Researcher and Author Impact Metrics: Variety, Value, and Context

Exploring the impact of cardiologists expertise on publication metrics

BACKGROUND

In the field of academic cardiology, the assessment of an author's scholarly impact and professional progression heavily relies on publications and citations. This study investigates whether specific cardiology expertise correlates with accelerated professional growth.

METHODS

Using data from the 2023 European Society of Cardiology congress, 948 faculty attendees with an h-index of 30 or higher were analyzed. Expertises were categorized into six groups, and their association with publications and citations peaks was explored.

RESULTS

Interventional cardiologists exhibited the highest annual publication peak, followed by imaging and electrophysiology experts. However, no significant differences were observed in citation peaks among expertise groups. While imaging experts initially appeared to reach citation peaks faster, this effect diminished after statistical adjustments. Additionally, holding multiple expertise areas prolonged the time to reach publication and citation peaks by approximately six years.

CONCLUSION

This study underscores the influence of expertise in interventional cardiology on publication peaks but suggests that citation peaks and career progression velocity remain unaffected by expertise type. Furthermore, it highlights that holding multiple areas of expertise slowers the attainment of career peak for scholarly authors.

Quantity over quality of publications: Are we using the right metrics to judge author's productivity and impact in biomedical research?

ABSTRACT

The "publish and flourish" culture in the biomedical field has led to an increase in the number of publications worldwide, creating pressure on researchers to publish frequently. However, this focus on quantity over quality has resulted in an inflation of the number of authors listed in articles, leading to authorship issues and the rise of fraudulent or predatory scientific and medical journals. To maintain the credibility of scientific research, it is necessary to reform the publication metrics and explore innovative ways of evaluating an author's contributions. Traditional metrics, such as publication counts, fail to capture the research's quality, significance, and impact. As a result, this viewpoint explores and highlights different metrics and novel methods by which an author's productivity and impact can be assessed beyond traditional metrics, such as the H index, i10 index, FWCI, HCP, ALEF, AIF, AAS, JIF, CNA, awards/honors, citation percentile, n-index, and ACI. By using multiple metrics, one can determine the true impact and productivity of an author, and other measures such as awards and honors, research collaborations, research output diversity, and journal impact factors can further aid in serving the purpose. Accurately assessing an author's productivity and impact has significant implications on their academic career, institution, and the broader scientific community. It can also help funding agencies make informed decisions, improve resource allocation, and enhance public trust in scientific research. Therefore, it is crucial to address these issues and continue the ongoing discussion on best method to evaluate and recognize the contributions of authors in today's rapidly changing academic landscape.

Research productivity and gender of research award recipients in international ophthalmology societies

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study is to assess the research productivity and gender of award recipients of ophthalmology research awards in international societies.

METHODS

This is a retrospective, observational study. The study population included award recipients of research awards from 36 ophthalmologic societies (listed on the International Council of Ophthalmology database) in 99 years (1922-2021). A gender-specific pronoun and a photograph of each award recipient were extracted from professional websites to assign their gender. Research productivity levels were retrieved from the Elsevier Scopus author database. The main outcome measures were gender distribution of award recipients per year, mean h-index per year, mean m-quotient per year, mean h-index by society, and mean m-quotient by society.

RESULTS

Out of 2506 recipients for 122 awards, 1897 (75.7%) were men and 609 (24.3%) were women. The proportion of woman recipients increased from 0% in 1922 to 41.0% in 2021. Compared with 2000-2010 (19.8%, 109 of 550), women received a greater proportion of awards (48.4%, 459 of 949) in the last decade, from 2011 to 2021. Furthermore, men more often had greater h-index scores and m-quotient scores.

CONCLUSIONS

Women received awards (24.3%) at a lower rate than men (75.7%) while also exhibiting lower productivity, supporting the existence of a gender disparity. Our study found that women are under-represented in research awards, and further investigation into award selection processes and gender membership data is recommended.

