Publication performance of university maxillofacial surgeons in Germany

The aim of this bibliometric analysis was to benchmark the publication activities of German university departments of oral and maxillofacial surgery. The publication performance of staff surgeons (chief and consultants), documented by first or last authorship, from 37 German university departments was captured over a 10-year period (January 1, 2010, to December 31, 2019). All publications listed in PubMed were included. Additionally, the Impact Factor (IF) was determined. A total of 213 surgeons were identified, of whom 158 (74.2%) were publishing. The number of publications was 1,777, published in 311 journals. Publication activity ranged from an average of 23.3 publications per staff surgeon in the top-ranked department to 0 publications in the last-ranked. The same trend was observed for the total cumulative IFs (CIFs) per member (range from 56.2 to 0). The most common used journal was the Journal of Cranio-Maxillofacial Surgery (19.7%), with focus on "dentoalveolar surgery" (24%) and "operative techniques and procedures" (28.3%). Women constituted 19.2% of the staff, contributing to 8.5% of the publications. The publication performance of German university departments of oral and maxillofacial surgery exhibits a high variance, which did not correlate with the number of personnel and could only be explained by different research motivations.

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.

Trends of impact factor contributors to the Injury Journal: A bibliometric analysis

PURPOSE

This study aims to analyse papers concerning journal impact factors published in the Injury-International Journal of the Care of the Injured between 1997 and 2022. Through this analysis, the research offers valuable insights into the publication performance and contributors to the journal impact factor, encompassing papers, authors, institutions, and countries.

METHODS

Articles and reviews published in the Injury between 1995 and 2021 were examined using the Science Citation Index Expanded database. The study employed the journal impact factor contributing indicator to compare highly cited and high journal impact factor papers across various aspects, including papers, authors, institutions, and countries.

RESULTS

A notable correlation exists between prolific authors, institutions, and countries, alongside those who contribute to high journal impact factors. However, a less distinct connection was observed between highly cited papers/authors and high journal impact factor contributors. The Injury serves as a well-regarded international journal. Notably, editorial members of the journal play a substantial role, serving as model editors and contributing significantly to the journal's success. Out of the Top 25 IF contributing papers with the CN of 34 or more the following themes were noted to dominate: bone healing/tissue regeneration (40 %) of papers, covid-19 pandemic (24 %), polytrauma/coagulopathy (12 %) and infection (8 %).

CONCLUSIONS

Utilizing the journal impact factor to assess research performance at the individual, institutional, or national levels appears not to be the most appropriate method. The results show that highly cited authors did not hold the distinction of being the primary contributors to the IF. Analysis revealed a low significant relationship among the primary contributors to the IF, highly cited papers, and the most influential papers in 2022. A more effective indicator could involve considering the total number of citations a publication receives from its year of publication up to the end of the most recent year.

Copublication promotes dissemination hypertension guidelines: a retrospective cohort study

To evaluate the impact of copublication on hypertension-related clinical practice guidelines' citation, we searched the Web of Science Core Collection and guide.medlive.cn until 31 December 2017 using the terms "hypertension" and "guideline". The copublished group was matched with the noncopublished group at a 1:2 ratio. Primary outcomes were total citations and citations within the first five years after publication. Secondary outcomes included the adjusted impact factor ratio (excluding copublished guidelines) to the actual impact factor of the journal. Altmetric scores were compared using Altmetric explorer data. 21 copublished and 42 noncopublished guidelines were included. The copublished group had higher median current total citations [387.0 (90.0, 1806.0) vs 70.5 (23.25, 158.25)], and higher median citations at one, two, three, four, and five years [7.0 (0.5, 58.5) vs 1.0 (0.0, 5.5), 33.0 (14.0, 142.0) vs 5.5 (1.75, 26.25), 46.0 (24.5, 216.0) vs 10.5 (3, 25.75), 50.0 (19.0, 229.0) vs 9.0 (3.0, 19.0), 52.0 (13.5, 147.0) vs 7.0 (2.0, 20.0), all p < 0.05]. The adjusted IF analysis showed that if they had not copublished the guidelines, 10 of 24 and 11 of 24 journals would have had a lower IF in the first and second years. Median altmetric scores were significantly higher for copublished guidelines [38.5 (9.5, 90.5) vs 3.5 (1.0, 9.0)] (p < 0.05). Copublication is associated with a higher citation frequency of hypertension guidelines and may increase the journal IF. Positive impacts extend beyond academia, benefiting society through broader guideline application and dissemination. This facilitates broader application of guidelines and promotes their dissemination. We conducted a retrospective cohort study to demonstrate how copublication promotes the dissemination of hypertension guidelines.

Bibliometric evaluation of Anais Brasileiros de Dermatologia (2013-2022)

The Anais Brasileiros de Dermatologia, published since 1925, is the most influential dermatological journal in Latin America, indexed in the main international bibliographic databases, and occupies the 50th position among the 70 dermatological journals indexed in the Journal of Citations Reports, in 2022. In this article, the authors present a critical analysis of its trajectory in the last decade and compare its main bibliometric indices with Brazilian medical and international dermatological journals. The journal showed consistent growth in different bibliometric indices, which indicates a successful editorial policy and greater visibility in the international scientific community, attracting foreign authors. The increases in citations received (4.1×) and in the Article Influence Score (2.9×) were more prominent than those of the main Brazilian medical and international dermatological journals. The success of Anais Brasileiros de Dermatologia in the international scientific scenario depends on an assertive editorial policy, on promptly publication of high-quality articles, and on institutional stimulus to encourage clinical research in dermatology.

Mapping out the bibliometric characteristics of classic articles published in a Taiwanese academic journal in dentistry: A scopus-based analysis

Background/purpose

Since its inception, the Journal of Dental Sciences (JDS) has aimed to publish quality articles relevant to all fields in dentistry. The purpose of this study was to analyze the bibliometric characteristics and dissected associated factors correlated with citation counts of classic articles published in the JDS.

Materials and method

Scopus® database was used to search the qualified articles published in JDS from 2009 to 2021. The bibliometric parameters, including journal impact factor (JIF), self-citation, study design, research field, geographic, country and institute of origin, inter-institute, inter-nation collaboration, keywords hotness and associated factors correlated with citation counts of classic articles were analyzed.

Results

One hundred and eight articles from Scopus® database were eligible for analysis. The citation counts of classic articles ranged from 12 to 192, the average citation was 22.02. The most common study design was the in vitro/in vivo, followed by the cross-sectional study, and the major research field were Dental Materials. The most productive country and institute is Taiwan, and Chung Shan Medical University, respectively. The trend of inter-institute (71.03%) and inter-nation (11.22%) collaboration steadily increased since 2009. By using the multivariable linear regression model, Preventive and Community Dentistry in the research field significantly increased the citation counts.

Conclusion

Despite its limitations, the escalating trends in JIFs, and JIFs without self-citations, and inter-nation and inter-institute collaboration of classic articles were noticed. Of all the dissected associated factors, Preventive and Community Dentistry in the research field significantly increased the citation counts of classic article.

