|
1
|
Giordano V, Lyra J, Bonadiman JA, Lech O. Brazilian authors don't cite Brazilian authors: Nothing has changed since 1994. Rev Bras Ortop 2021; 56:154-160. [PMID: 33935310 PMCID: PMC8075637 DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1728702] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/07/2021] [Accepted: 02/19/2021] [Indexed: 11/29/2022] Open
Abstract
Objective
To outline the profile of self-citations from Revista Brasileira de Ortopedia (Rev Bras Ortop) and citations of this journal in other medical orthopaedic journals with general or specific content in a knowledge area of the specialty.
Methods
This is an observational cross-sectional study of the frequency of self-citations and citations from Rev Bras Ortop in five other medical orthopaedic journals from different countries, all published in English. The last 15 articles published in 2020 in each of the six journals were analyzed. The references used in each of them were evaluated to identify the journal in which they were originally published. The frequency of distribution of the four main journals cited, their position, and the relative percentage to the total number of citations were observed and recorded in each of the six journals. The number of times that the Rev Bras Ortop was cited in each of the selected foreign journals was assessed using its absolute and relative frequencies.
Results
The total number of citations evaluated in this study was 2,527 (ranging from 386 to 486 per magazine). Rev Bras Ortop showed a low rate of self-citation (2.6%), being the sixth journal cited in the journal itself (10 out of a total of 386 references). Moreover, Rev Bras Ortop was not mentioned in any of the other five medical journals included in the study (absolute frequency 0, relative frequency 0).
Conclusion
Rev Bras Ortop has a low reference of itself, with a self-citation rate of 2.6% in the studied period, showing that the Brazilian orthopaedic surgeons do not mention the Brazilian orthopaedic surgeon who publishes in the journal. We suggest the elaboration and implementation of strong strategies to improve the journal's visibility in the world academic-scientific scenario. In addition, it is essential that Brazilian orthopaedic surgeons understand this reality and assist directly and effectively to change this scenario.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Vincenzo Giordano
- Serviço de Ortopedia e Traumatologia Prof. Nova Monteiro, Hospital Municipal Miguel Couto, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brasil.,Clínica São Vicente, Rede D'or São Luiz, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brasil
| | - Juliana Lyra
- Programa de Ortopedia e Traumatologia, Serviço de Ortopedia e Traumatologia Prof. Nova Monteiro, Hospital Municipal Miguel Couto, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brasil
| | - João Artur Bonadiman
- Instituto de Ortopedia e Traumatologia, Hospital São Vicente de Paulo, Passo Fundo, RS, Brasil
| | - Osvandré Lech
- Serviço de Cirurgia do Ombro e Cotovelo, Instituto de Ortopedia e Traumatologia, Hospital São Vicente de Paulo, Passo Fundo, RS, Brasil
| |
Collapse
|
|
2
|
Orthopaedic Academic Activity in the United States: Bibliometric Analysis of Publications by City and State. JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY OF ORTHOPAEDIC SURGEONS GLOBAL RESEARCH AND REVIEWS 2018; 2:e027. [PMID: 30280140 PMCID: PMC6145550 DOI: 10.5435/jaaosglobal-d-18-00027] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/12/2022]
Abstract
Background: The purpose of this study was to conduct a bibliometric analysis of orthopaedic academic output in the United States. Methods: Publications based on city and state origin, corrected for population size, median household income, total number of surgeons, and the number of various subspecialties were evaluated. The 15 highest-ranked orthopaedic journals were audited from 2010 to 2014 and then subdivided into anatomic regions and 14 subspecialties. Results: A total of 8,100 articles were published during the study period. Most originated from New York, California, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, and Minnesota. New York published the greatest number by city, followed by Philadelphia, Boston, Chicago, and Rochester. When adjusted for the number of publications per city, surgeons per population, publications per surgeon population, publications per population, and publications per median income per capita, Vail and New York led in two and Stanford in one of the metrics. Conclusions: New York was the leader for the total publications, greatest activity within subspecialties, and publications per surgeon/population and per median income/capita. Vail was the leader for publications/surgeon and population. The top four cities of New York, Philadelphia, Boston, and Chicago were responsible for 28% of the academic output over the 5-year study period.
Collapse
|
|
3
|
Mavrogenis AF, Panagopoulos GN, Megaloikonomos PD, Panagopoulos VN, Mauffrey C, Quaile A, Scarlat MM. Scientific Misconduct (Fraud) in Medical Writing. Orthopedics 2018; 41:e176-e183. [PMID: 29377051 DOI: 10.3928/01477447-20180123-06] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/16/2017] [Accepted: 06/19/2017] [Indexed: 02/03/2023]
Abstract
Scientific misconduct (fraud) in medical writing is an important and not infrequent problem for the scientific community. Although noteworthy examples of fraud surface occasionally in the media, detection of fraud in medical publishing is generally not as straightforward as one might think. National bodies on ethics in science, strict selection criteria, a robust peer-review process, careful statistical validation, and anti-plagiarism and image-fraud detection software contribute to the production of high-quality manuscripts. This article reviews the various types of fraud in medical writing, discusses the related literature, and describes tools journals implement to unmask fraud. [Orthopedics. 2018; 41(2):e176-e183].
