A survey of surveys: an evaluation of the quality of published surveys in neurosurgery.

PURPOSE: Surveys generate valuable data in epidemiologic and qualitative clinical research. The quality of a survey depends on its design, the number of responses it receives, and the reporting of the results. In this study, we aimed to assess the quality of surveys in neurosurgery. METHODS: Neurosurgical surveys published between 2000 and 2020 (inclusive) were identified from PubMed. Various datapoints regarding the surveys were collated. The number of citations received by the papers was determined from Google Scholar. A 6-dimensional quality assessment tool was applied to the surveys. Parameters from this tool were combined with the number of responses received to create the survey quality score (SQS). RESULTS: A total of 618 surveys were included for analysis. The target sample size correlated with the number of responses received. The response rate correlated positively with the target sample size and the number of reminders sent and negatively with the number of questions in the survey. The median number of authors on neurosurgery survey papers was 6. The number of authors correlated with the SQS and the number of citations received by published survey papers. The median normalized SQS for neurosurgical surveys was 65%. The nSQS independently predicted the citations received per year by surveys. CONCLUSIONS: The modifiable factors that correlated with improvements in survey design were optimizing the number of questions, maximizing the target sample size, and incorporating reminders in the survey design. Increasing the number of contributing authors led to improvements in survey quality. The SQS was validated and correlated well with the citations received by surveys.

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.

Modelling monthly-gridded carbon emissions based on nighttime light data.

Timely and accurate implementation of carbon emissions (CE) analysis and evaluation is necessary for policymaking and management. However, previous inventories, most of which are yearly, provincial or city, and incomplete, have failed to reflect the spatial variations and monthly trends of CE. Based on nighttime light (NTL) data, statistical data, and land use data, in this study, a high-resolution (1 km × 1 km) monthly inventory of CE was developed using back propagation neural network, and the spatiotemporal variations and impact factors of CE at multiple administrative levels was evaluated using spatial autocorrelation model and spatial econometric model. As a large province in terms of both economy and population, Guangdong is facing the severe emission reduction challenges. Therefore, in this study, Guangdong was taken as a case study to explain the method. The results revealed that CE increased unsteadily in Guangdong from 2013 to 2022. Spatially, the high CE areas were distributed in the Pearl River Delta region such as Guangzhou, Shenzhen, and Dongguan, while the low CE areas were distributed in West and East Guangdong. The Global Moran's I decreased from 2013 to 2022 at the city and county levels, suggesting that the inequality of CE in Guangdong steadily decreased at these two administrative levels. Specifically, at the city level, the Global Moran's I gradually decreased from 0.4067 in 2013 to 0.3531 in 2022. In comparison, at the county level, the trend exhibited a slower decline, from 0.3647 in 2013 to 0.3454 in 2022. Furthermore, the analysis of the impact factors revealed that the relationship between CE and gross domestic product was an inverted U-shaped, suggesting the existence of the inverted U-shaped Environmental Kuznets Curve for CE in Guangdong. In addition, the industrial structure had larger positive impact on CE at the different levels. The method developed in this study provides a perspective for establishing high spatiotemporal resolution CE evaluation through NTL data, and the improved inventory of CE could help understand the spatial-temporal variations of CE and formulate regional-monthly-specific emission reduction policies.

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.

Assessing the quality of reporting of studies using Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI) data.

OBJECTIVE: The Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI) has become an increasingly popular data source for retrospective observational vascular surgery studies. There are published guidelines on the reporting of data in such studies to promote transparency and rigor, but these have not been used to evaluate studies using VQI data. Our objective was to appraise the methodological reporting quality of studies using VQI data by evaluating their adherence to these guidelines. METHODS: The Society for Vascular Surgery VQI publication repository was queried for all articles published in 2020. The REporting of studies Conducted using Observational Routinely-collected Health Data (RECORD) statement and the Journal of American Medical Association-Surgical Section (JAMA-Surgery) checklist were utilized to assess the quality of each article's reporting. Five and three items from the RECORD statement and JAMA-Surgery checklist were excluded, respectively, because they were either inapplicable or nonassessable. Journal impact factor (IF) was queried for each article to elucidate any difference in reporting standards between high and low IF journals. RESULTS: Ninety studies were identified and analyzed. The median score on the RECORD checklist was 6 (of 8). The most commonly missed item was discussing data cleaning methods (93% missed). The median score on the JAMA-Surgery checklist was 3 (of 7). The most commonly missed items were the identification of competing risks (98% missed), the use of a flow chart to clearly define sample exclusion and inclusion criteria (84% missed), and the inclusion of a solid research question and hypothesis (81% missed). There were no differences in JAMA-Surgery checklist or RECORD statement median scores among studies published in low vs high IF journals. CONCLUSIONS: Studies using VQI data demonstrate a poor to moderate adherence to reporting standards. Key areas for improvement in research reporting include articulating a clear hypothesis, using flow charts to clearly define inclusion and exclusion criteria, identifying competing risks, and discussing data cleaning methods. Additionally, future efforts should center on creating tailored instruments to better guide reporting in studies using VQI data.