Citation Trend Analysis of the articles published in the Journal of Orthopaedics®

Journal of Orthopaedics® is the premier Orthopaedic journal from India and contributes towards the improvement of the quality of Orthopaedic health care. It proudly received its first Journal Impact Factor of 1.5 in June 2023. Its Journal Level Metrics and Citation Analysis have shown an impressive growth. Citation Trend analysis provides a benchmark to gauge and quantify the scientific impact of journals in academic publishing.

Bibliometric evaluation of Forensic Science International as a scholarly journal within the subject category legal medicine

This article presents a bibliometric evaluation of Forensic Science International (FSI) as a scholarly journal within the "legal medicine" subject category. Citation data were retrieved from Science Citation Index (SCI) and Journal Citation Reports (JCR), both of which are part of the Web-of-Science (WOS) database. The most cited articles in FSI were identified along with the most prolific authors. The current journal impact factor (JIF) of FSI is 2.2, which was in good agreement with the 5-year JIF of 2.3. FSI was ranked fourth among 17 journals within the legal medicine subject category. Since 1979, a total of 209 FSI articles were cited over 100 times and the H-index for times cited was 125. Although widely used in academia, bibliometric methods might also prove useful in jurisprudence, such as when evaluating the research and publications of people proposed as expert witnesses.

Citation of updated and co-published Cochrane Methodology Reviews

BACKGROUND

To evaluate the number of citations for Cochrane Methodology Reviews after they have been updated or co-published in another journal, and the effect of co-publishing the review on the co-publishing journal's impact factor (IF).

METHODS

We identified all Cochrane Methodology Reviews published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) before 2018 and searched for co-published versions in the Web of Science Core Collection database up to 16 August 2022. The included reviews were in two cohorts: those that had been published and updated in CDSR and those that had been published in CDSR and co-published in another journal. The primary outcome measured the citation number to updated and original reviews in the first five years after publication of the updated review, and assessed the citation number of co-published and non-co-published reviews in the first five years after publication of the co-published version. The secondary outcome was the ratio of an adjusted IF and the actual IF of the co-publishing journal.

RESULTS

Eight updated and six original reviews were identified for the updated cohort of reviews, and four co-published reviews were included in the co-published cohort. The original reviews continued to be cited after the update was published but the median for the total number of citations was non-significantly higher for the updated reviews than for their original version[161 (Interquartile range (IQR) 85, 198) versus 113 (IQR 15, 433)]. The median number of total citations [362 (IQR 179, 840) versus 145 (IQR 75, 445)] and the median number of citations to the review in the first five years after co-publication combined and in each of those years was higher in the co-published group than in the non-co-published group. One of the three journals that co-published Reviews in the first year and two journals in the second year had a lower IF after co-publication.

CONCLUSIONS

Earlier versions of Cochrane Methodology Reviews continue to be cited after an update is published, which raises doubts about whether those citing are using the most recent evidence or are aware of the update. Co-publication facilitates broader application and dissemination of Cochrane methodology evidence.

Research trends within aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage from 2017 to 2021: a bibliometric study

Bibliometric analyses are a well-established strategy for understanding the dynamics of publications. Aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (aSAH) is a hot topic in neurology and neurosurgery research. To perform a bibliometric analysis of recent publications within aSAH. Articles addressing aSAH published between 2017 and 2021 were included and had their information extracted from Scopus. A total of 2177 articles were included. The mean number of citations was 6.18 (95%CI = 5.77-6.59). 2021 and 2020 were the most prolific years. World Neurosurgery (N = 389/2,177 articles; 17,87%) was the leading publisher, and American Journal of Neuroradiology had the highest number of citations per article (14.82) among journals with ≥ 10 publications. Primary research (N = 1624/2177) predominated, followed by case reports (N = 434/2,177). Among secondary studies, systematic reviews (N = 78/119) surpassed narrative reviews (N = 41/119). USA led the number of publications (N = 548/2,177 articles; 25.17%), followed by China (N = 358/2,177 articles; 16.44%). High-income countries had a higher number of publications (N = 1624/2177) and more citations per article (6.84) than middle-income countries (N = 553/2177 and 4.25, respectively). There were zero articles from low-income countries. European and North American institutions had the greatest research impact. There was an increase in the number of published articles in the last few years (2020 and 2021). Many studies had a low level of evidence, whereas interventional studies were uncommon.

Impact of international collaboration on dentistry related papers published in Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

Objective

This bibliographic analysis was designed to review all dental publications in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) and evaluate the effect of international collaboration on the impact of published articles.

Methods

The Web of Science (WOS) database was used to extract all related published articles in the KSA from 1982 to 2021. The keywords were connected using Boolean Operators to download related articles. Downloaded articles were screened according to the following inclusion criteria: collaboration journal category, journal discipline, number of citations, number of authors, and impact factor. After applying the inclusion criteria and excluding single-author articles, 5,689 documents were included in the final analysis. The chi-square test and two-independent samples t-test were used to determine the statistical significance between the variables.

Results

A significantly higher proportion of articles with international collaboration (51.4%) were published in dental journals than those published nationally (43.3%) or within the institutional level (41.8%) (P < 0.0001). In addition, the average number of citations (9.28 ± 23.8) ranged from 0 to 749, received by an article and the impact factor of the journal in which the article was published, significantly higher in the case of internationally collaborative work compared with national or within institutional collaboration (P < 0.0001).

Conclusion

International collaboration positively affected the impact factor, number of citations, and quartile rank of published articles. Moreover, the number of co-authors in different countries contributes to the international collaboration effect.

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 Role of the Journal Impact Factor in Chemistry Research

The journal impact factor (JIF) is a skewed metrics whose value is dictated by just a few highly cited articles. Therefore, the use of the JIF to evaluate journals, scholars, or research institutes is flawed. Still, the JIF continues to play a central role in evaluating scholarship in chemistry, the most reluctant amid scientific disciplines to embrace the principles of open science. This study investigates the origins of this social behavior, and suggests avenues to improve scholarly communication in the chemical sciences following the example of the life sciences.

Journal metrics, document network, and conceptual and social structures of the Korean Journal of Anesthesiology from 2017 to July 2022: a bibliometric study

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to identify the directions of research published in the Korean Journal of Anesthesiology (KJA) and identify the main topics and journal network through a bibliometric analysis. The results can be reflected in strategies for the journal's promotion to a top-ranking journal in the anesthesiology category.

METHODS

KJA articles from January 1, 2017 to September 11, 2022 were retrieved from the Web of Science Core Collection on September 11, 2022, and analyzed using Biblioshiny. Journal metrics, the document network, the conceptual structure, and social structures were elucidated.

RESULTS

Out of 525 articles, fewer than half (48.6%) were from Korean corresponding authors. The impact factor steeply increased from 2.316 in 2019 to 5.167 in 2021. The Hirsch index of KJA was 24. A co-occurrence network of Keywords Plus showed four clusters of central keywords: surgery, management, anesthesia, and mortality. The conceptual structure map of Keywords Plus showed a main cluster of anesthesia and analgesia, while another minor cluster included intubation and induction. The co-citation network demonstrated that KJA was in the same cluster of anesthesiology journals. The collaboration network of the authors' countries showed that Korean authors collaborated mainly with researchers in the United States and Canada.

CONCLUSIONS

These results show KJA's developmental process of promotion to a top-tier journal in the anesthesiology category. Furthermore, the following strategies are suggested for journal promotion: recruitment of articles on emerging and highly citable topics; and more active collaboration of society members with researchers worldwide.

