Disruption of trauma research: an analysis of the top cited versus disruptive trauma research publications

Introduction

The analysis of surgical research using bibliometric measures has become increasingly prevalent. Absolute citation counts (CC) or indices are commonly used markers of research quality but may not adequately capture the most impactful research. A novel scoring system, the disruptive score (DS) has been found to identity academic work that either changes paradigms (disruptive (DIS) work) or entrenches ideas (developmental (DEV) work). We sought to analyze the most DIS and DEV versus most cited research in civilian trauma.

Methods

The top papers by DS and by CC from trauma and surgery journals were identified via a professional literature search. The identified publications were then linked to the National Institutes of Health iCite tool to quantify total CC and related metrics. The top 100 DIS and DEV publications by DS were analyzed based on the area of focus, citation, and perceived clinical impact, and compared with the top 100 papers by CC.

Results

32 293 articles published between 1954 and 2014 were identified. The most common publication location of selected articles was published in Journal of Trauma (31%). Retrospective reviews (73%) were common in DIS (73%) and top CC (67%) papers, while DEV papers were frequently case reports (49%). Only 1 publication was identified in the top 100 DIS and top 100 CC lists. There was no significant correlation between CC and DS among the top 100 DIS papers (r=0.02; p=0.85), and only a weak correlation between CC and DS score (r=0.21; p<0.05) among the top 100 DEV papers.

Conclusion

The disruption score identifies a unique subset of trauma academia. The most DIS trauma literature is highly distinct and has little overlap with top trauma publications identified by standard CC metrics, with no significant correlation between the CC and DS.

Level of evidence

Level IV.

Quantifying knowledge from the perspective of information structurization

Scientific literature, as the major medium that carries knowledge between scientists, exhibits explosive growth in the last century. Despite the frequent use of many tangible measures, to quantify the influence of literature from different perspectives, it remains unclear how knowledge is embodied and measured among tremendous scientific productivity, as knowledge underlying scientific literature is abstract and difficult to concretize. In this regard, there has laid a vacancy in the theoretical embodiment of knowledge for their evaluation and excavation. Here, for the first time, we quantify the knowledge from the perspective of information structurization and define a new measure of knowledge quantification index (KQI) that leverages the extent of disorder difference caused by hierarchical structure in the citation network to represent knowledge production in the literature. Built upon 214 million articles, published from 1800 to 2021, KQI is demonstrated for mining influential classics and laureates that are omitted by traditional metrics, thanks to in-depth utilization of structure. Due to the additivity of entropy and the interconnectivity of the network, KQI assembles numerous scientific impact metrics into one and gains interpretability and resistance to manipulation. In addition, KQI explores a new perspective regarding knowledge measurement through entropy and structure, utilizing structure rather than semantics to avoid ambiguity and attain applicability.

Trends of research productivity across author gender and research fields: A multidisciplinary and multi-country observational study

Bibliographic properties of more than 75 million scholarly articles, are examined and trends in overall research productivity are analysed as a function of research field (over the period of 1970-2020) and author gender (over the period of 2006-2020). Potential disruptive effects of the Covid-19 pandemic are also investigated. Over the last decade (2010-2020), the annual number of publications have invariably increased every year with the largest relative increase in a single year happening in 2019 (more than 6% relative growth). But this momentum was interrupted in 2020. Trends show that Environmental Sciences and Engineering Environmental have been the fastest growing research fields. The disruption in patterns of scholarly publication due to the Covid-19 pandemic was unevenly distributed across fields, with Computer Science, Engineering and Social Science enduring the most notable declines. The overall trends of male and female productivity indicate that, in terms of absolute number of publications, the gender gap does not seem to be closing in any country. The trends in absolute gap between male and female authors is either parallel (e.g., Canada, Australia, England, USA) or widening (e.g., majority of countries, particularly Middle Eastern countries). In terms of the ratio of female to male productivity, however, the gap is narrowing almost invariably, though at markedly different rates across countries. While some countries are nearing a ratio of .7 and are well on track for a 0.9 female to male productivity ratio, our estimates show that certain countries (particularly across the Middle East) will not reach such targets within the next 100 years. Without interventional policies, a significant gap will continue to exist in such countries. The decrease or increase in research productivity during the first year of the pandemic, in contrast to trends established before 2020, was generally parallel for male and female authors. There has been no substantial gender difference in the disruption due to the pandemic. However, opposite trends were found in a few cases. It was observed that, in some countries (e.g., The Netherlands, The United States and Germany), male productivity has been more negatively affected by the pandemic. Overall, female research productivity seems to have been more resilient to the disruptive effect of Covid-19 pandemic, although the momentum of female researchers has been negatively affected in a comparable manner to that of males.

