Search

Research papers published by Chinese and Indian researchers during 1998-2007 and cited at least 100 times by end of 2009 are analysed. There were 776 papers with at least one author from India (amounting to 0.32% of all papers from India) and 2260 papers with at least one author from China (0.4% of all papers from China) that have gone on to be cited at least 100 times. We have identified prominent authors and institutions, journals used and fields of research. Although highly cited Chinese papers were cited on average less often than the highly cited papers from India, Chinese authors have been able to place their papers in high impact journals such as Nature and Science far more often than Indian authors. The Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Mumbai and Jawaharlal Nehru Centre for Advanced Scientific Research, Bangalore are the prominent Indian institutions, whereas universities in Hong Kong, Peking University, Tshing Hua University and several institutions under the Chinese Academy of Science dominate in China. In terms of citations, Chinese National Human Genome Centre Shanghai, Shanghai, tops the list. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Adequate blood supply, a prerequisite for flap survival after grafting, makes angiogenesis of the flap the biggest problem to be solved. Researches have been conducted around vascularisation in correlation with flap grafting. However, bibliometric analyses systematically examining this research field are lacking. As such, we herein sought to conduct comprehensive comparative analyses of the contributions of different researchers, institutions, and countries to this research space in an effort to identify trends and hotspots in angiogenesis and vascularisation in the context of flap grafting. Publications pertaining to angiogenesis and vascularisation in the context of flap grafting were retrieved from the Web of Science Core Collection. References were then analysed and plotted using Microsoft Excel 2019, VOSviewer, and CiteSpace V. In total, 2234 papers that were cited 40 048 times (17.63 citations/paper) were included in this analysis. The greatest number of studies were from the United States, with these studies exhibiting both the highest number of citations (13 577) and the greatest overall H‐index (60). For The institutions that published the greatest number of studies were WENZHOU MEDICAL UNIVERSITY (681), while UNIVERSITY OF ERLANGEN NUREMBERG has the highest number of citations (1458), and SHANGHAI JIAO TONG UNIVERSITY holds the greatest overall H‐index (20). The greatest number of studies in this research space were published by Gao WY, while Horch RE was the most commonly cited researcher in the field. The VOS viewer software clustered relevant keywords into three clusters, with clusters 1, 2, 3, and 4 corresponding to studies in which the keywords 'anatomy', 'survival', 'transplantation', 'therapy' most frequently appeared. The most promising research hotspot‐related terms in this field included 'autophagy', 'oxidative stress', 'ischemia/reperfusion injury', which exhibited a most recent average appearing year (AAY) of 2017 and after. Generally speaking, the results of this analysis indicate that the number of articles exploring angiogenesis and flap‐related research has risen steadily, with the United States and China being the two countries publishing the greatest proportion of studies in this field. The overall focus of these studies has shifted away from 'infratest and tissue engineering' towards 'mechanisms'. In the future, particular attention should be paid to emerging research hotspots, which include 'ischemia/reperfusion injury' and treatments for promoting vascularization, such as 'platelet‐rich plasma'. In light of these findings, funding agencies should continue increasing their investment in the exploration of the concrete mechanisms and interventional therapeutic relevance of angiogenesis during flap transplantation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives To analyse the contributions of authors from three major regions of China - the Mainland ( ML), Hong Kong ( HK) and Taiwan ( TW) - in the field of health care sciences and services. Methods Articles published by Chinese authors between 1998 and 2012 in the category of health care sciences and services were retrieved from the Science Citation Index Expanded ( scie) database. The numbers of total articles, impact factors, citations, articles included in the top 10 highest impact journals and the 10 journals that published the most papers were recorded. Results ML, HK and TW published 615, 415 and 1162, respectively, with accumulated impact factors of 1281.65, 904.29 and 2361.44; average impact factor of 2.08, 2.18 and 2.03; and total citation times of 2313, 2652, and 4818. Regarding the top 10 high-impact journals, ML, HK and TW accounted for 28.25%, 27.68% and 44.07%, respectively. Total impact factors of the most popular 10 journals for ML, HK and TW were 20.86, 22.08 and 18.92, respectively. Discussion and Conclusions Both the quality and quantity of papers published in health care sciences and services journals from ML, HK and TW have greatly improved. ML and HK have different strong points, while the gap with TW diminished. