wires publications that might help orthodontists to understand the tendency of the studies on this subject. The retrieved papers were published in 100 journals, including 15 orthodontic journals, mainly in the first and second quartiles. Europe and America were the continents with the highest number of papers. The United States was the country with the highest number of journals on the topic. AJODO presented the highest h-index among the retrieved orthodontic journals. Brazil represented the principal institutions of origin of the listed articles. There was a tendency to increase the number of publications on orthodontic wires over the years. These findings indicate that research on orthodontic wires is still contemporary and relevant.

Publication trends in the field of the cornea in the last 4 decades: a bibliometric study

PURPOSE

The objective of this bibliometric study was to identify the top 100 most-cited articles on the cornea published in the English language between 1980 and 2021 using multidimensional citation analysis.

METHODS

The data were obtained from the Thomson Reuters Web of Science Core Collection and the PubMed databases. The top 100 articles in terms of citation number were identified and analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 40,792 articles related to the cornea were retrieved. The 100 most-cited articles were published between 1995 and 2000. The average time since publication was 19.64 ± 5.75 years. The mean impact factor of the journals was 10.27 ± 17.14 and the Q category of most journals was Q1. Ophthalmology was the journal with the most published articles (n = 10), which represented level 3 evidence. The three most common topics among the top 100 articles were treatment modality, histopathology, and diagnostic imaging. The most frequently mentioned treatments were related to limbal stem cell failure, crosslinking, and lamellar keratoplasty. We observed a negative correlation between the average number of citations per year and the time passed since publication (r = - 0.629; p = 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Our analysis of the top 100 most-cited articles on the cornea revealed scientific contributions, vital current data related to clinical implementations, and valuable insights into the current developments in ophthalmology. To our knowledge, this is the first study to evaluate the most influential papers on the cornea, and our findings highlight the research quality and latest discoveries and trends in the management cornea diseases.

Modern Impact of Surgery Journals: Associations Between Impact Factor, H5-Index, and Altmetric Score

INTRODUCTION

While impact factor (IF) remains the "gold standard" metric for journal quality, newer metrics are gaining popularity. These include the H5-index and journal Altmetric Attention Score (AAS). We explored the relationship between the IF, H5-index, and AAS for core general surgery (GS) and subspecialty journals.

METHODS

For all GS and subspecialty journals with a Clarivate IF, H5-index (January 1, 2017, to December 31, 2021) and journal AAS were obtained. Journal Twitter presence and activity was sourced from Twitter and the Twitter application programming interface. Spearman's correlations were assessed for numeric variables.

RESULTS

A total of 105 journals were included, around half (49/105; 46.7%) of which were core GS journals. Median IF was 2.48 and median H5-index 19. Journal IF demonstrated a strong correlation with H5-index overall (r = 0.81), though this ranged from r = 0.95 (P < 0.01) for vascular surgery to r = 0.77 (P < 0.01) for plastic surgery journals. AAS was moderately correlated with the IF and H5-index (r = 0.59 and 0.62, respectively; both P < 0.01). R² values ranging indicated that 66% of the variation in the H5-index and 35% of the variation in AAS was explained by the IF. Just over half the journals had a Twitter account (54/105; 51.4%). Journals with a Twitter account also had a significantly higher IF, H5-index, and AAS than those without a Twitter account (all P < 0.01). AAS was moderately correlated with Twitter activity (r = 0.59) and Twitter followers (r = 0.69).

CONCLUSIONS

Across GS and subspecialty journals, journal IF correlates strongly with the H5-index and moderately with AAS. However, only 35% of variation in AAS and 66% of variation in the H5-index is explained by the IF, indicating that these metrics measure unique aspects of journal quality. The future growth of surgical journals should be geared towards improving across multiple metrics, including both the conventional and the contemporary, while leveraging social media to improve readership and eventual academic impact.

Peer review practices in academic medicine: how the example of orthopaedic surgery may help shift the paradigm?

PURPOSE

To establish the current peer-reviewed practices in the discipline of orthopaedic surgery and correlate these to the journal's impact factor. Unfortunately, this is not receiving much attention and a critical literature gap in various disciplines; thus, determining the current practices in the discipline of orthopaedic surgery could provide valid insight that may be potentially applicable to other academic medicine disciplines as well.

METHODS

Orthopaedic surgery journals belonging to the Journal Citation Reports were queried, and the following was extracted: impact factor (IF) and blinding practices: single (SBPR), double (DBPR), triple (TBPR), quadruple (QBPR), and open (OPR) blinding review process and possibility of author-suggested reviewer (ASR) and non-preferred reviewer (NPR) options.

RESULTS

Of the 82 journals, four were excluded as they allowed submission by invitation only. In the remaining, blinding was as follows: SBPR nine (11.5%), DBPR 52 (66.7%), TBPR two (2.6%), QBPR zero (0%), and OPR three (3.8%), and in 12 (15.4%), this was unclear. ASR and NPR options were offered by 34 (43.6%) and 27 (34.6%) journals respectively, whereas ASR was mandatory in eight (10.2%). No correlation between IF and any other parameter was found.

CONCLUSION

The rules of the "game" are unclear/not disclosed in a significant number of cases, and the SBPR system, along with the ASR (mandatory sometimes) and NPR, is still extensively used with questionable integrity and fairness. Several recommendations are provided to mitigate potentially compromising practices, along with future directions to address the scarcity of research in this critical aspect of science.

Determinants of impact factor and E igenfactor 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.

Fifty years of the Journal of Perinatal Medicine: an altmetric and bibliometric study

OBJECTIVES

To apply scientometric methodology to characterize influential articles in the Journal of Perinatal Medicine (JPM).

METHODS

We performed a cross-sectional study of all JPM articles indexed in Clarivate Web of Science (WOS), NIH Open Citation Collection, and Altmetric Explorer databases (1973-2022). We identified articles cited ≥100 times in WOS and articles with highest Relative Citation Ratios (RCR, a metric of influence based on citations) and highest Altmetric Attention Scores (AAS, a metric of engagement with social media and public platforms). We performed descriptive analysis to characterize influential articles based on citation rates vs. highest AAS, and quantile regression with bootstrapping to estimate the median differences (95% confidence intervals).

