Cultural and multicultural topics in Neuropsychology Journal titles from 2010-2020.

OBJECTIVE: The values of a field are reflected in the science it publishes. The goal of this study was to present a historical analysis of the extent to which the field of clinical neuropsychology publishes journals with titles that address culture in the context of brain function and behavior between 2010 and 2020. METHODS: Titles from articles published in 13 neuropsychology journals from 2010-2020 were collected and coded with regard to culture and multicultural content. The aims of the study were to (1) determine how often cultural or multicultural topics were represented in journal titles, (2) determine if cultural or multicultural content in neuropsychology journal publication titles increased over time, and (3) to explore other neuropsychological content that was most and least likely to appear in publications pertaining to culture or multicultural issues. RESULTS: Results indicated that titles for publications in clinical neuropsychology journals with content relevant to cultural or multicultural neuropsychology represented 1.1% to 13.4% of titles across the 13 journals. The number of cultural/multicultural titles increased over time. The number of cultural/multicultural titles per journal was not significantly correlated with the journal impact factor. Normative data were addressed significantly more often in cultural/multicultural titles versus non-cultural/multicultural titles, whereas psychiatric issues were addressed significantly less often. CONCLUSIONS: There are many actions that clinical neuropsychologists can take to increase the field's attention to the effects of culture on brain function and behavior. It is vital to update our data from 2021 to the present, given the substantial increase in awareness of social justice issues that occurred since 2020.

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.

Assessing sex and gender equity in submission guidelines of radiology journals: A cross-sectional study.

PURPOSE: Our study aimed to determine the current percentage of gender and sex equity promoting (GSEP) radiology journals, defined as satisfying at least one criterion of the Sex and Gender Equity in Research (SAGER) checklist, published by the European Association of Science Editors (EASE). A secondary objective was to compare characteristics of GSEP and non-GSEP journals. METHODS: A cross-sectional analysis between June 24 and July 3, 2023, was conducted. The author submission guidelines of radiology journals with a 2021 Journal Impact Factor (JIF) were assessed according to the SAGER checklist. GSEP journals were defined as satisfying one or more SAGER checklist criteria in their research instructions. Bibliometric data and journal information were collected from the Journal Citation Reports and National Library of Medicine catalogue. RESULTS: Only 39.7 % (52) of 132 journals satisfied at least one SAGER checklist criterion. Median 2021 JIFs were higher in GSEP journals (4.62, IQR: 3.73 - 5.21) than non-GSEP journals (2.70, IQR: 2.32) (p = 0.00). Median 2021 Journal Citation Index (JCI) scores were higher in GSEP (0.64, 0.56 - 0.73) than non-GSEP journals (0.97, 0.83 - 1.10) (p = 0.00). Cited half-life was shorter for GSEP (5.40, 4.80 - 6.50) than non-GSEP journals (6.70, 5.70 - 7.40) (p = 0.05). Elsevier published 33 of 52 of GSEP journals. CONCLUSION: 60.3% of radiology journals with a 2021 JIF do not meet a single SAGER checklist criterion in their author submission guidelines. GSEP journals had higher impact and source metrics and a shorter cited half-life. Publishers may play a significant role in promoting endorsement of the SAGER checklist in the author submission guidelines of radiology journals.

A new stress measurement strategy based on time-frequency characteristics of Lamb waves.

Existing stress evaluation methods based on the Lamb waves mainly use the time of flight (TOF) or velocity as the means of stress measurement. However, these two features used for stress measurement are sometimes insensitive to stress changes. Therefore, it is essential to explore other features that are potentially more sensitive to stress changes. The time-frequency spectrums of signals containing stress information have not yet been fully studied for stress evaluation. This paper proposes a uniaxial stress measurement method based on two time-frequency characteristics of Lamb waves, i.e., the slope of time-frequency spectrum distribution (TFSD) and pulse width impact factor. Theoretical expressions of the slope of TFSD are derived. The impacts of excitation signal parameters (i.e., bandwidth and center frequency) and noise on two time-frequency characteristics were discussed. Then, the fitting results of the finite element simulation are consistent with the results predicted by theory. To experimentally validate the proposed theory, aluminum plate specimens with two different types of adhesives were used for the experiment. According to the experimental stress measurement expression, three uniaxial tensile tests in the range of 35-95 MPa were conducted on the identical batch of specimens. The maximum standard deviation of multiple measured stress based on pulse width impact factor is 3.76433 MPa, demonstrating excellent measurement stability. The maximum standard deviation of multiple measured stress based on the slope of TFSD is 9.12492 MPa. It shows that the proposed methodology is a promising alternative for stress measurement.

