Citation Rate Predictors in the Plastic Surgery Literature

A modified LSTM network to predict the citation counts of papers

Quantifiable predictability in the citation counts of articles is significant in scientometrics and informetrics. Many metrics based on the citation counts can evaluate the scientific impact of research articles and journals. Utilising time series models, an article’s citation counts up to the yth year after publication can be predicted by those up to the previous years. However, the typically used models cannot predict the fat tail of the actual citation distributions. Thus, based on cumulative advantage of the citation behaviour, we propose a method to predict the accumulated citation counts, by using a random number sampled from a power-law distribution to modify the results given by a recurrent neural network (RNN), long short-term memory. Extensive experiments on the data set including 17 journals in information science verified the effectiveness of our method by the good fittings on distributions and evolutionary trends of the citation counts of articles. Our method has the potential to be extended to predict other popular assessment measures such as impact factor and h-index for journals.

Predictors of Citation Rates in High-Impact Glioblastoma Clinical Trials

Clinical trials are at the top of research study designs and tend to attract high citation numbers. Glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) is a multidisciplinary disease that continues to be the subject of peak research interest. In general, the literature relating to the predictors of citation rates in clinical trials remains limited. This review aims to identify the factors that influence citation numbers in high-impact GBM clinical trials. The 100 most cited GBM trials of any phase published from 1975 to 2019 were selected and reviewed. The primary analysis correlated citation numbers of articles with various trial and publication-related predictors using the Pearson correlation coefficient. The secondary analysis compared the mean citation numbers for different subgroups using the mean difference test. The median (range) citation number for the selected 100 trials was 349 (135-16,384). The primary analysis showed a significant correlation between citation numbers of articles and the study population (P = 0.024), trial phase (I-III) (P = 0.0427), and the impact factor (IF) of the journal (P < 0.0001). The secondary analysis demonstrated significantly higher mean citation numbers in all trials with the following features: study population ≥115 (P = 0.0208), phase III (P = 0.0372), treatment protocol including radiotherapy (P = 0.0189), temozolomide (TMZ) therapy (P = 0.0343), IF of the journal ≥14.9 (P = 0.02), and general medical journals (P = 0.28). We conclude that the most significant predictors of citation rates in high-impact GBM trials were the study population, trial phase, and journal's IF. The treatment protocol was a positive predictor when it included the currently widely accepted treatment modalities (radiotherapy and TZM). Randomization, age of publication, as well as the numbers of arms, authors, centers, countries, and references were not significant predictors. Increasing awareness of the factors that could affect citations may help researchers undertaking clinical trials to enhance the academic impact of their work.

Predictors of Above Average 6-Year Citation Rates in Leading Spine-Specific Medical Journals

STUDY DESIGN

Cross-sectional.

OBJECTIVE

To identify predictors of manuscripts achieving 6-year citation rates higher than the mean in spine-specific literature.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

An article's citation rate demonstrates its contribution to academia and its quality. Predictors of citation rates have not yet been studied in spine-specific medical literature.

METHODS

Three leading spine-specific journals were identified by a weighted scoring system comparing various journal metrics. Research articles published in 2014 were evaluated from the following journals: Spine, European Spine Journal, and Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine. Article features analyzed included journal of origin, number of words in article title, author count, degree of first author, conflicts of interest, quantity of contributing academic institutions, country of origin, study topic, study design, level of evidence, sample size, reference count, and citation rate. Multivariate logistic regression was used to determine predictors of above average citation rate at 6 years following publication.

RESULTS

The final analysis included 1091 articles. Spine had a significantly higher citation rate than European Spine Journal (P = 0.0008); however, no significant differences were observed between Spine and Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine. Regression analysis demonstrated that studies originating in North America (OR:1.44, 95% CI:1.01-2.01, P = 0.04), those with 6 ≥ authors (OR:1.72, 95% CI:1.29-2.30, P < 0.001), sample size >100 (P < 0.001), prospective case series (OR: 2.67, 95% CI: 1.24-5.76), and retrospective case series (OR: 1.99, 95% CI: 1.07-3.73) were independent predictors of achieving above average 6-year citation rates.

