bims-evares Biomed News
on Evaluation of research
Issue of 2026–02–08
eight papers selected by
Thomas Krichel, Open Library Society
  1. Research Productivity on Obesity in the Arab World: A Bibliometric Analysis (2004-2023).
  2. The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on scientific publications in the field of hernia surgery: a brief bibliometric analysis.
  3. Mapping the Research Landscape of Nasoethmoid Orbital Fractures: A Bibliometric and Co-Occurrence Analysis of the Top 50 Cited Articles.
  4. Characteristics, Citation Analysis, and Altmetrics Impact of Retracted Papers in Dentistry (2001-2024).
  5. Artificial intelligence in the retraction spotlight: trends, causes and consequences of withdrawn AI literature through a systematic bibliometric review.
  6. Most science is published from countries lacking in democracy and freedom of press.
  7. Trends in Authorship Characteristics in The American Journal of Sports Medicine, 2014 to 2024: A Follow-up Analysis.
  8. Evolving target: A 16-year progressive framework for shifting the rubric of scientific publishing toward transparency, artificial intelligence, and the Economic Impact Factor for impact that matters.
  1. Saudi Med J. 2026 Jan;47(1): 94-101
    Research Productivity on Obesity in the Arab World: A Bibliometric Analysis (2004-2023).
    Jamil Adnan Samkari, Ahamd Azam Malik.
       OBJECTIVE: To examine obesity research trends in Arab countries to inform policies and interventions.
    METHODS: A bibliometric analysis was conducted using the Web of Science database accessed via King Abdulaziz University's electronic library. Publications on obesity research in Arab countries from 2004 to 2023 were analyzed using R-Bibliometrix. Key parameters included publication volume, leading authors and institutions, funding sources, keyword co-occurrence networks, and collaboration patterns.
    RESULTS: Obesity-related research output in Arab countries demonstrated consistent growth from 2004 to 2023, with a threefold increase in publications since 2015. Regional and international collaborations have intensified, although disparities in research productivity persist across nations. Key themes include prevention strategies, socio-cultural determinants, and policy-oriented interventions.
    CONCLUSION: The increasing number of studies shows that more academics are interested in obesity in Arab countries. However, it is still challenging to turn findings into policies and actions that will have an effect. To eradicate the obesity epidemic, future efforts should focus on more funding, collaborative research, and a multidisciplinary approach is necessary.
    Keywords:  Arab world; Bibliometric analysis; Obesity; Research studies
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.15537/smj.2026.47.1.20241093
  2. Hernia. 2026 Feb 02. 30(1): 82
    The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on scientific publications in the field of hernia surgery: a brief bibliometric analysis.
    Hakan Kulacoglu, Haydar Celasin, Tugba Akkaya Hocagil.
      
    Keywords:  Bibliometric analysis; COVID-19; Hernia surgery; Pandemic impact; Scientific publications
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10029-026-03588-9
  3. J Craniofac Surg. 2026 Feb 02.
    Mapping the Research Landscape of Nasoethmoid Orbital Fractures: A Bibliometric and Co-Occurrence Analysis of the Top 50 Cited Articles.
    Piyush Dalmia, Jyoti B Penumarti.
      This bibliometric study analyses the top 50 most-cited articles on nasoethmoid orbital (NOE) fractures, sourced from PubMed and Scopus. Using VOSviewer software, the authors performed keyword co-occurrence analysis to identify thematic clusters and research trends. Four major clusters emerged: orbital fracture anatomy, facial trauma, CT imaging, and Nose Fracture & nasal injury. The findings highlight the dominance of anatomic complexity, imaging technologies, and surgical planning in NOE fracture literature. This study provides a structured overview of the field and suggests future directions for clinical and academic focus.
    Keywords:  Bibliometric analysis; CT imaging; VOSviewer; co-occurrence mapping; facial trauma; nasal fracture; nasoethmoid orbital fracture
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1097/SCS.0000000000012295
  4. Int Dent J. 2026 Feb 05. pii: S0020-6539(26)00002-X. [Epub ahead of print]76(2): 109406
    Characteristics, Citation Analysis, and Altmetrics Impact of Retracted Papers in Dentistry (2001-2024).
    Alireza Jafari, Shohreh SeyyedHosseini, Reza BasirianJahromi.
       BACKGROUND: Retraction is a mechanism for correcting published scholarly literature and alerting readers to seriously flawed or erroneous content, or ethical issues, in the literature they are reading. The objectives of this study were to identify the reasons for retraction, analyse citations, and describe the scientific and Altmetrics impacts of retracted papers in dentistry, oral health, and medicine.
    METHODS: The present study was an applied, descriptive-analytical investigation conducted using Scientometric methods and the Altmetrics index. The research population consisted of 231 retracted scientific articles in the subject areas of Dentistry, Oral Surgery, and Medicine, which were indexed in the Web of Science database between 2001 and 2024. Statistical methods, including frequency, mean, and Spearman's correlation, were employed for data analysis using R software.