Study Characteristics and Impact of the "Best Papers" Presented at ASSH Annual Meetings Over the Past Decade.

Purpose: Each year, the American Society for Surgery of the Hand (ASSH) selects several abstracts for podium presentations during a "Best Papers" session. We examined these papers to better understand their characteristics and impact on the field of hand surgery. Methods: "Best Papers" from the 2010 to 2020 ASSH Annual Meetings were reviewed. Online databases were searched to find matching publications. Descriptive data were collected from the publications. The Hirsch index value for each corresponding author and the number of citations for each publication were recorded. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze the data. Results: Fifty-nine "Best Papers" were awarded during the study period. Forty-nine (83%) were clinical and 10 were basic science studies. A total of 39 observational studies, 11 human trials, 8 experimental studies, and 1 case series were present. Fifty-four (91.5%) were published at the time of our review. Twenty-six of those (48%) were multicenter studies, and the remaining 28 were from a single institution. The average time from presentation to publication was 16 months. The top three journals of publication were the Journal of Hand Surgery (33%), the Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (9%), and the Journal of Hand Surgery, European (7%). The median level of evidence for all "Best Papers" was 3, with a trend toward a higher level of evidence during the study period. The average h-index value of all corresponding authors was 27.3. The average number of citations per publication was 37. Conclusions: The ASSH "Best Papers" were primarily clinical studies with an increasingly strong level of evidence and were likely led by an author with a history of research productivity. Selection as a "Best Paper" at ASSH Annual Meetings is a strong predictor of future publication and impact. Clinical relevance: This study evaluates the "value" of the best paper designation at the ASSH annual meeting.

Spatiotemporal dynamics and influencing factors of CO2 emissions under regional collaboration: Evidence from the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei region in China.

Against the backdrop of global climate change and the "dual carbon" target, cities have a significant responsibility to achieve carbon reduction targets. As a crucial urban agglomeration in northern China, effectively balancing economic growth with CO2 emission reduction to achieve high-quality economic development remains a significant challenge that the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei region should address both presently and in the future. The objective of this study is to utilize nighttime lighting data and energy consumption information to quantify the CO2 emissions of diverse cities within the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei region spanning from 2006 to 2020. The research aims to analyze the spatial progression patterns of CO2 emissions across these urban centers, identify key determinants and their interrelations, and delve into the underlying mechanisms pivotal for advancing carbon mitigation strategies within urban agglomerations. The results indicate that: with an exception in Beijing where CO2 emissions slightly decreased compared to 2006, CO2 emissions increased across cities in the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei region by 2020. High-value CO2 emission areas are primarily concentrated in central of the study area, exhibiting negative spatial correlation characteristics. Based on its urban development positioning, it is imperative for the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei urban agglomeration to formulate and implement carbon reduction strategies on innovative development, industrial upgrading, and ecological protection among other aspects towards coordinated low-carbon development.

K-Means clustering of dermatology journals: comparing the distribution of "free-to-publish" and "pay-to-publish" models.

This study investigates the impact of Free-to-Publish (F2P) versus Pay-to-Publish (P2P) models in dermatology journals, focusing on their differences in terms of journal metrics, Article Processing Charges (APCs), and Open Access (OA) status. Utilizing k-means clustering, the research evaluates dermatology journals based on SCImago Journal Rankings (SJR), H-Index, and Impact Factor (IF), and examines the correlation between these metrics, APCs, and OA status (Full or Hybrid). Data from the SCImago Journal Rank and Journal Citation Report databases were used, and metrics from 106 journals were normalized and grouped into three tiers.The study reveals a higher proportion of F2P journals, especially in higher-tier journals, indicating a preference for quality-driven research acceptance. Conversely, a rising proportion of P2P journals in lower tiers suggests potential bias towards the ability to pay. This disparity poses challenges for researchers from less-funded institutions or those early in their careers. The study also finds significant differences in APCs between F2P and P2P journals, with hybrid OA being more common in F2P.Conclusively, the study highlights the disparities in dermatology journals between F2P and P2P models and underscores the need for further research into authorship demographics and institutional affiliations in these journals. It also establishes the effectiveness of k-means clustering as a standardized method for assessing journal quality, which can reduce reliance on potentially biased individual metrics.

