Self-citation rate and impact factor in the field of plastic and reconstructive surgery

Study Characteristics and Impact of the "Best Papers" Presented at ASSH Annual Meetings Over the Past Decade

Purpose

Each year, the American Society for Surgery of the Hand (ASSH) selects several abstracts for podium presentations during a "Best Papers" session. We examined these papers to better understand their characteristics and impact on the field of hand surgery.

Methods

"Best Papers" from the 2010 to 2020 ASSH Annual Meetings were reviewed. Online databases were searched to find matching publications. Descriptive data were collected from the publications. The Hirsch index value for each corresponding author and the number of citations for each publication were recorded. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze the data.

Results

Fifty-nine "Best Papers" were awarded during the study period. Forty-nine (83%) were clinical and 10 were basic science studies. A total of 39 observational studies, 11 human trials, 8 experimental studies, and 1 case series were present. Fifty-four (91.5%) were published at the time of our review. Twenty-six of those (48%) were multicenter studies, and the remaining 28 were from a single institution. The average time from presentation to publication was 16 months. The top three journals of publication were the Journal of Hand Surgery (33%), the Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (9%), and the Journal of Hand Surgery, European (7%). The median level of evidence for all "Best Papers" was 3, with a trend toward a higher level of evidence during the study period. The average h-index value of all corresponding authors was 27.3. The average number of citations per publication was 37.

Conclusions

The ASSH "Best Papers" were primarily clinical studies with an increasingly strong level of evidence and were likely led by an author with a history of research productivity. Selection as a "Best Paper" at ASSH Annual Meetings is a strong predictor of future publication and impact.

Clinical relevance

This study evaluates the "value" of the best paper designation at the ASSH annual meeting.

Self-Citation Rates Among Neurosurgery Journals and Authors: Unethical or Misunderstood?

OBJECTIVE

The role of self-citation has not been discussed in the neurosurgery literature, although citations, citation indices, and impact of research may enhance funding opportunities, academic positions, fellowship opportunities, employment, and professional identity development. We sought to assess the magnitude and role of self-citation in academic neurosurgery.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective analysis of the citation and self-citation rates of articles published in 2001-2020 in 7 major neurosurgery journals: Acta Neurochirurgica, Journal of Neurosurgery, Journal of Neurosurgery: Pediatrics, Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine, Neurosurgery, Neurosurgical Review, and World Neurosurgery.

RESULTS

The total number of citations was highest for Journal of Neurosurgery and lowest for Neurosurgical Review. Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine had the highest average number of citations per article, followed closely by Journal of Neurosurgery. The self-citation rate increased for all journals over the time period 2001-2020. The highest number of self-citations per article during 2016-2020 was seen in Journal of Neurosurgery: Pediatrics and World Neurosurgery. Neurosurgical Review had the lowest number of self-citations per article.

CONCLUSIONS

Academic neurosurgeons must understand the ecosystem around self-citation. In our study, we found overall low levels of self-citations in neurosurgery journals with a few outliers. We have, however, noticed an increasing trend in self-citation rates. Self-citation rates should be considered while evaluating the impact of an author and research productivity. Contrary to popular belief, self-citation is not always unethical and must be understood within its circumstances.

Should the Eigenfactor Replace the Impact Factor?: A Bibliometric Study of Plastic, Reconstructive, and Aesthetic Surgery Journals

BACKGROUND

Despite the global acceptance of the impact factor (IF) by researchers and academic institutions as one, criticism has been voiced regarding its effectiveness in evaluating the unbiased impact of a journal. To overcome the limitations and drawbacks of the IF that were presented by the scientific community, they introduced several other citation-based bibliometric indices.

METHODS

All plastic and reconstructive surgery journals were analyzed, and bibliometric indices were extracted from the relevant source. Pearson correlation coefficients were used to determine correlations between the various indices.

RESULTS

All correlations in between the various bibliometric indices were found to be positively and statistically significant, ranging from moderately highly associated for the IF and Eigenfactor (r = 0.632) to very strongly associated (r = 0.962) for the IF and the Article Influence Score.

CONCLUSION

In the field of plastic and reconstructive surgery, the Eigenfactor and its derivative, the Article Influence Score, could potentially serve as better indices than the IF in demonstrating the overall picture. This information is based on the inclusion of a greater number of journals in the calculation and subtraction of self-citations, without compromising their correlation with other indices.The use of Eigenfactor and other additional bibliometrics cooperatively with the IF could provide the most extensive evaluation of a journal's scientific impact.

