Asociación de las características del ensayo con la publicación simultánea y su impacto en citas y menciones: un estudio transversal / Association of trial characteristics with simultaneous publication and its impact on citations and mentions: a cross-sectional study

Introducción y objetivos: Los ensayos clínicos aleatorizados a menudo se presentan en conferencias médicas y se publican al mismo tiempo o después. Los predictores de publicación simultánea y sus consecuencias no están determinados. Nuestro objetivo es caracterizar la práctica de la publicación simultánea, identificar sus predictores y evaluar su impacto. Métodos: En este estudio transversal se incluyeron ensayos clínicos aleatorizados presentados en sesiones de ciencia de última hora de importantes conferencias cardiovasculares desde 2015 hasta 2021. Se analizó la asociación entre las características del ensayo y el momento de la publicación. Se investigó el impacto de la publicación simultánea frente a la no simultánea en el número de citas a 1 año y menciones a 1 mes, así como en el total de citas y menciones en el seguimiento más largo observado. Resultados: De los 478 ensayos incluidos en el análisis, el 48,7% se publicó simultáneamente. Las publicaciones simultáneas tenían mayor probabilidad de presentarse en la sala principal de la conferencia (OR=6,09; IC95%, 1,34-36,92; p=0,029) y se caracterizaban por un tiempo de revisión más corto (OR=0,95; IC95%, 0,91-0,96; p<0,001). Las publicaciones simultáneas se asociaron con un mayor número de citas a 1 año (R2=43,81; IC95%, 23,89-63,73; p<0,001), menciones a 1 mes (R2=132,32; IC95%, 85,42-179,22; p<0,001) y total de citas (R2=222,89; IC95%, 127,98-317,80; p<0,001) en el seguimiento. Conclusiones: Los ensayos clínicos aleatorizados presentados en la sala principal de la conferencia y con un tiempo de revisión más corto tienen mayor probabilidad de publicarse simultáneamente. Las publicaciones simultáneas se asocian con más citas y menciones que las publicaciones no simultáneas. (AU)

Introduction and objectives: Randomized trials are often presented at medical conferences and published simultaneously or later. Predictors of simultaneous publication and its consequences are undetermined. Our aim was to characterize the practice of simultaneous publication, identify its predictors, and evaluate its impact. Methods: In this cross-sectional study, we included randomized trials presented at late-breaking science sessions of major cardiovascular conferences from 2015 to 2021. The association of trial characteristics with the timing of publication was analyzed. The impact of simultaneous vs nonsimultaneous publication was investigated on the number of 1-year citations and 1-month mentions, and the total citations and mentions at the longest observation follow-up. Results: Of 478 trials included in the analysis, 48.7% were published simultaneously. Simultaneous publications were more likely to be presented in the main conference room (OR, 6.09; 95%CI, 1.34-36.92; P=.029) and were characterized by a shorter review time (OR, 0.95; 95%CI, 0.91-0.96; P<.001). Simultaneous publications were associated with higher 1-year citations (R2, 43.81; 95%CI, 23.89-63.73; P<.001), 1-month mentions (R2, 132.32; 95%CI, 85.42-179.22; P<.001) and total citations (R2, 222.89; 95%CI, 127.98-317.80; P<.001). Conclusions: Randomized trials presented in the main conference room and with shorter review time were more likely to be published simultaneously. Simultaneous publications were associated with more citations and mentions than nonsimultaneous publications. (AU)

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.

2023: A year of accomplishments for the 13 Science Citation Index Expanded- and Emerging Sources Citation Index-indexed Baishideng journals.

In 2023, Baishideng Publishing Group (Baishideng) routinely published 47 open-access journals, including 46 English-language journals and 1 Chinese-language journal. Our successes were accomplished through the collective dedicated efforts of Baishideng staffs, Editorial Board Members, and Peer Reviewers. Among these 47 Baishideng journals, 7 are included in the Science Citation Index Expanded (SCIE) and 6 in the Emerging Sources Citation Index (ESCI). With the support of Baishideng authors, company staffs, Editorial Board Members, and Peer Reviewers, the publication work of 2023 is about to be successfully completed. This editorial summarizes the 2023 activities and accomplishments of the 13 SCIE- and ESCI-indexed Baishideng journals, outlines the Baishideng publishing policy changes and additions made this year, and highlights the unique advantages of Baishideng journals.

