Global Contributions and Trends in Research within the Top-ranked Plastic Surgery Journal

Bibliometric Analysis of the Highest Cited Cosmetic Upper Facial Plastic Surgery Articles Over 50 Years

In this bibliometric analysis, the authors analyze the top 100 (T100) most cited articles on cosmetic upper facial plastic surgery. Throughout this study, the objective of the authors is to delineate the trends in cosmetic upper facial surgeries to identify prevailing techniques, emerging trends, and potential areas of future investigation. The articles were indexed from the Web of Science database and were extracted in a double-blinded manner by 2 independent graders. The search phrase used covered a wide range of cosmetic upper facial plastic surgeries, of which a short sample is included: ("cosmetic*" AND "bleph*") OR ("cosmetic*" AND "upper eyelid blepharoplasty") OR ("cosmetic*" AND "lower eyelid blepharoplasty"). In their statistical analysis of the number of citations received in each article in the T100, the authors reveal an average of 55.1 citations (a standard deviation of 38.7). Surgical methods were the most commonly cited unique study area, with 30% of the T100, followed by botulinum toxin and complication management with 29% and 15% of the T100, respectively. The unique study area with the highest average citations received was botulinum toxin, with an average of 64.7 citations. Invasive procedures made up 55% of the T100 articles. The authors found that the late 1990s and 2000s were a burgeoning period of growth in this field and highlight the evolution of many contemporary popular cosmetic procedures over time. Particularly, a growth in minimally invasive procedures was noted, with noted impacts in aesthetics training and research focus.

Level of Evidence 4 Therapeutic

How Many Plastic Surgeons Does It Take to Write an Article? A 10-Year Bibliometric Analysis of Authorship Inflation

BACKGROUND

Publications measure academic productivity; they can affect research funding and career trajectory. There is a trend of increased authors per publication in surgery journals. We sought to determine whether authorship inflation exists in the plastic surgery literature and identify independent predictors of the number of co-authors.

METHODS

We performed a bibliometric analysis of articles published in 3 high impact plastic surgery journals at 2-year intervals between 2010 and 2020. For each publication, we collected details on year of publication, article type, plastic surgery topic, gender of senior author, geographical origin of study, and the number of authors.

RESULTS

A total of 5593 articles were collected. The median number of authors per article increased over time (ρ = 0.20, P < 0.001). Cohort studies, basic science investigations, literature reviews, and systematic reviews experienced a significant increase in the number of authors per article from 2010 to 2020 (P < 0.001). The rise in the number of authors was consistent across all plastic surgery topics (P < 0.001). Both male and female senior authors had a significant increase in the number of co-authors (P < 0.001). The regression model demonstrated that article type (cohort studies, basic science investigations, and systematic reviews) predicted more co-authors, whereas geographical region (Africa, Middle East, South and Southeast Asia, and United Kingdom and Ireland) and plastic surgery topics (aesthetic and hand surgery) predicted fewer authors.

CONCLUSIONS

The number of authors per publication is increasing in plastic surgery. Author proliferation was consistent across most article types and unaffected by gender. Possible reasons behind this trend include research complexity, increased collaboration, or gift authorship.

A 20-Year Analysis of Global Authorship Trends in Craniofacial Literature: Is the United States Falling Behind?

INTRODUCTION

Recent advances in craniofacial surgery have occurred in conjunction with a global proliferation of research. Although previous studies have examined geographic publication trends, little is known about these trends in the craniofacial literature.

METHODS

All craniofacial articles published from 2000 to 2020 in 3 premier craniofacial surgery journals were evaluated in 5-year increments. Geographic origin, manuscript type, and authorship characteristics were collected. Changes in publication output, geographic origin, and content were analyzed.

