A bibliometric analysis assessing temporal changes in publication and authorship characteristics in The Knee from 1996 to 2016

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.

Small female citation advantages for US journal articles in medicine

Female under-representation continues in senior roles within academic medicine, potentially influenced by a perception that female research has less citation impact. This article provides systematic evidence of (a) female participation rates from the perspective of published journal articles in 46 Scopus medical subject categories 1996–2018 and (b) gender differences in citation rates 1996–2014. The results show female proportion increases 1996–2018 in all fields and a female majority of first-authored articles in two-fifths of categories, but substantial differences between fields. A paper is 7.3 times more likely to have a female first author in Obstetrics and Gynaecology than in Orthopaedics and Sports Medicine. Only three fields had a female last author majority by 2018, a probable side effect of ongoing problems with appointing female leaders. Female first-authored research tended to be more cited than male first-authored research in most fields (59%), although with a maximum difference of only 5.1% (log-transformed normalised citations). In contrast, male last-authored research tends to be more cited than female last-authored research, perhaps due to cases where a senior male has attracted substantial funding for a project. These differences increase if team sizes are not accounted for in the calculations. Since female first-authored research is cited slightly more than male first-authored research, properly analysed bibliometric data considering career gaps should not disadvantage female candidates for senior roles.

Exploring parity in female authorship of pharmacoepidemiology articles: A case study of the Canadian Network for Observational Drug Effect Studies and its citing articles

PURPOSE

The Canadian Network for Observational Drug Effect Studies (CNODES) studies the benefits and risks of post-market drugs and evaluates its research mobilization efforts for accountability, demonstrating value, and learning. As part of these evaluation efforts, and acknowledging gender disparity in authorship across many academic disciplines, CNODES examined the relationship between gender and authorship in its own journal articles and the literature citing them.

METHODS

CNODES articles (published 2012-2017) and all citing articles were identified and extracted using Scopus. Scopus author IDs were used to extract full names and a web service (www.genderapi.com) was used to estimate gender, converting all probabilities <80% to "indeterminate." T-tests and visualizations were used to compare the proportion of females between CNODES and the citing literature.

RESULTS

Twenty-eight CNODES articles and 463 citing articles were identified. The mean number of authors per article was 9.5 in CNODES articles and 5.7 in the citing literature. CNODES articles had a female authorship rate of 36%, compared to 29% in the citing literature (7% difference, 95% CI: [1%, 13%]). There were no female authors in 14% of CNODES articles versus 36% of the citing literature. Women were first authors in 25% and corresponding authors in 14% of CNODES articles.

CONCLUSIONS

This analysis provides a benchmark and method to monitor progress in female parity in pharmacoepidemiology authorship. Further work is needed to determine and address barriers and facilitators to women's recruitment and advancement in the field of pharmacoepidemiology.

Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Research: A Bibliometric Analysis over a 50-Year Period

Bibliometric analysis is a well-established approach to quantitatively assess scholarly productivity. However, there have been few assessments of research productivity on systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) to date. The aim of this study was to analyze global research productivity through original articles published in journals indexed by the Web of Science from 1971 to 2020. Bibliometric data was obtained from the Science Citation Index Expanded in the Web of Science Core Collection database. Only original articles published between 1971 and 2020 on SLE were included in the analysis. Over the 50-year period, publication production in SLE research has steadily increased with a mean annual growth rate of 8.0%. A total of 44,967 articles published in 3435 different journals were identified. The journal Lupus published the largest number of articles (n = 3371; 8.0%). A total of 148 countries and regions contributed to the articles. The global productivity ranking was led by the United States (n = 11,244, 25.0%), followed by China (n = 4893, 10.9%). A three-field plot showed that the Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation and the Johns Hopkins University together contributed 18.5% of all articles from the United States. A co-occurrence network analysis revealed five highly connected clusters of SLE research. In conclusion, this bibliometric analysis provided a comprehensive overview of the status of SLE research, which could enable a better understanding of the development in this field in the past 50 years.

Bibliometric evaluation of orthopaedics and traumatology publications from France: 20-year trends (1998-2017) and international positioning

BACKGROUND

Little is known about the scientific publication output for individual countries and medical specialties. The contribution of French authors to the currently expanding volume of publications on orthopaedics and traumatology (OT) is unclear. Orthopaedics & Traumatology: Surgery & Research (OTSR) is an English-language version of a preexisting French journal that was launched in 2009 to increase the dissemination of research done in France. The objective of this study was to use Web of Science (WoS) data from 1998 to 2017 to determine (i) the contribution of OT publications to the total worldwide volume of scientific publications, (ii) the contribution of OT publications from France to the total worldwide volume of OT publications, and (iii) changes over time in the proportion of OT publications from France with special attention to potential effects of the creation of OTSR.

