A Bibliometric Analysis of 4 Major Foot and Ankle Surgery Journals.

Research publication is a central to the scientific process and comprehensive bibliometric analysis is a leading way to better understand trends within research. Currently, there are limited bibliometric analyses of literature pertaining to foot and ankle surgery. This study aims to quantify the volume of research and investigate what may affect publication and citation. Journals associated with the 3 major orthopedic foot and ankle societies (Foot & Ankle International[FAI], Foot and Ankle Surgery, and The Foot) and one podiatric college (Journal of Foot and Ankle Surgery®) were evaluated from January 2009 to December 2018 using Scopus (Elsevier, Amsterdam, the Netherlands). Descriptive statistics were used to summarize article characteristics and regression modeling was used to determine factors associated with a country's current and future productivity and an article's citation rate. A total of 4994 articles were published over the 10-year period, with the largest contributor of publications being the United States of America (USA), who produced 2096 (41.8%) publications. Regression analysis found no association between a country's productivity and gross domestic product or population. There was no significant relationship between a country's baseline publication rate and future publication rate. The variables significantly associated with an increased citation count were; the number of years since publication, the number of authors, publication in FAI and if the article was a review. To our knowledge this is the largest bibliometric analysis of foot and ankle publications. The majority of research is being produced by the USA, but there are numerous complex factors associated with citation and publication rates. Further research is required to fully assess these factors and characterize the state of foot and ankle surgery research.

Trends in the quality of work presented at the society of british neurological surgeons meetings: 1975 to 2010.

BACKGROUND: The quality of scientific publications in clinical journals is well studied but the quality of work presented at medical conferences less so. AIMS: To describe trends in the quality of presentations at the Society of British Neurological Surgeons [SBNS] conference between 1975 and 2010 and the factors associated with higher quality work in order to consider what might improve publication rates. METHODS: Analysis was conducted in 5-year time periods (i.e. 1975-1979, 1985-1989, 1995-1999, 2005-2009). Published abstracts were used to identify conference presentations. Quality metrics included level of evidence of the presentation and eventual publication within 5 years. Publication 5-year citation count and destination journal impact factor were further used to assess publication quality. Statistical analysis was carried out using SPSS. RESULTS: Of the 1711 presentations in total, 479 (28%) were published. The British Journal of Neurosurgery (93, 19%) was the favoured destination. Although the total number of publications has increased, given the increase in the number of presentations, the proportion of work published has decreased (80/179; 45% in the 1970s to 113/721; 16% in the 2000s). The growth in the impact factor of published work was better than that found in leading neurosurgical journals, but lower than for leading medical journals. In a multivariate model, presentations using a higher level of evidence increased the likelihood of publication (AOR 6.7 95% CI 3.7, 12.1), whilst presenting at conferences after the 1970s reduced the likelihood of publication; 1985-1989 (AOR 0.3, 95% CI 0.2, 0.4), 1995-1999 (0.4, 95% CI 0.3, 0.7) and 2005-2009 (0.1, 95% CI 0.1, 0.2). CONCLUSION: SBNS conferences today contain more presentations and yield more publications than ever before. However, the increased volume may dilute the quality of work presented.

The Impact of Social Media on Otolaryngology Literature: Analyzing the Correlation Between Altmetrics and Citation Count.

Objective: The altmetric attention score (AAS) is an alternative metric that tracks article sharing via online platforms, reflecting an article's online attention trend. The objective of this study was to analyze the impact of social media on Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery (OHNS) literature and analyze the correlation between AAS and citation count. Study Design and Setting: A retrospective review of otolaryngology journal article citation data and Altmetric attention score. Methods: The top 10 OHNS journals with highest impact factors were identified using the Journal Citation Reports (JCR). The number of citations in 2018 and 2019 were extracted from JCR and AAS was extracted from the altmetrics website. The primary outcome of this study was to establish whether a correlation between AAS and citation count exists, and whether AAS could serve as a valid alternative metric to assess the quality of individual articles. Results: By analyzing data from 3729 articles, a weak statistically significant positive correlation was identified between AAS and citation count (r = 0.18, P < .001), and between number of citations and Twitter activity (r = 0.18, P < .001). In addition, a statistically significant strong correlation was seen between Twitter activity and AAS (r = 0.79, P < .001). Conclusion: The current results clearly illustrate a weak correlation between AAS and citations and between Twitter activity and citations. Due to various limitations, the use of AAS should be limited to serve as a complementary metric to the current gold standard rather than an alternative metric.