The top 100 most cited papers on endometrial carcinoma: A bibliometric analysis

Objective

This study aimed to analyze the top 100 most cited papers and research trends on endometrial carcinoma via bibliometric methods.

Methods

On the 1^st of March 2022, the top 100 most cited papers regarding endometrial carcinoma published from 1971 to 2021 were identified through searching Web of Science Core Collection database and the following data: title, author, journal, publication year, country and institution were extracted. Microsoft Office Excel (2019) was used for descriptive statistical analysis. VOSviewer (1.6.18) was used to perform and visualize co-authorship analysis and co-occurrence analysis.

Results

These 100 papers were cited a total of 45, 685 times, and the mean number of citations was 456.85 (range, 228 to 2487). Most papers were published between 1996 and 2000, and between 2006 and 2010. The Lancet published the largest number of papers (n=12), followed by Gynecologic Oncology (n=11). Most of the papers were from the United States (n=58), followed by Italy (n=8) and Netherlands (n=7). Duke University, Johns Hopkins University, University of California San Francisco and University of Southern California (all in United States) contributed the most papers (n=4, respectively). Nicoletta Colombo contributed the most papers (n=3) as the corresponding author. The co-occurrence keywords were classified into three clusters: cluster 1 (epidemiology study), cluster 2 (molecular biology study) and cluster 3 (clinical treatment study). Early research that was published prior to 2005 in this field was mainly focused on epidemiology and molecular biology; the mean publication year for keywords in cluster 3 was later than other clusters. The keywords “external-beam radiotherapy,” “uterine serous carcinoma,” and “intermediate-risk” showed relatively later mean publication year and lower mean frequency of occurrence.

Conclusions

This study provides medical researchers with bibliometric information relating to endometrial carcinoma. Our results show that the United States is a clear leader in this field. The clinical treatment of endometrial carcinoma has received increasing levels of attention over recent years and is likely to remain a major area of research in the future. Meanwhile, it is recommended to pay attention to potential research hotspots, such as external-beam radiotherapy, uterine serous carcinoma and intermediate-risk.

The Hirsch Index and Self-Citation in Academic Physiatry Among Graduate Medical Education Program Directors

ABSTRACT

The Hirsch Index is a measure of academic productivity which captures both the quantity and quality of an author's output. A well-accepted bibliometric, the Hirsch Index still may be influenced by self-citation, which has been assessed in other medical and surgical specialties. This study aims to evaluate research output and self-citation in physiatry, establishing a benchmark for the field, in addition to identifying differences between physical medicine and rehabilitation subspecialties. This study identified physical medicine and rehabilitation residency and fellowship program directors and analyzed the number of publications, citations, self-citations, and h-indices. A total of 169 program directors were identified, and the mean number ± SD of publications, citations, and Hirsch Index for the cohort were 16.7 ± 29.5, 348 ± 753, and 5.7 ± 6.7, respectively. When self-citation was excluded, less than 2% of program directors (3 of 169) had changes in Hirsch Index greater than one integer, and none greater than two integers. The Hirsch Index remained unchanged for 90% (152 of 169). Spinal cord injury fellowship directors had significantly higher mean number of publications (28, P = 0.04), mean number of citations (672, P = 0.03), and Hirsch Index (9.2, P < 0.01; 95% confidence interval). Overall, self-citation is infrequent in physical medicine and rehabilitation, and spinal cord injury directors had more robust academic profiles.

A bibliometric analysis of top 100 most-cited articles in dentistry with author(s) affiliated with Taiwan institutes

BACKGROUND

Citation analysis can provide a historical perspective in the advancement of research, evolution, and areas of research. Taiwan exhibits rigorous academic and scientific activities in dentistry; however, based on its empirical contribution in research, there is no report in the literature analyzing the top-cited articles published by authors affiliated with Taiwan institutes. The purpose of this study was to analyze the citation characteristics of the top 100 most-cited articles published in dentistry with author(s) affiliated with Taiwan institutes.

METHODS

The Scopus database was used to search the qualified articles with authors from Taiwan published in journals. The bibliometric parameters, including year of publication, study design, research fields, citation half-life, self-citation, institute of origin, and international collaboration were analyzed. Multivariable linear regression in generalized linear model was used to find associate factors related to trends of citation counts.

