bims-evares Biomed news
on Evaluation of research
Issue of 2019‒02‒03
twelve papers selected by
Thomas Krichel
Open Library Society


  1. Acad Emerg Med. 2019 Jan 31.
    Chan TM, Kuehl D.
      Academic scholarship is something that we have always sought to quantify. Journal impact factor, CiteScore, h-index, hi-10, and the alternative metrics (Altmetrics) are terms that are familiar to seasoned academics. Junior scholars are often advise to use bibliometric and publication metrics to decide where to send their work. Whether we are talking about journal level, article level, or person level metrics, these are all human constructs that have arisen as ways to quantify the reach and impact of our academic work. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
    Keywords:  Academic Productivity; Bibliometrics; Tenure & Promotion
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1111/acem.13707
  2. Medicine (Baltimore). 2019 Feb;98(5): e14304
    Xu B, Meng H, Qin S, Liu Y, Li Z, Cao J, Lin Y, Zhang Y, Wang Z.
      Low- and middle-income countries contribute to only a small percentage of publications in multiple medical fields. Editorial bias was reported to be an important reason for this. However, whether this trend exists in leading spine journals remains unclear. This study determined the composition of the editorial boards of leading spine journals and analyzed the international representation of editorial boards.The editorial board members of four leading subspecialty spine journals, including The Spine Journal, Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine, European Spine Journal, and Spine were identified from the journals' websites. The countries of editorial board members were identified and analyzed according to the continent and country income categories classified by the World Bank.A total of 608 editorial board members were identified from the four leading spine journals. The majority (91.4%) of editorial board members were from high-income countries, followed by upper-middle income countries (7.2%), and lower-middle income countries (1.3%). No editorial board members were from low-income countries. Regarding the continent of residence, 46.5% of the editorial board members were from North America, followed by Europe (38.5%), Asia (9.9%), South America (2.8%), Oceania (1.6%), and Africa (0.7%). The editorial board members came from 40 different countries, which were concentrated in North America, Western Europe, and East Asia. The largest number of editorial board members came from the United States (42.3%), followed by Germany (6.9%), the United Kingdom (6.7%), Switzerland (5.8%), and Italy (5.1%).A lack of international representation on editorial boards exists in leading spine journals. Editorial board members from high-income countries are substantially overrepresented, while editorial board members from low- and middle-income countries are severely underrepresented. The United States is the most represented country on the editorial boards of leading spine journals.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000014304
  3. J Clin Epidemiol. 2019 Jan 29. pii: S0895-4356(18)30754-6. [Epub ahead of print]
    Nyanchoka L, Tudur-Smith C, Thu VN, Iversen V, Tricco AC, Porcher R.
      BACKGROUND: /Objectives: Different methods to examine research gaps have been described, but there are still no standard methods for identifying, prioritizing or reporting research gaps. This study aimed to describe the methods used to identify, prioritize and display gaps in health research.METHODS: A scoping review using the Arksey and O'Malley methodological framework was carried out. We included all study types describing or reporting on methods to identify, prioritize and display gaps or priorities in health research. Data synthesis is both quantitative and qualitative.
    MAIN RESULTS: Among 1938 identified documents, 139 articles were selected for analysis; 90 (65%) aimed to identify gaps, 23 (17%) aimed to determine research priorities and 26 (19%) had both aims. The most frequent methods in the review were aimed at gap identification and involved secondary research, which included knowledge synthesis (80/116 articles, 69%), specifically systematic reviews and scoping reviews (58/80, 73%). Among 49 studies aimed at research prioritization, the most frequent methods were both primary and secondary research, accounting for 24 (49%) reports. Finally, 52 (37%) articles described methods for displaying gaps and/or priorities in health research.
    CONCLUSION: This study provides a mapping of different methods used to identify, prioritize, and display gaps or priorities in health research.
