Search

In this review article, we discuss the literature pertaining to the bibliometric analysis of academic radiologists' scholarly activity in order to identify current trends, knowledge gaps, and potential future directions. Current research provides cross-sectional analyses of bibliometrics on three main themes: academic ranking, gender disparity, and research funding. The most commonly used parameters are the publication and the citation counts, the h-index and the number of years in academia. The h-index correlates positively with academic ranking and, in the case of editorial board members, with the journal's impact factor. Scholars who have secured National Institutes of Health funding tend to have higher h-indexes than those who have not. Whereas gender balance has been achieved in medical school and in several medical specialties, women remain significantly fewer than men in most areas of radiology. The underrepresentation of women is particularly noticeable at higher academic ranks and in leadership positions, suggesting that significant barriers to female radiologists' career advancement exist. Scholarly productivity of radiology residents and the impact of research on academic productivity are subjects that have received less attention in the published literature. Future studies should focus on whether bibliometric parameters can be used as reliable measurements of scholarly activity to help determine appointments, promotions and grant allocations, and to assess interventions that promote gender parity.

Clinicians and medical researchers increasingly turn to nonformal online platforms to promote research. Altmetric Attention Score (AAS) is a quantitative measurement of online influence of research in real time. The objective of this study is to determine if AAS correlates with traditional bibliometrics in the orthopaedic literature.From the 15 orthopaedic journals with the highest impact factor, the 10 most cited articles from each journal were reviewed for 2014 -2017. For each article, AAS was collected using the Altmetric Bookmarklet application and citation count from SCOPUS. Journal impact factor was recorded using Journal Citation Reports. Statistical analysis included Pearson's and Spearman's correlation coefficients.A total of 600 articles were analyzed. A significant positive correlation was found between citation count and AAS for 2014 (r = 0.3188, p0.0001), and no correlation for 2015 (r = 0.1504, P = 0.0653), 2016 (r = 0.0087, P = 0.9157), and 2017 (r = 0.0061, P = 0.9408). There was no significant correlation between impact factor and AAS in 2014 (r = 0.4312, P = 0.1085), 2015 (r = 0.3850, P = 0.1565), 2016 (r = 0.1460, P = 0.6035) and 2017 (r = 0.0451 P = 0.8732).AAS and traditional bibliometrics are currently not strongly correlated in orthopaedic literature. Citations take years to accumulate and AAS represents immediate influence of an article. An amalgamation of traditional bibliometrics and AAS may prove useful in determining the short- and long-term impact and influence of publications in orthopaedics.

Introduction The medical education research field operates at the crossroads of two distinct academic worlds: higher education and medicine. As such, this field provides a unique opportunity to explore new forms of cross-disciplinary knowledge exchange. Methods Cross-disciplinary knowledge flow in medical education research was examined by looking at citation patterns in the five journals with the highest impact factor in 2017. To grasp the specificities of the knowledge flow in medical education, the field of higher education was used as a comparator. In total, 2031 citations from 64 medical education and 41 higher education articles published in 2017 were examined. Results Medical education researchers draw on a narrower range of knowledge communities than their peers in higher education. Medical education researchers predominantly cite articles published in health and medical education journals (80% of all citations), and to a lesser extent, articles published in education and social science journals. In higher education, while the largest share of the cited literature is internal to the domain (36%), researchers cite literature from across the social science spectrum. Findings suggest that higher education scholars engage in conversations with academics from a broader range of communities and perspectives than their medical education colleagues. Discussion Using Pierre Bourdieu’s concepts of doxa and field, it is argued that the variety of epistemic cultures entering the higher education research space contributes to its interdisciplinary nature. Conversely, the existence of a relatively homogeneous epistemic culture in medicine potentially impedes cross-disciplinary knowledge exchange.