Cephalalgia - The early history.

The journal Cephalalgia was founded in 1980 and was first published in 1981. The foundation was mainly laid by Ottar Sjaastad who also served as the first Editor-in-Chief. In the early years, Cephalalgia was published in Scandinavia and was owned by the Norwegian Migraine Society. It became the official journal of the International Headache Society in 1984 and in 1993 ownership of Cephalalgia was transferred to International Headache Society. The publisher changed in 2000 and then again in 2009. The success of Cephalalgia can be seen by the almost continuous rising of its impact factor and by the increasing number of issues including supplements and special issues. In the future, Cephalagia will become more digital and open access.

Sleep researchers' rankings of sleep journals.

The impact factor is used to rank the quality of scientific journals but has been criticised for a number of reasons. The aim of the study was to investigate sleep researchers' perceptions of sleep journals to determine whether subjective rankings of journals were in line with the journals' impact factors. Clarivate's Journal Citation Reports website was used to identify journals containing the words 'sleep' or 'dream' in the titles with an impact factor since 2018, resulting in 12 journals. A survey including questions about how the respondent would rank these journals (e.g., three most prestigious journals) was developed. A total of 122 sleep researchers completed the survey. Sleep, Sleep Medicine Reviews and Journal of Sleep Research were ranked as the three most prestigious sleep journals, in line with the impact factors of the journals. For the rest of the journals, the subjective rankings and impact factors did not correspond as much.

Web of Science's Citation Median Metrics Overcome the Major Constraints of the Journal Impact Factor.

There are many metrics to evaluate the performance and status of journals. Among these, the journal impact factor (JIF) has become the dominant metric. The influence of JIF is illustrated by its widespread use to evaluate academic status, compensation, and funding decisions. However, as noted by Clarivate Analytics, the parent company of the Web of Science (WoS), the JIF should not be used without careful attention to the many phenomena that influence citation rates. To facilitate transparency, Clarivate Analytics provides all data used to determine the JIF. In addition, WoS provides other metrics for journal evaluation, including the article citation median and the review citation median. These metrics are represented as medians to minimize the confounding influence of a small number of highly cited articles that may occur when data are represented as means. Another feature of these WoS metrics is that data are separated according to different publication types of article (original research and review). To systematically compare these selected metrics, we used the data provided on the WoS web site to analyze 25 top ranked cardiovascular journals in the same mode as represented in the WoS citation distribution window. The results indicate that the article citation median and review citation median overcome several concerns that have been raised about the JIF and seem to provide enhanced objectivity as an indicator of journal impact in publishing original research and reviews. Therefore, we advocate that these additional WoS metrics might be preferentially considered as indicators of journal performance.

'To see ourselves as others see us'.

Shaw and colleagues, who are medical historians, have published a detailed review of the social history of the British Journal of Anaesthesia (BJA) to celebrate its first 100 years. In this editorial, we note some additional contributions and financial details that are relevant to the development of the BJA into the international high-impact journal it is today.

Research trends within aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage from 2017 to 2021: a bibliometric study.

