The Departmental Scholarly Index: A Metric of Research Productivity.

INTRODUCTION: While bibliometric ranking systems have been designed to use citations, funding, and alumni productivity, there is a need for a simple metric that objectively evaluates the work of a group or organization. The present study describes a bibliometric tool, the Departmental Scholarly Index (DSI), for this purpose. METHODS: Publications from academic plastic surgery programs in qualifying states of the Southeastern Society of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgeons released in 2022 were collected via PubMed affiliation search. Publications were recorded in a running list alongside the title and 2022 impact factor of their respective journals. The impact factors were averaged by summing the impact factors and dividing by the number of articles to obtain a raw average. Any publication in a journal with an impact factor greater than five multiples of the raw average was removed as an outlier. The remaining impact factors were then summed and give the final numerical value representing the DSI. RESULTS: A total of 464 articles published in 139 individual journals were returned from PubMed between January 1, 2022, and December 31, 2022, for the 22 constituent departments. Calculated Spearman's rank coefficients comparing the DSI ranking with both the Doximity and Persad-Paisley rankings yielded values of 0.66 (P < 0.01) and 0.62 (P < 0.01), respectively. Overall, the DSI rankings largely agree with either the Persad-Paisley or Doximity rankings with notable differences seen in the rankings of Mayo Florida and the University of Alabama. A clear academic ranking of Southeastern Society of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgeons programs was generated from these data. CONCLUSIONS: The DSI represents a novel and simple approach to applying objective value to research with the advantage of using data bound to the most recent publication productivity.

Emerging trends and hotspots in peptic ulcer from 2008 to 2023: A bibliometric analysis.

Peptic ulcer (PU) is a common digestive disorder in the gastroduodenal. Although bibliometrics has become very popular in the medical field, a bibliometric analysis of research related to PU has yet to be reported. Therefore, this research aims to analyze the trends and hotspots of PU in the last 15 years. Literature data related to PU retrieved from the Web of Science Core Collection database from 2008 to 2023 were visualized and analyzed using CiteSpace 6.1.6.msi, VOSviewer 1.6.19, and SCImago Graphica Beta 1.0.35. Six thousand four hundred ninety-one papers were collected based on inclusion and exclusion criteria. The country with the highest number of publications was China. The institution with the highest number of publications was Baylor College of Medicine. The most prolific author was Yamaoka Yoshio. Malfertheiner Peter had the highest number of citations. The journal with the most publications is World Journal of Gastroenterology. The most cited Journal is Gastroenterology. The most cited reference was published by Marshall B. J. et al in 1984. The article with the highest burst strength was published in 2012 by Malfertheiner Peter. The keyword with the highest burst strength was "oxidative stress." Our research provides a bibliometric analysis of PU research to reveal the trends and hotspots of PU for 2008 to 2023. Our findings will help researchers to quickly understand the current state of research and provide a reference for in-depth studies in this area to foster the development of PU research.

Over twenty years of publications in Ecology: Over-contribution of women reveals a new dimension of gender bias.

Biographical features like social and economic status, ethnicity, sexuality, care roles, and gender unfairly disadvantage individuals within academia. Authorship patterns should reflect the social dimension behind the publishing process and co-authorship dynamics. To detect potential gender biases in the authorship of papers and examine the extent of women's contribution in terms of the substantial volume of scientific production in Ecology, we surveyed papers from the top-ranked journal Ecology from 1999 to 2021. We developed a Women's Contribution Index (WCI) to measure gender-based individual contributions. Considering gender, allocation in the author list, and the total number of authors, the WCI calculates the sum of each woman's contribution per paper. We compared the WCI with women's expected contributions in a non-gender-biased scenario. Overall, women account for 30% of authors of Ecology, yet their contribution to papers is higher than expected by chance (i.e., over-contribution). Additionally, by comparing the WCI with an equivalent Men's Contribution Index, we found that women consistently have higher contributions compared to men. We also observed a temporal trend of increasing women's authorship and mixed-gender papers. This suggests some progress in addressing gender bias in the field of ecology. However, we emphasize the need for a better understanding of the pattern of over-contribution, which may partially stem from the phenomenon of over-compensation. In this context, women might need to outperform men to be perceived and evaluated as equals. The WCI provides a valuable tool for quantifying individual contributions and understanding gender biases in academic publishing. Moreover, the index could be customized to suit the specific question of interest. It serves to uncover a previously non-quantified type of bias (over-contribution) that, we argue, is the response to the inequitable structure of the scientific system, leading to differences in the roles of individuals within a scientific publishing team.

