Uncited Research Articles in Popular United States General Radiology Journals

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.

Mapping the scientific research on radiology departments: Global trends in publication, collaboration and trending topics

PURPOSE

To characterize the global research trend in radiology departments based on bibliometric indicators.

MATERIAL AND METHOD

As a source of information, Science Citation Index Expanded and Journal Citation Reports from Web of Science Core Collection (WoSCC) were used. Annual trends, journals of publication, subject categories of journals, collaboration indexes between authors and institutions, network of cowords and most cited papers were identified and analysed. The period of study was 2009-2018.

RESULTS

283,587 downloaded papers were analysed. The number of articles was increasing, as well as the percentage of funded works. Papers were published in 7314 different journals, being the most productive Plos One (5077), followed by American Journal of Roentgenology (4602) and European Radiology (3644). Most productive subject categories of journals were Radiology, Nuclear Medicine & Medical Imaging (86,568 papers), Clinical Neurology (29,722) and Surgery (23,564). International collaboration has increased more than 5 points, from 15.2% in 2009 to 20.7% in 2018.

CONCLUSIONS

Most cited articles were published in high impact journals outside the scope of diagnostic imaging. Most influential topics included technical innovations within imaging modalities. MRI replaced conventional radiography and CT as the imaging technique of choice in imaging research.

Profile of Articles Published in AJR From 2014 to 2018 and Potential Association With Bibliometric Parameters

OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study was to assess the profile of articles published in the American Journal of Roentgenology (AJR) and potential associations with bibliometric indexes over a 5-year period. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Citable documents published from 2014 to 2018 were retrieved from the Journal Citation Reports database. Six bibliometric indexes were assessed. The following article parameters were retrieved: type, subspecialty (17 topics covered by AJR), origin, and title. Differences between groups were assessed by t test, ANOVA, Kruskal-Wallis test, or chi-square test. Citability was assessed by regression analysis. RESULTS. After exclusions, 2210 articles were considered citable and included in the analyses. Most of the metrics improved slightly, except for the Eigenfactor score and article influence score, which decreased. Original articles were preponderant; AJR published significantly more review articles than did three other general radiology journals. The mean number of citations per year of original articles (2.03 ± 2.18) was significantly larger than that of review articles (2.06 ± 2.47) (p = .02). The mean number of citations per year was significantly higher for articles with mixed-origin authorship (3.12 ± 3.19) than for articles with American (2.02 ± 2.17) or non-American (1.93 ± 2.26) authors only (p < .001). The distributions of mean number of citations per year among subspecialties differed significantly (p = .001). Articles on abdominal, musculoskeletal, pediatric, and women's imaging were more frequently cited. Multivariate regression analysis showed that subspecialty and presence of acronyms or initialisms in the title were the only independent predictors of citability (both, p = .001). CONCLUSION. The main AJR bibliometric indexes increased slightly from 2014 to 2018, except for those from the Eigenfactor Project. The presence of acronyms or initialisms in the title and subspecialty were the only independent predictors of citability.

Evaluating the Highest- and Lowest-cited Research Articles in the Cardiothoracic Surgery Literature

BACKGROUND

Understanding the differences between articles that amass a high number of citations and those that receive very few allows investigators to write journal articles that maximize the impact of their research. There are minimal data regarding these two cohorts in the cardiothoracic surgery literature.

METHODS

We identified all primary research articles from 1998 to 2008 from The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, The Journal of Cardiac Surgery, The Annals of Thoracic Surgery, and The European Journal of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (n = 4276). Eighty-seven of these articles accrued 0 or only 1 citation within 10 y of publication. We compared this "low citation" cohort to the "high citation" cohort made up of the 87 highest-cited articles from the same journals over the same time period.

RESULTS

When compared with the low-citation articles, high-citation articles were significantly more likely to be clinical in nature (P < 0.0001), have observational study design (P < 0.0001), involve multidisciplinary authorship (P < 0.0001), and have more funding reported (P = 0.0039). With regard to technical aspects of the article, the high-citation articles were likely to have longer titles (P = 0.0086), punctuation in the title (P = 0.0027), longer abstracts (P = 0.0007), more words in the manuscript (P < 0.0001), more authors (P < 0.0001), more declared conflict of interests (P = 0.0167), more references (P < 0.0001), more tables (P < 0.0001), more figures (P = 0.0024), and more pages (P < 0.0001). There was no significant difference in the year of publication among both cohorts.

CONCLUSIONS

This review suggests that there are several important distinguishing characteristics that should be considered by investigators when designing and implementing cardiothoracic research studies to maximize the impact of their published research.

Defining Common Features in High Impact and Highly Cited Journal Articles on Pancreatic Tumors: An Analysis of 1044 Studies over the Past Decade

INTRODUCTION

Surgical researchers seek to publish their findings in esteemed surgical journals to advance science and their careers. A detailed investigation of study and manuscript attributes in a specific research area, like pancreatic neoplasia, may yield informative insights for researchers looking to maximize research impact.