Bibliometric analyses are a well-established strategy for understanding the dynamics of publications. Aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (aSAH) is a hot topic in neurology and neurosurgery research. To perform a bibliometric analysis of recent publications within aSAH. Articles addressing aSAH published between 2017 and 2021 were included and had their information extracted from Scopus. A total of 2177 articles were included. The mean number of citations was 6.18 (95%CI = 5.77-6.59). 2021 and 2020 were the most prolific years. World Neurosurgery (N = 389/2,177 articles; 17,87%) was the leading publisher, and American Journal of Neuroradiology had the highest number of citations per article (14.82) among journals with ≥ 10 publications. Primary research (N = 1624/2177) predominated, followed by case reports (N = 434/2,177). Among secondary studies, systematic reviews (N = 78/119) surpassed narrative reviews (N = 41/119). USA led the number of publications (N = 548/2,177 articles; 25.17%), followed by China (N = 358/2,177 articles; 16.44%). High-income countries had a higher number of publications (N = 1624/2177) and more citations per article (6.84) than middle-income countries (N = 553/2177 and 4.25, respectively). There were zero articles from low-income countries. European and North American institutions had the greatest research impact. There was an increase in the number of published articles in the last few years (2020 and 2021). Many studies had a low level of evidence, whereas interventional studies were uncommon.

Evaluating the Ability of Open-Source Artificial Intelligence to Predict Accepting-Journal Impact Factor and Eigenfactor Score Using Academic Article Abstracts: Cross-sectional Machine Learning Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Strategies to improve the selection of appropriate target journals may reduce delays in disseminating research results. Machine learning is increasingly used in content-based recommender algorithms to guide journal submissions for academic articles. OBJECTIVE: We sought to evaluate the performance of open-source artificial intelligence to predict the impact factor or Eigenfactor score tertile using academic article abstracts. METHODS: PubMed-indexed articles published between 2016 and 2021 were identified with the Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms "ophthalmology," "radiology," and "neurology." Journals, titles, abstracts, author lists, and MeSH terms were collected. Journal impact factor and Eigenfactor scores were sourced from the 2020 Clarivate Journal Citation Report. The journals included in the study were allocated percentile ranks based on impact factor and Eigenfactor scores, compared with other journals that released publications in the same year. All abstracts were preprocessed, which included the removal of the abstract structure, and combined with titles, authors, and MeSH terms as a single input. The input data underwent preprocessing with the inbuilt ktrain Bidirectional Encoder Representations from Transformers (BERT) preprocessing library before analysis with BERT. Before use for logistic regression and XGBoost models, the input data underwent punctuation removal, negation detection, stemming, and conversion into a term frequency-inverse document frequency array. Following this preprocessing, data were randomly split into training and testing data sets with a 3:1 train:test ratio. Models were developed to predict whether a given article would be published in a first, second, or third tertile journal (0-33rd centile, 34th-66th centile, or 67th-100th centile), as ranked either by impact factor or Eigenfactor score. BERT, XGBoost, and logistic regression models were developed on the training data set before evaluation on the hold-out test data set. The primary outcome was overall classification accuracy for the best-performing model in the prediction of accepting journal impact factor tertile. RESULTS: There were 10,813 articles from 382 unique journals. The median impact factor and Eigenfactor score were 2.117 (IQR 1.102-2.622) and 0.00247 (IQR 0.00105-0.03), respectively. The BERT model achieved the highest impact factor tertile classification accuracy of 75.0%, followed by an accuracy of 71.6% for XGBoost and 65.4% for logistic regression. Similarly, BERT achieved the highest Eigenfactor score tertile classification accuracy of 73.6%, followed by an accuracy of 71.8% for XGBoost and 65.3% for logistic regression. CONCLUSIONS: Open-source artificial intelligence can predict the impact factor and Eigenfactor score of accepting peer-reviewed journals. Further studies are required to examine the effect on publication success and the time-to-publication of such recommender systems.

The European Heart Journal: fulfilling the mission.

In September 2020, the new Editors of the European Heart Journal (EHJ) wrote the following in their inaugural editorial: "The fundamental mission of the Journal remains the reduction of the global burden of cardiovascular disease. We aspire to advance this aim by worldwide teamwork to communicate practice-changing research, inspire clinical cardiologists, and pursue rigour and transparency in the application of science at the service of human health. The Journal will strive to lead the field in its impact, influence, and reach". After more than one year of experience the Editors hope the cardiological community will agree that they are fulfilling this mission. As stewards of the EHJ, the Editor's primary goal is not solely to achieve a high Impact Factor (which attests to the scientific quality and influence of our publications) but also to elevate the practice of cardiovascular medicine worldwide. Accordingly, various initiatives of the EHJ strive to strengthen further links among Editors, Authors, Reviewers and Readers through a series of coordinated and diverse activities, including webinars, active social media presence, and active participation at congresses worldwide. The Editors are proud to serve one of the most important scientific journals in cardiovascular medicine.