    RESULTS: The findings showed that out of the 231 retracted articles, 156 articles collectively received 2271 citations. Q1 journals have hosted the most retracted articles. Spain has the highest number of retracted articles in the field of dentistry worldwide. Falsification/fabrication of data is the most important reason for the retraction of articles. Mendeley had the highest share of retracted papers in dentistry among the reference management tools. The correlation coefficient between Altmetrics impact and scientific impact was significant (P < .05).
    CONCLUSION: As dentistry and oral health are a pivotal field within the biomedical sciences, they exert a substantial influence on the health of the population. For the preceding decades, it has remained imperative for dentistry researchers to dedicate greater attention to all phases of their research process, encompassing the study design, review process, and publication stage.
    Keywords:  Dentistry; Publication ethics; Retraction; Scientific fraud; Social media
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.identj.2026.109406
  5. Front Res Metr Anal. 2025 ;10 1737168
    Artificial intelligence in the retraction spotlight: trends, causes and consequences of withdrawn AI literature through a systematic bibliometric review.
    Kannan Sridharan, Gowri Sivaramakrishnan.
       Introduction: The rapid integration of artificial intelligence (AI) in scientific research has introduced new challenges to academic integrity, with increasing concerns about AI-related article retractions. This study conducts a comprehensive bibliometric analysis of retracted AI-related articles to characterize their prevalence, causes, and impact on scholarly communication.
    Methods: A systematic search was performed in Scopus using the terms "Artificial Intelligence" OR "AI" AND "retract*" without restrictions on publication year or language. Bibliometric parameters including publication timelines, journal metrics, citation counts, and retraction characteristics were analyzed using VOS Viewer, Bibliometrix, and SPSS. Statistical tests assessed correlations between key variables.
    Results: From an initial yield of 1,152 articles, 335 retracted publications met inclusion criteria after duplicate removal and screening. The analysis revealed that 46.3% (155/335) of retractions occurred in 2023, with a median retraction time of 550 days post-publication. Engineering accounted for 30.4% (102/335) of retractions, while 72.2% (243/335) originated from China. Compromised peer review was the most common retraction reason, though 37.9% (127/335) lacked specific justification. Strikingly, 51.1% (172/335) of retracted articles-maintained field citation ratios >1, indicating persistent scholarly influence. Articles in special issues showed significantly faster submission-to-acceptance timelines (p = 0.016). Journal editors initiated 98.5% (330/335) of retractions, while author responses revealed disagreement in 35.4% (34/96) of cases where feedback was available.
    Discussion: This study highlights systemic vulnerabilities in AI-related research publication, particularly concerning peer review integrity and prolonged retraction timelines. The continued citation of retracted articles underscores the need for improved retraction alert systems. These findings call for stronger ethical guidelines and technological safeguards to maintain trust in AI-driven scholarly outputs.
    Keywords:  AI; artificial intelligence; publication ethics; retractions; scientific misconduct
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3389/frma.2025.1737168
  6. Res Integr Peer Rev. 2026 Feb 05. 11(1): 4
    Most science is published from countries lacking in democracy and freedom of press.
    John P A Ioannidis, Jeroen Baas.
       BACKGROUND: Democracy and freedom of press may affect how science is prioritized, produced, communicated and disseminated. We aimed to map the production of scientific publications worldwide in terms of democracy and freedom of press ratings of countries.
    METHODS: This is a bibliometric study cross-linking global bibliometric data with democracy ratings and freedom of the press indices for countries around the world. Democracy ratings used the Democracy Index in 2024 and in 2006 (when first released by the Economist Intelligence Unit) and Freedom of Press ratings used the 2024 index by Reports Without Borders. The Scopus database was used for publications from each country. Fractional counts were assigned for publications co-authored by authors from different countries. Full articles, reviews, conference papers, books and book chapters were included.
    RESULTS: In 2024, countries characterized as full democracies produced only 22% (915,102/4,185,853) of the Scopus-indexed publications, versus 66% (1,157,842/1,757,310) in 2006. There was no correlation between the ratio of publications indexed in 2024 versus 2006 and the absolute or relative change in Democracy Index between 2006 and 2024 (r = 0.02 and r = 0.00, respectively). 78% of publications in 2024 (3,255,770/4,187,136) came from countries with problematic (including USA) or worse (including China) rating for freedom of press. Proportions of publications originating from countries with problematic or worse situations were 81% (n = 3,374,348), 91% (n = 3,820,811), 61% (n = 2,537,962), 62% (n = 2,608,802), and 63% (n = 2,650,819) for political, economic, legislative, sociocultural, and safety/security dimensions, respectively. Results were similar when limited to articles published in 2024 in journals with continuous annual presence in Scopus during 2006-2024. 87.1% (1,489/1,710) of the highly cited papers published in 2024 (with 150 or more Scopus citations by November 23, 2025) have at least one author from a country that is not full democracy and 98.8% (1,690/1,710) of these highly cited papers have at least one author from a country that does not have good freedom of press.
    CONCLUSIONS: Most published science originates from countries struggling or suffering in democracy and/or freedom of press. The deeper causes and implications of this emerging landscape require further study.
