bims-evares Biomed News
on Evaluation of research
Issue of 2019‒09‒22
eleven papers selected by
Thomas Krichel
Open Library Society


  1. Comput Methods Programs Biomed. 2019 Sep 10. pii: S0169-2607(18)31769-3. [Epub ahead of print]183 105075
    Shukla N, Merigó JM, Lammers T, Miranda L.
      BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine (CMPB) is a leading international journal that presents developments about computing methods and their application in biomedical research. The journal published its first issue in 1970. In 2020, the journal celebrates the 50th anniversary. Motivated by this event, this article presents a bibliometric analysis of the publications of the journal during this period (1970-2017).METHODS: The objective is to identify the leading trends occurring in the journal by analysing the most cited papers, keywords, authors, institutions and countries. For doing so, the study uses the Web of Science Core Collection database. Additionally, the work presents a graphical mapping of the bibliographic information by using the visualization of similarities (VOS) viewer software. This is done to analyze bibliographic coupling, co-citation and co-occurrence of keywords.
    RESULTS: CMPB is identified as a leading and core journal for biomedical researchers. The journal is strongly connected to IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering and IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging. Paper from Wang, Jacques, Zheng (published in 1995) is its most cited document. The top author in this journal is James Geoffrey Chase and the top contributing institution is Uppsala U (Sweden). Most of the papers in CMPB are from the USA followed by the UK and Italy. China and Taiwan are the only Asian countries to appear in the top 10 publishing in CMPB. A keyword co-occurrences analysis revealed strong co-occurrences for classification, picture archiving and communication system (PACS), heart rate variability, survival analysis and simulation. Keywords analysis for the last decade revealed that machine learning for a variety of healthcare problems (including image processing and analysis) dominated other research fields in CMPB.
    CONCLUSIONS: It can be concluded that CMPB is a world-renowned publication outlet for biomedical researchers which has been growing in a number of publications since 1970. The analysis also conclude that the journal is very international with publications from all over the world although today European countries are the most productive ones.
    Keywords:  Bibliometrics; Co-citation; VOS viewer; Web of Science
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmpb.2019.105075
  2. PeerJ. 2019 ;7 e7603
    Zhao F, Du F, Shi D, Zhou W, Jiang Y, Ma L.
      Objectives: To map publication trends and explore research hotspots of retinal vein occlusion (RVO) study.Methods: Based on Web of Science Core Collection (WoSCC), a bibliometric analysis was carried out. The knowledge map was constructed by VOSviewer v.1.6.10 to visualize the annual publication number, the distribution of countries, international collaborations, author productivity, source journals, cited reference and keywords in this field.
    Results: A total of 2,135 peer-reviewed papers were retrieved on RVO from 2009 to 2018. The United States ranks highest among countries with the most publications and the most active institution was Kyoto University. Noma H contributed the most publications in this field. Retina-The Journal of Retinal and Vitreous Disease was the most prolific journal in RVO research. The top cited references mainly presented anti-VEGF medications on the management of RVO. The keywords formed six clusters: (1) Risk factors and pathogenesis of RVO; (2) Metabolismof RVO; (3) Therapeutic use of corticosteroids on RVO; (4) Diagnostic methodsof RVO; (5) Management of macular edema secondary to RVO (6) Anti-VEGFtreatment of RVO.
    Conclusions: The six major research hotspots could provide an insight into RVO research and valuable information for researchers to identify potential collaborators and partner institutions.
    Keywords:  Bibliometric analysis; Retinal vein occlusion; VOSviewer
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.7603
  3. Probiotics Antimicrob Proteins. 2019 Sep 16.
    Aleixandre-Tudó JL, Castelló-Cogollos L, Aleixandre JL, Aleixandre-Benavent R.
      The central goal of this study was to analyze scientific trends in the research on probiotics, including the number of papers, funding, country collaborations, and most cited publications. The study makes use of bibliometric and social network analysis of papers included in the Science Citation Index Expanded from the Web of Science database. A total of 7221 papers were retrieved, from which 64% were funded papers. Papers were published in journals covering several areas, such as Food Science & Technology, Microbiology, Biotechnology and Applied Microbiology, Nutrition & Dietetics and Agriculture, and Dairy & Animal Science. Coword analysis shows the relationships between microorganisms, diseases, physiological phenomena, and other key words related to food, population, or type of study. The USA appeared as the world leader in the number of articles produced (n = 919), followed by China (n = 689), India (n = 633), and Brazil (n = 506). The most cited papers related to the consensus on the scope and appropriate use of the term probiotic, its effects on the prevention and treatment of some intestinal diseases, its effects on the suppression of immune disorders, the role of probiotics and prebiotics in obesity, the assessment of psychotropic-like properties, and the application for type 2 diabetes.
