bims-evares Biomed News
on Evaluation of research
Issue of 2019–09–08
eightteen papers selected by
Thomas Krichel, Open Library Society
  1. Does increased interdisciplinary contact among hard and social scientists help or hinder interdisciplinary research?
  2. Predictors of Citation Rate for Original Research Studies in the Canadian Association of Radiologists Journal.
  3. Trends and predictors of biomedical research quality, 1990-2015: a meta-research study.
  4. Association Between Institutional Social Media Involvement and Gastroenterology Divisional Rankings: Cohort Study.
  5. Writers' uncertainty in scientific and popular biomedical articles. A comparative analysis of the British Medical Journal and Discover Magazine.
  6. Is there plagiarism in the most influential publications in the field of andrology?
  7. Publication patterns in Restorative Dentistry and Endodontics.
  8. Dry Eye Analysis: A Citation Network Study.
  9. Collaborative networks and thematic trends of research on the application of complementary and alternative medicine in cancer patients: A bibliometric analysis.
  10. The global state of research in nonsurgical treatment of knee osteoarthritis: a bibliometric and visualized study.
  11. A snapshot of pneumonia research activity and collaboration patterns (2001-2015): a global bibliometric analysis.
  12. Growth of health literacy research activity in three Middle Eastern countries.
  13. A Bibliometric Review of the Keap1/Nrf2 Pathway and its Related Antioxidant Compounds.
  14. Gender distribution in psychiatry journals' editorial boards worldwide.
  15. The 100 most cited manuscripts in esophageal motility disorders: a bibliometric analysis.
  16. Top 100 most frequently cited papers in liver cancer: a bibliometric analysis.
  17. The Upsurge in Research and Publication on Articular Cartilage Repair in the Last 10 Years.
  18. The 100 most cited articles in prosthodontic journals: A bibliometric analysis of articles published between 1951 and 2019.
  1. PLoS One. 2019 ;14(9): e0221907
    Does increased interdisciplinary contact among hard and social scientists help or hinder interdisciplinary research?
    Karolina Urbanska, Sylvie Huet, Serge Guimond.
      Scientists across disciplines must often work together to address pressing global issues facing our societies. For interdisciplinary projects to flourish, scientists must recognise the potential contribution of other disciplines in answering key research questions. Recent research suggested that social sciences may be appreciated less than hard sciences overall. Building on the extensive evidence of ingroup bias and ethnocentrism in intergroup relations, however, one could also expect scientists, especially those belonging to high status disciplines, to play down the contributions of other disciplines to important research questions. The focus of the present research was to investigate how hard and social scientists perceive one another and the impact of interdisciplinary collaborations on these perceptions. We surveyed 280 scientists at Wave 1 and with 129 of them followed up at Wave 2 to establish how ongoing interdisciplinary collaborations underpinned perceptions of other disciplines. Based on Wave 1 data, scientists who report having interdisciplinary experiences more frequently are also more likely to recognise the intellectual contribution of other disciplines and perceive more commonalities with them. However, in line with the intergroup bias literature, group membership in the more prestigious hard sciences is related to a stronger tendency to downplay the intellectual contribution of social science disciplines compared to other hard science disciplines. This bias was not present among social scientists who produced very similar evaluation of contribution of hard and social science disciplines. Finally, using both waves of the survey, the social network comparison of discipline pairs shows that asymmetries in the evaluation of other disciplines are only present among discipline pairs that do not have any experience of collaborating with one another. These results point to the need for policies that incentivise new collaborations between hard and social scientists and foster interdisciplinary contact.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0221907
  2. Can Assoc Radiol J. 2019 Aug 29. pii: S0846-5371(19)30052-X. [Epub ahead of print]
    Predictors of Citation Rate for Original Research Studies in the Canadian Association of Radiologists Journal.
    Mostafa Alabousi, Nanxi Zha, Michael N Patlas.
       OBJECTIVE: This study is aimed to identify predictors of citation rate of original research published in the Canadian Association of Radiologists Journal (CARJ).