Study results from journals with a higher impact factor are closer to "truth": a meta-epidemiological study

BACKGROUND

Scientists, physicians, and the general public legitimately expect scholarly publications to give true answers to study questions raised. We investigated whether findings from studies published in journals with higher Journal Impact Factors (JIFs) are closer to truth than findings from studies in less-cited journals via a meta-epidemiological approach.

METHODS

We screened intervention reviews from the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) and sought well-appraised meta-analyses. We used the individual RCT study estimates' relative deviation from the pooled effect estimate as a proxy for the deviation of the study results from the truth. The effect of the JIF on the relative deviation was estimated with linear regression and with local polynomial regression, both with adjustment for the relative size of studies. Several sensitivity analyses for various sub-group analyses and for alternative impact metrics were conducted.

RESULTS

In 2459 results from 446 meta-analyses, results with a higher JIF were on average closer to "truth" than the results with a lower JIF. The relative deviation decreased on average by -0.023 per JIF (95% CI -0.32 to -0.21). A decrease was consistently found in all sensitivity analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results indicate that study results published in higher-impact journals are on average closer to truth. However, the JIF is only one weak and impractical indicator among many that determine a studies' accuracy.

Assessing the quality of reporting of studies using Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI) data

OBJECTIVE

The Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI) has become an increasingly popular data source for retrospective observational vascular surgery studies. There are published guidelines on the reporting of data in such studies to promote transparency and rigor, but these have not been used to evaluate studies using VQI data. Our objective was to appraise the methodological reporting quality of studies using VQI data by evaluating their adherence to these guidelines.

METHODS

The Society for Vascular Surgery VQI publication repository was queried for all articles published in 2020. The REporting of studies Conducted using Observational Routinely-collected Health Data (RECORD) statement and the Journal of American Medical Association-Surgical Section (JAMA-Surgery) checklist were utilized to assess the quality of each article's reporting. Five and three items from the RECORD statement and JAMA-Surgery checklist were excluded, respectively, because they were either inapplicable or nonassessable. Journal impact factor (IF) was queried for each article to elucidate any difference in reporting standards between high and low IF journals.

RESULTS

Ninety studies were identified and analyzed. The median score on the RECORD checklist was 6 (of 8). The most commonly missed item was discussing data cleaning methods (93% missed). The median score on the JAMA-Surgery checklist was 3 (of 7). The most commonly missed items were the identification of competing risks (98% missed), the use of a flow chart to clearly define sample exclusion and inclusion criteria (84% missed), and the inclusion of a solid research question and hypothesis (81% missed). There were no differences in JAMA-Surgery checklist or RECORD statement median scores among studies published in low vs high IF journals.

CONCLUSIONS

Studies using VQI data demonstrate a poor to moderate adherence to reporting standards. Key areas for improvement in research reporting include articulating a clear hypothesis, using flow charts to clearly define inclusion and exclusion criteria, identifying competing risks, and discussing data cleaning methods. Additionally, future efforts should center on creating tailored instruments to better guide reporting in studies using VQI data.

Impact factor JUMPS after the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic: a retrospective study in Dermatology journals

Background

The term “JUMPS” was used to describe the impact factor (IF) in an article published in PubMed in 2021, representing an increase of more than 40% of IF.

Aims

In this study, we aimed to compare the growth rate of IF JUMPS in Dermatology in the last 5 years, and particularly the effect of the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic.

Methods

This study evaluated the growth rate (JUMP) in IF from 2016 to 2020. We used the Friedman and Wilcoxon signed ranks tests. We classified JUMPS in negative growth rate; Q1 to Q4 quartiles; and journals with > 100%. A 76–100% growth rate was observed in five (7%) journals, and twelve journals (17%) depicted a 51–75% percentage of change.

Results

Several journals in the Dermatology category increased their IF by 50%. Repeated measures analyses showed a significant difference (p < .001).

Conclusion

Although we found journals with growth rates in the four quartiles, no journals depicted negative growth rates nor > 100% growth. Knowing the growing trends in this category might supplement the assessment of target journals for authors looking to submit their works.

Do Prospective Intent and Established Metrics Correlate with Journal Impact Factor in Musculoskeletal Physical Therapy Trials?: A Secondary Analysis of A Methodological Review

OBJECTIVES

To determine if there are any statistically significant associations between: 1) randomized clinical trials (RCTs) investigating physical therapy musculoskeletal interventions, 2) journal impact factor (JIF), 3) frequency of RCT citation, 4) whether prospective intent was identifiable, and 5) the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) scores.

METHODS

MEDLINE indexed RCTs addressing musculoskeletal interventions published between January 2016 and July 2020 in physical therapy journals were included. Two blinded reviewers identified the RCTs and extracted the variables of interest.

RESULTS

With a familywise alpha adjustment, there was no statistically significant correlation between JIF and number of citations (rho = 0.187; p = 0.0280). Statistically significant weak positive correlations were identified between the JIF and prospectively registered RCTs (rho = 0.240; p = 0.0046), JIF and PEDro scores (rho = 0.250; p = 0.0031), and PEDro scores and prospectively registered RCTs (rho = 0.335; p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

The findings of this study suggest that JIF and PEDro scores may not be accurate measures of RCT quality. Failing to ensure that published RCTs followed their prospective intent and using bibliometrics that fail to accurately measure what they propose appears to create untrustworthy preprocessed resources for practicing physical therapists during the evidence-based practice process.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

1a.

Factors, components and dynamics: investigation of journal self-citation and citation by equal opportunity model

The effectivity of journal impact factor (JIF) is questioned in evaluating academic players. Coercive self-citation was widely criticized and Clarivate annually suppressed journals with high journal self-citation (JSC) rates. Recently, some journals significantly increased their articles but their JIFs and JSC rates were diversified which lacks reasonable explanations. Here, we revealed the complexities of the dynamical interactions among different influence factors and different components of journal citation. Journal citation frequencies have strong correlations with JSC rates regarding citable items, significant correlations with numbers of journals' articles and negative significant correlations with JSC rates regarding total citations. Journal citation consists of JSC, intradisciplinary non-JSC and interdisciplinary non-JSC. JSC has the quickest dynamic and interdisciplinary non-JSC has the slowest dynamic while most journals are more cited by interdisciplinary citations. Journal citation is initially decided by the number of citable items. Journal's share (citing articles) in related disciplines influence JSC and intradisciplinary non-JSC positively and negatively, respectively. Multiple citations promoted by the increase in articles, the skewness of the topic profile, preference-related self-citation and anomalous self-citation are of benefit to citation. The complex dynamical interactions result in increment effects of the number of articles acting on JIF, which is stronger for JSC and citable items. The increase in articles also promotes intradisciplinary non-JSC when the journal's shares in related disciplines are low. This process will be reversed after the journal's shares become high enough which may finally decrease its impact factor. It is quicker for the journal with a stronger intradisciplinary citation. The calculational results of the average JIFs of selected journals agree with the statistical results. In addition, we can explain the related situations of some journals. Finally, we suggested that the JSC rate in terms of citable items should be considered for judging the level of JSC.

Evaluation of the quality and subsequent performance of manuscripts rejected by Clinical Rheumatology: a research report

OBJECTIVES

To assess the quality and performance of manuscripts previously rejected by a rheumatology-focused journal.

