Search

Purpose: To examine a series of papers from top ranked orthopaedic journals with respect to the number of citations over a 10-year observation period to identify factors that lead to high citation rates. Methods: The Web of Science database was consulted to identify all published papers from the first-year term of 2010 (January-May) from four top orthopaedic journals: AJSM, Arthroscopy, JBJS Am and KSSTA. The database was used to analyze and compare the papers with respect to their characteristics and citations up to 2019. Basic information for each paper was collected including the author, country, study type and average citations per year (ACY). The most (Top20%) and least (Bottom20%) frequently cited papers were identified and differences were extracted. Results: Five hundred sixteen papers were included with a total of 19,261 citations. Most of the published papers were from the United States (n = 245). On average, a paper received 37.3 citations over the 10-year observation period. The most cited paper was cited 322 times. The most cited study type was randomized controlled trial (RCT) (Ø80.8). The Top20% papers were cited 37 times more often than the Bottom20%. Among the Top20%, the largest group was cohort study (n = 20) followed by case series (n = 19). Among others, the number of authors, the number of keywords and the number of references significantly correlated with the number of citations (p < 0.001). Conclusions: Factors influencing citation frequency were identified. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Bibliometric studies on the field of multiple sclerosis (MS) research are scarce. The aim of this study is to offer an overarching view of the body of knowledge about MS research over eight decades–from 1945 to 2021–by means of a bibliometric analysis. We performed a quantitative analysis of a massive dataset based on Web of Science. The analysis included frequencies, temporal trends, collaboration networks, clusters of research themes, and an in-depth qualitative analysis. A total of 48,356 articles, with 1,766,086 citations were retrieved. Global MS research showed a steady increase with an annual growth rate of 6.4%, with more than half of the scientific production published in the last decade. Published articles came from 98 different countries by 123,569 authors in 3,267 journals, with the United States ranking first in a number of publications (12,770) and citations (610,334). A co-occurrence network analysis formed four main themes of research, covering the pathophysiological mechanisms, neuropsychological symptoms, diagnostic modalities, and treatment of MS. A noticeable increase in research on cognition, depression, and fatigue was observed, highlighting the increased attention to the quality of life of patients with MS. This bibliometric analysis provided a comprehensive overview of the status of global MS research over the past eight decades. These results could provide a better understanding of this field and help identify new directions for future research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study examines the influence of National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding on the publication choices of dermatologists, particularly in terms of journal tiers and pay-to-publish (P2P) versus free-to-publish (F2P) models. Utilizing k-means clustering for journal ranking based on SCImago Journal Rank, h-index, and Impact Factor, journals were categorized into three tiers and 54,530 dermatology publications from 2021 to 2023 were analyzed. Authors were classified as Top NIH Funded or Non-Top NIH Funded according to Blue Ridge Institute for Medical Research rankings. The study finds significant differences in publication patterns, with Top NIH Funded researchers in Tier I journals demonstrating a balanced use of P2P and F2P models, while they preferred F2P models in Tier II and III journals. Non-Top NIH Funded authors, however, opted for P2P models more frequently across all tiers. These data suggest NIH funding allows researchers greater flexibility to publish in higher-tier journals despite publication fees, while prioritizing F2P models in lower-tier journals. Such a pattern indicates that funding status plays a critical role in strategic publication decisions, potentially impacting research visibility and subsequent funding. The study's dermatology focus limits broader applicability, warranting further research to explore additional factors like geographic location, author gender, and research design., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.)

