The Growth of Poorly Cited Articles in Peer-Reviewed Orthopaedic Journals

Worldwide research landscape of artificial intelligence in lung disease: A scientometric study

Purpose

To perform a comprehensive bibliometric analysis of the application of artificial intelligence (AI) in lung disease to understand the current status and emerging trends of this field.

Materials and methods

AI-based lung disease research publications were selected from the Web of Science Core Collection. Citespace, VOS viewer and Excel were used to analyze and visualize co-authorship, co-citation, and co-occurrence analysis of authors, keywords, countries/regions, references and institutions in this field.

Results

Our study included a total of 5210 papers. The number of publications on AI in lung disease showed explosive growth since 2017. China and the United States lead in publication numbers. The most productive author were Li, Weimin and Qian Wei, with Shanghai Jiaotong University as the most productive institution. Radiology was the most co-cited journal. Lung cancer and COVID-19 emerged as the most studied diseases. Deep learning, convolutional neural network, lung cancer, radiomics will be the focus of future research.

Conclusions

AI-based diagnosis and treatment of lung disease has become a research hotspot in recent years, yielding significant results. Future work should focus on establishing multimodal AI models that incorporate clinical, imaging and laboratory information. Enhanced visualization of deep learning, AI-driven differential diagnosis model for lung disease and the creation of international large-scale lung disease databases should also be considered.

Publication rates of abstracts presented across 6 major spine specialty conferences

Background

Although scientific researchers aim to present their projects at academic conferences as a step toward publication, not all projects mature to become a peer-reviewed manuscript. The publication rate of meetings can be utilized to assess the quality of presented research. Our objective was to evaluate the contemporary publication rate of abstracts presented at spine conferences.

Methods

We reviewed annual meeting programs of North American Spine Society (NASS), Scoliosis Research Society (SRS), International Meeting on Advanced Spine Techniques (IMAST), Spine Global Spine Congress (GSC), Lumbar Spine Research Society (LSRS), and Cervical Spine Research Society (CSRS) from 2017 to 2019. Abstracts were identified as published from PubMed and Google search. From published manuscripts, journal name and open access status was collected. Journal impact factors were collected from the 2021 Journal Citation Reports.

Results

A total of 3,091/5,722 (54%) abstracts were published, ranging from 44.5% to 66.3%. Publication rate of posters and podiums ranged from 39.8% to 64.8% and 51.6% to 67.2%, respectively. Podium presentations were more likely to be published than posters (59.6% vs. 47.2%, p<.001). Only NASS (61.4% vs. 61.8%) and LSRS (64.6% vs. 67.2%) demonstrated similar publication rates for posters and podiums. Award nominated abstracts had a significantly higher publication rate (68.0% vs. 53.4%, p<.001). Among journals with an impact factor, the median overall impact factor was 3.27 and was similar between all conferences except GSC, which was slightly lower (2.72 vs. 3.27, p<.001).

Conclusions

Fifty-four percent of abstracts were published with 3 societies (NASS, LSRS, and SRS) having rates of over 60%. Moreover, NASS and LSRS demonstrated high publication rates regardless of presentation type. These numbers are significantly higher than previous reports suggesting that these conferences allow attendees to review high quality evidence that is likely to achieve peer-reviewed publication while obtaining an early look at original research.

Institution Origin and Medical School Rank Impact the Citation Frequency and Publication Rate in Orthopaedic Sports Medicine Journals

Purpose

To examine the trends between various categories of institutions with their respective published orthopaedic sports medicine content and to determine the publication output and citation rate from the 25 highest-ranked medical schools compared with lower-ranked institutions.

Methods

Publications between 2015 and 2019 from the American Journal of Sports Medicine, Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery, Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, and Arthroscopy were categorized into university/university affiliated hospitals, non-university affiliated teaching hospitals, public/semi-government research institutes, nonprofit research institutes, private sector institutions, government institutions, and other institutions. Citation rates were collected from PubMed for the first and corresponding author. Similarly, corresponding authors were stratified by U.S. News and World Report 2021 medical school research rankings.