CONCLUSION

Spine, European Spine Journal, and Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine had the highest 6-year citation rates of the top 10 orthopedic spine journals, with Spine being significantly higher than European Spine Journal. Studies originating in North America, those with six or more authors, sample sizes > 100, and those that are retrospective or prospective case series are independent predictors of greater citation rates at 6 years in orthopedic spine-specific medical literature.Level of Evidence: 4.

Study Characteristics Related to Citation Rates in Hip & Pelvis: An Analysis of Articles Published between 2009 and 2019

Purpose

We classified the articles published in the journal Hip & Pelvis and analyzed the relationship between study characteristics and citation rates.

Materials and Methods

All articles published in Hip & Pelvis from 2009 to 2019 were included. We classified the articles according to the type, language, listing in PubMed Central (PMC), treatment modality, material, design, anatomical focus, number of authors, and number of cases. We analyzed the citation rate according to this classification, with yearly citation rate reflecting the exposure period until March 2020.

Results

The yearly citation rate increased significantly after the language of the journal was changed from Korean to English in June 2014 (mean=0.96 vs. 1.63, P<0.05), and again after the journal was listed in PMC in March 2016 (mean=1.05 vs. 1.92, P<0.05). The yearly citation rates of review articles was highest, followed by those of editorials, original articles, and case reports (in this order). Among original articles, trauma-related articles had higher yearly citation rates than non-trauma-related articles (mean=1.00 vs. 0.68, P=0.034). Among clinical articles, studies focusing on the pelvis had higher yearly citation rates than studies on the hip or femur (mean=1.85 vs. 0.71 vs. 0.91, P=0.003).

Conclusion

The yearly citation rate of articles increased significantly after the language of Hip & Pelvis was changed to English and after the journal was listed in PMC. The mean yearly citation rate of articles focusing on the pelvis was significantly higher than that of articles focusing on the hip or femur.

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.

Predictors of Citation Rate in the Spine Literature

The number of citations a publication receives has been regarded as one measure of its importance and clinical impact. However, studies have yet to investigate which characteristics are predictors of citation rates within the spine subspecialty literature. To explore this topic, all articles published in 2010 in Spine and from 2010 to 2011 in The Spine Journal and the Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine were reviewed. The Web of Science search engine was used to determine the number of times each article was cited in the 5 years following its publication. Sample characteristics were collected and were compared with a χ test for differences Multivariate logistic regression was utilized to determine if collected study characteristics were associated with achievement of citation frequency higher than the median for the entire study sample. Among the 927 articles analyzed, the 5-year citation number ranged from 0 to 125, with a median of 8 (interquartile range: 4-16). Upon multivariate analysis, the following were identified as predictors of citation number higher than the median: North American origin (P=0.014), sample size >30 (P<0.001), study topic (P<0.050), and publication in the Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine (P<0.001). Practitioners and research personnel can use these findings to help elucidate which factors might affect the potential impact and overall reach of their work in the spine literature.

Predictors of 5-Year Citation Rate in the Orthopaedic Sports Medicine Literature

BACKGROUND

The citation rate of a research published article is an indicator of its quality and impact and contributes to the journal's impact factor. Within the orthopaedic sports medicine literature, predictors of citation rates have not been previously described.

PURPOSE

To identify characteristics of published articles that predict 5-year citation rates of studies in the orthopaedic sports medicine literature.

STUDY DESIGN

Cross-sectional study.

METHODS

Research articles published in The American Journal of Sports Medicine (AJSM), Arthroscopy: The Journal of Arthroscopic and Related Surgery, and Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy (KSSTA) from 2012 were analyzed. Extracted characteristics of published articles included journal, author number, origin of study, first author degree, subject of study, study type, sample size, number of references and institutions, conflicts of interest, level of evidence, and 5-year citation rates. Multivariate logistic regression was used to determine predictors of greater than the mean number of citations at 5 years.

