Association of trial characteristics with simultaneous publication and its impact on citations and mentions: a cross-sectional study

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

Randomized trials are often presented at medical conferences and published simultaneously or later. Predictors of simultaneous publication and its consequences are undetermined. Our aim was to characterize the practice of simultaneous publication, identify its predictors, and evaluate its impact.

METHODS

In this cross-sectional study, we included randomized trials presented at late-breaking science sessions of major cardiovascular conferences from 2015 to 2021. The association of trial characteristics with the timing of publication was analyzed. The impact of simultaneous vs nonsimultaneous publication was investigated on the number of 1-year citations and 1-month mentions, and the total citations and mentions at the longest observation follow-up.

RESULTS

Of 478 trials included in the analysis, 48.7% were published simultaneously. Simultaneous publications were more likely to be presented in the main conference room (OR, 6.09; 95%CI, 1.34-36.92; P=.029) and were characterized by a shorter review time (OR, 0.95; 95%CI, 0.91-0.96; P<.001). Simultaneous publications were associated with higher 1-year citations (R2, 43.81; 95%CI, 23.89-63.73; P<.001), 1-month mentions (R2, 132.32; 95%CI, 85.42-179.22; P<.001) and total citations (R2, 222.89; 95%CI, 127.98-317.80; P<.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Randomized trials presented in the main conference room and with shorter review time were more likely to be published simultaneously. Simultaneous publications were associated with more citations and mentions than nonsimultaneous publications.

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.

Research on COVID-19 and its influence on Latin American medical journals impact factor

INTRODUCTION

The arrival of the pandemic caused by coronavirus disease (COVID-19) exponentially increased scientific production.

OBJECTIVE

To analyze the influence of COVID-19-related scientific production on the impact factor values of Latin American medical journals.

METHODS

Journals related to the Medicine categories included in Journal Citation Reports (JCR) were used. Impact factor data from the 2020 and 2021 editions were used to compare the citations received by documents related to COVID-19.

RESULTS

A decrease in the impact factor values of the evaluated journals was observed when the citations received by works related to COVID-19 were eliminated.

CONCLUSIONS

The volume of information published on COVID-19 and the citations received influenced the impact increase in 2021 JCR.

Scientific authorship in neurosurgery

INTRODUCTION

Assessment of scientific bibliographic production is a complex issue, mainly based on the impact factor (IF) of the journals and the h index, that quantifies the number of cites an author receives. In order to estimate the bibliographic production and the influence of co-authorship among Spanish neurosurgeons, we performed a PubMed search aimed to identify all papers published by a sample of neurosurgeons.

METHODS

Cross-sectional observational and regional study. We identified a sample of 183 neurosurgeons from Madrid and Castilla y León Autonomous Communities. The bibliometric information was gathered in March 2022 via PubMed free access website. For each author we registered the type of journal, total number of articles, order of appearance in the authors' list, total IF, the proportion of articles signed as first or second author (Personal Authorship Quotient [PAQ]) and the percentage of IF attributable to those articles (Personal Impact Quotient [PIQ]).

RESULTS

A total of 3,592 articles from 183 authors were published in 412 different journals, of which only 9.9% were pure neurosurgical journals. Only 17 neurosurgeons (9,3%) had published at least one article as unique author. The average number of articles per neurosurgeon was 20 (median 9) of which 57.7% were published in neurosurgical journals, and 22,2% in Neurocirugía (official publication of the SENEC). The average PAQ was 0.367 (median 0.364) and the average PIQ was 0.317 (median 0.251). Both proportions tended to decrease as the number of publications increased.

CONCLUSIONS

On average, Spanish neurosurgeons publish half of their articles in neurosurgical journals, appear as first or second author in one third of the cases, and the IF attributable to these papers comprise 25% of the total IF. The PAQ and PIQ provide bibliometric information that minimizes the enlarging effect on curriculum of massive co-authorship and allow comparisons among authors and different scientific fields.

Fate of rejected manuscripts in the journal Medicina Intensiva during 2015-2017 period

OBJECTIVE

To know the fate of the rejected manuscripts in Medicina Intensiva journal (MI) from 2015 to 2017 with surveillance until 2019.

DESIGN

Retrospective observational study.

SETTING

Biomedical journals publication.

PARTICIPANTS

Rejected manuscripts in MI journal.

INTERVENTIONS

None.

MAIN VARIABLES OF INTEREST

Time of publication, impact factor (IF), generated citations and variables associated to publication.

RESULTS

The 69% (420) of analyzed articles (344 originals and 263 scientific letters) were rejected, and 205 (48.8%) were subsequently published, with 180 citations of 66 articles. Journal IF was lower in 173 (84.4%) articles. The number of FI-valid citations was higher than the FI of MI in 21 articles. Origin of manuscript OR 2,11 (IC 95% 1.29-3.46), female author OR 1.58 (IC 95% 1.03-2.44), english language OR 2,38 (IC 95% 1.41-4.0) and reviewed papers OR 1.71 (IC 95% 1.10-2.66) were associated to publication in PubMed database.

