How COVID-19 Affected the Journal Impact Factor of High Impact Medical Journals: Bibliometric Analysis

Unraveling retraction dynamics in COVID-19 research: Patterns, reasons, and implications

Amid the COVID-19 pandemic, while the world sought solutions, few scholars exploited the situation for personal gains through deceptive studies and manipulated data. This paper presents the extent of 400 retracted COVID-19 papers listed by the RetractionWatch database until the month of February 2024. The primary purpose of the research was to analyze journal quality and retractions trends. Evaluating the journal's quality is vital for stakeholders, as it enables them to effectively address and prevent such incidents and their future repercussions. The present study found that one-fourth of publications were retracted within the first month of their publication, followed by an additional 6% within six months of publication. One third of the retractions originated from Q1 journals, with another significant portion coming from Q2 (29.8%). An analysis of the reasons for retractions indicates that a quarter of retractions were attributed to multiple causes, predominantly associated with publications in Q2 journals, while another quarter were linked to data issues, primarily observed in Q1 publications. Elsevier retracted 31% of papers, with the majority published as Q1, followed by Springer (11.5%), predominantly as Q2. The study also examined author contributions, revealing that 69.3% were male, with females (30.7%) mainly holding middle author positions.

Bibliometric analysis of the official journals of internal medicine societies in Europe

INTRODUCTION

Bibliometrics evaluates the quality of biomedical journals. The aim of this study has been to compare the main bibliometric indexes of the official journals of scientific societies of Internal Medicine in Europe.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Bibliometric information was obtained from the Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus databases. Both impact metrics (Journal Impact Factor [JIF], CiteScore) and normalized metrics (Journal Citation Indicator [JCI], Normalized Eigenfactor, Source Normalized Impact per Paper [SNIP] and SCImago Journal Rank [SJR]) of the journals for the year 2022 were analyzed, and their evolution over the last decade was described.

RESULTS

Twenty-three official journals from 33 scientific societies were evaluated. Eight journals were included in WoS and 11 in Scopus. The best positioned journals in 2022 were: 1) European Journal of Internal Medicine, which ranked in the first quartile (Q1) for JIF, CiteScore and JCI metrics, exceeding values of 1 in Normalized Eigenfactor and SNIP metrics; 2) Internal and Emergency Medicine, with Q1 for CiteScore and JCI metrics, and with values >1 in Normalized EigenFactor and SNIP metrics; 3) Polish Archives of Internal Medicine, with Q1 for JCI metrics; 4) Revista Clínica Española, with Q2 for JIF, CiteScore and JCI metrics; and 5) Acta Medica Belgica, with Q2 for CiteScore and JCI metrics. These journals increased their impact metrics in the last 3 years, in parallel with the COVID pandemic.

CONCLUSIONS

Five official journals of European Internal Medicine societies, including Revista Clínica Española, meet high quality standards.

Publishers' and journals' instructions to authors on use of generative artificial intelligence in academic and scientific publishing: bibliometric analysis

OBJECTIVES

To determine the extent and content of academic publishers' and scientific journals' guidance for authors on the use of generative artificial intelligence (GAI).

DESIGN

Cross sectional, bibliometric study.

SETTING

Websites of academic publishers and scientific journals, screened on 19-20 May 2023, with the search updated on 8-9 October 2023.

PARTICIPANTS

Top 100 largest academic publishers and top 100 highly ranked scientific journals, regardless of subject, language, or country of origin. Publishers were identified by the total number of journals in their portfolio, and journals were identified through the Scimago journal rank using the Hirsch index (H index) as an indicator of journal productivity and impact.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcomes were the content of GAI guidelines listed on the websites of the top 100 academic publishers and scientific journals, and the consistency of guidance between the publishers and their affiliated journals.

RESULTS

Among the top 100 largest publishers, 24% provided guidance on the use of GAI, of which 15 (63%) were among the top 25 publishers. Among the top 100 highly ranked journals, 87% provided guidance on GAI. Of the publishers and journals with guidelines, the inclusion of GAI as an author was prohibited in 96% and 98%, respectively. Only one journal (1%) explicitly prohibited the use of GAI in the generation of a manuscript, and two (8%) publishers and 19 (22%) journals indicated that their guidelines exclusively applied to the writing process. When disclosing the use of GAI, 75% of publishers and 43% of journals included specific disclosure criteria. Where to disclose the use of GAI varied, including in the methods or acknowledgments, in the cover letter, or in a new section. Variability was also found in how to access GAI guidelines shared between journals and publishers. GAI guidelines in 12 journals directly conflicted with those developed by the publishers. The guidelines developed by top medical journals were broadly similar to those of academic journals.

