Top 100 most-cited papers on diabetes mellitus in Dentistry: a bibliometric study.

This study assessed the features of the 100 most-cited papers on diabetes mellitus (DM) in dentistry using bibliometric measures. A search of the most cited papers on DM using journals included in the category "Dentistry, Oral Surgery and Medicine" in the Web of Science database up to January 2023 was performed. The complete bibliographic records of the selected papers were exported in plain text or Research Information Systems (RIS) file format. The following bibliometric indicators were collected: title, year, authors, number of citations, mean number of citations, institution, country, continent, study design, journal, impact factor, and keywords. Graphical bibliometric networks were created using the VOSviewer software. The number of citations for the 100 most-cited papers in DM research ranged from 111 to 566. Six papers each had more than 400 citations. Most were observational studies (n = 50) from the United States (USA) (n = 23) and were published in the Journal of Periodontology (30%; n=30). Robert Genco was the most cited author and contributed the most to the top 100 articles (3,653 citations; n = 13). The VOSviewer map of co-authorship showed the existence of clusters in research collaboration. The most prolific institutions were the Universities of Buffalo and Michigan (n = 6 each). "Diabetes mellitus" was the most frequent keyword, with 31 occurrences. In conclusion, the most cited studies that investigated the relationship between dentistry and DM were in periodontology. Observational studies, primarily from the USA, have been the most cited thus far.

Twenty-Five Years of Progress-Lessons Learned From JMIR Publications to Address Gender Parity in Digital Health Authorships: Bibliometric Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Digital health research plays a vital role in advancing equitable health care. The diversity of research teams is thereby instrumental in capturing societal challenges, increasing productivity, and reducing bias in algorithms. Despite its importance, the gender distribution within digital health authorship remains largely unexplored. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to investigate the gender distribution among first and last authors in digital health research, thereby identifying predicting factors of female authorship. METHODS: This bibliometric analysis examined the gender distribution across 59,980 publications from 1999 to 2023, spanning 42 digital health journals indexed in the Web of Science. To identify strategies ensuring equality in research, a detailed comparison of gender representation in JMIR journals was conducted within the field, as well as against a matched sample. Two-tailed Welch 2-sample t tests, Wilcoxon rank sum tests, and chi-square tests were used to assess differences. In addition, odds ratios were calculated to identify predictors of female authorship. RESULTS: The analysis revealed that 37% of first authors and 30% of last authors in digital health were female. JMIR journals demonstrated a higher representation, with 49% of first authors and 38% of last authors being female, yielding odds ratios of 1.96 (95% CI 1.90-2.03; P<.001) and 1.78 (95% CI 1.71-1.84; P<.001), respectively. Since 2008, JMIR journals have consistently featured a greater proportion of female first authors than male counterparts. Other factors that predicted female authorship included having female authors in other relevant positions and gender discordance, given the higher rate of male last authors in the field. CONCLUSIONS: There was an evident shift toward gender parity across publications in digital health, particularly from the publisher JMIR Publications. The specialized focus of its sister journals, equitable editorial policies, and transparency in the review process might contribute to these achievements. Further research is imperative to establish causality, enabling the replication of these successful strategies across other scientific fields to bridge the gender gap in digital health effectively.

Analysis of the Types of Retracted COVID-19 Articles Published in PubMed-Listed Journals.

OBJECTIVES: Periodically, medical publications are retracted. The reasons vary from minor situations, such as author attributions, which do not undermine the validity of the data or the analysis in the article, to serious reasons, such as fraud. Understanding the reasons for retraction can provide important information for clinicians, educators, researchers, journals, and editorial boards. METHODS: The PubMed database was searched using the term "COVID-19" (coronavirus disease 2019) and the term limitation "retracted publication." The characteristics of the journals with retracted articles, the types of article, and the reasons for retraction were analyzed. RESULTS: This search recovered 196 articles that had been retracted. These retractions were published in 179 different journals; 14 journals had >1 retracted article. The mean impact factor of these journals was 8.4, with a range of 0.32-168.9. The most frequent reasons for retractions were duplicate publication, concerns about data validity and analysis, concerns about peer review, author request, and the lack of permission or ethical violation. There were significant differences between the types of article and the reasons for retraction but no consistent pattern. A more detailed analysis of two particular retractions demonstrates the complexity and the effort required to make decisions about article retractions. CONCLUSIONS: The retraction of published articles presents a significant challenge to journals, editorial boards, peer reviewers, and authors. This process has the potential to provide important benefits; it also has the potential to undermine confidence in both research and the editorial process.

Hasty generalizations and generics in medical research: A systematic review.