A bibliometric and visual analysis of the research status and hotspots of seborrheic dermatitis based on web of science.

BACKGROUND: Seborrheic dermatitis (SD) is a common chronic inflammatory skin disease. In recent years, significant progress has been made in the field of SD, but there has been no bibliometric research yet. This study aims to use bibliometric methods to analyze the current research status and hot topics of SD, to understand further the research trends and future development prospects in this field. METHODS: Retrieve core literature on SD from the Web of Science database and conduct a detailed analysis using CiteSpace and VOSviewer software based on factors such as publication volume, countries (regions), research institutions, journals, authors, highly-cited papers, and keywords. RESULTS: From 1996 to 2024, a total of 1436 publications were included in the bibliometric analysis. The number of publications has shown an increasing trend year by year. The USA is the leading country in this field of research. The University of California System is the primary research institution. The International Journal of Dermatology is the journal with the highest number of publications. The author Yang Won Lee has the highest number of publications, while the article "Seborrheic Dermatitis" (2004) by Gupta, A.K. has been cited the most. "Seborrheic dermatitis" is the most frequently occurring keyword. The main research hotspots and frontiers in SD are as follows: (1) The relationship between SD and other skin diseases is a popular research topic; (2) Malassezia and inflammation are current research hotspots in SD; and (3) Focusing on antifungal and anti-inflammatory treatments for SD is the current frontier direction in this field. CONCLUSION: This study is a summary of the current status and hot trends of SD research, which helps clinical doctors and researchers quickly understand the insights and valuable information of SD research and provides reference for clinical decision-making and finding future research directions.

Views of a non-probability sample of corresponding authors with retracted publications in biomedical fields about the impact of different types of retractions on researchers' careers.

Echoing Arturo Casadevall and Ferric Fang in their Reforming Science: Methodological and Cultural Reforms, "great human enterprises must undergo periodic cycles of self-examination and renewal to maintain their vigor". Especially in the last decade, the research culture has undergone such cycles, partially driven by countercultural transformations that have been reshaping assumptions towards reward-deserving achievements. Addressing retractions is among the challenges in this culture. This work builds upon research carried out at the University of California, San Diego (UCSD), which explored the views of 224 reviewers serving on panels for the US National Science Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, among others. We show results of a survey that add to our previous data. It was sent to a population of 1,089 corresponding authors affiliated with institutions from the 20 most productive countries in biomedical fields. We explored how corresponding authors of at least one retracted publication issued between 2013 and 2015 in biomedical journals envisioned the impact of different types of retractions on the careers of the first and corresponding authors. As such impact (if any) is not always immediate, we selected this time frame to ensure that potential respondents would have tangible post-retraction experience.

The 100 most cited articles about orofacial trauma in children and adolescents: bibliometric analysis.

This bibliometric study aimed to identify and analyze the 100 most cited articles about orofacial trauma in children and adolescents. The search was conducted in the Web of Science Core Collection (WoS-CC) using a combined search strategy. Two researchers collected the following data from each article: year of publication, country, journal, number and density of citations, author, institutions, study design, type of trauma, and keywords. The VOSviewer and SPSS version 22.0 softwares were used for data analyses. The articles were published from 1968 to 2012 and the number of citations ranged from 49 to 176. Europe was the continent with most articles (40 articles; 3,408 citations). Brazil was the country that made the largest contribution (20 articles; 1,741 citations) and the Universidade do Sul de Santa Catarina (Brazil) was the institution with most articles (5 articles; 492 citations). Marcenes W was the most productive author (8 articles; 968 citations). The cross-sectional study design was the most common (50 articles; 3,978 citations). The most frequent field was epidemiology (73 articles; 5,971 citations). The most widely used criteria for trauma diagnosis were the Andreasen (18 articles; 1,505 citations) and Le Fort (3 articles; 260 citations). Strong positive correlations were found in the number of citations between WoS-CC and Google Scholar (r = 0.929; p < 0.001), WoS-CC and Scopus (r = 0.976; p < 0.001), and Google Scholar and Scopus (r = 0.903; p < 0.001). The 100 most cited articles about orofacial trauma in children and adolescents were mainly cross-sectional studies published by Brazilian authors in epidemiology using Andreasen criteria. Dental Traumatology was the journal with the largest contribution.

Is orthodontic research falling prey to obscure and predatory journals? A bibliometric study.

