Journal Impact Factor versus the Evidence Level of Articles Published in Plastic Surgery Journals:

Ten-Year Trends in Level of Evidence in Hand Surgery

BACKGROUND

The purposes of this study were to analyze the trends in Oxford level of evidence (LOE), LOE of most-cited articles, and association between LOE and journal impact factor (IF) and SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) over a 10-year period (2009-2018) in 3 prominent hand surgery journals, specifically HAND, Journal of Hand Surgery (American Volume) (JHS), and Journal of Hand Surgery (European Volume) (JHSE).

METHODS

All articles published from 2009 to 2018 in HAND, JHS, and JHSE were reviewed for assigned or available LOE. Data were pooled and analyzed for trends in LOE; relationship among IF, SJR, and LOE; and citation density.

RESULTS

A total of 3921 total publications were tabulated from 2009 to 2018, with the majority of studies being level V (1700, 43%) and fewer studies being level I (146, 4%). Over the 10-year study period, there was no significant change in frequency of level I studies for any journal. HAND trended significantly toward higher LOE, JHS trended toward higher LOE, and JHSE trended toward decreased LOE without significance. Among all journals, the annual number of articles and the average LOE were independent significant predictors of IF and SJR. Statistically significant correlations were found between citation density and LOE for JHS and HAND.

CONCLUSIONS

Higher quality evidence is becoming more prevalent in the hand surgery literature over the past 10 years. Annual articles, average LOE, and level I and II and level IV articles were significant predictors of increasing IF and SJR.

Does the quality of orthodontic studies influence their Altmetric Attention Score?

Objective

The aim of this study was to determine whether an association between study quality, other study characteristics, and Altmetric Attention Scores (AASs) existed in orthodontic studies.

Methods

The Scopus database was searched to identify orthodontic studies published between January 1, 2017, and December 31, 2019. Articles that satisfied the eligibility criteria were included in this study. Study characteristics, including study quality were extracted and entered into a pre-pilot data collection sheet. Descriptive statistics were calculated. On an exploratory basis, random forest and gradient boosting machine learning algorithms were used to examine the influence of article characteristics on AAS.

Results

In total, 586 studies with an AAS were analyzed. Overall, the mean AAS of the samples was 5. Twitter was the most popular social media platform for publicizing studies, accounting for 53.7%. In terms of study quality, only 19.1% of the studies were rated as having a high level of quality, with 41.8% of the studies deemed moderate quality. The type of social media platform, number of citations, impact factor, and study type were among the most influential characteristics of AAS in both models. In contrast, study quality was one of the least influential characteristics on the AAS.

Conclusions

Social media platforms contributed the most to the AAS for orthodontic studies, whereas study quality had little impact on the AAS.

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 Impact of Senior Author Profile on Publication Level of Evidence in Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery

Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery (PRS) incorporated the level of evidence (LOE) pyramid in 2011 to highlight evidence-based medicine in plastic surgery. This study aimed to assess the relationship between the profile of senior authors publishing in PRS and the LOE of publications.

Publication Rates and Author Characteristics From 3 Plastic Surgery Journals in 2006 and 2016

BACKGROUND

Areas of surgical care in which, traditionally, plastic surgeons were exclusively involved are now routinely offered by other surgical specialists. Whether this shift in clinical responsibilities influenced publication rates of plastic surgeons remains unknown. The current article investigates the proportion of contributions in plastic surgery journals originating from authors with a plastic surgery background as well as publication rates and author demographics.

METHODS

A cross-sectional sample study of every publication originating from Annals of Plastic Surgery, Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery, and Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery was performed for 2006 and 2016. Data about the articles' methodological design and branch of plastic surgery as well as authors' country of origin, educational degree and specialty training were analyzed.

RESULTS

From 1721 publications included, head and neck reconstruction was the branch of plastic surgery with the highest number of publications at 18% and most articles (30%) were retrospective cohort studies. From 3381 authors analyzed, a significant proportion originated from United States (34%). More than 85% of authors were physicians as opposed to other health care professionals. The specialty with the highest representation was plastic surgery at 72%, but the proportion decreased in all 3 journals by a mean rate of 3.8% in 2016.