RESULTS

We identified 4095 JPM articles that were indexed in the WOS, of which 3,959 (96.7%) had RCRs and 939 (22.9%) had AASs. The study cohort included 34 articles cited ≥100 times and the 34 top-RCR and 34 top-AAS articles, representing 83 unique articles. These influential articles had median 67 citations (IQR 17-114), median RCR 3.4 (IQR 1.7-5.0), and median AAS 14 (IQR 3-28). The majority were observational studies and reviews. Compared to top-AAS articles, top-cited articles had higher median citations (117 [IQR 111-147] vs. 13 [IQR 5-62]; median difference 104.0, 95% CI 86.6-121.4) and citations per year (7.3 [IQR 4.9-10.6] vs. 2.3 [0.7-4.6]; median difference 5.5 [95% CI 3.1-7.9]). Results were similar for top-RCR vs. top-AAS articles.

CONCLUSIONS

We identified influential articles during 50 years of JPM, providing insight into the impact of the journal and providing a template for future studies of academic journals.

Twitter Use Among Orthopedic Surgery Journals Correlates With Increased Citation Rates

Use of alternative online means of distribution for research is a rapidly evolving area in orthopedics. In this study, we investigate the impact of Twitter on research citation rates and the association between Altmetric Attention Score (AAS) and citation rates across major orthopedic journals. Original research articles published in a selection of 10 journals between January 2018 and December 2018 were analyzed for number and source of tweets, AAS, and number of citations. We determined the relationship between Twitter use of different sources and number of citations across all journals and within each individual journal, any statistical differences in citations and AAS for tweeted vs nontweeted articles, and the correlation between journal impact factor and average number of monthly tweets. We included 2916 articles in our study, at an average of 26 months after publication. The mean AAS was 9.7 (SD, 45.1; range, 0-1125), and mean citation rate was 6.4 (SD, 8.5; range, 0-166). Impact factor was strongly correlated with average monthly tweets (r²=0.77). Tweeted articles received 8.51 citations on average, compared with 2.56 citations for nontweeted articles (P<.05). Tweets sent by the author/department had the highest impact on future citations (P<.01). Tweets by news outlets had a smaller, positive effect on citations (P<.01). Tweets sent by Arthroscopy (P<.01) and Journal of Pediatric Orthopaedics (P<.01) had high impacts compared with other journals. [Orthopedics. 2023;46(1):e38-e44.].

How publication timelines effect the impact metrics: studying the influence of submission to first decision and submission to acceptance on impact factor and 5-year impact factor of journals

Purpose

The purpose of the study is to analyze the impact of the Publication Timeline, i.e. Submission to First Decision and Submission to Acceptance on Journal Metrics, i.e. Impact Factor (IF) and 5-year IF.

Design/methodology/approach

Data related to the IF and 5-year IF were retrieved from Clarivate Analytics’ Journal Citation Report 2020. The Publication Timeline of each journal was ascertained through their respective websites. To attain the model fit summary, an analysis of variance (ANOVA) test was performed. Regression analysis was also performed on the models using SPSS 21 software to ascertain the nature and degree of impact the Publication Timeline (Submission to First Decision and Submission to Acceptance) has on Journal Metrics (IF and 5-year IF).

Findings

Submission to First Decision has a significant inverse relationship with both the IF and 5-year IF, whereas Submission to Acceptance has a significant direct relation with 5-year IF and an inverse but insignificant relationship with IF.

Research limitations/implications

Journals published by Springer Nature and of multidisciplinary nature have been considered for the study. Only those journals were selected that provided the information regarding the Publication Timeline, whereas those which did not provide the same, were excluded. However, new insights can be revealed if the journals published by different publishers and belonging to one particular discipline are studied.

Practical implications

The study helps to ascertain the impact of the Publication Timeline on the Impact Metrics of the journals. It can help the authors select the journals as their publishing venues considering the Publication Timeline. Publishers can also be benefitted from the findings of this study since improvisations and modifications in their Publication Timelines can positively influence the impact metrics of their respective journals.

Originality/value

The study attempts to measure the impact of the Publication Timeline on Journal Metrics using cross-sectional secondary data, by performing regression analysis. Though various studies have examined the influence of the Publication Timeline on the IF using correlation analysis, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, this study is the first of its kind to use regression analysis to check the relation, as well as the degree of impact the Publication Timeline, has on Journal Metrics.

Bibliometric assessment in implant-retained overdenture articles: Mapping citation and journal impact factor trends

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

Implant-retained overdentures are a recognized treatment option. However, a comprehensive assessment of all articles on implant-retained overdentures to identify publication standards such as mean citation and the Journal Citation Reports (JCR) impact factor is lacking.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this bibliometric assessment was to evaluate the association of mean citation and JCR impact factor with bibliometric parameters in articles on implant-retained overdentures.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Articles reporting randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) and nonrandomized controlled clinical trials (N-RCTs); case reports and series; retrospective studies; and in silico, in vitro, or systematic reviews in 6 databases were included. Data were extracted, and 2 multiple Poisson regressions analyses were applied (α=.05). The dependent variables were mean citation and JCR impact factor, which were evaluated to identify their association with bibliometric parameters by using prevalence ratio (PR) values.

RESULTS

A total of 1369 articles published from 1986 to 2021 were included. The data revealed a high mean citation and high JCR impact factor for RCT, N-RCT, retrospective, and in vitro studies (P<.05). In silico studies presented a high mean citation (P<.001). Senior researchers with a high h-index were more likely to have a high mean citation and publications with a high JCR impact factor (P<.001). Also, senior authors associated with an international network were more likely to have a high mean citation (P=.001). High-income countries had more studies with a high mean citation and JCR impact factor (P<.05). Higher JCR impact factors were associated with articles evaluating only the maxilla or mandible (P<.05). The topics "implant setting" and "macrodesign" were associated with a high mean citation (P<.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The publication trends suggest a high mean citation and a high JCR impact factor for clinical designs (RCT, N-RCT, retrospective) and in vitro studies. The same pattern was also displayed for researchers with a high h-index and located in high-income countries.