It is unknown to what extent medical researchers generalize study findings beyond their samples when their sample size, sample diversity, or knowledge of conditions that support external validity do not warrant it. It is also unknown to what extent medical researchers describe their results with precise quantifications or unquantified generalizations, i.e., generics, that can obscure variations between individuals. We therefore systematically reviewed all prospective studies (n = 533) published in the top four highest ranking medical journals, Lancet, New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), and the British Medical Journal (BMJ), from January 2022 to May 2023. We additionally reviewed all NEJM Journal Watch clinical research summaries (n = 143) published during the same time. Of all research articles reporting prospective studies, 52.5% included generalizations beyond specific national study populations, with the numbers of articles with generics varying significantly between journals (JAMA = 12%; Lancet = 77%) (p < 0.001, V = 0.48). There was no evidence that articles containing broader generalizations or generics were correlated with larger or more nationally diverse samples. Moreover, only 10.2% of articles with generalizations beyond specific national populations reported external validity strengthening factors that could potentially support such extrapolations. There was no evidence that original research articles and NEJM Journal Watch summaries intended for practitioners differed in their use of broad generalizations, including generics. Finally, from the journal with the highest citation impact, articles containing broader conclusions were correlated with more citations. Since there was no evidence that studies with generalizations beyond specific national study populations or with generics were associated with larger, more nationally diverse samples, or with reports of population similarity that may permit extensions of conclusions, our findings suggest that the generalizations in many articles were insufficiently supported. Caution against overly broad generalizations in medical research is warranted.

Spin in dental publications: a scoping review.

The aim of this review was to map the practice of spin in scientific publications in the dental field. After registering the review protocol (osf.io/kw5qv/), a search was conducted in MEDLINE via PubMed, CENTRAL, Embase, Scopus, LILACS, ClinicalTrials.gov, and OpenGrey databases in June 2023. Any study that evaluated the presence of spin in dentistry was eligible. Data were independently extracted in duplicate by two reviewers. After removing duplicates, 4888 records were screened and 38 were selected for full-text review. Thirteen studies met the eligibility criteria, all of which detected the presence of spin in the primary studies, with the prevalence of spin ranging from 30% to 86%. The most common types of spin assessed in systematic reviews were failure to mention adverse effects of interventions and to report the number of studies/patients contributing to the meta-analysis of main outcomes. In randomized controlled trials, there was a focus on statistically significant within-group and between-group comparisons for primary or secondary outcomes (in abstract results) and claiming equivalence/noninferiority/similarity for statistically nonsignificant results (in abstract conclusions). The practice of spin is widespread in dental scientific literature among different specialties, journals, and countries. Its impact, however, remains poorly investigated.

NIH funding and journal selection: trends in dermatology publication models across tiers from 2021 to 2023.

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.

Analysis of the Formation of Scientific Communities in the Journal Research and Education in Nursing (2010 - 2020) and its Disciplinary Influence: an Approach from Bibliometric Analysis, Network Analysis, and Natural Language Processing.

Objective: This work sought to identify the academic communities that have shown interest and participation in the Journal Research and Education in Nursing and analyze the scientific impact generated by said journal. Methods: A bibliometric analysis was carried out, as well as social network analysis and techniques of natural language processing to conduct the research. The data was gathered and analyzed during a specific study period, covering from 2010 - 2020, for articles published in the journal, and 2010 - 2022, for articles that cited the journal within Scopus. These methods permitted performing an exhaustive evaluation of the journal's influence and reach in diverse academic and geographic contexts. Results: During the analysis, it was noted that the journal Research and Education in Nursing has had significant influence in academic and scientific communities, both nationally and internationally. Collaboration networks were detected among diverse institutions and countries, which indicates active interaction in the field of nursing research. In addition, trends and emerging patterns were identified in this field, providing a more complete view of the discipline's evolution. Conclusion: Based on the results obtained, it is concluded that the journal Research and Education in Nursing has played un fundamental role in disseminating knowledge and promoting research in nursing. The combination of Bibliometric metrics, social network analysis, and natural language processing permitted utmost comprehension of its impact in the scientific and academic community globally.

Altmetric Attention Scores and Citations of Published Research With or Without Preprints.

This cross-sectional study assesses how frequently research articles published in the clinical journals with high impact factors are preprinted and whether preprinting is associated with changes in media attention and citation counts.

Statistical characteristics of analytical studies published in Peruvian medical journals from 2021 to 2022: A methodological study.