CONCLUSIONS

A slight decrease in publication rates from plastic surgeons occurred in Annals of Plastic Surgery, Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery, and Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery from 2006 to 2016. Publications rates and author characteristics in plastic surgery journals provide valuable insight on plastic surgeons' contribution to contemporary scientific literature.

The Past Informs the Present, Academic New Media Pitfalls: A Primer for Plastic Surgeons

Mass communication has undergone a “new media” revolution, which includes the rise of digital, online, and social media. The impact of new media on academic processes, however, has been underappreciated. The rise of Web-based virtual platforms has profoundly impacted the way plastic surgeons publish, store, exchange, and analyze scholarly biomedical information. This new media academic phenomenon refers to electronic mechanisms with the capacity to supplant traditional publication methods, which typically rely on printed documents in the physical domain. Although such tools can be efficient and user-friendly, they also make users vulnerable to exploitation. Notable examples reveal a relative lack of regulation, oversight, reliable rating scales, user authentication, and ethical accountability in the virtual space. As with any new technique, education is key and knowledge is power. In this article, online resources related to healthcare and the practice of plastic surgery are reviewed and summarized, including open access, mega-indices, whitelists, and electronic alerts. New media provides powerful knowledge-sharing tools that can help execute scholarly endeavors, communicate between professionals, and educate the public. However, it is essential for plastic surgeons to appreciate the caveats of new media academic processes to avoid unscrupulous practices of those that may seek to manipulate these Web-based systems. This article outlines the key pitfalls associated with online information streams to better inform plastic surgeons how to navigate new media-based scholarly processes.

The Use of Twitter by Plastic Surgery Journals

BACKGROUND

Social media have revolutionized the way we access information. Twitter is the most popular microblogging website and has become a tool for plastic surgery journals to connect with the greater academic community and public. The purpose of this study was to objectively assess the use of Twitter by plastic surgery journals.

METHODS

Twelve plastic surgery journals were searched on Twitter. The following data were collected: age of Twitter profile, number of followers and tweets posted, and whether the journal's website had a link to Twitter or another social media website. All tweets were reviewed from May to July of 2017 inclusive, and the level of evidence of each original article posted in the tweets was recorded. Impact factor and Klout score (a social media influence score) were collected for all journals.

RESULTS

Six of 12 plastic journals had a Twitter profile. The most social media-influencing journal in plastic surgery was Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery. This was followed by the Aesthetic Surgery Journal and the Journal of Hand Surgery (American and European Volumes). The presence of a Twitter profile was not associated with a higher impact factor for the journal. The Klout score was correlated with impact factor. Since joining Twitter, five of the six journals with Twitter profiles experienced increases in their impact factor.

CONCLUSION

Twitter can be a quick and easy-to-use tool to increase exposure to evidence-based information from academic journals in plastic surgery.

Conversion of Skeletal Society of Radiology annual meeting abstracts to publications in 2010-2015

Background

Material presented at conferences is meant to provide exposure to ongoing research that could affect medical decision making based on future outcomes. It is important then to evaluate the rates of publication from conference presentations as a measure of academic quality as such research has undergone peer review and journal acceptance. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the fate of abstracts presented at the Skeletal Society of Radiology Annual Meetings from 2010-2015.

Materials and Methods

Conference abstracts were searched using Google, Google Scholar, and PubMed (which includes Medline) to locate the corresponding published reports. The data recorded for published studies included date published online, in print, or both; the journal in which it was published; and the 5-year journal impact factor. When an abstract was not confirmed as published, authors were contacted by email to verify its publication status or, if not published, the reason for nonpublication.