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: This study presents a global research scenario in the broad domain of osteoarthritis (OA) research, using quantitative and qualitative publication and citation indicators. Methods: The study is based on 45,368 global publications, sourced from the Scopus bibliographical database, covering three decades (1994–2023). We studied the performance of the top 12 developed and top 12 developing countries. The key countries, organizations and authors at national and international levels were identified. The broad subject areas and key journals contributing to global OA research were delineated, besides identifying the broad characteristics of highly cited papers in the field. Results: The United States and China were the most productive countries, while the Netherlands and Canada made the largest citation impact. Harvard Medical School and the University of Sydney made the most contribution, while Boston University and Pfizer Inc., USA registered the highest citation impact. Hunter DJ and Guermazi A were the most productive authors, while Lohmander LS, and Hochberg MC registered the highest citation impact. Osteoarthritis and Cartilage (n = 4879) and Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases (n = 786) published the maximum papers, while Arthritis and Rheumatism and Nature Reviews Rheumatology registered the largest citation impact. The highly cited papers with 100 or more citations constituted 6.25% of the total publications. Conclusions: There has been a systematic growth of publications on OA. The research on OA was mainly done in developed countries, with the maximum publications coming from the United States of America, China and Canada. The most impactful publications on OA were from the Netherlands, Canada and the United States of America. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A total of 7,707 agronomy papers (2006 to 2011) by Chinese, Indian, and Japanese authors were identified in theWeb of Science(WoS) database. The impact factors (IFs) of papers and the uncited paper rate (UPR) in a particular journal with a given country's authorship was calculated as IFs calculated inJournal Citation Reports. For India, the impact factors of articles authored within one country (within-country impact factor) were significantly lower than the overall IF. The impact factors of collaborative articles (collaborative impact factor) and within-country impact factors for the three countries differed significantly. The uncited rates of collaborative papers (uncited collaborative paper rate) and uncited rates of papers authored within one country (uncited within-country paper rate) of China and Japan were significantly different. However, for India, the uncited collaborative paper rate was significantly lower than the uncited within-country paper rate; collaboration (mostly with developed countries) exerted a negative effect. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

With the further promotion of "Double First-Class" construction of universities in China, the new goal of all universities is building the first-class discipline. Academic library is the literature center of university, subject services of library should follow the pace of discipline development. In this paper, the citation frequency, which is considered as one of the important indicators of scientific research evaluation and academic evaluation, is taken as the breakthrough point. We take pharmacology as an example, take Web of Science as the platform, analyze the journal articles of this discipline in 2006–2016, reveal the characteristics of highly cited articles and the causes of zero cited articles. From publishing journals, publication year, research direction, fund and scientific research institutions to reveal academic library how to optimize journal navigation and collection structure and how to help researchers select periodicals, propagate research productions, explore the potential themes, control discipline trends, track disciplinary hot spots, obtain funding, strengthen research cooperation, etc. in order to make the subject services of library further expand. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents brief information on a bimonthly academic journal Acta Geologica Sinica, produced by the Geological Society of China. It states that the impact factor of the journal range from 1.5 to 2.5. It further enlists several measures for author to follow guidelines such as a review paper for an article, information on scope of articles and style of presentation of paper.

The article presents information on editorial board meeting of International Journal of Structural, Stability and Dynamics (IJSSD) in Majestic Harbor Plaza Hong Kong Hotel on 17 December 2009 in Hong Kong, China. Topics include the enhancement of impact factor and best paper award. The symposium featured several editorial board members of IJSSD including S. L. Chan, X. L. Zhao and D. A. Nethercot.