    Keywords:  Hot papers; International collaboration; Journals; Probiotics; Scientific research
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12602-019-09591-0
  4. Fa Yi Xue Za Zhi. 2019 Aug;35(4): 423-427
    Xie XP, Pan ZJ, Wang K, Yu YX, Liang M.
      Abstract: Objective To analyze a knowledge web of the literature published by Journal of Forensic Medicine from its founding in 1985 to 2018, describe the evolving process of forensic science research and explore the research hotspots and frontiers at present. Methods The literature that was published by Journal of Forensic Medicine from 1985 to 2018 was collected and analyzed in terms of elements, such as emerging research hotspots, high frequency keywords, authors, dispatching units, location of institution and funding, by CiteSpace5.3 information visualization analysis software. Results All disciplines of forensic medicine were continually developing and maturing, and the publication volume of the literature on forensic pathology had the highest weight; in research hotspots, the two categories, research and identification each had their own emphasis; as the main source of contributions to the journal, research institutes accounted for 38.99% of the total number of publications; Shanghai ranked first among all regions with 1 046 articles published. The number of funded articles was generally on the rise, with the number of funded articles published largest in 2015. Conclusion As an authoritative academic journal in the field of forensic science in China, Journal of Forensic Medicine carries the development of forensic science and witnesses the institutional reform of universities and colleges, and offers a wide range of communication and cooperation in terms of technicality and application. Many scholars and scientific research institutions have gained progress continually in various research directions in the form of teamwork; and emerging research hotspots will continue to play a huge role in future practical applications.
    Keywords:  forensic medicine; bibliometrics; visualization analysis; CiteSpace; Journal of Forensic Medicine
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.12116/j.issn.1004-5619.2019.04.008
  5. Gac Sanit. 2019 Sep 14. pii: S0213-9111(19)30152-9. [Epub ahead of print]
    Campos-Varela I, Villaverde-Castañeda R, Ruano-Raviña A.
      OBJECTIVE: To describe the biomedical journal characteristics that are associated with the retraction of papers.METHOD: A descriptive cross-sectional study was conducted. All papers retracted and indexed in PubMed from January 1st 2013 to December 31st, 2016 were included. We used nine main categories to classify retractions: aspects related with data, authors issues, plagiarism, unethical research, journal issues, review process, conflict of interest, other, and unknown. These categories were further classified as: misconduct, suspicion of misconduct, or no misconduct.
    RESULTS: The proportion of retraction was 2.5 per 10,000 publications. Retractions appeared in 611 journals. During the study period, retraction due to misconduct was more frequent among journals with low-impact factor. Within these retracted publications, among low-impact journals the presence of misconduct was higher with a 73% compared to 61% for the high-impact journals (p=0.001). There were differences in the percentage of retractions due to misconduct regarding the journal classification category (p<0.001).
    CONCLUSIONS: Retraction of publications is present in both high- and low-impact factor biomedical journals, but misconduct is more frequent among the papers retracted from lower impact journals. Measures before and after publication should be taken to limit misconduct.
    Keywords:  Factor de impacto; Fraud; Fraude; Impact factor; Mala conducta científica; Peer review; Plagiarism; Plagiarism detection systems; Plagio; Revisión por pares; Scientific misconduct; Sistemas de detección de plagio
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gaceta.2019.05.008
  6. Cureus. 2019 Jul 10. 11(7): e5119
    Merritt B, Dion CF, Sprague R, Ashurst J.
      INTRODUCTION: Research and scholarly output are integral parts of residency training for both residents and faculty. With the transition to a single accreditation system, scholarly activity and output of osteopathic physicians have garnered significant interest. Previous research has shown that osteopathic physicians in emergency medicine and obstetrics and gynecology infrequently publish original research in high impact journals.OBJECTIVE: To determine whether there is a disparity between osteopathic and allopathic physicians among authors who publish original research manuscripts in three high-impact pediatric journals.
    METHODS: The medical degree designation of the first and senior author (last author) and any advanced degree either author may have obtained were retrieved from the Journal of Pediatrics (J Pediatr), Pediatrics, and JAMA Pediatrics (JAMA Pediatr) for the years 2000, 2005, 2010 and 2015. Data was analyzed using simple descriptive statistics and linear regression.
