Comparison of citation rates between Covid-19 and non-Covid-19 articles across 24 major scientific journals

Bibliometric Study of the Advances Made in Clinical Dermatological Research in Spain from 2015 through 2021: Update of the MaIND Project and Interactive Online Map

INTRODUCTION

A clinical dermatological research was conducted in Spain from 2005 through 2014 as part of the MaIND project with the provinces or centers with the highest number of published articles. However, a low level of evidence in scientific production was confirmed as the overall result. The aim of this study is to update the Spanish clinical dermatological research in bibliometric terms from 2015 through 2021 with comparisons between both periods of time.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We conducted a bibliometric study to replicate the methodology used in the article to be updated. We included articles whose corresponding authors' affiliation was a Spanish dermatological center, which met the criteria for clinical research in dermatology, including a level of evidence ≤4.

RESULTS

A total of 1,674 out of the 10,199 articles met the inclusion criteria. An interactive map representing quantitative and qualitative indicators calculated for the 2005-2021 is presented here. In the study period, we found an increasing trend both in the number of published articles (P<.002) and in the mean number of citation-years per article (P<.01). A total of 22 of the articles had a level of evidence >4, with a positive trend towards more articles having a higher level of evidence (P<.03). ACTAS DERMOSIFILOGRÁFICAS still maintains its position as the journal with the highest number of articles received (18%, a total of 302 articles).

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study show that, in Spain, the scientific production of dermatology represents an upward trend in quantity, impact, and level of evidence.

Academic publication activities and perspectives of rheumatology practitioners in the COVID-19 pandemic

Objectives

This study aimed to analyze the research, publication activities, and perspectives on clinical practices of rheumatology practitioners during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic.

Materials and methods

The survey-based cross-sectional study was designed online and included 24 closed-ended questions. After performing a pilot test and validation of survey, it was conducted among clinicians between September 2021 and December 2021.

Results

One-hundred fifteen clinicians (54 males, 61 females; 78.1% in rheumatology practice for at least five years) responded to the survey. The respondents indicated that they worked in coronavirus-related departments, comprising inpatient service (50.4%), consultancy (42.6%), and outpatient clinic (27.8%). Around 40% of clinicians stated they spent less time on scientific research (43.1%) and clinical learning activities (43.2%), while almost the same proportion of them spent more (41.1% and 45.0%, respectively). This study revealed that 53.5% published at least one paper covering mostly COVID-19 in the scientific citation index (SCI) or SCI-expanded (SCI-E) indexed journals. However, nearly half of them did not have any papers published in the SCI/SCI-E (46.5%) or non-SCI/SCI-E indexed (44.6%) journals. Regarding the perspectives of clinicians about clinical practices, they considered fewer biological (57.0%) and nonbiological (55.0%) drug usage, reported fewer outpatient clinic visits (88.2%), more newly diagnosed rheumatic diseases (62.5%), and more disease exacerbations (31.2%). Most of the clinicians (range, 76.2 to 86.3%) thought they accurately managed their patients during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Conclusion

Clinicians published mostly coronavirus-related papers in the pandemic era, and in the self-assessment, clinicians thought that they correctly manage their patients. In addition, this study reflected the frequency of academic publications and clinicians' work routines during the pandemic.

Top 100 highly cited papers from India on COVID-19 research: A bibliometric analysis of the core literature

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

This study aimed to assess the current status of India's COVID-19 research from the top 100 most cited papers, using bibliometrics methods and indicators and suggest strengths and weaknesses.

METHODOLOGY

Publications on COVID-19 research from India between December 2019 and 22 August 2023 were retrieved from the Scopus database. From 37101 studies retrieved, the first top 100 Highly Cited Papers (HCPs) having received 270 to 2931 citations, were identified.