OBJECTIVE: While statistical analysis plays a crucial role in medical science, some published studies might have utilized suboptimal analysis methods, potentially undermining the credibility of their findings. Critically appraising analytical approaches can help elevate the standard of evidence and ensure clinicians and other stakeholders have trustworthy results on which to base decisions. The aim of the present study was to examine the statistical characteristics of original articles published in Peruvian medical journals in 2021-2022. DESIGN AND SETTING: We performed a methodological study of articles published between 2021 and 2022 from nine medical journals indexed in SciELO-Peru, Scopus, and Medline. We included original articles that conducted analytical analyses (i.e., association between variables). The statistical variables assessed were: statistical software used for analysis, sample size, and statistical methods employed (measures of effect), controlling for confounders, and the method employed for confounder control or epidemiological approaches. RESULTS: We included 313 articles (ranging from 11 to 77 across journals), of which 67.7% were cross-sectional studies. While 90.7% of articles specified the statistical software used, 78.3% omitted details on sample size calculation. Descriptive and bivariate statistics were commonly employed, whereas measures of association were less common. Only 13.4% of articles (ranging from 0% to 39% across journals) presented measures of effect controlling for confounding and explained the criteria for selecting such confounders. CONCLUSION: This study revealed important statistical deficiencies within analytical studies published in Peruvian journals, including inadequate reporting of sample sizes, absence of measures of association and confounding control, and suboptimal explanations regarding the methodologies employed for adjusted analyses. These findings highlight the need for better statistical reporting and researcher-editor collaboration to improve the quality of research production and dissemination in Peruvian journals.

Do good things really come to those who wait? An analysis of the average time of acceptance in Brazilian surgery journals.

PURPOSE: To analyze the average time between submission and acceptance of national journals in seven Brazilian surgery journals from 2017 to 2022. METHODS: It consists of a cross-sectional and observational study with a quantitative approach to analyze the acceptance time of articles approved by Brazilian journals on general surgery and its subspecialties, including Acta Cirúrgica Brasileira, Jornal Vascular Brasileiro, Arquivos Brasileiros de Cirurgia de Digestiva, Revista do Colégio Brasileiro de Cirurgiões, Journal of Coloproctology, Revista Brasileira de Cirurgia Plástica, and International Brazilian Journal of Urology. RESULTS: The journals with the lowest average waiting times were Revista do Colégio Brasileiro de Cirurgiões, Acta Cirúrgica Brasileira, and Journal of Coloproctology, respectively, and, with the lowest interquartile range there is Acta Cirúrgica Brasileira. There was no significant difference between the pre-pandemic and pandemic periods. The study designs with the highest and lowest means were, respectively, ideas and innovations - also with the highest interquartile range - and expert opinion, while with the lowest interquartile range was technical skill. CONCLUSIONS: The acceptance time for articles in Brazilian surgery journals is extremely variable. Identifying these discrepancies highlights the importance of understanding editorial processes and seeking ways to improve consistency and efficiency in reviewing articles.

Noncarious cervical lesions: A bibliometric analysis and future research trends.

OBJECTIVE: The present bibliometric review analyzed the literature on non-carious cervical lesions (NCCLs) to explore the current state and propose future research topics. DATA: An electronic search was performed, only full scientific papers published in English were included. SOURCES: A search was conducted of all databases in the Web of Science (WOS) platform for available publications on the topic of NCCLs. STUDY SELECTION: 959 publications were retrieved, and the following data were extracted and analyzed: number of publications, study topics, keywords, study type, authors, affiliations, countries, funding agencies, journals and citations. Articles on NCCLs have been increasing in count, ever since they were first mentioned in the literature. Therapy alternatives account for 628 with few on prevention, and the majority were clinical. Brazil has published the most on NCCLs as well as has the highest number of authors and the most funded articles. The three journals that published the most on the topic were Operative Dentistry, Journal of Dentistry and Clinical Oral Investigations. CONCLUSION: The findings of this study provide a full picture of the current literature on NCCLs, research trends, knowledge gaps, and areas requiring further investigation. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: By highlighting evolving treatment strategies and potential gaps in prevention, researchers can contribute to the advancement of clinical practice. This can improve patient care and outcomes in the management of NCCLs, while also providing valuable insights for policymakers to prioritize research funding and policy initiatives.

[Analysis of highly cited papers in Chinese Journal of Epidemiology from 2020 to 2023].

Objective: To analyze the characteristics of highly-cited papers in Chinese Journal of Epidemiology from 2020 to 2023, and provide a basis for subsequent paper solicitation and identify research hotspots. Methods: On December 9, 2023, the citation frequency of each paper in Chinese Journal of Epidemiology from 2020 to 2023 was obtained from China National Knowledge Infrastructure. The total citation frequency of each paper was sorted using Excel 2016 software, and papers with citation frequency ≥30 were extracted for analysis. The keywords of the papers and Contents in Brief were analyzed. Results: A total of 1 317 papers were included in the analysis, of which 389, 342, 308 and 278 papers were included from 2020 to 2023. The total citation frequency was 11 873, and all papers were cited with an average citation frequency of 9. The keywords with high citation frequency in the papers included 2019-nCoV, hypertension, colorectal tumor, hand-foot-mouth disease, hepatitis B. and the average frequency of citation were 162, 77, 62, 51 and 47, respectively. There were 15 highly cited Contents in Brief in total, 11 of which are vital Contents in Brief or unique Contents in Brief, including Response to COVID-19 Epidemic, China Kadoorie Biobank, Epidemiological Research on Infectious Diseases, Healthy Ageing, Colorectal Cancer Prevention and Control, Prevention and Control of Hepatitis B, Quality Assessment of Cancer Screening Guidelines and Consensus, The 40th Anniversary of Chinese Journal of Epidemiology, Expert Forum, Review, Standard-Protocol-Guide. The total citation frequency was 3 951, accounting for 72.6% (3 951/5 438) of highly cited papers. Conclusions: In the past four years, the highly cited papers of this journal mainly focused on the research field of emerging infectious diseases and chronic diseases. The response to the 2019-nCoV epidemic highlights the academic leading role. The effect of selecting and planning a topic, commissioning authors to write on given topics and making an arrangement in advance with a subject for contribution to vital Contents in Brief or unique Contents in Brief of this journal is pronounced, and the academic influence of the journal continues to improve.