    METHODS: A search of MEDLINE was conducted from January 1, 2000-June 30, 2013 to identify all studies published in the CARJ. Original research studies were included. Reviews, pictorial essays, guidelines, case studies, case series, and original studies with a sample size <10 were excluded. Variables assessed for association with citation rate included number of authors, study design, sample size, multi-institutional study, multi-national study, study type, presence of statistically significant result, presence of funding, and number of references. Statistical analysis was completed using linear regression and Pearson correlation coefficients (r).
    RESULTS: A total of 714 studies were published in CARJ, of which 181 were original research publications that were cited a total of 1517 times. Twelve original research studies were uncited, while the most-cited one was cited 58 times. Sample size (r = 0.177, P = .017) and number of references (r = 0.164, P = .028) demonstrated statistically significant weak positive correlations with citation rate. Number of authors, study design, setting, statistically significant results, and funding were not associated with citation rate.
    CONCLUSION: Only a very small number of original research studies published at the CARJ remained uncited 5 or more years after the publication. Sample size and number of references were identified as significant, but weak predictors of citation rate in CARJ.
    Keywords:  Bibliometrics; Biomedical research; Citations; Publications
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carj.2019.06.004
  3. BMJ Open. 2019 Sep 03. 9(9): e030342
    Trends and predictors of biomedical research quality, 1990-2015: a meta-research study.
    Maryaline Catillon.
       OBJECTIVE: To measure the frequency of adequate methods, inadequate methods and poor reporting in published randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and test potential factors associated with adequacy of methods and reporting.
    DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of RCTs included in Cochrane reviews. Time series describes the proportion of RCTs using adequate methods, inadequate methods and poor reporting. A multinomial logit model tests potential factors associated with methods and reporting, including funding source, first author affiliation, clinical trial registration status, study novelty, team characteristics, technology and geography.
    DATA: Risk of bias assessments for random sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding of participants and personnel, blinding of outcome assessment, incomplete outcome data and selective reporting, for each RCT, were mapped to bibliometric and funding data.
    OUTCOMES: Risk of bias on six methodological dimensions and RCT-level overall assessment of adequate methods, inadequate methods or poor reporting.
    RESULTS: This study analysed 20 571 RCTs. 5.7% of RCTs used adequate methods (N=1173). 59.3% used inadequate methods (N=12 190) and 35.0% were poorly reported (N=7208). The proportion of poorly reported RCTs decreased from 42.5% in 1990 to 30.2% in 2015. The proportion of RCTs using adequate methods increased from 2.6% in 1990 to 10.3% in 2015. The proportion of RCTs using inadequate methods increased from 54.9% in 1990 to 59.5% in 2015. Industry funding, top pharmaceutical company affiliation, trial registration, larger authorship teams, international teams and drug trials were associated with a greater likelihood of using adequate methods. National Institutes of Health funding and university prestige were not.
    CONCLUSION: Even though reporting has improved since 1990, the proportion of RCTs using inadequate methods is high (59.3%) and increasing, potentially slowing progress and contributing to the reproducibility crisis. Stronger incentives for the use of adequate methods are needed.
    Keywords:  health informatics; health policy; statistics & research methods
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-030342
  4. J Med Internet Res. 2019 Sep 06. 21(9): e13345
    Association Between Institutional Social Media Involvement and Gastroenterology Divisional Rankings: Cohort Study.
    Austin Lee Chiang, Loren Galler Rabinowitz, Akhil Kumar, Walter Wai-Yip Chan.
       BACKGROUND: Patients often look to social media as an important tool to gather information about institutions and professionals. Since 1990, United States News and World Report (USNWR) has published annual rankings of hospitals and subspecialty divisions. It remains unknown if social media presence is associated with the USNWR gastroenterology and gastrointestinal (GI) surgery divisional rankings, or how changes in online presence over time affects division ranking.
    OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to determine if social media presence is associated with USNWR gastroenterology and GI surgery divisional rankings and to ascertain how changes in online presence over time affect division rankings.