Background: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is ravaging the world. To date, there are no standard therapies available to cure the disease. Consequently, research on COVID-19 vaccines is booming. This report aimed to assess the research trends of the global COVID-19 vaccines. Methods: The relevant publications on the COVID-19 vaccines were searched in the Web of Science Core Collection Database (WOSCC) database from December 2019 to 11 August 2021. The VOSviewer1.6.16 was used to assess the co-authorship, co-occurrence, citation of countries, institutions, authors, journals, and hotspot keywords. The HistCiteTM (http://www.histcite.com/) software was used to calculate the total local citation score (TLCS) and total global citation score (TGCS) of each variable and generate the citation historiography graph of COVID-19 vaccine development using the citation time series analysis method. Results: A total of 5070 studies authored by 21,151 researchers and published by 1364 different journals were eventually included in this study. The bulk of the retrieved studies were original articles (n = 2401, 47.36%). Among these studies, 1204 (23.75%) were published in 2020. A total of 3863 (76.19%) were published in 2021 and 4295 (84.71%) were open access. The highest number of studies was conducted in the USA, followed by England, China, and Germany. The main partners of the USA were China, England, and Canada. The University of Maryland (TLCS: 1618, TGCS: 2991) and Prof. Ugur Sahin from the University Medical Center of the Johannes Gutenberg University (TLCS: 1397, TGCS: 2407) were the most cited institution and author, respectively. The vaccines featured the highest number of papers, with 294 publications (TLCS: 0, TGCS: 1226). The most cited journal was the New England Journal of Medicine (TLCS: 3310, TGCS: 5914), with an impact factor (IF) of 91.245. The related topics included the following six aspects: attitudes towards vaccination, immunoinformatics analysis, clinical research, effectiveness and side effects, and the public management of vaccines. The timing diagram revealed that the research hotspots focused on the side effects of vaccines and public attitude towards vaccination. Conclusion: This novel comprehensive bibliometric analysis can help researchers and non-researchers to rapidly identify the potential partners, landmark studies, and research topics within their domains of interest. Through this study, we hope to provide more data to combat the COVID-19 pandemic.

PURPOSE: The citation count of a scientific article is considered as the recognition it received from this field. The purpose of this bibliometric analysis was to identify the top 100 most-cited scientific articles in penile surgical reconstruction. METHODS: The Web of Science database was used to extract the top 100 most-cited articles. Individual articles were reviewed to identify the authorship, published journal, journal impact factor (IF), primary disease, article type, institution and country of origin, and year of publication. RESULTS: The top 100 most-cited articles were published between 1947 and 2013. The number of citations ranged from 23 to 233. Journal of Urology contributed the most articles (n = 36). Articles with a high level of evidence like prospective analysis (n = 5), systematic review and meta-analysis (n = 2), and guideline (n = 1) were all published after 2000. The average citation per year of articles published in high-IF journals was significantly higher than that of other articles (p = 0.0129). There was a positive linear correlation between citation count per year and publication year (r2 = 0.26, p < 0.001). Among the top 100 articles, 74 articles were interlinked via citation of each other. The major topic of co-citation network was the application of flaps in penile reconstruction. CONCLUSIONS: The analysis of top 100 most-cited articles facilitates the comprehensive recognition of current focus in the field of penile surgical reconstruction, which is the exploration of flaps and development of new techniques in penile reconstruction. In the future, more attention should be paid to evidence-based medicine to provide high-level evidence for research. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE III: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .

PurposeThis study distinguishes the academic influence of different papers published in journals of the same subject or field based on the modification of the journal impact factor.Design/methodology/approachTaking SSCI journals in library and information science (LIS) as the research object, the authors first explore the skewness degree of the citation distribution of journal articles. Then, we define the paper citation ratio as the weight of impact factor to modify the journal impact factor for the evaluation of papers, namely the weighted impact factor. The authors further explore the feasibility of the weighted impact factor in evaluating papers.FindingsThe research results show that different types of skewness exist in the citation distribution of journal papers. Particularly, 94% of journal paper citations are highly skewed, while the rest are moderately skewed. The weighted impact factor has a closer correlation with the citation frequency of papers than the journal impact factor. It resolves the issue that the journal impact factor tends to exaggerate the influence of low-cited papers in journals with high impact factors or weaken the influence of high-cited papers in journals with low impact factors.Originality/valueThe weighted impact factor is constructed based on the skewness of the citation distribution of journal articles. It provides a new method to distinguish the academic influence of different papers published in journals of the same subject or field, then avoids the situation that papers published in the same journal having the same academic impact.