    RESULTS: In total, 2232 manuscripts and 4296 authors were reviewed with 0.58% (25/4296) of all authors being osteopathic physicians. A total of 0.81% (18/2232) of first authors and 0.34% (7/2064) of senior authors were osteopathic physicians. For those with a dual degree, a total of 0.64% (5/777) of first and 0.33% (3/904) of senior authors were osteopathic physicians. No statistical trend could be established for increased first (p=0.24), senior (p=0.16), dual degree first (p=0.08) or dual degree senior (p=0.06) osteopathic physician authorship. Likewise, no statistical trend for increased authorship could be established for any Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine (DO) authorship role in the three journals over the time period studied.
    CONCLUSION: Very few osteopathic physicians have served as either the first or senior author in published original research manuscripts for the Journal of Pediatrics, Pediatrics, or JAMA Pediatrics for the years studied. Also, no statistical trend could be established for increased osteopathic physician publication over the same years.
    Keywords:  medical education; osteopathic; pediatrics; research
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.5119
  7. Afr J Emerg Med. 2019 Sep;9(3): 150-155
    Dove C, Chan TM, Thoma B, Roland D, Bruijns SR.
      Introduction: Finding journal open access information alongside its global impact requires access to multiple databases. We describe a single, searchable database of all emergency medicine and critical care journals that include their open access policies, publication costs, and impact metrics.Methods: A list of emergency medicine and critical care journals (including citation metrics) was created using Scopus (Citescore) and the Web of Science (Impact Factor). Cost of gold/hybrid open access and article process charges (open access fees) were collected from journal websites. Self-archiving policies were collected from the Sherpa/RoMEO database. Relative cost of access in different regions were calculated using the World Bank Purchasing Power Parity index for authors from the United States, Germany, Turkey, China, Brazil, South Africa and Australia.
    Results: We identified 78 emergency medicine and 82 critical care journals. Median Citescore for emergency medicine was 0.73 (interquartile range, IQR 0.32-1.27). Median impact factor was 1.68 (IQR 1.00-2.39). Median Citescore for critical care was 0.95 (IQR 0.25-2.06). Median impact factor was 2.18 (IQR 1.73-3.50). Mean article process charge for emergency medicine was $2243.04, SD = $1136.16 and for critical care $2201.64, SD = $1174.38. Article process charges were 2.24, 1.75, 2.28 and 1.56 times more expensive for South African, Chinese, Turkish and Brazilian authors respectively than United States authors, but neutral for German and Australian authors (1.02 and 0.81 respectively). The database can be accessed here: http://www.emct.info/publication-search.html.
    Conclusions: We present a single database that captures emergency medicine and critical care journal impact rankings alongside its respective open access cost and green open access policies.
    Keywords:  Critical care; Emergency medicine; Impact; Open access
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.afjem.2019.01.015
  8. Curr Diabetes Rev. 2019 Jul 12.
    Abbasi H, Abu-Farsakh N, Abuazzam F, Halaseh R, Alaraj O, Hassan E, Al-Essa M, AlRyalat SA.
      BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization recent report on diabetes has stressed on the burden of diabetes on low/middle income countries. Recent studies advocated the importance of funding more research on diabetes and insulin in these countries. Recently, the European Research Council advocated the importance of gold Open Access (OA) publishing, where funded research should be immediately accessible. In this study, we aim to assess funding for insulin research, where we will compare the OA status between funded and unfunded research.METHODS: We used Scopus database to assess insulin research published from January 1st, 1999 to December 31st, 2018. Our bibliometric analysis consisted of three main sections: analysis of all publications on insulin, analysis of funded insulin publications, and analysis of unfunded insulin publications.
    RESULTS: We found a total of 388,202 publications, of which only 83,180 (21.4%) were funded. USA produced around 30.1% of the total publications, and the National Institute of Health (NIH) was the major funder with 18.6% of all publications. Of the funded publications, 29,143 (35%) were OA publications, compared to 97,347 (31.9%) of the unfunded publications. We didn't find a significant difference in OA status between funded and unfunded research.
    CONCLUSION: In concordance with the European Research Council's decision to support gold OA publishing model, we found that only 35% of the funded and 31.9% of the unfunded insulin research were OA. Although funded research is increasing in China, most of it is produced in high income countries. This highlights the importance of allocating more funds to low/middle income countries.
    Keywords:  Insulin; Fund; Open access; Bibliometry.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.2174/1573399815666190712201635
  9. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019 Sep 18. pii: E3473. [Epub ahead of print]16(18):
    Wu Z, Chen C, Cai Y, Lu C, Wang H, Yu T.