    METHODS: Social media presence among the top 30 institutions listed in the 2014 USNWR gastroenterology and GI surgery divisional rankings were assessed using Pearson's correlation coefficients and multivariate analysis, controlling for covariates. Linear and logistic regression using data from 2014 and 2016 USNWR rankings were then used to assess the association between institutional ranking or reputation score with any potential changes in numbers of followers over time. Sensitivity analysis was performed by assessing the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve to determine the follower threshold associated with improved or maintained ranking, which was done by dichotomizing changes in followers at values between the 7000 and 12,000 follower mark.
    RESULTS: Twitter follower count was an independent predictor of divisional ranking (β=.00004; P<.001) and reputation score (β=-.00002; P=.03) in 2014. Academic affiliation also independently predicted USNWR division ranking (β=5.3; P=.04) and reputation score (β=-7.3; P=.03). Between 2014 and 2016, Twitter followers remained significantly associated with improved or maintained rankings (OR 14.63; 95% CI 1.08-197.81; P=.04). On sensitivity analysis, an 8000 person increase in Twitter followers significantly predicted improved or maintained rankings compared to other cutoffs.
    CONCLUSIONS: Institutional social media presence is independently associated with USNWR divisional ranking and reputation score. Improvement in social media following was also independently associated with improved or maintained divisional ranking and reputation score, with a threshold of 8000 additional followers as the best predictor of improved or stable ranking.
    Keywords:  Twitter; hospital ranking; social media
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.2196/13345
  5. PLoS One. 2019 ;14(9): e0221933
    Writers' uncertainty in scientific and popular biomedical articles. A comparative analysis of the British Medical Journal and Discover Magazine.
    Ramona Bongelli, Ilaria Riccioni, Roberto Burro, Andrzej Zuczkowski.
      Distinguishing certain and uncertain information is of crucial importance both in the scientific field in the strict sense and in the popular scientific domain. In this paper, by adopting an epistemic stance perspective on certainty and uncertainty, and a mixed procedure of analysis, which combines a bottom-up and a top-down approach, we perform a comparative study (both qualitative and quantitative) of the uncertainty linguistic markers (verbs, non-verbs, modal verbs, conditional clauses, uncertain questions, epistemic future) and their scope in three different corpora: a historical corpus of 80 biomedical articles from the British Medical Journal (BMJ) 1840-2007; a corpus of 12 biomedical articles from BMJ 2013, and a contemporary corpus of 12 scientific popular articles from Discover 2013. The variables under observation are time, structure (IMRaD vs no-IMRaD) and genre (scientific vs popular articles). We apply the Generalized Linear Models analysis in order to test whether there are statistically significant differences (1) in the amount of uncertainty among the different corpora, and (2) in the categories of uncertainty markers used by writers. The results of our analysis reveal that (1) in all corpora, the percentages of uncertainty are always much lower than that of certainty; (2) uncertainty progressively diminishes over time in biomedical articles (in conjunction with their structural changes-IMRaD-and to the increase of the BMJ Impact Factor); and (3) uncertainty is slightly higher in scientific popular articles (Discover 2013) as compared to the contemporary corpus of scientific articles (BMJ 2013). Nevertheless, in all corpora, modal verbs are the most used uncertainty markers. These results suggest that not only do scientific writers prefer to communicate their uncertainty with markers of possibility rather than those of subjectivity but also that science journalists prefer using a third-person subject followed by modal verbs rather than a first-person subject followed by mental verbs such as think or believe.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0221933
  6. Andrologia. 2019 Sep 06. e13405
    Is there plagiarism in the most influential publications in the field of andrology?
    Saradha Baskaran, Ashok Agarwal, Manesh Kumar Panner Selvam, Ralf Henkel, Damayanthi Durairajanayagam, Kristian Leisegang, Ahmad Majzoub, Dipty Singh, Kareim Khalafalla.