METHODS

This was a cross-sectional, audit-type, exploratory study of manuscripts submitted to Clinical Rheumatology (CLRH) and rejected by one associate editor in 2019. We used a 36-item quality assessment instrument (5-point ordinal scale, 1 being worst). Performance variables included whether a rejected manuscript was published in another PubMed-listed journal, impact factor of the publishing journal (Scimago), number of citations (Web of Science), and social media attention (Altmetrics). Exploratory variables included authors' past publications, use of reporting guidelines, and text structure. Exploratory variables were assessed using non-parametric tests.

RESULTS

In total, 165 manuscripts were rejected. Reporting guidelines were used in only five (4%) manuscripts. The mean overall quality rating was 2.48 ± 0.73, with 54% of manuscripts rated 2; 40-80% were rated < 3 on crucial items. Over a 26-month follow-up, 79 (48%) rejected manuscripts were published in other journals, mostly with lower impact factors; 70% of these had at least one citation, compared with 90.5% for manuscripts published in CLRH. Altmetrics was significantly lower for manuscripts published elsewhere than for those published in CLRH. As for text structure, the methods and results sections were shorter and the discussion longer than suggested. The corresponding authors' past experience and text structure were not associated with quality or acceptance.

CONCLUSIONS

Research report quality is an area for improvement, mainly for items critical to explaining the research and findings. The use of reporting guidelines should be encouraged by journals. Key Points • The quality of research reports (in rejected manuscripts) is insufficient. • Guidelines for reporting are seldom used in rejected manuscripts. • A manuscript rejected by Clinical Rheumatology may subsequently be published in another journal with a lower impact factor and have fewer citations and less social media attention than accepted manuscripts.

Faculty appointment and promotion in Taiwan's medical schools, a systematic analysis

BACKGROUND

A rigorous faculty appointment and promotion (FAP) system is vital for the success of any academic institution. However, studies examining the FAP system in Asian universities are lacking. We surveyed the FAP policies of Taiwan's medical schools and identified an overreliance on the CJA score (manuscript Category, Journal quality, and Author order). The potential shortcomings of this metric and recommendations for refinement were discussed.

METHODS

We obtained the FAP documents from all 12 medical schools in Taiwan, and analyzed their use of traditional versus non-traditional criteria for FAP according to a published methodology. The influence of the journal impact factor (JIF) on the FAP process was quantified by comparing its relative weight between papers with two extreme JIFs. To better understand the research impact and international standing of each school, we utilized the public bibliographic database to rank universities by the number of papers, and the proportions of papers within the top 10% or 50% citation.

RESULTS

Compared with other countries, Taiwan's medical schools focus more on the quantifiable quality of the research, mostly using a "CJA" score that integrates the category, JIF or ranking, and authorship of a paper, with the JIF being the most influential factor. The CJA score for an article with a JIF of 20 can be up to three times the threshold for promotion to Assistant Professor. The emphasis on JIF is based on a presumed correlation between JIF and citation counts. However, our analysis shows that Taiwan's medical schools have lower-than-average citation counts despite a competitive rank in the number of publications.

CONCLUSIONS

The JIF plays an unrivaled role in determining the outcome of FAP in Taiwan's medical schools, mostly via the CJA system. The questionable effectiveness of the current system in elevating the international standing of Taiwan's higher-education institutions calls for a re-examination of the FAP system. We recommend a reduction in the relative importance of CJA score in the FAP system, adopting more rigorous metrics such as the h-index for evaluating research quality, and supporting more research aimed at improving the FAP system.

Promotion to Top-Tier Journal and Development Strategy of the Annals of Laboratory Medicine for Strengthening its Leadership in the Medical Laboratory Technology Category: A Bibliometric Study

Background

A bibliometric analysis of the Annals of Laboratory Medicine (ALM) was performed to understand its position in the medical laboratory technology category and to suggest a developmental strategy.

Methods

Journal metrics, including the number of articles by publication type, country of authors, total citations, 2-year impact factor, country of cited authors, journals citing ALM, and Hirsch-index, were obtained from the Journal Citation Report and Web of Science Core Collection. Target data included ALM content in the Web of Science from January 1, 2012, to October 5, 2021. Bibliometric analysis was performed using Biblioshiny.

Results

The impact factor increased from 1.481 in 2013 to 3.464 in 2020. Authors belonging to the USA, China, and Korea cited ALM articles the most. Plos One, Scientific Reports, and Frontiers in Microbiology most frequently cited ALM, besides ALM itself. The Hirsch-index was 34. The co-occurrence network of Keyword Plus indicated four clusters diagnosis, identification, prevalence, and risk. The conceptual structure map of Keyword Plus based on multiple correspondence analysis showed two clusters bacterial susceptibility at the bench and clinical courses. The co-citation network showed that ALM was in the cluster of the New England Journal of Medicine, The Lancet, JAMA, and the Annals of Internal Medicine. The collaboration network showed that Korean authors collaborated mainly with authors from the USA, Germany, and Italy.

Conclusions

The journal’s promotion to an international top-tier journal has been successful. “Principles of transparency and best practice in scholarly publishing” and a preprint policy are yet to be added.

The relationship between endorsing reporting guidelines or trial registration and the impact factor or total citations in surgical journals

BACKGROUND

A journal's impact factor (IF) and total citations are often used as indicators of its publication quality. Furthermore, journals that require authors to abide by reporting guidelines or conduct trial registration generally have a higher quality of reporting. In this study, we sought to explore the potential associations between the enforcement of reporting guidelines or trial registration and a surgical journal's IF or total citations in order to find new approaches and ideas to improve journal publication quality.

METHODS

We examined surgical journals from the 2018 Journal Citation Report's Expanded Scientific Citation Index to quantify the use of reporting guidelines or study registration. We reviewed the "instructions for authors" from each journal and used multivariable linear regression analysis to determine which guidelines were associated with the journal IF and total citations. The dependent variable was the logarithm base 10 of the IF in 2018 or the logarithm base 10 of total citations in 2018 (the results were presented as geometric means, specifically the ratio of the "endorsed group" results to "not endorsed group" results). The independent variable was one of the requirements (endorsed and not endorsed). Models adjust for the publication region, language, start year, publisher and journal size (only used to adjust total citations).

RESULTS

We included 188 surgical journals in our study. The results of multivariable linear regression analysis showed that journal IF was associated (P < 0.01) with the following requirements: randomized controlled trial (RCT) registration (geometric means ratio (GR) = 1.422, 95% CI [1.197-1.694]), Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement (1.318, [1.104-1.578]), Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement (1.390, [1.148-1.683]), Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement (1.556, [1.262-1.919]), Standards for Reporting Diagnostic Accuracy (STARD) statement (1.585, [1.216-2.070]), and Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) statement (2.113, [1.422-3.133]). We found associations between the endorsement of RCT registration (GR = 1.652, 95% CI [1.268-2.153]), CONSORT (1.570, [1.199-2.061]), PRISMA (1.698, [1.271-2.270]), STROBE (2.023, [1.476-2.773]), STARD (2.173, [1.452-3.243]), and MOOSE statements (2.249, [1.219-4.150]) and the number of total citations.