      Visualization is one of the main features of Building Information Modeling (BIM). It has many advantages throughout the lifecycle of a construction project, and it has become a timely research topic in recent years. However, no attempt has been made to give a holistic understanding of the existing BIM-based visualization research status. Thus, this study aims to conduct a scientometric analysis of the existing BIM-based visualization literature and to gain a snapshot of the research status during the period 2010-2019. A total of 255 articles were abstracted from the Scopus database. Then, the VOSviewer program was employed to visualize the research status from the perspectives of scholars, countries/regions, journals, articles, and co-occurring keywords. Results revealed that Wang X. published the greatest number of articles, while Cheng J.C.P. received the greatest average normalized citations. Furthermore, Automation in Construction was identified as the most influential journal and the article "Building information modeling (BIM): trends, benefits, risks, and challenges for the AEC industry" was the most cited paper. Through the keywords co-occurrence analysis, "virtual reality" and "visual programming language" were identified as the emerging themes in this field. The research findings can provide both researchers and practitioners with a better understanding of the status quo and trends of the BIM-based visualization research.
    Keywords:  building information modeling (BIM); network analysis; scientometric analysis; visualization
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16183473
  10. Biomedica. 2019 06 15. 39(2): 323-329
    Zafra-Tanaka JH, Roca C, Canari-Casano JL, Vargas-Calla A.
      Introduction. Unjustified authorship or “gift authorship” is an inadequate practice of authorship that consists of naming as authors people who do not meet the authorship criteria. Reports of scientific research are often published as original articles in scientific journals and may present these inappropriate practices. Objectives. Determine the prevalence of gift authorship in original articles for publication. Materials and methods. Descriptive study in which the authorship contributions section of all the articles published between 2013 and the first quarter of 2017 in a Peruvian magazine was reviewed. Gift authorship was considered when an author did not meet at least one of the criteria established by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). Results. Of the 209 original articles published, 11 were excluded because they did not report authorship contributions. The prevalence of gift authorship was 53.5% (106). The critreria least met were the final approval of the manuscript (23.2%) and the writing and critical review of this manuscript. (16.8%). Conclusions. It is necessary that educational institutions train researchers to distinguish between authorship and contribution. In addition, it is necessary that the journals request and corroborate the reported contributions.
    Keywords:  authorship; writing; journal article; bibliometrics; Perú
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.7705/biomedica.v39i3.4316
  11. JAMA Surg. 2019 Sep 18.
    McClellan JM, Mansukhani N, Moe D, Derickson M, Chiu S, Kibbe MR, Martin MJ.
      Importance: Courtesy authorship is defined as including an individual who has not met authorship criteria as an author. Although most journals follow strict authorship criteria, the current incidence of courtesy authorship is unknown.Objective: To assess the practices related to courtesy authorship in surgical journals and academia.
    Design, Setting, and Participants: A survey was conducted from July 15 to October 27, 2017, of the first authors and senior authors of original articles, reviews, and clinical trials published between 2014 and 2015 in 8 surgical journals categorized as having a high or low impact factor.
    Main Outcomes and Measures: The prevalence of courtesy authorship overall and among subgroups of authors in high impact factor journals and low impact factor journals and among first authors and senior authors, as well as author opinions regarding courtesy authorship.
    Results: A total of 203 first authors and 254 senior authors responded (of 369 respondents who provided data on sex, 271 were men and 98 were women), with most being in academic programs (first authors, 116 of 168 [69.0%]; senior authors, 173 of 202 [85.6%]). A total of 17.2% of respondents (42 of 244) reported adding courtesy authors for the surveyed publications: 20.4% by first authors (32 of 157) and 11.5% by senior authors (10 of 87), but 53.7% (131 of 244) reported adding courtesy authorship on prior publications and 33.2% (81 of 244) had been added as a courtesy author in the past. Although 45 of 85 senior authors (52.9%) thought that courtesy authorship has decreased, 93 of 144 first authors (64.6%) thought that courtesy authorship has not changed or had increased (P = .03). There was no difference in the incidence of courtesy authorship for low vs high impact factor journals. Both first authors (29 of 149 [19.5%]) and senior authors (19 of 85 [22.4%]) reported pressures to add courtesy authorship, but external pressure was greater for low impact factor journals than for high impact factor journals (77 of 166 [46.4%] vs 60 of 167 [35.9%]; P = .04). More authors in low impact factor journals than in high impact factor journals thought that courtesy authorship was less harmful to academia (55 of 114 [48.2%] vs 34 of 117 [29.1%]). Overall, senior authors reported more positive outcomes with courtesy authorship (eg, improved morale and avoided author conflicts) than did first authors.
    Conclusions and Relevance: Courtesy authorship use is common by both first and senior authors in low impact factor journals and high impact factor journals. There are different perceptions, practices, and pressures to include courtesy authorship for first and senior authors. Understanding these issues will lead to better education to eliminate this practice.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1001/jamasurg.2019.3140