Paradigm Shifts in Vascular Surgery: Analysis of the Top 100 Innovative and Disruptive Academic Publications.

BACKGROUND: Disruption score (DS) is a novel bibliometric created to identify research that shifts paradigms, which may be overlooked by citation count (CC). We analyzed the most disruptive, compared to the most cited, literature in vascular surgery, and hypothesized that DS and CC would not correlate. METHODS: A PubMed search identified vascular surgery publications from 1954 to 2014. The publications were linked to the iCite NIH tool and DS algorithm to identify the top 100 studies by CC and DS, respectively. The publications were reviewed for study focus, design, and contribution, and subsequently compared. RESULTS: A total of 56,640 publications were identified. The top 100 DS papers were frequently published in J Vasc Sur (43%) and Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg (13%). The top 100 CC papers were frequently published in N Engl J Med (32%) and J Vasc Sur (20%). The most cited article is the fifth most disruptive; the most disruptive article is not in the top 100 cited papers. The DS papers had a higher mean DS than the CC papers (.17 vs .0001, P < .0001). The CC papers had a higher mean CC than the DS papers (866 vs 188, P < .0001). DS and CC are weakly correlated metrics (r = .22, P = .03). DISCUSSION: DS was weakly correlated with CC and captured a unique subset of literature that created paradigm shifts in vascular surgery. DS should be utilized as an adjunct to CC to avoid overlooking impactful research and influential researchers, and to measure true academic productivity.

Scientific production of an oral implantology journal: a 5-year bibliometric study.

Oral implantology is a science in constant evolution, with a considerable number of articles being published every year in scientific journals. Publications can be analyzed through bibliometric analysis, thus observing the evolution and trends of the articles published in the journal. To evaluate, through bibliometric analysis, the scientific production of Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research (CIDRR) and its evolution and trends in the last 5 years (2016-2020).All articles published in CIDRR in the last 5 years were reviewed and classified according to the year of publication, volume, number, the number of authors, demographic data of the first and last author, the geographical scope of the article, the number of affiliations of the authors, research topic, type of study, and study design. The association between these variables and citation counts was also analyzed. 599 articles were analyzed. 77.4% were authored by 4-6 authors, obtaining 78.4% from 1 to 3 different affiliations. Male researchers predominated in both the first and last authorship. China showed the highest number of publications when comparing the origin of the authors' affiliations individually; however, most researchers (40.9%) were from the European Union (EU)-Western Europe area. The most studied topic was the implant/abutment design/treatment of the surface (19.1%). Clinical research articles accounted for 92.99% of the publications, of which cross-sectional observational studies prevailed (21.7%). The presence of articles from the United States of America-Canada and EU-Western Europe was positively correlated with the impact factor. This study revealed an increasing trend in Asian research production, particularly Chinese, whereas production of European origin showed a decrease. Clinical studies increased their relative weight to the detriment of translational ones. A growing tendency in the relative weights of female authors was appreciated. Journal citations were associated with certain study variables.

Characteristics of the least-cited and most-cited articles in ophthalmology journals: A pilot study.

BACKGROUND: Limited research has examined differences between uncited papers and their most-cited counterparts. By comparing characteristics of each cohort, it is possible to better determine factors associated with increased citation count in the ophthalmology literature. METHODS: We initially identified all research articles published in six popular general ophthalmology journals (Ophthalmology, JAMA Ophthalmology, Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, American Journal of Ophthalmology, British Journal of Ophthalmology, and Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology) between 2001 and 2011. Forty-nine articles were identified as having accrued zero citations as of March 2021 and were compared with an equivalent number of articles with the highest number of citations published in the same journals and time period. Significance (p < 0.05) for comparisons was determined using the Mann-Whitney U test and Fisher's exact test. RESULTS: Compared to the least-cited articles, the most-cited articles were significantly more likely to be clinical, multi-institutional, and multi-national in scope, report a statistically significant result, have a conflict of interest, state a funding source, and have higher sample sizes. These publications had significantly more words in the abstract and manuscript and more references. Overall, the first authors of the most-cited articles were significantly more likely to be female and report greater prior research productivity, as assessed by the relative citation ratio (RCR). CONCLUSION: Considering a small number of articles were uncited at least a decade after publication, it appears most research is useful for future investigations. However, there remain distinct differences between uncited articles and their most-cited equivalents in ophthalmology.