Journal metrics of the top-ranked Orthopaedic, Medical, and Surgical journals - A cross-sectional, comparative study

PURPOSE

In academic publishing, research metrics play a crucial role in assessing the scientific impact and performance of the published literature, as well as of the journals in which they are published. Several journal-level metrics (JLM) such as the h-index of the analysed journals, total citations, total documents, citable documents, references and external citations per document are considered crucial indicators of the importance and reputation of the journals. We hypothesize that journals in the field of Medicine receive more citations than those in Surgical journals like Orthopaedic surgery, and hence have better JLM. This study aims to to assess and compare the JLM of Medical and Surgical journals between two time zones 2017-2019 vs. 2020-2022, i.e., pre and post-COVID-19 pandemic period.

METHODS

A cross-sectional bibliometric analysis of the top-ranked Orthopaedic, Medical, and Surgical journals was undertaken based on traditional JLM, using the SCImago database from 2017 to 2022. Our analysis focused on identifying trends in the h-index of the analysed journals, total citations, total documents, citable documents, references and external citations per document.

RESULTS

Overall Medical journals were found to have higher JLM than the Surgical and Orthopaedic journals. The h-index of Surgical journals, Medical journals and Orthopaedic journals were comparable between the two periods (pre and -post-COVID-19 pandemic); Total Cites (3 years), total documents (2017), total documents (3 years), total references, and citable documents (3 years) of Surgical journals, Medical journals and Orthopaedic journals were significantly higher in the period 2020-2022.

CONCLUSION

There has been a steady increase in the number of publications from post COVID-19 period. Medical journals have higher JLM than Surgical and Orthopaedic journals. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (Am), Annals of Surgery and Diabetes Care were the most published journals in Orthopaedics, General Surgery and Medicine-related topics respectively.

Measuring the Impact of Data Sharing: From Author-Level Metrics to Quantification of Economic and Non-tangible Benefits

In early 2023, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) implemented its Data Management and Sharing (DMS) Policy, requiring researchers to share scientific data produced with NIH funding. The policy's objective is to amplify the benefits of public investment in research by promoting the dissemination and reusability of primary data. Given this backdrop, identifying a robust methodology to assess the impact of data sharing across diverse research domains is essential. In this review, we adopted two methodological paradigms, the bottom-up and top-down strategies, and employed content analysis to pinpoint established methodologies and innovative practices within this intricate field. Although numerous author-level metrics are available to gauge the impact of data sharing, their application is still limited. Non-traditional metrics, encompassing economic (e.g., cost savings) and intangible benefits, presently appear to hold more potential for evaluating the impact of primary data sharing. Finally, we address the primary obstacles encountered by open data policies and introduce an innovative "Shared model for shared data" framework to bolster data sharing practices and refine evaluation metrics.

Article-level metrics: A new approach to quantify reach and impact of published research

A spectrum of measuring tools are available to evaluate the impact of published literature and the journals they are published in. Journal Level Metrics (JLM) such as Journal Impact Factor (JIF) or CiteScore assess the reputation of peer-reviewed journals based on citation analysis. Whereas, Article Level Metrics (ALM) quantify the importance, reach and impact of a particular article, and are a new approach to quantifying the reach and impact of published research. Traditionally JLM has served as a proxy for an individual publication's significance, however, the introduction of contemporary and evolution of Alternative metrics measuring digital or societal influence of a particular article has gained popularity in recent times. These metrics help in rapid dissemination of research, development of newer research strategies and individual academic progress. We highlight the characteristics and importance of currently available ALM, and the newer ones influenced by social media, digital media and Open Access publishing models.

The endo-lysosomal system in Parkinson's disease: expanding the horizon

Parkinson's disease (PD) is the second most common neurodegenerative disorder after Alzheimer's disease, and its prevalence is increasing with age. A wealth of genetic evidence indicates that the endo-lysosomal system is a major pathway driving PD pathogenesis with a growing number of genes encoding endo-lysosomal proteins identified as risk factors for PD, making it a promising target for therapeutic intervention. However, detailed knowledge and understanding of the molecular mechanisms linking these genes to the disease are available for only a handful of them (e.g. LRRK2, GBA1, VPS35). Taking on the challenge of studying poorly characterized genes and proteins can be daunting, due to the limited availability of tools and knowledge from previous literature. This review aims at providing a valuable source of molecular and cellular insights into the biology of lesser-studied PD-linked endo-lysosomal genes, to help and encourage researchers in filling the knowledge gap around these less popular genetic players. Specific endo-lysosomal pathways discussed range from endocytosis, sorting, and vesicular trafficking to the regulation of membrane lipids of these membrane-bound organelles and the specific enzymatic activities they contain. We also provide perspectives on future challenges that the community needs to tackle and propose approaches to move forward in our understanding of these poorly studied endo-lysosomal genes. This will help harness their potential in designing innovative and efficient treatments to ultimately re-establish neuronal homeostasis in PD but also other diseases involving endo-lysosomal dysfunction.

