Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 20 de 5.190
Filtrar
1.
J Urol ; 211(5): 730-731, 2024 May.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38591706
2.
Reprod Health ; 21(1): 47, 2024 Apr 08.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38589898

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Significant scientific research has been conducted concerning menopausal syndrome(MPS), yet few bibliometric analyses have been performed. Our aim was to recognise the 100 most highly cited published articles on MPS and to analytically evaluate their key features. METHODS: To identify the 100 most frequently cited articles, a search was conducted on Web of Science using the term 'menopausal syndrome'. Articles that matched the predetermined criteria were scrutinised to obtain the following data: citation ranking, year of publication, publishing journal, journal impact factor, country of origin, academic institution, authors, study type, and keywords. RESULTS: The publication period is from January 1, 2000, to August 31, 2022. The maximum number of citations was 406 and in 2012. The median citations per year was 39.70. Most of the articles focused on treatment and complications. These articles were published in 36 different journals, with the Journal of MENOPAUSE having published the greatest number (14%). Forty-eight articles (48%) were from the United States, with the University of Pittsburgh being the leading institute (9%). Joann E. Manson was the most frequent first author (n = 6). Observational studies were the most frequently conducted research type (n = 53), followed by experimental studies (n = 33). Keyword analysis identified classic research topics, including genitourinary syndrome of menopause, bone mineral density (BMD), and anti-mullerian hormone (AMH) loci. CONCLUSION: Using bibliometrics, we conducted an analysis to identify the inadequacies, traditional focal points, and potential prospects in the study of MPS across current scientific areas. Treatment and complications are at the core of MPS research, whereas prediction and biomarkers have less literature of high quality. There is a necessity for innovative analytical metrics to measure the real effect of these papers with a high level of citation on clinical application.


Asunto(s)
Bibliometría , Factor de Impacto de la Revista , Humanos , Estados Unidos , Proyectos de Investigación , Menopausia
4.
Iran J Allergy Asthma Immunol ; 23(1): 29-51, 2024 Feb 11.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38485908

RESUMEN

This study aimed to present a bibliometric and altmetric Analyses of the Iranian Journal of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology (IJAAI). The citation performance and altmetric data were extracted from Scopus and Altmetric Explorer, respectively. Analyses were done using SPSS 26, Microsoft Excel, VOSviewer, and CiteSpace. The results of the bibliometric analysis revealed that IJAAI had experienced respectable growth. Among the total citations, 4746 citations belong to the first decade (2005-2014) and 3,035 citations belong to the second (2015-2022). The findings demonstrated the significance of IJAAI among Iranian researchers. Pourpak, Z (66; 6.57%) is the top-producing author in IJAAI. The examination of research institutions reveals that the Tehran University of Medical Sciences (TUMS) is ranked first. The most highly cited article in IJAAI over the past 18 years is a review article which has received 138 citations. IJAAI is ranked first at the citing source and journal level, with the most citations (249 citations) to IJAAI. Iran has collaborated with 13 other countries. Overall, the analysis of co-occurred keywords indicates that IJAAI authors have used the following three high-frequency and important keywords: Asthma (162), Inflammation (48), and Multiple sclerosis (40). Co-citation analysis results demonstrated that a total of 6,718 sources were cited in this journal. The results of the altmetric analysis show that IJAAI has a reasonably low presence across various social media platforms, including Twitter, Facebook, Wikipedia, Mendeley, news and blogs. This study aids researchers in exploring and identifying emerging trends in the fields of allergy, asthma, and immunology.