This paper investigates different uses of the Journal Impact Factor (JIF) in national journal rankings and discusses the merits of supplementing metrics with expert assessment. Our focus is national journal rankings used as evidence to support decisions about the distribution of institutional funding or career advancement. The seven countries under comparison are China, Denmark, Finland, Italy, Norway, Poland, and Turkey—and the region of Flanders in Belgium. With the exception of Italy, top‐tier journals used in national rankings include those classified at the highest level, or according to tier, or points implemented. A total of 3,565 (75.8%) out of 4,701 unique top‐tier journals were identified as having a JIF, with 55.7% belonging to the first Journal Impact Factor quartile. Journal rankings in China, Flanders, Poland, and Turkey classify journals with a JIF as being top‐tier, but only when they are in the first quartile of the Average Journal Impact Factor Percentile. Journal rankings that result from expert assessment in Denmark, Finland, and Norway regularly classify journals as top‐tier outside the first quartile, particularly in the social sciences and humanities. We conclude that experts, when tasked with metric‐informed journal rankings, take into account quality dimensions that are not covered by JIFs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study compares China's research article outputs rankings with its innovation rankings in the world, in the perspective of China's high monetary rewards for research publications. It finds that there is a mismatch between China's publication outputs and "research quality and broad influence on inventions," and that the high monetary rewards for publications may have also led to some academic misconduct. This study's findings also correlate with the findings of studies on China's patent applications, which were found to be policy driven and to be results of policies which incentivize patenting but decrease patent quality. Some awareness of the issues related to policy-driven publications would help librarians as well as readers in selecting journal articles. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: To study the trend of clinical and basic research output in the field of nephrology in China during the past 20 years. Methods: The journals listed in the 'Urology and Nephrology' category of Science Citation Index Expanded (SCIE) subject categories were selected. The papers were retrieved by searching the PubMed database. Mainland China (ML), Hong Kong (HK), and Taiwan (TW) were chosen as investigative regions compared with other developed countries. Geographical difference in publications in ML was analyzed. The change between clinical and basic research papers was compared. The accumulated or average impact factor (IF) and the number of papers published in the 10 most impacted journals were calculated to determine the quality of papers. Results: The research output in the field of nephrology in ML developed markedly in the last 7 years (an average annual increase of 54%% from 2004); ML exceeded TW and HK since 2008. The research output born in ML was mainly from five cities, for example, Beijing, Shanghai, Nanjing, Guangzhou, and Hangzhou, which accounted for 72%% of the total. Since 2001, clinical research papers increased yearly by 11.55, and the basic research papers increased by 4.55. However, clinical trials were still limited. In 2010, ML had the highest accumulated IF and the lowest average IF. ML had the second highest number of publications in the 10 top-ranking nephrology journals among the three regions. Conclusions: China has made a remarkable progress in the field of nephrology. Clinical researches have promoted the development of nephrology. The quality of research papers in China needs further improvement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The bibliometric analysis of scientific works on medicinal chemistry published over the last ten years is performed. The data obtained from the Web of Science Core Collection citation database suggest a decrease in the number of studies in the European developed countries and the United States, while this number increased in China, India, and the Latin American countries. There is a growing number of open-access articles on medicinal chemistry among which the portion of review papers increases. In Russia, this field is extensively progressing: the publication activity from 2008 to 2017 increased 2.5-fold. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The assessment of quality in scientific research is a complex problem. The use of more objective scientometric indices in research evaluation emerged in the 1960s and 1970s. These scientometric indicators, among which the most common one is probably the journal impact factor (IF), are increasingly employed to evaluate the quality of scientific research performed by individual scientists, research groups, or institutes. In China, the IF is used not only to measure a journal's scientific influence, but has become increasingly important as a basis for recruitment or promotion, awards of research funding, grants, and authors' academic advancement. But in fact, the assessment of research mainly based on the IF will cause much academic 'froth', so it is necessary for universities and research institutions to reset the academic assessment system in China. In the assessment of scientific research, more research activities, like the organization of conferences and seminars, the coordination of research groups, and the participation to conferences, should be considered. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Although the open access citation advantage (OACA) has been discussed extensively, scholars lack a clear understanding of the mechanisms through which switching from subscription‐based model to open access (OA) model affects the citation impact of a scholarly journal. Many journals have switched from subscription to OA, yet they later also flipped their preswitching articles (i.e., those under subscription model) to OA, thus leaving no subscription article to be compared with their postswitching OA counterparts. To detect the switching effect, our study instead focused on 60 journals that "reverse flipped" from OA to subscription. We use a difference‐in‐difference (DiD) analytical framework to analyze two propositions related to OACA, based on the bibliographic and citation data of pre‐ and postswitching publications in these journals. Our findings indicate that reverse flipping is unlikely to affect the journals' impact through changing the visibility of their articles. Instead, it could lead to a systematical shift in the submissions to the journals and thus considerably affect their impact. Our findings have important theoretical and practical implications for subsequent studies, funding agencies, and scholarly journals considering a reverse flip. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this article the author discusses aspects on judging chemistry and other scientific fields research on the reader impact factors in China. He revealed that some Chinese administrators turn to journal and research impact factors to determine the funds allocated for research and on chemist salaries, in which he argues that it should not be the case because impact factor is only a measure in a given amount of time. He says that chemistry should not be turned into a field of fame and game.