      Plagiarism is a common form of academic misconduct that extensively jeopardises the quality of scientific publication. The purpose of this study is to determine the extent of plagiarism in the most influential andrology articles. A total of 77 highly cited andrology articles were analysed for their similarity index using iThenticate and Turnitin. The articles were categorised based on the year (before and on/after 2000) and type of publication (review and research articles), and the similarity indices were compared. Furthermore, the analysed articles were categorised based on the level of similarity using an arbitrary similarity index range (low: ≤10, moderate: 11-20, high: 21-50 and very high: >50) and average incidence rate (%) was determined. Our analysis revealed a higher percentage of the similarity indices for reviews than research articles. We noticed a higher similarity index for articles published on/after 2000 than those published before. The majority of the influential articles in the field of andrology showed a low similarity index, while some articles exhibited moderate to high levels of similarity. These findings support the need for the development of similarity index guidelines as a major pre-requisite for establishing a more transparent and efficient system to address plagiarism in scientific publications.
    Keywords:  andrology; plagiarism; plagiarism detection tool; scientific misconduct; similarity index
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1111/and.13405
  7. Restor Dent Endod. 2019 Aug;44(3): e34
    Publication patterns in Restorative Dentistry and Endodontics.
    Sherin Jose Chockattu, Byathnal Suryakant Deepak.
       Objectives: Restorative Dentistry and Endodontics (Restor Dent Endod; RDE) is an English-language journal published by the Korean Academy of Conservative Dentistry, and it has been online since 2012 with quarterly publications. The purpose of this paper was to review and analyze the publications in this journal since its inception and over the 7-year period from 2012 to 2018.
    Materials and Methods: This paper assessed the number, type, and subject of articles published, as well as authorship patterns and article citations of the journal over a 7-year period. The citation indicator for the journal (h-index) was assessed using Google Scholar.
    Results: The number of articles per issue has remained relatively consistent in the 7 years that were analyzed. An analysis of the article types revealed various categories of review articles. Original research articles accounted for the most articles per volume. Twice as many articles per volume were on endodontic topics than on restorative subjects. Articles published in RDE have been widely cited in Synapse, Crossref, and PubMed Central. A country-wise mapping of authors' institutions revealed significant contributions from authors around the world. With an h-index of 24, RDE ranks third among journals in its specialty. The most cited articles were open lectures on statistics and research articles on recent concepts, technology, and materials.
    Conclusion: Over the last 7 years, RDE has served as a platform for a large number of manuscripts in the field of restorative dentistry and endodontics.
    Keywords:  Bibliometrics; Citation; Publications; Research; Restorative Dentistry and Endodontics
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.5395/rde.2019.44.e34
  8. J Ophthalmol. 2019 ;2019 3048740
    Dry Eye Analysis: A Citation Network Study.
    Miguel Angel M A Sanchez-Tena, Cristina C Alvarez-Peregrina, Cesar C Villa-Collar.
       Introduction: Dry eye is one of the most frequent eye problems with prevalence and incidence from 5% to 50%. Citation network analysis allows us to simplify information in a visual way and provides a better understanding of the research done in a specific field. The objective of this paper is to quantify and analyse the relationships among the scientific literature in this field using citation network analysis.
    Materials and Methods: The program used to analyse the citations was CitNetExplorer®. Previously, papers published in the research field during a predefined period were found using the keywords defined in Web of ScienceTM (WOS).
    Results: Using the keyword "dry eye," during the period 2007 to 2018, the most cited paper is by Lemp, MA (2007), with a citation index score of 913 in our citation network containing 6,500 most relevant papers. Analysing clustering, we found 5 relevant groups that match the main areas of research in this field: definition and classification, treatment, retina, refractive surgery, and quality of vision. Core Publication is composed of 64% of the papers in the network, which is a high percentage. It indicates a clear focus on the research carried out in this field.
    Conclusions: This citation network analysis shows definition and classification of dry eye to be the most researched area in this field, followed by treatment.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/3048740
  9. Complement Ther Clin Pract. 2019 Aug 29. pii: S1744-3881(19)30199-9. [Epub ahead of print]37 58-67
    Collaborative networks and thematic trends of research on the application of complementary and alternative medicine in cancer patients: A bibliometric analysis.
    Weimei Yang, Xinying Hao, Jia Qu, Lan Wang, Meng Zhang, Yun Jiang, Yu Liu.
       BACKGROUND: and purpose: Complementary and Alternative Medicine(CAM) has been greatly used in cancer patients. This research aimed to explore the research priorities of CAM for cancer patient's treatment.