A bibliometric analysis of publications in Renal Failure in the last three decades.

Publications in Renal Failure in Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED) between 1992 and 2021 were analyzed. Six publication indicators: total, independent, collaborative, first author, corresponding author, and single author publications as well as their related citation indicators, were used to compare performances of countries, institutes, and authors. Comparison of the highly cited papers and journal's impact factor (IF) contributors was discussed. In addition, the main research topics in the journal were presented. Results show that China published the most total articles and reviews, as well as the first-author papers and corresponding-author papers in the journal. The Chang Gung Memorial Hospital in Taiwan ranked the top in five publication indicators: total, single-institution, inter-institutionally collaborative, first author, and corresponding-author papers. A low percentage of productive authors emerged as a journal IF contributor. Similarly, only a limited relationship between highly cited papers and IF contributing papers was found. Publications related to hemodialysis, chronic kidney disease, and acute kidney injury were the most popular topic, while meta-analysis was new focus in the last decade in the journal.

The 100 most-cited articles published in the Veterinary Ophthalmology journal between 1998 and 2022: A bibliometric study.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to bibliometrically analyze the 100 most-cited articles published in the Veterinary Ophthalmology (VO) journal. METHODS: Web of Science was searched for citations of VO articles published in 1998-2022. Tissue and species studied, and first and last author domicile and affiliation were recorded for the 100 most-cited articles and descriptively analyzed. RESULTS: Altogether, the 100 most-cited VO articles have cited a total of 5483 times. Most commonly, these were devoted to the cornea (23%), multiple tissues (19%), and glaucoma (16%). Studies on dogs (36%), horses (17%), and multiple species (15%) were most often cited. Most first/last authors were from the USA (n = 113), Brazil (n = 13), and France and Germany (n = 7 each), and most frequently affiliated with the University of Florida (n = 36), University of Wisconsin-Madison (n = 15), and Animal Health Trust, North Carolina State University, and Ohio State University (n = 6 each). KN Gelatt (n = 9), DE Brooks (n = 6), and FJ Ollivier and EO MacKay (n = 5 each) were the most frequent first or last authors. The greatest number of citations was for articles with KN Gelatt (n = 555), FJ Ollivier (n = 411), and DE Brooks (n = 372) as first or last authors. "The comparative morphology of the tapetum lucidum" by FJ Ollivier et al. (2002) is the most frequently cited article in VO history (n = 178). CONCLUSIONS: This study provides insight into the impact of publishing in VO and a more comprehensive understanding of trends and the most influential contributions to VO.

Accuracy of data in abstracts of veterinary ophthalmology research articles published in peer-reviewed journals.

OBJECTIVE: Assess the accuracy of abstracts in published veterinary ophthalmology articles. PROCEDURES: Abstracts and contents of 204 original research articles in veterinary ophthalmology published in seven peer-reviewed journals between 2016-2020 were reviewed. Abstracts were considered inconsistent if they contained data that were either missing from or inconsistent with corresponding data in the article's body. Each abstract was graded between 0 (inaccurate) to 3 (accurate), and each inconsistency was subjectively classified as minor or major. The influence of selected variables was assessed: journal, impact factor, year of publication, number of words in abstract, study type (prospective/retrospective), and characteristics of the corresponding author [institution (academia/private practice), country of domicile (native/non-native English), number of publications]. RESULTS: Most abstracts were accurate, with 1%, 4%, 9% and 86% receiving a score of 0, 1, 2 and 3, respectively. When detected, most inconsistencies were considered minor (77%). Although not statistically significant (p ≥ .130), the proportion of articles with a perfect score (=3) was higher in prospective (88%) vs. retrospective (81%) studies, academia (88%) vs. private practice (78%), and studies from corresponding authors domiciled in English (89%) vs. non-English (83%) speaking countries. A significant but very weak (r = -0.15 to -0.19; p ≤ .034) negative correlation was found between accuracy score and number of words, as well as 1-year and 5-year impact factors. CONCLUSIONS: Although relatively uncommon, data in abstracts that are inconsistent or missing from the article's body do occur in veterinary ophthalmology articles, and could adversely influence a reader's interpretation of study findings.