    Keywords:  Bibliometrics; Democracy; Freedom of press
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-026-00190-6
  7. Am J Sports Med. 2026 Feb 06. 3635465251410592
    Trends in Authorship Characteristics in The American Journal of Sports Medicine, 2014 to 2024: A Follow-up Analysis.
    Michael Nocek, Alan D Villegas Meza, Caroline B Herrmann, Nolan A Kim, Tyler J Uppstrom, Lorenz Fritsch, Ayham Jaber, Eric C McCarty, Peter J Millett.
       BACKGROUND: Authorship patterns in medical journals continue to evolve with expanding team science, academic incentives, and updated authorship guidance. Previous American Journal of Sports Medicine (AJSM) work (1994-2014) reported rising author counts and a growing share of international contributors.
    HYPOTHESIS/PURPOSE: To update AJSM authorship trends (2014, 2019, 2020, and 2024) and test whether the past decade shows greater mean authors per article, more international and/or academic groups, and a higher proportion of nonphysician first authors.
    STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional bibliometric analysis.
    METHODS: We reviewed AJSM articles in 2014, 2019, 2020, and 2024 via the journal archive; editorials, letters, society news, and corrigenda were excluded. For each article, we recorded the first/last author's highest degree and sex, the number of authors, country (United States vs international), and institution type (academic vs nonacademic). Articles with >20 authors were excluded. Differences across years were tested with a chi-square test (Bonferroni-adjusted α = .0083) and a 1-way analysis of variance with the Tukey honest significant difference post hoc test.
    RESULTS: A total of 1482 articles met the inclusion criteria (2014: n = 336; 2019: n = 383; 2020: n = 383; and 2024: n = 380). Article volume did not differ significantly across years (χ2[3] = 4.30; P = .23). From 2014 to 2024, article volume increased by 13.1%. Mean authors per article increased from 5.82 (2014) to 6.47 (2019), 6.55 (2020), and 7.02 (2024) (F[3,1470] = 15.69; P < .0001); all but the 2019 versus 2020 pairwise contrasts were significant. International groups increased from 42.6% (2014) to 51.3% (2024) (χ2[3] = 8.92; P = .03). No pairwise comparison met the Bonferroni threshold (α =.0083); the lowest P value was .0097 (2014 vs 2019). Bachelor of Arts/Bachelor of Science first authorship rose (χ2[3] = 13.78; P = .003), reaching 9% (2020) and 11% (2024). Sex distributions for first and last authors did not change (all P > .05). Twelve articles exceeded the >20-author cutoff and were excluded.
    CONCLUSION: From 2014 to 2024, AJSM authorship shows expanding team size, increased international participation, and a higher proportion of bachelor's-level first authors-largely medical trainees-while sex representation remained stable. These patterns underscore the need for transparent contributorship and mentorship to maintain rigor as collaboration intensifies.
    Keywords:  authorship trends; bibliometrics; international collaboration; medical education; sex representation; sports medicine
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1177/03635465251410592
  8. World J Stem Cells. 2025 Dec 26. 17(12): 111748
    Evolving target: A 16-year progressive framework for shifting the rubric of scientific publishing toward transparency, artificial intelligence, and the Economic Impact Factor for impact that matters.
    Shengwen Calvin Li.
      Reflecting on 16 years of continuous evolution at the World Journal of Stem Cells, this editorial offers a forward-looking vision for redefining the framework of scientific publishing. With the emergence of artificial intelligence, open science, and the growing need for translational value, we propose shifting from traditional citation-based assessments toward an impact and progress framework, anchored by the Economic Impact Factor. The World Journal of Stem Cells experience, grounded in metrics and milestones, supports this evolution: Among the more than 1200 published articles since inception, our top 10 cited works have collectively accrued over 2475 citations, led by Kyurkchiev et al (398 citations) and Casteilla et al (392 citations). Emerging scholars such as Ann De Becker and Nipha Chaicharoenaudomrung have shaped the next generation of research, as seen in our top 10 junior authors table. Clinically, World Journal of Stem Cells has supported critical translational work, such as Tsang et al's mesenchymal stem cell stroke trial (27 citations), illustrating real-world impact. Thematic breadth remains a cornerstone, with 22 focus areas including artificial intelligence-integrated programming, spatial single-cell biology, CRISPR-based gene editing, and bench-to-bedside translation. As Nature and other leading publishers move toward transparent peer review, World Journal of Stem Cells embraces editorial co-creation, recognizing peer reviewers and editors as contributors with "10000-foot eagle views" by publishing peer-review reports side-by-side with the related manuscripts since its inception. Together, these shifts signify a call to recalibrate what we value in science - not just what is cited, but what truly counts.
    Keywords:  AGI; Artificial intelligence impact; Bench to business; Citation count; Economic Impact Factor; Impact factor; Innovation economy; OpenAI; Research metrics; Science policy
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.4252/wjsc.v17.i12.111748
This page is being maintained by Thomas Krichel. It was last updated on 2026‒02‒12 at 12:17.