HYPOTHESIS

The proportion of OT publications from France increased after 2010-2012, indicating a positive effect of OTSR.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

WoS data were used to identify original studies and review articles written by at least one French author, published between 1998 and 2017, and dealing with OT (defined as orthopaedics and/or traumatology in adult and/or paediatric patients). The worldwide volumes of publications in OT and other specialties were compared. Within worldwide OT publications, the proportion from France was determined. Indicators of impact were evaluated during successive 5-year periods. Finally, the position of OT in worldwide research was assessed and OT journals were analysed.

RESULTS

Among worldwide scientific medical publications, the proportion dealing with OT increased year on year from 1.93% in 1998 to 2.65% in 2017. Among annual publications from France, the proportion dealing with OT rose similarly, from 1.32% to 2.40%. Over the 20-year study period, France moved from the sixth to the ninth position, chiefly due to a large increase in publications from Asia. However, France remained in third position among European countries and increased its OT production 3-fold between 1998 and 2017. The proportion of OT articles from France that ranked among the top 1% most cited articles increased by 65% from 2008-2012 (20 articles) to 2013-2017 (33 articles), and the proportion in the top 10% increased by 31.8% (211 in 2008-2012 and 278 in 2013-2017). This rate of progression was faster than in any of the other western countries. Between 1998-2011 and 2012-2017, the contribution of French OT to publication output showed a 1.56-fold greater increase than did the contribution of OT to the worldwide volume of scientific medical publications.

DISCUSSION

OT publications from France have kept pace with the steady increase seen worldwide over the last 20years. Although the US and UK remain in the lead, and despite the considerable growth in the output of Asian countries, France occupies a prominent position on the international OT scene. The creation of OTSR has elevated the international profile of French OT centres.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV, retrospective study with no control group.

Publication output of French orthopedic and trauma surgeons: Quantitative and qualitative bibliometric analysis of their scientific production in orthopedics and other medical fields

INTRODUCTION

Bibliometric analysis is being used more and more in orthopedics and traumatology. However, the quantity and quality of publications authored by French orthopedic and trauma surgeons outside their discipline have never been analyzed, nor has the change in the quality of orthopedics publications. This led us to carry out a bibliometric analysis to answer the following questions: 1) How has the quantity of scientific production by French orthopedists changed over the past 10 years? 2) How has the quality of the overall scientific production by French orthopedists changed over the past 10 years?

HYPOTHESIS

From 2008 to 2017, the production of French orthopedists has increased in quantity and quality in orthopedics and other medical fields.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The analysis was performed by cross-referencing the list of SOFCOT (French Society for Orthopaedic Surgery and Traumatology) members with the French SIGAPS database and the InCites platform. Out of 3979 SOFCOT members, 972 (24%) had authored publications during this period and were included in the analysis. Several indicators were analyzed: number of publications; SIGAPS score (production quality) for the various Web of Science (WoS) categories; number and percentage of publications in the top 1% and top 10% (most highly cited articles worldwide).

RESULTS

The "Orthopedics" discipline was still the most prevalent with 68% of all publications identified. The "Surgery" discipline was stable, and the share of publications had increased in five other disciplines: Sports Sciences, Clinical Neurology, Emergency Medicine, Engineering-Biomedical and Material Science-Biomaterials. Of the 727 journals indexed in PubMed in which at least one author is a French orthopedic or trauma surgeon, 79 journals (11%) had at least 10 articles authored by a French orthopedists, making up 4680/6056 published articles (77%) during the study period. The highest SIGAPS score was in the "Orthopedics" discipline followed by "Surgery", and then by "Sport Sciences" with a large number of publications in the SIGAPS B category. Publications in "Orthopedics" category A and B journals increased 14% during this period. When all disciplines are pooled, the share of publications in SIGAPS A, B and C categories increased by 10% from 2008 to 2017. The largest increase in publications for categories A and B and the top 1% and 10% was in "Sports Sciences".

DISCUSSION

Over the past 10 years, French orthopedists have continued to increase their scientific production in the orthopedics field and in related fields such as Sport Sciences, Clinical Neurology and Biomedical Engineering. The quality of the scientific production of French orthopedists in their discipline and outside of it has greatly improved, as evidenced by the shift toward SIGAPS A and B journals.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV, retrospective study without control group.