CONCLUSIONS

The rejected articles in MI have a mean publication rate in other journals. Most of these articles are published in journals with less IF and fewer citations than the IF of MI.

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.

Fate of rejected manuscripts in the journal Medicina Intensiva during 2015-2017 period

OBJECTIVE

To know the fate of the rejected manuscripts in Medicina Intensiva journal (MI) from 2015 to 2017 with surveillance until 2019.

DESIGN

Retrospective observational study.

SETTING

Biomedical journals publication.

PARTICIPANTS

Rejected manuscripts in MI journal.

INTERVENTIONS

None.

MAIN VARIABLES OF INTEREST

Time of publication, impact factor (IF), generated citations and variables associated to publication.

RESULTS

The 69% (420) of analyzed articles (344 originals and 263 scientific letters) were rejected, and 205 (48.8%) were subsequently published, with 180 citations of 66 articles. Journal IF was lower in 173 (84.4%) articles. The number of FI-valid citations was higher than the FI of MI in 21 articles. Origin of manuscript OR 2,11 (IC 95% 1.29 - 3.46), female author OR 1.58 (IC 95% 1.03-2.44), english language OR 2,38 (IC 95% 1.41-4.0) and reviewed papers OR 1.71 (IC 95% 1.10-2.66) were associated to publication in PubMed database.

CONCLUSIONS

The rejected articles in MI have a mean publication rate in other journals. Most of these articles are published in journals with less IF and fewer citations than the IF of MI.

Altmetrics Analysis of Archivos de Bronconeumología From 2014 to 2018

INTRODUCTION

Alternative metrics or altmetrics are non-traditional measurements of scientific production that reflect a publication's influence in social networks and similar channels of dissemination. The aim of this study was to analyze the media impact of Archivos de Bronconeumología according to 2 altmetric aggregators and website visits.

METHODS

This was an observational study of the original articles and review and consensus articles published in Archivos de Bronconeumología during the period 2014-2018. Data from the PlumX Metrics and Altmetric aggregators and visits to the Archivos de Bronconeumología website were analyzed. Five comparisons were made: by specialty area, by funding received, by number of participating centers, by document type, and by topic. In a subanalysis, altmetrics were correlated with the conventional citation system.

RESULTS

We analyzed 273 papers, of which 186 were original articles (68.1%). The papers that achieved greater media impact in the 2 aggregators analyzed, and in terms of website visits, were pulmonology papers and review and consensus articles. The mean Altmetric Attention Score was 1.9±4.4 (range 0-59), which is above average for the date of publication of the paper. A statistically significant weak to moderate correlation was identified between altmetrics and conventional citations.

CONCLUSIONS

Review articles, consensus documents, and pulmonology papers had a greater media impact. Mean Altmetric Attention Score was higher than the average based on the date of publication. A weak to moderate correlation between altmetrics and conventional citations was identified.

The top 100: A review of the most cited articles in Surgery

INTRODUCTION

We performed a study of the top 100 most cited articles in the five general surgery journals with the highest impact according to Journal Citation Report.

METHODS

We selected the five journals with the highest impact in 2015: Annals of Surgery, British Journal of Surgery, JAMA Surgery, Surgery, and Journal of the American College of Surgeons. In January 2017, using the Web of Science application, we performed a search of all articles published by these journals and identified the 100 most cited articles (top 100). We evaluated the number of citations, year of publication, type of article, country and hospital of the article, area of interest and number of authors.

RESULTS

The median number of citations per top 100 paper was 490. Twenty percent of the top 100 papers have been published since 2000. Overall, 70% are original papers, 8% randomized control trials, 11% reviews, 1% meta-analyses and 11% other subtypes. There are 13% proceedings papers. Sixty-one percent are from the US. The most frequently discussed topic is hepato-pancreato-biliary surgery (33%).

CONCLUSIONS

The top 100 most cited articles tend to be original articles describing studies carried out in the US, reporting significant surgical breakthroughs. Hepato-pancreato-biliary surgery is the most common subject area. Annals of Surgery had twice as many citations as the other journals studied. The archetypal article of the Top15 most cited is an original paper published in the twentieth century, with an average of 2000 citations.

[Contribution of Anales de Pediatría to the international visibility of Spanish paediatric research in the Web of Science (2010-2014)]

OBJECTIVE

To describe the role of Anales de Pediatría in highlighting Spanish paediatric research, and to identify the journals with which it competes internationally.

MATERIAL AND METHOD

Spanish paediatric articles, including those from Anales de Pediatría were identified using the Paediatrics category of the Science Citation Index (2010-2014), and their volume and document type was analysed. For original articles and review articles, the year, the citation and journal of publication was studied. The journals were classified as general and specialised. The productivity of general journals was analysed according to their language, JCR quartile, and article access.

