bims-evares Biomed News
on Evaluation of research
Issue of 2020‒09‒20
twenty papers selected by
Thomas Krichel
Open Library Society

  1. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2020 Sep 15.
      OBJECTIVE: This quali-quantitative study analysed the 100 most-cited papers in core dental public health (DPH) journals focusing on understanding international knowledge production.METHODS: The DPH journals were selected from titles and scopes at Web of Science Core Collection database up to March 2020. Further comparisons were performed at Scopus and Google Scholar databases. Some bibliometric parameters were extracted as follows: title, number of citations, citation density (number of citations per year), first author's country, year of publication, study design and subject. VOSviewer software was used to create graphical bibliometric maps.
    RESULTS: Papers were ranked by the total number of citations, which ranged from 104 to 1,019, and six papers were cited more than 400 times. Papers were published from 1974 to 2013, mainly in Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology. Most frequent study designs were cross-sectional (30%) and nonsystematic review (25%). Most papers were from Europe (54%) and North America (31%). First authors were predominantly from the United Kingdom (17%), United States of America (17%) and Canada (14%). VOSviewer map of co-authorship demonstrated the existence of clusters in the research collaboration. Although epidemiology was the most frequent subject (84%), health services research presented eight times higher citation density.
    CONCLUSIONS: Top 100 most-cited papers in core DPH journals were predominantly observational studies from Anglo-Saxon countries. Top 100 most-cited papers in core DPH journals tend to be cross-sectional studies carried out in the United States with highest citation in health services research. Locker D, Petersen PE and Sheiham A are a landmark for DPH field.
    Keywords:  bibliometric analysis; bibliometrics; citation index; dental public health; public health
  2. Arch Osteoporos. 2020 Sep 15. 15(1): 144
      Research on osteoporosis is a well-developed and promising research field. The top 100 literature included 73 articles and 27 reviews. The average citation number was 747 (range 370 to 2970). Researchers and institutions from the USA, the UK, and France contributed the most to the top high-cited articles.PURPOSE: To provide a bibliometric and visualized analysis of the top 100 highly cited articles on osteoporosis indexed by the Web of Science (WoS) from 1990 to 2019.
    METHODS: Data were obtained from the WoS Core Collection on Jan 10, 2020. Qualitative and quantitative analysis was conducted based on WoS. Collaboration analysis and keywords analysis were performed using VosView software.
    RESULTS: A total of 12,863 references were obtained. The top 100 highly cited literature included 73 articles and 27 reviews. The average citation number of the 100 articles was 747 (range 370 to 2970). The fund sources mostly came from the USA. A total of 29 journals published the top 100 highly cited literature. The New England Journal of Medicine had the largest number of papers and the highest total cited times. The USA published 72 articles. The University of California San Francisco published 17 articles, followed by University of Sheffield and Mayo Clinic and Mayo Foundation. Cooper C had the most publications (n = 12) and Genant HK had the largest total citation (n = 11,055). Considering only the first author and corresponding author, Kanis JA had published the most articles. Researchers and institutions from the USA, the UK, and France contributed the most to the top high-cited articles.
    CONCLUSIONS: Research on osteoporosis is a well-developed and promising research field. The top 100 articles have been cited widely and actively. New England Journal of Medicine was the most popular journal. The most productive country was the USA. The University of California San Francisco, University of Sheffield, and Mayo Clinic and Mayo Foundation were the most productive institutions. Cooper C, Kanis JA, and Genant HK were the most prolific and influential authors. Researchers and institutions from North America and Europe contributed the most.