RESULTS

The top 100 most cited Indian papers were published from 2020 to 2023, with the majority (75) in the year 2021, followed by 24 in 2022. They were cited a total of 56661 times (average - 566.61 times). The 242 authors of these HCPs were from 159 Indian organizations, and the articles were published in 60 journals. 29 % and 59 % of these HCPs received external funding support and were involved in international collaborations, respectively. There was poor collaboration among Indian research institutions and a dearth of funding from India. None of the Indian HCPs figured in the global 100 HCPs.

CONCLUSIONS

Although citations of research papers published from India increased during COVID-19, limited collaboration, inadequate funding, and subpar publications hindered Indian scientists. To enhance India's research landscape, we propose dismantling barriers, nurturing collaboration, and encouraging knowledge exchange among domestic institutions.

Diclofenac, ibuprofen, and paracetamol biodegradation: overconsumed non-steroidal anti-inflammatories drugs at COVID-19 pandemic

The consumption of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) have increased significantly in the last years (2020-2022), especially for patients in COVID-19 treatment. NSAIDs such as diclofenac, ibuprofen, and paracetamol are often available without restrictions, being employed without medical supervision for basic symptoms of inflammatory processes. Furthermore, these compounds are increasingly present in nature constituting complex mixtures discarded at domestic and hospital sewage/wastewater. Therefore, this review emphasizes the biodegradation of diclofenac, ibuprofen, and paracetamol by pure cultures or consortia of fungi and bacteria at in vitro, in situ, and ex situ processes. Considering the influence of different factors (inoculum dose, pH, temperature, co-factors, reaction time, and microbial isolation medium) relevant for the identification of highly efficient alternatives for pharmaceuticals decontamination, since biologically active micropollutants became a worldwide issue that should be carefully addressed. In addition, we present a quantitative bibliometric survey, which reinforces that the consumption of these drugs and consequently their impact on the environment goes beyond the epidemiological control of COVID-19.

Robotic surgery in obstetrics and gynecology: a bibliometric study

We aimed to identify the trends and patterns of robotic surgery research in obstetrics and gynecology since its implementation. We used data from Clarivate's Web of Science platform to identify all articles published on robotic surgery in obstetrics and gynecology. A total of 838 publications were included in the analysis. Of these, 485 (57.9%) were from North America and 281 (26.0%) from Europe. 788 (94.0%) articles originated in high-income countries and none from low-income countries. The number of publications per year reached a peak of 69 articles in 2014. The subject of 344 (41.1%) of articles was gynecologic oncology, followed by benign gynecology (n = 176, 21.0%) and urogynecology (n = 156, 18.6%). Articles discussing gynecologic oncology had lower representation in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) (32.0% vs. 41.6%, p < 0.001) compared with high income countries. After 2015 there has been a higher representation of publications from Asia (19.7% vs. 7.7%) and from LMIC (8.4% vs. 2.6%), compared to the preceding years. In a multivariable regression analysis, journal's impact factor [aOR 95% CI 1.30 (1.16-1.41)], gynecologic oncology subject [aOR 95% CI 1.73 (1.06-2.81)] and randomized controlled trials [aOR 95% CI 3.67 (1.47-9.16)] were associated with higher number of citations per year. In conclusion, robotic surgery research in obstetrics & gynecology is dominated by research in gynecologic oncology and reached a peak nearly a decade ago. The disparity in the quantity and quality of robotic research between high income countries and LMIC raises concerns regarding the access of the latter to high quality healthcare resources such as robotic surgery.

COVID-19 pandemic sheds a new research spotlight on antiviral potential of essential oils - A bibliometric study

Background

Essential oils are thought as potential therapies in managing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Many researchers have put their efforts to tackle the pandemic by exploring antiviral candidates which consequently changes the research landscape. Herein, we aimed to assess the effect of COVID-19 pandemic toward the landscape of essential oil research.

Methods

This study employed bibliometric analysis based on the metadata of published literature indexed in the Scopus database. The search was performed on December 15^th, 2022 by using keyword 'essential oil' and its synonyms. We grouped the data based on publication year; pre-COVID-19 (2014-2019) and during COVID-19 (2020-2024, some studies have been published earlier). Further, we separated the COVID-19-focused research from COVID-19 (2020-2024) by introducing a new keyword 'COVID-19' during the search. All metadata were processed using VoSviewer and Biblioshiny for network visualization analysis. Selections of frequently occurring keywords, clusters of keyword co-occurrence, and the list of most impactful papers were performed by two independent reviewers.