Characteristics and Trends of Highly Cited Articles in Calcaneus Fracture Research.

Background: Despite significant effort expended toward exploring fracture patterns, surgical timing, surgical approaches, and possible implants within the calcaneus fracture literature, treatment is still fraught with complications and controversy. This study aims to conduct a citation analysis of the most cited articles related to calcaneus fractures to highlight the most historically influential articles, as well as the more recent breakthrough articles that are leading change within the field. Methods: A literature search was performed via Scopus on September 20, 2021 using the terms "(calcaneus OR calcaneal OR hindfoot) AND (fracture OR injury)" to search "article title, abstract, and keywords" of all primary and review articles. Search results were rigorously reviewed to ensure appropriateness for this study. The 50 highest total cited included articles were analyzed. Title, authors, journal, country of origin, institution, year of publication, citation variables (total citation count, total citation density, citation count from the last 5 years, and 5-year citation density), and level of evidence were collected for each article. One-way analysis of variance with post hoc testing was used to identify differences in citation variables and level of evidence. Pearson correlation was used to directly compare different citation variables. Results: The total citation count average was 178±33, with a total citation density average of 9±2. The year of publication for the 50 articles ranged from 1948 to 2014, with a median year of 1999. Roy W. Sanders was the most productive author in the field, authoring 6 articles and lead authoring 3. The most frequent level of evidence was IV with 19 articles. There was a strong correlation between total citation density and 5-year citation density. The article level of evidence showed no impact on the included measures of an article's influence. Conclusion: This study successfully analyzes and presents the characteristics among the highest cited articles related to calcaneus fractures. The provided characterization of influential works and authors highlights trends, impactful findings, and future areas of focus within calcaneus fracture literature.Level of Evidence: Review Article.

Publication and Impact of Preprints Included in the First 100 Editions of the CDC COVID-19 Science Update: Content Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Preprints are publicly available manuscripts posted to various servers that have not been peer reviewed. Although preprints have existed since 1961, they have gained increased popularity during the COVID-19 pandemic due to the need for immediate, relevant information. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to evaluate the publication rate and impact of preprints included in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) COVID-19 Science Update and assess the performance of the COVID-19 Science Update team in selecting impactful preprints. METHODS: All preprints in the first 100 editions (April 1, 2020, to July 30, 2021) of the Science Update were included in the study. Preprints that were not published were categorized as "unpublished preprints." Preprints that were subsequently published exist in 2 versions (in a peer-reviewed journal and on the original preprint server), which were analyzed separately and referred to as "peer-reviewed preprint" and "original preprint," respectively. Time to publish was the time interval between the date on which a preprint was first posted and the date on which it was first available as a peer-reviewed article. Impact was quantified by Altmetric Attention Score and citation count for all available manuscripts on August 6, 2021. Preprints were analyzed by publication status, publication rate, preprint server, and time to publication. RESULTS: Of the 275 preprints included in the CDC COVID-19 Science Update during the study period, most came from three servers: medRxiv (n=201, 73.1%), bioRxiv (n=41, 14.9%), and SSRN (n=25, 9.1%), with 8 (2.9%) coming from other sources. Additionally, 152 (55.3%) were eventually published. The median time to publish was 2.3 (IQR 1.4-3.7). When preprints posted in the last 2.3 months were excluded (to account for the time to publish), the publication rate was 67.8%. Moreover, 76 journals published at least one preprint from the CDC COVID-19 Science Update, and 18 journals published at least three. The median Altmetric Attention Score for unpublished preprints (n=123, 44.7%) was 146 (IQR 22-552) with a median citation count of 2 (IQR 0-8); for original preprints (n=152, 55.2%), these values were 212 (IQR 22-1164) and 14 (IQR 2-40), respectively; for peer-review preprints, these values were 265 (IQR 29-1896) and 19 (IQR 3-101), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Prior studies of COVID-19 preprints found publication rates between 5.4% and 21.1%. Preprints included in the CDC COVID-19 Science Update were published at a higher rate than overall COVID-19 preprints, and those that were ultimately published were published within months and received higher attention scores than unpublished preprints. These findings indicate that the Science Update process for selecting preprints had a high fidelity in terms of their likelihood to be published and their impact. The incorporation of high-quality preprints into the CDC COVID-19 Science Update improves this activity's capacity to inform meaningful public health decision-making.