AIMS: To evaluate where orthodontic research papers are published and to explore potential relationships between the journal of publication and the characteristics of the research study and authorship. METHODS: An online literature search of seven research databases was undertaken to identify orthodontic articles published in English language over a 12-month period (1 January-31 December 2022) (last search: 12 June 2023). Data extracted included journal, article, and author characteristics. Journal legitimacy was assessed using a ternary classification scheme including available blacklists and whitelists, cross-checking of indexing claims and history of sending unsolicited emails. The level of evidence (LOE) of all included studies was assessed using a modified Oxford LOE classification scale. Univariable and multivariable ordinal logistic regression analyses were performed to examine possible associations between the level of evidence, journal discipline, and authorship characteristics. RESULTS: A total of 753 studies, published by 246 unique journal titles, were included and further assessed. Nearly two-thirds of orthodontic papers were published in non-orthodontic journals (62.8%) and over half (55.6%) of the articles were published in open-access policy journals. About a fifth of the articles (21.2%) were published either in presumed predatory journals or in journals of uncertain legitimacy. Journal discipline was significantly associated with the level of evidence. Higher-quality orthodontic studies were more likely published in established orthodontic journals (likelihood ratio test P < .001). LIMITATIONS: The identification and classification of predatory journals are challenging due to their covert nature. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of orthodontic articles were published in non-orthodontic journals. In addition, approximately one in five orthodontic studies were published in presumed predatory journals or in journals of uncertain legitimacy. Studies with higher levels of evidence were more likely to be published in established orthodontic journals.

Literature reviews and global neurosurgery: a powerful way of doing more with less.

INTRODUCTION: Neurosurgery is an intensely competitive field. With the USMLE Step 1 transitioning to a pass/fail system, research has become a crucial component of the neurosurgery residency application process. This emphasis on research is particularly critical for international medical graduates (IMGs), who often face greater challenges compared to their U.S. counterparts. IMGs typically need more publications and higher H-indices to stand out. However, accessing quality research opportunities is significantly more difficult for those from low- and middle-income countries. This mini-review aims to provide a new perspective for IMGs, demonstrating that publishing in prestigious neurosurgical journals is possible even with limited resources. METHODS: We searched Scopus and reviewed Brazilian publications from 2014 to 2023 in Neurosurgery and the Journal of Neurosurgery. We extracted the methodological designs of the studies and the graduation status of the first authors. RESULTS: In 2023-2024, four Brazilian medical students published systematic reviews in major neurosurgical journals as first authors, marking a revolutionary change in the Brazilian neurosurgical landscape not seen in the past decade. These achievements illustrate that high-impact publications are attainable without geographical proximity, substantial financial support, or access to extensive institutional databases. Letters to the editor also represented a considerable Brazilian contribution. CONCLUSION: Literature reviews and letters to the editor are accessible methods for IMGs to engage in impactful research. IMGs can maximize their abilities and significantly contribute to neurosurgery by embracing literature reviews and meta-analyses. These approaches can open doors for those without other avenues to begin their research careers.

Scientific output after the 2017, 2019 and 2021 meetings of the Sociedad Española de Neonatología.

INTRODUCTION: The sharing of research findings through communications at congresses and publications is essential for the dissemination of scientific knowledge. The aim was to determine the percentage of communications presented the biennial meetings of the Sociedad Española de Neonatología (SENeo, Spanish Society of Neonatology) eventually published as full-text articles in indexed peer-reviewed journals and their bibliometric characteristics. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study by reviewing the abstracts from the oral communications (OCs) in the 2017, 2019 and 2021 SENeo congresses. Then we searched for the authors in the MEDLINE and Scopus databases. We collected data on the authors, type of OC and bibliometric characteristics. RESULTS: The sample included 525 OCs, and we found a publication rate of 40.38% corresponding to 212 publications, 78.8% of them in international journals. The most frequent journal of publication was Anales de Pediatría. The median and interquartile range values for the impact factor, quartile and number of citations were 2.86 (1.96-3.98), 2 (1-3) and 3 (0-7), respectively, with a remarkable increase in the impact factor for the most recent congresses. The median time elapsed to publication was 10 months (IQR, 1-23). The proportion published was higher for multicentre studies and those with a respiratory topic. CONCLUSIONS: The frequency of publication for OCs submitted to SENeo congresses was similar to the frequency of publication for other paediatric congresses, with an impact factor that was above the mean of the congresses under study. The proportion of publication was higher for studies with a multicentre design or a respiratory topic.

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.