CONCLUSION

The presence of reporting guidelines and trial registration was associated with higher IF or more total citations in surgical journals. If more surgical journals incorporate these policies into their submission requirements, this may improve publication quality, thus increasing their IF and total citations.

[Publication performance of university orthopedic trauma surgery in Germany]

Hintergrund

Zu den Leistungskriterien einer Universitätsklinik gehören ihre Publikationsaktivitäten. Ziel der vorliegenden bibliometrischen Untersuchung war es, die Publikationsaktivitäten deutscher unfallchirurgischer Universitätskliniken in einem Benchmarking vergleichend darzustellen.

Material und Methodik

Die Publikationsleistung der Führungsmannschaften, bestehend aus Chef- und Oberärzten, Sektions- und Bereichsleitern von 39 deutschen unfallchirurgischen Universitätskliniken wurde über 10 Jahre (01.01.2010 bis 31.12.2019) erfasst. Berücksichtigt wurden alle Publikationen, die in PubMed gelistet waren und bei denen die entsprechenden Personen Erst- oder Letztautor waren. Zusätzlich wurde der Impact-Faktor (IF) bestimmt.

Ergebnisse

Insgesamt wurden 4438 Veröffentlichungen erfasst, publiziert von 381 Chirurgen. Der Anteil der publizierenden Mitarbeiter betrug 72,8 %. Publiziert wurde in 545 Journalen. Der durchschnittliche IF aller Publikationen war 1,81. Die Publikationsaktivitäten der Kliniken zeigten eine hohe Streubreite, dies galt sowohl für die Publikationsanzahl als auch für die generierten IF des einzelnen Mitarbeiters. Die Publikationsaktivität reichte von durchschnittlich 16,4 Publikationen pro Mitarbeiter in der bestplatzierten Klinik bis 1,5 Publikationen bei der letztplatzierten. Gleiches ergab die Summe der IF. In der nach diesem Maßstab bestplatzierten Klinik erzielte der einzelne Mitarbeiter durchschnittlich kumuliert 42,1 IF verglichen mit 1,7 IF bei der letztplatzierten.

Schlussfolgerung

Die Publikationsleistung deutscher unfallchirurgischer Universitätskliniken zeigt eine hohe Varianz, wie dies auch bei anderen Disziplinen gefunden wurde. Die Ursachen müssen offen bleiben, eine unterschiedliche Forschungsmotivation ist aber nicht auszuschließen.

Leadership diversity in science: Women editors of dental journals are underrepresented compared to women editors of medical journals

OBJECTIVES

Increasing numbers of women are entering dentistry and medicine and it is anticipated that global leadership positions represent this demographic. In this study, the proportion of women editors of prominent medical and dental journals was compared.

METHODS

A list of dental and medical journals, ranked by impact factor, were obtained through Web of Science Journal Citation Reports 2020. Chief and associate editors of these journals were identified as either a woman or a man.

RESULTS

Ninety one dental journals had 100 editors, 15 of whom were women. There were significantly less women chief editors than men (p < 0.0001) compared to the percentage expected (global proportion of women and men dental scientists [IADR] membership: 43.72% women). Of ninety one comparable medical journals ranked by impact factor, there were 103 chief editors, 41 of whom were women. There was no significant difference in the number of men and women chief editors for medical journals (p = 0.242). There were significantly fewer women chief editors for dental journals compared to medical journals (p < 0.0001). There was no significant difference between the mean impact factor for journals with women and men editors for dental (p = 0.556) or medical (p = 0.492) journals. For the 91 dental journals, there were a total of 828 associate editors, of whom 638 were men and 190 were women and this difference was significant (p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

The results demonstrate that women in dental research have attained editor positions with less frequency than men indicating the presence of barriers to progress in scientific dental publishing.

The untapped potential of Instagram to facilitate rheumatology academia

Instagram allows for graphical and visual information exchange. This paper aims to explore the current landscape of rheumatology on Instagram and analyse the accounts available based on their objectives and level of engagement. The search term “#rheumatology” reveals 62 results, leaving 55 after careful exclusion. On grouping into “educational”, “broadcasting”, “support”, and a combination of all three, an analysis is carried out using the total number of posts, follower counts, number of caption characters (last 10 posts), likes per post (last 10 posts), archived stories, reels, IgTV (Instagram Television) videos, hashtags, and links in bio. The analysis reveals that 29 accounts (52.7%) disseminate educational content, 36 (65.4%) are run by organisations, and 22 (40.0%) are of an institute or clinic. Character counts (rho 0.44, p = 0.0006) and videos (likes for ten posts 149 vs. 54, p = 0.006) positively correlate with the number of likes, while hashtag use and post count have no statistical significance with likes. Reels and IgTV videos are infrequently used (18.18%, 3.6%). The rheumatology social media landscape is in its nascency and currently split into educational and broadcasting accounts with a significant overlap between the two. The positive correlation of character counts and videos and the negative correlation of hashtag use and post count with likes lay the case for quality content to improve engagement. Social media editors may ensure quality content for rheumatology education using Instagram.

Key Points • The current landscape of Instagram use in rheumatology is limited and largely orientated towards educative content. • Likes on Instagram are positively correlated with caption character counts and videos. • Using currently underutilised tools like videos, engaging captions, and infographics may enhance the utility of Instagram in rheumatology education.

A bibliometric analysis of paramedicine publications using the Scopus database: 2010-2019

BACKGROUND

Paramedicine is an evolving profession undergoing increases in scholarly activity and peer-reviewed publications. This study aims to complete the first extensive bibliometric examination of the worldwide paramedicine literature.

METHOD

Scopus was utilised to search for paramedicine-based articles published in peer-reviewed journals between 2010 and 2019 inclusive. The included articles were examined for citation count, journal, journal quartile, country of origin, university affiliation, collaboration, and topic.

RESULTS

Paramedicine-based publications have steadily increased and are predominantly published in prehospital or emergency healthcare journals. The majority of highly cited authors were located in Australia; however, only one of these authors was identified as a paramedic. Monash University (Australia) was the most productive institution (11.7% of total articles) and collaboration was mostly within national boundaries (53.2%).

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrates the progressive increase in paramedic scholarly activity over the past decade. Although a large number of articles originate from two countries (Australia and the USA) and one university, numerous nations and institutions are contributing to this body of knowledge. The growing literature base is indicative of the evolution of paramedicine; however, the high level of non-paramedic authors suggests the opportunity for further scholarly development within the paramedic discipline.

Measuring interdisciplinarity of biomedical research, medical specialty performance, and implications for radiology: A retrospective review of 2.6 million citations

PURPOSE

To assess and determine the overall interdisciplinarity and impact of radiology and imaging sciences research.

METHODS

Utilizing the Thomson Reuters Web of Science, the top 15 journals rank-ordered by impact factor in each of 10 major medical subspecialties were identified. The 2012 impact factors for these journals were noted. All articles published in these journals between 2012 and 2014 were then used to produce an index list of publications. We next generated a list of all published articles in the ensuing 5-year period that cited any publication present on our index list. These data were then used to calculate an interdisciplinarity score (DIV*) for 146 unique scientific journals. The correlation between the impact factor and the DIV* score was calculated with Kendall's τ.