Collapse
|
|
4
|
Hohmann E, Glatt V, Tetsworth K. Worldwide orthopaedic research activity 2010-2014: Publication rates in the top 15 orthopaedic journals related to population size and gross domestic product. World J Orthop 2017; 8:514-523. [PMID: 28660144 PMCID: PMC5478495 DOI: 10.5312/wjo.v8.i6.514] [Citation(s) in RCA: 18] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/25/2016] [Revised: 12/12/2016] [Accepted: 03/24/2017] [Indexed: 02/06/2023] Open
Abstract
AIM To perform a bibliometric analysis of publications rates in orthopedics in the top 15 orthopaedic journals.
METHODS Based on their 2015 impact factor, the fifteen highest ranked orthopaedic journals between January 2010 and December 2014 were used to establish the total number of publications; cumulative impact factor points (IF) per country were determined, and normalized to population size, GDP, and GDP/capita, comparison to the median country output and the global leader.
RESULTS Twenty-three thousand and twenty-one orthopaedic articles were published, with 66 countries publishing. The United States had 8149 publications, followed by the United Kingdom (1644) and Japan (1467). The highest IF was achieved by the United States (24744), United Kingdom (4776), and Japan (4053). Normalized by population size Switzerland lead. Normalized by GDP, Croatia was the top achiever. Adjusting GDP/capita, for publications and IF, China, India, and the United States were the leaders. Adjusting for population size and GDP, 28 countries achieved numbers of publications to be considered at least equivalent with the median academic output. Adjusting GDP/capita only China and India reached the number of publications to be considered equivalent to the current global leader, the United States.
CONCLUSION Five countries were responsible for 60% of the orthopaedic research output over this 5-year period. After correcting for GDP/capita, only 28 of 66 countries achieved a publication rate equivalent to the median country. The United States, United Kingdom, South Korea, Japan, and Germany were the top five countries for both publication totals and cumulative impact factor points.
Collapse
|
|
5
|
Fakruddin M. Journal Impact Factor- Applicability and Alternative Indices. COLLNET JOURNAL OF SCIENTOMETRICS AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT 2015. [DOI: 10.1080/09737766.2013.832907] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/24/2022]
|
|
6
|
Where Do Radiologists Publish Their Work? A Comparative Analysis of Publications by Radiologists in Nonradiology Journals in 2000 and 2010. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2013; 200:W560-5. [DOI: 10.2214/ajr.12.10043] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/18/2022]
|
|
7
|
Petridis K, Malesios C, Arabatzis G, Thanassoulis E. Efficiency analysis of forestry journals: Suggestions for improving journals’ quality. J Informetr 2013. [DOI: 10.1016/j.joi.2013.02.002] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/27/2022]
|
|
8
|
|
|
9
|
Mavrogenis AF, Ruggieri P, Papagelopoulos PJ. Self-citation in publishing. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2010; 468:2803-7. [PMID: 20665140 PMCID: PMC3049640 DOI: 10.1007/s11999-010-1480-8] [Citation(s) in RCA: 22] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/11/2010] [Accepted: 07/07/2010] [Indexed: 01/31/2023]
Affiliation(s)
- Andreas F. Mavrogenis
- First Department of Orthopaedics, Athens University Medical School, 41 Ventouri Street, 15562 Holargos, Athens, Greece
- Rizzoli Orthopaedic Institute, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy
| | - Pietro Ruggieri
- Rizzoli Orthopaedic Institute, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy
| | - Panayiotis J. Papagelopoulos
- First Department of Orthopaedics, Athens University Medical School, 41 Ventouri Street, 15562 Holargos, Athens, Greece
- First Department of Orthopaedics, ATTIKON University Hospital, Athens University Medical School, 4 Christovassili Street, 15451 Neo Psychikon, Athens, Greece
| |
Collapse
|
|
10
|
Halpenny D, Burke J, McNeill G, Snow A, Torreggiani WC. Geographic origin of publications in radiological journals as a function of GDP and percentage of GDP spent on research. Acad Radiol 2010; 17:768-71. [PMID: 20362474 DOI: 10.1016/j.acra.2010.01.020] [Citation(s) in RCA: 20] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/13/2009] [Revised: 01/28/2010] [Accepted: 01/29/2010] [Indexed: 12/16/2022]
Abstract