REVIEW: RESEARCH INTEREST SCORE IN RESEARCHGATE: THE SILVER BULLET OF SCIENTOMETRICS OR THE EMPEROR’S NEW CLOTHES?

Introduction: Scientists have long searched for the best way to evaluate scientific performance and have come up with numerous indices. Probably, the most famous index is the h-index, a metric that has been used widely in science metrics ever since it appeared. In this study, I evaluated the potential of the new metric Research Interest Score created by ResearchGate (RG). Methods: I analyzed the different metric indices for 88 most cited researchers at the University of Sarajevo. In particular, the number of citations and h-indexes were taken from the Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar databases for these researchers and were correlated with their Research Interest Scores. As a measure of correlation, Pearson correlation coefficients was used. In addition, I conducted a regression analysis to examine how scientometric indices from the Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar predict the Research Interest Score.  Results: The Research Interest Score was most strongly correlated with the number of Google Scholar Citations, followed by the Web of Science citations.  Interestingly, the Research Interest Score was not highly correlated with any of the h-indexes. The regression model was statistically significant and explained 90% of the variance in the Research Interest Scores predicted by the Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar metric indices. The strongest predictor of the Research Interest Score was the number of Google Scholar citations. Conclusions: The Research Interest Score, a new scientometric measure created by ResearchGate, certainly has a potential to be used as a valid measure of scientific impact.

The impact of heat on kidney health: A PRISMA-compliant bibliometric analysis

BACKGROUND

Exposure to excessive heat can impact kidney health. Climate change is projected to aggravate this impact. An analysis of articles published between 1958 and 2021 was conducted to explore the progress of the research on this issue.

METHODS

This study included a bibliometric analysis wherein Web of Science was used to generate a list of all published articles related to the impact of heat on kidney health. Basic information about the articles, such as titles, authors' names, keywords, and citations, were recorded and analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 226 published articles related to the impact of heat on kidney health were identified as of November 20, 2021. Most of these articles (93%) were published within the last decade. The United States was the most prominent country in terms of research productivity and collaboration. Researchers from the United States were well represented among the top 20 contributors of published articles on the study issue. The productivity of the top 20 authors varied between 6 and 32 articles each. A total of 25 common words used by the authors were identified. The most frequently used keywords were chronic kidney disease, heat stress, acute kidney injury, Mesoamerican nephropathy, and climate change. Keyword analysis revealed 3 distinct major research clusters in the existing scientific research on the impact of heat on kidney health: chronic kidney disease of unknown etiology, heat stress and renal physiology, and the effect of climate change on kidney health.

CONCLUSIONS

Research on heat-related kidney injury has witnessed rapid development in recent decades, motivated by the emergence of chronic kidney disease of unknown etiology and climate change. Developing countries in hot regions must increase their productivity in this research area through international collaboration and partnerships.

A Brief Review on Article-, Author-, and Journal-Level Scientometric Indices

Scientometric indices help rank the impact of an article, an author, and a journal in scientific literature. Additionally, it helps to rank institutions, universities, and countries in the scientific field. There are various author-, article-, and journal-level metrics provided by different service providers. It is important to know the underlying calculation method for an informed comparison between authors, articles, and journals. In this article, we described briefly some of the common author-level metrics (h-index, i10-index, and g-index), article-level metrics (Altmetric, Dimensions, and PlumX), and journal-level metrics (Impact Factor®, CiteScore, SCImago journal ranking, and h5-index).