RESULTS

A total of 825 published articles ( AJSM, n = 313; Arthroscopy, n = 173; KSSTA, n = 339) were included in the final analysis. The mean number of 5-year citations was 23.2 (95% CI, 21.6-24.9; range, 1.0-260.0). AJSM had a significantly greater citation rate (32.4) than Arthroscopy (21.7) and KSSTA (15.2) ( P < .001 for both). Arthroscopy had a greater citation rate than KSSTA ( P = .008). Independent predictors of greater than the mean number of citations at 5 years were published articles in AJSM (odds ratio [OR], 5.17; 95% CI, 2.81-9.52; P < .0001), published articles of North American origin (OR, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.25-2.58; P = .002), and published articles regarding the hip (OR, 2.68; 95% CI, 1.08-6.67; P = .035).

CONCLUSION

Published articles in AJSM, those from North America, and those examining the hip were independent predictors of greater citation rates at 5 years.

Alternative Metrics of Scholarly Output: The Relationship among Altmetric Score, Mendeley Reader Score, Citations, and Downloads in Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery

BACKGROUND

The impact of scholarly output is typically measured by the number of citations and, more recently, downloads. Newer metrics have been developed to reflect digital dissemination of knowledge such as the Altmetric and Mendeley reader scores. This article examines the relationship among citations, download rates, Altmetric scores, and Mendeley reader scores in Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery.

METHODS

The authors accessed the 55 most-cited articles published in Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery from 2014 to 2015. Altmetric scores, download rates, field-weighted citations, and Mendeley reader number were extracted. Correlation matrices were used to identify methodologies positively correlating between scores. The top-ranked articles were then collectively evaluated for central subject themes and unifying scoring methodologies.

RESULTS

The highest Altmetric score obtained was 159, the greatest number of citations was 52, and the greatest number of downloads was 41. There was no apparent correlation between Altmetric scores and Scopus citations (p = 0.58) or article subject themes (p = 0.63). Citation was positively associated with download rates (r = 0.31, p = 0.021) and Mendeley reader number (r = 0.46, p = 0.001). Mendeley reader number demonstrated high precision in identifying top-ranked citation articles (p = 0.044) despite its lack of direct association with Altmetric score (p = 0.83).

CONCLUSIONS

With the growing public desire for evidence-based publications, our study quantifies the unique nature of Altmetric score while discouraging its use in isolation. Download rates are a more rapid measure of publication impact compared with citation number. Mendeley readership is also promising as an alternative index.

Which Factors Affect Citation Rates in the Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Literature?

PURPOSE

Citation rate is one of several tools to measure academic productivity. The purposes of this study were to estimate and identify factors associated with citation rates in the oral and maxillofacial surgery (OMS) literature.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was a retrospective longitudinal study of publications in the Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery (JOMS), International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery (IJOMS), and Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology, and Oral Radiology (OOOO) from January through December 2012. The predictor variables were author- and article-specific factors. The outcome variable was the citation rate, defined as the total number of citations for each article over a 4-year period. Descriptive, bivariate, and multiple regression statistics were computed.

RESULTS

The authors identified 993 articles published during 2012. The mean number of citations at 4 years after publication was 5.6 ± 5.3 (median, 4). In bivariate analyses, several author- and article-specific factors were associated with citation rates. In a multiple regression model adjusting for potential confounders and effect modifiers, first author H-index, number of authors, journal, OMS focus area, and Oxford level of evidence were significantly associated with citation rate (P ≤ .002).

CONCLUSION

The authors identified 5 factors associated with citation rates in the OMS literature. These factors should be considered in context when evaluating citation-based metrics for OMS. Studies that focus on core OMS procedures (eg, dentoalveolar surgery, dental implant surgery), are published in specialty-specific journals (eg, JOMS or IJOMS), and have higher levels of evidence are more likely to be cited.