A New Bibliometric Index: The Top 100 Most Disruptive and Developmental Publications in Colorectal Surgery Journals

BACKGROUND

A new bibliometric index called the disruption score was recently proposed to identify innovative and paradigm-changing publications.

OBJECTIVE

The goal was to apply the disruption score to the colorectal surgery literature to provide the community with a repository of important research articles.

DESIGN

This study is a bibliometric analysis.

SETTINGS

The 100 most disruptive and developmental publications in Diseases of the Colon & Rectum, Colorectal Disease, International Journal of Colorectal Disease, and Techniques in Coloproctology were identified from a validated data set of disruption scores and linked with the iCite National Institutes of Health tool to obtain citation counts.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcomes measured were the disruption score and citation count.

RESULTS

We identified 12,127 articles published in Diseases of the Colon & Rectum (n = 8109), International Journal of Colorectal Disease (n = 1912), Colorectal Disease (n = 1751), and Techniques in Coloproctology (n = 355) between 1954 and 2014. Diseases of the Colon & Rectum had the most articles in the top 100 most disruptive and developmental lists. The disruptive articles were in the top 1% of the disruption score distribution in PubMed and were cited between 1 and 671 times. Being highly cited was weakly correlated with high disruption scores (r = 0.09). Developmental articles had disruption scores that were more strongly correlated with citation count (r = 0.18).

LIMITATIONS

This study is subject to the limitations of bibliometric indices, which change over time.

DISCUSSION

The disruption score identified insightful and paradigm-changing studies in colorectal surgery. These studies include a wide range of topics and consistently identified editorials and case reports/case series as important research. This bibliometric analysis provides colorectal surgeons with a unique archive of research that can often be overlooked but that may have scholarly significance. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B639.UN NUEVO INDICE BIBLIOMÉTRICO: LAS 100 MAS IMPORTANTES PUBLICACIONES EN INNOVACIONES DESESTABILIZADORAS Y DE DESARROLLO EN LAS REVISTAS DE CIRUGÍA COLORRECTALANTECEDENTES:Un nuevo índice bibliométrico llamado innovación desestabilizadora y de desarrollo ha sido propuesto para identificar publicaciones de vanguardia y que pueden romper paradigmas.OBJETIVO:La meta fué aplicar el índice de desestabilización a la literature en cirugía colorectal para aportar a la comunidad con un acervo importante de artículos de investigación.DISEÑO:Un análisis bibliométrico.PARAMETROS:Las 100 publicaciones mas desestabilizadores y de desarrollo en las revistas: Diseases of the Colon and Rectum, Colorectal Disease, International Journal of Colorectal Disease, y Techniques in Coloproctology se recuperaron de una base de datos validada con puntuaciones de desestabilización y se ligaron con la herramienta iCite NIH para obtener la cuantificación de citas.PRINCIPAL MEDIDA DE RESULTADO:El índice desestabilizador y la cuantificación de citas.RESULTADOS:Se identificaron 12,127 articulos publicados en Diseases of the Colon and Rectum (n = 8,109), International Journal of Colorectal Disease (n = 1,912), Colorectal Disease (n = 1,751), y Techniques in Coloproctology (n = 355) de 1954-2014. Diseases of the Colon and Rectum representó la mayoría de las publicaciones dentro de la lista de los 100 mas desestabilizadores y de desarrollo. Esta literatura desestabilizadora se encuentra en el principal 1% de la distribución de la puntuacón desestabilizadora en PubMed y se citaron de 1 a 671 veces. El ser citado con frecuencia se relacionó vagamente con las puntuaciones de desastibilización (r = 0.09). Los artículos de desarrollo tuvieron puntuaciones de desestabilización que estuvieron muy correlacionados con la cuantificación de las citas (r = 0.18).LIMITACIONES:Las sujetas a las limitaciones de los índices bibliométricos, que se modifican en el tiempo.DISCUSION:La putuación de desestabilicación identificó trabajos perspicaces, pragmáticos y modificadores de paradigmas en cirugía colorrectal. Es de interés identificar que se incluyeron una gran variedad de temas y en forma consistente editoriales, reportes de casos y series de casos que representaron una investigación importante. Este análisis bibliométrico aporta a los cirujanos colorrectales de un acervo de investigación único que puede con frecuencia pasarse por alto, y sin embargo tener una gran importancia académica. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B639. (Traducción- Dr. Miguel Esquivel-Herrera).