Knee Surgery is one of the most commonly performed orthopedic procedures, and a rapidly evolving area of research. A bibliographic analysis was conducted to explore the characteristics of the top 50 most cited articles in knee surgery. The Web of Science Core Collection Database was used to search for Knee AND Surgery, further refined for orthopedic surgery, yielding 1,660 articles. After inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied, the top 50 cited articles were statistically and thematically analyzed. Year of publication ranged from 1982 to 2014. The highest volume of research came from USA, with the Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery having the highest number of papers in the top 50. The most common theme of research was Knee Arthroplasty Outcomes. Our study elucidates trends and popular areas of research in the field of knee surgery, and provides researchers with an overview of areas to focus, where there is scope for high-impact original research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: To evaluate the output of scientific publications in obstetrics and gynecology journals from Mainland China and six other countries, to compare the difference of research situation between Mainland China and the developed countries in order to measure the trend of number of publication in the field of Obstetrics and Gynecology. Methods: Information on article amounts, impact factors (IF), citation and publication in high‐impact obstetrics and gynecology journals by seven top‐ranking countries between January 1, 2007 and August 31, 2017, was extracted from Web of Science databases. Results: A total of 137 661 articles were published between 2007 and 2017 in the 98 obstetrics and gynecology journals. The cumulative IF and citations of articles from USA were the highest. The highest average citation was France and Mainland China ranked fourth. There were 52 631 papers published in the top 10 obstetrics and gynecology journals and the USA accounted for the majority of these papers (33 978, 64.6%), followed by England (8347, 15.9%). Articles from the USA were most often published in American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology (10658) and those from Mainland China were mostly published in Fertility and Sterility (809). Conclusion: The USA published the most articles having high IF, making the greatest contribution to the field of obstetrics and gynecology. Although the number of scientific publications from Mainland China has rapidly increased from 2007 to 2017, the quality of these publications has not been as satisfactory. It implys that Chinese current academic evaluation system should pay special attention to the quality of academic papers, instead of the number of papers published by scientists. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Respiratory disease remains one of the leading causes of mortality and morbidity worldwide. Objectives: In this study, we aimed to compare the quantity and quality of scientific publications in the field of respirology from the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, Canada and China. Methods: Articles published in 58 respiratory journals from 2007 to 2017 were screened with Science Citation Index Expanded database. The number of total and annual articles, article types, impact factor (IF), h‐index, citations and articles in the high‐impact journals from the corresponding country were collected for quantity and quality comparisons. The correlation of socioeconomic factors and annual publications was also analysed. Results: A total of 93078 articles were published worldwide in respiratory journals from 2007 to 2017. The United States contributed the largest proportion (34399 (37.0%)), followed by the United Kingdom (9494 (10.2%)), Germany (6918 (7.4%)) and Canada (6574 (7.1%)). Publications from China represented the 6th, but this quantity is rapidly increasing. The United States occupies the dominant place in all kinds of article types under investigation in the study, except in the category of meta‐analysis. For total and average citations, China still lags behind the other 4 countries in the study. The annual numbers of articles from China, Canada and the United States were positively correlated with gross domestic product (P < 0.05). Conclusions: The United States has played predominant role in respiratory research for the last 11 years. Although China has made great progress in the number of published articles over the past decade, the quality of these publications needs further improvement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Context: Over the course of the last decade, interest in the use of large data repositories for clinical research in orthopedic and spine surgery has grown substantially. Detractors maintain that the clinical relevance of research conducted using large registries is limited, and that the academic influence of such studies is minimal. Such contentions have not been empirically evaluated.Purpose: This study sought to perform a systematic review of spinal research conducted using the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP).Study Design: This is a systematic review.Outcome Measures: Impact factor (IF) of the journal of publication