Analysis of the Most Frequently Cited Articles in Hand and Wrist Surgery: A Modern Reading List

The aim of this investigation was to analyze the 50 most frequently cited articles on hand and wrist surgery of all time and those published during the 21^st century. We aimed to evaluate the article, author, and journal characteristics for these publications in order to create a modern reading list of impactful upper-extremity articles. A search of the Journal Citation Reports 2022 edition to identify journals containing possible hand or wrist-related articles was performed. Related journals were identified and then searched on the Web of Science database to identify hand and wrist articles. The top 50 most cited articles overall and the top 50 most cited articles from 2000-2021 were identified and indexed. Several bibliometric parameters, such as study type, study topic, study design, level of evidence, citation count, citation density, the institution of the lead author, the gender of lead and senior authors, and country were analyzed. For the most cited articles of all time, the number of citations ranged from 224 to 1109 with a mean of 368 citations and 15.0 citation density. Citations for the top 50 articles from 2000-2021 ranged from 153 to 950 with a mean of 233 citations and 14.5 citation density. For both groups, the most common level of evidence was level IV (33% and 27%). No correlation between journal impact factor and citation count or citation density was found. In both groups, "fracture" was the most common topic and papers were predominantly written by male authors. Frequently cited publications on hand and wrist surgery are often clinical papers that contain low levels of evidence and tend to focus on topics related to fracture care. Female authors remain underrepresented.

The Influence of International Collaboration on the Scientific Impact in V4 Countries

Several strategies are used by researchers and research facilities to increase their scientific production and consequent research quality. Bibliometric records show that coauthorship and the number of participating organizations in research publications are steadily increasing; however, the effect of collaboration varies across disciplines, and the corresponding author’s country appears to influence research impact. This finding inspired our research question for this study: How does international cooperation affect scientific impact, and does the affiliation of corresponding authors influence citation impact indicators at the level of individual publications? To this end, we provide a comparative evaluation of research articles published in Q1 journals among Visegrad Group countries (Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland and Slovakia) in Medical and Health sciences between 2017 and 2021. The study investigates the relationship between collaboration type (national vs. international) and scientific impact (impact factor of the journal and category normalized citation impact or research papers), as well as the impact of the country of the corresponding author’s affiliation on quantitative quality of individual papers. We show that Q1 research papers in international collaboration have a higher scientific impact than papers published in national partnerships. Moreover, the corresponding authors’ country of affiliation significantly affects scientific impact.

New insight into the current study of high tibial osteotomy: A bibliometric analysis

BACKGROUND

To analyze global trends in focus and funding of research related to high tibial osteotomy (HTO) and to identify the 100 most cited articles in this field.

METHODS

A Web of Science search was used to identify HTO publications in English-language scientific journals from January 1967 till February 3th, 2021. Results were filtered to the 100 most cited articles by reading the abstract or full-text paper. Information of these articles was recorded for further analysis. The 10 top-cited articles during the last 5 years and the 10 top-cited articles about HTO ranked by average citations per year were selected to predict research trends.

RESULTS

In all, 48 out of the 100 top-cited articles were published between 2000 and 2010. The United States of America was the primary contributor (n = 29) followed by Germany (n = 17) and Japan (n = 11). The total number of citations per article ranged from 65 to 563, median 108, mean 135 (standard deviation = 84). The American Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery accounted for 23 out of the 100 top-cited articles. Koshino T was the most cited author (603 citations). The most frequently highlighted study theme was prognostic research. Patient-based clinical research was the dominant study design (85%). The majority of articles (48 out of 100) were level IV evidence with a mean of 141 (standard deviation = 97) citations. Top-cited articles in the last 5 years focused on open wedge osteotomy.

CONCLUSION

Technical optimization of open wedge osteotomy has emerged as the main area of research in HTO. More specifically, recent publications focus on the surgical technology, cartilage repair and new fixation devices. Besides, papers with a high level of evidence are needed for the development of HTO.

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

OBJECTIVE

Citation 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.

METHODS

Journals 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.

RESULTS

Thirty-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).

CONCLUSIONS

The 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.

The Association of Attending Physicians' Publications and Patients' Readmission Rates: Evidence from Tertiary Hospitals in China Using a Retrospective Data Analysis

BACKGROUND

Physicians play a unique role in scientific and clinical research, which is the cornerstone of evidence-based medical practice. In China, tertiary public hospitals link promotions and bonuses with publications. However, the weight placed on research in the clinician's evaluation process and its potential impact on clinical practice have come under controversy. Despite the heated debate about physicians' role in research, there is little empirical evidence about the relationship between physicians' publications and their clinical outcomes.

METHOD

This paper examines the association of the quantity and quality of tertiary hospitals' attending physicians' publications and inpatient readmission rates in China. We analyzed a 20% random sample of inpatient data from the Urban Employee Basic Medical Health Insurance scheme in one of the largest cities in China from January 2018 through October 2019. We assessed the relationship between the quantity and impact factor of physicians' publications and 30-day inpatient readmission rates using logistic regression. There were 111,965 hospitalizations treated by 5794 physicians in our sample.

RESULTS

Having any first-author publications was not associated with the rate of readmission. Among internists, having clinical studies published in journals with an average impact factor of 3 or above was associated with lower readmission rates (OR = 0.849; 95% CI (0.740, 0.975)), but having basic science studies published in journals with an average impact factor of 3 or above was not associated with the rate of readmission. Among surgeons, having clinical studies published in journals with an average impact factor of 3 or above was likewise associated with lower readmission rates (OR = 0.708 (0.531, 0.946)), but having basic science studies published in journals with an average impact factor of 3 or above was associated with higher readmission rates (OR = 1.230 (1.051, 1.439)).

Top 100 Most-Cited Articles on Enhanced Recovery After Surgery: A Bibliometric Analysis and Visualized Study

Background

The enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocol is widely implemented in surgeries, and this study aims to reveal the characteristics of the 100 most-cited original articles in the field of ERAS research.

Methods

The literature was retrieved in the Web of Science database, the 100 most-cited original articles were identified, and their characteristics were analyzed, including the trends of publications and citations; contributions from countries, institutions, and authors; co-cited authors and journals in the references; served surgeries, research endpoints, keywords; and the level of evidence.

