The Gender Gap in Surgical Literature: Are We Making Progress?

INTRODUCTION: The percentage of women in surgical leadership roles is not commensurate with percent of women in field of surgery. Citation indexes are used as proxy for scholarly impact and may serve as an indicator of women's progress in academic surgery. We aimed to evaluate gender disparities in authorship of surgery manuscripts in high-impact journals. METHODS: In this bibliometric analysis of original research articles from four high-impact surgical journals from 2008 to 2010 (period A) and 2018-2020 (period B), the gender of primary and senior authors was assigned by Genderize.io. Number of citations per article was identified via Web of Science. Number of citations by gender of authors was compared across time periods. RESULTS: Of the 3575 articles (Period A = 1915; Period B = 1660), 962 (26.9%) had women as primary authors and 590 (17.2%) as senior authors. Over time, significant increases in women primary and senior authorship were noted from 22.8% to 31.7% (P < 0.001) and 13.9% (254/11,915) to 21% (336/1660), respectively (P < 0.001). Articles written with women primary authors had fewer median (interquartile range) citations than those by men as primary author in period A (39 [17-69.5] versus 42 [20.0-84.0]; P = 0.005). Gender parity was noted in period B (9 [4-19] versus 9 [4-20] citations; P = 0.307). In period A, articles written by women as both primary and senior authors had approximately 25% fewer median citations compared with those by men (34 [17-62] versus 44 [21-86]); P < 0.011), and this reached parity in period B (9 [4-20] versus 9 [4-21]); P < 0.658). CONCLUSIONS: Overall, gender authorship and citations parity are improving in high-impact surgery journals.

Altmetric and bibliometric analysis of obstetrics and gynecology research: influence of public engagement on citation potential.

BACKGROUND: Whether research engagement on social media and other public platforms results in increased citations in obstetrics and gynecology remains uncertain. The Altmetric Attention Score is a metric of research influence based on mentions on social media and public platforms, such as newsfeeds and Wikipedia. The correlation between Altmetric Attention Scores, absolute citation rates, and the Relative Citation Ratio (a novel metric of research engagement also based on citation rates) in obstetrics and gynecology research is uncertain. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the correlation between Altmetric Attention Score, absolute citation rate, and Relative Citation Ratio for articles published in obstetrics and gynecology journals from 2004 to 2019. Our second objective was to identify, characterize, and compare the 100 articles with highest Altmetric Attention Scores, the 100 most-cited articles, and the 100 articles with highest Relative Citation Ratios. STUDY DESIGN: We performed a cross-sectional altmetric and bibliometric study of all obstetrics and gynecology articles indexed in the National Institutes of Health Open Citation Collection from 2004 to 2019. Articles were included if they were published in obstetrics and gynecology journals according to InCites Journal Citation Reports indexing. Citation data, including citation numbers and Relative Citation Ratios, were downloaded on March 20, 2021 and merged with altmetric data from the Altmetric Explorer on the basis of each article's unique PubMed identification number. We assessed correlation between Altmetric Attention Scores and number of citations and Altmetric Attention Scores and Relative Citation Ratios by calculating the Pearson correlation coefficient. The 100 articles with highest Altmetric Attention Scores, the 100 most-cited articles, and the 100 articles with highest Relative Citation Ratios were characterized and compared using means (standard deviations) and mean differences (95% confidence intervals). RESULTS: There were 156,592 articles published in 82 obstetrics and gynecology journals and indexed in the National Institutes of Health Open Citation Collection between 2004 and 2019. The correlation coefficient was 0.18 (95% confidence interval, 0.17-0.19) for Altmetric Attention Scores vs number of citations and 0.10 (95% confidence interval, 0.09-0.11) for Altmetric Attention Scores vs Relative Citation Ratios. There was no overlap among the 100 articles on the highest Altmetric Attention Score list and the 100 most-cited list, and there was minimal overlap among the 100 articles on the highest Altmetric Attention Score list and the 100 highest Relative Citation Ratio list (98 unique articles on each list). Articles with highest Altmetric Attention Scores generated substantially more engagement on social media and other public platforms than most-cited articles (mean Altmetric Attention Score, 763.1 [standard deviation, 520.8] vs 49.9 [standard deviation, 81.6]; mean difference, -713.2 [95% confidence interval, -819.9 to -606.6]) and highest Relative Citation Ratio articles (mean, 116.2 [standard deviation, 415.9]; mean difference, -661.5 [95% confidence interval, -746.2 to -576.9]). In contrast, the articles with highest Altmetric Attention Scores generated far fewer citations than most-cited articles (mean, 39.7 [standard deviation, 47.6] vs 541.8 [standard deviation, 312.8]; mean difference, 502.0 [95% confidence interval, 439.0-565.0]) and highest Relative Citation Ratio articles (mean, 458.9 [standard deviation, 363.5]; mean difference, 427.7 [95% confidence interval, 353.8-501.6]). Nearly half of articles with highest Altmetric Attention Scores were basic/translational studies, often about menopause and environmental factors impacting fertility, whereas most-cited articles and articles with highest Relative Citation Ratios were more likely to be reviews and consensus statements, respectively, often about placentation and polycystic ovary syndrome, respectively. Articles with highest Altmetric Attention Scores were more likely to be published as open-access. CONCLUSION: There seems to be weak short-term correlation between Altmetric Attention Scores and citation rates. Further study is warranted to ascertain whether there may be long-term correlation between alternative metrics and citation rates in obstetrics and gynecology.