RESULTS

A total of 2,701 Spanish paediatric papers were identified, accounting for 2.8% of the paediatrics world output. More than two-thirds (68%) of papers were articles that received an average number of 4.97 citations per article. The 965 papers published in Anales de Pediatría accounted for 38.7% of the Spanish paediatric output, and for 1% of the paediatric world publications. A mean of 1.03 citations per article were received for 439 (45.4%) articles and reviews. Of the 106 journals identified, 82 were classified as specialised (1,196 articles) and 24 as general (741 articles). Anales de Pediatría published 60% of the articles in general journals. The rest of articles (309) were published in general journals published in English (82.8%), with a best position in the JCR ranking (83.4%) and mainly by subscription (73.8%).

CONCLUSIONS

Anales de Pediatría plays an important role in providing international visibility to a large volume of Spanish scientific production in paediatrics. The results presented are a still only a snapshot of this role that could be used in the near future for assessing its evolution and the changes that could be made in order to improve its quality, positioning and competitiveness.

Scientific production and bibliometric impact of a representative group of Spanish internists with established research careers

OBJECTIVE

To study the temporal evolution of the bibliometric indices of internists with established research experience in order to predict the future behavior of researchers and to assess whether output focused on a specific area of internal medicine helps obtain greater visibility than in general internal medicine.

MATERIAL AND METHOD

We analyzed a representative group of members of the Spanish Society of Internal Medicine (SEMI) based on data obtained from the Web of Science. As an indicator of productivity, we analyzed the number of articles published. As impact indicators, we studied the impact factor (IF), the number of citations and the h-index.

RESULTS

We analyzed 42 internists, with a mean experience of 30 years and a total of 6655 publications. The mean (SD) number of studies was 158 (96), the number of citations was 2,850 (2,865), the IF was 711 (549) and the h-index was 25 (11). These figures were higher for the specialist internists than for the general internists. There was a good relationship between the impact and productivity indicators (R(2)=.61-.89) and a poor relationship between these indicators and the years of experience (R(2)=.13-.19). The temporal evolution of these indicators for each individual researcher and for all researchers as a whole was adjusted to a second-degree polynomial model, with the h-index having the highest R(2) values.

CONCLUSIONS

The h-index is the factor that had the best adjustment and least variability and could therefore help predict the future scientific output and impact of internists. The specialist researchers achieved greater visibility than the general internists.

Publication analysis of the contact lens field: what are the current topics of interest?

PURPOSE

To determine the main current research interests of scientists working in the contact lens field.

METHODS

All articles published in the 2011 issues of all journals included in the Journal Citation Reports subject category Ophthalmology were inspected to expose those papers related to the contact lens field. Information regarding source journal was obtained and authorship details were recorded to determine the top most prolific authors, institutions and countries. A comprehensive list of key words was compiled to generate a two-dimensional term map in which the frequency of occurrence of a particular term is defined by label size and the distance between two terms is an indication of the relatedness of these terms, based on their co-occurrences within groups of key words. Clusters of related terms were also identified.

RESULTS

Visual examination of all articles uncovered a total of 156 papers, published in 28 different journals. Contact Lens & Anterior Eye, Eye & Contact Lens and Optometry and Vision Science had 27 articles each. The most prolific authors and institutions revealed the predominance of countries with long research tradition in the contact lens field. Ten different word clusters or areas of interest were identified, including both traditional, yet unresolved issues (e.g., comfort or dry eye), and the latest research efforts (e.g., myopia control).

CONCLUSIONS

These findings, which revealed contact lenses to be a fertile area of research, may be of relevance to new researchers as well as to those interested in exploring the latest research trends in this scientific discipline.

The evaluation of the individual impact factor of researchers and research centers using the RC algorithm

The RC algorithm quantitatively evaluates the personal impact factor of the scientific production of isolated researchers. The authors propose an adaptation of RC to evaluate the personal impact factor of research centers, hospitals and other research groups. Thus, these could be classified according to the accredited impact of the results of their scientific work between researchers of the same scientific area. This could be useful for channelling budgets and grants for research.

[Report: an analysis of publications by members of the Spanish Geriatrics and Gerontology Society from 2006 to 2011]

Data is presented from the survey conducted by the Sociedad Española de Geriatría y Gerontología (SEGG) (Spanish Society of Geriatrics and Gerontology) among its members in order to assess their scientific production between 2006 and 2011, specifically articles in journals that are indexed in the Science Citation Index. The scientific quality of the publications was quantified using the number of times every article was cited and the journal's impact factor. A total of 162 out of the 2450 members responded (6.6%), reporting a total of 903 individual articles, 335 (37%) of them in geriatrics-specific journals, and 568 (63%) in other journals of other specialties. The number of publications increased yearly from 128 in 2006 to 201 in 2010. The scientific quality could be calculated for 530 articles. On average, publications have been cited 8.2 times (median: 2), with the range of citations being from 0 to 242. The average impact factor was 3.1 (median 2.4), ranging from 0 to 53.5. A number of articles have been published in some of the largest impact factor journals, in those of general-interest, as well as geriatrics-specific and basic science journals.