Global Trends in Research Related to Emergence Agitation From 1978 to 2023: A Bibliometric Analysis

PURPOSE

Emergence agitation (EA) is a postoperative behavioral disorder characterized by a lack of connection between consciousness and behavior. Despite its clinical importance and prevalence in the postoperative setting, the research focus and knowledge structure remain to be systematically mapped. Therefore, we conducted a bibliometric analysis from 1978 to 2023 to address this gap. This study aims to excavate research hotspots, map knowledge structure, uncover emerging trends, and provide invaluable insights for guiding future research endeavors.

DESIGN

A bibliometric analysis of emergency agitation.

METHODS

We conducted a literature search in the Web of Science Core Collection for articles on EA published between 1978 and 2023. We collected data on countries, institutions, journals, authors, citations, and keywords. Subsequently, we comprehensively analyzed the gathered knowledge units using three tools, including VOSviewer, HistCite Pro, and ArcGIS Pro.

FINDINGS

From 1978 to 2023, we retrieved 948 pieces of literature on EA, with the number of publications increasing yearly. China ranked first in the number of publications (n = 253, 26.69%). The United States was the most cited and influential country, closely collaborating with other countries (5,661 citations, H-index 57, citations per publication 37.99, total link strength [TLS] 24). Yonsei University was the most productive and influential institution (n = 18, 1.9%, 427 citations, H-index 12, citations per publication 23.72). Shanghai Jiao Tong University had close collaborative relationships with other universities (TLS 7). The journal with the most publications and influence was Pediatric Anaesthesia (n = 46, 4.92%, H-index 32). Anaesthesia and Analgesia was the most cited journal (2,849 citations). M.T. Aouad was the most influential and productive author devoted to studying EA (n = 6, 0.63%, 173 citations, TLS 3,002). The most influential reference was "Greater incidence of delirium during recovery from sevoflurane anaesthesia in preschool boys" (author J. Aono, No. 19, IF = 8.8, Q1, local citation score 147). Hot research directions in EA include EA and emergence delirium, propofol and EA, risk factors of EA, EA in pediatric anaesthesia, dexmedetomidine, and EA induced by sevoflurane. Esketamine, nalbuphine, sugammadex, and dezocine are drugs that have received increased attention in recent years.

CONCLUSIONS

The study mapped the knowledge structure of EA and identified six prominent research directions, four drugs of significant research interest, and emerging thematic trends. These findings offer insights into the current state of research on EA, providing a comprehensive view of the field's landscape.

Citation counts and journal impact factors do not capture some indicators of research quality in the behavioural and brain sciences

Citation data and journal impact factors are important components of faculty dossiers and figure prominently in both promotion decisions and assessments of a researcher's broader societal impact. Although these metrics play a large role in high-stakes decisions, the evidence is mixed about whether they are strongly correlated with indicators of research quality. We use data from a large-scale dataset comprising 45 144 journal articles with 667 208 statistical tests and data from 190 replication attempts to assess whether citation counts and impact factors predict three indicators of research quality: (i) the accuracy of statistical reporting, (ii) the evidential value of the reported data and (iii) the replicability of a given experimental result. Both citation counts and impact factors were weak and inconsistent predictors of research quality, so defined, and sometimes negatively related to quality. Our findings raise the possibility that citation data and impact factors may be of limited utility in evaluating scientists and their research. We discuss the implications of these findings in light of current incentive structures and discuss alternative approaches to evaluating research.

The "'Crisis' Crisis" in psychology

The recent trend to label dilemmas in psychology as "crises" is insidious. The "'Crisis' Crisis" in psychology can distract us from actionable practices. As a case in point, "The Generalizability Crisis" offers the valuable central thesis that verbal-quantitative gaps imperil psychological science. Focusing on the key issues rather than crisis narratives can lead to progress in our discourse and research.

Merit and placement in the American faculty hierarchy: Cumulative advantage in archaeology

If faculty placement in the American academic hierarchy is by merit, then it correlates with scholarly productivity at all career stages. Recently developed data-collection methods and bibliometric measures test this proposition in a cross-sectional sample of US academic archaeologists. Precocity-productivity near the point of initial hire-fails to distinguish faculty in MA- and PhD-granting programs or among ranked subsets of PhD programs. Over longer careers, on average archaeologists in PhD-granting programs outperform colleagues in lower programs, as do those in higher-ranked compared to lower-ranked PhD programs, all in the practical absence of mobility via recruitment to higher placement. Yet differences by program level lie mostly in the tails of productivity distributions; overlap between program levels is high, and many in lower-degree programs outperform many PhD-program faculty even when controlling for career length. Results implicate cumulative advantage to explain the pattern and suggest particularism as its cause.

Will Analytics Suppress a Diversity of Ideas in Psychological Science?

In this article, I suggest that an overreliance on analytics to assess faculty productivity and the diffusion of ideas may inadvertently suppress innovation. Even when these productivity-diffusion metrics are used to promote an individual's work, the use of such external guideposts may bias scientific choices and curb a psychological scientist's earnest inclination to synthesize or take scientific risks. Analytics are not inert but can change the path and progress of science itself, potentially reducing the diversity of ideas in psychological science. This potential harm may most affect new scholars at the beginning of their independent research careers.