Asunto(s)
Asma , Hipersensibilidad , Humanos , Irán , Factor de Impacto de la Revista , Bibliometría
5.
PLoS One ; 19(3): e0292201, 2024.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38507397

RESUMEN

Multiple studies across a variety of scientific disciplines have shown that the number of times that a paper is shared on Twitter (now called X) is correlated with the number of citations that paper receives. However, these studies were not designed to answer whether tweeting about scientific papers causes an increase in citations, or whether they were simply highlighting that some papers have higher relevance, importance or quality and are therefore both tweeted about more and cited more. The authors of this study are leading science communicators on Twitter from several life science disciplines, with substantially higher follower counts than the average scientist, making us uniquely placed to address this question. We conducted a three-year-long controlled experiment, randomly selecting five articles published in the same month and journal, and randomly tweeting one while retaining the others as controls. This process was repeated for 10 articles from each of 11 journals, recording Altmetric scores, number of tweets, and citation counts before and after tweeting. Randomization tests revealed that tweeted articles were downloaded 2.6-3.9 times more often than controls immediately after tweeting, and retained significantly higher Altmetric scores (+81%) and number of tweets (+105%) three years after tweeting. However, while some tweeted papers were cited more than their respective control papers published in the same journal and month, the overall increase in citation counts after three years (+7% for Web of Science and +12% for Google Scholar) was not statistically significant (p > 0.15). Therefore while discussing science on social media has many professional and societal benefits (and has been a lot of fun), increasing the citation rate of a scientist's papers is likely not among them.


Asunto(s)
Disciplinas de las Ciencias Biológicas , Medios de Comunicación Sociales , Humanos , Bibliometría , Factor de Impacto de la Revista
6.
Clin Imaging ; 108: 110089, 2024 Apr.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38430717

RESUMEN

INTRODUCTION: Primary and secondary studies are considered the two major research categories. In this study, we examined the scientific and social media impact of primary and secondary publication types in papers published radiological journals during 2010-2020. MATERIALS AND METHODS: PubMed publication type tags were used to filter original articles and systematic review and meta-analysis (SR/MA) articles. Clarivate Web of Science was utilized to obtain a list of all radiology journals from the category "Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging" in Science Citation Index Expanded (SCIE). Automated approach was developed for programmatic extraction of bibliometric and Altmetric yearly citations of each included article using Dimensions API and Altmetric API with Python. Statistical analysis was performed to compare the citation rates between primary and secondary research articles. RESULTS: A total of 96,684 published articles from 2010 to 2020 were identified and their meta-data collected. The mean 2-year citation count following publication year was 5.8 for primary research and 10.2 for SR/MA articles (p < 0.001). Between 2010 and 2020, the mean number of citations per SR/MA article was 51.3 compared to 30.5 per primary research article (p < 0.001). Mean Altmetric score was 8.2 in SR/MA compared to 3.7 for primary research articles (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Secondary research studies have been increasing in impact in both academia and social media compared to primary research. Our results highlight the importance and impact of systematic reviews and meta-analysis articles as a scientifically influential study type in radiology.


Asunto(s)
Publicaciones Periódicas como Asunto , Radiología , Humanos , Factor de Impacto de la Revista , Revisiones Sistemáticas como Asunto , Bibliometría
7.
J Urol ; 211(4): 641-642, 2024 Apr.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38456433
9.
Prof Case Manag ; 29(3): 89-90, 2024.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38546487

RESUMEN

Professional Case Management Journal: has been published for more than 25 years. In those years, important content has helped build the foundation of case management itself. Through the years, the articles in this journal have been cited in other articles-and in other journals globally. Now this journal has been bestowed with an "impact factor."


Asunto(s)
Manejo de Caso , Factor de Impacto de la Revista , Humanos
10.
Cesk Slov Oftalmol ; 80(Ahead of print): 1001-1008, 2024.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38527913

RESUMEN

AIMS: The purpose of this study is to evaluate an Altmetric analysis of the 50 most cited refractive surgery articles in Ophthalmology journals and to compare them with traditional metrics. METHODS: The term "refractive surgery" was searched, using a time filter between 2010-2020 in the Web of Science core collection database. The 50 most cited articles between 2010 and 2020 were recorded. Descriptive statistics were performed. The Spearman correlation test was used to evaluate the correlation between traditional metrics and Altmetrics. RESULTS: The Altmetric scores of the top 50 articles ranged from 0 to 25, and the median Altmetric score was 4. The citation numbers of the 50 articles ranged from 83 to 523, and the median citation number was 119.5. The most cited article topic was "Toric Intraocular Lens"; the topics with the highest Altmetric scores were "Toric Intraocular Lens" and "Trifocal Intraocular Lens". There was no significant correlation between Altmetric scores and number of citations. There was a weak correlation between Altmetric scores and the average citation per year. CONCLUSION: The Altmetric score is insufficient, compared with traditional metrics, to show the scientific value of articles on refractive surgery. Altmetrics can be used to supplement traditional metrics.