RESULTS

The quantitative measure of research interdisciplinarity, DIV*, is significantly correlated with journal impact factor (τ = 0.201, p < 0.001). Research journals within radiology, nuclear medicine, and medical imaging ranked 5th among 10 clinical subspecialties by mean impact factor but ranked second-to-last in mean DIV*.

CONCLUSION

The interdisciplinarity score DIV* is positively correlated with journal impact factor, demonstrating the greater impact and reach of interdisciplinary research. Further, we found radiology, nuclear medicine, and medical imaging research to have one of the lowest measures of DIV* among the 10 major clinical subspecialties. Our findings suggest and point to new opportunities and directions that can expand the breadth and impact of radiology research as well as new ways to increase our reach and audience in the clinical scientific literature.

The new Scopus CiteScore formula and the Journal Impact Factor: a look at top ranking journals and middle ranking journals in the Scopus categories of General Physics and Astronomy, Materials Science, General Medicine and Social Sciences

In June 2020 Elsevier announced that the CiteScore metric of journals underwent a change. This work examines the effect of these changes for 40 journals, chosen from the top five and middle five (ranked by CiteScore) journals in the subject areas of General Physics and Astronomy, Materials Science, Medicine, Social Sciences) and compares to the Journal Impact Factor. It is shown that in the data studied here, the new methodology is less susceptible to influence of the proportion of editorial material in a journal, but tends to favour journals in research fields that publish articles which get cited more quickly.

MRI based radiomics in nasopharyngeal cancer: Systematic review and perspectives using radiomic quality score (RQS) assessment

BACKGROUND

MRI based radiomics has the potential to better define tumor biology compared to qualitative MRI assessment and support decisions in patients affected by nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Aim of this review was to systematically evaluate the methodological quality of studies using MRI- radiomics for nasopharyngeal cancer patient evaluation.

METHODS

A systematic search was performed in PUBMED, WEB OF SCIENCE and SCOPUS using "MRI, magnetic resonance imaging, radiomic, texture analysis, nasopharyngeal carcinoma, nasopharyngeal cancer" in all possible combinations. The methodological quality of study included ( = 24) was evaluated according to the RQS (Radiomic quality score). Subgroup, for journal type (imaging/clinical) and biomarker (prognostic/predictive), and correlation, between RQS and journal Impact Factor, analyses were performed. Mann-Whitney U test and Spearman's correlation were performed. P value < .05 were defined as statistically significant.

RESULTS

Overall, no studies reported a phantom study or a test re-test for assessing stability in image, biological correlation or open science data. Only 8% of them included external validation. Almost half of articles (45 %) performed multivariable analysis with non-radiomics features. Only 1 study was prospective (4%). The mean RQS was 7.5 ± 5.4. No significant differences were detected between articles published in clinical/imaging journal and between studies with a predictive or prognostic biomarker. No significant correlation was found between total RQS and Impact Factor of the year of publication (p always > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Radiomic articles in nasopharyngeal cancer are mostly of low methodological quality. The greatest limitations are the lack of external validation, biological correlates, prospective design and open science.

Gender trends in authorships and publication impact in Academic Radiology-a 10-year perspective

Objectives

To analyze the development of publication numbers of female authors in high-, medium-, and low-impact radiological journals.

Methods

In this bibliometric analysis, gender of the first (FA) and senior author (SA) was assigned to all original research articles and reviews, published in 10 high-, medium-, and low-impact radiological journals in 2007/8 and 2017/18. The adjusted event rate (AER) and adjusted odds ratio (AOR) were calculated using mixed logistic and multinomial logistic regression models to assess and compare female publications according to impact factor, journal, author position, and combination.

Results

The proportion of female FA and female SA in N = 6979 (2007/2008) and N = 7383 (2017/2018) articles increased to 29.1% and 16.1% in 2017/2018, respectively. While most female authorships were continuously observed in medium-impact journals, the strongest increase occurred for both female FA (AOR 2.0; p < .0001) and SA (AOR 2.1; p < .0001) in low-impact journals. Female SA published significantly more often in a low- (AOR 1.5) or medium- (AOR 1.8) than in a high-ranking journal. Among the high-ranking journals, female FA published most frequently in European Radiology (32.4%; 95% CI [29.3–35.8]; p < .0001), female SA in Investigative Radiology (15.9%; 95% CI [13.7–18.4]; p < .0001). Male same-sex authorships decreased (AOR 0.9), but remained at least twice as common as all-female or mixed authorships.

Conclusion

The increase in female authorship is reflected in all impact areas. Female FA and SA increased most in low-ranking journals but are most common in medium-ranking journals. Female SA remain rare, especially in high impact journals.

Key Points

• Compared to the proportion of female radiologists worldwide, female senior authors are underrepresented in all impact areas, in particular in high-impact journals.

• Among the included high-ranking radiological journals, female first authors and senior authors were strongest represented in European Radiology and Investigative Radiology, while across all impact areas they mostly published in medium-ranking journals.

• Female author combinations were more frequent in low- and medium- than in high-ranking journals, whereas male author combinations remained more common than female senior author collaborations in all impact areas.

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.

Lifting the lid on impact and peer review

Brain and Neuroscience Advances has grown in tandem with the British Neuroscience Association’s campaign to build Credibility in Neuroscience, which encourages actions and initiatives aimed at improving reproducibility, reliability and openness. This commitment to credibility impacts not only what the Journal publishes, but also how it operates. With that in mind, the Editorial Board sought the views of the neuroscience community on the peer review process, and on how they should respond to the Journal Impact Factor that will be assigned to Brain and Neuroscience Advances. In this editorial, we present the results of a survey of neuroscience researchers conducted in the autumn of 2020 and discuss the broader implications of our findings for the Journal and the neuroscience community.

Research on Covid-19: a disruptive phenomenon for bibliometrics

The Covid-19 pandemic has been the highest disruptive event in the world recent history. Worldwide academic research on this topic has led to an explosion of scientific literature, never seen before. Bibliometrics provide methods to illustrate this exceptional phenomenon in academic publications. The objective of this paper is to analyze the Covid-19 research from a bibliometric perspective and to study the impact of the publication explosion on bibliometric indicators. The present study shows how an exceptional phenomenon has a disruptive impact on bibliometric indicators, such as the h-index and the Journal Impact Factor. The higher the specialization, the higher the possible impact of a disruptive phenomenon. In applied sciences, more important than the research or the discipline, the specific theme of the research is crucial for citations of articles and for their impact. The salience of the topic, the magnitude of the problem at study and the urgency to find solutions are drivers for citations. The study of the Covid-19 research illustrates the relativity of indicators and the need for context. The present study also confirms the plead for responsible metrics of the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA).

The Evolution of Journal of Korean Neurosurgical Society from 2017 to 2020 : The Beginning of a Great Development

Every researcher wants their research to gain more recognition, and this desire is achieved by publishing their article in a journal with higher impact. It is very important to get researchers interested in the Journal of Korean Neurosurgical Society (JKNS). Therefore, the first goal was to promote the publication of papers in our journal. To do this, a table of contents was sent out, and the citation ranking was announced every 2 months. Several efforts have been made to publish good papers. Foreign speakers, who were invited to a conference hosted by the Korean Neurosurgical Society were contacted and politely requested to write a paper addressing their recent research. Domestic and international researchers highly renowned in their fields were also contacted to submit their novel works to our journal. The journal impact factor of our journal has continued to rise for the last 3 years and reached 1.376 in 2019. It can be said that the JKNS is now competitive with other international neurosurgery journals. These achievements were not due to the efforts of the editorial boards alone. This was because our society members have submitted very good papers, and because many of our members have cited the papers published in our journal. We believe that this will continue in the future. The next step of evolution of the JKNS has begun, and this is the beginning of another great development.