RESULTS

The top 100 most-cited articles were determined by analyzing 7667 articles from the Scopus database. The steadily increasing trends were observed in the number and percentage of articles of author(s) affiliated with Taiwan institutes to the world. The most common study design was the in vitro research (55 %). The majority citation half-life is 3-5 and 6-8 years, and self-citation counts were between one to five times (n = 26). The percentage of international collaboration of these most-cited articles was 32%, and the main collaboration country was the United States. By using multivariable linear regression in the generalized linear model, the associated factors, study design, and self-citation were significantly associated with the escalating trends of citation counts.

CONCLUSION

This is the first study that provides valuable information in the dentistry regarding the academic activity, and empirical contribution of author(s) affiliated with Taiwan institutes in the world. The trends of citation characteristics were significantly correlated with study design and self-citation of these articles.

Relationship between an editor in chief's commentary publications and the impact factor of cardiovascular medicine journals

Journal impact factor (IF) inflation is suggested as a problem resulting from commentaries published by the editors in chief (EiCs) of their respective journals. However, it is unclear whether this is a systemic problem across the top thirty cardiovascular medicine journals. Therefore, the purpose of this investigation was to examine the relationship between the number of commentaries written by an EiC and their journal's IF and Eigenfactor (Ef). Utilizing Spearman rank partial correlations controlling for length of service as the EiC, significant moderate correlations were found between the number of commentaries and the number of first-author commentaries by the EiC and the IF of their journal (r=0.568, p=0.001 and r=0.504, p=0.005; respectively). A weak but still significant correlation was found between the number of commentaries by the EiC and the Ef of their journal (r=0.431, p=0.020). The reason for these correlations is unclear, and whether the methodology used to compute the IF and Ef should be modified needs further research.

The Evolving Trends in the Impact Factor of Plastic Surgery Journals: A 22-Year Analysis

BACKGROUND

The journal impact factor (IF) is one of the most widely adopted metrics to assess journal value. We aimed to investigate the trends in the IF and ranking of plastic surgery journals (PSJs) over a 22-year period.

METHODS

The Journal Citation Report 2018 was used to identify all journals within the field of plastic surgery from 1997 to 2018. We analyzed the IF of PSJs and that of the category surgery.

RESULTS

A total of 34 PSJs were identified. The mean IF increased from 0.584 (median, 0.533) in 1997 to 1.58 (median, 1.399) in 2018 (P < 0.0001). Over the same time, the median IF of the journals in the category surgery increased from 0.914 to 1.883. The mean journal IF percentile of PSJs within surgery remained fairly stable (P = 0.999). A strong positive correlation was identified between the IF of PSJs and both the 5-year IF (r = 0.943, P < 0.0001) and the immediacy index (r = 0.736, P < 0.0001). The percentage of self-citations across the study period was fairly stable at a mean of 19.2%. A weak positive correlation was found between the IF and the percentage of self-citations (r = 0.171, P < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

The mean journal IF in PSJs has been trending upward over the last 22 years. Ranking of PSJs IF within the category surgery has remained unchanged. The self-citation rate has been fairly stable and correlated weakly with the IF. A strong positive correlation exists between the IF and both the immediacy index and the 5-year IF.

Do journals raise their impact factor or SCImago ranking by self-citing in editorials? A bibliometric analysis of trauma and orthopaedic journals

BACKGROUND

Impact factor (IF) is widely accepted as a measure of a journal's quality but it can be influenced by self-citation. However, the SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) is based on journal prestige, excludes self-citation and considers quality of citations of a journal. This study aimed to investigate journal editors' use of self-citation and whether this correlated with IFs or SJR in trauma and orthopaedic (T&O) journals.

METHODS

T&O journals on the SJR database were identified. From each journal, data including country of publication, number of annual issues, IF, SJR indicator and citable articles were extracted. The editorial(s) of each issue in 2018 were reviewed. The total number of times the editors cited their own previous work or their journal (in the preceding 2 years, 2016-2017) were identified. Regression analyses were performed to investigate the association of editorial self-citation with journal IF or SJR indicator.

RESULTS

Of the 270 journals identified, 43 T&O journals with 151 editorials were included in the final analysis. A positive correlation between journal self-citation in the editorial and IF (P = 0.02) and SJR indicator (P = 0.02) was found. Citation by editors of their own publications within editorials also positively correlated with IF (P = 0.04) but not for SJR indicator (P = 0.19). There was a positive linear relationship between journal IF and SJR indicators (P < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

Editor self-citation influences the IF and SJR indicators in T&O journals. Therefore, these metrics should be considered in conjunction with other factors such as audience, topics included and international presence when evaluating journals.

