Effects of print publication lag in dual format journals on scientometric indicators

The Top 100 Most Cited Manuscripts in Retinopathy of Prematurity: A Bibliometric Analysis

PURPOSE

To systematically summarize the research trends and emphases of ROP in the past decades by analyzing the characteristics of the top 100 cited ROP articles.

METHODS

The 100 most cited articles on ROP published from January 1, 1950 to December 31, 2021 were searched by Web of Science. Information such as year of publication, number of citations, journal and impact factor, type of research and topic, country of origin, institution and authorship of each article was extracted to analyze its characteristics.

RESULTS

A total of 15,928 articles were returned. These articles were published in 43 journals between 1952 and 2018, originating from 14 countries. The most widely published journal was Pediatrics (n = 19, IF = 8.109), followed by Archives of Ophthalmology (n = 15, IF = 4.399). The most cited paper (Gole et al. Archives of Ophthalmology 2005 Jul, 1614 citations) reported on the international classification of ROP. The most prevalent topic was the pathophysiology of ROP (n = 39), followed by the treatment of ROP (n = 32). Most were original research (n = 72), mainly based on research design of basic science. The most published articles were published in the United States (n = 61), and the institutions were Oregon Health & Science University, Dept Ophthalmol (n = 7).

CONCLUSIONS

These 100 most frequently cited papers reflect the significant progress and several hot topics of ROP in recent decades, and this paper will help us further understand the knowledge and progress of ROP diagnosis and treatment.

Influencia de la fecha de publicación online de los artículos científicos en los indicadores bibliométricos

Este artículo analiza la distancia temporal entre la disponibilidad online de los artículos y su publicación en papel y cómo este lapso de tiempo afecta a los indicadores bibliométricos Factor de Impacto (JIF) e Índice de Inmediatez. Esta investigación examinó 18.526 artículos, la colección completa de artículos y revisiones publicadas por un conjunto de 61 revistas de Urología y Nefrología en 2013 y 2014. Los resultados hallados sugieren que la Publicación Electrónica Anticipada (AOP) acelera la citación de artículos, afectando a los valores de JIF e Índice de Inmediatez. Respecto a los valores de JIF, la comparación entre revistas con AOP y sin esta característica mostró diferencias estadísticamente significativas (P=0,001, U test Mann-Whitney). La correlación de Spearman entre JIF y la mediana del intervalo de tiempo publicación online-papel no resultó ser estadísticamente significativa. En cuanto al Índice de Inmediatez, se halló una correlación de Spearman significativa respecto a la mediana del intervalo de publicación online-papel (rs=0,280, P=0,029) para las revistas publicadas en 2014, pero sin correlación significativa para las publicadas en 2013. La mayoría de las revistas examinadas (n= 52 de 61) publicaron sus artículos en AOP. El análisis mostró también diferentes prácticas de los editores, ocho revistas no indicaron en el texto completo las fechas de publicación online, y nueve revistas publicaron los mismos artículos con dos fechas diferentes de publicación online, la fecha proporcionada por la web de la revista y la fecha suministrada por Science Direct de Elsevier. Estas prácticas sugieren la necesidad de transparencia y estandarización de las fechas de publicación online de artículos científicos para el cálculo de los indicadores bibliométricos de las revistas.

Redundant systematic reviews on the same topic in surgery: a study protocol for a meta-epidemiological investigation

INTRODUCTION

We are witnessing an explosive increase in redundant and overlapping publications of systematic reviews and meta-analyses (SRs/MAs) on the same topic, which often present conflicting results and interpretations, in the current medical literature. They represent wasted efforts on the part of investigators and peer reviewers and may confuse and possibly mislead clinicians and policymakers. Here, we present a protocol for a meta-epidemiological investigation to describe how often there are overlapping SRs/MAs on the same topic, to assess the quality of these multiple publications, and to investigate the causes of discrepant results between multiple SRs/MAs in the field of major surgery.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We will use MEDLINE/PubMed to identify all SRs/MAs of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published in 2015 regarding major surgical interventions. After identifying the 'benchmark' SRs/MAs published in 2015, a process of screening in MEDLINE will be carried out to identify the previous SRs/MAs of RCTs on the same topic that were published within 5 years of the 'benchmark' SRs/MAs. We will tabulate the number of previous SRs/MAs on the same topic of RCTs, and then describe their variations in numbers of RCTs included, sample sizes, effect size estimates and other characteristics. We will also assess the differences in quality of each SR/MA using A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) score. Finally, we will investigate the potential reasons to explain the discrepant results between multiple SRs/MAs.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

No formal ethical approval and informed consent are required because this study will not collect primary individual data. The intended audiences of the findings include clinicians, healthcare researchers and policymakers. We will publish our findings as a scientific report in a peer-reviewed journal.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

In PROSPERO CRD42017059077, March 2017.

Publication lag and early view effects in information science journals

Purpose

A major problem in today’s scholarly publishing process is the long tails for the assignment of volume and issue numbers for approved articles. The purpose of this paper is to investigate the extent to which information science journals offer early view features and the effects of these features.