Bibliometric evaluation of Anais Brasileiros de Dermatologia (2013-2022)

Abstract The Anais Brasileiros de Dermatologia, published since 1925, is the most influential dermatological journal in Latin America, indexed in the main international bibliographic databases, and occupies the 50th position among the 70 dermatological journals indexed in the Journal of Citations Reports, in 2022. In this article, the authors present a critical analysis of its trajectory in the last decade and compare its main bibliometric indices with Brazilian medical and international dermatological journals. The journal showed consistent growth in different bibliometric indices, which indicates a successful editorial policy and greater visibility in the international scientific community, attracting foreign authors. The increases in citations received (4.1 ×) and in the Article Influence Score (2.9×) were more prominent than those of the main Brazilian medical and international dermatological journals. The success of Anais Brasileiros de Dermatologia in the international scientific scenario depends on an assertive editorial policy, on promptly publication of high-quality articles, and on institutional stimulus to encourage clinical research in dermatology.

Retraction of health science articles by researchers in Latin America and the Caribbean: A scoping review.

We aimed to conduct a scoping review to assess the profile of retracted health sciences articles authored by individuals affiliated with academic institutions in Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC). We systematically searched seven databases (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Embase, Medline/Ovid, Scielo, and LILACS). We included articles published in peer-reviewed journals between 2003 and 2022 that had at least one author with an institutional affiliation in LAC. Data were collected on the year of publication, study design, authors' countries of origin, number of authors, subject matter of the manuscript, scientific journals of publication, retraction characteristics, and reasons for retraction. We included 147 articles, the majority being observational studies (41.5%). The LAC countries with the highest number of retractions were Brazil (n = 69), Colombia (n = 16), and Mexico (n = 15). The areas of study with the highest number of retractions were infectology (n = 21) and basic sciences (n = 15). A retraction label was applied to 89.1% of the articles, 70.7% were retracted by journal editors, and 89.1% followed international retraction guidelines. The primary reasons for retraction included errors in procedures or data collection (n = 39), inconsistency in results or conclusions (n = 37), plagiarism (n = 21), and suspected scientific fraud (n = 19). In conclusion, most retractions of scientific publications in health sciences in LAC adhered to international guidelines and were linked to methodological issues in execution and scientific misconduct. Efforts should be directed toward ensuring the integrity of scientific research in the field of health.

Current status of dental journals published by Japanese organization.

The publication status of dental journals in Japan was examined, with a focus on metrics such as Journal Impact Factor (JIF), Eigenfactor, Article Influence Score, and percentage of open access. A total of 18 journals published by Japanese dental organizations were identified in the Journal Citation Reports (JCR), with JIF values ranging from 0.4 to 6.6. The highest JIF was observed in The Japanese Dental Science Review. Additionally, 16 journals were not listed on the JCR. The authors explored the implications of these findings on the visibility and impact of Japanese dental research, and discussed the potential benefits of embracing open-access publications for greater global dissemination. This study highlighted the opportunities for journals to enhance their international recognition by meeting the criteria for JIF inclusion and embracing open-access publications. By adopting effective publication strategies, the dental community in Japan will be able to contribute to the advancement of dentistry globally, ensuring broader accessibility and recognition of its research contributions.

Trends of impact factor contributors to the Injury Journal: A bibliometric analysis.

PURPOSE: This study aims to analyse papers concerning journal impact factors published in the Injury-International Journal of the Care of the Injured between 1997 and 2022. Through this analysis, the research offers valuable insights into the publication performance and contributors to the journal impact factor, encompassing papers, authors, institutions, and countries. METHODS: Articles and reviews published in the Injury between 1995 and 2021 were examined using the Science Citation Index Expanded database. The study employed the journal impact factor contributing indicator to compare highly cited and high journal impact factor papers across various aspects, including papers, authors, institutions, and countries. RESULTS: A notable correlation exists between prolific authors, institutions, and countries, alongside those who contribute to high journal impact factors. However, a less distinct connection was observed between highly cited papers/authors and high journal impact factor contributors. The Injury serves as a well-regarded international journal. Notably, editorial members of the journal play a substantial role, serving as model editors and contributing significantly to the journal's success. Out of the Top 25 IF contributing papers with the CN of 34 or more the following themes were noted to dominate: bone healing/tissue regeneration (40 %) of papers, covid-19 pandemic (24 %), polytrauma/coagulopathy (12 %) and infection (8 %). CONCLUSIONS: Utilizing the journal impact factor to assess research performance at the individual, institutional, or national levels appears not to be the most appropriate method. The results show that highly cited authors did not hold the distinction of being the primary contributors to the IF. Analysis revealed a low significant relationship among the primary contributors to the IF, highly cited papers, and the most influential papers in 2022. A more effective indicator could involve considering the total number of citations a publication receives from its year of publication up to the end of the most recent year.