OBJECTIVES

We analyzed publications related to pancreatic surgery primarily focused on pancreatic and periampullary tumors in order to identify elements associated with acceptance into high impact journals and a high likelihood of future citations.

METHODS

A comprehensive review of nine surgical journals was performed between 2010-19. Journals were grouped based on impact factor into high (>3), medium (1-3) and low (<1) impact categories. Each publication was annotated to identify study topic, methodology and statistical approach. Findings were compared according to journal impact and number of citations to identify predictors of success across these two domains.

RESULTS

A total of 1,044 out of 21,536 (4.8%) articles published in the index journals were related to pancreatic tumors. The most common focus of study was perioperative outcomes and complications (46.7%). There was significantly more number of authors, participating institutions, countries, and randomized clinical trials in higher impact journals as well as high-cited articles (p<0.05). Though advanced statistical analysis was used more commonly in high-impact journals (p<0.05), it did not translate to higher citations (p>0.05).

CONCLUSION

Pancreatic neoplasia continues to be extensively studied in surgical literature. Specific elements of study methodology and design were identified as potentially key attributes to acceptance in high impact journals and citation success.

Enseñanza en Investigación en Urología. Análisis Bibliométrico

Objetivo Caracterizar el panorama de la educación en investigación en urología mediante un análisis bibliométrico.

Métodos Realizamos un análisis bibliométrico, utilizando artículos publicados entre 1955- 2019, sin restricción en el idioma. Se utilizaron las herramientass estadísticass PubMed, FABUMED y PubReminer para la obtención de la información de las variables y realización del análisis bibliométrico. Analisis de mapeo utilizando el software: VOSviewer,. Para la obtención del factor de impacto (FI), se utilizó el Journal Citation Reports 2017/2018.

Resultados Desde 1955 hasta 2019 se publicaron 718 referencias en 245 revistas. A partir del 2000 encontramos un aumento significativo en el número de publicaciones con un punto de corte en el año 2009. Las revistas con mayores publicaciones fueron: J Urol (8.6%), BJU Int (6.8%) y Urology (6.5%). De las 20 revistas con mayor número de publicaciones, sólo desolo 5 un FI mayor a 3. Los paises con mayor publicacion fueron: Estados Unidos (23,6%), Reino Unido (20,2%). El país de América Latina con mayor publicacion fué Brasil (0,8%).

Conclusiones El estado de la educación en investigación en urología demuestra un crecimiento en la producción científica , con una baja contribución por parte de los países latinoamericanos. Para poder desarrollar una creación intelectual de calidad se deberá invertir tiempo y recursos en un adecuado entrenamiento en investigación en los programas de formación en urología.

Factors Associated with Low and High Article Citations in Four Prominent Orthopaedic Surgery Journals

BACKGROUND

Research is a cornerstone for the advancement of clinical practice and guidelines across all medical and surgical fields. To achieve significant contribution to the field, research must be circulated, read, and understood.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this paper is to investigate which factors are associated with higher and lower citation rates in orthopaedic surgery literature.

METHODS

A query was performed to identify all of the primary research articles published between 1998 and 2008 in four prominent orthopaedics journals. From there, the 50 most highly and lowly cited articles were identified and analyzed for various factors that distinguished the highly cited group from the lowly cited group. Various statistical tests were used depending on the type of variable being evaluated.

RESULTS

After data compilation and statistical analysis, 16 statistically significant factors were apparent that differed between the two groups. Seven non-statistically significant factors were also identified.

CONCLUSION

This study illustrates that certain statistically significant factors influence the citation rates of papers in orthopaedic surgery literature. If utilized appropriately, these factors could lead to increased consumption and circulation of future orthopaedic surgery literature.

Differences in Highly-Cited and Lowly-Cited Manuscripts in Plastic Surgery

BACKGROUND

There is a paucity of research comparing journal articles that accrue numerous citations with those that accrue few citations over time. Understanding differences between journal articles can help direct investigators in designing and conducting their research.

METHODS

Using advanced bibliometric tools, we queried four plastic surgery journals (Journal of Reconstructive Microsurgery, Annals of Plastic Surgery, Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, and Microsurgery) for primary research articles published between 1998 and 2008 accruing zero or one citations with at least a 10-y lag time. Forty-seven articles were identified as low citation and were compared with an equal number of articles in the same journals that accrued the highest number of citations in the same period as high citation (HC). The data were analyzed using Student t-tests, Wilcoxon rank sum tests, chi-square tests, and Fisher exact tests. The level of significance was established at P < 0.05.