One of the most fundamental issues in academia today is understanding the differences between legitimate and questionable publishing. While decision-makers and managers consider journals indexed in popular citation indexes such as Web of Science or Scopus as legitimate, they use two lists of questionable journals (Beall’s and Cabell’s), one of which has not been updated for a few years, to identify the so-called predatory journals. The main aim of our study is to reveal the contribution of the journals accepted as legitimate by the authorities to the visibility of questionable journals. For this purpose, 65 questionable journals from social sciences and 2338 Web-of-Science-indexed journals that cited these questionable journals were examined in-depth in terms of index coverages, subject categories, impact factors and self-citation patterns. We have analysed 3234 unique cited papers from questionable journals and 5964 unique citing papers (6750 citations of cited papers) from Web of Science journals. We found that 13% of the questionable papers were cited by WoS journals and 37% of the citations were from impact-factor journals. The findings show that neither the impact factor of citing journals nor the size of cited journals is a good predictor of the number of citations to the questionable journals.

Background Social media has an increasing role within professional surgical practice, including the publishing and engagement of academic literature. This study aims to analyze the relationship between social media use and traditional and alternative metrics among academic surgical journals. Method Journals were identified through the InCites Journal Citation Reports 2019, and their impact factor, h-index, and CiteScore were noted. Social media platforms were examined, and Twitter activity interrogated between 1 January to 31 December 2019. Healthcare Social Graph score and an aggregated Altmetric Attention Score were also calculated for each journal. Statistical analysis was carried out to look at the correlation between traditional metrics, Twitter activity, and altmetrics. Results Journals with a higher impact factor were more likely to use a greater number of social media platforms (R2 = 0.648; P Conclusion Higher impact factor is associated with social media presence and activity, particularly on Twitter, with long-term activity being of particular importance. Modern alternative metrics correlate with impact factor. This relationship is complex, and future studies should look to understand this further.

In this transformative world, changes are happening in all the fields, including scholarly communications are trending in the academic area of publication and access to the resources, especially emerging the wave of open access, open science and open research. The study aims to investigate the digital publishing behaviour of manuscript authors. This study applied a quantitative approach and survey questionnaire method. The researcher collected the data from 251 authors, editors, and peer-reviewers from 45 countries worldwide. The research mainly focuses on the importance, need, and author preference for open access journals. Everyone cannot use and access subscription-based journals; the critical reason is the cost of purchasing a tremendous amount. As an independent researcher, developing countries and other impoverished countries, researchers can give the utmost importance to open access journals. The author also wishes to publish a journal in open access only. The findings reveal that most authors like to publish digital and print in both formats, with chargeless publications. Open access publishing has a vital role with researchers, scholars, and students because accessing the articles is costless. The researcher publishing the manuscript is more important than the quality of the content also important in scholarly publication. Nowadays, open-access peer-reviewed journals are also equal to the paid journals.

Background: Nine years have passed since the Journal of Bone Metabolism (JBM) was launched as an English journal in 2012; it was finally included in Scopus in January 2019. Therefore, this study aimed to provide evidence of increased international recognition based on journal metrics and reflect on its efforts to be recognized as a top-notch journal.Methods: Databases, such as the Web of Science (WoS), Scopus, Korean Citation Index (KCI), and citation indicators, including the impact factor (IF) and SCImago journal rank (SJR) were reviewed and calculated according to years, and the results were drawn. Furthermore, country-wise contributions and top-cited articles were also investigated.Results: The JBM 2020 IF was 2.17 in the WoS. The 2020 SJR in Scopus was 0.334, with a ranking of 165/219 (75.3%) in the Endocrinology, Diabetes, and Metabolism category. The 2020 KCI was 0.42. Of 263 articles, 260 were citable (98.9%), and of 176 original articles, 15 (8.5%) were supported by research grants. The total citation of JBM has increased from 16 in 2014 to 141 in 2020; however, its KCI remained stationary from 0.29 in 2015 to 0.42 in 2020.Conclusions: Currently, JBM is increasingly cited by international researchers than Korean researchers, indicating that the journal’s content is valued at an international level. Its inclusion in PubMed Central appears to have increased its international relevance; however, publishing English-only articles may hinder its use domestically. Therefore, efforts should be made to increase citation rates and enhance domestic readership.