Asunto(s)
Bibliometría , Oftalmología , Humanos , Factor de Impacto de la Revista
11.
Medicine (Baltimore) ; 103(9): e37268, 2024 Mar 01.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38428894

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Identifying the most highly cited papers in a given field can help researchers and professionals understand the milestones and research areas that are generating the most impact. This study aimed to identify and describe the 50 most frequently cited manuscripts on cysticercosis and neurocysticercosis. METHODS: We identified the 50 most cited papers (articles and reviews) on cysticercosis and neurocysticercosis from the MEDLINE database and indexed in Web of Science-Core Collection, analyzing their bibliographic and content characteristics. RESULTS: The most cited documents comprised 29 (58%) original articles and 21 (42%) reviews, the bulk of which were narrative reviews (n = 17), with a negligible presence of other types of reviews with high-level scientific evidence. Six journals published 42% of the articles. In addition to the USA, Mexico and Peru were prominent countries of origin among leading researchers. The main research topics were the central nervous system and epilepsy on the one hand, and diagnostic and therapeutic approaches on the other. CONCLUSION: Our findings shed light on the dissemination of knowledge about cysticercosis and neurocysticercosis in recent decades, identifying the most highly cited contributions that have driven research in the field.


Asunto(s)
Factor de Impacto de la Revista , Neurocisticercosis , Humanos , Neurocisticercosis/complicaciones , Publicaciones , Conocimiento , México
12.
Rev. clín. esp. (Ed. impr.) ; 224(3): 133-140, mar. 2024. tab, graf
Artículo en Español | IBECS | ID: ibc-231453

RESUMEN

Introducción La bibliometría evalúa la calidad de las revistas biomédicas. El objetivo de este estudio ha sido comparar los principales índices bibliométricos de las revistas oficiales de sociedades científicas de medicina interna en Europa. Material y métodos Se obtuvo información bibliométrica de las bases de datos Web of Science (WoS) y Scopus. Se analizaron tanto métricas de impacto (Journal Impact Factor [JIF], CiteScore) como normalizadas (Journal Citation Indicator [JCI], Normalized Eigenfactor, Source Normalized Impact per Paper [SNIP] y SCImago Journal Rank [SJR]) de las revistas para el año 2022, y se observó su evolución en la última década. Resultados Se evaluaron 23 revistas oficiales de 33 sociedades científicas. Ocho revistas estaban incluidas en WoS y 11 en Scopus. Las revistas mejor posicionadas en 2022 fueron: 1) European Journal of Internal Medicine, que ocupó el primer cuartil (Q1) de las métricas JIF, CiteScore y JCI, superando valores de uno en las métricas Normalized Eigenfactor y SNIP; 2) Internal and Emergency Medicine, en Q1 para las métricas CiteScore y JCI, y con valores >1 en las métricas Normalized Eigenfactor y SNIP; 3) Polish Archives of Internal Medicine, con Q1 en la métrica JCI; 4) Revista Clínica Española, con Q2 para las métricas JIF, CiteScore y JCI; y 5) Acta Medica Belgica, con Q2 en las métricas CiteScore y JCI. Estas revistas incrementaron sus métricas de impacto en los últimos 3 años, coincidiendo con la pandemia COVID. Conclusiones Cinco revistas oficiales de sociedades europeas de medicina interna, entre ellas Revista Clínica Española, cumplen altos estándares de calidad. (AU)


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, 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. (AU)