Smoothing regression and impact measures for accidents of traffic flows.

Traffic pattern identification and accident evaluation are essential for improving traffic planning, road safety, and traffic management. In this paper, we establish classification and regression models to characterize the relationship between traffic flows and different time points and identify different patterns of traffic flows by a negative binomial model with smoothing splines. It provides mean response curves and Bayesian credible bands for traffic flows, a single index, and the log-likelihood difference, for traffic flow pattern recognition. We further propose an impact measure for evaluating the influence of accidents on traffic flows based on the fitted negative binomial model. The proposed method has been successfully applied to real-world traffic flows, and it can be used for improving traffic management.

Estudios bibliométricos. Una opción para desarrollar investigación en cirugía y disciplinas afines

La bibliometría es la aplicación de métodos estadísticos para analizar libros, artículos y otras publicaciones, especialmente científicos. Muy relacionada con la cienciometría e informetría, al punto de superponerse y confundirse. La bibliometría se refiere al estudio de la dinámica de las disciplinas reflejado en la producción de su literatura. Incluye desde el registro de cambios en la producción de una disciplina académica a lo largo del tiempo y entre países, hasta el problema de la colección bibliotecaria. En este artículo se explicarán algunos conceptos históricos, definiciones y objetivos de la bibliometría; así como las Leyes de la bibliometría; los tipos de análisis e indicadores bibliométricos más utilizados; para terminar con algunos ejemplos de diferentes tipos de estudios bibliométricos publicados, para que el lector pueda formarse una idea general de lo que puede hacer en este campo, aplicando estas metodologías a disciplinas quirúrgicas y otras también. El objetivo de este manuscrito fue generar un documento de estudio respecto de la bibliometría como alternativa para desarrollar investigación en cirugía y disciplinas afines.

Bibliometrics is the application of statistical methods to analyze books, articles and other publications, especially scientific ones. Closely related to scientometrics and informetrics, to the point of overlapping and confusing. Bibliometrics refers to the study of the dynamics of the disciplines reflected in the production of their literature. It includes everything from the record of changes in the production of an academic discipline over time and between countries or regions, to the problem of the library collection. In this article some historical concepts, definitions and objectives of bibliometrics will be explained; as well as the Laws of bibliometrics; the types of analysis and bibliometric indicators most used; to finish with some examples of different types of published bibliometric studies, so that the reader can form a general idea of what he can do in this field, applying these methodologies to surgical disciplines and others as well. The aim of this manuscript was to generate a study document regarding bibliometrics as an alternative to develop research in surgery and related disciplines.

A survey of surveys: an evaluation of the quality of published surveys in neurosurgery.

PURPOSE: Surveys generate valuable data in epidemiologic and qualitative clinical research. The quality of a survey depends on its design, the number of responses it receives, and the reporting of the results. In this study, we aimed to assess the quality of surveys in neurosurgery. METHODS: Neurosurgical surveys published between 2000 and 2020 (inclusive) were identified from PubMed. Various datapoints regarding the surveys were collated. The number of citations received by the papers was determined from Google Scholar. A 6-dimensional quality assessment tool was applied to the surveys. Parameters from this tool were combined with the number of responses received to create the survey quality score (SQS). RESULTS: A total of 618 surveys were included for analysis. The target sample size correlated with the number of responses received. The response rate correlated positively with the target sample size and the number of reminders sent and negatively with the number of questions in the survey. The median number of authors on neurosurgery survey papers was 6. The number of authors correlated with the SQS and the number of citations received by published survey papers. The median normalized SQS for neurosurgical surveys was 65%. The nSQS independently predicted the citations received per year by surveys. CONCLUSIONS: The modifiable factors that correlated with improvements in survey design were optimizing the number of questions, maximizing the target sample size, and incorporating reminders in the survey design. Increasing the number of contributing authors led to improvements in survey quality. The SQS was validated and correlated well with the citations received by surveys.