Results

A total of 162 abstracts were published out of 320 presented (50.6%) at the SSR conferences from 2010 to 2015 with 59.9% (85/142) of publications occurring within two years of the conference date (not counting abstracts published prior to conference). Mean time to publication was 19 months and is calculated by excluding the 20 (12.3%) abstracts that were published prior to the conference date. The median time to publication is 13 months (25th-75th percentile: 6.25-21.75). The top two journals publishing research studies from this conference were Skeletal Radiology and The American Journal of Roentgenology. These journals accepted 72 of the 162 (44.4%) studies for publication. Of the 14 authors who responded with 17 reasons for not publishing, the most common reasons were lack of time (7-41.2%), results not important enough (4-23.5%), publication not an aim (3-17.6%), and lack of resources (3-17.6%).

Discussion

At least half of the abstracts presented at the annual meeting for the Society of Skeletal Radiology are accepted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal. The majority (59.9%) of these publications were achieved within two years of the conference presentation. The rate at which presentations are published and the journals that accept the abstracts can potentially be used to compare the importance and quality of information at conferences.

RELATION BETWEEN IMPACT FACTOR IN ORTHOPEDIC JOURNALS AND LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Objective:

This study aims to assess the quality of articles published in the leading orthopedic surgery journals, by measuring the relation between the impact factor and the number studies with a high level of evidence.

Methods:

A literature review was performed of articles published in four previously selected journals. A score of journal evidence (RER - Relation between Randomized clinical trials and Systematic reviews) was calculated, considering the number of RCTs and SR published and the total number of full-text articles.

Results:

The selected journals were JBJS-Am, ASMJ, BJJ-Br and Arthroscopy, with Impact factors of 5.280, 4.362, 3.309 and 3.206 respectively in 2015. In the study, the RER Scores, in the same order, were 9.408, 6.153, 7.456 and 7.779.

Conclusion:

The journal JBJS-Am is the best available source of information on orthopedic surgery from this point of view. It has the highest Impact Factor and clearly the highest RER Score. On the other hand, we could conclude that the number of published RCT and good quality SR is very low, with less than 10% of all the articles. Level of evidence III, Analyses based on limited alternatives and costs, and poor estimates.

Has the Objective Quality of Evidence in Imaging Papers Changed Over the Last 20 Years?

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

We aimed to determine if both evidence level (EL) as well as clinical efficacy (CE) of imaging manuscripts have changed over the last 20 years.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

With our review of medical literature, Institutional Review Board approval was waived, and no informed consent was required. Using Web of Science, we determined the 10 highest impact factor imaging journals. For each journal the 10 most cited and 10 average cited papers were compared for the following years: 1994, 1998, 2002, 2006, 2010, and 2014. EL was graded using the same criteria as the Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (Wright et al., 2003). CE was graded using the criteria of Thornbury and Fryback (1991). Statistical software R and package lme4 were used to fit mixed regression models with fixed effects for group, year, and a random effect for journal.

RESULTS

EL has improved -0.03 every year on average (P < .001). The more cited papers had better ELs (group effect = -0.23, SE 0.09, P = .011). CE is lower in top cited compared to average cited articles, although the differences were not statistically significant (group effect = -0.14, SE = 0.09, P = .16). CE level increased modestly in both groups over this 20-year time period (0.06 per year, SE = 0.007, P < .001).

CONCLUSION

Over the last 20 years, imaging journal articles have improved modestly in quality of evidence, as measured by EL and CE.

Institutional Collaboration in Plastic Surgery Research: A Solution to Resource Limitations

Background:

The current climate of health care reform and research funding restrictions presents new challenges for academic plastic surgery. Collaboration with private enterprise has been associated with greater research productivity in the general biomedical literature. This study seeks to analyze publication trends in Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery (PRS) to evaluate any changes in institutional collaboration over time.

Methods:

Bibliographic data were retrospectively analyzed for all original research and discussion articles published in PRS from 2012 to 2016. The institutional affiliation for each publication was characterized from its author list as solely academic, private, government, or combinations of these (defined here as “institutional collaborations”). Annual National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding data were also collected over the same period, and associations were analyzed by linear regression.