Objective: The objective of this study was to conduct a survey of the academic contribution and influence of Chinese scholars in the field of burns.Method: The PubMed database was searched to obtain literature items originating from various countries and Chinese provinces from 1985 to 2014. The citation data were collected through the Google Scholar engine.Results: A total of 1037 papers published in 256 journals were included in this survey. China was second only to the USA in the number of publications on burns since 2010. In addition, the annual number of papers has increased significantly since 2001. The journal Burns published the most number of articles, but its proportion has been decreasing. Of the papers included in the survey, 58.34% were published in journals with a 5-year impact factor between 1 and 2, whereas only 3.66% were published in journals with an impact factor >5. Both total citations and citations per paper have decreased in the past decade. Randomized controlled trials or systematic reviews merely accounted for a small proportion. Twenty-nine provinces including 64 cities contributed one paper at least. The publications from Taiwan, Beijing, Chongqing, Shanghai, and Guangdong were high in both quantity and quality.Conclusion: The Chinese academic contribution to the field of burns is now on a rise. Although the quality of papers is lagging behind quantity, scholars and academies are dedicated to improving China's academic level. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Recent years have seen a rapid increase in the number of tourism academic research articles, but there is as yet no system for assessing this literature because of a lack of relevant data in existing journal-evaluation databases. It is thus difficult to objectively analyze and assess the quality and academic influence of China's tourism journal articles. This is not conducive to the management and development of academic journals, and neither is it conducive to a comprehensive, objective understanding of the nature, connotation, and denotation of tourism. In this study, the core journals of tourism disciplines were screened out using Bradford's law of literature dispersion--a well-known bibhometric principle whose main application is to select and evaluate core journals. We dispensed with conventional discipline classifications and determined the number of tourism papers published in academic journals according to various related disciplines. We identified five kinds of journal evaluation indicators--the number of tourism scholarly articles, the total number of cited articles, the number of articles downloaded from the Web, and the ratio of funded papers, five-year impact factor--and ranked the core journals according to the level of the five-year impact factor. Finally, we evaluated the academic influence of these core journals and their contribution to tourism. This study used 16 word units (basic terms taken from the key words of papers) as search terms; tourism, travel, recreation, leisure, vacation, tourist, tour guide, hotel, restaurant, accommodation, scenic attraction, landscape, scenery, park, exhibition, and destination. We used these terms as search items in article titles in three influential Chinese academic journal databases; the Chinese Journal Full-text Database, VIP China Science and Technology Journal Database, and Wan Fang Digital Journal Database. For the period 2005 -2010, we retrieved 80,831 tourism research articles, which had been published in 6,367 journals. Based on bibliometrics and Bradford's law, these journals were divided into three zones; the core area, relevant area, and non-correlation area. The core area consisted of 89 journals and a collection of 26,652 articles; the relevant area contained 613 journals and a collection of 26,944 articles; and non-correlation area contained 5,664 journals and a collection of 26,976 articles. These figures were consistent with Bradford's law of literature distribution. The 89 journals in the core area are the most influential academic publications in tourism. We calculated the five journal-evaluation indicators for the 89 core journals. We then sorted the 89 journals according to their five-year impact factor. In the resulting tables, journals with a higher five-year impact factor had a greater proportion of the funded papers. Moreover, of the top 32 journals in the ranking table, 72% were included in the catalog of nationally recognized core journals, which validates the scientific rationale of the evaluation criteria used in this study. Finally, in accordance with the discipline catalog of the Ministry of Education, the 89 journals in the core area were divided into 13 categories; tourism, geography, economics, commerce and trade, agriculture, management, forestry, urban planning, architecture, statistics, sports science, other classes, and comprehensive. We