Results

There was a rising trend in the yearly publications and citations. Denmark and the USA contributed the largest number of highly cited papers. The University of Copenhagen was the most influential institution. Kehlet, Henrik was the most influential author. The British Journal of Surgery was the most often published and cited journal. ERAS protocols were overwhelmingly implemented in colorectal surgeries. The most focused endpoints were “length of stay”, “complications”, and “readmission”. The most frequently used keywords were “fast track”, “length of stay”, and “laparoscopy”. The keyword “enhanced recovery after surgery” burst since 2012. More than half of the highly cited articles presented level IV evidence, but there was no correlation between citations (densities) and the levels of evidence.

Conclusions

The highly cited research overwhelming implemented ERAS in colorectal surgeries, the “length of stay” was the most focused element, and Kehlet, Henrik was the most influential researcher. Most of the highly cited ERAS had low levels of evidence, and the total number of citations was not relevant to the level of evidence. Therefore, studies with high levels of evidence are still required in the future.

Selecting the appropriate leading journal in Hospitality and Tourism research: a guide based on the topic-journal fit and the JCR impact factor

Selecting the appropriate academic journal is a priority issue for researchers in the process of publishing a manuscript. If researchers could quantify the research topic in terms of its fit with the journal requirements before the submission of a paper, then the assessment of journal suitability could be much easier. Basing any decision on journal impact factors alone might obviously result in a mismatch, eventual rejection and a consequent loss of time. Taking the twelve leading Tourism and Hospitality journals as a reference, the main research topics mentioned in the abstracts of 20,381 articles are identified, using the Latent Dirichlet Allocation algorithm and other text-mining techniques running the R programming language. Subsequently, a quantitative measure of the fit of the research topics in each journal is offered according to their frequency of occurrence. The results suggested that the importance of the topic-journal fit with respect to the impact factor depended on the variance of the fits among the journals. Finally, a guide of the most suitable journals for the topics is presented, based on the JCR impact factor and the fit of the topic. Some recommendations are likewise offered on the use of this methodology and its limitations.

Predictors of Above Average 6-Year Citation Rates in Leading Spine-Specific Medical Journals

STUDY DESIGN

Cross-sectional.

OBJECTIVE

To identify predictors of manuscripts achieving 6-year citation rates higher than the mean in spine-specific literature.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

An article's citation rate demonstrates its contribution to academia and its quality. Predictors of citation rates have not yet been studied in spine-specific medical literature.

METHODS

Three leading spine-specific journals were identified by a weighted scoring system comparing various journal metrics. Research articles published in 2014 were evaluated from the following journals: Spine, European Spine Journal, and Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine. Article features analyzed included journal of origin, number of words in article title, author count, degree of first author, conflicts of interest, quantity of contributing academic institutions, country of origin, study topic, study design, level of evidence, sample size, reference count, and citation rate. Multivariate logistic regression was used to determine predictors of above average citation rate at 6 years following publication.

RESULTS

The final analysis included 1091 articles. Spine had a significantly higher citation rate than European Spine Journal (P = 0.0008); however, no significant differences were observed between Spine and Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine. Regression analysis demonstrated that studies originating in North America (OR:1.44, 95% CI:1.01-2.01, P = 0.04), those with 6 ≥ authors (OR:1.72, 95% CI:1.29-2.30, P < 0.001), sample size >100 (P < 0.001), prospective case series (OR: 2.67, 95% CI: 1.24-5.76), and retrospective case series (OR: 1.99, 95% CI: 1.07-3.73) were independent predictors of achieving above average 6-year citation rates.

CONCLUSION

Spine, European Spine Journal, and Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine had the highest 6-year citation rates of the top 10 orthopedic spine journals, with Spine being significantly higher than European Spine Journal. Studies originating in North America, those with six or more authors, sample sizes > 100, and those that are retrospective or prospective case series are independent predictors of greater citation rates at 6 years in orthopedic spine-specific medical literature.Level of Evidence: 4.

Questioning the Impact of the Impact Factor. A Brief Review and Future Directions

Purpose: To provide a brief review of literature on the journal impact factors (JIF) and the newer research metrics being proposed or implemented.Methods: The authors performed a PubMed search of articles published in the English language on the journal impact factors. Data captured include historical perspectives, evolution, calculation, criticisms of JIF and their rebuttals, and organized efforts to address JIF issues, alternate research metrics, and future directions. Specific emphasis was laid on evaluating the criticisms, current lacunae, and the changing practice patterns.Results: One of the measures to assess the research impact of an article is the number of citations it receives. Hence, citation-based metrics are commonly used for such purposes. While editors and well-known scholars refrain from attributing article success to the journal's prominence, the same is not true for most authors. JIF is still one of the top factors when deciding on an article submission. JIF is today an acceptable objective and quantifiable measure of knowledge dissemination. However, JIF should not be used as a surrogate measure to assess an individual researcher or an individual article. The reverence to JIF in this regard needs to be questioned. While alternate metrics or altmetrics have their advantages and limitations, they nevertheless augur well an era where scientometrics are complementary to one another without undue reliance on a sole parameter.Conclusion: While there is no need to demonize the JIF, its role in the scholarly assessment should be scaled down. The over-reliance and undue hype surrounding it should be discouraged at multiple scientific levels.

Brazilian authors don't cite Brazilian authors: Nothing has changed since 1994

Objective  To outline the profile of self-citations from Revista Brasileira de Ortopedia (Rev Bras Ortop) and citations of this journal in other medical orthopaedic journals with general or specific content in a knowledge area of the specialty.

Methods  This is an observational cross-sectional study of the frequency of self-citations and citations from Rev Bras Ortop in five other medical orthopaedic journals from different countries, all published in English. The last 15 articles published in 2020 in each of the six journals were analyzed. The references used in each of them were evaluated to identify the journal in which they were originally published. The frequency of distribution of the four main journals cited, their position, and the relative percentage to the total number of citations were observed and recorded in each of the six journals. The number of times that the Rev Bras Ortop was cited in each of the selected foreign journals was assessed using its absolute and relative frequencies.

Results  The total number of citations evaluated in this study was 2,527 (ranging from 386 to 486 per magazine). Rev Bras Ortop showed a low rate of self-citation (2.6%), being the sixth journal cited in the journal itself (10 out of a total of 386 references). Moreover, Rev Bras Ortop was not mentioned in any of the other five medical journals included in the study (absolute frequency 0, relative frequency 0).