A bibliometric analysis of top 50-most cited articles on repetitive trans-cranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) for treatment of depression.

BACKGROUND: Citation count can be used as a key tool to assess the quality of the published literature and because of its immense advantages it is now widely used in ranking the articles on specific topics. OBJECTIVE/HYPOTHESIS: To extract and assess the top cited work on repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) for depression treatment. METHODS: Scopus Library Database was searched and two independent authors produced a list of 50 most cited articles on repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) for treatment of depression. All the relevant articles having key-terms within their titles, abstract and keywords were included in our search. Our list was categorized into two categories, "mixed" and "focused". RESULTS: The articles in the produced list of top 50 most cited articles on rTMS for treatment of depression belong to the time period 1993-2012 with total citation count 12078. George MS was prominent in the list. 'Biological Psychiatry' published most number of articles (n = 13) among the list. Articles were categorized on the basis of primary population and intervention into 'Focused' and 'Mixed' categories. LIMITATIONS: Articles that were published before 1993 and after 2012 on rTMS for depression couldn't made it to the final list of top-50 most cited article. CONCLUSION: We attempted to conduct a topic-specific citation analysis considering the paucity of specified bibliometrics in medical literature. Our research provides an insight on emerging trends in rTMS for depression and highlights the characteristics, quality and dynamics of frequently cited articles in the field.

Can altmetrics predict future citation counts in critical care medicine publications?

INTRODUCTION: Social media is increasingly used in the dissemination of medical research. Traditional measures of the impact of a paper do not account for this. Altmetrics are a measure of the dissemination of a publication via social media websites. The purpose of this study is to ascertain if the altmetric attention score of an article is a reliable measure of the impact it has in the field of critical care medicine. To this end, we investigated if a correlation exists between future citation count and altmetric attention score. METHODS: The top nine journals by impact factor in the field of critical care medicine were identified for 2014 and 2015. The 100 most cited articles from these journals were recorded to form the Scientific Impact Group, i.e. those with the greatest impact on the scientific community. The altmetric attention score was recorded for each article. The top 100 articles by altmetric attention score were also identified to form the Media Impact Group, i.e. those that generated the most online attention. Their citation counts' were recorded. Statistical analysis was performed on each group to identify a correlation between altmetric attention score and citation count. RESULTS: There was a moderately positive correlation in the Scientific Impact Group, with a Spearman r score of 0.4336 (P = 0.0001). A weakly positive correlation was found in the Media Impact Group, with a Spearman r score of 0.3033 (P = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: There is a positive correlation between traditional bibliographic metrics and altmetrics in the field of critical care medicine. Highly cited papers are more likely to generate online attention. However, papers that generate a lot of online attention are less likely to have a high citation count. Therefore, altmetric attention score is not a reliable predictor of future citation count in critical care medicine.

Examining the correlation between Altmetric Attention Score and citation count in the gynecologic oncology literature: Does it have an impact?