Copublication promotes dissemination hypertension guidelines: a retrospective cohort study.

To evaluate the impact of copublication on hypertension-related clinical practice guidelines' citation, we searched the Web of Science Core Collection and guide.medlive.cn until 31 December 2017 using the terms "hypertension" and "guideline". The copublished group was matched with the noncopublished group at a 1:2 ratio. Primary outcomes were total citations and citations within the first five years after publication. Secondary outcomes included the adjusted impact factor ratio (excluding copublished guidelines) to the actual impact factor of the journal. Altmetric scores were compared using Altmetric explorer data. 21 copublished and 42 noncopublished guidelines were included. The copublished group had higher median current total citations [387.0 (90.0, 1806.0) vs 70.5 (23.25, 158.25)], and higher median citations at one, two, three, four, and five years [7.0 (0.5, 58.5) vs 1.0 (0.0, 5.5), 33.0 (14.0, 142.0) vs 5.5 (1.75, 26.25), 46.0 (24.5, 216.0) vs 10.5 (3, 25.75), 50.0 (19.0, 229.0) vs 9.0 (3.0, 19.0), 52.0 (13.5, 147.0) vs 7.0 (2.0, 20.0), all p < 0.05]. The adjusted IF analysis showed that if they had not copublished the guidelines, 10 of 24 and 11 of 24 journals would have had a lower IF in the first and second years. Median altmetric scores were significantly higher for copublished guidelines [38.5 (9.5, 90.5) vs 3.5 (1.0, 9.0)] (p < 0.05). Copublication is associated with a higher citation frequency of hypertension guidelines and may increase the journal IF. Positive impacts extend beyond academia, benefiting society through broader guideline application and dissemination. This facilitates broader application of guidelines and promotes their dissemination. We conducted a retrospective cohort study to demonstrate how copublication promotes the dissemination of hypertension guidelines.

Journal metrics of the top-ranked Orthopaedic, Medical, and Surgical journals - A cross-sectional, comparative study.

PURPOSE: In academic publishing, research metrics play a crucial role in assessing the scientific impact and performance of the published literature, as well as of the journals in which they are published. Several journal-level metrics (JLM) such as the h-index of the analysed journals, total citations, total documents, citable documents, references and external citations per document are considered crucial indicators of the importance and reputation of the journals. We hypothesize that journals in the field of Medicine receive more citations than those in Surgical journals like Orthopaedic surgery, and hence have better JLM. This study aims to to assess and compare the JLM of Medical and Surgical journals between two time zones 2017-2019 vs. 2020-2022, i.e., pre and post-COVID-19 pandemic period. METHODS: A cross-sectional bibliometric analysis of the top-ranked Orthopaedic, Medical, and Surgical journals was undertaken based on traditional JLM, using the SCImago database from 2017 to 2022. Our analysis focused on identifying trends in the h-index of the analysed journals, total citations, total documents, citable documents, references and external citations per document. RESULTS: Overall Medical journals were found to have higher JLM than the Surgical and Orthopaedic journals. The h-index of Surgical journals, Medical journals and Orthopaedic journals were comparable between the two periods (pre and -post-COVID-19 pandemic); Total Cites (3 years), total documents (2017), total documents (3 years), total references, and citable documents (3 years) of Surgical journals, Medical journals and Orthopaedic journals were significantly higher in the period 2020-2022. CONCLUSION: There has been a steady increase in the number of publications from post COVID-19 period. Medical journals have higher JLM than Surgical and Orthopaedic journals. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (Am), Annals of Surgery and Diabetes Care were the most published journals in Orthopaedics, General Surgery and Medicine-related topics respectively.

Bibliometric evaluation of Anais Brasileiros de Dermatologia (2013-2022).