Identifying authorial roles in research: A Kano model-based bibliometric analysis for the Journal of Medicine (Baltimore) 2023.

The landscape of research roles within academic journals often remains uncharted territory, with authorial contributions frequently reduced to linear hierarchies (e.g., professor and assistant professor). The Kano model, traditionally used in customer satisfaction research, offers a nuanced framework for identifying the multifaceted roles of authors in scholarly publications. This study utilizes the Kano model to dissect and categorize the roles of authors in the medicine field. To conform to the hypothesis, China is the research leader while the US is the research collaborator, as reflected in the publications of the journal of Medicine (Baltimore) in the year 2023. We conducted a comprehensive bibliometric analysis of all research articles published in the journal of Medicine (Baltimore) in 2023. The Kano model was applied to classify authors into 5 categories reflective of their research roles: followers, leaders, partners, contributors, and collaborators. Data on author publications and co-authorship networks with multi-author rates (MARs) were analyzed to assign Kano categories based on the authorship positions of first and corresponding authors. Descriptive statistics and network analysis tools were used to interpret the data, including radar plots, geographical maps, and Kano diagrams. The analysis covered 1976 articles, uncovering a complex network of author roles that extends beyond the conventional binary distinction of lead and supporting authors (i.e., leading, and following researchers). A research leader in China and a collaborator in the US were conformed to support the hypothesis, based on their publications (1148 vs 51) and MARs (12.20% vs 19.61%). The Kano classification was visually adapted to classify authors (or entities) into 5 categories. The combined choropleth and geographical network maps were illustrated to identify author roles in research briefly. The Kano model serves as an effective tool for uncovering the diverse contributions of authors in medical research. By moving beyond the lead and follower dichotomy, this study highlights the intricate ecosystem of authorial roles, emphasizing the importance of each in advancing knowledge within the field of medicine. Future application of the Kano model could foster a more collaborative and inclusive recognition of contributions across various disciplines.

The state of artificial intelligence in medical research: A survey of corresponding authors from top medical journals.

Natural Language Processing (NLP) is a subset of artificial intelligence that enables machines to understand and respond to human language through Large Language Models (LLMs)‥ These models have diverse applications in fields such as medical research, scientific writing, and publishing, but concerns such as hallucination, ethical issues, bias, and cybersecurity need to be addressed. To understand the scientific community's understanding and perspective on the role of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in research and authorship, a survey was designed for corresponding authors in top medical journals. An online survey was conducted from July 13th, 2023, to September 1st, 2023, using the SurveyMonkey web instrument, and the population of interest were corresponding authors who published in 2022 in the 15 highest-impact medical journals, as ranked by the Journal Citation Report. The survey link has been sent to all the identified corresponding authors by mail. A total of 266 authors answered, and 236 entered the final analysis. Most of the researchers (40.6%) reported having moderate familiarity with artificial intelligence, while a minority (4.4%) had no associated knowledge. Furthermore, the vast majority (79.0%) believe that artificial intelligence will play a major role in the future of research. Of note, no correlation between academic metrics and artificial intelligence knowledge or confidence was found. The results indicate that although researchers have varying degrees of familiarity with artificial intelligence, its use in scientific research is still in its early phases. Despite lacking formal AI training, many scholars publishing in high-impact journals have started integrating such technologies into their projects, including rephrasing, translation, and proofreading tasks. Efforts should focus on providing training for their effective use, establishing guidelines by journal editors, and creating software applications that bundle multiple integrated tools into a single platform.

Indicators and factors related to one-year improved SCImago journal rank in nursing journals: A bibliometric analysis.

AIMS: To analyse the bibliometric data of nursing journals covering general fields, specializations, skills and practices and investigate the influence of selection factors on the one-year improved SCImago journal rank (SJR). DESIGN: A bibliometric analysis. METHODS: The study sample included academic journals in the field of nursing indexed in the Scopus and SJR database using data from 2020 to 2022. Quantile regression were performed that investigated the influence factors over the one-year improved SJR when variables were found to be non-normally distributed, characterized by extremely high kurtosis. RESULTS: Results from 539 nursing journals retrieved from the Scopus and SCImago databases revealed that citation index remains the main factor that positively affects differences in SJR, while citable articles only affect the early stages of quantile regression. In addition, an excessively high number of research articles may negatively affect SJR, and the influence of self-citations can initially be positive but become negative the following year. Citations continue to be the dominant factor, while the rapid growth in the number of articles and self-citations must be addressed with caution. NO PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: No patient or public contribution.