    METHODS: Web of Science(WoS), HistCite, BibExcel, GunnMap and VOSviewer were used to extract and visualize information.
    RESULTS: 2768 articles published in 789 journals were indexed in the WoS from 1989 to 2018. The USA(n = 1009) and Technion-Israel Institute Technology(n = 58) were the most prolific country and institution, respectively. Keywords co-occurrence analysis indicated that the research hotspots around the world formed five clusters, so did the author co-citation analysis. The research priorities of the top-five countries, the top-three prolific authors and the co-citation core authors were also discussed, which reveals the differences and similarities among them.
    CONCLUSION: This study delineates a framework for better understanding the situational use of CAM in cancer patients, which could help health care workers to prioritize and organize future research.
    Keywords:  Bibliometric analysis; Cancer; Collaborative network; Complementary and alternative medicine; Thematic trends
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ctcp.2019.08.008
  10. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2019 Sep 04. 20(1): 407
    The global state of research in nonsurgical treatment of knee osteoarthritis: a bibliometric and visualized study.
    Kai Wang, Dan Xing, Shengjie Dong, Jianhao Lin.
       BACKGROUND: Osteoarthritis (OA) is the most common joint disorder among elderly individuals. Nonsurgical treatment plays an important role in treating knee OA. The aim of the present study was to investigate the trends and research status about nonsurgical treatment of knee OA.
    METHODS: Publications about the nonsurgical treatment of knee OA from 1994 to 2018 were searched from the Web of Science (WoS) database. The data were analyzed by using bibliometric methodology. The software VOSviewer was used for bibliographic coupling, coauthorship, cocitation, co-occurrence analysis and to investigate the publication trends in nonsurgical treatment of knee OA.
    RESULTS: In total, 8512 articles were included. The number of publications increased annually worldwide. The United States has made the largest contribution to this field, with the most publications, citations and the highest H-index. The most contributive institutions were Harvard University, the University of California system and Assistance Publique Hopitaux Paris (APHP). The journal Osteoarthritis and Cartilage published the most relative articles. Studies could be classified into five clusters: articular cartilage study, biomechanics study, physiotherapy study, oral pharmacologic study and intra-articular injection study. Articular cartilage and physiotherapy were predicted as the next hot topics in this field.
    CONCLUSIONS: There will be an increasing number of publications on the nonsurgical treatment of knee OA based on current global trends. The United States made the largest contribution to this field. More focus will be placed on cartilage-related and physiotherapy research, which may be the next popular topics in the nonsurgical treatment of knee OA.
    Keywords:  Bibliometrics; Nonsurgical; Osteoarthritis; Treatment; Visualized study
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-019-2804-9
  11. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2019 Sep 05. 19(1): 184
    A snapshot of pneumonia research activity and collaboration patterns (2001-2015): a global bibliometric analysis.
    José M Ramos-Rincón, Héctor Pinargote-Celorio, Isabel Belinchón-Romero, Gregorio González-Alcaide.
       BACKGROUND: This article describes a bibliometric review of the scientific production, geographical distribution, collaboration, impact, and subject area focus of pneumonia research indexed on the Web of Science over a 15-year period.
    METHODS: We searched the Web of Science database using the Medical Subject Heading (MeSH) of "Pneumonia" from January 1, 2001 to December 31, 2015. The only document types we studied were original articles and reviews, analyzing descriptive indicators by five-year periods and the scientific production by country, adjusting for population, economic, and research-related parameters.
    RESULTS: A total of 22,694 references were retrieved. The number of publications increased steadily over time, from 981 publications in 2001 to 1977 in 2015 (R2 = 0.956). The most productive country was the USA (38.49%), followed by the UK (7.18%) and Japan (5.46%). Research production from China increased by more than 1000%. By geographical area, North America (42.08%) and Europe (40.79%) were most dominant. Scientific production in low- and middle-income countries more than tripled, although their overall contribution to the field remained limited (< 15%). Overall, 18.8% of papers were the result of an international collaboration, although this proportion was much higher in sub-Saharan Africa (46.08%) and South Asia (23.43%). According to the specific MeSH terms used, articles focused mainly on "Pneumonia, Bacterial" (19.99%), followed by "Pneumonia, Pneumococcal" (7.02%) and "Pneumonia, Ventilator-Associated" (6.79%).