Online mathematics education as bio-eco-techno process: bibliometric analysis using co-authorship and bibliographic coupling

Under the COVID-19 pandemic, mathematics education has moved completely online. To tackle this new norm based on bio-eco-techno theories, this study aims to provide educators an overview of the research landscape for envisioning educational practices through bibliometric analysis of 319 articles and reviews published in peer-reviewed journals from 1993 to 2020. Country and institutional co-authorship depicts the social network structure of the field to identify top productive contributors. Bibliographic coupling of publications forms the conceptual structure, revealing research themes. Together, the results are mapped according to the bio-eco-techno perspective. The bioecological system highlights student achievement as the central concerns. The microsystem emphasizes techno-subsystems for supporting flipped learning. The exosystem and mesosystem require institution support for teacher pedagogical design, digital competencies, and collaboration. The macrosystem raises the issue of distribution or centralization in the strengths of online mathematics education and calls for greater cross-national boundary digital use and collaboration. The chronosystem asks: Does Covid-19 force the popularity of blended or flipped learning into online education? Based on the bio-eco-techno perspective, further recommendations are provided.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11192-022-04441-3.

An Otolaryngologist's Guide to Understanding the H-index and How It Could Affect Your Future Career

Objectives

The h-index is a measure of research output and contribution that shows strong correlation with academic promotion in medicine. The purpose of this article is to clearly explain how h-index scores are calculated and how otolaryngologists can effectively and advantageously use these scores for their career development.

Data Sources

PubMed.

Review Methods

We performed an up-to-date PubMed literature review describing the design of the h-index and how to use it effectively along with its role in academic medicine, including otolaryngology.

Conclusions

H-index scores are used as a metric for scientific output that considers the number of publications and the number of times each is cited. Search engines can automatically calculate h-index scores for one's work. Studies also revealed significant positive correlations that the h-index has from fellowship involvement, which could be beneficial for career advancement in academic medicine.

Implications for Practice

Aspiring academic otolaryngologists should create a research profile to link and calculate the h-index for publications, submit to well-read high-impact journals for increased viewership and citations, and expand on foundational and personal research topics. Future studies should evaluate faculty and resident awareness of h-indices in the otolaryngology department to see how we can further address any underlying barriers. Otolaryngologists with the knowledge and tools necessary to maximize h-index scores and produce high-quality research in modern-day medicine not only provide potential advantages in career development but also bring significant contribution to the field of otolaryngology and patient care.

A bibliometric and visualization analysis of glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis research from 2012 to 2021

INTRODUCTION

Glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis (GIOP) is the most common cause of secondary osteoporosis. Although many studies related to GIOP have been published, there was no bibliometric analysis in this field. This study aimed to investigate the research trends on GIOP by using bibliometric analysis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

All data were collected from the Web of Science Core Collection (WoSCC). All original research articles regarding GIOP from 2012 to 2021 were retrieved. CiteSpace was used to analyze the distribution of countries, institutions, journals, authors, and keywords. We revealed hotspots and trends in the field by drawing co-occurrence keyword maps and identifying burst keywords.

RESULTS

From 2012 to 2021, 685 relevant articles were published, with a peak in 2018 in the annual number of publications. China and McMaster University were the leading country and institution in this field with 208 and 12 publications, respectively. Osteoporosis International was the journal with the most studies, while Journal of Bone and Mineral Research was the most cited journal. "Bone mineral density", "fracture", "postmenopausal women", "prevention" and "therapy" were the most high-frequency keywords, while "bone mineral density", "bisphosphonate" and "metabolism" were the top high-centrality keywords.

CONCLUSION

The results from this bibliometric study provided insight into the status and research trends in GIOP of the past decade, which could help researchers quickly determine the current hotspots and frontier trends in this field.

Research Productivity in Emerging Economies: Empirical Evidence from Kazakhstan

The growth of the Higher Education and Science (HES) sector is positively associated with its research productivity and has a high potential in emerging countries. To explore such research productivity, this study offers a comprehensive analysis of the scientific literature from Kazakhstan. Our methods included descriptive analysis, network analysis, and author-based productivity analysis (by Lotka’s law) of 23,371 articles from Scopus, published during 1991–2020, and across 25 subject areas. The results of the descriptive analysis showed a substantial increase in the number of and citations to the literature since 2011 in almost all subject areas. However, the network analysis found that research in natural sciences was more developed in topical relationships and international collaborations than research in arts and humanities, social, and medical sciences. The Lotka’s law application revealed that the overall scientific literature in Kazakhstan did not reach its necessary stage of maturity. Additionally, some subject areas demonstrated greater contribution to the overall knowledge base, while others were less productive or lagging in their development. Our findings, useful for researchers and policymakers in emerging countries, can be exemplary in understanding the results of policy reforms aimed to improve the HES sector in emerging countries.