Results

Of the 12,152 publications identified, 5,044 publications met the inclusion criteria. Nonprofit research institutions garnered the greatest number of citations on average (6.44 based on first author, SD 8.83, n = 214; 6.62 based on corresponding author, SD 9.65, n = 208; P < .001), while university/university-affiliated hospitals produced the majority of published articles (77.0% based on first author, 76.8% based on corresponding author), but had lower average citation rates (4.48 based on first author, SD 6.67, n = 3,886; 4.44 based on corresponding author, SD 6.55, n = 3,873; P < .001). Furthermore, of 1953 medical school publications, the top 25 accounted for 53.1% of publications; however, there was no statistical difference between their citation rates and those of lower rankings (P = 0.47).

Conclusions

Publications are cited at different rates, depending on their institution of origin. In addition, high-ranking medical schools produce a disproportionately greater output of publications than lower-ranking schools, but there is no statistically significant difference in citation rates on an individual publication basis.

Clinical Relevance

Knowing how an institution’s ranking influences publication and citation rates can help us understand bias in the scientific literature.

Impact of Level of Evidence on Citation of Orthopaedic Articles

INTRODUCTION

Level of evidence grading has become widely used in orthopaedics. This study reviewed clinical research articles published in leading orthopaedic journals to describe the association between level of evidence and number of future citations, which is one measure of an article's impact in the field.

METHODS

The first 100 clinical research articles published in 2014 by each of the Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, and the American Journal of Sports Medicine were reviewed for level of evidence and article characteristics. Web of Science was used to identify the number of citations of each article over the following 5 years. Univariable analyses and multivariable linear regression were used to describe the associations.

RESULTS

Three hundred articles were evaluated. Univariable analysis revealed no association between level of evidence and number of citations, with a median number of citations for level 1 articles of 23 (interquartile range [IQR], 14-49), level 2 articles 24 (IQR, 13-47), level 3 articles 22 (IQR, 13-40), and level 4 or 5 articles 20 (IQR, 10-36). Univariable analyses showed weak associations between other article characteristics and citations. Even after adjusting for other variables, the standardized regression coefficient for level 1 versus level 4 or 5 was only 0.14 and the overall model had a poor fit with an R2 of 0.18.

CONCLUSIONS

Among clinical research articles published in leading orthopaedic journals, no notable association was found between level of evidence and future citations.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Readers of the orthopaedic literature should understand that no association was found between level of evidence and future citations. Additional work is needed to better understand the effect level of evidence has on clinicians and researchers.

Impact of Conventional and Open Access Publications in Orthopaedic Surgery

INTRODUCTION

The academic impact of open access publications compared with conventional publications in orthopaedic surgery is not well described. The primary objective of this study was to compare the number of academic citations and social media posts between recent conventional and open access publications in orthopaedic surgery. Secondary objectives of this study were (1) to determine the correlation between academic citations and social media posts and (2) to study the trend of academic citations and social media posts over time.

METHODS

An internet-based study was performed on 3,720 articles from five high-impact orthopaedic journals and their associated open access journals from March 2017 to February 2019, including 2,929 conventional and 791 open access journal publications. Academic citations were quantified using Google Scholar and Web of Science, and social media mentions using Twitter. The Mann-Whitney U test was used for comparisons of nonparametric data, and the Spearman rank correlation coefficient was calculated for correlations.

RESULTS

The average number of academic citations per article was 10.1 on Google Scholar and 6.0 on Web of Science. The average number of Twitter posts per article was 1.6. Conventional publications had markedly more citations than open access publications on Google Scholar and Web of Science. Open access publications had markedly more Twitter posts, but the effect size was small and unimportant. Academic citations were weakly correlated with social media posts. On average, orthopaedic publications accrue 7.4 citations per year on Google Scholar and 4.6 citations per year on Web of Science.

DISCUSSION

Our findings support a citation advantage to conventional publication. Publications in open access journals are cited less frequently and less rapidly compared with those in conventional journals. The use of social media for orthopaedic research is effectively equivalent between conventional and open access journals and continues to grow.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

N/A.