We sought to determine the correlation between Altmetric Attention Score and traditional bibliometrics in the gynecologic oncology literature. We identified the 10 most-cited gynecologic oncology articles from 5 major gynecology journals and 10 major "oncology" journals that publish on gynecologic oncology during 2014, 2016, and 2018. Article citation count and Altmetric Attention Score (AAS), as well as journal impact factor (IF) and date of Twitter account development were recorded. Pearson's correlation coefficient was used to describe the relationship between AAS, tweets, IF, and citation count. While the median citation counts significantly decreased for the top-cited gynecologic oncology articles from 2014 to 2018 (p < 0.001), the corresponding median AAS continuously increased during this period (p = 0.008). For articles published in 2014 and 2018, there was a strong positive relationship between the median citation count and the median AAS (2014: r = 0.92; 2018: r = 0.97), as well as between the IF (r = 0.78 and r = 0.89, respectively); these correlations were moderate to weak in 2016 (r = 0.5 and r = 0.41, respectively). There was a continuously increasing strong positive correlation from 2014 to 2018 between journal IF and median AAS (2014: r = 0.75; 2016: r = 0.82; 2018: r = 0.92). Gynecologic oncology articles published in higher impact journals are associated with increased social media visibility and attention. Our data support the idea that early online attention scores, like the AAS, might be useful for predicting future citation counts for oncology publications in general and gynecologic oncology specifically.

Trends in HSPB5 research: a 36-year bibliometric analysis.

HSPB5 (heat shock protein B5), also known as αB-crystallin, is one of the most widespread and populous of the ten human small heat shock proteins (sHsps). Over the past decades, extensive research has been conducted on HSPB5. However, few studies have statistically analyzed these publications. Herein, we conducted a bibliometric analysis to track the global research trend and current development status of HSPB5 research from the Web of Science Core Collection (WoSCC) database between 1985 and 2020. Our results demonstrate that 1220 original articles cited 54,778 times in 391 scholarly journals were published. Visualization analyses reveal that the Journal of Biological Chemistry was the most influential journal with 85 articles. The USA dominated this field with 520 publications (42.62%), followed by Japan with 149 publications (12.21%), and Kato contributed the largest number of publications. Most related publications were published in journals focusing on biochemistry molecular biology, cell biology, neurosciences neurology, and ophthalmology. In addition, keyword co-occurrence analyses identify three predominant research topics: expression of HSPB5, chaperone studies for HSPB5, and pathological studies of HSPB5. This study provides valuable guidance for researchers and leads to collaborative opportunities between diverse research interests to be integrated for HSPB5 research.

Citations and metrics of journals discontinued from Scopus for publication concerns: the GhoS(t)copus Project.

Background: Scopus is a leading bibliometric database. It contains the largest number of articles cited in peer-reviewed publications . The journals included in Scopus are periodically re-evaluated to ensure they meet indexing criteria and some journals might be discontinued for publication concerns. These journals remain indexed and can be cited. Their metrics have yet to be studied. This study aimed  to evaluate the main features and metrics of journals discontinued from Scopus for publication concerns, before and after their discontinuation, and to determine the extent of predatory journals among the discontinued journals. Methods: We surveyed the list of discontinued journals from Scopus (July 2019). Data regarding metrics, citations and indexing were extracted from Scopus or other scientific databases, for the journals discontinued for publication concerns.  Results: A total of 317 journals were evaluated. Ninety-three percent of the journals (294/318) declared they published using an Open Access model. The subject areas with the greatest number of discontinued journals were  Medicine (52/317; 16%),  Agriculture and Biological Science (34/317; 11%), and  Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics (31/317; 10%). The mean number of citations per year after discontinuation was significantly higher than before (median of difference 64 citations, p<0.0001), and so was the number of citations per document (median of difference 0.4 citations, p<0.0001). Twenty-two percent (72/317) were included in the Cabell's blacklist. The DOAJ currently included only 9 journals while 61 were previously included and discontinued, most for 'suspected editorial misconduct by the publisher'. Conclusions: The citation count of journals discontinued for publication concerns increases despite discontinuation and predatory behaviors seemed common. This paradoxical trend can inflate scholars' metrics prompting artificial career advancements, bonus systems and promotion. Countermeasures should be taken urgently to ensure the reliability of Scopus metrics both at the journal- and author-level for the purpose of scientific assessment of scholarly publishing.

Citation Impact of Collaboration in Radiology Research.