Purpose: Journal impact factor (IF) is often used to measure research quality and importance. We assessed trial factors associated with the publication of cancer trials in journals with higher IF and publications receiving higher citations. Materials and Methods: Cancer-specific phase III RCTs were screened through https://clinicaltrials.gov. We identified trials with published primary endpoints, along with their corresponding journal IF and relative citation ratio (RCR). Results: Seven-hundred ninety manuscripts were included in our study. Trials that met their primary endpoint were more commonly published in journals with higher IF (Median IF: positive trials 35.4 vs. negative trials 26.3, P < 0.001). Furthermore, trials that led to subsequent FDA drug approvals were also published in journals with higher IF (Median IF: 59.1 vs. 26.3 in trials not leading to FDA approvals, P < 0.001). When analyzing RCR, trial positivity (meeting primary endpoint) was not associated with increased citations on multivariable analysis (P = 0.56). Lastly, publications of trials leading to FDA approvals (P < 0.001), and publications of trials in journals with higher IF (P < 0.001) were associated with increased RCR. Conclusions: Positive trials are commonly published in journals with high IF, but do not necessarily lead to increased citations. Moreover, trials published in journals with higher IF are more likely to receive increased citations.

Publication of research in anaesthesia is increasingly competitive. Understanding what topics of research are more likely to be published and where, is clearly valuable for authors seeking to optimise reach and impact of their work. This study aimed to identify the relative proportion of anaesthesia articles by topic for five anaesthesia journals over a 10-year period from 2010 to 2019, including any differences between journals and regions. We chose five anaesthesia journals based on current impact factor. All journal issues published between 2010–2019 were checked for total number of articles with only original research articles being further categorised by topic, country of research, funding status and citation count. Of 5782 original research articles analysed, the most frequent article topics published were translational studies (16%) and clinical practice (16%). Obstetric anaesthesia was the least frequent published (4%). Translational studies were the most frequently funded (84%) while articles on paediatric anaesthesia were least frequently funded (29%). The average number of citations per funded article was 37 versus 28 for non-funded articles. Translational studies were the most frequently published topic of research conducted in North America (25%) and Asia (25%), but of only average frequency in Europe (9%). Studies in obstetric and paediatric anaesthesia are less well-represented in anaesthesia literature and researchers may experience greater difficulty publishing these topics and obtaining funding accordingly. Authors should be aware of the diverse publishing tendencies of the different journals in anaesthesia in order to save time and effort when submitting research for publication.

PurposePredatory publishing is a growing and global issue infecting all scientific domains. Predatory publishers create counterfeit, not (properly) peer-reviewed journals to exploit the open access (OA) model in which the author pays. The plethora of predatory marketing journals along with the sophisticated deceptive practices of their publishers may create total confusion. One of the many highly likely risks of that bewilderment is when peer-reviewed, prestigious marketing journals cite these pseudo-marketing journals. This phenomenon is called citation contamination. This study aims to investigate the extent of citation contamination in the peer-reviewed marketing literature.Design/methodology/approachUsing Google Scholar as a citation gathering tool, this study investigates references to four predatory marketing journals in 68 peer-reviewed marketing journals listed in the 2018 version of the Academic Journal Guide by the Chartered Association of Business Schools (CABSs).FindingsResults indicate that 59 of the 68 CABS-ranked peer-reviewed marketing journals were, up to late January 2021, contaminated by at least one of the four sampled predatory journals. Together, these four pseudo-journals received (at least) 605 citations. Findings from nonparametric statistical procedures show that citation contamination occurred irrespective of the age of a journal or its 2019 Journal Impact Factor (JIF). They also point out that citation contamination happened independently from the fact that a journal is recognized by Clarivate Analytics or not.Research limitations/implicationsThis study investigated citations to only four predatory marketing journals in only 68 CABS-listed peer-reviewed marketing journals.Practical implicationsThese findings should sound an alarm to the entire marketing community (including academics and practitioners). To counteract citation contamination, recommendations are provided for researchers, practitioners, journal editors and academic and professional associations.Originality/valueThis study is the first to offer a systematic assessment of references to predatory journals in the peer-reviewed marketing literature.

