Measuring Scholarly Productivity: A Primer for Junior Faculty. Part III: Understanding Publication Metrics

Research hotspot and frontiers in post-stroke dysphagia: A bibliometric study and visualisation analysis

BACKGROUND

Dysphagia, a common complication after stroke, significantly hampers the recovery process of patients, both due to dysphagia itself and the additional complications it causes. Although a large number of articles have been published on post-stroke dysphagia (PSD), bibliometric analysis in this field is still lacking. This study aimed to provide a comprehensive understanding of the research hotspots and trends in PSD, thereby guiding future research efforts.

METHODS

The Web of Science Core Collection (WoSCC) database was searched for articles related to PSD from 2003 to 2022. Data were visualised and analysed using CiteSpace and VOSviewer.

RESULTS

A total of 3102 publications were included in the scientometric analysis, with a gradual increase in the number of papers published each year. The United States emerged as the country with the highest number of publications (625 articles), while the University of Manchester led with the most publications among institutions (67 articles). Notably, Dysphagia was both the most published (254 articles) and the most cited journal (11,141 citations). Among authors, Hamdy S emerged as the most prolific (52 articles), with Martino R being the most cited (1042 citations).

CONCLUSION

Based on our findings, we anticipate that research hotspots in PSD will mainly focus on complications due to PSD such as stroke-associated pneumonia, stroke-related sarcopenia. Additionally, exploration into the mechanisms and parameters of noninvasive brain stimulation techniques for the treatment of PSD, as well as the rehabilitation needs of patients with PSD, are expected to be key focal points in future research endeavours.

Post-stroke cognitive impairment: A bibliometric and knowledge-map analysis

BACKGROUND

Post-stroke cognitive impairment (PSCI) has a negative effect on activities of daily living.

OBJECTIVE

Although a number of studies have been published on PSCI, no quantitative studies have yet been conducted.

METHOD

CiteSpace and VOSviewer were used to quantitatively analyze PSCI to illustrate the research hotspots and trends in PSCI. All relevant publications were extracted from the Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-E) of the Web of Science (WoS).

RESULTS

A total of 6536 articles were included in this study. From 349 in 2010 to 942 in 2020, the number of publications increased dramatically. The USA maintained the top position worldwide and provided a vital influence. Harvard University was considered the leader in research collaboration among all institutions. Stroke was the most popular journal in this sector and Vincent Mok published the most articles in this area. We analyzed the keywords and identified five research hotspot clusters. By summarizing the literature on PSCI, we considered the publication information regarding different countries, institutions, authors and journals.

CONCLUSION

The mechanism of PSCI is an active hotspot. Cerebral vascular disease, especially white matter lesions, also received more attention.

Promotion and tenure letters: A guide for faculty

Promotion and tenure (P&T) letters are a key component of the academic advancement portfolio. Despite their importance, many faculty are not trained to write these letters and there is limited literature describing the approach and key components. This paper reviews the role of P&T letters and provides general guidelines for writers. We present a step-by-step guide, which includes how to respond to requests, the role of institutional guidelines, providing context to the letter, evaluating candidates, and delivering an overall recommendation. Finally, we discuss current controversies in P&T letters. This paper is intended to help novice and more experienced writers to enhance their P&T letters, while also helping applicants for promotion understand what is being asked of their letter writers.

Leveraging Google Scholar to Facilitate Resident Research Reporting

Introduction The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) requires annual reporting of resident scholarly activities. However, this can be time-consuming for both residents and residency leadership and may not contain the most accurate or up-to-date information. This study sought to determine whether Google Scholar could adequately identify resident publications when compared with their ACGME self-report. Methods This was a cross-sectional study comparing resident Google Scholar publications with their ACGME self-reported data from 2018 to 2020. Manuscripts were only included if they were published prior to June 30, 2020, and while the participant was a resident at Rush University Medical Center. We did not count articles published prior to beginning residency. We independently collected data from the residents' self-report and Google Scholar profiles and compared the results. We assessed the overall concordance between data. When a discordant publication was identified, it was reviewed in full and discussed with the resident to ensure that it was correctly attributed to the resident. Data were presented primarily as descriptive statistics including percentages. Results Of 24 (96%) residents, 23 created Google Scholar profiles. There were 22 total publications. Google Scholar was concordant with self-report in 18 (78.3%) instances and discordant in five (21.7%) cases. In all five residents (n = 9 publications), the discordant publication was correctly identified by Google Scholar despite not being reported by the resident in their ACGME self-report. Conclusion We found that resident Google Scholar accounts resulted in the identification of publications that had not been previously reported on their ACGME self-report without missing any relevant publications.