Conclusion  Rev Bras Ortop has a low reference of itself, with a self-citation rate of 2.6% in the studied period, showing that the Brazilian orthopaedic surgeons do not mention the Brazilian orthopaedic surgeon who publishes in the journal. We suggest the elaboration and implementation of strong strategies to improve the journal's visibility in the world academic-scientific scenario. In addition, it is essential that Brazilian orthopaedic surgeons understand this reality and assist directly and effectively to change this scenario.

Bibliometric Analysis of the Top-Cited Articles on Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) has been proven to be an effective surgical technique for unilateral compartment osteoarthritis. The purpose of this study is to identify and analyze the top 100 cited articles in the field of UKA research.

METHODS

Publications on UKA from 1980 to 2020 in the Web of Science database were retrieved. The characteristics of the top 100 cited articles were analyzed, including information of publications and citations, level of evidence, and research interests.

RESULTS

The number of publications and citations increased over time. The majority of the highly cited articles were from the Nuffield Orthopedic Centre (Oxford, England) and the Brigham and Women's Hospital (Boston, USA). Long-term outcome of UKA and comparison between UKA and TKA gathered most research interests. The most frequently occurring keywords were "survival" and "revision." Since 2012, "life quality" and "robotics" have been used. There was no level I evidence, and most studies provided level IV evidence.

CONCLUSION

There was a rising trend in publications and citations in the field of UKA research, the majority of them were from a few centers, and were low-level evidence. Most studies focused on the long-term outcomes of UKA; in recent years, patient satisfaction and navigation surgery have become new research trends.

The 50 most-cited articles on clear aligner treatment: A bibliometric and visualized analysis

INTRODUCTION

Research on clear aligner treatment (CAT) has increased in recent years. In this study, we aimed to perform a bibliometric and visualized analysis to identify and critically assess the 50 most highly cited articles on CAT.

METHODS

Web of Science was selected as a data source and consulted until March 2020 to identify all articles potentially relevant to the analysis. All the eligible articles were collected until 50 manuscripts were listed. Article-based parameters, journal-based parameters, and author-based parameters were registered to perform the bibliometric analysis. Keywords were automatically harvested from the selected articles to implement the visualized analysis.

RESULTS

The search identified a total of 378 articles; the total number of citations of the selected articles varied from 15 to 112. The average number of citations per year varied from 1.15 to 13.83. The predominant study design was clinical (31.7%). Over the 15 journals in which the most cited articles were published, the American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics published the majority of those included in the list (14) and also received the greatest number of citations (671). A total of 195 authors contributed to the 50 most cited articles; a significant portion of them (26) were unaffiliated with academic institutions. A total of 184 keywords were gathered from the article list.

CONCLUSIONS

The number of citations on CAT is expected to grow steadily in parallel with the rising number of research projects. The present work identifies the most influential articles on CAT and their characteristics, placing emphasis on the journals, the authors, and the topics addressed.

The Evolving Trends in the Impact Factor of Plastic Surgery Journals: A 22-Year Analysis

BACKGROUND

The journal impact factor (IF) is one of the most widely adopted metrics to assess journal value. We aimed to investigate the trends in the IF and ranking of plastic surgery journals (PSJs) over a 22-year period.

METHODS

The Journal Citation Report 2018 was used to identify all journals within the field of plastic surgery from 1997 to 2018. We analyzed the IF of PSJs and that of the category surgery.

RESULTS

A total of 34 PSJs were identified. The mean IF increased from 0.584 (median, 0.533) in 1997 to 1.58 (median, 1.399) in 2018 (P < 0.0001). Over the same time, the median IF of the journals in the category surgery increased from 0.914 to 1.883. The mean journal IF percentile of PSJs within surgery remained fairly stable (P = 0.999). A strong positive correlation was identified between the IF of PSJs and both the 5-year IF (r = 0.943, P < 0.0001) and the immediacy index (r = 0.736, P < 0.0001). The percentage of self-citations across the study period was fairly stable at a mean of 19.2%. A weak positive correlation was found between the IF and the percentage of self-citations (r = 0.171, P < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

The mean journal IF in PSJs has been trending upward over the last 22 years. Ranking of PSJs IF within the category surgery has remained unchanged. The self-citation rate has been fairly stable and correlated weakly with the IF. A strong positive correlation exists between the IF and both the immediacy index and the 5-year IF.

Quality of systematic reviews in HIV: The case of clinical outcomes associated with patient medication adherence

AIM

Use of systematic reviews (SRs) as first-level evidence for guideline recommendations hinges on review quality. In particular, US guidelines for adherence-related recommendations in the treatment of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) are not based on available SRs of adherence-outcome relationships; it is unclear why. No published studies report on the quality of SRs on HIV adherence and outcomes, which may be driving the lack of use. We describe the quality of this body of literature.

METHODS

Literature searches were conducted in Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PubMed Central, the Cochrane Library, Science Citation Index, Web of Science, ScIELO Citation Index, and Ovid Emcare. Screening and quality assessments were performed in duplicate using AMSTAR 2. Funding sources and impact factors of publishing journals were also extracted, and correlations between quality rankings and numbers of critical weaknesses versus impact factors were assessed using Spearman's rank correlation coefficient.

RESULTS

Nine SRs of 1141 records met eligibility criteria. Overall confidence in the results was critically low for most (78%) SRs. Underperformance was found across all AMSTAR 2 domains. Impact factor (a surrogate or journal reputation) did not correlate with quality.

CONCLUSIONS

SRs do not necessarily comprise top-level evidence despite the availability of quality appraisal tools and reporting guidance, which could explain the lack of SR evidence in US HIV medication adherence-related guideline recommendations. All parties to evidence synthesis publication should require quality assessment of studies.

The Quality of the Evidence in Craniomaxillofacial Trauma: Are We Making Progress?

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the level of evidence in the craniomaxillofacial trauma literature. The secondary purpose is to determine if improvement in the quality of evidence has been made over the past 2 decades.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This retrospective cohort study analyzed clinical articles published in select craniomaxillofacial surgery journals. Patient-focused articles were selected. The year of publication (1999, 2009, 2019) was the primary predictor variable. Secondary predictor variables included study funding status, anatomical facial region (eg maxilla, mandible, and so on), specific journal, and journal impact factor. The level of evidence was determined using the Center of Evidence-Based Medicine criteria, which served as the outcome variable. The statistical analysis included descriptive, bivariate, and regression analysis.