Open access availability of anatomy papers presented at meetings of the American and British Associations of Clinical Anatomists.

INTRODUCTION: Dissemination of research depends on published work being accessible. In many disciplines open access (OA) research is more frequently cited, although this has never before been demonstrated amongst anatomy publications. The objective of this study was to assess a selection of published anatomy papers to determine the effect of gold and bronze OA availability on citation rates. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Taken together, 625 peer-reviewed publications were identified from 2927 abstracts presented at meetings of AACA (2003-2010) and BACA (2000-2015). RESULTS: In total 18.75% (69 of 368) of papers presented at BACA and 21.79% (56 of 257) of those presented at AACA reached OA publication.  Citation rates are significantly higher amongst OA papers as compared to non-OA papers presented at these two anatomy conferences (OA 18.95, Non-OA 15.14 p = 0.047). OA papers were most commonly themed around education and pure anatomy. CONCLUSIONS: The average OA publication rate of 20.0% in anatomical research arising from these conferences is significantly lower than the average rate for scientific research. Citation rates are significantly higher amongst OA anatomy papers presented at these two conferences.

Distribution of Citations Received by Scientific Papers Published in the Imaging Literature From 2001 to 2010: Decreasing Inequality and Polarization.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to assess the distribution of citations received by scientific papers published in the imaging literature between 2001 and 2010. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We extracted the number of citations of all articles and reviews for 5 years after publication using the Scopus (Elsevier) citation database of imaging journals between 2001 and 2010. We quantitatively analyzed article and review citations from each journal and each year, including the number, proportion, and annual number of citations of the most- (≥ 20 citations) and least-cited (three or fewer citations) papers; ratio of most-cited to least-cited papers; 75/25 percentile citation ratio; 90/10 percentile citation ratio; Gini coefficient; and Kolkata index. RESULTS: Our analysis of 124,331 articles and 13,575 reviews from 121 journals showed that the proportion of most-cited articles (from 19.6% to 27.1%) and reviews (from 19.1% to 37.2%) increased from 2001 to 2010, whereas the proportion of least-cited articles (from 32.3% to 23.0%) and reviews (from 31.9% to 15.8%) declined over the same period. The annual numbers of citations of most-cited articles and reviews both reached a peak in the fourth year after publication, whereas those of least-cited articles and reviews reached a peak in the second and fist years, respectively, after publication and thereafter decreased. The 75/25 percentile ratio for articles declined from 41.1 to 27.5 between 2001 and 2010. Over the same time, the 75/25 percentile ratio for reviews declined from 47.4 to 22.9. The 90/10 percentile ratio for articles declined from 1730.8 to 188.7; for reviews, the 90/10 percentile ratio declined from 5788.0 to 100.7. The Gini coefficient of articles and reviews also declined from 0.6116 to 0.5721 for articles and from 0.6507 to 0.5649 for reviews; the k index, from 0.7260 to 0.7088 for articles from 0.7409 to 0.7072 for reviews. CONCLUSION: Inequality and polarization of citations consistently decreased in the imaging literature from 2001 to 2010.

Survey Research Among Neurosurgeons: A Bibliometric Review of the Characteristics, Quality, and Citation Predictors of the Top 50 Most-Influential Publications in the Neurosurgical Literature.

Survey research enables the gathering of information on individual perspectives in a large cohort. It can be epidemiological, attitude or knowledge focussed. Assessment of survey studies sampling neurosurgeons is currently lacking in the literature. This study aimed to highlight the characteristics, quality, and citation predictors of the most influential survey research studies published in the neurosurgical literature. Using PubMed and Google Scholar, the 50 most cited survey research publications were identified and reviewed. Data relating to the characteristics of the articles, participants and questionnaires were retrieved. The studies' quality and citation patterns were assessed. The median articles' age and publishing journal impact factor (IF) were 15.5 years and 2.82, respectively. Thirty-two (64%) articles were first authored by researchers from the USA while 28(56%) studies were focussed on specific disease management. The median number of participants and response rates were 222 and 51%, respectively. A full version of the questionnaire was provided in 18 (36%) articles. Only four (8%) articles reported validation of the questionnaire. The overall quality of reporting of the surveys was considered fair (based on good grading in five parameters, fair grading in one parameter, and poor grading in four parameters). The median citation number was 111. The citation analysis showed that the participant number, article age (≥15.5 years), and questionnaire category (surgical complications) were significant predictors of citation numbers. The citation rates were not influenced by the response rates or the journal's IF. In conclusion, high-impact survey publications in the neurosurgical literature were moderately cited and of fair quality. Their citation numbers were not affected by response rates but were positively influenced by the publication age, number of participants, and by novel data or the questions raised in the survey category. Surveys are valuable forms of research that require extensive planning, time, and effort in order to produce meaningful results. Increasing awareness of the factors that could affect citations may be useful to those who wish to undertake survey research.