Do extraordinary science and technology scientists balance their publishing and patenting activities?

This study investigated whether 12 scientists who had received the National Medal of Science and the National Medal of Technology and Innovation balanced publishing and patenting activities. The results demonstrated that although the scientist were recognized for their contributions to science and technology, the majority of recipients were not prolific researchers, and some were not influential. Notably, one scientist had not been granted a single patent. This indicated that scientific and technological contributions may not necessarily correspond with influential scientific publications and patents. Moreover, only two scientists had filed for patents before publishing, and they also invested more time developing technological inventions. Most recipients were science- or technology-oriented scientists. Few scientists balanced their publishing and patenting activities, and demonstrated excellent research and technology performance.

The data-index: An author-level metric that values impactful data and incentivizes data sharing

Author-level metrics are a widely used measure of scientific success. The h-index and its variants measure publication output (number of publications) and research impact (number of citations). They are often used to influence decisions, such as allocating funding or jobs. Here, we argue that the emphasis on publication output and impact hinders scientific progress in the fields of ecology and evolution because it disincentivizes two fundamental practices: generating impactful (and therefore often long-term) datasets and sharing data. We describe a new author-level metric, the data-index, which values both dataset output (number of datasets) and impact (number of data-index citations), so promotes generating and sharing data as a result. We discuss how it could be implemented and provide user guidelines. The data-index is designed to complement other metrics of scientific success, as scientific contributions are diverse and our value system should reflect that both for the benefit of scientific progress and to create a value system that is more equitable, diverse, and inclusive. Future work should focus on promoting other scientific contributions, such as communicating science, informing policy, mentoring other scientists, and providing open-access code and tools.

Trends, gaps, and future directions of research in cervical remodeling during pregnancy: a bibliometric analysis

PURPOSE

The cervix undergoes a dynamic remodeling process throughout pregnancy. Appropriate timing of cervical remodeling is essential in maintaining the fetus inside the uterus and ensuring cervical dilatation for safe delivery of the fetus at term. This study aims to determine the characteristics and trends of published articles in the field of cervical remodeling during pregnancy through a bibliometric analysis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic review of the literature on cervical remodeling during pregnancy was performed on using the Scopus database from inception to 2020. The following information was obtained for each article: authors, year of publication, title, journal, institution, country, title, keywords, citation frequency, and relative citation ratio. The visualization of collaboration networks of countries and keywords related to cervical remodeling during pregnancy was conducted using VOSviewer software.

RESULTS

A total of 1979 bibliographic records were obtained from Scopus database. The number of publications increased in the 1980s and peaked in 2010. A total of 80 countries produced research in cervical remodeling during pregnancy. The USA contributed the greatest number of publications (n= 541), total citations (n= 11,971), and number of international collaborations (n= 28 countries). The American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Obstetrics and Gynecology, and BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology are the top three contributors in this field in terms of number of publications and total citations. The Karolinska Institutet produced the greatest number of publications while UT Southwestern Medical Center was the most cited institution in this field. The topics of the top cited articles were studies regarding the role of collagen degradation in cervical remodeling during pregnancy; dynamics, anatomy, and physiology of cervical remodeling; and the use of misoprostol for cervical ripening and labor induction.

CONCLUSIONS

Our bibliometric analysis shows the trends and development, scientific impact, and collaboration in the field of cervical remodeling research. These results show the important discoveries in the past and provided new avenues for scientific and clinical investigations in the field.

Questioning the Impact of the Impact Factor. A Brief Review and Future Directions

Purpose: To provide a brief review of literature on the journal impact factors (JIF) and the newer research metrics being proposed or implemented.Methods: The authors performed a PubMed search of articles published in the English language on the journal impact factors. Data captured include historical perspectives, evolution, calculation, criticisms of JIF and their rebuttals, and organized efforts to address JIF issues, alternate research metrics, and future directions. Specific emphasis was laid on evaluating the criticisms, current lacunae, and the changing practice patterns.Results: One of the measures to assess the research impact of an article is the number of citations it receives. Hence, citation-based metrics are commonly used for such purposes. While editors and well-known scholars refrain from attributing article success to the journal's prominence, the same is not true for most authors. JIF is still one of the top factors when deciding on an article submission. JIF is today an acceptable objective and quantifiable measure of knowledge dissemination. However, JIF should not be used as a surrogate measure to assess an individual researcher or an individual article. The reverence to JIF in this regard needs to be questioned. While alternate metrics or altmetrics have their advantages and limitations, they nevertheless augur well an era where scientometrics are complementary to one another without undue reliance on a sole parameter.Conclusion: While there is no need to demonize the JIF, its role in the scholarly assessment should be scaled down. The over-reliance and undue hype surrounding it should be discouraged at multiple scientific levels.