RESULTS

The sample consisted of 469 craniomaxillofacial trauma articles, with 13.2% being published in 1999, 44.1% in 2009, and 42.6% in 2019. The majority of the studies (77.5%) were published in 4 journals. The impact factor varied among the journals with a significant improvement in the mean impact factor from (0.89 ± 0.29) in 1999 to (1.4 ± 0.47) in 2009 and a slight decline in 2019 (1.26 ± 0.71). Mandibular fractures (31.6%) and orbital trauma (26%) were the most investigated topics. Level 4 studies accounted for 67.4% of the sample, with level 3 evidence of 4.7%, level 2 of 22.6%, and level 1 of 5.3% of the included studies. Significant progress in the level of evidence has been made from 1999 but not since that time (P = .002). It is unclear why this may be but sheds light on the need for further development of high quality studies. Finally, a higher quality of evidence is associated with journal impact factor (odds ratio  = 1.9; P < .01) and funded research (odds ratio = 4.69; P = .02).

CONCLUSIONS

While there has been some improvement in the level of evidence in the craniomaxillofacial trauma literature over the past 2 decades, the current quality remains low, and further progress is needed to support the practice of evidence-based medicine.

Peer review practices by medical imaging journals

OBJECTIVE

To investigate peer review practices by medical imaging journals.

METHODS

Journals in the category "radiology, nuclear medicine and medical imaging" of the 2018 Journal Citation Reports were included.

RESULTS

Of 119 included journals, 62 (52.1%) used single-blinded peer review, 49 (41.2%) used double-blinded peer review, two (1.7%) used open peer review and one (0.8%) used both single-blinded and double-blinded peer reviews, while the peer review model of five journals (4.2%) remained unclear. The use of single-blinded peer review was significantly associated with a journal's impact factor (correlation coefficient of 0.218, P = 0.022). On subgroup analysis, only subspecialty medical imaging journals had a significant association between the use of single-blinded peer review and a journal's impact factor (correlation coefficient of 0.354, P = 0.025). Forty-eight journals (40.3%) had a reviewer preference option, 48 journals (40.3%) did not have a reviewer recommendation option, and 23 journals (19.3%) obliged authors to indicate reviewers on their manuscript submission systems. Sixty-four journals (53.8%) did not provide an explicit option on their manuscript submission Web site to indicate nonpreferred reviewers, whereas 55 (46.2%) did. There were no significant associations between the option or obligation to indicate preferred or nonpreferred reviewers and a journal's impact factor.

CONCLUSION

Single-blinded peer review and the option or obligation to indicate preferred or nonpreferred reviewers are frequently employed by medical imaging journals. Single-blinded review is (weakly) associated with a higher impact factor, also for subspecialty journals. The option or obligation to indicate preferred or nonpreferred reviewers is evenly distributed among journals, regardless of impact factor.

Output regularities of China's international collaboration research projects funded by NSFC

Purpose

The purpose of this paper is to provide theoretical basis and data support for researchers to choose appropriate international partners, provide a basis for Chinese research funding agencies, such as National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) to formulate international research collaboration (IRC) strategies and policies and provide recommendations for the improvement of the internationalization level of China's basic scientific research.

Design/methodology/approach

Based on existing research, this study took output of “Major International (Regional) Joint Research Project” (MIJRP) funded by NSFC and participated by Chinese scholars in the meantime as the analysis object, proposed hypotheses and constructed the indicators of IRC and research output (RO). In addition, the mathematical statistics was used to compare the RO of China's IRC and nonIRC, and the statistical analysis model was used to measure the influence on RO of collaboration country's research capacity, research collaboration between China and US, scope of international research collaboration and reprint author country.

Findings

The RO of China's IRC is higher than that of nonIRC; research capacity of collaboration country has no inevitable effect on the RO of China's IRC; the RO of China's IRC participated by Americans is higher than that without American scholars; expanding the scope of China's IRC to some degree can increase RO; the RO of China's IRC led by foreigners is higher than that led by Chinese. In particular, China–US IRC and foreign scholars acting as the reprint author are two major factors for the RO of China's IRC.

Originality/value

Most of the traditional research on IRC are based on the co-author papers, and this study tried to analyze the characteristics and regularities on IRC from a new view of international collaboration projects, which can be a supplement to the traditional international collaboration research on co-author papers.

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

BACKGROUND

Citation skew refers to the unequal distribution of citations to articles published in a particular journal.

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to assess whether citation skew exists within plastic surgery journals and to determine whether the journal impact factor (JIF) is an accurate indicator of the citation rates of individual articles.

METHODS

We used Journal Citation Reports to identify all journals within the field of plastic and reconstructive surgery. The number of citations in 2018 for all individual articles published in 2016 and 2017 was abstracted.

RESULTS

Thirty-three plastic surgery journals were identified, publishing 9823 articles. The citation distribution showed right skew, with the majority of articles having either 0 or 1 citation (40% and 25%, respectively). A total of 3374 (34%) articles achieved citation rates similar to or higher than their journal's IF, whereas 66% of articles failed to achieve a citation rate equal to the JIF. Review articles achieved higher citation rates (median, 2) than original articles (median, 1) (P < 0.0001). Overall, 50% of articles contributed to 93.7% of citations and 12.6% of articles contributed to 50% of citations. A weak positive correlation was found between the number of citations and the JIF (r = 0.327, P < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Citation skew exists within plastic surgery journals as in other fields of biomedical science. Most articles did not achieve citation rates equal to the JIF with a small percentage of articles having a disproportionate influence on citations and the JIF. Therefore, the JIF should not be used to assess the quality and impact of individual scientific work.

Evaluating Journal Impact Factor: a systematic survey of the pros and cons, and overview of alternative measures

Background

Journal Impact Factor (JIF) has several intrinsic flaws, which highlight its inability to adequately measure citation distributions or indicate journal quality. Despite these flaws, JIF is still widely used within the academic community, resulting in the propagation of potentially misleading information. A critical review of the usefulness of JIF is needed including an overview of the literature to identify viable alternative metrics. The objectives of this study are: (1) to assess the usefulness of JIF by compiling and comparing its advantages and disadvantages; (2) to record the differential uses of JIF within research environments; and (3) to summarize and compare viable alternative measures to JIF.