Results:

In total, 2,595 publications were retrieved from PRS between 2012 and 2016, of which 2,027 (78.1%) originated solely from academic institutions and 411 (15.8%) from institutional collaborations. Although the proportion of academic-only publications decreased from 82% to 74%, the proportion of institutional collaborations increased from 10% to 20% (P = 0.038). Concurrently, NIH funding declined from $33.4 billion to a low of $30.7 billion, which was associated with the decreasing proportion of academic-only publications (P = 0.025) and increasing proportion of institutional collaborations (P = 0.0053).

Conclusions:

Traditional sources of academic research funding have been restricted during the politically and financially tumultuous recent years. With no signs of improving access to financial resources from the NIH, academic plastic surgeons may consider diversifying their institutional partnerships to continue pioneering advances in the field.

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

BACKGROUND

Journal ranking based on the impact factor (IF) can be distorted by self-citation. The aim of this study is to investigate the present status of self-citation in the plastic surgery journals and its effect on the journals' IFs.

METHODS

IF, IF without self-citations (corrected IF), self-cited rate, and self-citing rate for 11 plastic surgery journals were investigated from 2009-2015, by reviewing the Journal Citation Report^®. The correlations of the IF with the self-cited rate and the self-citing rate were statistically assessed. In addition, Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery was compared with 15 top journals from other surgical specialties in 2015.

RESULTS

IF was significantly correlated with the self-cited rate (R: 0.594, p = 0.001) and the self-citing rate (R: 0.824, p < 0.001). The self-cited rate of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery in 2015 was higher than that of top journals from other surgical specialties. The IFs of Microsurgery and Journal of Cranio-Maxillo-Facial Surgery increased greatly in recent years, but they were inflated by high self-cited and self-citing rates.

CONCLUSIONS

The self-citation rate positively affects the IF in plastic surgery journals. A high concentration of self-citation of some journals could distort the ranking among plastic surgery journals in general.

Citation Rate Predictors in the Plastic Surgery Literature

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study is to determine and characterize the scientific and nonscientific factors that influence the rate of article citation in the field of plastic surgery.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional study.

SETTING

We reviewed all entries in Annals of Plastic Surgery and Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive, and Aesthetic Surgery from January 1, 2007 to December 31, 2007; and Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery from January 1, 2007 to December 31, 2008. All scientific articles were analyzed and several article characteristics were extracted. The number of citations at 5 years was collected as the outcome variable. A multivariable analysis was performed to determine which variables were associated with higher citations rates.

RESULTS

A total of 2456 articles were identified of which only 908 fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Most studies were publications in the fields of reconstructive (26.3%) or pediatric/craniofacial (17.6%) surgery. The median number of citations 5 years from publication was 8. In the multivariable analysis, factors associated with higher citations rates were subspecialty field (p = 0.0003), disclosed conflict of interest (p = 0.04), number of authors (p = 0.04), and journal (p = 0.02).

CONCLUSION

We have found that higher level of evidence (or other study methodology factors) is not associated with higher citation rates. Instead, conflict of interest, subspecialty topic, journal, and number of authors are strong predictors of high citation rates in plastic surgery.

Fat grafting: a citation analysis of the seminal articles

Background:

There has been substantial rise in the volume of published works on fat transfer in the medical literature in the past 25 years, and this is indicative of its growing popularity. However, many unanswered questions remain, and there is no consensus as to the optimum technique. Consequently, the scientific and clinical research on fat grafting continues to increase rapidly. The purpose of our study was to perform a bibliometric analysis of the most-cited articles in fat transfer.

Methods:

Through the Web of Science, all articles relating to fat grafting were identified in the plastic and reconstructive literature. The 100 most-cited articles were identified and analyzed individually.

Results:

Total citations ranged from 35 to 363 and the most-cited paper by Sidney Coleman was published in Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery. The United States produced 46% of the most-cited papers, and the University of California was the most prolific institution. Twenty-one articles focused on lipofilling to the face while 14 articles looked at fat grafting to the breast.

Conclusions:

The scientific relevance of a published work is reflected in the number of citations from peers that it receives. Therefore, the 100 most-cited papers in fat grafting have been the most influential articles on this field, and they are likely to be the ones that are remembered most.