    Keywords:  Bibliometric analysis; Citation; Osteoporosis
  3. Med J Islam Repub Iran. 2020 ;34 51
      Background: Since the outbreak of the novel coronavirus disease from Wuhan, China, in early December 2019, many scientists focused on this infection to find a way to deal with it. Due to the dramatic scientific growth in this field, we conducted a scientometric study to gain a better understanding of the scientific literature on COVID-19. Methods: We extracted all COVID-19 documents indexed in the Scopus from December 1, 2019, to April 1, 2020, without any language limitation and determined their bibliometric characteristics, including document type, open accessibility status, citation counting, H-index, top cited documents, the most productive countries, institutions and journals, international collaboration, the most frequent terms and keywords, journal bibliographic coupling and cocitations. Results: A total of 923 documents on COVID-19 were retrieved, of which 418 were original articles. All documents had received 2551 citations with an average citation of 2.76 per document and an h-index of 23. China ranked first with 348 documents, followed by the United States (n = 160). The Lancet and BMJ Clinical Research Ed published the most documents (each with 74 documents) and 2 institutions (University of Hong Kong and Huazhong University of Science and Technology) ranked first in this regard. In addition, the present study analyzed the top 25 highly-cited documents (those that had received 70% of all citations). Conclusion: This study highlighted the focused subjects on various aspects of COVID-19 literature such as pathogenesis, epidemiology, transmission, diagnosis, treatment, prevention, and its complications.
    Keywords:  Bibliometrics; COVID-19; Novel Coronavirus; SARS-CoV-2; Scientometrics
  4. J Venom Anim Toxins Incl Trop Dis. 2020 Aug 31. 26 e20190082
      Background: Journal Impact Factor (JIF) has several intrinsic flaws, which highlight its inability to adequately measure citation distributions or indicate journal quality. Despite these flaws, JIF is still widely used within the academic community, resulting in the propagation of potentially misleading information. A critical review of the usefulness of JIF is needed including an overview of the literature to identify viable alternative metrics. The objectives of this study are: (1) to assess the usefulness of JIF by compiling and comparing its advantages and disadvantages; (2) to record the differential uses of JIF within research environments; and (3) to summarize and compare viable alternative measures to JIF.Methods: Three separate literature search strategies using MEDLINE and Web of Science were completed to address the three study objectives. Each search was completed in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Results were compiled in tabular format and analyzed based on reporting frequency.
    Results: For objective (1), 84 studies were included in qualitative analysis. It was found that the recorded advantages of JIF were outweighed by disadvantages (18 disadvantages vs. 9 advantages). For objective (2), 653 records were included in a qualitative analysis. JIF was found to be most commonly used in journal ranking (n = 653, 100%) and calculation of scientific research productivity (n = 367, 56.2%). For objective (3), 65 works were included in qualitative analysis. These articles revealed 45 alternatives, which includes 18 alternatives that improve on highly reported disadvantages of JIF.
    Conclusion: JIF has many disadvantages and is applied beyond its original intent, leading to inaccurate information. Several metrics have been identified to improve on certain disadvantages of JIF. Integrated Impact Indicator (I3) shows great promise as an alternative to JIF. However, further scientometric analysis is needed to assess its properties.
    Keywords:  Alternative metrics; Bibliometrics; Citations and impact; Journal Impact Factor
  5. Front Public Health. 2020 ;8 477
      Background: As an emerging infectious disease, COVID-19 has garnered great research interest. We aimed to explore the differences between English language and Chinese language Medical/Scientific journals publications, particularly aiming to explore the efficacy/contents of the literature published in English and Chinese in relation to the outcomes of management and characterization of COVID-19 during the early stage of COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: Publications on COVID-19 research were retrieved from both English and Chinese databases. Bibliometric analyses were performed using VOSviewer 1.6.14, and CiteSpace V software. Network maps were generated to evaluate the collaborations between different authors, countries/provinces, and institutions. Results: A total of 143 English and 721 Chinese original research articles and reviews on COVID-19 were included in our study. Most of the authors and institutions of the papers were from China before March 1st, 2020, however, the distribution of authors and institutions were mainly in developed countries or more wealthy areas of China. The range of the keywords in English publications was more extensive than those in Chinese. Traditional Chinese Medicine was seen more frequently in Chinese papers than in English. Of the 143 articles published in English, 54 articles were published by Chinese authors only and 21 articles were published jointly by Chinese and other overseas authors. Conclusions: The publications in English have enabled medical practitioners and scientists to share/exchange information, while on the other hand, the publications in the Chinese language have provided complementary educational approaches for the local medical practitioners to understand the essential and key information to manage COVID-19 in the relatively remote regions of China, for the general population with a general level of education.