Recent editorials have discussed the maturation of Industrial Marketing Management, and its emergence as the leading academic journal devoted to business-to-business marketing (Di Benedetto & Lindgreen, 2018; Lindgreen & Di Benedetto, 2018). From its inaugural issue in 1971, Industrial Marketing Management has continuously improved along several important metrics, such as multinationality of authors and editorial board membership, and multidisciplinary scope of articles (Di Benedetto & Lindgreen, 2018; Di Benedetto, Sarin, Belkhouja, & Haon, 2018; Lindgreen & Di Benedetto, 2018). Thanks to this devotion to top-quality scholarship, Industrial Marketing Management has showed consistent and impressive growth in academic rankings such as Thomson ISI Impact Factor, and citation counts according to Google Scholar (Baumgartner & Pieters, 2003; Di Benedetto & Lindgreen, 2018; Franke & Schreier, 2008; Guidry, Guidry Hollier, Johnson, Tanner, & Veltsos, 2004; Touzani & Moussa, 2010).

In Part 2, the authors are testing the methods of assessing Russian science journals citation in the natural, agricultural sciences and the humanities based on Web of Science Core Collection. The methodological approach is based on calculating citation coefficient which is a modified version of impact factor, calculated as the ratio of the number of citing documents to the number of scientific articles in Russian journals. The method is tested on the scientific articles published in Russian journals of 2012–2018 and indexed in the Web of Science Core Collection. As a result, recommendations are developed on how to promote Russian journals to the international databases based on Web of Science Core Collection taking into account the specifics of OECD domains under the examination. The general recommendations are: to decrease the share of mono-national publications thus increasing the share of articles written in the international collaboration; and to increase the share of articles by foreign authors. The study is accomplished through the funding within the State Order of the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian federation “Organizational, technological, research and methodological support of promoting national journals to the international science citation bases and information analytical support of the national subscription to international science information resources for scientific and educational organizations”.

Purpose To quantify the gap between radiology and other specialties regarding the amount of literature on healthcare disparities (HCD). Methods Four different searches were conducted to evaluate the amount of literature on HCD in radiology as compared to internal medicine and surgery. Initially, the Journal Citation Report was utilized to search for the five highest ranking journals in each field and a second search used impact factor. A combination of search terms “health” AND “disparities” was used. Two additional searches were performed with PubMed using the terms “health” AND “disparities AND “radiology” with the final term changed for each specialty. The second PubMed search added the term “medical education” for each specialty. Articles were limited to years 2017 to 2020. Results The initial search found 1817 articles discussing “health” and “disparities”. 14.6% of these were radiology, 65.7% internal medicine, and 19.7% surgery. The subsequent search controlling for impact factor found 2176 articles. 12.2% were for radiology, 66.1% were for internal medicine, and 21.7% for surgery. The initial PubMed search found 6543 articles. 9.9% were for radiology, 32.4% for internal medicine, and 57.7% were for surgery. The addition of “medical education” decreased the articles to 807. Radiology had 9.9%, internal medicine was 44.2%, and surgery was 45.9 %. Conclusion A gap in HCD literature exists for radiology as compared to surgery and internal medicine. However, radiology has demonstrated a recent significant push towards understanding HCD. Radiology should continue to capitalize on its momentum and develop HCD curricula and research.

Background In line with aging populations and increased application of anesthesia and surgery, perioperative neurocognitive disorder (PND) has received growing attention worldwide. Considerable researches into PND are being conducted; however, the quantity and quality of such researches have not been reported. Through a retrospective bibliometric analysis, this study aims to identify and characterize the top 100 cited publications on PND. Methods We searched the Web of Science database to find the top 100 cited articles focusing on PND. We collected bibliographic information, including year of publication, country of origin, article type, published journal, citation count, and authorship. To determine changes with time, we compared older and newest articles. Results The top 100 cited articles were published between 1955 and 2016; the number of citations ranged from 111 to 1248. The United States had the most published papers; clinical trial was the most common article type. The specialty journals of Anesthesiology and Anesthesia & Analgesia were the two most cited journals. Newest articles had a comparable number of citations to older articles, but the former had higher annual citation rates, greater funding disclosures, more focus on basic research, and more open access publications. Conclusions This study provides a comprehensive overview of the most cited articles and highlights the increasing attention on PND. High-quality clinical trials with a greater journal impact factor receive more citations. However, there has been a growth in the number of basic science studies as an area of research with respect to the pathogenesis of PND.

