bims-librar Biomed news
on Biomedical Librarianship
Issue of 2018‒01‒21
two papers selected by
Thomas Krichel
Open Library Society


  1. J R Army Med Corps. 2018 Jan 13. pii: jramc-2017-000858. [Epub ahead of print]
    Vickers ML, Coorey CP, Milinovich GJ, Eriksson L, Assoum M, Reade MC.
      INTRODUCTION: Bibliometric tools can be used to identify the authors, topics and research institutions that have made the greatest impact in a field of medicine. The aim of this research was to analyse military trauma publications over the last 16 years of armed conflict in order to highlight the most important lessons that have translated into civilian practice and military doctrine as well as identify emerging areas of importance.METHODS: A systematic search of research published between January 2000 and December 2016 was conducted using the Thompson Reuters Web of Science database. Both primary evidence and review publications were included. Results were categorised according to relevance and topic and the 30 most cited publications were reviewed in full. The h-index, impact factors, citation counts and citation analysis were used to evaluate results.
    RESULTS: A plateau in the number of annual publications on military trauma was found, as was a shift away from publications on wound and mortality epidemiology to publications on traumatic brain injury (TBI), neurosurgery or blast injury to the head. Extensive collaboration networks exist between highly contributing authors and institutions, but less collaboration between authors from different countries. The USA produced the majority of recent publications, followed by the UK, Germany and Israel.
    CONCLUSIONS: In recent years, the number of publications on TBI, neurosurgery or blast injury to the head has increased. It is likely that the lessons of recent conflicts will continue to influence civilian medical practice, particularly regarding the long-term effects of blast-related TBI.
    Keywords:  neurological injury; statistics & research methods; trauma management
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1136/jramc-2017-000858
  2. J R Army Med Corps. 2018 Jan 13. pii: jramc-2017-000863. [Epub ahead of print]
    Li X, Hao JY.
      INTRODUCTION: Academic papers are an essential manner for describing new ideas and consolidating existing concepts in the field of military medicine. The academic impact of military medical publications reflects the extent and depth of recognition, acceptance and utilisation of the concepts transmitted in these publications. The aim of this research was to construct an evaluation index system suitable for evaluating the academic influence of scholars in the field of military medicine.METHODS: Using the Delphi consensus methodology, 30 experts from the field of military medicine, military medical information and library and information science were asked during three rounds of questioning to score the feasibility and importance of indicators that could be used to determine academic impact. An analytic hierarchy process method was used to calculate the relative weighting of each indicator in determining the final level of academic impact.
    RESULTS: Eight evaluation indicators were agreed on to potentially determine academic impact. These comprised: 'Web of Science documents', 'Citation impact', 'h-index', 'Percentage of international collaborations', 'Percentage of the top 10% of the cited frequency', 'Category normalised citation impact', 'Percentage of documents cited' and 'The number of F1000 Recommended papers'.
    CONCLUSIONS: The evaluation index system determined from this study combines the advantages of both qualitative and quantitative recognised evaluation indicators, which are subsequently weighted according to their importance in the field of military medicine. It is hoped that this framework will provide a manner in the future for comparing the potential academic impact of military medical scholars.
    Keywords:  academic evaluation; evaluation index system; health informatics; military medicine; scholars
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1136/jramc-2017-000863