Scholarly Productivity Among Academic Foot and Ankle Surgeons Affiliated With US Podiatric Medicine and Surgery Residency and Fellowship Training Programs

Foot and ankle surgeons practicing within academic medicine balance clinical or surgical training, course instruction, administrative duties, and research. Along with clinical skills and patient volume, promotion within academia often relies on scholarly productivity. Previous research across specialties described this productivity using variables including publications, citations, and the h-index, a scale that quantifies the productivity and citation impact of published works, among academic ranks. As no studies examine the scholarly impact of foot and ankle surgeons with academic appointments, this study aimed to analyze the productivity and gender differences present in this specialty. A systematic review of academic-affiliated foot and ankle surgery residencies and fellowships was performed; and faculty members were screened for sex, academic rank, publication history, citations, h-index, and years in practice. Among 234 programs reviewed, 44 programs allowed for the analysis of 106 practitioners with an academic rank eligible for analysis. Overall, 78.3% of practitioners were male with the most common rank being assistant professor. Men published more documents and maintained higher citations as well as longer years in practice, and this was significant (p < .05). A significant difference was exhibited among all academic ranks (p ≤ .001). Multivariate regression revealed the publication history and years in practice are strongly correlated with the h-index of providers (p ≤ .001). Foot and ankle surgeons practicing in an academic setting may use the results of this study to gauge their productivity and identify benchmarks that similar providers have met at varying academic ranks.

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.

Article-Level Metrics

In the era of digitization and Open Access, article-level metrics are increasingly employed to distinguish influential research works and adjust research management strategies. Tagging individual articles with digital object identifiers allows exposing them to numerous channels of scholarly communication and quantifying related activities. The aim of this article was to overview currently available article-level metrics and highlight their advantages and limitations. Article views and downloads, citations, and social media metrics are increasingly employed by publishers to move away from the dominance and inappropriate use of journal metrics. Quantitative article metrics are complementary to one another and often require qualitative expert evaluations. Expert evaluations may help to avoid manipulations with indiscriminate social media activities that artificially boost altmetrics. Values of article metrics should be interpreted in view of confounders such as patterns of citation and social media activities across countries and academic disciplines.

A Review of Journal Impact Metrics and Characteristics to Assist Emergency Medicine Investigators with Manuscript Submission Decisions

Introduction

A crucial, yet subjective and non-evidence-based, decision for researchers is where to submit their original research manuscripts. The approach of submitting to journals in descending order of impact factor (IF) is a common but imperfect strategy. The validity of the IF as a measure of journal quality and significance is suspect, and a number of other journal impact scores have emerged, such that no one scale is universally accepted. Furthermore, practical considerations, such as likelihood of manuscript acceptance rates and times for decisions, may influence how authors prioritize journals. In this report, we sought to 1) review emergency medicine (EM) journal impact metrics, and 2) provide a comprehensive list of pertinent journal characteristics that may influence researchers’ choice of submission.

Methods

We systematically reviewed five impact metrics (IF, H Index, CiteScore, Source-Normalized Impact per Paper, and SCImago Journal Rank) and other relevant characteristics of 20 EM journals.

Results

We found good to excellent agreement in ordinal rankings of four of the journal impact metrics, as measured by the Spearman rank correlation coefficient. The median acceptance rate for original research manuscripts in the EM category was 25% (interquartile range [IQR] 18, 31%), and the median initial decision time was 33 days (IQR 18, 56 days). Fourteen EM journals (70%) accepted brief reports, and 15 (75%) accepted case reports/images.

Conclusion

We recommend replication, expansion, and formalization of this repository of information for EM investigators in a continuously updated, open-access forum sponsored by an independent organization.

Bibliometric analysis of adverse drug reactions and pharmacovigilance research activities in Nepal

Background:

Bibliometric analyses have been used previously to study the measures of quality and impact of research performed in several health-related areas such as adverse drug reactions (ADRs) and pharmacovigilance (PV), etc. This method can assess the research performance of publications quantitatively and statistically. There is no evidence of bibilometric studies analyzing ADRs and PV from Nepal. Therefore, the present study aimed to assess scientific output on ADRs and PV-related research activities in Nepal using a bibliometric analysis of publications from 2004 January to December 2018, that is, 15 years.

Methods:

A systematic search was conducted in PubMed, Web of Science, Google Scholar, Scopus and Nepal Journal Online (NepJOL) databases. ‘Adverse Drug Reactions‘ or ‘ADRs‘ or ‘ADR‘ or ‘Adverse drug reaction‘ or ‘AE‘ or ‘Adverse Event‘ or ‘Drug-Induced Reaction‘ or ‘Pharmacovigilance‘ or ‘PV‘ and ‘Nepal‘. The search covered 15 years (January 2004 to December 2018) of study on ADRs and PV in Nepal. Only articles retrieved from databases were included, whereas published/unpublished drug bulletins, pharmacy newsletters and thesis were excluded. The articles thus retrieved were recorded, and thereafter analyzed. Word count code was used for the analysis of keywords used in the retrieved articles.

Results:

A total of 124 articles were retrieved, with the highest rate of publications in 2006 and 2007, with 16 papers each. Among the articles, 10 (8.1%) were published in Kathmandu University Medical Journal (KUMJ). Single papers were published in 38 different journals. Brief reports (1.6%), case reports (31.2%), case series (0.8%), education forums (0.8%), letters to the editor (5.6%), original research articles (41.9%), review articles (9.7%), short communications and short reports (8.1%) on ADRs and PV were recorded. Out of 124 papers, 52 (41.9%) were original research publications. The majority (74.1%) of research was done in the category of ADR incidence, types, prevention, and management, followed by policy and suggestions for strengthening national and regional pharmacovigilance centers of Nepal (14.5%).

Conclusions:

During the study years, there was an increase in scientific publications on drug safety. A total of 124 published articles were found during bibliometric analysis of ADRs and PV research activities in Nepal.