CONCLUSIONS

Guidelines by some top publishers and journals on the use of GAI by authors are lacking. Among those that provided guidelines, the allowable uses of GAI and how it should be disclosed varied substantially, with this heterogeneity persisting in some instances among affiliated publishers and journals. Lack of standardization places a burden on authors and could limit the effectiveness of the regulations. As GAI continues to grow in popularity, standardized guidelines to protect the integrity of scientific output are needed.

Evaluating the dependability of reference-driven citation forecasts amid the COVID-19 pandemic: A bibliometric analysis across diverse journals

BACKGROUND

The journal impact factor significantly influences research publishing and funding decisions. With the surge in research due to COVID-19, this study investigates whether references remain reliable citation predictors during this period.

METHODS

Four multidisciplinary journals (PLoS One, Medicine [Baltimore], J. Formos. Med. Assoc., and Eur. J. Med. Res.) were analyzed using the Web of Science database for 2020 to 2022 publications. The study employed descriptive, predictive, and diagnostic analytics, with tools such as 4-quadrant radar plots, univariate regressions, and country-based collaborative maps via the follower-leading cluster algorithm.

RESULTS

Six countries dominated the top 20 affiliations: China, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Germany, and Brazil. References remained strong citation indicators during the COVID-19 period, except for Eur. J. Med. Res. due to its smaller sample size (n = 492) than other counterparts (i.e., 41,181, 12,793, and 1464). Three journals showed higher network density coefficients, suggesting a potential foundation for reference-based citation predictions.

CONCLUSION

Despite variations among journals, references effectively predict article citations during the COVID-19 era, underlining the importance of network density. Future studies should delve deeper into the correlation between network density and citation prediction.

Characteristics of retracted research papers before and during the COVID-19 pandemic

Objectives

During the COVID-19 pandemic, a large number of research papers were published, and some of them were retracted. The present study aims to reveal the characteristics of retracted papers before and during the pandemic.

Methods

The study investigated 24,542,394 publications from 1999 to 2022 and analyzed the profiles of retracted papers from the perspectives of year, disease category, country, and journal.

Results

Retraction rates were generally increasing at least until 2019, and were the highest for "Neoplasms." The number of publications for "Infections" and "Respiratory Tract Diseases" dramatically rose during the COVID-19 pandemic; however, the retraction rates in the two categories or of COVID-19-related papers were not especially high compared to other diseases. The association with retraction was strongest for China in most disease categories, whereas for COVID-19 papers, other countries showed higher retraction rates than China. In recent years, retracted papers have become less likely to be published in high-impact journals.

Conclusion

The COVID-19 pandemic does not seem to affect the retractions of research papers much. We should keep monitoring retractions and analyze the effects of pandemics for better science.

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.

The Skewed Impact of Highly Cited Articles on Journal Impact Factor

Collapse

Structural under-reporting of informed consent, data handling and sharing, ethical approval, and application of Open Science principles as proxies for study quality conduct in COVID-19 research: a systematic scoping review

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic required science to provide answers rapidly to combat the outbreak. Hence, the reproducibility and quality of conducting research may have been threatened, particularly regarding privacy and data protection, in varying ways around the globe. The objective was to investigate aspects of reporting informed consent and data handling as proxies for study quality conduct.

METHODS

A systematic scoping review was performed by searching PubMed and Embase. The search was performed on November 8th, 2020. Studies with hospitalised patients diagnosed with COVID-19 over 18 years old were eligible for inclusion. With a focus on informed consent, data were extracted on the study design, prestudy protocol registration, ethical approval, data anonymisation, data sharing and data transfer as proxies for study quality. For reasons of comparison, data regarding country income level, study location and journal impact factor were also collected.

RESULTS

972 studies were included. 21.3% of studies reported informed consent, 42.6% reported waivers of consent, 31.4% did not report consent information and 4.7% mentioned other types of consent. Informed consent reporting was highest in clinical trials (94.6%) and lowest in retrospective cohort studies (15.0%). The reporting of consent versus no consent did not differ significantly by journal impact factor (p=0.159). 16.8% of studies reported a prestudy protocol registration or design. Ethical approval was described in 90.9% of studies. Information on anonymisation was provided in 17.0% of studies. In 257 multicentre studies, 1.2% reported on data sharing agreements, and none reported on Findable, Accessible, Interoperable and Reusable data principles. 1.2% reported on open data. Consent was most often reported in the Middle East (42.4%) and least often in North America (4.7%). Only one report originated from a low-income country.

DISCUSSION

Informed consent and aspects of data handling and sharing were under-reported in publications concerning COVID-19 and differed between countries, which strains study quality conduct when in dire need of answers.

The ascendancy of research in acronyms related to COVID-19 displayed on a growth-share matrix (GSM): Bibliometric analysis

BACKGROUND

The acronym COVID, which stands for coronavirus disease, has become one of the most infamous acronyms in the world since 2020. An analysis of acronyms in health and medical journals has previously found that acronyms have become more common in titles and abstracts over time (e.g., DNA and human immunodeficiency virus are the most common acronyms). However, the trends in acronyms related to COVID remain unclear. It is necessary to verify whether the dramatic rise in COVID-related research can be observed by visualizations. The purpose of this study was to display the acronym trends in comparison through the use of temporal graphs and to verify that the COVID acronym has a significant edge over the other 2 in terms of research dominance.