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.

Intra-Specialty Citation Pattern in Radiology and Gastroenterology/Hepatology Journals: A Cross-Specialty Comparison.

Objectives: To investigate intra-specialty citation patterns of radiology articles, compared with another medical specialty: gastroenterology/hepatology. Methods: Four radiology journals (Radiology, European Radiology, Diagnostic and Interventional Imaging, Canadian Association of Radiologists Journal) and four gastroenterology/hepatology journals (Journal of Hepatology, Journal of Gastroenterology, World Journal of Gastroenterology, Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology) with similar Web of Science in-category 2020 IF ranking were selected. The original research, review, letter, and editorial articles published in these journals in 2021 were identified. The average number of intra-specialty citations per article (intra-specialty citation count) and percentage of intra-specialty citations out of total citations per article (intra-specialty citation rate) were compared between radiology and gastroenterology/hepatology articles using Student's t-test. Results: The radiology articles demonstrated a lower total citation count per article (radiology: 29.7 ± .4 (mean ± SEM), n = 2063; gastroenterology/hepatology: 50.1 ± 1.4, n = 1335). The intra-specialty citation count was also lower in radiology articles than gastroenterology/hepatology articles (radiology: 12.9 ± .2, gastroenterology/hepatology: 19.6 ± .7; P < .001), both overall and in all article types. Additionally, the overall intra-specialty citation rate was not significantly different between the two specialties (radiology: 48.8% ± .5%; gastroenterology/hepatology: 47.1 ± .8%; P = .057), although the intra-specialty citation rates were higher in radiology original research and editorial article types. Conclusions: The significantly lower per-article intra-specialty citation counts in all radiology article types, a measurement that directly links to specialty IFs, may contribute to the lower impact factors of radiology journals compared with gastroenterology/hepatology ones.

How COVID-19 Affected the Journal Impact Factor of High Impact Medical Journals: Bibliometric Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Journal impact factor (IF) is the leading method of scholarly assessment in today's research world, influencing where scholars submit their research and where funders distribute their resources. COVID-19, one of the most serious health crises, resulted in an unprecedented surge of publications across all areas of knowledge. An important question is whether COVID-19 affected the gold standard of scholarly assessment. OBJECTIVE: In this paper, we aimed to comprehensively compare the productivity trends of COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 literature as well as track their evolution and scholarly impact across 3 consecutive calendar years. METHODS: We took as an example 6 high-impact medical journals (Annals of Internal Medicine [Annals], The British Medical Journal [The BMJ], Journal of the American Medical Association [JAMA], The Lancet, Nature Medicine [NatMed], and The New England Journal of Medicine [NEJM]) and searched the literature using the Web of Science database for manuscripts published between January 1, 2019, and December 31, 2021. To assess the effect of COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 literature in their scholarly impact, we calculated their annual IFs and percentage changes. Thereafter, we estimated the citation probability of COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 publications along with their rates of publication and citation by journal. RESULTS: A significant increase in IF change for manuscripts including COVID-19 published from 2019 to 2020 (P=.002; Annals: 283%; The BMJ: 199%; JAMA: 208%; The Lancet: 392%; NatMed: 111%; and NEJM: 196%) and to 2021 (P=.007; Annals: 41%; The BMJ: 90%; JAMA: 6%; The Lancet: 22%; NatMed: 53%; and NEJM: 72%) was seen, against non-COVID-19 ones. The likelihood of highly cited publications was significantly increased in COVID-19 manuscripts between 2019 and 2021 (Annals: z=3.4, P<.001; The BMJ: z=4.0, P<.001; JAMA: z=3.8, P<.001; The Lancet: z=3.5, P<.001; NatMed: z=5.2, P<.001; and NEJM: z=4.7, P<.001). The publication and citation rates of COVID-19 publications followed a positive trajectory, as opposed to non-COVID-19. The citation rate for COVID-19 publications peaked by the second quarter of 2020 while that of the publication rate approximately a year later. CONCLUSIONS: The rapid surge of COVID-19 publications emphasized the capacity of scientific communities to respond against a global health emergency, yet inflated IFs create ambiguity as benchmark tools for assessing scholarly impact. The immediate implication is a loss in value of and trust in journal IFs as metrics of research and scientific rigor perceived by academia and society. Loss of confidence toward procedures employed by highly reputable publishers may incentivize authors to exploit the publication process by monopolizing their research on COVID-19 and encourage them to publish in journals of predatory behavior.