    CONCLUSIONS: Pneumonia research increased steadily over the 15-year study period, with Europe and North America leading scientific production. About a fifth of all papers reflected international collaborations, and these were most evident in papers from sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia.
    Keywords:  Bibliometrics; Mapping; Pneumonia; Publications; Scientific production; Scientometrics
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-019-0819-4
  12. BMJ Health Care Inform. 2019 Sep;pii: e000027. [Epub ahead of print]26(1):
    Growth of health literacy research activity in three Middle Eastern countries.
    Soheila Bazm, Reihaneh Bazm, Farzaneh Sardari.
       BACKGROUND: Health literacy is defined as the capacity to obtain, interpret and understand basic health information. In each country, the count of published literature is a good indicator for scientific activity. This study aimed to assess the growth rate of scientific production in the field of health literacy in Middle Eastern countries during 2005-2014.
    METHODS: We used the PubMed database and retrieved 839 papers in the field of health literacy from three productive countries in the Middle East: Iran, Saudi Arabia and Turkey. We applied the bibliometric indicator of Price's Law to assess the increase of scientific literature. The correlation between bibliometric data and some health indicators such as gross domestic product and population was calculated.
    RESULTS: Worldwide research productivity in health literacy field was 56 653 documents while that from Middle Eastern countries were 839 papers. Iran, Turkey and Saudi Arabia were three productive countries in Middle East. Iran and Saudi Arabia have undergone exponential growth, but Turkey has undergone linear growth over the studied period.
    CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, although the present data show promising increase and good start in research productivity from countries in Middle East, they have a trivial sharing in publishing scientific papers in the field of health literacy through 2005-2014.
    Keywords:  Bibliometrics; Health literacy; Middle East
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjhci-2019-000027
  13. Antioxidants (Basel). 2019 Sep 01. pii: E353. [Epub ahead of print]8(9):
    A Bibliometric Review of the Keap1/Nrf2 Pathway and its Related Antioxidant Compounds.
    Ana Paunkov, Dionysios V Chartoumpekis, Panos G Ziros, Gerasimos P Sykiotis.
      Nrf2 is a master transcriptional regulator of antioxidant and cytoprotective pathways. Currently in its third decade, research on Nrf2 has expanded to encompass not only basic but also clinical studies. In the present bibliometric review, we employed the VOSviewer tool to describe the existing Nrf2 literature landscape. As of July 2019, 11,931 papers on Nrf2 were listed in the "Web of Science" database, with more than 1000 new papers published each year. As expected, terms related to oxidative stress and antioxidant molecules occur very often in the Nrf2 literature throughout the years. Interestingly, there is also a gradual increase in the occurrence of terms related to diseases or to natural compounds, the most prominent being sulforaphane, curcumin, and resveratrol that modulate the Nrf2 pathway. Going beyond molecular biology/biochemistry and related fields, Nrf2 research has begun to spread into more clinical areas like endocrinology/metabolism, cardiology, and nephrology, likely reflecting an increased interest in clinical applications of Nrf2 pathway activators. China has become the most prolific producer of Nrf2 papers the last five years followed by the USA and Japan, a reverse pattern compared to the past. In conclusion, Nrf2 is the subject of a globally active research field that keeps growing and extends from bench to bedside.
    Keywords:  Keap1; Nrf2; antioxidant; bibliography; cytoprotection; natural product; sulforaphane
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3390/antiox8090353
  14. Compr Psychiatry. 2019 Aug 21. pii: S0010-440X(19)30042-2. [Epub ahead of print]94 152119
    Gender distribution in psychiatry journals' editorial boards worldwide.
    Dawood M Hafeez, Ahmed Waqas, Salman Majeed, Sadiq Naveed, Khalid I Afzal, Zehra Aftab, Muhammad Zeshan, Faisal Khosa.