    Keywords:  COVID-19 outbreaks; Chinese; English; SARS-CoV-2; bibliometric
  6. Eur J Public Health. 2020 Sep 17. pii: ckaa172. [Epub ahead of print]
      BACKGROUND: Alcohol industry actors are known to be involved in scientific research. Despite concerns regarding bias, the extent of involvement and coverage of this research are unknown.METHODS: We aimed to investigate the extent and type of scientific research 1918-2019 which was supported by the alcohol industry, including alcohol companies themselves and other organizations, such as trade associations. We identified bibliographic records from the Web of Science suite of databases which have named alcohol companies or organizations in the fields relating to author affiliations and support declarations. We then ascertained trends in publications over time, type of support, funding, outlets (such as journal titles), subject areas covered (such as health) and named companies (such as Carlsberg) and organizations (such as Drinkaware).
    RESULTS: The analysis included 13 481 unique records, 11 014 (82%) were authored or funded by alcohol companies and 2488 (18%) were authored or funded by other organizations. The majority of the records (90%, 12 157/13 481) were journal publications. The most common subject areas covered by the publications were biology (5415/13 481, 40%), chemistry (3937/13 481, 29%) and health (3707/13 481, 27%). In line with general publishing trends, there has been an overall increase in research funded or supported by alcohol companies and organizations since records began. The main exception is the steady decline in company author affiliations, particularly in health-related topics since the mid-1990s.
    CONCLUSIONS: Alcohol companies and related organizations are extensively involved in or supporting scientific research according to data in Web of Science. This does not, however, necessarily reflect the totality of scientific research produced by alcohol companies and related organizations.
  7. Global Health. 2020 Sep 17. 16(1): 83
      BACKGROUND: HIV/AIDS has attracted considerable research attention since the 1980s. In the current context of globalization and the predominance of cooperative work, it is crucial to analyze the participation of the countries and regions where the infection is most prevalent. This study assesses the participation of African countries in publications on the topic, as well as the degree of equity or influence existing in North-South relations.METHODS: We identified all articles and reviews of HIV/AIDS indexed in the Web of Science Core Collection. We analyzed the scientific production, collaboration, and contributions from African and Middle Eastern countries to scientific activity in the region. The concept of leadership, measured through the participation as the first author of documents in collaboration was used to determine the equity in research produced through international collaboration.
    RESULTS: A total of 68,808 documents published from 2010 to 2017 were analyzed. Researchers from North America and Europe participated in 82.14% of the global scientific production on HIV/AIDS, compared to just 21.61% from Africa and the Middle East. Furthermore, the publications that did come out of these regions was concentrated in a small number of countries, led by South Africa (41% of the documents). Other features associated with HIV/AIDS publications from Africa include the importance of international collaboration from the USA, the UK, and other European countries (75-93% of the documents) and the limited participation as first authors that is evident (30 to 36% of the documents). Finally, the publications to which African countries contributed had a notably different disciplinary orientation, with a predominance of research on public health, epidemiology, and drug therapy.
    CONCLUSIONS: It is essential to foster more balance in research output, avoid the concentration of resources that reproduces the global North-South model on the African continent, and focus the research agenda on local priorities. To accomplish this, the global North should strengthen the transfer of research skills and seek equity in cooperative ties, favoring the empowerment of African countries. These efforts should be concentrated in countries with low scientific activity and high incidence and prevalence of the disease. It is also essential to foster intraregional collaborations between African countries.
    Keywords:  Acquired immune deficiency syndrome; African countries; Bibliometrics; Human immunodeficiency virus infection; International collaboration; Leadership; Scientific research
  8. J Adv Nurs. 2020 Aug 23.
      AIM: To make a bibliometric analysis of the current research status and hot spots in the field of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) -related depression.DESIGN: Systematic review.
    METHODS: Based on the Web of Science database, studies in the past 5 years from 1 January 2015-5 November 2019 have been included. Data were analysed from annual number of published papers, main research institutions, core authors, core teams and research topics by using bibliometric approaches.
    RESULTS: Related papers (N = 1,073) were obtained. The field of RA-related depression is in a stable development stage, forming core authors and core teams. The epidemiological characteristics, influencing factors, prediction effect and the intervention of RA-related depression are common research directions and themes. The common role of auto-antibodies and inflammatory factors in the development of RA and depression, the risk of cardiovascular events and disease burden caused by RA-related depression are newly emerging research topics.