Factors to improve academic publishing success of physicians engaged in scientific research

INTRODUCTION

Scientific evidence in medicine is based on data generated from research. Recently, the number of scientifically active physicians has decreased, which has led to the development of the Clinician Scientist Programs. To better structure and focus the research of young physicians, we aimed to investigate the impact of collaborations and other factors on the quality and output of scientific publications.

METHODS

The abstracts of three annual congresses of the German Society of Urology were systematically analysed regarding content, collaborations, and study design. Full-text publications and journals were identified through a MEDLINE® search. Impact factors (IFs) were identified using Journal Citation Reports™. To identify factors which predict publication and IFs, χ² and Wilcoxon rank-sum tests were used. Uni- and multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to assess the best model for publication success for an abstract as well as the achievement of a high IF.

RESULTS

1,074 abstracts were reviewed. The publication rate of subsequent peer-reviewed full-text publications was 52.5%. Collaborations with at least one institution (odds ratio (OR) 2.02, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.48-2.76, p <0.0001), statistical analysis (OR 1.92, 95% CI 1.41-2.60, p <0.0001), study design (prospective vs. retrospective: OR 1.43, 95% CI 1.06-1.93, p=0.021), and national collaborations (OR 1.43, 95% CI 1.04-1.98, p=0.029) increased the likelihood of publication in a peer-reviewed journal in a multivariable logistic regression analysis. Experimental design (OR 2.77, 95% CI 1.32-5.84, p=0.007), international collaborations (OR 2.26, 95% CI 1.23-4.15, p=0.009), oncologic topics (OR 1.94, 95% CI 1.23-3.07, p=0.005), prostate disease (OR 1.75, 95% CI 1.08-2.84, p=0.023), and statistical analysis (OR 1.68, 95% CI 1.06-2.64, p=0.026) were associated with a higher IF.

CONCLUSION

Abstracts resulting from collaborative research projects had a higher likelihood of subsequent full-text publication and a higher IF. More full-text publications were reported when abstracts included a statistical analysis. Hence, intensive networking (e. g. at congresses and workshops) of researching physicians as well as statistical/biometrical classes could be key factors to improve academic success.

Should low-quality evidence dominate high-level evidence? A systematic review and meta-analysis of systematic reviews of musculoskeletal physical therapy interventions

OBJECTIVES

To determine the: 1) quality of articles cited in systematic reviews (SRs); 2) methodological quality of the SRs; and 3) impact of quality on level 1A evidence.

METHODS

SRs related to musculoskeletal physical therapy interventions were identified. The methodological quality of the SRs and articles cited by the SRs were assessed by two blinded reviewers. Data analysis was performed by a third blinded researcher. Additional comparisons were made based on the Journal Impact Factor, spin, financial bias, and conflict of interest.

RESULTS

Twenty-four SRs were identified; 21/24 SRs had 'critically low' quality on the AMSTAR 2. Thirty-four percent of included studies were 'low quality,' and 58% of SRs included studies that had unreported external validity. One-half of the SRs represented 'spin,' and one-third of the SRs generated conclusions based on low-quality clinical trials.

DISCUSSION

The 'critically low' SRs methodological quality was exacerbated by low-quality research inclusion. Most SRs failed to follow best practices, including prospective registration and integration of professional librarians in the search process. Based on the high proportion of SRs that include low-quality trials and overall low methodological quality, further discussion regarding practice recommendations on level vs. quality of evidence is warranted.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

1a.

Use of the journal impact factor for assessing individual articles: Statistically flawed or not?

Most scientometricians reject the use of the journal impact factor for assessing individual articles and their authors. The well-known San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment also strongly objects against this way of using the impact factor. Arguments against the use of the impact factor at the level of individual articles are often based on statistical considerations. The skewness of journal citation distributions typically plays a central role in these arguments. We present a theoretical analysis of statistical arguments against the use of the impact factor at the level of individual articles. Our analysis shows that these arguments do not support the conclusion that the impact factor should not be used for assessing individual articles. Using computer simulations, we demonstrate that under certain conditions the number of citations an article has received is a more accurate indicator of the value of the article than the impact factor. However, under other conditions, the impact factor is a more accurate indicator. It is important to critically discuss the dominant role of the impact factor in research evaluations, but the discussion should not be based on misplaced statistical arguments. Instead, the primary focus should be on the socio-technical implications of the use of the impact factor.

Use of the journal impact factor for assessing individual articles need not be statistically wrong

Most scientometricians reject the use of the journal impact factor for assessing individual articles and their authors. The well-known San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment also strongly objects against this way of using the impact factor. Arguments against the use of the impact factor at the level of individual articles are often based on statistical considerations. The skewness of journal citation distributions typically plays a central role in these arguments. We present a theoretical analysis of statistical arguments against the use of the impact factor at the level of individual articles. Our analysis shows that these arguments do not support the conclusion that the impact factor should not be used for assessing individual articles. In fact, our computer simulations demonstrate the possibility that the impact factor is a more accurate indicator of the value of an article than the number of citations the article has received. It is important to critically discuss the dominant role of the impact factor in research evaluations, but the discussion should not be based on misplaced statistical arguments. Instead, the primary focus should be on the socio-technical implications of the use of the impact factor.

Position of Ultrasonography in the scholarly journal network based on bibliometrics and developmental strategies for it to become a top-tier journal

PURPOSE

This study aimed to clarify the present position of Ultrasonography in the scholarly journal network with a variety of bibliometric indicators. Furthermore, developmental strategies for Ultrasonography to become a top-tier journal are suggested.

METHODS

The following bibliometric indicators were analyzed: number of citable articles, countries of authors, total cites, impact factor, Hirsch index, authors' countries and source titles of citing articles, and the titles of sources cited by articles in Ultrasonography.

RESULTS

The annual number of citable articles was consistently 40 from 2014 to 2019. The number of countries of authors increased to 22 in 2018-2019. The numbers of total cites reached 632 in Web of Science, 595 in Scopus, and 552 in the Crossref metadata in 2019. The estimated 2-year impact factor soared from 2.15 in 2016 to 3.20 in 2019. The Hirsch index was 20 in both Scopus and the Web of Science Core Collection. Authors from 76 countries cited Ultrasonography. The number of source titles of citing articles was 668, and the number of source titles cited by articles in Ultrasonography was 1,246.

CONCLUSION

The above bibliometric results show that Ultrasonography has become a top-tier journal in its field. Ultrasonography furnishes an example of how after changing its language policy to English-only, a local society journal became a highly cited journal in a short period of time. For further development of the journal, adoption of a data-sharing policy is recommended. Furthermore, indexation in MEDLINE should be pursued in the near future.

Influential variables in the Journal Impact Factor of Dentistry journals

Objective

The aim of this contribution is to determine what variables influence the position, by quartiles of the impact factor, as a quality indicator of a journal in the field of Dentistry.