Methods

Three separate literature search strategies using MEDLINE and Web of Science were completed to address the three study objectives. Each search was completed in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Results were compiled in tabular format and analyzed based on reporting frequency.

Results

For objective (1), 84 studies were included in qualitative analysis. It was found that the recorded advantages of JIF were outweighed by disadvantages (18 disadvantages vs. 9 advantages). For objective (2), 653 records were included in a qualitative analysis. JIF was found to be most commonly used in journal ranking (n = 653, 100%) and calculation of scientific research productivity (n = 367, 56.2%). For objective (3), 65 works were included in qualitative analysis. These articles revealed 45 alternatives, which includes 18 alternatives that improve on highly reported disadvantages of JIF.

Conclusion

JIF has many disadvantages and is applied beyond its original intent, leading to inaccurate information. Several metrics have been identified to improve on certain disadvantages of JIF. Integrated Impact Indicator (I3) shows great promise as an alternative to JIF. However, further scientometric analysis is needed to assess its properties.

Open Sesame? Open access priorities, incentives, and policies among higher education institutions in the United Arab Emirates

Higher education institutions (HEIs) have an instrumental role in the move towards Open Access (OA) by shaping the national strategies, policies, and agendas. This study sets out to explore the role of HEIs in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) OA uptake and reflect on the ongoing international initiatives pushing for universal OA to research. The study is based on an online survey targeted at UAE higher education institutions research management units. In order to measure the institutional views, only one response was solicited from each institution. A total of 19 valid responses were received, making up 47% of HEIs included in the population of organisations. Our results suggest that there is low commitment to OA among UAE HEIs as attested by the low number of OA policies, scarce OA funding, limited proliferation of institutional repositories, perceived lack of urgency to migrate from current access models, and little consideration of OA for promotion purposes. The study is the first of its kind in the UAE, Arab and Middle Eastern countries, providing rare insight into a growing phenomenon that is global, yet most vocally discussed from a western perspective and context. The study contributes to the debate on the role of HEIs in the transition to OA and in shaping national and regional OA policies, as well as informing international initiatives about the current status of OA in the region.

How has the dental literature evolved over time? Analyzing 20 years of journal self-citation rates and impact factors

Objective: As journal impact factors (IFs) can be artificially inflated by excessive journal self-citation practices, research quality evaluation based solely on IF ranking may be manipulated and, therefore, ethically challenged. This study aimed to analyze the longitudinal development of journal self-citation rates (SCRs) and IFs in dental literature and to determine possible confounders.Methods: Twenty-eight journals with scope within general dentistry and (sub)specialties listed in 1997-2016 Journal of Citation Reports^® were scrutinized. The following information was retrieved: publication year, total number of citations, number of self-citations, IF, corrected IF, and SCR.Results: Endodontic journals had the highest SCR (median = 35.3, IQR = 21.6-47.5), journals related to periodontics had the lowest (median = 14.7, IQR = 8.9-25.5). Periodontics had the highest IF (median = 2.1, IQR= 1.7-2.8) and general dentistry had the lowest (median = 0.9, IQR = 0.7-1.2). SCR significantly decreased over time (p < .0001) by 1 unit per year. Additionally, 1 unit increase in corrected IF resulted in 15.2 units decrease in SCR. IFs significantly increased 0.06 units per year (p < .000).Conclusions: Overall, favourable changes in citation metrics have been observed for dental journals during the 20-year observation period. SCR significantly decreased per observation year whereas IFs significantly increased, indicating a healthy publishing environment in the dental literature. SCR was regulated both by time and corrected IF.

Influential variables in the Journal Impact Factor of Dentistry journals

Objective

The aim of this contribution is to determine what variables influence the position, by quartiles of the impact factor, as a quality indicator of a journal in the field of Dentistry.

Methods

To this end, 24 journals included in Journal Citation Reports, 6 pertaining to each quartile were selected by a stratified sampling and then an ordinal regression model was estimated stepwise considering the journal impact factor quartile as response variable.

Results

The estimation procedure concluded that the average number of papers published yearly by a journal and the percentage of systematic reviews are the most significant variables to be considered, along with the factor representing the journal's degree of adherence to recommendations by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors.

Conclusions/Clinical significance

Systematic reviews have significant effect on the Journal Impact Factor position of a journal as well as adherence to ICMJE recommendations, while papers publishing clinical trials bear no influence on this factor. Greater yearly average of published papers in a journal means a higher impact factor.

World Trend of Peritoneal Dialysis Publications

Objectives

To analyze the trend of global peritoneal dialysis (PD) publications, especially of publications in Peritoneal Dialysis International ( PDI), from 1991 to 2005 according to the Institute for Scientific Information databases of the Thomson Corporation.

Methods

Data were downloaded from the Web of Science, which includes the databases of Science Citation Index Expanded and Social Sciences Citation Index. The searching strategies were key-in of “peritoneal dialysis” in general search and of “SO=Peritoneal Dialysis International” in advanced search. Only articles and reviews were included in the analysis. The analysis was stratified by publication year, journal, author, country of each author's affiliation, and citation count of each paper.

Results

There were 7618 PD papers (6991 articles and 627 reviews) in 887 journals; 15.8% of them ( n = 1204) were published in PDI. The annual outputs of global PD publications has been more than 500 papers since 1996, with a peak of 665 articles in 2003. In total, 18531 authors from 102 countries and areas contributed to PD publications. Authors from the USA were present in 30.6% of all papers although their global share decreased with time. A PD paper received an average of 12.7 citations. A review received more citations than an article (17.0 vs 12.3 on average), yet statistical significance was not reached ( p = 0.216, Mann–Whitney U test).

Conclusions

The number of PD research societies in the world has been growing during the past 15 years. More and more research is from countries other than the USA and the United Kingdom. Papers on PD have thus been published in many journals other than PDI, the leading journal in PD. However, the growth rate of PD publications in the world is diminishing. We present here the most likely reasons for the decrease in PD publications and propose suggestions for PDI to keep its leading role in the development of PD.