PURPOSE: Team science involving multidisciplinary and multi-institutional collaboration is increasingly recognized as a means of strengthening the quality of scientific research. The aim of this study was to assess associations between various forms of collaboration and the citation impact of published radiology research. METHODS: In 2010, 876 original research articles published in Academic Radiology, the American Journal of Roentgenology, JACR, and Radiology were identified with at least one radiology-affiliated author. All articles were manually reviewed to extract features related to all authors' disciplines and institutions. Citations to these articles through September 2016 were extracted from Thomson Reuters Web of Science. RESULTS: Subsequent journal article citation counts were significantly higher (P < .05) for original research articles with at least seven versus six or fewer authors (26.2 ± 30.8 versus 20.3 ± 23.1, respectively), with authors from multiple countries versus from a single country (32.3 ± 39.2 versus 22.0 ± 25.0, respectively), with rather than without a nonuniversity collaborator (28.7 ± 38.6 versus 22.4 ± 24.9, respectively), and with rather than without a nonclinical collaborator (26.5 ± 33.1 versus 21.9 ± 24.4, respectively). On multivariate regression analysis, the strongest independent predictors of the number of citations were authors from multiple countries (ß = 9.14, P = .002), a nonuniversity collaborator (ß = 4.80, P = .082), and at least seven authors (ß = 4.11, P = .038). CONCLUSIONS: With respect to subsequent journal article citations, various forms of collaboration are associated with greater scholarly impact of published radiology research. To enhance the relevance of their research, radiology investigators are encouraged to pursue collaboration across traditional disciplinary, institutional, and geographic boundaries.

Citation classics in pediatrics: a bibliometric analysis.

BACKGROUND: Citation analysis provides insights into the history and developmental trajectory of scientific fields. Our objective was to perform an analysis of citation classics in the journals of pediatric specialty and to examine their characteristics. METHODS: Initially, all the journals listed under the category of pediatrics (n = 120) were identified using Journal Citation Reports. Web of science database was then searched (1950-2016) to select the top-100 cited articles in the above identified pediatric journals. The top-100 cited article were categorized according the study design, sub-specialty, country, institutional affiliation, and language. RESULTS: The top-100 articles were published in 18 different journals, with Pediatrics having the highest numbers (n = 40), followed by The Journal of Pediatrics (n = 17). The majority (n = 62) of classics were published after 1990. The most cited article had citation count of 3516 and the least cited had a citation count of 593. The USA (n = 71) was the most commonly represented country, and 60 institutions contributed to 100 articles. Fifteen authors contributed to more than one classic as first or second author. Observational study (n = 55) was the commonest study design across all decades, followed by reviews (n = 12), scale development studies (n = 11), and guidelines (n = 11). Among the pediatric sub-specialties, growth and development articles were highly cited (n = 24), followed by pediatric psychiatry and behavior (n = 21), endocrinology (n = 15), and neonatology (n = 12). CONCLUSIONS: The top-100 cited articles in pediatrics identify the impactful authors, journals, institutes, and countries. Observational study design was predominant-implying that inclusion among citation classics is not related to soundness of study design.

PageRank as a method to rank biomedical literature by importance.

BACKGROUND: Optimal ranking of literature importance is vital in overcoming article overload. Existing ranking methods are typically based on raw citation counts, giving a sum of 'inbound' links with no consideration of citation importance. PageRank, an algorithm originally developed for ranking webpages at the search engine, Google, could potentially be adapted to bibliometrics to quantify the relative importance weightings of a citation network. This article seeks to validate such an approach on the freely available, PubMed Central open access subset (PMC-OAS) of biomedical literature. RESULTS: On-demand cloud computing infrastructure was used to extract a citation network from over 600,000 full-text PMC-OAS articles. PageRanks and citation counts were calculated for each node in this network. PageRank is highly correlated with citation count (R = 0.905, P < 0.01) and we thus validate the former as a surrogate of literature importance. Furthermore, the algorithm can be run in trivial time on cheap, commodity cluster hardware, lowering the barrier of entry for resource-limited open access organisations. CONCLUSIONS: PageRank can be trivially computed on commodity cluster hardware and is linearly correlated with citation count. Given its putative benefits in quantifying relative importance, we suggest it may enrich the citation network, thereby overcoming the existing inadequacy of citation counts alone. We thus suggest PageRank as a feasible supplement to, or replacement of, existing bibliometric ranking methods.