    CONCLUSION: The RA-related depression has been widely concerned by scholars and the research field is gradually mature. However, the research on the prevention and intervention of RA-related depression is still wanting, which needs to be strengthened. WHERE AND ON WHOM WILL THE RESEARCH HAVE AN IMPACT?: The research revealed the most popular institutions, authors, research teams, emerging issues and 'hot topics' in the RA-related depression field, which might suggest avenues for future research in this field.
    Keywords:  Psychiatric Nursing; Web of Science; bibliometrics; depression; hotspots; publication status; research status; rheumatic immune diseases; rheumatoid arthritis
  9. J Am Pharm Assoc (2003). 2020 Sep 15. pii: S1544-3191(20)30450-7. [Epub ahead of print]
      BACKGROUND: Numerous national and international studies have explored the issue of gender disparity in health science-publication rates. However, few have examined publication type (e.g., reviews and original research) and authorship order, which are 2 key factors in contribution recognition and the work's visibility and application.OBJECTIVE: The objective of this work was to determine the changes in the distribution of women as first authors by publication type over time in pharmacy practice journals.
    METHODS: This was a bibliometric data analysis of pharmacy practice publications from January 2007 through December 2017. We used data from the U.S. Social Security Administration, and the multilingual Genderize application program interface ( to identify the authors' potential gender. To determine the publication type, we used the Web of Science article list (Clarivate Analytics, Philadelphia, PA). The Cochran-Armitage trend test was used to determine the differences over time.
    RESULTS: Articles published from January 2007 through December 2017 in 8 pharmacy practice journals were reviewed (N = 14,658 articles): research articles (63.8%), reviews (17.0%), editorial material (11.1%), and letters (8.1%). There was a statistically significant increase in the number of first-authored articles and reviews by women (45.1% to 55.4% and 39.2% to 56.1%, respectively). There was not a significant increase in the proportion of women as first authors in editorials or letters over the study period.
    CONCLUSION: Despite increases in research and reviews with women as first authors, there is still a need for increased representation of women in opinion-based publications such as editorials.
  10. PLoS One. 2020 ;15(9): e0238372
      The success of a scientist depends on their production of scientific papers and the impact factor of the journal in which they publish. Because most major scientific journals are published in English, success is related to publishing in this language. Currently, 98% of publications in science are written in English, including researchers from English as a Foreign Language (EFL) countries. Colombia is among the countries with the lowest English proficiency in the world. Thus, understanding the disadvantages that Colombians face in publishing is crucial to reducing global inequality in science. This paper quantifies the disadvantages that result from the language hegemony in scientific publishing by examining the additional costs that communicating in English creates in the production of articles. It was identified that more than 90% of the scientific articles published by Colombian researchers are in English, and that publishing in a second language creates additional financial costs to Colombian doctoral students and results in problems with reading comprehension, writing ease and time, and anxiety. Rejection or revision of their articles because of the English grammar was reported by 43.5% of the doctoral students, and 33% elected not to attend international conferences and meetings due to the mandatory use of English in oral presentations. Finally, among the translation/editing services reviewed, the cost per article is between one-quarter and one-half of a doctoral monthly salary in Colombia. Of particular note, we identified a positive correlation between English proficiency and higher socioeconomic origin of the researcher. Overall, this study exhibits the negative consequences of hegemony of English that preserves the global gap in science. Although having a common language is important for science communication, generating multilinguistic alternatives would promote diversity while conserving a communication channel. Such an effort should come from different actors and should not fall solely on EFL researchers.
  11. J Clin Anesth. 2020 Sep 14. pii: S0952-8180(20)31528-2. [Epub ahead of print]67 110012
    Keywords:  Bibliometric analysis; CiteSpace; Co-citation analysis; Hot spots; Postoperative cognitive dysfunction
  12. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020 Sep 16. pii: E6732. [Epub ahead of print]17(18):
      Since the eighties, technological tools have modified how people interact in their environment. At the same time, occupational safety and health measures have been widely applied. The European Agency for Safety and Health at Work considers that information and communication technologies are the main methods to achieve the goals proposed to improve working life and the dissemination of good practices. The principal objective was to determine the trends of publications focused on these technologies and occupational safety in the healthcare sector during the last 30 years. A bibliometric study was carried out. The 1021 documents showed an increased trend per country, especially for the United States (p < 0.001) and year (p < 0.001). The citations per year showed significant differences between citations of articles published before 2007 (p < 0.001). The year was also linked to the increase or decrease of articles (72.2%) and reviews (14.9%) (p < 0.001). The analysis of journal co-citations also showed that the main journals (such as Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology) were linked to other important journals and had a major part in the clusters formed. All these findings were discussed in the manuscript and conclusions were drawn.