Contribution of Saudi Neurosurgeons to the International Neurosurgical Literature: a Bibliometric Analysis of Trends Over the Last Three Decades.

This review is a bibliometric analysis of the contribution of neurosurgeons from the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) to the international neurosurgical literature over the last three decades. The study aimed at determining changes in publication trends over time and assessing the impact of these changes on citation numbers. All publications in the PubMed-indexed neurosurgical journals that were authored by at least one Saudi neurosurgeon were selected. The articles were divided into two study groups according to publication year whether during the last decade (2011- 2020) or the previous two decades (1991- 2010). Changes in publication trends were determined by comparing the bibliometric characteristics of the articles in both groups. The impact of the changes on citation numbers was assessed by correlating the annual citation rates for the articles with their bibliometric qualities. A total of 352 publications were suitable for the review (200 articles published during 2011- 2020, and 152 during 1991- 2010). Temporal changes in the publishing journals and first authors' centres and regions were observed. The articles that were published in the last decade were associated with a significantly higher annual publication rate, a greater number of authors, centres, and countries, and a larger sample size compared to those published in the previous two decades. They also had a lower percentage of Saudi total and first authorship as well as a smaller proportion of case reports. The annual citation rate was significantly impacted by the duration from publication, sample size, and study type during both study periods. However, only during the last decade, the annual citation rate was positively influenced by the journal's impact factor, number of authors, centres, countries, and percentage of Saudi authorship. We conclude that KSA neurosurgeons' contribution to international neurosurgical journals had increased considerably over the last decade. The publications were authored by neurosurgeons from a wider range of centres and regions than in the past. A bigger portion of publications had become more multi-authored, multi-centred, and multi-national as well as reported larger sample sizes and lesser rates of case reports. The changes in publication trends correlated positively with the articles' annual citation rates. The findings could be considered encouraging.

Review of the Most Cited Patient-Reported Outcome Measure (PROM) Studies Published in the Neurospine Surgical Literature.

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are validated tools that are widely utilized in research and patient care. Their diversity, quality, and application remain matters of peak research interest. This article is a review of the PROMs that were utilized in high-impact publications in the neurospine surgical literature. The 50 most cited articles on the subject were selected and analysed. Most (42 articles) were published in spine journals and, in particular, in the journal Spine (Phila Pa 1976) (28 articles). A total of 34 PROMs were utilized, of which 24 were used only once in single studies. The four most common PROMs were Scoliosis Research Society-22 (SRS-22) (15 articles), Short Form-12 and Short Form-36 (SF-12 and SF-36) (11 articles), Ronald-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) (nine articles), and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) (five articles). Nineteen articles focused on validating translated versions of 11 PROMs to other languages. The languages that had the maximal number of tools translated to amongst the highly cited articles were Italian (six tools), Portuguese (four tools), German (three tools), and Japanese (three tools). The most common diagnoses and the PROMs used for them were back pain and cervical spine disorder (SF-12 and SF-36 (nine articles), RMDQ (eight articles), and ODI (five articles)), and idiopathic scoliosis (SRS-22) (14 articles)). The median (range) article citation number was 137 (78-675). The four most cited PROMs were SRS-22 (2,869), SF-12 and SF-36 (2,558), RMDQ (1,456), and ODI (852). Citation numbers were positively impacted by article age and participant number but not by tool type or clinical diagnosis. In conclusion, a wide range of PROMs was utilized in the 50 most cited publications in the neurospine surgical literature. The majority were disease-specific rather than generic and targeted particular spine pathology. Neurosurgical PROMs were under-represented amongst the most cited articles. Awareness of the PROMs used in high-impact studies may be helpful in tool selection in future research. PROMs are valuable in standardizing subjective outcomes. Their use in research and clinical settings in any validated language is highly encouraged.

Does an Author's Social Media Presence Affect Dissemination of Spine Literature?