    Keywords:  Displaying Gaps; Evidence Gap Maps; Evidence Mapping; Evidence Synthesis; Gaps in Clinical Research; Gaps in Health Research; Knowledge Synthesis; Research Gaps; Research Priorities; Scoping Review; Treatment Uncertainties
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.01.005
  4. J Surg Res. 2018 Dec 03. pii: S0022-4804(18)30741-8. [Epub ahead of print]236 22-29
    Myers SP, Reitz KM, Wessel CB, Neal MD, Corbelli JA, Hausmann LRM, Rosengart MR.
      BACKGROUND: The h-index is a commonly used bibliometric in academic medicine which enumerates the number of publications (h) that have been cited h times. Recent investigations have suggested that gender-based differences in h-index may exist among academic physicians. We systematically reviewed studies of academic surgeons' h-index, hypothesizing that a significant difference would exist between the h-index of men and women at all academic ranks.METHODS: Peer-reviewed journal articles authored by academic surgeons of any subspecialization in the United States between January 1, 2006, and November 20, 2017, were reviewed. We excluded studies of trainees or gender-based differences in funding without mention of h-index. Two reviewers assessed article quality using the Newcastle-Ottawa criteria. Pooled estimates of standard mean differences (SMD) in h-index between genders were calculated using random-effects meta-analyses. A subgroup analysis based on the academic rank was performed. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 statistic. Sensitivity analyses determined the effect of study on h-index. Meta-regression identified whether surgical specialty contributed to heterogeneity.
    RESULTS: Twelve articles comparing h-index between genders were selected from 7950. Men possessed higher h-indices than women (SMD, 0.547; P < 0.001; I2 = 89.5%). Men exhibited higher h-indices at the assistant rank (SMD, 0.12; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.01-0.24; P = 0.039) but not at the associate (SMD, 0.14; 95% CI, -0.06 to 0.33; P = 0.165) or full professor (SMD, 0.12; 95% CI, -0.08 to -0.31; P = 0.25) ranks.
    CONCLUSIONS: The h-index is higher for men than that for women in academic surgery overall but not at individual ranks. Further investigations are necessary to address limitations in h-index and to further characterize the relationship between h-index, gender, and promotion.
    Keywords:  Bibliometrics; Gender disparities; Hirsch index
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2018.10.015
  5. Acad Emerg Med. 2019 Jan 31.
    Boudreaux ED, Higgins SE, Reznik-Zellen R, Wang B, Volturo G.
      BACKGROUND: Quantifying and benchmarking scholarly productivity of emergency medicine faculty is challenging. While performance indicators including publication and citation counts are available, use of indicators to create normative references has lagged. The authors developed methodology to benchmark emergency medicine academician scholarly productivity (e.g., publications over time) and impact (e.g., citations per publication over time) against an appropriate reference group.METHODS: The methodology includes: (1) define time-frame and scholarly metrics; (2) identify representative population; (3) reconcile alternative author names; (4) use analytic tool to identify scholarly output; (5) build database containing metrics; and (6) create benchmarking statistics, including subsamples. This study included emergency medicine faculty from 2011-2015, with total peer-reviewed publications and citations per publication as scholarly metrics.
    RESULTS: In the United States at the time of the search (2016) there were 200 academic emergency departments, 186 with public faculty listings, which yielded 6,727 academicians. For each academician, the authors calculated statistics about peer-reviewed publications and average citations per publication from 2011-2015 and created benchmarking rulers using percentile ranks. Productivity by year of graduation with terminal degree was compared within each subsample, finding that newly graduated faculty demonstrated higher productivity than their within-rank peers who graduated earlier. Finally, benchmarking tables were created that allows comparison of peer-reviewed publication counts and citations per publication for individual academicians against the norm.
    CONCLUSIONS: This benchmarking method can serve as a model for norm-based scaling of scholarly productivity for emergency medicine. This has important implications for performance review, promotion and hiring, and evaluating group productivity. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1111/acem.13704
  6. Methods Mol Biol. 2019 ;1929 3-14
    Haiech J, Kilhoffer MC.