      Gender disparity has been documented in advanced doctoral degrees, research, and academic positions, and therefore, it can logically be deduced that the gender disparity would be found in journals' editorial boards. In this study, we sought to determine the gender distribution in editorial boards of psychiatry journals worldwide. We also studied the academic achievements of editorial board members by comparing professional background, education level, and research productivity indices. We analyzed the gender of editorial members of 119 psychiatry journals from Clarivate Analytics' Journal Citation Reports. Our data included 8423 editorial board members from which we randomly selected 10% editorial board members to represent the full sample for further analyses. Overall, women represented 30.4% of editorial board and approximately 30% in each category: (1) Editor-in-chief/deputies, (2) Associate/section editors, (3) Editorial board*, and (4) Advisory board. The majority (65%) of men were M.D. psychiatrists, and women (58%) were Ph.D. psychologists. Women in editorial leadership positions (Category 1 & 2) were correlated with fewer women in editorial or advisory boards. Women had half the mean number of publications than men while serving journals with approximately the same mean impact factor. Our study results show that, besides gender disparity, gender bias does not exist in the psychiatry journal editorial boards. Given the implication of the editorial board position on science, academic advancement, and networking, this disparity remains detrimental to achieving equity, diversity, and inclusion in academic psychiatry.
    Keywords:  Editorial board; Female; Gender disparity; Psychiatry
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.comppsych.2019.152119
  15. Ann Transl Med. 2019 Jul;7(14): 310
    The 100 most cited manuscripts in esophageal motility disorders: a bibliometric analysis.
    Dimitrios Schizas, Panagiotis Kapsampelis, Diamantis I Tsilimigras, Prodromos Kanavidis, Dimitrios Moris, Ioannis S Papanikolaou, Georgios P Karamanolis, Dimitrios Theodorou, Theodore Liakakos.
       Background: The use of bibliometrics can help us identify the most impactful articles on a topic or scientific discipline and their influence on clinical practice. We aimed to identify the 100 most cited articles covering esophageal motility disorders and examine their key characteristics.
    Methods: The Web of Science database was utilized to perform the search, using predefined search terms. The returned dataset was filtered to include full manuscripts written in the English language. After screening, we identified the 100 most cited articles and analyzed them for title, year of publication, names of authors, institution, country of the first author, number of citations and citation rate.
    Results: The initial search returned 29,521 results. The top 100 articles received a total of 20,688 citations. The most cited paper was by Inoue et al. (665 citations) who first described peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) for treating achalasia. The article with the highest citation rate was the third version of the Chicago Classification system, written by Kahrilas and colleagues. Gastroenterology published most papers on the list (n=32) and accrued the highest number of citations (6,675 citations). Peter Kahrilas was the most cited author (3,650 citations) and, along with Joel Richter, authored the highest number of manuscripts (n=14). Most articles were produced in the USA (n=66) between the years 1991 and 2000 (n=32).
    Conclusions: By analyzing the most influential articles, this work is a reference on the articles that shaped our understanding of esophageal motility disorders, thus serving as a guide for future research.
    Keywords:  Esophageal disease; bibliometric analysis; citations; motility disorders
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.21037/atm.2019.06.34
  16. ANZ J Surg. 2019 Sep 03.
    Top 100 most frequently cited papers in liver cancer: a bibliometric analysis.
    Bao Jin, Xiang-An Wu, Shun-Da Du.
       BACKGROUND: Bibliometric analysis has become popular in recent years, and increasingly more articles focusing on a particular disease are being published. The present study was performed to analyse the 100 most frequently cited papers in liver cancer (LC).
    METHODS: We searched the Thomson Reuters Web of Science database on 14 July 2018 to identify all potential manuscripts for this study. The search terms were 'liver cancer' and its synonyms. Manuscripts were listed in descending order by the total citations (TCs), and the 100 most frequently cited papers were identified and analysed by topic, journal, author, year and institution.
    RESULTS: We retrieved 235 687 papers from the Web of Science database. The TC of the 100 most frequently cited papers in LC ranged from 612 to 5358. The 100 papers were published in 31 journals and came from nine countries. The University of Barcelona published the highest number of papers and had the most TC. Ten authors published more than one paper. Treatment of LC was the most widely studied topic. A significant correlation was found between the journal's 2017 impact factor and the TC (P = 0.003).