OBJECTIVE: Our study assesses the impact of an author's social media presence on citation rates and readership of spine literature. METHODS: The Altmetric database was queried for spine-related articles between 2016 and 2021; the top 100 by Altmetric Attention Score (AAS) were assessed. Public profile presence, number of followers, number of posts, and promotion of articles were assessed for Twitter/Instagram. Social media profiles were identified by searching for the author's name followed by "Twitter" or "Instagram" on Google.com or searching each platform. Descriptive statistics assessed social media use and attention metrics. Negative binomial regression assessed presence/promotion/number of followers/number of posts on Twitter/Instagram as predictors of Dimensions citation rates/AAS/Mendeley reader counts, while accounting for time passed since publication. RESULTS: Twitter promotion was noted for 9.0% of articles and Instagram promotion for 1.0%. Mean number of Twitter and Instagram followers was 447.9 ± 1406.1(range: 0-9079) and 173.2 ± 1097.1(range: 0:10,700), respectively. Mean number of Twitter and Instagram posts was 411.6 ± 1210.5 and 18.4 ± 96.4, respectively. Dimensions citations ranged from 0-641, AAS from 79-2257, and Mendeley readers from 2-1854. Following negative binomial regression, Instagram presence was identified as a significant predictor of Mendeley readers (P = 0.043), number of Twitter posts was a significant predictor of AAS (P = 0.008). Additionally, Twitter presence was identified as a negative predictor of Mendeley readers (P = 0.005) and Twitter promotion was identified as a negative predictor of AAS (P = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: Activity on Twitter and Instagram may have variable associations with altmetrics of literature visibility and readership but with citation rates. Interestingly, presence/promotion on Twitter predicted less attention/readership, while Instagram presence predicted higher Mendeley readership.

Trends in the Top-Cited Articles on Classic Psychedelics.

This study was designed to identify trends in the top-cited classic psychedelic publications. The top 50 publications on classic psychedelics with the greatest total of number of citations and annual citation rate were identified and pooled. Unique articles (n = 76) were dichotomized by median year of publication (2010.5); the differential distribution of study characteristics between the "Recent Cohort" (n = 38) and "Older Cohort" (n = 38) were documented. The Recent Cohort had a greater annual citation rate (median 76.0, IQR 38.5 to 101.5) compared to the Older Cohort (median10.0, IQR 5.2 to 19.3, p < .001). The Recent Cohort included a greater number of clinical studies (n = 26 [68.4%] vs. n = 9 [23.7%]) while the Older Cohort included more basic science and preclinical studies (n = 21 [55.3%] vs. n = 2 [5.3%], p < .001). Psilocybin was the predominant psychedelic studied in the Recent Cohort (n = 25 [65.8%] vs. n = 9 [23.7%]) while lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD) was predominantly studied in the Older Cohort (n = 25 [65.8%] vs. n = 18 [47.4%], p = .013). The Recent Cohort included more studies examining affective disorders (n = 15 [39.5%] vs. n = 3 [7.9%]) and substance use disorders (n = 6 [15.8%] vs. n = 0 [0.0%]), while the Older Cohort included a greater number of pharmacological outcomes (n = 29 [76.3%] vs. n = 6 [15.8%], p < .001). This study identified and documented trends in the top-cited classic psychedelic publications. The field is continuing to form a foundational understanding of the pharmacological effects of psychedelics and is now advancing with the identification of therapeutic uses within clinical populations.

Consultation and citation rates for prior imaging studies and documents in radiology.

Frequently, the consensus conclusion after quality assurance conferences in radiology is that whatever mistake was made could have been avoided if more prior images or documents had been consulted. It is generally assumed that anything that was not specifically cited in the report had not been consulted. Is it actually safe to assume that an image or document that is not cited was also not consulted? It is this question that this investigation addresses. In this Institutional Review Board-approved study, one observer watched the board-certified radiologists while they interpreted imaging studies and issued reports. He recorded what type of study was being interpreted [either computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, or conventional radiography (x-ray)]. He also recorded the number and type of prior imaging studies and documents that were consulted during the interpretation. These observations were then compared with the signed report to determine how many of the consulted imaging studies and documents were cited. Of the 198 previous imaging studies that the radiologists consulted, 116 (58.6%) were cited in a report. Of the 285 documents consulted, 3 (1.1%) were cited in a report. This difference in citation rate was statistically significant ([Formula: see text]). It cannot be safely assumed that an older radiologic image or medical document was not consulted during radiologic interpretation merely because it is not cited in the report. Radiologists often consult more old studies than they cite, and they do not cite the majority of prior documents that they consult.

Gauging the impact of Forensic Science International: Genetics--Citation metrics for top articles in the journal.

Using the Thomson Reuters' Web of Knowledge bibliometric tool enables the analysis of citation patterns for the articles published in FSI: Genetics since it was launched. This brief survey identifies the most cited articles published by the journal since its inception and amongst these, the most impactful original research articles: those showing the highest citation rates per year since their publication.