    Keywords:  ICTs; healthcare workers; occupational health; scientometric analysis
  13. Med J Islam Repub Iran. 2020 ;34 58
      Background: As the partner country of the WHO Commission on Social Determinants of Health (SDH), Iran has expanded the knowledge based on the social determinants of health- as one of commission recommendations- by establishing SDH research centers to collect evidence and design responses to the existing health equity gap. Considering the importance of the role assigned to these research centers, this study aimed to present the knowledge production of SDH research centers and determine their status in Iran's health research system (HRS). Methods: In this cross sectional study, research performance of SDH research centers was assessed based on international research indicators and compared with national medical research centers and HRS knowledge production. Then, SDH research centers were scored and ranked based on the research indicators. Results: Out of 37 approved SDH research centers, the knowledge performance of 33 research centers was reviewed. The total number of academic members was 334. The number of these centers' indexed published articles and the proportion of published articles per academic member have been doubled from 483 and 1.44 in 2015 to 984 and 2.94 in 2017. In this period, the number of citations of the past 5-year publications was 4355 according to Scopus database. The proportions of these centers' high-quality publication (Q1) and international collaborations per published articles were 14.8 and 8.25. In ranking, the first to third ranks were occupied by SDH research centers of Kermanshah, Kurdistan, and Qazvin Universities of Medical Sciences. Conclusion: Although knowledge production seems desirable in mentioned research centers, it is essential to create a virtual research network to increase intersectoral collaboration and develop strategies to solve the puzzle of gathering evidence on the social determinants affecting health inequities.
    Keywords:  Health equity; Health research system; Iran; Knowledge production; Research center; Social determinants of health
  14. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2020 Sep 07.
      BACKGROUND: As craniofacial fellowship positions outnumber the availability of academic craniofacial jobs, it is important to understand the factors associated with securing an academic position after fellowship. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of bibliometric indices and trainee demographics on the ability to obtain a full-time academic plastic surgery position upon completion of a craniofacial fellowship.METHODS: Craniofacial fellowship graduates between 2009-2018 (n=182) were identified. Initial job placement and demographic data were collected; bibliometric indices at fellowship completion were calculated. Chi-square and Fisher's exact tests, and multivariable logistic regression was used to assess the association of select factors with job placement.
    RESULTS: Of the 48.9% of fellows that secured academic positions, 39.3% trained at five fellowship institutions. The majority of those completing residency at top institutions for academic surgery and research entered academic positions at fellowship completion. Geography influenced academic placement, as 72.7% of trainees in the Northeast secured academic positions. Only 20.3% of fellows completed dedicated postgraduate research time, but among these, 70.3% entered academic jobs. H-index (OR=1.14;p=0.01) and total manuscripts (OR=1.04;p=0.02) were significantly associated with academic practice, while adjusting for other covariates.
    CONCLUSION: While residency training institution, geographic location, and postgraduate research may influence academic placement, the h-index and total manuscripts represent the best predictors of academic careers after craniofacial fellowship. This information is valuable for applicants who aspire to be academic craniofacial surgeons, and for programs and educators who can utilize this data to identify applicants with a propensity for academics.