Results

Metadata from a total of 35,262 publications were included for bibliometric analysis, comprised of three groups of datasets namely pre-COVID-19 (n = 18,670), COVID-19 (n = 16,592), and COVID-19-focused (n = 281). Five research topics clusters were found from pre-COVID-19 dataset, eight - from COVID-19 dataset, and nine - from COVID-19-focused dataset. COVID-19 cluster containing the keyword 'antiviral' emerged in the COVID-19 dataset, whereas none of the previous research topic clusters contained the keyword 'antiviral'. Antiviral, angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) inhibitory, and anti-inflammation activities were among the top occurring keywords in studies covering both essential oil and COVID-19. Studies on essential oil used for managing COVID-19 were most reported by authors from the United States (documents = 37, citations = 405), Australia (documents = 16, citations = 115) and Italy (documents = 23, citations = 366).

Conclusion

A significant increase was found during COVID-19 pandemic for publications covering essential oil themes, but only a small portion was occupied by COVID-19 research. The COVID-19 pandemic does not alter the ongoing progress of essential oil research but rather offers a new spotlight on the antiviral potential of essential oils. Hence, the COVID-19 pandemic has provided an opportunity to investigate deeper the antiviral potential of essential oils.

Citation advantage of COVID-19-related publications

With the global spread of the COVID-19 pandemic, scientists from various disciplines responded quickly to this historical public health emergency. The sudden boom of COVID-19-related papers in a short period of time may bring unexpected influence to some commonly used bibliometric indicators. By a large-scale investigation using Science Citation Index Expanded and Social Sciences Citation Index, this brief communication confirms the citation advantage of COVID-19-related papers empirically through the lens of Essential Science Indicators’ highly cited paper. More than 8% of COVID-19-related papers published during 2020 and 2021 were selected as Essential Science Indicators highly cited papers, which was much higher than the set global benchmark value of 1%. The citation advantage of COVID-19-related papers for different Web of Science categories/countries/journal impact factor quartiles was also demonstrated. The distortions of COVID-19-related papers’ citation advantage to some bibliometric indicators such as journal impact factor were discussed at the end of this brief communication.

Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic on Biomedical Publications and Their Citation Frequency

BACKGROUND

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has resulted in enormous related publications. However, the citation frequency of these documents and their influence on the journal impact factor (JIF) are not well examined. We aimed to evaluate the impact of COVID-19 on biomedical research publications and their citation frequency.

METHODS

We searched publications on biomedical research in the Web of Science using the search terms "COVID-19," "SARS-Cov-2," "2019 corona*," "corona virus disease 2019," "coronavirus disease 2019," "novel coronavirus infection" and "2019-ncov." The top 200 journals were defined as those with a higher number of COVID-19 publications than other journals in 2020. The COVID-19 impact ratio was calculated as the ratio of the average number of citations per item in 2021 to the JIF for 2020.

RESULTS

The average number of citations for the top 200 journals in 2021, per item published in 2020, was 25.7 (range, 0-270). The average COVID-19 impact ratio was 3.84 (range, 0.26-16.58) for 197 journals that recorded the JIF for 2020. The average JIF ratio for the top 197 journals including the JIFs for 2020 and 2021 was 1.77 (range, 0.68-8.89). The COVID-19 impact ratio significantly correlated with the JIF ratio (r = 0.403, P = 0.010). Twenty-five Korean journals with a COVID-19 impact ratio > 1.5 demonstrated a higher JIF ratio (1.31 ± 0.39 vs. 1.01 ± 0.18, P < 0.001) than 33 Korean journals with a lower COVID-19 impact ratio.

CONCLUSION

COVID-19 pandemic infection has significantly impacted the trends in biomedical research and the citation of related publications.