A paradoxical knowledge gap in science for critically endangered fishes and game fishes during the sixth mass extinction

Despite unprecedented scientific productivity, Earth is undergoing a sixth mass extinction. The disconnect between scientific output and species conservation may be related to scientists studying the wrong species. Given fishes have a high extinction rate, we assessed the paradox between scientific productivity and science needed for conservation by comparing scientific output created for critically endangered fishes and game fishes. We searched 197,866 articles (1964-2018) in 112 journals for articles on 460 critically endangered fishes, 297 game fishes, and 35 fishes classified as critically endangered and game fish-our analysis included freshwater and marine species. Only 3% of the articles in the final database were on critically endangered fishes; 82% of critically endangered fishes had zero articles. The difference between the number of articles on game fishes and critically endangered fishes increased temporally with more articles on game fishes during the extinction crisis. Countries with 10 or more critically endangered fishes averaged only 17 articles from 1964 to 2018. Countries with the most critically endangered fishes are most in need of science. More scientific knowledge is needed on critically endangered fishes to meet the challenges of conserving fishes during the sixth mass extinction.

Pareidolic and Uncomplex Technological Singularity

“Technological Singularity” (TS), “Accelerated Change” (AC), and Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) are frequent future/foresight studies’ themes. Rejecting the reductionist perspective on the evolution of science and technology, and based on patternicity (“the tendency to find patterns in meaningless noise”), a discussion about the perverse power of apophenia (“the tendency to perceive a connection or meaningful pattern between unrelated or random things (such as objects or ideas)”) and pereidolia (“the tendency to perceive a specific, often meaningful image in a random or ambiguous visual pattern”) in those studies is the starting point for two claims: the “accelerated change” is a future-related apophenia case, whereas AGI (and TS) are future-related pareidolia cases. A short presentation of research-focused social networks working to solve complex problems reveals the superiority of human networked minds over the hardware‒software systems and suggests the opportunity for a network-based study of TS (and AGI) from a complexity perspective. It could compensate for the weaknesses of approaches deployed from a linear and predictable perspective, in order to try to redesign our intelligent artifacts.

Life Science's Average Publishable Unit (APU) Has Increased over the Past Two Decades

Quantitative analysis of the scientific literature is important for evaluating the evolution and state of science. To study how the density of biological literature has changed over the past two decades we visually inspected 1464 research articles related only to the biological sciences from ten scholarly journals (with average Impact Factors, IF, ranging from 3.8 to 32.1). By scoring the number of data items (tables and figures), density of composite figures (labeled panels per figure or PPF), as well as the number of authors, pages and references per research publication we calculated an Average Publishable Unit or APU for 1993, 2003, and 2013. The data show an overall increase in the average ± SD number of data items from 1993 to 2013 of approximately 7±3 to 14±11 and PPF ratio of 2±1 to 4±2 per article, suggesting that the APU has doubled in size over the past two decades. As expected, the increase in data items per article is mainly in the form of supplemental material, constituting 0 to 80% of the data items per publication in 2013, depending on the journal. The changes in the average number of pages (approx. 8±3 to 10±3), references (approx. 44±18 to 56±24) and authors (approx. 5±3 to 8±9) per article are also presented and discussed. The average number of data items, figure density and authors per publication are correlated with the journal's average IF. The increasing APU size over time is important when considering the value of research articles for life scientists and publishers, as well as, the implications of these increasing trends in the mechanisms and economics of scientific communication.