calculated the number of publications in each category, the number of articles, the citation frequency, and the Web download frequency to analyze the relationship between the various disciplines and tourism and to determine their contribution to tourism. The statistics showed that three disciplines--economics, geography, and commerce and trade--were more influential than the others. When evaluated according to their academic influence and contribution to tourism, we found that the following 12 Chinese journals ranked at the top; Tourism Tribune, Human Geography, Geography and Geo-Information Science, Economic Geography, Tourism Science, Areal Research and Development, Journal of Beijing International Studies University, Inquiry into Economic Issues, Journal of And Land Resources and Environment, Commercial Research, Journal of Guilin Institute of Tourism, and Social Scientist. In addition to journals in tourism, academic journals in the fields of geography, economics, and business and trade have contributed substantially to tourism academic literature. These findings provide a reference for understanding the research status of domestic tourism and related sub-disciplines. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: This Research Note updates our 2006 and 2009 China/USA nanotechnology and nanoscience (NN) research output comparisons. A 2009 comparison of China/USA research publication outputs showed that China is about to overtake the USA in NN research output. As predicted by the extrapolated 2009 curve, China has passed USA in NN research publication output. This transition occurred in the 2008/2009 time frame, and if the 2011 results (taken at mid-2011) hold for the full year, will become quite pronounced (~20%). When specific sub-disciplines are examined, the differences between China and USA become more pronounced. For example, the 2009 paper presented the time trend for China/USA publications in nanocomposites, an important sub-discipline of NN. The updated nanocomposites curve has increased about twice the rate of the overall NN curve, and shows no sign of abating. The USA papers lead in the numbers of citations by all metrics considered, but the Chinese papers are showing significant improvement with time. Overall, the Chinese papers are cited very modestly, but there is a core of ''heavy hitters'' that appears to be increasing substantially with time, and is increasingly making its presence known in the higher Impact Factor journals. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

In this article, the author expresses his gratitude after being assigned to serve as editor-in-chief of the periodical "Journal of Biochemistry" from January 2014. Topics discussed include increased submission of articles from overseas countries such as China and India, increment in impact factors to 2.719 in 2012 from 1.945 in 2009 and role of Oxford University Press in development of periodical. Also mentions about open access options for authors that were introduced in January 2012.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic in 2020 was paralleled by an equally overwhelming publication of scientific literature. This scientometric analysis was performed to evaluate the 100 most cited articles on COVID-19 imaging to highlight research trends and identify common characteristics of the most cited works. A search of the Web of Science database was performed using the keywords "COVID CT," "COVID Radiograph," and "COVID Imaging" on June 29, 2021. The 100 top cited articles found were arranged in descending order on the basis of citation counts and citations per year and relevant data were recorded. Our search revealed a total of 4,862 articles on COVID-19 imaging published in the years 2020 to 2021. The journal with maximum number of publications (n = 22), citation count (n = 8,788), and impact was Radiology. Citations for the top 100 articles ranged from 70 to 1,742 with the most cited article authored by A.I. Tao and published in Radiology. Two authors tied at first spot, having maximum impact, with both having 5 publications and a total of 3,638 citations among them. China was the leading country with both the maximum number of publications (n = 49) and total citations (n = 13,892), the United States coming second in both. This study evaluates publication and citation trends in literature and shows that the countries most affected by the pandemic early on have contributed to the majority of the literature. Furthermore, it will help radiologists to refer to the most popular and important article texts on which to base their unbiased and confident diagnoses. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Hearing loss is a leading cause of disability in China. However, the research status in the field of hearing among Chinese individuals in the three major regions of China: Mainland (ML), Hong Kong (HK) and Taiwan (TW), are unknown. The output of hearing articles published in international otorhinolaryngology journals from these three regions were compared in this study. Articles published in 31 international otorhinolar-yngology journals related to hearing originating from the ML, TW and HK from 2000 to 2011 were retrieved from the PubMed database search. The number of total articles, clinical trials, randomized controlled trials, case reports, and articles published in the top 5 international otorhinolaryngology journals were assessed in terms of quantity and quality comparisons. The total number of articles from the three regions increased significantly from 2000 to 2011. There were 379 articles from ML (143), TW (180) and HK (56) in the past 10 years. The number of articles published per year from the ML has exceeded those from TW in 2009 and HK in 2003. TW had the most articles (46) published in the top 5 inter-national otorhinolaryngology journals among the three regions. The total number of articles from the three major regions of China increased significantly from 2000 to 2011. The numbers of articles published per year from the ML have exceeded those from TW and HK. How-ever, the quality of articles from TW is better than that from ML. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Background: We investigated scientific publications in laboratory medicine originating from mainland China, Hong Kong and Taiwan over the past 10years. Methods: The information about articles published in the included journals were determined by computer-searching on PubMed and data were extracted independently and analyzed in relation to the number of articles. Results: From 2000 to 2009 there were 1166 articles published in laboratory medicine journals from the major Chinese regions (mainland China, Hong Kong and Taiwan). This exceeded Japan, Germany, the United Kingdom and France from 2005 onwards. Also, the number of articles from mainland China exceeded those from Hong Kong and Taiwan from 2004 onwards. The average impact factor (IF) from Hong Kong ranked the first, followed by mainland China, and then Taiwan. Clinica Chimica Acta seems to be the most popular laboratory medicine journal among Chinese authors. Conclusion: Over the past 10years, Chinese authors have been more and more active in the field of laboratory medicine. Mainland China seems to have caught up to Hong Kong and Taiwan regarding publication of papers in this field. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: Growing cooperation between Chinese journals and international publishers invites an investigation of the effect of this cooperation, based on an analysis of journal IF changes. Data from 23 Chinese academic journals were chosen from about 50 English-language academic journals indexed by SCI or SCIE and with a long history of cooperation. The data do not suggest that cooperation has improved the journals’ IF thus far. It appears that cooperation is generally limited to international distribution, and this has a weak influence on the quality of the journal and its IF, even though the papers can be accessed by worldwide users through publishers’ international distribution networks. Cooperation with international publishers is one step, but actively working on the quality of the journals is a more important step. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Research collaboration is promoted by governments and research funders, but if the relative prevalence and merits of collaboration vary internationally then different national and disciplinary strategies may be needed to promote it. This study compares the team size and field normalized citation impact of research across all 27 Scopus broad fields in the 10 countries with the most journal articles indexed in Scopus 2008–2012. The results show that team size varies substantially by discipline and country, with Japan (4.2) having two‐thirds more authors per article than the United Kingdom (2.5). Solo authorship is rare in China (4%) but common in the United Kingdom (27%). While increasing team size associates with higher citation impact in almost all countries and fields, this association is much weaker in China than elsewhere. There are also field differences in the association between citation impact and collaboration. For example, larger team sizes in the Business, Management & Accounting category do not seem to associate with greater research impact, and for China and India, solo authorship associates with higher citation impact in this field. Overall, there are substantial international and field differences in the extent to which researchers collaborate and the extent to which collaboration associates with higher citation impact. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Acta Oto-Laryngologica is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Purpose: In the scientific community, a scientist's productivity is usually measured by his scientific output. The productivity of a group, an institution or, on a larger scale, a country can be assessed in similar manner. This study aims to show the contribution of Chinese authors to orthopedics research, from three major regions, namely Mainland China, Taiwan, and Hong Kong. Methods: Articles published in 63 orthopedics journals originating from Mainland China, Taiwan, and Hong Kong from 2003 to 2012 were retrieved from the PubMed database and Journal Citation Report. Quantitative and qualitative analyses were conducted for the total number of articles, clinical trials, randomized controlled trails, case reports, impact factors (IF), citations, and articles published in high-impact journals. Results: There were totally 3473 articles from Mainland China (1859), Taiwan (1111), and Hong Kong (503) from 2003 to 2012, showing gradual increase from 2003 to 2012. From 2006 onward, the number of published articles from Mainland China exceeded that from Hong Kong and exceeded that from Taiwan in 2008. The accumulated IF of articles from Mainland China (3746.21) was higher than that from Taiwan (2466.74) and that from Hong Kong (1089.35). However, Taiwan witnessed the highest mean IF (2.22), followed by Hong Kong (2.17), and Mainland China (2.02). Hong Kong displayed the highest mean citations of each article (9.35), followed by Taiwan (9.12), and Mainland China (5.71). By contract, Spine was the most popular journal to choose in these three regions. Conclusions: The total number of orthopedics articles in China increased markedly from 2003 to 2012. Of the three regions, Mainland China published the most articles, clinical trials, randomized controlled trails, and case reports. In general, Spine was the most popular journal to choose in the three regions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: China, as a rapidly developing country with the largest population including over 50,000 orthopaedic surgeons, has an increasing importance in the field of spine. However, the quantity and quality of research production in the field of spine in the major regions of China-Mainland China, Taiwan, and Hong Kong is unclear. This study aimed to investigate the contribution of China to the field of spine. Methods: Articles published in the 5 major spine journals originating from Mainland China, Taiwan and Hong Kong in 2004-2013 were retrieved from the database of Web of Science. The number of articles, impact factors, citations, article type, city, institution, funding source and conflict of interest were analyzed. Results: There were 1006 publications in the 5 spine journals between 2004 and 2013 from China, including 706 from Mainland China, 210 from Taiwan, and 90 from Hong Kong. The time trend of the number of articles from these three regions showed a significant increase of 8.74-fold (from 23 to 201) between 2004 and 2013 ( p = 0.000). From 2006, the number of publications from Mainland China exceeded Taiwan and Hong Kong. Mainland China had the highest total impact factors (1686.54) and total citations (4214), followed by Taiwan (498.93; 2009) and Hong Kong (222.89; 1311). Hong Kong had the highest mean impact factor (2.48) and mean citations (14.46), followed by Mainland China (2.40; 10.26) and Taiwan (2.38; 10.14). The journal Spine published the largest number of articles (470), followed by European Spine Journal (268). Conclusions: Chinese contributions to the field of spine have a significant increase during the past 10 years, particularly from Mainland China. Hong Kong had the highest quality research output in terms of mean impact factor and mean citation per article. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Over the past decade, research in Biochemistry and Molecular Biology has developed rapidly worldwide. The present study was designed to study the characteristics of publications in Biochemistry and Molecular Biology journals between 1999 and 2008 from the six top-ranking countries – the United States (USA), Japan, Germany, United Kingdom (UK), China and France. We also examined the research output from three different regions – Mainland China (ML), Hong Kong (HK) and Taiwan (TW). The USA contributed 34.1% of the world's total output and ranked first, but its percentage of research articles in this field went down. In total, 26,867 articles were published in journals with an impact factor (IF) <10.000, and 46.5% of these were from the USA. China contributed 4.2% of the total in 268 journals, 0.5% of which were journals with the top 10 IF. Our analysis describes the output from each country and region, and reveals the positive trend in China during the period of 1999–2008. In contrast to other countries, our results suggest that China is behind in conducting high-quality research. Clin Chem Lab Med 2009;47:1211–6. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]