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES The aim of this study was to examine the geographic origin of publications in the highest impacting radiology journals and to examine the link between the percentage of gross domestic product (GDP) spent on research by a country and the output of radiology publications. MATERIALS AND METHODS The five highest impacting general radiology journals (according to the ISI Web of Knowledge database) were selected over a 6-year period from January 2002 to December 2007. Publications were totaled according to the country of the corresponding author. Publications (total and corrected for population size) were assessed according to the GDP of a given country and the percentage of GDP spent on research in that country. Correlation was determined using Spearman's rank. RESULTS In total, 10,925 papers were identified. The top 10 nations produced 83.9% of the total number of papers. The United States was the most prolific country, with 41.7% of the total. The second-ranked and third-ranked countries were Germany (11.6%) and Japan (6.7%). Corrected for GDP, smaller European countries outperformed larger nations. Switzerland (0.925 publications per billion of GDP), Austria (0.694 publications per billion of GDP), and Belgium (0.648 publications per billion of GDP) produced the most papers per billion of GDP. When corrected for percentage of GDP spent on research, European countries again ranked highest, with Greece, Turkey, and Belgium having the best ratios. The percentage of GDP spent on research was positively correlated with the number of publications in high-ranking radiology journals (r = 0.603, P < .001). CONCLUSIONS The United States is the most productive country in absolute number of publications. The flaws of using population size to compare publication output are clear, and a comparison using GDP and the percentage of GDP spent on research may give more meaningful results. When GDP is taken into consideration, smaller European countries are more productive. The importance of investment in radiologic research is emphasized by the association between increased funding of research and the number of publications in high-impacting radiology journals.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Darragh Halpenny
- Department of Radiology, Adelaide and Meath Hospitals incorporating the National Children's Hospital, Tallaght, Dublin 24, Ireland.
| | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
|
11
|
Self-citation rates among medical imaging journals and a possible association with impact factor. Radiography (Lond) 2010. [DOI: 10.1016/j.radi.2009.10.003] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/19/2022]
|
|
12
|
|
|
13
|
Fan JC, McGhee CNJ. Citation analysis of the most influential authors and ophthalmology journals in the field of cataract and corneal refractive surgery 2000-2004. Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2008; 36:54-61. [PMID: 18290954 DOI: 10.1111/j.1442-9071.2008.01674.x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 46] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/06/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE To identify the most published authors on the topics of 'cataract' and 'LASIK', the journals in which they publish, and the citation patterns of the most-cited articles by these authors over a 5-year publication period. METHODS Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI) was used to identify the 30 most-published authors in 'cataract' and 'laser in situ keratomileusis' (LASIK) (2000-2004 inclusive). SCI was subsequently used to analyse the recorded articles for each author in terms of source journal, the most commonly cited articles and citation source. RESULTS Of the 30 most-published authors in the fields of cataract and LASIK, the USA was the most well-represented source country, accounting for 33%; 20% were from Australia, and 17% from Austria. Germany and Japan each contributed 7%. Eighty per cent of the publications produced by these 30 authors (2000-2004) were in 10 journals, of which the Journal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery (JCRS) published more than one-third. Of the three most-cited articles for each author, the greatest number were published in JCRS (35.6%). The citation count of the articles had a weak correlation to the journal impact factor of the source journal; however, the self-citation rate of these articles did not. CONCLUSIONS The USA and Australia together were the source of more than half of the most-published authors on cataract and LASIK and the majority of articles published by the 30 most prolific authors were published in only 10 journals. The impact factors of the publication journals preferred by these authors are influenced by the article citation counts, not vice versa.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jennifer C Fan
- Department of Ophthalmology, Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
| | | |
Collapse
|
|
14
|
Relative Superiority Coefficient of papers: A new dimension for institutional research performance in different fields. Scientometrics 2007. [DOI: 10.1007/s11192-006-1733-1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/23/2022]
|
|
15
|
Abstract