RESULTS

When compared with the HC cohort, the low citation articles were more likely to be nonclinical (P < 0.001), have no plastic surgery authors (P = 0.0026), and focus on the field of microsurgery (P = 0.003). The HC cohort was more likely to have higher sample sizes (P = 0.0339), focus on aesthetic/cosmetic surgery (P = 0.003), have a higher number of other disciplines included on authorship (P < 0.001), references (P = 0.0451), manuscript pages (P < 0.001), and words in the abstract (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

A small number of articles published in four plastic surgery journals were uncited during a 10-y period. There are qualitative and quantitative differences between highly and lowly cited articles in the plastic surgery literature. Investigators should consider these differences when designing and conducting studies.

Factors Associated With the Highest and Lowest Cited Research Articles in General Surgery Journals

BACKGROUND

Citation count is a common bibliometric tool used to determine the long-term impact and performance of journal articles. Many of the other potential factors associated with highly and lowly cited articles in the general surgery literature, however, remain unknown. The purpose of this study was to attempt to identify characteristics of articles that may predict or correlate with article citation counts and, consequently, article impact.

METHODS

We identified articles from Annals of Surgery, British Journal of Surgery, and Journal of the American College of Surgeons between 1998 and 2008 that had 0-5 total citations. We then matched these articles to an identical number of the highest cited articles from these same journals for comparison. Student's t-tests, Wilcoxon rank-sum tests, chi-squared tests, and Fisher's exact tests were used to determine the significance of difference between data sets at a predetermined level of significance set to P < 0.05.

RESULTS

Significant differences of article characteristics between the two cohorts included higher prevalence of clinical studies (P = 0.3919), multi-institutional (P = 0.0007) and multi-national (P = 0.0023) studies, surgical oncology (P < 0.0001) or hepatobiliary focus (P < 0.0001) and published in Annals of Surgery (P < 0.0001) for the highly cited cohort. Highly cited articles were also more likely to have larger sample sizes (P = 0.0009), more authors (P < 0.0001), presence of statistically significant results (P < 0.0001), more references (P < 0.0001), more tables (P < 0.0001), more figures (P = 0.0001), and higher word counts for manuscript (P < 0.0001), abstract (P < 0.0001), and title (P < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

There are a relatively small number of articles with 0-5 citations after 10 y for these major general surgery journals. This indicates that journals are consistently able to select articles that will be impactful in aiding future research. Certain factors, however, are associated with being highly cited as opposed to lowly cited, and an understanding of these factors can aid researchers and journals in designing and reporting future studies.

Predictors of Citation Rate for Original Research Studies in the Canadian Association of Radiologists Journal

OBJECTIVE

This study is aimed to identify predictors of citation rate of original research published in the Canadian Association of Radiologists Journal (CARJ).

METHODS

A search of MEDLINE was conducted from January 1, 2000-June 30, 2013 to identify all studies published in the CARJ. Original research studies were included. Reviews, pictorial essays, guidelines, case studies, case series, and original studies with a sample size <10 were excluded. Variables assessed for association with citation rate included number of authors, study design, sample size, multi-institutional study, multi-national study, study type, presence of statistically significant result, presence of funding, and number of references. Statistical analysis was completed using linear regression and Pearson correlation coefficients (r).

RESULTS

A total of 714 studies were published in CARJ, of which 181 were original research publications that were cited a total of 1517 times. Twelve original research studies were uncited, while the most-cited one was cited 58 times. Sample size (r = 0.177, P = .017) and number of references (r = 0.164, P = .028) demonstrated statistically significant weak positive correlations with citation rate. Number of authors, study design, setting, statistically significant results, and funding were not associated with citation rate.

CONCLUSION

Only a very small number of original research studies published at the CARJ remained uncited 5 or more years after the publication. Sample size and number of references were identified as significant, but weak predictors of citation rate in CARJ.

Factors Associated With the Highest and Lowest Cited Research Articles in Urology Journals

OBJECTIVE

To determine what factors of published urology research articles are associated with future citations.

METHODS

We identified all primary research articles published between 1997 and 2007 in Journal of Urology, British Journal of Urology International, Urology, and European Urology. Only 50 articles in this period had accrued 0 or 1 citation in a 10-year period following publication. We compared the characteristics of the articles in the low citation cohort to the 50 articles with the highest number of citations from the same journals and time period. Student's t tests, Wilcoxon rank-sum tests, chi-squared tests, and Fisher's exact tests were used to analyze the data with predetermined level of significance set to P < .05.

RESULTS

There were many significant differences between the 2 cohorts. When compared to the cohort of articles with 0 or 1 citation, highly cited articles were significantly more likely to be a clinical study, multi-institutional and multinational effort, and related to the field of urologic oncology. They were also significantly more likely to have a larger sample size, a statistically significant primary finding, more authors, more references, and more tables, as well as longer title, abstract, and overall manuscript word counts.

CONCLUSION

Very few articles published in the major urology journals accrued 0 or 1 citation over a 10-year period. This suggests that the vast majority of articles selected for publication are used for further future research. Nevertheless, there were distinct differences between the 2 cohorts, showing that certain factors are associated with articles being cited more frequently.