Asunto(s)
Bibliometría , Medicina Interna , Publicaciones Periódicas como Asunto/estadística & datos numéricos , Factor de Impacto de la Revista
15.
Rheumatol Int ; 44(4): 693-702, 2024 Apr.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38319374

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Systemic sclerosis (SSc), a complex autoimmune disorder, manifests as a convergence of rheumatologic, dermatologic, and pulmonary challenges. Among the severe complications contributing to morbidity and mortality are SSc Associated Interstitial Lung Disease (SSc-ILD) and pulmonary hypertension. Over the past decade, research on pulmonary involvement in SSc has intensified, leading to a heightened understanding of its pathogenesis, diagnostic methods, and therapeutic strategies. AIM: This study aims to provide a data-driven overview of the current state of systemic sclerosis research, identifying emerging trends and fostering informed decisions regarding resource allocation and research priorities. METHODS: A literature search was conducted in the Scopus database, using MESH keywords such as "systemic sclerosis" AND "lungs" OR "pulmonary hypertension" OR "interstitial lung disease". After applying exclusion criteria, a thorough analysis was performed, considering factors such as document category, authorship, journal source, citation frequency, country of publication, language, and keywords. The bibliometric analysis utilized Scopus as the preferred database, leveraging its extensive coverage, user-friendly interface, and commitment to data accuracy. Visual networks were constructed using VOSviewer software to map the relationships between keywords, countries, and authors. Altmetric Attention Scores (AAS) were employed to assess the social impact of articles. RESULTS: The analysis revealed a total of 2538 scholarly items, with 55.7% identified as open access. The USA (n = 532), Italy (n = 458), France (n = 304), Japan (n = 271), and the UK (n = 236) emerged as primary contributors, with English being the predominant language. A notable upward tendency in annual publication and citation scores indicated sustained interest and relevance in SSc-ILD research. The top journals, including Rheumatology United Kingdom, Clinical and Experimental Rheumatology, Clinical Rheumatology, Arthritis and Rheumatology, and Journal of Rheumatology, played a pivotal role in scholarly output. Original Articles (n = 1795; 70.7%) constituted the majority of publications, followed by Reviews, Letters, Notes, and Editorials. The analysis of publication impact within different scholarly formats revealed varying citation patterns, with Original Articles and Reviews leading in influence. The identification of influential research hubs and key contributors provided insights into collaborative efforts and geographic distribution. A strong correlation (rho = 0.612, p < 0.001) was observed between the quantity of Mendeley readers and the citations received by scholarly articles. CONCLUSION: This bibliometric analysis offers a comprehensive overview of SSc-ILD research, highlighting its dynamic and interdisciplinary nature. The surge in publications, citation scores, and the identification of key contributors underscore the continued relevance and impact of this field. The nuanced relationships between social attention and scientific recognition, as revealed by Mendeley readership and AAS, contribute to a deeper understanding of the multifaceted nature of scholarly impact.


Asunto(s)
Artritis , Enfermedades Pulmonares Intersticiales , Esclerodermia Sistémica , Humanos , Factor de Impacto de la Revista , Bibliometría , Esclerodermia Sistémica/complicaciones , Enfermedades Pulmonares Intersticiales/diagnóstico , Enfermedades Pulmonares Intersticiales/etiología
16.
Innovations (Phila) ; 19(1): 80-87, 2024.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38344776

RESUMEN

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.


Asunto(s)
Factor de Impacto de la Revista , Medios de Comunicación Sociales , Humanos
18.
Curr Med Res Opin ; 40(4): 677-687, 2024 Apr.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38375545

RESUMEN

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.


Asunto(s)
Factor de Impacto de la Revista , Medios de Comunicación Sociales , Humanos
19.
Rev Clin Esp (Barc) ; 224(3): 133-140, 2024 Mar.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38364958

RESUMEN

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.


Asunto(s)
Publicaciones Periódicas como Asunto , Humanos , Bibliometría , Factor de Impacto de la Revista , Europa (Continente)
20.
J Urol ; 211(3): 504-505, 2024 Mar.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38329051
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA
...