  15. PLoS One. 2020 ;15(9): e0238131
      BACKGROUND: The recommendations of experts who write review articles are a critical determinant of the adaptation of new treatments by clinicians. Several types of reviews exist (narrative, systematic, meta-analytic), and some of these are more vulnerable to researcher bias than others. Recently, the interest in nutritional interventions in psychiatry has increased and many experts, who are often active researchers on this topic, have come to strong conclusions about the benefits of a healthy diet on depression. In a young and active field of study, we aimed to investigate whether the strength of an author's conclusion is associated with the type of review article they wrote.METHODS: Systematic searches were performed in PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Google Scholar for narrative reviews and systematic reviews with and without meta-analyses on the effects of diet on depression (final search date: May 30th, 2020). Conclusions were extracted from the abstract and discussion section and rated as strong, moderate, or weak by independent raters who were blind to study type. A benchmark on legitimate conclusion strength was based on a GRADE assessment of the highest level of evidence. This systematic review was registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42020141372.
    FINDINGS: 24 narrative reviews, 12 systematic reviews, and 14 meta-analyses were included. In the abstract, 33% of narrative reviews and 8% of systematic reviews came to strong conclusions, whereas no meta-analysis did. Narrative reviews were 8.94 (95% CI: 2.17, 36.84) times more likely to report stronger conclusions in the abstract than systematic reviews with and without meta-analyses. These findings were similar for conclusions in the discussion section. Narrative reviews used 45.6% fewer input studies and were more likely to be written by authors with potential conflicts of interest. A study limitation is the subjective nature of the conclusion classification system despite high inter-rater agreements and its confirmation outside of the review team.
    CONCLUSIONS: We have shown that narrative reviews come to stronger conclusions about the benefits of a healthy diet on depression despite inconclusive evidence. This finding empirically underscores the importance of a systematic method for summarizing the evidence of a field of study. Journal editors may want to reconsider publishing narrative reviews before meta-analytic reviews are available.
  16. Am J Ophthalmol. 2020 Sep 14. pii: S0002-9394(20)30504-3. [Epub ahead of print]
      PURPOSE: This study analyzed sex differences among cornea specialists with regards to academic rank, scholarly productivity, National Institute of Health (NIH) funding, and industry partnerships.DESIGN: Cross-sectional study.
    METHODS: This was a study of faculty at 113 US academic programs. Sex, residency graduation year, and academic rank were collected from institutional websites between January-March 2019. H-indices and m-quotients were collected from the Scopus database. The NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tool and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services databases were queried for data on NIH funding and industry partnerships.
    RESULTS: Of the 440 cornea specialists identified, 131 (29.8%) were females. The proportions of females and males at each academic rank (assistant: 69.5% vs. 41.8%; associate: 17.6% vs 21.0%; full professor: 13.0% vs. 37.2%) were not significant after adjusting for career duration (p=0.083, 0.459, 0.113, respectively). Females had significantly lower median h-indices [4.0, (Interquartile range (IQR) 7.0) vs. 11.0, (IQR 17.0); p<0.001] and shorter median career duration [12.0 (IQR 11.0) vs. 25.0 (IQR 20.0) years; p <0.001] than males, but similar median m-quotients (0.5 (IQR 0.8) vs. 0.5 (IQR 0.8); p=1.00). Sex differences in h-indices were not seen at each academic rank or career duration interval. Among NIH-funded investigators, median grant funding of was $1.6M (IQR 2.2M) for females and $1.2M (IQR 4.6M)(p=0.853) for males. Overall, 25.5% of females and 58.6% of males (p=0.600) had industry partnerships.
    CONCLUSION: Sex differences within academic ranks and h-indices are likely due to a smaller proportion of females with advanced career duration.
    Keywords:  academic rank; cornea; gender; ophthalmologists; ophthalmology; productivity; sex
  17. Public Underst Sci. 2020 Sep 15. 963662520957252
      Experts increasingly use social media to communicate with the wider public, prompted by the need to demonstrate impact and public engagement. While previous research on the use of social media by experts focused on single topics and performed sentiment analysis, we propose to extend the scope by investigating experts' networks, topics and communicative styles. We perform social and semantic network as well language analysis of top tweeting scientists and economists. We find that economists tweet less, mention fewer people and have fewer Twitter conversations with members of the public than scientists. Scientists use a more informal and involved style and engage wider audiences through multimedia contents, while economists use more jargon, and tend to favour traditional written media. The results point to differences in experts' communicative practices online, and we propose that disciplinary ways of 'talking' may pose obstacles to an effective public communication of expert knowledge.
    Keywords:  Twitter; communicative style; expert communication; involvement; networks; sentiment