The Anais Brasileiros de Dermatologia, published since 1925, is the most influential dermatological journal in Latin America, indexed in the main international bibliographic databases, and occupies the 50th position among the 70 dermatological journals indexed in the Journal of Citations Reports, in 2022. In this article, the authors present a critical analysis of its trajectory in the last decade and compare its main bibliometric indices with Brazilian medical and international dermatological journals. The journal showed consistent growth in different bibliometric indices, which indicates a successful editorial policy and greater visibility in the international scientific community, attracting foreign authors. The increases in citations received (4.1×) and in the Article Influence Score (2.9×) were more prominent than those of the main Brazilian medical and international dermatological journals. The success of Anais Brasileiros de Dermatologia in the international scientific scenario depends on an assertive editorial policy, on promptly publication of high-quality articles, and on institutional stimulus to encourage clinical research in dermatology.

Journal Impact Factor and highly cited papers: The beginning of a new era in Dental and Medical Problems.

We are delighted to announce that Dental and Medical Problems is the first dentistry-focused scholarly journal in Poland and Eastern Europe to achieve a Journal Impact Factor (JIF) in the latest 2023 release of the Journal Citation Reports™!

The Role of the Journal Impact Factor in Chemistry Research.

The journal impact factor (JIF) is a skewed metrics whose value is dictated by just a few highly cited articles. Therefore, the use of the JIF to evaluate journals, scholars, or research institutes is flawed. Still, the JIF continues to play a central role in evaluating scholarship in chemistry, the most reluctant amid scientific disciplines to embrace the principles of open science. This study investigates the origins of this social behavior, and suggests avenues to improve scholarly communication in the chemical sciences following the example of the life sciences.

Scientific Publication Performance of the Erector Spinae Plane Block in Türkiye: A Bibliometric Analysis.

Objective: Erector spina plane block (ESPB) was first described in 2016 and is effective in various surgical procedures. Bibliometric analysis is a novel method that evaluates the contribution of scientific studies conducted in a specific field on the existing literature. This study examined articles on ESPB published by anaesthesia clinics in Türkiye in journals under the Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-E) category. Methods: Studies on ESPB indexed in the Web of Science Core Collection and published in Türkiye from 2018 to 2022 were evaluated. The primary outcome was to determine the number of studies published in journals under the SCI-E category. The secondary aims were to determine the number of citations and the institutions where the studies were conducted. Results: A total of 159 publications were analyzed. The journal with the highest number of publications was "Journal of Clinical Anesthesia" (n = 70). The institution that has to date made the most contributions to the literature was Atatürk University (n = 31). The most cited article was "Ultrasound guided erector spinae plane block reduces postoperative opioid consumption following breast surgery: A randomized controlled study." published by Gürkan et al. (n = 175). Conclusion: This study reflects the contribution level of Türkiye-addressed anaesthesia clinics to journals under the SCI-E category. Our findings can serve as a benchmark for attracting the attention of national and international researchers.

Association of trial characteristics with simultaneous publication and its impact on citations and mentions: a cross-sectional study.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Randomized trials are often presented at medical conferences and published simultaneously or later. Predictors of simultaneous publication and its consequences are undetermined. Our aim was to characterize the practice of simultaneous publication, identify its predictors, and evaluate its impact. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, we included randomized trials presented at late-breaking science sessions of major cardiovascular conferences from 2015 to 2021. The association of trial characteristics with the timing of publication was analyzed. The impact of simultaneous vs nonsimultaneous publication was investigated on the number of 1-year citations and 1-month mentions, and the total citations and mentions at the longest observation follow-up. RESULTS: Of 478 trials included in the analysis, 48.7% were published simultaneously. Simultaneous publications were more likely to be presented in the main conference room (OR, 6.09; 95%CI, 1.34-36.92; P=.029) and were characterized by a shorter review time (OR, 0.95; 95%CI, 0.91-0.96; P<.001). Simultaneous publications were associated with higher 1-year citations (R2, 43.81; 95%CI, 23.89-63.73; P<.001), 1-month mentions (R2, 132.32; 95%CI, 85.42-179.22; P<.001) and total citations (R2, 222.89; 95%CI, 127.98-317.80; P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: Randomized trials presented in the main conference room and with shorter review time were more likely to be published simultaneously. Simultaneous publications were associated with more citations and mentions than nonsimultaneous publications.