Novel Journal Metrics in Cardiothoracic Surgery: How Different Are Contemporary Metrics From the Impact Factor?

OBJECTIVE: Despite shortcomings, impact factor (IF) remains the "gold standard" metric for journal quality. However, novel metrics including the h-index, g-index, and Altmetric Attention Score (AAS; mentions in mainstream/social media) are gaining traction. We assessed correlations between these metrics among cardiothoracic surgery journals. METHODS: For all cardiothoracic surgery journals with a 2021 Clarivate IF (N = 20), the 2-year IF (2019 to 2020) and 5-year IF (2016 to 2020), h-index, and g-index were obtained. Two-year journal-level AAS (2019 to 2020) was also calculated. Journal Twitter presence and activity was sourced from Twitter and the Twitter application programming interface. Correlations were assessed using Spearman correlation, and coefficients of determination were calculated. RESULTS: IF demonstrated a moderate-strong positive correlation with the h-index (rs = 0.48 to 0.77) and g-index (rs = 0.49 to 0.79) and a moderate correlation with AAS (rs = 0.53 to 0.58). The 2-year IF accounted for 25% to 49% of variability in the h-index, 27% to 55% of variability in the g-index, and 32% of variability in the AAS. Among journals with a Twitter account (N = 10), IF was strongly correlated with Twitter following (rs = 0.81 to 0.86), which was in turn strongly correlated with journal AAS (rs = 0.79). Article-level AAS was moderately correlated with citation count (rs = 0.47). CONCLUSIONS: IF accounted for only between 25% and 55% of variability in the h-index and g-index, indicating that these newer metrics measure unique dimensions of citation-based impact. Thus, the academic community must familiarize itself with these newer journal metrics. Social media attention may be associated with scholarly impact, although further work is needed to understand these relationships.

Measuring the impact of scientific publications and publication extenders: examples of novel approaches.

Different stakeholders, such as authors, research institutions, and healthcare professionals (HCPs) may determine the impact of peer-reviewed publications in different ways. Commonly-used measures of research impact, such as the Journal Impact Factor or the H-index, are not designed to evaluate the impact of individual articles. They are heavily dependent on citations, and therefore only measure impact of the overall journal or researcher respectively, taking months or years to accrue. The past decade has seen the development of article-level metrics (ALMs), that measure the online attention received by an individual publication in contexts including social media platforms, news media, citation activity, and policy and patent citations. These new tools can complement traditional bibliometric data and provide a more holistic evaluation of the impact of a publication. This commentary discusses the need for ALMs, and summarizes several examples - PlumX Metrics, Altmetric, the Better Article Metrics score, the EMPIRE Index, and scite. We also discuss how metrics may be used to evaluate the value of "publication extenders" - educational microcontent such as animations, videos and plain-language summaries that are often hosted on HCP education platforms. Publication extenders adapt a publication's key data to audience needs and thereby extend a publication's reach. These new approaches have the potential to address the limitations of traditional metrics, but the diversity of new metrics requires that users have a keen understanding of which forms of impact are relevant to a specific publication and select and monitor ALMs accordingly.

Different readers have different ways of deciding how important scientific articles are. The usual methods used to measure the impact of research, like the Journal Impact Factor or the H-index, are not meant to measure this for individual articles. These methods mainly look at how many times the articles are mentioned by others, and it can take a long time to see the impact.But in the past ten years, new tools called article-level metrics (ALMs) have been created. These tools measure how much attention an article gets online, like on social media, in the news, or when other researchers talk about it. ALMs are better at explaining how important a specific article is. They can work together with the usual methods to measure impact.This paper talks about why ALMs are important and gives examples of these tools, like PlumX Metrics, Altmetric, the Better Article Metrics score, the EMPIRE Index, and scite. It also explains how these tools can help us see the value of animations, videos, or summaries in simple language. These make it easier for more people to understand and learn from the articles.These new ways of measuring impact can help us see how important articles are in a more complete way. But because there are many different ways to measure this, it's important for users to understand which methods are relevant for a specific article and keep track of them.

Publication performance of university maxillofacial surgeons in Germany.