RESULTS

In total 3864 articles were analyzed, with the United States (U.S.) (33.46%) accounting for the majority, followed by Asia (27.04%), the Middle East (16.23%), and Europe (14.65%). The proportion of articles from the U.S. decreased significantly in the in the 20-year span (48.28% versus 33.53%, P < 0.001), whereas those originating from Asia and the Middle East increased significantly (18.62% versus 31.41% and 10.34% versus 15.66%, respectively, P < 0.001). After stratifying and selecting for regions with the greatest changes in publication output, the authors observed significant trends for the number of original investigations from 2000 to 2020 in the U.S. (Odds Ratio [OR] 1 versus 2.4, P < 0.001) and in Asia (OR 1 versus 1.8, P = 0.0052). Additionally, a significant trend in editorial/correspondence publications originating in the U.S. (OR 1 versus 0.74, P = 0.0102), Europe (OR 1 versus 0.38, P = 0.0186), and Asia (OR 1 versus 0.48, P = 0.0051) was observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite rising craniofacial publications over the past 2 decades, there has been a diminishing proportion originating from the U.S.

Aesthetic Surgery Research Funding: Where Does It Come From and to Whom Does It Go?

BACKGROUND

Recent data show that aesthetic surgery research is lagging compared with reconstructive surgery: research funding and institutional disparities within aesthetic surgery are potential factors in this trend.

OBJECTIVES

The authors sought to determine if disparities exist in aesthetic surgery research based on funding sources or practice settings.

METHODS

The authors reviewed Aesthetic Surgery Journal articles from 2009 to 2019. Chi-square, t test, bivariate, and multivariate regression analyses were employed to evaluate research trends.

RESULTS

A total of 2262 publications were identified, with 318 funded articles meeting inclusion criteria. The majority of studies (294, 92%) received external funding, with 281 (88%) being supported solely by external funds. Externally funded studies were financed by private industry (194, 66%), foundations/societies (53, 18%), government grants (23, 8%), or a combination of agencies (24, 8%). The majority of funded studies were at academic institutions (266, 84%), followed by private practice (46, 14%) and private industry (6, 2%). Analysis of annual publications revealed a rising percentage of academic-based research, which correlated with decreasing research from private practice (r = -0.95, r2 = 0.89, P < 0.001). Compared with academic institutions, private practice relied more heavily on industry funding (55% vs 87%, respectively, P = 0.001), exhibiting lower rates of foundational/societal (20% vs 2%), governmental (9% vs 0%), combined (8% vs 7%), and internal department funding (8% vs 4%). Article citations and level of evidence were unaffected by funding source, agency, or practice setting.

CONCLUSIONS

Lack of diversity in research funding among private practice surgeons may explain the reported discrepancies that currently exist between aesthetic and reconstructive surgery research.

Assessment of the Academic Productivity of Plastic Surgeons in Saudi Arabia Using the h-index

Hirsch-index (or h-index) is a bibliometric measure calculated for researchers based on number of publications and their citations. This study examined the h-index of board-certified plastic surgeons in Saudi Arabia and the different factors that may influence it.

METHOD

In this cross-sectional study, an electronic questionnaire was sent to 156 board-certified plastic surgeons practicing in Saudi Arabia. Using their names, we conducted an online search on Scopus, Semantic scholar, and Google scholar to calculate their h-index. Bivariate and multiple regression analyses were conducted to determine the relationship of those factors with the index.

RESULTS

A total of 84 surgeons participated in this study, of whom 83.3% were men. Our sample scored a mean index of 1.7 and published a mean of 5 articles. More publications and a higher academic rank predicted a higher h-index, (β = 0.79, P < 0.001) and (β = 0.14, P 0.017), respectively. On the other end of the spectrum, the country of residency training (P 0.33), the year of training completion (P 0.95), attaining fellowship training (P 0.95), the number of fellowships (P 0.20), interest in research (P 0.74), working in an academic hospital (P 0.44), or attaining a higher degree (P 0.61) were not significant independent predictors of the index.

CONCLUSIONS

More publications and a higher rank predicted increased academic productivity among the plastic surgeons in Saudi Arabia. Despite its limitations, h-index is a useful measure that can be considered in promotions and applications to prestigious plastic surgery centers in adjunct to other factors.