Design/methodology/approach

The study addresses three basic questions: Do the articles approved for publication in information science journals appear in the online platforms of these journals before the assignment of volume and issue numbers? How long do the articles wait in the online platforms before they get the volume and issue numbers? Is there a statistically significant relationship between the online accessing numbers of the articles before they are published and bibliometric indicators?

Findings

More than half of the information science journals complete the editorial process in reasonable durations and share new articles with their readers before publishing them. In some journals, there are articles that wait for more than a year to be assigned volume and issue numbers after the completion of the editorial process. There are statistically significant differences, in terms of both their impact factor and immediacy index values, between the journals that offer early view features and those that do not. Both the impact factor and the immediacy index values of the journals that provide early view are higher than the others.

Practical implications

Adopting the early view policy may significantly help increase the impact factor and immediacy index values of the journals, as well as the visibility of their contents

Originality/value

The answers to this study’s research questions offer a new perspective to overcome the challenges in the processes through which scientific products meet with their users.

Research on the Submission, Acceptance and Publication Times of Articles Submitted to International Otorhinolaryngology Journals

Objective:

The aim of this study was to provide insight into the acceptance and publication times of articles submitted to international otolaryngology journals.

Material and Methods:

The study was carried out by examining the top 37 journal titles returned in an online search for otolaryngology journals published from 1999 to 2013 that have an international status based on their impact factor.

Results:

In total, 9,765 publications were examined. When journals were compared based on journal impact factor, statistically significant differences (p<0.01) were found. Comparisons of the acceptance and publication times for both original research and case reports revealed that these times have become shorter over the years.

Discussion:

Journals with higher impact factors likely have larger workloads in terms of articles, and consequently, their acceptance and publication times might be longer. An implication from this study finding that these periods have decreased over the years is that these processes can be expedited by more intensive use of the Internet and increases in journal capacity and number of issues published.

Conclusion:

The expedition of these processes over time might result from journals’ ability to use technology more intensively or from increases in journal’s capacity and number of issues published.

I Like, I Cite? Do Facebook Likes Predict the Impact of Scientific Work?

Due to the increasing amount of scientific work and the typical delays in publication, promptly assessing the impact of scholarly work is a huge challenge. To meet this challenge, one solution may be to create and discover innovative indicators. The goal of this paper is to investigate whether Facebook likes for unpublished manuscripts that are uploaded to the Internet could be used as an early indicator of the future impact of the scientific work. To address our research question, we compared Facebook likes for manuscripts uploaded to the Harvard Business School website (Study 1) and the bioRxiv website (Study 2) with traditional impact indicators (journal article citations, Impact Factor, Immediacy Index) for those manuscripts that have been published as a journal article. Although based on our full sample of Study 1 (N = 170), Facebook likes do not predict traditional impact indicators, for manuscripts with one or more Facebook likes (n = 95), our results indicate that the more Facebook likes a manuscript receives, the more journal article citations the manuscript receives. In additional analyses (for which we categorized the manuscripts as psychological and non-psychological manuscripts), we found that the significant prediction of citations stems from the psychological and not the non-psychological manuscripts. In Study 2, we observed that Facebook likes (N = 270) and non-zero Facebook likes (n = 84) do not predict traditional impact indicators. Taken together, our findings indicate an interdisciplinary difference in the predictive value of Facebook likes, according to which Facebook likes only predict citations in the psychological area but not in the non-psychological area of business or in the field of life sciences. Our paper contributes to understanding the possibilities and limits of the use of social media indicators as potential early indicators of the impact of scientific work.

Online-to-print Lags and Baseline Number of Citations in 5 Science Citation Index Journals Related to Liver Diseases (2013-2014)

OBJECTIVES

To analyze the length of online-to-print lags in 5 science citation index (SCI) journals related to liver diseases and their effect on the number of citations at the date of print publication.

DESIGNS

All original papers that were published between April 2013 and April 2014 in 5 SCI journals of liver diseases were systematically collected. The length of the online-to-print lag was defined as the difference between the date of print publication and the date of online publication. The number of citations for an article was obtained on its print publication date (baseline number of citations) and every month thereafter. According to the 2012 journal impact factor (JIF), the journals were divided into high-JIF (JIF ≥5) and low-JIF (JIF <5).

RESULTS

During the collection period, a total of 1039 original articles were published in the 5 journals. The low-JIF journals had significantly longer online-to-print lags than the high-JIF journals (6.23 ± 2.9 months versus 4.3 ± 1.5 months, P < 0.001). The low-JIF journals had a significantly larger proportion of original articles with a baseline number of citations ≥1 than the high-JIF journals (41.9% versus 32.3%, P = 0.002). A longer online-to-print lag was positively associated with a baseline number of citations ≥1 in all 5 journals.

CONCLUSIONS

Online-to-print lags are frequently observed in 5 SCI journals related to liver diseases. In contrast to the hypothesis that JIF was positively associated with the length of online-to-print lags, our study demonstrated that the low-JIF journals had significantly longer online-to-print lags than the high-JIF journals.