Twitter Journal Club Impact on Engagement Metrics of the Neurocritical Care Journal.

BACKGROUND: Twitter journal clubs are a modern way of highlighting articles published in a scientific journal. The Neurocritical Care journal (NCC) initiated a bimonthly, Twitter-based, online journal club in 2015 to increase the outreach of its published articles. We hypothesize that articles included in the Neurocritical Care Society Twitter Journal Club (NCSTJC) had greater engagement than other articles published during the same time period. We also investigated the relationship between number of citations and Altmetric score to assess whether the enhanced online activity resulted in higher citations. METHODS: We gathered data in August 2020 on engagement metrics (number of downloads, Altmetric score, relative citation ratio, and number of citations) of all articles published in NCC between 2015 and 2018. Articles were analyzed into two groups: one featured in NCSTJC and the rest that were not (non-NCSTJC1), and the other comprised those that were not in NCSTJC but published under a similar category of articles as NCSTJC (non-NCSTJC2). Results were analyzed using descriptive statistics, and summary measures were used to report the spread. The groups were compared by using the Wilcoxon rank sum test, given that the data were not normally distributed. Spearman's rank correlation was used to assess correlation between Altmetric score and citations for the articles in the NCSTJC and non-NCSTJC groups. For comparison, the top ten cited articles in NCC were analyzed for similar correlations. RESULTS: Between 2015 and 2018, NCC published 529 articles, 24 of which were included in the Twitter journal club. A total of 406 articles were published in the same category as the category of articles selected for NCSTJC. The articles discussed as a part of NCSTJC had a statistically significant trend toward a higher number of downloads, Altmetric score, relative citation ratio, and number of citations than rest of the articles published in the journal during the same time period and the rest of the articles published in same categories. Three NCSTJC articles were among the ten most-cited articles published by NCC between 2015 and 2018. We did not find a correlation between Altmetric scores and number of citations in the NCSTJC or non-NCSTJC1 or non-NCSTJC2 group, but there was a strong correlation between these two variables in high performing articles when the top ten cited articles were analyzed. CONCLUSIONS: Scientific journals are evolving their social media strategies in attempt to increase the outreach of their articles to the medical community. Platforms such as Twitter journal clubs can enhance such engagement. The long-term influence of such strategies on the impact factor of a medical journal and traditional engagement metrics, such as citations, calls for further research.

Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic on Biomedical Publications and Their Citation Frequency.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has resulted in enormous related publications. However, the citation frequency of these documents and their influence on the journal impact factor (JIF) are not well examined. We aimed to evaluate the impact of COVID-19 on biomedical research publications and their citation frequency. METHODS: We searched publications on biomedical research in the Web of Science using the search terms "COVID-19," "SARS-Cov-2," "2019 corona*," "corona virus disease 2019," "coronavirus disease 2019," "novel coronavirus infection" and "2019-ncov." The top 200 journals were defined as those with a higher number of COVID-19 publications than other journals in 2020. The COVID-19 impact ratio was calculated as the ratio of the average number of citations per item in 2021 to the JIF for 2020. RESULTS: The average number of citations for the top 200 journals in 2021, per item published in 2020, was 25.7 (range, 0-270). The average COVID-19 impact ratio was 3.84 (range, 0.26-16.58) for 197 journals that recorded the JIF for 2020. The average JIF ratio for the top 197 journals including the JIFs for 2020 and 2021 was 1.77 (range, 0.68-8.89). The COVID-19 impact ratio significantly correlated with the JIF ratio (r = 0.403, P = 0.010). Twenty-five Korean journals with a COVID-19 impact ratio > 1.5 demonstrated a higher JIF ratio (1.31 ± 0.39 vs. 1.01 ± 0.18, P < 0.001) than 33 Korean journals with a lower COVID-19 impact ratio. CONCLUSION: COVID-19 pandemic infection has significantly impacted the trends in biomedical research and the citation of related publications.