Methods

To this end, 24 journals included in Journal Citation Reports, 6 pertaining to each quartile were selected by a stratified sampling and then an ordinal regression model was estimated stepwise considering the journal impact factor quartile as response variable.

Results

The estimation procedure concluded that the average number of papers published yearly by a journal and the percentage of systematic reviews are the most significant variables to be considered, along with the factor representing the journal's degree of adherence to recommendations by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors.

Conclusions/Clinical significance

Systematic reviews have significant effect on the Journal Impact Factor position of a journal as well as adherence to ICMJE recommendations, while papers publishing clinical trials bear no influence on this factor. Greater yearly average of published papers in a journal means a higher impact factor.

Journal impact factor, trial effect size, and methodological quality appear scantly related: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

As systematic reviews' limited coverage of the medical literature necessitates decision-making based on unsystematic review, we investigated a possible advantage of systematic review (aside from dataset size and systematic analysis): does systematic review avoid potential bias in sampling primary studies from high impact factor journals? If randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reported in higher-impact journals present different treatment benefits than RCTs reported in lower-impact journals, readers who focus on higher-impact journals for their rapid literature reviews may introduce bias which could be mitigated by complete, systematic sampling.

METHODS

We randomly sampled Cochrane Library (20 July 2005) treatment reviews that measured mortality as a binary outcome, published in English or French, with at least five RCTs with one or more deaths. Our domain-based assessment of risk of bias included funding source, randomness of allocation sequence, blinding, and allocation concealment. The primary analysis employed logistic regression by a generalized linear model with a generalized estimating equation to estimate the association between various factors and publication in a journal with a high journal impact factor (JIF).

RESULTS

From the 29 included systematic reviews, 189 RCTs contributed data. However, in the primary analyses comparing RCT results within meta-analyses, there was no statistically significant association: unadjusted odds of greater than 50% mortality protection in high-JIF (> 5) journals were 1.4 (95% CI 0.42, 4.4) and adjusted, 2.5 (95% CI 0.6, 10). Elements of study quality were weakly, inconsistently, and not statistically significantly correlated with journal impact factor.

CONCLUSIONS

Journal impact factor may have little to no association with study results, or methodological quality, but the evidence is very uncertain.

Rethinking the Journal Impact Factor and Publishing in the Digital Age

Clinical and experimental literature search has changed significantly over the past few decades, and with it, the way in which we value information. Today, our need for immediate access to relevant and specific literature, regardless of specialty, has led to a growing demand for open access to publications. The Journal Impact Factor (JIF) has been a long-time standard for representing the quality or "prestige" of a journal, but it appears to be losing its relevance. Here, we define the JIF and deconstruct its validity as a modern measure of a journal's quality, discuss the current models of academic publication, including their advantages and shortcomings, and discuss the benefits and shortcomings of a variety of open-access models, including costs to the author. We have quantified a nonsubscribed physician's access to full articles associated with dermatologic disease and aesthetics cited on PubMed. For some of the most common dermatology conditions, 23.1 percent of citations (ranging from 17.2% for melasma to 31.9% for malignant melanoma) were available as free full articles, and for aesthetic procedures, 18.9 percent of citations (ranging from 11.9% for laser hair removal to 27.9% for botulinum toxin) were available as free full articles. Finally, we discuss existing alternative metrics for measuring journal impact and propose the adoption of a superior publishing model, one that satisfies modern day standards of scholarly knowledge pursuit and dissemination of scholarly publications for dermatology and all of medical science.

Evaluation of the Relevance of Research Articles Published 50 Years Ago in Key Scientific Journals in the USA, England and Germany: Introduction of 50 Years Impact Index in Addition to Impact Factor

The aim of this study was to assess the current applicability of articles that show important advances in medicine. The recruited papers include those published fifty years ago in the most respected journals in the USA, England and Germany. Using PubMed Central citations since 2010, original articles closely related to papers published in 1966 in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), the Lancet and the Deutsche Medizinische Wochenschrift (DMW) were identified. In the NEJM, there were 163 observational articles, 18 clinical, and 117 case reports. In the Lancet, there were 390 observational articles, 29 diagnostic, 82 therapeutic, 38 animal, 28 in vitro studies and 61 case reports. In the DMW, there were 77 observational articles, 39 therapeutic, 28 diagnostic, 7 animal, 4 in vitro, 9 other studies and 57 case reports. The number of highly relevant articles still currently cited were determined as 12/298 (4%) in the NEJM, 11/ 628 (1.7%) in the Lancet and 1/221 (0.45%) in the DMW (0.45%). It was concluded that "halfhundred years impact index" should be regarded as a measure of 'relevance and quality over time'. Combined with impact factor, it could be a better indicator for importance of scientific journals.

[Scientific impact of the TraumaRegister DGU®]

BACKGROUND

The trauma registry of the German Trauma Society (TraumaRegister DGU®) is not only a tool for quality management but also for research purposes.

OBJECTIVE

Evaluation of the impact of the TraumaRegister DGU® on scientific output and patient treatment.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Analysis of publications from the TraumaRegister DGU® with respect to numbers, impact factors, journals, citations and presentations.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSION

The number and impact factors of publications from the TraumaRegister DGU® rose steeply during the last 10 years and in the last 3 years consisted of 25 publications per year. More than two thirds of them were published in high quality international journals and reflect the great scientific importance. For the German speaking readership and the specific aspects of treatment of the severely injured relevant to Germany, the large number of German language articles are just as important. Independent of the impact factor publications in Deutsches Ärzteblatt, the journal with the highest circulation and Der Unfallchirurg play the most important role. A large amount of scientific information gained from the TraumaRegister DGU® has been included in treatment guidelines and structures. The register is a basic prerequisite for the TraumaNetzwerk DGU®. Since almost all severely injured patients in Germany are now included in the registry, it is possible to obtain epidemiologically reliable data of treatment and outcomes for these patient groups.

Classification of the journal category "oral surgery" in the Scopus and the Science Citation Index Expanded: flaws and suggestions

Objectives

The aim of this study was to evaluate the journal category “oral surgery” in Scopus and in the Science Citation Index Expanded (SCIE).

Materials and Methods

The Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery (JOMS), The Journal of the Korean Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons (JKAOMS), and The Journal of Prosthodontic Research (JPR) were selected from the Scopus list of journals as oral surgery journals. Maxillofacial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery (MPRS) was selected from PubMed as a Scopus oral surgery title. From these titles, 10 recently published articles were collected and used for reference analysis.

Results

The percentage of citations from oral surgery journals was 26.7%, 24.5%, and 40.1% for JKAOMS, MPRS, and JOMS, respectively. In total, 1.1% of JPR's citations were from oral surgery journals and significantly fewer from other journals (P<0.001). The percentage of citations from dentistry journals excluding oral surgery journals was 11.9%, 34.4%, and 15.8% for JKAOMS, MPRS, and JOMS, respectively. For JPR, 80.6% of citations were from dentistry journals and significantly more were from other journals (P<0.001).

Conclusion

Selected samples revealed that JPR is incorrectly classified as an oral surgery journal in Scopus. In addition, the scientific interaction among JKAOMS, MPRS, and JOMS was different to JPR in the reference analysis.