COVID-19 Pandemic and Impact on Research Publications in Critical Care.

OBJECTIVES: The COVID-19 pandemic precipitated a significant transformation of scientific journals. Our aim was to determine how critical care (CC) journals and their impact may have evolved during the COVID-19 pandemic. We hypothesized that the impact, as measured by citations and publications, from the field of CC would increase. DESIGN: Observational study of journal publications, citations, and retractions status. SETTING: All work was done electronically and retrospectively. SUBJECTS: The top 18 CC journals broadly concerning CC, and the top 5 most productive CC journals on the SCImago list. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: For the top 18 CC journals and specifically Critical Care Medicine (CCM), time series analysis was used to estimate the trends of total citations, citations per publication, and publications per year by using the best-fit curve. We used PubMed and Retraction Watch to determine the number of COVID-19 publications and retractions. The average total citations and citations per publication for all journals was an upward quadratic trend with inflection points in 2020, whereas publications per year spiked in 2020 before returning to prepandemic values in 2021. For CCM total publications trend downward while total citations and citations per publication generally trend up from 2017 onward. CCM had the lowest percentage of COVID-related publications (15.7%) during the pandemic and no reported retractions. Two COVID-19 retractions were noted in our top five journals. CONCLUSIONS: Citation activity across top CC journals underwent a dramatic increase during the COVID-19 pandemic without significant retraction data. These trends suggest that the impact of CC has grown significantly since the onset of COVID-19 while maintaining adherence to a high-quality peer-review process.

[Publication in indexed journals is imperative for communication in contemporary medicine]. / La publicación en revistas indexadas es imperativa para la comunicación en la medicina contemporánea.

No Abstract available.

Impact of Open Access Policy on Brazilian Science and Global Trends.

Open access (OA) publishing provides free online access to research articles without subscription fees. In Brazil, absence of financial support from academic institutions and limited government policies pose challenges to OA publication. Here, we used data from the Web of Science and Scopus to compare with global trends in journal accessibility and scientific quality metrics. Brazilian authors publish more OA articles, particularly in Global South journals. While OA correlates with quality for global authors, it had no impact on Brazilian science. To maximize impact, Brazilian authors should prioritize Q1 journals regardless of OA status. High-impact or Global North journal publication seems more relevant for Brazilian science than OA. Our findings indicate that the present open access policy has been ineffective to improve the impact of Brazilian science, providing insights to guide the formulation of scientific public policies.

Geographic Mapping of Gender Disparities in Authorship of Cardiovascular Literature.

BACKGROUND: Women in cardiology experience considerable gender disparities in publications, which hinders their career advancements to higher faculty and senior leadership positions. However, the extent of these disparities across different types of cardiovascular literature is not well understood. OBJECTIVES: We investigated gender differences in authorship across various cardiovascular publications over a decade and examined geographic variations in the representation of women authors. METHODS: All papers published from January 1, 2010, to December 31, 2019, in 4 major cardiovascular journals (Journal of the American College of Cardiology, European Heart Journal, Journal of the American Medical Association Cardiology, and Nature Reviews Cardiology) were reviewed. RESULTS: Of the 18,535 papers with 111,562 authors, 20.6% of the authors were women, and 47.7% of the papers had no women authors. Over 10 years, the proportion of women authors remained low (20.7% in 2010 to 21.4% in 2019), with the lowest proportion in editorial papers (14.8%) and the highest in research papers (21.8%). More women as first (34.6%) and last (47.6%) authors were affiliated with institutions in the United States compared with other countries. The proportion of women middle-order authors was higher on papers with women as first authors (29.4% vs 20.5%) or last authors (30.6% vs 21.3%), compared with papers with men as first or last authors, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Over the past decade, the proportion of women authors across all article types in major cardiovascular journals remained low. A call to action is needed to promote women in cardiology and provide them with equitable opportunities.