COVID-19 pandemic and its impact on peer review speed of anesthesiology journals: An observational study

Background and Aims:

Publication of a scientific article in a reputed journal is an uphill task that demands a significant amount of time and effort from the author and editorial team. It is a matter of great enthusiasm for all prospective researchers to know whether this daily evolving publication load of articles during this pandemic had changed the journal's inherent peer review or publication process. We aimed to compare the peer review speed of anesthesiology journal articles published during pandemic (2020) to the previous year and to analyze various factors affecting peer review speed.

Material and Methods:

Overall, 16 anesthesiology journals indexed in MEDLINE database were retrospectively analyzed. A set of 24 articles published in 2019 of the included journals were selected from each journal for control and a set of 12 articles published between January to September 2020 was selected for comparison. Time taken for acceptance and publication from the time of submission was noted. Peer review timing was calculated and its relationship with h-index, continent of journal origin and article processing charges were evaluated.

Results:

The median peer review time in 2019 and 2020 were 116 (108-125) days and 79 (65-105.5) days, respectively. There was a 31.8% decrease (P = 0.0021) in peer review time of all articles in 2020 compared to 2019. The median peer review timings of COVID-19 articles were 35 (22-42.5) days. A 55.6% decrease was noted in peer review time of COVID-19 articles compared to non-COVID-19 articles in 2020. There was a significant correlation between peer review time and h-index (r = 0.558, P = 0.024). There was no significant difference in peer review timing of journals with or without article processing charge (P = 0.75) and between journals from different continents (P = 0.56).

Conclusion:

Anesthesiology journals managed to curtail their turnaround time for peer review during the pandemic compared to previous year. Journal with higher h-index had longer peer review time. The option for articles processing charge and continent of publishing journal had no impact on peer review speed.

Bibliometric indicators to evaluate scientific activity

Bibliometric indicators have been devised to quantify scientific production and to try to evaluate its impact in the community. In general, bibliometric indicators can be classified according to whether the unit of analysis is the author (individual or group) or journal. The most widely used indicators for authors are those that measure an individual author's production, such as the Crown index or the h-index and its derivatives (e-index, h5-index, and the absolute or Ab-index, among others). The bibliometric indicators devised to try to evaluate journal quality are associated with Journal Citation Reports (e.g., impact factor, field-weighted citation impact, Eigenfactor, and article influence) or with Scopus (Scimago Journal Rank (SJR), source normalized impact per paper (SNIP), and CiteScore). This article describes the main bibliometric indicators, explains how they are calculated, and discusses their advantages and limitations.

The use of H-index to assess research priorities in poultry diseases

Identifying which diseases represent a priority is crucial to optimize resources for diagnostics, control, and prevention. Here, the impact of 111 poultry pathogens belonging to Viruses (n = 31), Bacteria (n = 33), and Other (n = 47) was assessed using the H-index. The overall mean H-indexes suggested that poultry Viruses have statistically greater impact than Bacteria, which in turn are statistically more relevant than Others. Among the 20 highest H-indexes, 45% were zoonotic, and almost a third was Office International des Epizooties-listed. Avian influenza virus (H-index 127), Salmonella enteritidis and Salmonella typhimurium (H-index 72), and Eimeria spp (H-index 70) ranked the highest in Virus, Bacteria, and Other, respectively. Pathogens that produce overt clinical diseases and economic damage, cause immunosuppression, and/or are zoonotic had the highest H-index scores. The evolution of citations of particular pathogens reflected severe poultry outbreaks and/or zoonotic outbreaks in relatively wide geographic areas. Also, the evolution of citations based on taxonomic groups mirrored major changes in poultry production practices and management throughout history. Thus, Others were the most cited pathogens until the 1970s and, following 3 decades of unpopularity because of widespread use of intensive production practices, regained importance in the 2000s thanks to welfare regulation changes. Citations for Bacteria increased especially from the 1990s onward, probably because of the ban of growth promoters in western countries and the need to find new control methods for bacterial and protozoal infections. In general, countries with the greatest poultry production and research budgets had higher research production, that is the United States of America (USA) and China. Interestingly, the United Kingdom was among the top research producers despite falling behind other countries in poultry production and research budget. Moreover, the USA exhibited the strongest poultry research production based on number and diversity of publications (Dcos-index). In conclusion, the H-index could be a valid, simple tool to prioritize funding or interest in poultry diseases, especially when used as a preliminary selection approach in combination with other metrics.