and number of citations of published articles conducted using the NSQIP.Methods: Orthopedic and spine-specific NSQIP articles published from January 1, 2007 to July 31, 2015, were identified through a query of PubMed or Medline, Embase, Web of Science, and Scopus. Articles were classified by journal of publication, year of publication, study topic, study purpose, and method of statistical analysis. Spine surgical publications were compared with other orthopedic research conducted using the NSQIP. The primary dependent variables for the purposes of statistical testing were IF of the journal in which the article was published and the number of citations for each publication. Negative binomial regression was used to evaluate the characteristics of papers associated with increased IF and number of citations.Results: Of the 1,525 articles identified in the initial search, 114 studies were considered eligible for inclusion in the systematic review. The average IF for the journals publishing orthopedic NSQIP articles was 2.75 (standard deviation [SD] 1.22, range 0-5.28), whereas it was 2.52 (SD 0.81, range 1.38-5.28) for spinal research. The average number of citations per article was 6.08 (SD 10.9, range 0-69) and 6.4 (SD 12.0, range 0-69) for spine-specific studies. Following negative binomial regression, only IF (regression coefficients [RC] 0.31; 95% confidence intervals [CI] 0.08, 0.55) and the year of publication (RC -1.29; 9% CI -1.64, -0.95) were found to have a statistically significant association with number of citations. Among spine-specific research articles, only the year of publication was found to influence the number of citations (RC -1.29; 95% CI -1.94, -0.64).Conclusions: Our findings indicate that the academic impact of orthopedic and spine surgical research conducted using NSQIP is highly variable, with most publications found to have relatively low impact. As our evaluation of study characteristics associated with high-impact publications and increased citations were unable to uncover factors that are likely translatable, we suggest following research design guidelines that highlight best practices when using large datasets for orthopedic research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: People with marginalized gender identities, including people with transgender and gender-expansive identities, have been historically excluded from research. Professional societies recommend the use of inclusive language in research, but it is uncertain how many obstetrics and gynecology journals mandate the use of gender-inclusive research practices in their author guidelines., Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the proportion of "inclusive" journals with specific instructions about gender-inclusive research practices in their author submission guidelines; to compare these journals with "noninclusive" journals based on publisher, country of origin, and several metrics of research influence; and to qualitatively evaluate the components of inclusive research in author submission guidelines., Study Design: A cross-sectional study of all obstetrics and gynecology journals in the Journal Citation Reports, a scientometric resource, was conducted in April 2022. Of note, One journal was indexed twice (due to a name change), and only the journal with the 2020 Journal Impact Factor was included. Author submission guidelines were reviewed by 2 independent reviewers to identify inclusive vs noninclusive journals based on whether journals had gender-inclusive research instructions. Journal characteristics, including publisher, country of origin, impact metrics (eg, Journal Impact Factor), normalized metrics (eg, Journal Citation Indicator), and source metrics (eg, number of citable items), were evaluated for all journals. The median (interquartile range) and median difference between inclusive and noninclusive journals with bootstrapped 95% confidence interval were calculated for journals with 2020 Journal Impact Factors. In addition, inclusive research instructions were thematically compared to identify trends., Results: Author submission guidelines were reviewed for all 121 active obstetrics and gynecology journals indexed in the Journal Citation Reports. Overall, 41 journals (33.9%) were inclusive, and 34 journals (41.0%) with 2020 Journal Impact Factors were inclusive. Most inclusive journals were English-language publications and originated in the United States and Europe. In an analysis of journals with 2020 Journal Impact Factors, inclusive journals had a higher median Journal Impact Factor (3.4 [interquartile range, 2.2-4.3] vs 2.5 [interquartile range, 1.9-3.0]; median difference, 0.9; 95% confidence interval, 0.2-1.7) and median 5-year Journal Impact Factor (3.6 [interquartile range, 2.8-4.3] vs 2.6 [interquartile range, 2.1-3.2; median difference, 0.9; 95% confidence interval, 0.3-1.6) than noninclusive journals. Inclusive journals had higher normalized metrics, including a median 2020 Journal Citation Indicator (1.1 [interquartile range, 0.7-1.3] vs 0.8 [interquartile range, 0.6-1.0]; median difference, 0.3; 95% confidence interval, 0.1-0.5) and median normalized Eigenfactor (1.4 [interquartile range, 0.7-2.2] vs 0.7 [interquartile range, 0.4-1.5]; median difference, 