The aim of this bibliometric analysis was to benchmark the publication activities of German university departments of oral and maxillofacial surgery. The publication performance of staff surgeons (chief and consultants), documented by first or last authorship, from 37 German university departments was captured over a 10-year period (January 1, 2010, to December 31, 2019). All publications listed in PubMed were included. Additionally, the Impact Factor (IF) was determined. A total of 213 surgeons were identified, of whom 158 (74.2%) were publishing. The number of publications was 1,777, published in 311 journals. Publication activity ranged from an average of 23.3 publications per staff surgeon in the top-ranked department to 0 publications in the last-ranked. The same trend was observed for the total cumulative IFs (CIFs) per member (range from 56.2 to 0). The most common used journal was the Journal of Cranio-Maxillofacial Surgery (19.7%), with focus on "dentoalveolar surgery" (24%) and "operative techniques and procedures" (28.3%). Women constituted 19.2% of the staff, contributing to 8.5% of the publications. The publication performance of German university departments of oral and maxillofacial surgery exhibits a high variance, which did not correlate with the number of personnel and could only be explained by different research motivations.

Variations in Citations Across Databases: Implications for Journal Impact Factors.

The Journal Impact Factor (JIF) is a widely used metric for ranking journals based on the number of citations garnered by papers published over a specific timeframe. To assess the accuracy of JIF values, I compared citation counts for 30 of my own publications across six major bibliography databases: CrossRef, Web of Science, Publisher records, Google Scholar, PubMed and Scopus. The analysis revealed noteworthy variations in citation counts, ranging from 10% to over 50% between the lowest and highest citation counts. Google Scholar records the highest citation numbers, while PubMed reported the lowest. Notably, Web of Science, whose citation data are used in JIF calculations, tend to underestimate citation counts compared to other databases. These observations raise concerns about the accuracy of JIF calculation based on Web of Science's citation data. The real JIF values for most journals would differ from those annually reported by Clarivate's journal citation reports (JCR). These citation discrepancies underscore the importance of comprehensive data collection and the necessity to include additional citation sources. Not because a paper is cited in one journal rather than another should it have a less or more citation weight. Ultimately, one citation remains one citation, regardless of its origin. Clarivate Analytics may thus need to consider integrating all citation sources for more accurate JIF values. Alternatively, Google Scholar could potentially develop its own journal or citation impact based on its extensive journal citation records. However, while making adjustments to how the Journal Impact Factor is calculated can make it more mathematically precise, it doesn't address the fundamental biases built into the metric. Even with refinements, the Journal Impact Factor will remain skewed due to how it's defined and used.

Bibliometric analysis of the official journals of internal medicine societies in Europe.

INTRODUCTION: Bibliometrics evaluates the quality of biomedical journals. The aim of this study has been to compare the main bibliometric indexes of the official journals of scientific societies of Internal Medicine in Europe. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Bibliometric information was obtained from the Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus databases. Both impact metrics (Journal Impact Factor [JIF], CiteScore) and normalized metrics (Journal Citation Indicator [JCI], Normalized Eigenfactor, Source Normalized Impact per Paper [SNIP] and SCImago Journal Rank [SJR]) of the journals for the year 2022 were analyzed, and their evolution over the last decade was described. RESULTS: Twenty-three official journals from 33 scientific societies were evaluated. Eight journals were included in WoS and 11 in Scopus. The best positioned journals in 2022 were: 1) European Journal of Internal Medicine, which ranked in the first quartile (Q1) for JIF, CiteScore and JCI metrics, exceeding values of 1 in Normalized Eigenfactor and SNIP metrics; 2) Internal and Emergency Medicine, with Q1 for CiteScore and JCI metrics, and with values >1 in Normalized EigenFactor and SNIP metrics; 3) Polish Archives of Internal Medicine, with Q1 for JCI metrics; 4) Revista Clínica Española, with Q2 for JIF, CiteScore and JCI metrics; and 5) Acta Medica Belgica, with Q2 for CiteScore and JCI metrics. These journals increased their impact metrics in the last 3 years, in parallel with the COVID pandemic. CONCLUSIONS: Five official journals of European Internal Medicine societies, including Revista Clínica Española, meet high quality standards.