Research trends in osteoporosis in Asian countries and regions in the last 20 years

Asian countries have made great progress in the osteoporosis research over the past 20 years. Mainland China has a significant increase in the number of articles. The scientific influence of Japan ranked by citations was leading in Asia. Indian researchers published fewer articles on osteoporosis, but the overall citation was quite well.

PURPOSE

To analyze the quantity and quality of literature regarding osteoporosis from the Asian countries/regions.

METHODS

Data were obtained from the Web of Science (WoS) Core Collection on May 4, 2020. Qualitative and quantitative analysis was conducted based on WoS. Keywords analysis was performed using VosView software.

RESULTS

The core countries/regions in Asia in the osteoporosis research included the Mainland China (MC), Japan, South Korea, Turkey, Taiwan, India, and Iran. The core countries/regions published 4798 papers, which accounted for 33.8% of the total globally. The MC with 2242 literature and Japan with 971 were ranked second and fourth worldwide. Over the past decade, MC has published the most articles and increased dramatically. Japan had the highest mean citations and the highest mean citation density. The country with the most publications in the top ten popular osteoporosis-related journals was Japan. The top institutional from the MC, Taiwan, South Korea, and Japan published the most articles. The top authors with the most articles were from Japan and MC. Top institutions and authors from Japan, MC, and India led the way in citations. The core countries/regions had more frequent cooperation with the USA, the UK, and Canada compared with the limited cooperation among Asian countries. Osteoporosis research in Asia relies heavily on public funding and pharmaceutical companies. Keywords for these studies have changed over the past 20 years.

CONCLUSIONS

Asian countries have made progress in the osteoporosis research over the past 20 years. The MC has a significant increase in the number of articles. The scientific influence of Japan ranked by citations was leading in Asia. Indian researchers published fewer articles on osteoporosis, but the overall quality was quite well. The core Asian countries/regions should strengthen in-depth cooperation in the future.

Publication Productivity Among Academic Orthopaedic Surgeons in Canada

Objective The Hirsch Index (h-index) and m-index are often utilized to assess academic productivity and have been widely found to have a positive association with academic promotion and grant selection. The aim of this study was to assess the relationship between these indices and academic ranks among Canadian orthopaedic surgery faculty members. Methods Five hundred and sixty-seven Canadian orthopaedic surgery faculty members associated with residency training programs were included in the study. H-indices of individual faculty members were obtained through Elsevier's Scopus database. Faculty members' year of residency graduation was recorded from their respective licensing body database and was utilized as a surrogate for the start of their academic career to determine career duration and calculate the m-index. Faculty members were divided based on their academic rank (assistant, associate and full professors) and subspecialty. Results Increased h-index, m-index and long career duration were associated with increased academic rank, while gender did not demonstrate an association. Overall, males had a significantly higher h-index compared to females, but no significant difference was observed when comparing the m-index between genders. The m-index varied between subspecialties among senior faculty, but not among junior-ranked faculty. Conclusion Bibliometric academic productivity using h-index and m-index is associated with academic ranking among Canadian orthopaedic surgeons at training institutions. Although these indices may provide insight into the academic merits of faculty members, caution must be taken about utilizing it indiscriminately and their limitations must be strongly considered.