The first impact factor (IF) to reflect the sole efforts of a new editorial team occurs 4 years into what is usually a 5-year editorship, owing to the lag times of: paper accrual and publication, accumulation of citations in derivative literature, and compiling of such citations by the Thomson ISI Web of Knowledge service. Through weekly collection of citation data from the Web of Science over the past 2 years, we now demonstrate that the evolution of IF can be tracked weekly over the course of a calendar year, enabling prediction of the next year's IF beginning at the middle of the previous year. The methodology used to track the developing IF for Lab Invest is presented in this study and a prediction made for the 2006 IF, along with IF predictions for other general pathology journals (American Journal of Pathology, Journal of Pathology, Modern Pathology, American Journal of Surgical Pathology, and Human Pathology). Despite the fact that the 2006 IF for Lab Invest will not be issued until June 2007, it became apparent as early as July 2006 that the Lab Invest IF would be greatly improved over 2004 and 2005 by a predicted 0.5 units. However, as important as IF can be to a journal, it is vital not to let IF considerations influence every aspect of the editors' decisions. Rather, the significance of early prediction lies in earlier validation of editorial policies for journal management as a whole, and reassurance that the philosophy for journal operations is on track.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Catherine M Ketcham
- Department of Pathology, Immunology and Laboratory Medicine, University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville, FL 32610-0275, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
|
16
|
Liesegang TJ, Shaikh M, Crook JE. The outcome of manuscripts submitted to the American Journal of Ophthalmology between 2002 and 2003. Am J Ophthalmol 2007; 143:551-60. [PMID: 17276380 DOI: 10.1016/j.ajo.2006.12.004] [Citation(s) in RCA: 24] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/03/2006] [Revised: 12/05/2006] [Accepted: 12/05/2006] [Indexed: 11/29/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE To investigate the outcome of manuscripts submitted to the American Journal of Ophthalmology (AJO) between July 23, 2002 and December 31, 2003. DESIGN Observational series. METHODS Data were collected on all Full-Length Articles and Brief Reports submitted to the AJO. Data were recorded for rejected or withdrawn manuscripts about the date of submission and decision, category of decision, type of article, manuscript region of origin, alternate journal of manuscript, date of publication, and impact factor and immediacy index of the subsequent journal. Corresponding data were collected from the manuscripts accepted over the same period. The Advanced PubMed online database was searched to determine if the rejected or withdrawn manuscripts were published elsewhere. The impact factor and the immediacy index of the journal of the subsequent journal was then recorded and compared with those of the AJO, using the year 2004 for comparison. RESULTS Of 2,026 manuscripts submitted, 1,444 were rejected by the AJO or withdrawn by the authors and 50% of these were subsequently published elsewhere in a PubMed listed journal. The rejected or withdrawn articles were typically published in lower impact journals, most commonly in general ophthalmology journals in the author's region or in subspecialty journals, although several were published in higher impact journals. The 727 articles were published in 94 different journals and usually with an extended delay. CONCLUSIONS Rejection of a manuscript by the AJO does not preclude publication, but rejected manuscripts are published more often in journals that serve a smaller readership and are cited less frequently, although exceptions exist.
Collapse
|
|
17
|
Falagas ME, Karavasiou AI, Bliziotis IA. A bibliometric analysis of global trends of research productivity in tropical medicine. Acta Trop 2006; 99:155-9. [PMID: 17014806 DOI: 10.1016/j.actatropica.2006.07.011] [Citation(s) in RCA: 72] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/30/2005] [Revised: 05/18/2006] [Accepted: 07/10/2006] [Indexed: 11/29/2022]
Abstract
The field of tropical medicine has a long history due to the significance of the relevant diseases for the humanity. We estimated the contribution of different world regions to research published in the main journals of tropical medicine. Using the PubMed and the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) "Web of Science" databases, we retrieved articles from 12 journals included in the "Tropical Medicine" category of the "Journal Citation Reports" database of ISI for the period 1995-2003. Data on the country of origin of the research were available for 11,860 articles in PubMed (98.1% of all articles from the tropical medicine category). The contribution of different world regions during the studied period, as estimated by the location of the affiliation of the first author, was: Western Europe 22.7%, Africa 20.9%, Latin America and the Caribbean 20.7%, Asia (excluding Japan) 19.8%, USA 10.6%, Oceania 2.1%, Japan 1.5%, Eastern Europe 1.3%, and Canada 0.6%. The contribution of regions, estimated by the location of the affiliation of at least one author of the published papers (retrieved from the ISI database), was similar: Western Europe 36.6%, Africa 27.7%, Latin America and the Caribbean 24.4%, and Asia 23.3%. The mean impact factor of articles published in tropical medicine journals was highest for the USA (1.65). Our analysis suggests that the developing areas of the world produce a considerable amount of research in tropical medicine; however, given the specific geographic distribution of tropical diseases they probably still need help by the developed nations to produce more research in this field.