0.8; 95% confidence interval, 0.2-1.5) than noninclusive journals. Moreover, inclusive journals had higher source metrics, including more citable items, total items, and Open Access Gold subscriptions, than noninclusive journals. The qualitative analysis of gender-inclusive research instructions revealed that most inclusive journals recommend that researchers use gender-neutral language and provide specific examples of inclusive language., Conclusion: Fewer than half of obstetrics and gynecology journals with 2020 Journal Impact Factors have gender-inclusive research practices in their author submission guidelines. This study underscores the urgent need for most obstetrics and gynecology journals to update their author submission guidelines to include specific instructions about gender-inclusive research practices., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: To analyze the trends and developments among journals in the specialty of obstetrics and gynecology.Methods: Using the Journal Citation Reports from 2007 to 2013, we analyzed the impact factor (IF), Eigenfactor® Score (ES), and Article Influence® Score (AIS) of 43 journals in the field of obstetrics and gynecology published in this time period.Results: From 78 journals of the Journal Citation Report 2013, 43 were selected for this study. The mean IF grew from 1.68 ± 0.97 in 2007 to 2.12 ± 1.05 in 2013, the ES from 0.0113 ± 0.0169 to 0.0114 ± 0.0140, and the AIS from 0.513 ± 0.302 to 0.663 ± 0.359. Differences in the IF, ES, and AIS between journals from the United States versus Europe could be observed. In most cases, the IF, ES, and AIS increased between 2007 and 2013. Strong correlations could be found between IF, AIS, and ES.Conclusions: The overall mean IF for obstetrical and gynecological journals increased over the analyzed time period. The IF remains the standard measure to compare scientific journals. It correlates well with two major alternative measures of scientific impact, the ES and especially the AIS. Other measures are evolving and might show superior usage in the future. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To meet the energy requirements of sustainable economic growth, policymakers, analysts, and business leaders have increasingly turned to the role that energy efficiency might play. This has resulted in a growing energy efficiency literature, which is examined in this paper. Using bibliometric techniques, we analyze the database of Science Citation Index Expanded and Social Sciences Citation Index covering the 1991-2010 period. Of the 8,244 publications, 78.8 % were journal articles, and about 95.5 % were published in English. Based on the h-index, an evaluative indicator, the USA has produced the most influential set of publications on energy efficiency, followed by Canada, UK, Japan, and China. In contrast, China is second to the USA in the volume of its publications. Correspondingly, the University of California at Berkeley, Chinese Academy of Sciences, and Tsinghua University were the most productive research organizations. The three most common subjects examined in this body of research were 'energy and fuels', 'environmental sciences', and 'electrical and electronic engineering'. Energy Policy has been the most productive journal, and 'A water and heat management model for proton-exchange-membrane fuel-cells', has had the most citations (587 through May 2012). Based on an analysis of article titles and keywords, we conclude that the hotspots of energy efficiency research have been green communications, renewable energy, and energy sustainability; green communications, in particular, has developed rapidly as a focus of energy efficiency publications in recent years. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Despite various weaknesses, the impact factor (IF) is still used as an important indictor for scientific quality in specific subject categories. In the current study, the IFs of rheumatology journals over the past 10 years were serially analyzed and compared with that from other fields. For the past 10 years (1999-2008), the IFs published by the Institute for Scientific Information in the Science Citation Index-Journal Citation Report were analyzed. For the majority of rheumatology journals, the IF shows a gradually increasing trend. The mean and median level of increase of IF from 1999 to 2008 is 233.9 and 66.5%, respectively. The increase in IF from 1999 or the first year with IF documentation to that in 2008 was higher for European journals than for the USA journals. The aggregate IF and the median IF of rheumatology journals remained within the top 30% and top 15% in clinical medical and all the scientific categories, respectively. Over the past 10 years, rheumatology journals showed a general increase in IF and rheumatology remained a leading discipline. For journals in the English language, those from Europe had an even higher increase than those from USA. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background h-index is useful for quantifying scholarly activity in medicine, but this statistic has not been extensively applied as a measure of productivity in anaesthesia. We conducted a bibliometric analysis of h-index in editorial board members and tested the hypothesis that editorial board members of anaesthesia journals with higher impact factors (IFs) have higher h-indices. Methods Ten of 19 journals with 2009 IF>1 were randomly chosen from Journal Citation Reports®. Board members were identified using each journal's website. Publications, citations, citations per publication, and h-index for each member were obtained using Scopus®. Results Four hundred and twenty-three individuals filled 481 anaesthesia editorial board positions. The median h-index of all editorial board members was 14. Board members published 75 papers (median) with 1006 citations and 13 citations per publication. Members serving on journals with IF greater than median had significantly (P<0.05; Wilcoxon's rank-sum test) greater median h-index, citations, and citations per publication than those at journals with IF less than median. A significant correlation between the median h-index of a journal's editorial board members and its IF (h-index=3.01×IF+6.85; r2=0.452; P=0.033) was observed for the 10 journals examined. Board members of subspeciality-specific journals had bibliometric indices that were less than those at general journals. The h-index was greater in individuals serving more than one journal. European editorial board members had higher h-index values than their American colleagues. Conclusions The results suggest that editorial board members of anaesthesia journals with higher IFs have higher h-indices. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: As in other fields of science, bibliometry has become the primary method of gaging progress in nanotechnology. In the United States in the late 1990s, a period when policy makers were preparing the groundwork for what would become the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI), bibliometry largely replaced expert interviews, then the standard method of assessing nanotechnology. However, such analyses of this sector have tended not to account for productivity. We hope to correct this oversight by integrating economic input and output measurements calculating academic publications divided by the number of researchers, and accounting for government investment in nanotechnology. When nanotechnology journal publication is measured in these ways, the U.S. is not the leader, as has been widely assumed. Rather, it lags behind Germany, the United Kingdom, and France. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

The present study seeks to extend the depth and scope of an earlier study by Isserman (2004). In particular, using Isserman (2004) as a starting point and using more recent data [for the years 2005 through 2009], this study seeks to provide a broader and more in-depth perspective on the role and relative contribution of Regional Economics research to pertinent related scholarly literature as a whole. Interestingly, by taking into consideration the size of a subfield or field in terms of the number of its SSCI-journals, Regional Science journals may well manifest a higher impact than the journals of Economics and Geography. Hence, RSAI journals appear to be contributing quite productively, given the relative size of their field. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Students and scholars can take full advantage of Open Access journals only if libraries make them available through mechanisms that are familiar to patrons. This study examines the extent to which American liberal arts colleges have provided access to Open Access journals through their journal title lists (Serials Solutions, Ex Libris, etc.) and their online public access catalogs (OPACs). While 57 percent of the colleges provide access to at least 90 percent of the journals in our sample, 20 percent of the colleges provide access to fewer than 20 percent of the journals. Large and high-impact journals are especially likely to appear in libraries' catalogs and journal lists. There is no systematic trend by publication fee status or country of publication, however. The study concludes with a discussion of the strategies libraries can use to select Open Access journals and add them to their collections. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Characteristics of citation and language in publications of German authors from the journal „Der Chirurg” (vol 78, 2007) were analysed. Out of a total of 3,342 citations, 756 (22.62%) were from German authors with 248 (32.8) self-citations. The hegemony of the impact factor in science, research and education is critically discussed. The imbalance between the number of surgeons in the US and United Kingdom (66,032) and surgeons in the German speaking countries in Europe (25,300) is compared with respect to the counting methods used to create the impact factor of a journal. The creation of an independent impact factor in Europe and the development of an EU-based citation data bank which allows unselected access to national language scientific literature are strongly needed. [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]

Copyright of Psychologie Française is the property of Elsevier B.V. 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.)

Copyright of Psychologie Française is the property of Elsevier B.V. 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.)