Jednym z problemów współczesnego środowiska akademickiego jest zrozumienie różnic pomiędzy uznanymi czasopismami naukowymi a tzw. czasopismami drapieżnymi. Podczas gdy osoby kształtujące politykę naukową i menedżerowie nauki uważają czasopisma indeksowane w popularnych indeksach cytowań, takich jak Web of Science czy Scopus, za rzetelne, to do identyfikacji drapieżnych czasopism używają dwóch czarnych list (tzw. lista Bealla i lista Cabell’s), z których jedna nie jest aktualizowana od kilku lat. Głównym celem naszego artykułu jest pokazanie, jak czasopisma uznane za rzetelne podnoszą widoczność artykułów opublikowanych w czasopismach znajdujących się na czarnych listach. W tym celu przebadaliśmy 65 czasopism z nauk społecznych znajdujących się na czarnych listach oraz 2338 czasopism indeksowanych przez Web of Science, które cytowały te czasopisma. Przeanalizowaliśmy 3234 artykuły z czasopism znajdujących się na czarnych listach oraz 5964 artykuły (6750 cytowań) z czasopism indeksowanych w Web of Science. Nasze wyniki pokazują, że 13% artykułów z czarnych list było cytowanych przez czasopisma z Web of Science, a 37% cytowań pochodziło z czasopism z impact factor. Okazuje się, że nie ma istotnej zależności między impact factor a liczbą cytowań w czasopismach z czarnej listy, mimo że jest on jest wykorzystywany przez osoby kształtujące politykę naukową do określania poziomu czasopism. Z drugiej strony należy wziąć pod uwagę jako czynnik wyjaśniający kraj i praktyki autocytowania stosowane w czasopismach.

The authors develop and substantiate the methods of assessing Russian science journals citation in six domains as specified by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and, based on Web of Science Core Collection data, make recommendations for promoting Russian journals to the international databases. The authors analyze the methods of citing science journals indexed by the international systems and conclude that there was a need for additional indicators of citation assessment with consideration to the national origins of publications. They suggest the methodological approach based on calculating citation coefficient which is a modified version of impact factor. The key distinctions of the method are the following: the number of citing documents are applied instead of the quotation number; only one document type, i.e. academic papers, is used for calculations; citation widows are varied depending on specificity of six OECD science domains. To distribute articles among the domains the authors developed the OECD – Web of Science Core Collection compliance tables.

Objectives Review abstracts presented at the Combined Otolaryngology Society Meeting (COSM) to determine subsequent publication and identify abstract features predictive of publication in high impact journals. Methods A selection of abstracts accepted in the 2015 COSM scientific programs were retrospectively reviewed. MEDLINE searches via PubMed and Google Scholar were performed to determine publication rates. The Journal of Citation Reports was used to determine impact factors for published abstracts. Binomial regression analyses were used to identify factors related to publication in high impact journals. Results 62.4% of reviewed abstracts (n = 623) were subsequently published, with a mean publication time of 14 ± 12 months. Abstract features predictive of publication were basic science type, other science type, prospective studies, multi‐institutional involvement, and presentation at the American Laryngologic Association and American Otologic Society meetings. Based on Wald score, podium presentation was found to have the biggest effect on publication. Factors positively associated with publication in high impact (impact factor > 2.272) journals were increased author number and sample size. Conclusions Overall publication rate of abstracts selected for presentation at COSM in 2015 was on the higher end of previously reported otolaryngology meetings. Abstracts detailing basic science, other science, prospective and multi‐institutional studies were more likely to lead to future publication. Additionally, increased number of authors and sample size lead to publication in higher impact journals. Level of Evidence N/A.