Collapse
|
|
18
|
Falagas ME, Papastamataki PA, Bliziotis IA. A bibliometric analysis of research productivity in Parasitology by different world regions during a 9-year period (1995-2003). BMC Infect Dis 2006; 6:56. [PMID: 16545114 PMCID: PMC1431540 DOI: 10.1186/1471-2334-6-56] [Citation(s) in RCA: 59] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/26/2005] [Accepted: 03/17/2006] [Indexed: 11/16/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND The objective of this study was to estimate the research productivity of different world regions in the field of Parasitology. METHODS Using the PubMed database we retrieved articles from journals included in the "Parasitology" category of the "Journal Citation Reports" database of the Institute for Scientific Information for the period 1995-2003. Research productivity was evaluated based on a methodology we developed and used in other bibliometric studies by analysing: (1) the total number of publications, (2) the mean impact factor of all papers, and (3) the product of the above two parameters, (4) the research productivity in relation to gross domestic product of each region, and (5) the research productivity in relation to gross national income per capita and population of each region. RESULTS Data on the country of origin of the research was available for 18,110 out of 18,377 articles (98.6% of all articles from the included journals). Western Europe exceeds all world regions in research production for the period studied (34.8% of total articles), with USA ranking second (19.9%), and Latin America & the Caribbean ranking third (17.2%). The mean impact factor in articles published in Parasitology journals was highest for the USA (1.88). Oceania ranked first in research productivity when adjustments for both the gross national income per capita (GNIPC) and population were made. Eastern Europe almost tripled the production of articles from only 1.9% of total production in 1995 to 4.3% in 2003. Similarly, Latin America and the Caribbean and Asia doubled their production. However, the absolute and relative production by some developing areas, including Africa, is still very low, despite the fact that parasitic diseases are major public health problems in these areas. CONCLUSION Our data suggest that more help should be provided by the developed nations to developing areas for improvement of the infrastructure of research.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Matthew E Falagas
- Alfa Institute of Biomedical Sciences (AIBS), Athens, Greece
- Alfa HealthCare, Athens, Greece
- Department of Medicine, Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
|
19
|
Michalopoulos A, Falagas ME. A bibliometric analysis of global research production in respiratory medicine. Chest 2006; 128:3993-8. [PMID: 16354871 DOI: 10.1378/chest.128.6.3993] [Citation(s) in RCA: 89] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/31/2022] Open
Abstract
STUDY OBJECTIVES To evaluate the contribution of different world regions in respiratory research productivity. METHODS The world was divided into nine regions based on a combination of geographic, economic, and scientific criteria. Using the PubMed database, we retrieved information about the origin of articles from 30 journals included in the Respiratory System category of the Journal Citation Reports database for a 9-year period (1995 to 2003). We estimated the total number of publications, their mean impact factor, the product of these two parameters, and the research productivity per million of population of the world area divided by the gross national income per capita (GNIPC), for every year and the whole period of the study, for all defined world regions. MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS Data on the country of origin of the publications was available for 48,614 of 49,382 retrieved articles (98.5%). The majority of articles published between 1995 and 2003 originated from Western Europe (40.4%) and the United States (35.4%). The research productivity compared to population and the GNIPC was found to be higher for Canada and Oceania compared to the United States and Western Europe. The rate of increase of the total published research product (number of published articles multiplied by the impact factor) was higher in the United States and Europe. The total research contribution of Asia, Eastern Europe, Central and Latin America, and Africa regarding the number of published articles was notably very low (approximately 8%). CONCLUSIONS The data suggest that there was a significant research activity in the field of respiratory medicine during the studied period. Although leaders of production of respiratory medicine research were from Western Europe and the United States, Canada, and Oceania had the best performance after adjustment for population and GNIPC.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Argyris Michalopoulos
- Alfa Institute of Biomedical Sciences (AIBS), 9 Neapoleos St, Marousi 151 23, Greece.
| | | |
Collapse
|
|
20
|
Kurmis AP, Kurmis TP. Exploring the relationship between impact factor and manuscript rejection rates in radiologic journals. Acad Radiol 2006; 13:77-83. [PMID: 16399035 DOI: 10.1016/j.acra.2005.08.016] [Citation(s) in RCA: 21] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/11/2005] [Revised: 08/10/2005] [Accepted: 08/11/2005] [Indexed: 10/25/2022]
Abstract
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES Stratifying candidates objectively on the merit of publication portfolios is an onerous and difficult task. Institutional committees are under increasing pressure to rank applicants based on previous achievements for appointments/promotions, funding, and awards, and must do so within unforgiving time constraints. The journal impact factor (IF) has been loosely adopted in many circles for assessing article "quality," circumventing detailed review of individual articles. The premise supporting such practice often hinges on assuming that high-IF journals are harder to publish in, for example, have higher rejection rates (RRs), and therefore, authors achieving publication in such periodicals should be "recognized" for their achievement. There is no evidence of previous research linking IF and RR. MATERIALS AND METHODS A subset of Institute for Scientific Information (ISI)-listed radiology journals, for which IF data were available, was identified and a direct-contact survey approach (63.3% response rate) used to ascertain journal manuscript RR. RESULTS Of the sample reviewed, the ISI-listed IF values ranged from 4.759 to 0.056 (mean 1.491), and editor-reported manuscript RRs from 80.0% to 8.0% (mean 47.8%). Statistical comparison of IF and RR using linear regression yielded an r2 value of 0.223. CONCLUSIONS In summary, this study demonstrates poor linear agreement between IF and RR for manuscripts submitted to peer-reviewed radiology journals. This suggests that journal IF is a poor predictor of RR, and vice versa. This finding may be of interest to institutional committees who have adopted the IF as an indicator of merit in reviewing publication curriculum vitae, and may encourage rethinking of currently practiced candidate assessment approaches.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Andrew P Kurmis
- Repatriation General Hospital, Dr. Andrew P. Kurmis, Department of Orthopaedics, Division of Surgery, Repatriation General Hospital, Daws Road, Daw Park, South Australia, 5041. Australia.