Globalization of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery: A Continent, Country, and State-Level Analysis of Publications

Background:

Over the past decade, there has been a worldwide increase in plastic and reconstructive surgery research as well as increased interest in global collaboration. However, little is known about who is contributing to this global expansion or the trends of individual countries. The aim of our study was to analyze the output of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery (PRS) over a decade to elucidate trends in the plastic surgery field.

Methods:

The country of origin for all first authors of articles published by PRS from 2010 to 2019 were determined and date extracted using PubMed2XL. The change in frequency of publications over the decade by country, continental contributions, as well as state-level analysis within the United States were analyzed.

Results:

From 2010 to 2019, there were a total number of 8680 publications with an increase in total articles from 747 to 1049 per year. 54 countries contributed over the decade, with the United States producing the most followed by Italy, China, Canada, and the UK. The top producing states were Texas, New York, California, Massachusetts, and Pennsylvania.

Conclusions:

The last decade (2010–2019) saw a large international increase in research, not only with the total number of publications, but also in the diversity of originating country. Our work shows a shift away from a US-focused journal to incorporate more work from our international colleagues, as research is conducted in centers across the globe.

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.

How has the dental literature evolved over time? Analyzing 20 years of journal self-citation rates and impact factors

Objective: As journal impact factors (IFs) can be artificially inflated by excessive journal self-citation practices, research quality evaluation based solely on IF ranking may be manipulated and, therefore, ethically challenged. This study aimed to analyze the longitudinal development of journal self-citation rates (SCRs) and IFs in dental literature and to determine possible confounders.Methods: Twenty-eight journals with scope within general dentistry and (sub)specialties listed in 1997-2016 Journal of Citation Reports^® were scrutinized. The following information was retrieved: publication year, total number of citations, number of self-citations, IF, corrected IF, and SCR.Results: Endodontic journals had the highest SCR (median = 35.3, IQR = 21.6-47.5), journals related to periodontics had the lowest (median = 14.7, IQR = 8.9-25.5). Periodontics had the highest IF (median = 2.1, IQR= 1.7-2.8) and general dentistry had the lowest (median = 0.9, IQR = 0.7-1.2). SCR significantly decreased over time (p < .0001) by 1 unit per year. Additionally, 1 unit increase in corrected IF resulted in 15.2 units decrease in SCR. IFs significantly increased 0.06 units per year (p < .000).Conclusions: Overall, favourable changes in citation metrics have been observed for dental journals during the 20-year observation period. SCR significantly decreased per observation year whereas IFs significantly increased, indicating a healthy publishing environment in the dental literature. SCR was regulated both by time and corrected IF.

Publication integrity in orthopaedic journals: the self-citation in orthopaedic research (SCOR) threshold

BACKGROUND

The impact factor (IF) is the most commonly used bibliometric method for rating academic journals. However, the practice of journals' self-citation may artificially elevate the IF. Additional bibliometric methods including Eigenfactor scale, SCImago Journal Ranking (SJR), and corrected IF (cIF) have been created. Comparing general-interest and specialized orthopaedic journals, the aims of this study were to assess: (1) the effect of journal´s self-citation on IF; (2) differences in bibliometric analysis; and (3) to determine thresholds for monitoring self-citation practices by defining the self-citation in orthopaedic research (SCOR) Threshold.

METHODS

The journal citation reports and SCImago Journal and Country Rank databases were queried for orthopaedic journals from 1997 to 2017. The following bibliometrics were compared between general-interest and specialized journals: IF, cIF, Eigenfactor, self-citation rates, and SJR. A novel metric, the cIF ratio, was proposed to represent the relationship between a journal's IF and cIF. Thresholds for cIF were based on statistical outliers of cIF ratio within general-interest and specialized journals were calculated. Outliers were defined as data points that were greater than the third quartile by 1.5 times the interquartile range using the last 10 years studied (2007-2017).

RESULTS

Specialized orthopaedic journals had a higher median self-citation rates compared to general-interest journals (11.85% vs. 6.36%, p < 0.001). Overall, cIF ratio declined over study period, and general-interest journals had a lower cIF ratio than specialized journals (8.77% vs. 19.54%, p < 0.001). Overall, general-interest journals had more favourable values for the bibliometric indices studied compared to specialized journals The SCOR threshold for cIF ratio was determined as 25.4% for general-interest journals and 53.3% for specialized journals.

CONCLUSION

Overall, self-citation occurs at a higher rate in specialized versus general-interest orthopaedic journals. We propose the use of a cIF ratio along with the SCOR threshold as a tool to evaluate and monitor journal self-citation practices in orthopaedic research.