100 Disruptive Publications in Breast Cancer Research

Evaluation and Comparison of Academic Impact and Disruptive Innovation Level of Medical Journals: Bibliometric Analysis and Disruptive Evaluation

BACKGROUND

As an important platform for researchers to present their academic findings, medical journals have a close relationship between their evaluation orientation and the value orientation of their published research results. However, the differences between the academic impact and level of disruptive innovation of medical journals have not been examined by any study yet.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to compare the relationships and differences between the academic impact, disruptive innovation levels, and peer review results of medical journals and published research papers. We also analyzed the similarities and differences in the impact evaluations, disruptive innovations, and peer reviews for different types of medical research papers and the underlying reasons.

METHODS

The general and internal medicine Science Citation Index Expanded (SCIE) journals in 2018 were chosen as the study object to explore the differences in the academic impact and level of disruptive innovation of medical journals based on the OpenCitations Index of PubMed open PMID-to-PMID citations (POCI) and H1Connect databases, respectively, and we compared them with the results of peer review.

RESULTS

First, the correlation coefficients of the Journal Disruption Index (JDI) with the Journal Cumulative Citation for 5 years (JCC5), Journal Impact Factor (JIF), and Journal Citation Indicator (JCI) were 0.677, 0.585, and 0.621, respectively. The correlation coefficient of the absolute disruption index (Dz) with the Cumulative Citation for 5 years (CC5) was 0.635. However, the average difference in the disruptive innovation and academic influence rankings of journals reached 20 places (about 17.5%). The average difference in the disruptive innovation and influence rankings of research papers reached about 2700 places (about 17.7%). The differences reflect the essential difference between the two evaluation systems. Second, the top 7 journals selected based on JDI, JCC5, JIF, and JCI were the same, and all of them were H-journals. Although 8 (8/15, 53%), 96 (96/150, 64%), and 880 (880/1500, 58.67%) of the top 0.1%, top 1%, and top 10% papers selected based on Dz and CC5, respectively, were the same. Third, research papers with the "changes clinical practice" tag showed only moderate innovation (4.96) and impact (241.67) levels but had high levels of peer-reviewed recognition (6.00) and attention (2.83).

CONCLUSIONS

The results of the study show that research evaluation based on innovative indicators is detached from the traditional impact evaluation system. The 3 evaluation systems (impact evaluation, disruptive innovation evaluation, and peer review) only have high consistency for authoritative journals and top papers. Neither a single impact indicator nor an innovative indicator can directly reflect the impact of medical research for clinical practice. How to establish an integrated, comprehensive, scientific, and reasonable journal evaluation system to improve the existing evaluation system of medical journals still needs further research.

Disruption of trauma research: an analysis of the top cited versus disruptive trauma research publications

Introduction

The analysis of surgical research using bibliometric measures has become increasingly prevalent. Absolute citation counts (CC) or indices are commonly used markers of research quality but may not adequately capture the most impactful research. A novel scoring system, the disruptive score (DS) has been found to identity academic work that either changes paradigms (disruptive (DIS) work) or entrenches ideas (developmental (DEV) work). We sought to analyze the most DIS and DEV versus most cited research in civilian trauma.

Methods

The top papers by DS and by CC from trauma and surgery journals were identified via a professional literature search. The identified publications were then linked to the National Institutes of Health iCite tool to quantify total CC and related metrics. The top 100 DIS and DEV publications by DS were analyzed based on the area of focus, citation, and perceived clinical impact, and compared with the top 100 papers by CC.

Results

32 293 articles published between 1954 and 2014 were identified. The most common publication location of selected articles was published in Journal of Trauma (31%). Retrospective reviews (73%) were common in DIS (73%) and top CC (67%) papers, while DEV papers were frequently case reports (49%). Only 1 publication was identified in the top 100 DIS and top 100 CC lists. There was no significant correlation between CC and DS among the top 100 DIS papers (r=0.02; p=0.85), and only a weak correlation between CC and DS score (r=0.21; p<0.05) among the top 100 DEV papers.

Conclusion

The disruption score identifies a unique subset of trauma academia. The most DIS trauma literature is highly distinct and has little overlap with top trauma publications identified by standard CC metrics, with no significant correlation between the CC and DS.

Level of evidence

Level IV.