| | | |
Collapse
|
|
21
|
Soteriades ES, Rosmarakis ES, Paraschakis K, Falagas ME. Research contribution of different world regions in the top 50 biomedical journals (1995–2002). FASEB J 2006; 20:29-34. [PMID: 16394264 DOI: 10.1096/fj.05-4711lsf] [Citation(s) in RCA: 44] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/11/2022]
Abstract
We evaluated all articles published by different world regions in the top 50 biomedical journals in the database of the Journal Citation Reports-Institute for Scientific Information for the period between 1995 and 2002. The world was divided into 9 regions [United States of America (the U.S.), Western Europe, Japan, Canada, Asia, Oceania, Latin America, and the Caribbean, Eastern Europe, and Africa] based on a combination of geographic, economic and scientific criteria. The number of articles published by each region, the mean impact factor, and the product of the above two parameters were our main indicators. The above numbers were also adjusted for population size, gross national income per capita of each region, and other factors. Articles published from the U.S. made up about two-thirds of all scientific papers published in the top 50 biomedical journals between 1995 and 2002. Western Europe contributed approximately a quarter of the published papers while the remaining one-tenth of articles came from the rest of the world. Canada, however, ranked second when number of articles was adjusted for population size. The U.S. is by far the highest-ranking country/region in publications in the top 50 biomedical journals even after adjusting for population size, gross national product, and other factors. Canada and Western Europe share the second place while the rest of the world is far behind.
Collapse
|
|
22
|
Abstract
Bibliometric studies are increasingly being used for research assessment. Bibliometric indicators are strongly methodology-dependent but for all of them, various types of data normalization are an indispensable requirement. Bibliometric studies have many pitfalls; technical skill, critical sense and a precise knowledge about the examined scientific domain are required to carry out and interpret bibliometric investigations correctly.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Johan A Wallin
- University Library of Southern Denmark, University of Southern Denmark, DK-5230 Odense M, Denmark.
| |
Collapse
|
|
23
|
Obremskey WT, Pappas N, Attallah-Wasif E, Tornetta P, Bhandari M. Level of evidence in orthopaedic journals. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2005; 87:2632-2638. [PMID: 16322612 DOI: 10.2106/jbjs.e.00370] [Citation(s) in RCA: 201] [Impact Index Per Article: 10.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/01/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND The American edition of The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (JBJS-A) has included a level-of-evidence rating for each of its clinical scientific papers published since January 2003. The purpose of this study was to assess the type and level of evidence found in nine different orthopaedic journals by applying this level-of-evidence rating system. METHODS We reviewed all clinical articles published from January through June 2003 in nine orthopaedic journals. Studies of animals, studies of cadavera, basic-science articles, review articles, case reports, and expert opinions were excluded. The remaining 382 clinical articles were randomly assigned to three experienced reviewers and two inexperienced reviewers, who rated them with the JBJS-A grading system. Each reviewer determined whether the studies were therapeutic, prognostic, diagnostic, or economic, and each rated the level of evidence as I, II, III, or IV. Reviewers were blinded to the grades assigned by the other reviewers. RESULTS According to the reviewers' ratings, 70.7% of the articles were therapeutic, 19.9% were prognostic, 8.9% were diagnostic, and 0.5% were economic. The reviewers graded 11.3% as Level I, 20.7% as Level II, 9.9% as Level III, and 58.1% as Level IV. The kappa values for the interobserver agreement between the experienced reviewers and the inexperienced reviewers were 0.62 for the level of evidence and 0.76 for the study type. The kappa values for the interobserver agreement between the experienced reviewers were 0.75 for the level of evidence and 0.85 for the study type. The kappa values for the agreement between the reviewers' grades and the JBJS-A grades were 0.84 for the level of evidence and 1.00 for the study type. All kappa values were significantly different from zero (p < 0.0001 for all). The percentage of articles that were rated Level I or II increased in accordance with the 2003 journal impact factors for the individual journals (p = 0.0061). CONCLUSIONS Orthopaedic journals with a higher impact factor are more likely to publish Level-I or II articles. The type and level of information in orthopaedic journals can be reliably classified, and clinical investigators should pursue studies with a higher level of evidence whenever feasible.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- William T Obremskey
- Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Vanderbilt University, 131 Medical Center South, 2100 Pierce Avenue, Nashville, TN 37212.
| | | | - Emad Attallah-Wasif
- Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Vanderbilt University, 131 Medical Center South, 2100 Pierce Avenue, Nashville, TN 37212.