      In this chapter, we present a strategy and the techniques to approach a scientific field from a set of articles gathered from the bibliographic database "Web of Science." The strategy is based on methods developed to analyze social networks. We illustrate its use in studying the calmodulin field. The method allows to structure a huge number of articles when writing a review, to detect the key opinion leaders in a given field, and to locate their own research topic in the landscape of themes deciphered by our own community.We show that the free software VOSviewer may be used without knowledge in computing science and with a short learning period.
    Keywords:  Calcium signal; Calmodulin; Data mining; Scientometry; Social network analysis
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-9030-6_1
  7. Elife. 2019 Jan 29. pii: e36399. [Epub ahead of print]8
    Broderick NA, Casadevall A.
      We analyzed 2898 scientific papers published between 1995 and 2017 in which two or more authors shared the first author position. For papers in which the first and second authors made equal contributions, mixed-gender combinations were most frequent, followed by male-male and then female-female author combinations. For mixed-gender combinations, more male authors were in the first position, although the disparity decreased over time. For papers in which three or more authors made equal contributions, there were more male authors than female authors in the first position and more all-male than all-female author combinations. The gender inequalities observed among authors who made equal contributions are not consistent with random or alphabetical ordering of authors. These results raise concerns about female authors not receiving proper credit for publications and suggest a need for journals to request clarity on the method used to decide author order among those who contributed equally.
    Keywords:  co-authorship; gender bias; gender equity; human biology; infectious disease; medicine; microbiology; none; publication; scientific credit
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.36399
  8. Front Hum Neurosci. 2018 ;12 523
    Yeung AWK.
      The relationships among various citation metrics have been probed in multiple scientific research disciplines but not neuroimaging. The aim of the current study was to assess the citation metrics of neuroimaging journals and analyze their relationships. The Journal Citation Reports (JCRs) published by Clarivate Analytics was accessed to extract relevant data for each of the 14 journals from the neuroimaging category. Pearson correlation tests were conducted to test if the citation metrics had significant correlations. Impact factor was positively correlated with citable items (r = 0.717, p = 0.004). Percentage of uncited citable items and percentage of journal self citations were partially negatively correlated with citation distribution, i.e., the percentages of citable items that contributed to 20%, 50% and 80% of total citations. The current study has implied that all the abovementioned metrics should be considered together to provide multi-faceted evaluations instead of using a single metric, at least in the neuroimaging field.
    Keywords:  bibliometric; citation analysis; citation distribution; impact factor; neuroimaging; uncitedness
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2018.00523
  9. Int J Dent. 2018 ;2018 9423281
    Gondivkar SM, Sarode SC, Gadbail AR, Gondivkar RS, Choudhary N, Patil S.
      Aim: The purpose of this study was to identify and characterize the 100 most cited articles on cone beam computed tomography (CBCT).Materials and Methods: A comprehensive list of citation classics in CBCT was generated by searching the Scopus database without year or language restrictions. The top 100 articles were retrieved after reading abstracts or full texts. The following study variables were evaluated: number of citations, citation density, journal name, impact factor, category and quartile of journals, publication year, authors with their affiliations, article type, and topics covered.
    Results: The citation number ranged from 86 to 624, with a mean of 161.9 citations per article. The top 100 articles were distributed in 29 journals, and the journal with the most articles was Dentomaxillofacial Radiology (n=16). The articles were published between 1998 and 2012, and eight authors published more than 3 papers. The USA produced the most papers (n=38), followed by the UK (n=12). King's college London Dental Institute led the list of classics, with 8 articles.
    Conclusions: This is the first citation analysis to provide a detailed list of the most influential articles on CBCT and helps to recognize the quality of the works, discoveries, and trends steering the field.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/9423281
  10. Neurol India. 2019 Jan-Feb;67(Supplement):67(Supplement): S55-S61
    Ram S.
      Carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) is a disease caused by compression of the median nerve passing through the wrist. Patients suffer from severe pain and paresthesis in the median nerve. Compression of the median nerve occurs, with prolonged working on keyboards (computer or laptop or music players) being one of the reasons along with others such as diabetes or rheumatoid arthritis. CTS research holds great promise for the patients as well as doctors for better medical treatment. The study has been carried out with an objective to analyze research progress based on the literature published on CTS during the last 35 years. The retrospective study has been carried out from the data indexed in SCOPUS multidisciplinary database from 1983 to 2017 (35 years). The study involves analysis of publication trends in terms of total articles, productive countries, institutions, journals, productive authors, most cited articles along with impact in terms of citation and h-Index. The SCOPUS database yielded 13187 articles during the study period. These articles were analyzed further for interpreting results. In the last 35 years, the number of scientific publications on CTS has been increasing with an annual growth rate of 9.86% per year. USA has been the most productive country. Literature pertaining to females is more than clinical studies involving males.
    Keywords:  Bibliometric analysis; carpal tunnel syndrome; citation analysis; hand disease; research impact
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.4103/0028-3886.250698
  11. Pediatr Surg Int. 2019 Jan 29.
    Jehangir S, Barnes EH, McDowell D, Holland AJA.
      The aim of this study was an analysis of the changing publication trends over the last three decades in the Journal of Pediatric Surgery (JPS), Pediatric Surgery International (PSI) and European Journal of Pediatric Surgery (EJPS) by studying the bibliometric variables, authorship, collaboration, and citation trends. A previously applied methodology using intermittent years was applied to review the archives of JPS, PSI and EJPS over the last 30 years. Citation data were collected from the Web of Science database. Statistical analysis was performed using SAS 9.4 software. A total of 1917 articles originating from 63 countries met the inclusion criteria. The number of articles published every year increased significantly in the last three decades from 336 in 1987 to 626 in 2017 (P < 0.0001). Multinational papers made up 5% of the total, of which 58% involved more than one continent. A majority of papers (75%) were single institution papers, there was strong evidence of an increase in multi-institution publications over time. There was a statistically significant increase in the number of female first and corresponding author. The publishing landscape of paediatric surgery has evolved to be more inclusive with increased collaboration, female authors and mentors and more publications from developing nations.
    Keywords:  Authorship; Bibliometric; International collaboration; Paediatric surgery; Region; Sex
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00383-019-04445-w
  12. Med Teach. 2019 Jan 29. 1-7
    Hodges B, Paul R, Ginsburg S.
      BACKGROUND: In 2009, an International Working Group (IWG) on the Assessment of Professionalism began collaborating and published recommendations in 2011. Nearly a decade later the IWG reconvened to take stock of the state of practice and research in professionalism and the impact of the 2011 report.METHOD: A bibliometric study identified all publications on assessment of professionalism since 2011, noting those that cited the original report. Articles were coded to identify the reason for citation and new trends in assessment. Bibliometric data were supplemented by discussion groups held at key international education meetings.
    RESULTS: Six-hundred publications on the assessment of professionalism were found in Google Scholar and 164 in Web of Science since 2011, of which 177 (30%) and 84 (50%) respectively cited the original IWG publication. English language publications were most common (83%), but there were articles in 13 other languages by authors from 40 countries. The report was cited commonly to justify attention to professionalism in general (41%), assessment of professionalism (38%) and to explore professionalism in different countries and professions (25%). A thematic analysis showed that of 9 research areas recommended in 2011, 7 of 9 categories were represented with a large increase in research across languages and cultures.
    CONCLUSIONS: Though the assessment of professionalism remains a challenge the research base continues to grow, especially related to professionalism across cultures and languages, and a large percentage of publications cite the IWG recommendations. There remains a gap in research and writing about patients' perspectives.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.2018.1543862