A bibliometric study of the journal Radiología during the period 2010-2019

The Leading Transplantation Journals: A Trend Analysis, 2011-2021

Background

As the field of transplantation has expanded, so have the quantity and variety of articles published on the topic. Evaluation of publications and journals is crucial to the expansion of transplant research. This study investigated the research output and journal metrics of the leading solid organ transplant journals published between 2011 and 2021 based on estimations of the trends in the category CiteScore from the Scopus database.

Materials and Methods

We obtained data on the listed journals from the Scopus Source List. We then filtered the list for "Transplantation" journals. Only the top quartiles or quartile 1 (Q1) journals were placed in this category. This study focused specifically on transplantation journals and did not include other journals related to diseases of transplanted organs such as the kidney, liver, heart, and lungs.

Results

The number of transplantation journals increased by 42.8% in the last ten years, from 28 in 2011 to 40 in 2021. Between 2011 and 2021, nine transplantation journals ranked in the highest quartile (Q1). The American Journal of Transplantation was the top journal in both years, with a 150% increase in citations and an 11.2% increase in articles published. Open access (OA) transplant journals rose from 3 in 2011 to 10 in 2021. In 2021, OA journals earned 8,555 citations, a 125% increase from 2011. Despite this increase, non-OA journals received more citations than OA in 2021 (p value 0.026).

Conclusion

Solid organ transplantation advances lead to more publications and citations. Regular journals and publications evaluation benefits academics and policymakers by promoting the growth of research. This study examined solid organ transplantation journals and gave a global perspective on transplant journal rankings and compared their status in 2011 and 2021.

Publications on COVID-19 in radiology journals in 2020 and 2021: bibliometric citation and co-citation network analysis

OBJECTIVES

The pandemic caused by SARS-CoV-2 has led to the rapid publication of numerous radiology articles, primarily focused on disease diagnosis. The objective of this study is to analyze the intellectual structure of radiology research on COVID-19 using a citation and co-citation analysis.

METHODS

We identified all documents about COVID-19 published in radiology journals included in the Web of Science in the period 2020-2021, conducting a citation analysis. Then we identified all bibliographic references that were cited by these documents, generating a co-citation matrix that was used to perform a co-citation network.

RESULTS

Of the 3418 documents indexed in WoS, 857 were initially "Early Access," 2223 had citations, 393 had more than 20 citations, and 83 had more than 100 citations. The USA had the highest number of publications (32.62%) and China had the highest rate of funded studies (45.38%). The three authors with the most publications were affiliated with Italian institutions, while the five most cited authors were Chinese. A total of 647 publications were co-cited at least 12 times and were published in 206 different journals, with 49% of the documents found in radiology journals. The institutions with the greatest presence among these co-cited articles were Chinese and American.

CONCLUSION

This co-citation analysis is the first to focus exclusively on radiology articles on COVID-19. Our study confirms the existence of interrelated thematic clusters with different specific weights.

KEY POINTS

• As the pandemic caused by SARS-Cov-2 has led to the rapid publication of numerous radiology studies in a short time period, a bibliometric review based on citation and co-citation analysis has been conducted. • The co-citation analysis supported the identification of key themes in the study of COVID-19 in radiology publications. • Many of the most co-cited articles belong to a heterogeneous group of publications, with authors from countries that are far apart and even from different disciplines.

Thirty-year survey of bibliometrics used in the research literature of pain: Analysis, evolution, and pitfalls

During the last decades, the emergence of Bibliometrics and the progress in Pain research have led to a proliferation of bibliometric studies on the medical and scientific literature of pain (B/P). This study charts the evolution of the B/P literature published during the last 30 years. Using various searching techniques, 189 B/P studies published from 1993 to August 2022 were collected for analysis-half were published since 2018. Most of the selected B/P publications use classic bibliometric analysis of Pain in toto, while some focus on specific types of Pain with Headache/Migraine, Low Back Pain, Chronic Pain, and Cancer Pain dominating. Each study is characterized by the origin (geographical, economical, institutional, …) and the medical/scientific context over a specified time span to provide a detailed landscape of the Pain research literature. Some B/P studies have been developed to pinpoint difficulties in appropriately identifying the Pain literature or to highlight some general publishing pitfalls. Having observed that most of the recent B/P studies have integrated newly emergent software visualization tools (SVTs), we found an increase of anomalies and suggest that readers exercise caution when interpreting results in the B/P literature details.