METHODS

An analysis of the 30 most frequently used acronyms related to COVID in PubMed since 1950 was carried out using 4 graphs to conduct this bibliometric analysis, including line charts, temporal bar graphs (TBGs), temporal heatmaps (THM), and growth-share matrices (GSM). The absolute advantage coefficient (AAC) was used to measure the dominance strength for COVID acronym since 2020. COVID's AAC trend was expected to decline over time.

RESULTS

This study found that COVID, DNA, and human immunodeficiency virus have been the most frequently observed research acronyms since 2020, followed by computed tomography and World Health Organization; although there is no ideal method for displaying acronym trends over time, researchers can utilize the GSM to complement traditional line charts, TBGs, and THMs, as shown in this study; and COVID has a significant edge over the other 2 in terms of research dominance by ACC (≥0.67), but COVID's AAC trend has declined (e.g., AACs 0.83, 0.80, and 0.69) since 2020.

CONCLUSIONS

It is recommended that the GSM complement traditional line charts, TBGs, and THMs in trend analysis, rather than being restricted to acronyms in future research. This research provides readers with the AAC to understand how research dominates its counterparts, which will be useful for future bibliometric analyses.

The impact of COVID-19 on global health journals: an analysis of impact factor and publication trends

BACKGROUND

COVID-19 has affected research productivity across all areas of knowledge. Current evidence suggests that COVID-19 has had a blockbuster effect on journal impact factors (JIFs) and publication trends, while little is known on global health journals.

METHODS

Twenty global health journals were included to analyse the impact of COVID-19 on their JIFs and publication trends. Indicator data, including numbers of publications, citations, articles with different types, etc, were extracted from journal websites and Web of Science Core Collection database. The JIFs from 2019 to 2021 were simulated for longitudinal and cross-sectional analyses. Interrupted time-series analysis and non-parametric tests were applied to assess whether COVID-19 had decreased non-COVID-19 publications from January 2018 to June 2022.

RESULTS

In 2020, 615 out of 3223 publications were COVID-19 related, accounting for 19.08%. The simulated JIFs of 17 out of 20 journals in 2021 were higher than those in 2019 and 2020. Notably, 18 out of 20 journals had a decrease in their simulated JIFs after excluding COVID-19-related publications. Moreover, 10 out of 20 journals decreased their monthly numbers of non-COVID-19 publications after the COVID-19 outbreak. For all the 20 journals as a whole, after the COVID-19 outbreak in February 2020, the total number of non-COVID-19 publications significantly decreased by 14.2 compared with the previous month (p=0.013), and since then, on average, the publications had decreased by 0.6 per month until June 2022 (p<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

COVID-19 has impacted the structure of COVID-19-related publications, the JIFs of global health journals and their numbers of non-COVID-19 publications. Although journals may benefit from increased JIFs, global health journals should avoid relying on a single metric. More follow-up studies including more years of data with a combination of metrics should be conducted to generate more robust evidence.

Comparing Japanese University Hospitals' and Community Healthcare Facilities' Research Contributions on PubMed

Purpose

Although research in general medicine is important, the contributions and characteristics of general medicine physicians (GMPs) in university hospitals (UH) and community healthcare facilities (CHF) remains unclear. Therefore, this study examines the popularity of research by affiliation, characteristics of journal publication, annual trends, and differences in impact factors (IFs) of journal publications.

Methods

This study is a secondary bibliometric analysis of articles in international journals published in PubMed over the past six years (2015-2020). The analysis compared English articles published by either UH- or CHF-affiliated GMPs in Japan in terms of, among other things, article type, research field, and IF.

Results

Of the 2372 articles analyzed, 1688 (71.2%) were published by physicians affiliated with UHs, 62.6% of which were original. Basic research, international collaboration, and ratio of IFs were significantly higher for such papers. In contrast, the number of CHF articles were significantly higher in the areas of clinical research and practice, with a greater proportion of case reports. There was no significant difference in IF between the disciplines within each affiliation, but the IF was the highest in experimental basic research and the lowest in medical and clinical education. In the six-year time series, the number of original papers by UHs and CHFs increased roughly twofold between 2015 and 2020, but the number of articles in the areas of medical education and healthcare quality and safety remained mostly unchanged.

Conclusion

The number of international papers published by Japanese GMPs has increased since 2015, particularly in terms of original papers and clinical research from UHs. However, there was no significant difference in the IF between UH and CHF publications. Our findings can guide the development of indicators, research, and education strategies regarding Japanese GMPs' research performance.