Characteristics and Research Techniques Associated with the Journal Impact Factor and Other Key Metrics in Pharmacology Journals

In the present age, there is intense pressure on researchers to publish their research in ‘high-impact factor’ journals. It would be interesting to understand the trend of research publications in the field of pharmacology by exploring the characteristics of research articles, including research techniques, in relation to the journal’s key bibliometrics, particularly journal impact factor (JIF), the seemingly most mentioned metric. This study aimed to determine the characteristics and research techniques in relation to research articles in pharmacology journals with higher or lower JIF values. A cross-sectional study was conducted on primary research journals under the ‘Pharmacology and Pharmacy’ category. Analysis of 768 original research articles across 32 journals (with an average JIF of 2.565 ± 0.887) demonstrated that research studies involving molecular techniques, in vivo experiments on animals, and bioinformatics and computational modeling were significantly associated with a higher JIF value of the journal in which such contributions were published. Our analysis suggests that research studies involving such techniques/approaches are more likely to be published in higher-ranked pharmacology journals.

The Orthopaedic Match: Defining the Academic Profile of Successful Candidates

BACKGROUND

Research productivity forms a vital part of the resident selection process and can markedly affect the chance of a successful match. Current reports regarding the publication record among prospective orthopaedic surgery residents are likely inaccurate. Potential applicants have a poor understanding of the strength of their research credentials in comparison to other candidates.

METHODS

We identified matched applicants from the 2013 to 2017 orthopaedic surgery residency application cycles. We performed a bibliometric analysis of these residents using Scopus, PubMed, and Google Scholar to identify published articles and calculate the h-index of each applicant at the time of application. Details were collected on medical school, advanced degrees, publication type, first authorship, and article relatedness to orthopaedic surgery.

RESULTS

We included 3,199 matched orthopaedic surgery applicants. At the time of application, the median h-index was 0, the median number of publications was 1, and 40% of successful candidates did not hold any publications. The h-index (R 0.08, P < 0.0001) and median number of publications of matched orthopaedic surgery residency candidates significantly increased (R 0.09, P < 0.0001) across application cycles. Furthermore, the proportion of matched applicants without publications at the time of application significantly decreased (R -0.90, P = 0.0350). Conversely, the percentage of articles first-authored by applicants decreased (R -0.96, P = 0.0093), but article relatedness to orthopaedic surgery remained constant (R 0.82, P = 0.0905). Strikingly, notable changes were observed in the type of articles published by successful applicants: the proportion of preclinical studies decreased (R -0.07, P = 0.0041), whereas clinical research articles increased (R 0.07, P = 0.0024).

CONCLUSION

The publication count held by successful orthopaedic surgery applicants is substantially lower than the nationally reported average. Matched orthopaedic surgery candidates demonstrate increasingly impressive research achievements each application cycle. However, increased academic productivity comes at the cost of reduced project responsibility and a shift toward faster-to-publish articles.

Is the open access citation advantage real? A systematic review of the citation of open access and subscription-based articles

AIMS

Over the last two decades, the existence of an open access citation advantage (OACA)-increased citation of articles made available open access (OA)-has been the topic of much discussion. While there has been substantial research to address this question, findings have been contradictory and inconclusive. We conducted a systematic review to compare studies of citations to OA and non-OA articles.

METHODS

A systematic search of 17 databases attempted to capture all relevant studies authored since 2001. The protocol was registered in Open Science Framework. We included studies with a direct comparison between OA and non-OA items and reported article-level citation as an outcome. Both randomized and non-randomized studies were included. No limitations were placed on study design, language, or publication type.

RESULTS

A total of 5,744 items were retrieved. Ultimately, 134 items were identified for inclusion. 64 studies (47.8%) confirmed the existence of OACA, while 37 (27.6%) found that it did not exist, 32 (23.9%) found OACA only in subsets of their sample, and 1 study (0.8%) was inconclusive. Studies with a focus on multiple disciplines were significantly positively associated with finding that OACA exists in subsets, and are less associated with finding that OACA did not exist. In the critical appraisal of the included studies, 3 were found to have an overall low risk of bias. Of these, one found that an OACA existed, one found that it did not, and one found that an OACA occurred in subsets.

CONCLUSIONS

As seen through the large number of studies identified for this review, OACA is a topic of continuing interest. Quality and heterogeneity of the component studies pose challenges for generalization. The results suggest the need for reporting guidelines for bibliometrics studies.