Impact factor rankings for sleep research journals between 2005 and 2018

Impact factors and ranking lists of research journals are very often used to judge our career achievements and progression by employers and granting bodies. However, a comprehensive list for the interdisciplinary field of sleep research does not currently exist because our journals tend to be placed into discipline-specific lists that do not cope well with our historic interdisciplinarity, which embraces many core disciplines. We aimed to build a ranking list specifically for sleep research journals based on the journal impact factor and the google scholar H₅ indices. We then searched for all sleep journals given an impact factor by Thomson Reuters from 2005 to 2018 and all journals given a current H₅ index by Google Scholar. We provide a ranking list specifically for sleep journals that might be useful for researchers to cite when providing context in their applications for employment, promotion and funding.

Integrity of clinical research conduct, reporting, publishing, and post-publication promotion in rheumatology

The number of rheumatology journals, and papers related to this specialty, is expanding every day. Careful consideration for ethical aspects of such published work is mandatory for authors, readers, reviewers, editors, and all stakeholders. Recent instances of lack of appropriate research ethics committee overview, or participant consent for inclusion in the research study, or a case report, resulting in retractions, emphasize the need for greater awareness regarding these ethical aspects. Authors should strive to avoid redundancy, especially for review articles, both systematic and narrative. Clinical trial registration before commencing enrolment is mandatory as per contemporary norms. Transparent declaration of authorship contributions as well as appropriate attribution of authorship are recommended, since these may help avoid subsequent authorship conflicts. Authors, reviewers, and editors should disclose conflicts of interest, both financial and non-financial. Unbiased peer review is a critical part of editorial decision making; recent instances of peer review fraud have resulted in numerous retractions of scientific papers. Any reproduction of text, figures, or tables should be with due attribution to source, and after seeking permission of the copyright holder. Citations to published work should be relevant and diverse. Research assessment should rely on the assessment of quality of published work, rather than mere citation analyses. Authors should beware predatory, low-quality journals, and utilize social media channels to ethically promote their research with due consideration to privacy and copyright. Rheumatology societies should collaborate to develop guidelines for ethical research reporting, and educate young scientists regarding these principles.

The top 100 most-cited Orthopaedics & Traumatology: Surgery & Research articles

BACKGROUND

The French peer-reviewed journal Revue d'Orthopédie founded on 1st January 1890 extended its scope in 2009 by creating the English-language, online-only, indexed journal Orthopaedics & Traumatology: Surgery & Research (OTSR). Bibliometric data help authors and readers assess the citation potential of articles published in a given journal. We found no bibliometrics for the first 10years of OTSR. The objectives of this bibliometric study were to identify (i) the 100 most-cited OTSR articles and (ii) the specialties or article types most often involved in citations.

METHODS

The Scopus database was used to determine the citation rates of the 2158 articles published in OTSR during the journal's first 10years. A bibliometric analysis was performed on the 100 most-cited articles.

RESULTS

Mean time since publication of the 100 most-cited articles was 6.60±1.66years (range: 2-10years) and mean number of citations per article was 49.59±24.16 (range: 30-169). Mean number of citations per year was 7.75±3.26 (range: 4-18.78) and mean number per author was 5.52±3.14 (range: 1-21). The first author was French in 89/100 cases. Of the 100 articles, 56 were based on a multi-centre study and 21 on an international study. Finally, 22/100 articles reported studies sponsored by a scientific society.

DISCUSSION

The 100 articles identified in this study deserve to be viewed as influential. The number of citations will continue to rise, thereby amplifying the impact of OTSR on worldwide research in orthopaedic surgery.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV, systematic retrospective analysis.

Predatory journals: Do not judge journals by their Editorial Board Members

Objective: Given that often the quality of journals is based on its editors, the objective of this study was to describe quantitatively the profiles of members of editorial boards (MEBs) of presumed predatory journals. Methods: The following information was retrieved from 1015 editors taken from journals listed in Beall's list: country, university, position, and degree. The Scopus website was used to identify the number of citations, documents, and h-index. Results: Presumed open access predatory journals are including all types of profiles as their MEBs, which include fake and unqualified editors, but mostly very high-qualified scientists who are professors, medical doctors and/or had a PhD. MEBs were located in 74 different countries, most had an affiliation in the United States of America (USA) (44.4%). The median of publications per editor was 43, number of citations 664 and h-index 14. Conclusions: The results dispute the common belief that it is possible to identify predatory journals by checking their editorial boards. Scientists should not rely on the editors to determine if a journal is predatory. If an author has doubt, the editors should be contacted.