Scholarly Merits: From Measurement to Judgment

The discussion in Perspectives on Psychological Science about criteria for scholarly merit shows a potential bias of quantitative measurements compared with informed judgments of scholarly merits. This comment argues for a selection procedure that is open for qualitative arguments.

Afterword: In the Matter of Judging Scientific Merit

In this afterword, I suggest expanding upon some of the criteria for judging scientific merit that have been discussed in the two symposia on "judging scholarly merit in psychological science." I discuss in particular the value of creativity, analysis, common sense, and wisdom and ethics in scientific contributions and discourse. In the course of this discussion, I consider where the field of judging scientific merit has been, where it is now, and where it may go.

Family Matters: Measuring Impact Through One's Academic Descendants

Scientific contributions take many forms, not all of which result in fame or are captured in traditional metrics of success (e.g., h factor). My focus is on one of the most lasting and important contributions a scientist can make: training scientists who go on to train scientists, who in turn train more scientists, etc. Academic genealogies provide many examples of scientists whose names might not be recognizable today but who trained psychologists that went on to publish very influential work. Of course success results from a combination of many factors (including but not limited to the student's abilities and motivation, luck, institutional resources, mentoring, etc.), but the field should find more ways to acknowledge the role that mentoring does play.

Putting Culture in the Middle in Judging Scholarly Merit

I discuss the critical importance of putting culture in the middle in judging scholarly merit in psychological science. I describe the challenges in evaluating cultural research, pointing out the various ways that ethnocentric judgments undermine the scientific merit of cultural research and the consequences of the marginalization of culture in psychological science and practice. In spite of the obstacles, cultural psychologists have made major scientific contributions and achieved scientific eminence. I further suggest that we raise the bar by including a broad, cultural approach to research as one basis for judging scientific contributions. I propose that to put culture in the middle, the evaluation of scholarly merit in psychological science should (a) consider the integration of cultural perspectives in research as a critical indicator, (b) take into consideration the international visibility of scholarship,

Varieties of Fame in Psychology

Fame in psychology, as in all arenas, is a local phenomenon. Psychologists (and probably academics in all fields) often first become well known for studying a subfield of an area (say, the study of attention in cognitive psychology, or even certain tasks used to study attention). Later, the researcher may become famous within cognitive psychology. In a few cases, researchers break out of a discipline to become famous across psychology and (more rarely still) even outside the confines of academe. The progression is slow and uneven. Fame is also temporally constricted. The most famous psychologists today will be forgotten in less than a century, just as the greats from the era of World War I are rarely read or remembered today. Freud and a few others represent exceptions to the rule, but generally fame is fleeting and each generation seems to dispense with the lessons learned by previous ones to claim their place in the sun.

Scientific Eminence: Where Are the Women?

Women are sparsely represented among psychologists honored for scientific eminence. However, most currently eminent psychologists started their careers when far fewer women pursued training in psychological science. Now that women earn the majority of psychology Ph.D.'s, will they predominate in the next generation's cadre of eminent psychologists? Comparing currently active female and male psychology professors on publication metrics such as the h index provides clues for answering this question. Men outperform women on the h index and its two components: scientific productivity and citations of contributions. To interpret these gender gaps, we first evaluate whether publication metrics are affected by gender bias in obtaining grant support, publishing papers, or gaining citations of published papers. We also consider whether women's chances of attaining eminence are compromised by two intertwined sets of influences: (a) gender bias stemming from social norms pertaining to gender and to science and (b) the choices that individual psychologists make in pursuing their careers.

Giving Credit Where Credit's Due: Why It's So Hard to Do in Psychological Science

More than a century of scientific research has shed considerable light on how a scientist's contributions to psychological science might be best assessed and duly recognized. This brief overview of that empirical evidence concentrates on recognition for lifetime career achievements in psychological science. After discussing both productivity and citation indicators, the treatment turns to critical precautions in the application of these indicators to psychologists. These issues concern both predictive validity and interjudge reliability. In the former case, not only are the predictive validities for standard indicators relatively small, but the indicators can exhibit important non-merit-based biases that undermine validity. In the latter case, peer consensus in the evaluation of scientific contributions is appreciably lower in psychology than in the natural sciences, a fact that has consequences for citation measures as well. Psychologists must therefore exercise considerable care in judging achievements in psychological science-both their own and those of others.

Eminence and Omniscience: Statistical and Clinical Prediction of Merit

In this article, I review, comment upon, and assess some of the suggestions for evaluating scientific merit as suggested by contributors to this symposium. I ask the reader to take the perspective of the individual who has the final say in making a tenure, promotion, or hiring decision. I also ask that one imagine the difference between the fallible human state we are in on such an occasion and what it would be like to be omniscient when making such decisions. After adopting the terminology of "deep" and "surface" eminence, I consider what an omniscient being would take into account to determine eminence and to guide decision-making. After discussing how some proposed improvements in assessing merit might move us closer to wise decisions, I conclude by noting that both data and judgment are, and will continue to be, necessary. A clerk cannot determine eminence.