Aim: To evaluate number and quality of publications in gastroenterology, hepatology and digestive endoscopy from Western Europe (Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Great Britain, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland), Japan and USA over a recent 5-year period. Methods: We screened by computer for full liver/gastrointestinal-related articles and reviews the top 40% of journals (according to the annual rating of the SCI Journal Citation Reports; Institute for Scientific Information database) in most clinical and basic science disciplines in the years 1992–1996. To be credited with an article, a given country had to be the site of the first institution where the work was conducted. Papers were rated according to the impact factor of the Institute for Scientific Information and to the ratio impact factor/mean European impact factor. Data were also normalized for nondefense research and development expenditure. Results and Conclusions: As randomly tested, the computer search had an error of ± 5–10%. In Europe, Great Britain achieved the highest total impact factor and the highest number of papers. Most of the British impact factor came from publications in British journals. The total USA impact factor exceeded that of Europe by 20%. The average impact factor for a single paper was highest for the USA and, in Europe, for Germany. The temporal trend of total impact factor showed Spain improving by 9% per year, with Germany and Italy also displaying a substantial growth. Expressed per funds allocated in nondefense research and development, Great Britain and the USA had the highest cumulative impact factor.Copyright © 2000 S. Karger AG, Basel [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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., (Copyright © 2020 The Association of University Radiologists. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Investigating the spatial distribution patterns of disease and suspected determinants could help one to understand health risks. This study investigated the potential risk factors associated with COVID-19 mortality in the continental United States. We collected death cases of COVID-19 from 3108 counties from 23 January 2020 to 31 May 2020. Twelve variables, including demographic (the population density, percentage of 65 years and over, percentage of non-Hispanic White, percentage of Hispanic, percentage of non-Hispanic Black, and percentage of Asian individuals), air toxins (PM2.5), climate (precipitation, humidity, temperature), behavior and comorbidity (smoking rate, cardiovascular death rate) were gathered and considered as potential risk factors. Based on four geographical detectors (risk detector, factor detector, ecological detector, and interaction detector) provided by the novel Geographical Detector technique, we assessed the spatial risk patterns of COVID-19 mortality and identified the effects of these factors. This study found that population density and percentage of non-Hispanic Black individuals were the two most important factors responsible for the COVID-19 mortality rate. Additionally, the interactive effects between any pairs of factors were even more significant than their individual effects. Most existing research examined the roles of risk factors independently, as traditional models are usually unable to account for the interaction effects between different factors. Based on the Geographical Detector technique, this study's findings showed that causes of COVID-19 mortality were complex. The joint influence of two factors was more substantial than the effects of two separate factors. As the COVID-19 epidemic status is still severe, the results of this study are supposed to be beneficial for providing instructions and recommendations for the government on epidemic risk responses to COVID-19.

OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study was to assess the profile of articles published in the American Journal of Roentgenology ( AJR ) and potential associations with bibliometric indexes over a 5-year period. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Citable documents published from 2014 to 2018 were retrieved from the Journal Citation Reports database. Six bibliometric indexes were assessed. The following article parameters were retrieved: type, subspecialty (17 topics covered by AJR ), origin, and title. Differences between groups were assessed by t test, ANOVA, Kruskal-Wallis test, or chi-square test. Citability was assessed by regression analysis. RESULTS. After exclusions, 2210 articles were considered citable and included in the analyses. Most of the metrics improved slightly, except for the Eigenfactor score and article influence score, which decreased. Original articles were preponderant; AJR published significantly more review articles than did three other general radiology journals. The mean number of citations per year of original articles (2.03 ± 2.18) was significantly larger than that of review articles (2.06 ± 2.47) ( p = .02). The mean number of citations per year was significantly higher for articles with mixed-origin authorship (3.12 ± 3.19) than for articles with American (2.02 ± 2.17) or non-American (1.93 ± 2.26) authors only ( p < .001). The distributions of mean number of citations per year among subspecialties differed significantly ( p = .001). Articles on abdominal, musculoskeletal, pediatric, and women's imaging were more frequently cited. Multivariate regression analysis showed that subspecialty and presence of acronyms or initialisms in the title were the only independent predictors of citability (both, p = .001). CONCLUSION. The main AJR bibliometric indexes increased slightly from 2014 to 2018, except for those from the Eigenfactor Project. The presence of acronyms or initialisms in the title and subspecialty were the only independent predictors of citability.