Charting the Open Access scholarly journals landscape in the UAE

The purpose of this study is to chart the scholarly journal landscape in the UAE in order to provide a scientific perspective on research productivity, distribution, and access in the country and lay the foundations for further research in this area. The study aims also to contribute to research endeavoring to paint a global picture of scholarly publishing. We carried out a mapping of scholarly journals published in the UAE compiled from international and local sources. The resulting journal list was studied focusing on the share of OA titles, language of publication, discipline, and type of publisher. Our results show that: (1) 534 journals are published in the UAE and that the share of OA is quite noteworthy with about 64% of all online journals; (2) the APC-based OA model is prevalent with around 75% of OA journals levying a publication fee; (3) UAE journals are predominantly in English while the number of Arabic-language journals is marginal; (4) science, technology and medicine prevail as the most prevalent subject areas of the journals; and (5) commercial publishers control most of the publications especially in the medical field. The study lays a foundation for further studies on scholarly journals in the UAE. The combination of regional indexes and international directories to measure the country’s scholarly journal output can also be replicated and built upon for other countries where the major international bibliometric databases do not provide a comprehensive representation of scholarly publishing activities.

From payments for ecosystem services to eco-compensation: Conceptual change or paradigm shift?

Payments for ecosystem services (PES) is an effective policy in conserving ecosystem services and is increasingly applied globally. The concept of PES was firstly defined in 2005, researches with various terminologies, concepts, and practices emerged since then. This paper analyzed the research patterns of PES studies through bibliometric methods, with a special focus on the trends of terminology, location (geographical research hotspot), types of PES, and PES effectiveness evaluation based on author keywords analysis. The results showed that PES started to receive considerable academic attentions from 2005, and the number of PES publications have relatively kept an increasing trend since then. The most influential journal, country, research organization, and author were Ecological Economics, USA, Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS, China), and Dr. Wunder. Further analysis revealed that there were various terminologies in PES studies, notably "ecological compensation" and "eco-compensation" (EC) were primarily adapted by Chinese research community. China was the geographical research hotspot and developing countries (Vietnam, Mexico, and Brazil) have received growing academic interests in last decade. "Forest and Carbon" PES was the most concerned types of PES in last five years. There were 125 articles evaluated the effectiveness of empirical PES initiatives, and the majority focused on the social aspect. We proposed two suggestions for future research: (1) adapting EC as an alternative term for PES studies because of its inclusiveness and representation of empirical practices; (2) enhancing integrated evaluation of PES programs to achieve multiple benefits.

Publication integrity in orthopaedic journals: the self-citation in orthopaedic research (SCOR) threshold

BACKGROUND

The impact factor (IF) is the most commonly used bibliometric method for rating academic journals. However, the practice of journals' self-citation may artificially elevate the IF. Additional bibliometric methods including Eigenfactor scale, SCImago Journal Ranking (SJR), and corrected IF (cIF) have been created. Comparing general-interest and specialized orthopaedic journals, the aims of this study were to assess: (1) the effect of journal´s self-citation on IF; (2) differences in bibliometric analysis; and (3) to determine thresholds for monitoring self-citation practices by defining the self-citation in orthopaedic research (SCOR) Threshold.

METHODS

The journal citation reports and SCImago Journal and Country Rank databases were queried for orthopaedic journals from 1997 to 2017. The following bibliometrics were compared between general-interest and specialized journals: IF, cIF, Eigenfactor, self-citation rates, and SJR. A novel metric, the cIF ratio, was proposed to represent the relationship between a journal's IF and cIF. Thresholds for cIF were based on statistical outliers of cIF ratio within general-interest and specialized journals were calculated. Outliers were defined as data points that were greater than the third quartile by 1.5 times the interquartile range using the last 10 years studied (2007-2017).

RESULTS

Specialized orthopaedic journals had a higher median self-citation rates compared to general-interest journals (11.85% vs. 6.36%, p < 0.001). Overall, cIF ratio declined over study period, and general-interest journals had a lower cIF ratio than specialized journals (8.77% vs. 19.54%, p < 0.001). Overall, general-interest journals had more favourable values for the bibliometric indices studied compared to specialized journals The SCOR threshold for cIF ratio was determined as 25.4% for general-interest journals and 53.3% for specialized journals.

CONCLUSION

Overall, self-citation occurs at a higher rate in specialized versus general-interest orthopaedic journals. We propose the use of a cIF ratio along with the SCOR threshold as a tool to evaluate and monitor journal self-citation practices in orthopaedic research.

Use of the Journal Impact Factor in academic review, promotion, and tenure evaluations

We analyzed how often and in what ways the Journal Impact Factor (JIF) is currently used in review, promotion, and tenure (RPT) documents of a representative sample of universities from the United States and Canada. 40% of research-intensive institutions and 18% of master’s institutions mentioned the JIF, or closely related terms. Of the institutions that mentioned the JIF, 87% supported its use in at least one of their RPT documents, 13% expressed caution about its use, and none heavily criticized it or prohibited its use. Furthermore, 63% of institutions that mentioned the JIF associated the metric with quality, 40% with impact, importance, or significance, and 20% with prestige, reputation, or status. We conclude that use of the JIF is encouraged in RPT evaluations, especially at research-intensive universities, and that there is work to be done to avoid the potential misuse of metrics like the JIF.

The emergent integrated network structure of scientific research

Scientific research is often thought of as being conducted by individuals and small teams striving for disciplinary advances. Yet as a whole, this endeavor more closely resembles a complex and integrated system of people, papers, and ideas. Studies of co-authorship and citation networks have revealed important structural properties of researchers and articles, but currently the structure of scientific ideas themselves is not well understood. In this study, we posit that topic networks may be a useful framework for revealing the nature of conceptual relationships. Using this framework, we map the landscape of interconnected research topics covered in the multidisciplinary journal PNAS since 2000, constructing networks in which nodes represent topics of study and edges give the extent to which topics occur in the same papers. The network displays small-world architecture, characterized by regions of dense local connectivity with sparse connectivity between them. In this network, dense local connectivity additionally gives rise to distinct clusters of related topics. Yet notably, these clusters tend not to align with assigned article classifications, and instead contain topics from various disciplines. Using a temporal graph, we find that small-worldness has increased over time, suggesting growing efficiency and integration of ideas. Finally, we define two measures of interdisciplinarity, one of which is found to be positively associated with PNAS's impact factor. Broadly, this work suggests that complex and dynamic patterns of knowledge emerge from scientific research, and that structures reflecting intellectual integration may be beneficial for obtaining scientific insight.