    CONCLUSION: We assessed the landmark papers in the field of LC. These 100 most frequently cited papers reflect major advances and several hot topics in LC during the recent decades. Our study is of great value for young investigators, provides insights into the trends of LC and can guide directions for future academic research.
    Keywords:  100 most cited; bibliography analysis; hepatic carcinoma; liver cancer; total citations
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1111/ans.15414
  17. Indian J Orthop. 2019 Sep-Oct;53(5):53(5): 586-594
    The Upsurge in Research and Publication on Articular Cartilage Repair in the Last 10 Years.
    Raju Vaishya, Mohit Kumar Patralekh, Abhishek Vaish.
      This study aims to study the publication trends in articular cartilage repair (ACR) techniques, over the last 10 years. A literature search was performed on the PubMed, Web of Science, and SCOPUS databases. We used suitable keywords and Boolean operators (articular cartilage injury AND "marrow stimulation OR microfracture (MFx)," "osteochondral autograft," "osteochondral allograft" and "autologous chondrocyte implantation (ACI)," "scaffold"), on January 1, 2019. Trends in publication on these topics were analyzed, focusing on publications over the last 10 years, type of research, authors, institution, and country. There was an increasing trend in publications related to ACR. A search on PubMed revealed 698, 225, 293, 857, and 982 documents on searching for "articular cartilage" AND "marrow stimulation OR microfracture," "osteochondral autograft," "osteochondral allograft," "ACI," and "scaffold," respectively. Similar searches revealed 1154, 219, 330, 1727, and 2742 documents on Web of science and 934, 301, 383, 944, and 2026 on SCOPUS, respectively, in the same order of topics. Overall, most papers were published from the United States and European countries, and Cole BJ was the most published author. There was an increasing trend in the number of publications as well as citations, with international collaboration among researchers. It implies that this field is growing rapidly. The authors from globally recognized and leading clinical institutions in the developed world contributed maximally to these publications. Most of these papers were published in high-impact arthroscopy subspecialty journals. Level of evidence: Level IV.
    Keywords:  Arthroscopy; articular cartilage repair; cartilage transplantation; microfracture; publication; research
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.4103/ortho.IJOrtho_83_19
  18. J Prosthet Dent. 2019 Aug 29. pii: S0022-3913(19)30344-0. [Epub ahead of print]
    The 100 most cited articles in prosthodontic journals: A bibliometric analysis of articles published between 1951 and 2019.
    Gadde Praveen, Reddy Chaithanya, Rama Krishna Alla, Mohammed Shammas, V T Abdurahiman, Akkaloori Anitha.
       STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Bibliometric studies to determine the characteristics of the most cited articles in prosthodontic journals are lacking.
    PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to analyze the characteristics of the 100 most cited articles in prosthodontic journals between 1951 and 2019.
    MATERIAL AND METHODS: The Google Scholar database was used to retrieve the list of journals with titles containing the term "Prosthodontic" or "Prosthetic." Twelve journals were filtered, and of these, only 8 were related to dentistry and hence were included in the study. A search was then performed for each of the selected journals under "Publication Name," and articles were arranged by the category "Times Cited." The 100 most cited articles from the 8 journals were selected and analyzed with regard to journal name, year of publication, authors and their country, type of study, and area of research.
    RESULTS: The 100 most cited articles were published between 1958 and 2013, with the numbers of citations ranging between 2368 and 342. The journal with the largest number of the articles cited was the "Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry" with 72 articles, followed by the "International Journal of Prosthodontics" with 25 articles. The decade with most articles published was the 1990s with 33 articles. Many of the authors of most cited articles were from the United States or Sweden. Most articles reported reviews (36 articles), followed by experimental studies (35); the most commonly cited area of research was related to dental implants.
    CONCLUSIONS: This bibliometric analysis of the 100 most cited articles revealed interesting facts about scientific progress in the field of prosthodontics.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2019.05.014
This page is being maintained by Thomas Krichel. It was last updated on 2024‒11‒22 at 4:15.