Several studies have summarized the biomedical publications in Arab countries. However, the quantity of health-related article publications from universities in recent years in Saudi Arabia is unknown. Therefore, this study aimed to perform a bibliometric analysis that showcases the quantitative health-related article publications output from universities in Saudi Arabia between 2008 and 2017. An extensive literature search was conducted using the PubMed database. The search was limited to original research articles, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses published in the English language reporting on humans from medicine and health sciences colleges by researchers affiliated with any university in Saudi Arabia between January 2008 and December 2017. A total of 3172 articles were found published between January 2008 and December 2017. The number of publication output increased significantly ( p  = 0.0027) from 73 (2.3%) in 2008 to 721 (22.7%) in 2017. The highest quantity of publications came from the Riyadh region ( n  = 2257), specifically King Saud University ( n  = 1538). Of specific journals, the BioMed Central journals published the most articles by Saudi Arabian researchers ( n  = 112). The total number of publications increased from 2% to 24.8% by region. However, approximately 80% of the papers were published in journals with an impact factor (IF) <3. Around 3.8% of the papers were published in journals that had an IF ≥6 and has increased significantly ( p  = 0.030) from 0% to 1.2% in the past decade. The journal with the highest IF that published a high quantity of articles was the American Journal of Human Genetics. This study has identified a continuous significant increase in the publication of health-related articles from universities in Saudi Arabia. This study extended our knowledge of the quantity of scientific productivity in the field of medicine and health sciences over a recent decade.

Background: Little is known about the scientific publication output for individual countries and medical specialties. The contribution of French authors to the currently expanding volume of publications on orthopaedics and traumatology (OT) is unclear. Orthopaedics & Traumatology: Surgery & Research (OTSR) is an English-language version of a preexisting French journal that was launched in 2009 to increase the dissemination of research done in France. The objective of this study was to use Web of Science (WoS) data from 1998 to 2017 to determine (i) the contribution of OT publications to the total worldwide volume of scientific publications, (ii) the contribution of OT publications from France to the total worldwide volume of OT publications, and (iii) changes over time in the proportion of OT publications from France with special attention to potential effects of the creation of OTSR., Hypothesis: The proportion of OT publications from France increased after 2010-2012, indicating a positive effect of OTSR., Material and Methods: WoS data were used to identify original studies and review articles written by at least one French author, published between 1998 and 2017, and dealing with OT (defined as orthopaedics and/or traumatology in adult and/or paediatric patients). The worldwide volumes of publications in OT and other specialties were compared. Within worldwide OT publications, the proportion from France was determined. Indicators of impact were evaluated during successive 5-year periods. Finally, the position of OT in worldwide research was assessed and OT journals were analysed., Results: Among worldwide scientific medical publications, the proportion dealing with OT increased year on year from 1.93% in 1998 to 2.65% in 2017. Among annual publications from France, the proportion dealing with OT rose similarly, from 1.32% to 2.40%. Over the 20-year study period, France moved from the sixth to the ninth position, chiefly due to a large increase in publications from Asia. However, France remained in third position among European countries and increased its OT production 3-fold between 1998 and 2017. The proportion of OT articles from France that ranked among the top 1% most cited articles increased by 65% from 2008-2012 (20 articles) to 2013-2017 (33 articles), and the proportion in the top 10% increased by 31.8% (211 in 2008-2012 and 278 in 2013-2017). This rate of progression was faster than in any of the other western countries. Between 1998-2011 and 2012-2017, the contribution of French OT to publication output showed a 1.56-fold greater increase than did the contribution of OT to the worldwide volume of scientific medical publications., Discussion: OT publications from France have kept pace with the steady increase seen worldwide over the last 20years. Although the US and UK remain in the lead, and despite the considerable growth in the output of Asian countries, France occupies a prominent position on the international OT scene. The creation of OTSR has elevated the international profile of French OT centres., Level of Evidence: IV, retrospective study with no control group., (Copyright © 2019. Published by Elsevier Masson SAS.)

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., Competing Interests: EM is a member of the DORA Steering Committee and an advisor for the Metrics Toolkit, both volunteer positions. LS, CM, LM, MN, JA No competing interests declared, (© 2019, McKiernan et al.)