| | - Paul Tornetta
- Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Boston Medical Center, Dowling 2 North, 850 Harrison Avenue, Boston, MA 02118
| | - Mohit Bhandari
- Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton Health Sciences-General Site, 7 North, Suite 723, Hamilton, ON L8L 2X2, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
|
24
|
OBREMSKEY WILLIAMT, PAPPAS NICK, ATTALLAH-WASIF EMAD, TORNETTA PAUL, BHANDARI MOHIT. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE IN ORTHOPAEDIC JOURNALS. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2005. [DOI: 10.2106/00004623-200512000-00006] [Citation(s) in RCA: 109] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/18/2023]
|
|
25
|
Vergidis PI, Karavasiou AI, Paraschakis K, Bliziotis IA, Falagas ME. Bibliometric analysis of global trends for research productivity in microbiology. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 2005; 24:342-6. [PMID: 15834594 DOI: 10.1007/s10096-005-1306-x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 72] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/30/2022]
Abstract
In order to expand upon the limited literature estimating the quantity and quality of worldwide research production in the field of microbiology, a bibliometric analysis was conducted for the period 1995-2003 using the PubMed and Journal Citation Reports databases. By searching the "microbiology" category of the Journal Citation Reports database, a total of 74 journals were identified that were also included in PubMed. From these journals, a total of 89,527 articles were identified for analysis, and data on the country in which the research originated was available for 88,456 (98.8%) of them. The individual countries were separated into nine world regions. In terms of research production for the period studied, Western Europe exceeded all other world regions, with the USA ranking second. The mean impact factor was highest for the USA at 3.4, while it was 2.8 for Western Europe and 2.4 for the rest of the world combined. The research productivity per unit of expenditure for research and development was higher for Canada and Western Europe than for the USA. The three regions in which research productivity increased the most were Asia, Latin America, and Eastern Europe.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- P I Vergidis
- Alfa Institute of Biomedical Sciences (AIBS), 9 Neapoleos Street, Marousi, 15123 Athens, Greece
| | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
|
26
|
Michalopoulos A, Bliziotis IA, Rizos M, Falagas ME. Worldwide research productivity in critical care medicine. Crit Care 2005; 9:R258-65. [PMID: 15987399 PMCID: PMC1175888 DOI: 10.1186/cc3514] [Citation(s) in RCA: 30] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/25/2005] [Revised: 03/01/2005] [Accepted: 03/07/2005] [Indexed: 12/02/2022] Open
Abstract
INTRODUCTION The number of publications and the impact factor of journals are accepted estimates of the quantity and quality of research productivity. The objective of the present study was to assess the worldwide scientific contribution in the field of critical care medicine. METHOD All research studies published between 1995 and 2003 in medical journals that were listed in the 2003 Science Citation Index (SCI) of Journal Citation Reports under the subheading 'critical care' and also indexed in the PubMed database were reviewed in order to identify their geographical origin. RESULTS Of 22,976 critical care publications in 14 medical journals, 17,630 originated from Western Europe and the USA (76.7%). A significant increase in the number of publications originated from Western European countries during the last 5 years of the study period was noticed. Scientific publications in critical care medicine increased significantly (25%) from 1995 to 2003, which was accompanied by an increase in the impact factor of the corresponding journals (47.4%). Canada and Japan had the better performance, based on the impact factor of journals. CONCLUSION Significant scientific progress in critical care research took place during the period of study (1995-2003). Leaders of research productivity (in terms of absolute numbers) were Western Europe and the USA. Publications originating from Western European countries increased significantly in quantity and quality over the study period. Articles originating from Canada, Japan, and the USA had the highest mean impact factor. Canada was the leader in productivity when adjustments for gross domestic product and population were made.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | - Michael Rizos
- Attending Physician, Intensive Care Unit, Henry Dunant Hospital, Athens, Greece
| | - Matthew E Falagas
- President, Board of Trustees, Alfa Institute of Biomedical Sciences (AIBS), Athens, Greece, and Adjunct Assistant Professor of Medicine, Department of Medicine, Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
| |
Collapse
|
|
27
|
Rosmarakis ES, Vergidis PI, Soteriades ES, Paraschakis K, Papastamataki PA, Falagas ME. Estimates of global production in cardiovascular diseases research. Int J Cardiol 2005; 100:443-9. [PMID: 15837089 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2004.11.005] [Citation(s) in RCA: 53] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/26/2004] [Accepted: 11/13/2004] [Indexed: 11/26/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To evaluate the contribution of different world regions in cardiovascular research production. METHODS The world was divided into 9 regions based on a combination of geographic, economic and scientific criteria. Using the Medline database, we retrieved articles from 77 journals included in the "Cardiac and Cardiovascular Systems" category of the "Journal Citation Reports" database for the period 1995-2002. We then, estimated the total number of publications, their mean impact factor, the product of these two parameters, the research productivity per billion of US dollars spent on research and development, and the research productivity per number of scientists-years in research and development for different world regions. RESULTS Data on the country of origin for the authors was available for 86,711 out of 87,939 retrieved articles (98.6%). The majority of articles published between 1995-2002 were originated from Western Europe (39.4%) and the USA (37.1%). The USA, Oceania and Canada had the highest mean impact factor of published articles and Eastern Europe had the lowest. The research productivity per unit of expenditure for research and development was found to be significantly higher for Canada compared to the USA and Western Europe while the rate of increase in the number of published articles was higher in Eastern Europe, Latin America and the Caribbean, and Asia. The research contribution of Africa in the number of published articles was notably very low (0.3%). CONCLUSIONS The data suggest a promising trend: developing world regions, with the important exception of Africa, achieved a higher rate of increase in the number of published articles in the studied period.
Collapse
|
|
28
|
Bliziotis IA, Paraschakis K, Vergidis PI, Karavasiou AI, Falagas ME. Worldwide trends in quantity and quality of published articles in the field of infectious diseases. BMC Infect Dis 2005; 5:16. [PMID: 15780136 PMCID: PMC1274272 DOI: 10.1186/1471-2334-5-16] [Citation(s) in RCA: 46] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/26/2004] [Accepted: 03/21/2005] [Indexed: 11/30/2022] Open
Abstract
Background Trying to confront with the widespread burden of infectious diseases, the society worldwide invests considerably on research. We evaluated the contribution of different world regions in research production in Infectious Diseases. Methods Using the online Pubmed database we retrieved articles from 38 journals included in the "Infectious Diseases" category of the "Journal Citation Reports" database of the Institute for Scientific Information for the period 1995–2002. The world was divided into 9 regions based on geographic, economic and scientific criteria. Using an elaborate retrieval system we obtained data on published articles from different world regions. In our evaluation we introduced an estimate of both quantity and quality of research produced from each world region per year using: (1) the total number of publications, (2) the mean impact factor of publications, and (3) the product of the above two parameters. Results Data on the country of origin of the research was available for 45,232 out of 45,922 retrieved articles (98.5 %). USA and Western Europe are by far the most productive regions concerning publications of research articles. However, the rate of increase in the production of articles was higher in Eastern Europe, Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean, and Asia during the study period. The mean impact factor is highest for articles originating in the USA (3.42), while it was 2.82 for Western Europe and 2.73 for the rest of the world (7 regions combined). Conclusion USA and Western Europe make up a striking 80% of the world's research production in Infectious Diseases in terms of both quantity and quality. However, all world regions achieved a gradual increase in the production of Infectious Diseases articles, with the regions ranking lower at present displaying the highest rate of increase.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ioannis A Bliziotis
- Alfa Institute of Biomedical Sciences(AIBS), Athens, Greece
- Alfa HealthCare, Athens, Greece
| | | | | | | | - Matthew E Falagas
- Alfa Institute of Biomedical Sciences(AIBS), Athens, Greece
- Alfa HealthCare, Athens, Greece
- Department of Medicine, Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
| |
Collapse
|
|
29
|
Falagas ME, Karavasiou AI, Bliziotis IA. Estimates of global research productivity in virology. J Med Virol 2005; 76:229-3. [PMID: 15834885 DOI: 10.1002/jmv.20346] [Citation(s) in RCA: 20] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/09/2022]
Abstract
The quantity and quality of published research in the field of Virology by different world regions was estimated in this study. Using the PubMed database, articles from journals included in the "Virology" category of the "Journal Citation Reports" database of the Institute for Scientific Information for the period 1995-2003 were retrieved. The world was divided into nine regions based on geographic, economic, and scientific criteria. Data on the country of origin of the research was available for 33,425 out of 33,712 articles (99.2% of all articles from the included journals). USA exceeds all other world regions in research production for the period studied (42% of total articles), with Western Europe ranking second (35.7%). The mean impact factor in articles published in Virology journals was highest for the USA (4.60), while it was 3.90 for Western Europe and 3.22 for the rest of the world (seven regions combined). USA and Canada ranked first in research productivity when both gross national income per capita (GNIPC) and population were taken into account. The results of this analysis show a distressing fact; the absolute and relative production of research in the field of Virology by the developing regions is very low, although viral diseases cause considerable morbidity and mortality in these areas. It is evident from this study that developing regions need more help from the developed regions to enhance research infrastructure.
Collapse
|
|
30
|
Abstract
The impact factor, a simple mathematical formula reflecting the number of citations of a journal's material divided by the number of citable materials published by that same journal, has evolved to become one of the most influential tools in modern research and academia. The impact factor can be influenced and biased (intentionally or otherwise) by many factors. Extension of the impact factor to the assessment of journal quality or individual authors is inappropriate. Extension of the impact factor to cross-discipline journal comparison is also inappropriate. Those who choose to use the impact factor as a comparative tool should be aware of the nature and premise of its derivation and also of its inherent flaws and practical limitations.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Andrew P Kurmis
- Orthopaedic Research Unit, Repatriation General Hospital, Daws Road, Daw Park, South Australia 5041, Australia.
| |
Collapse
|