bims-evares 2025-11-02 papers

bims-evares

Biomed News

on Evaluation of research

Issue of 2025–11–02
twenty-two papers selected by
Thomas Krichel, Open Library Society

Publication Dynamics and Metrics in Orthopaedic Research: A Retrospective Analysis of 128 French Articles.
Bibliometric Analysis of the 100 Most-Cited Clinical Trials on Gingival Recession Treatment: Trends in Flap Design, Biomaterials, and Global Contributions.
Thirty Years of Innovation in Endovascular Treatment of Intracranial Aneurysms: A Bibliometric Review of the 100 Most Cited Articles Per Five-Year Period.
Authority and Authorship: Examining Leadership's Role in Medical Publications.
Departments of Neurosurgery are Leaders in Highly Cited Glioblastoma Research.
Neuroradiology Publication Metrics by Rank: Current Status.
Global gender disparities in editorial leadership of radiology journals: a cross-sectional analysis of bibliometric and economic associations.
Rising Retractions in Dermatology (2006-2024): Causes, Geographic Disparities, and Post-Retraction Citation Risk.
The rise of intrauterine adhesion research: Insights into global contributions and future directions.
Analysis of Retractions in Nursing from Publications Between 2000 and 2024: A Bibliometric Analysis Using Retraction Watch.
Citation proximus: The role of social and semantic ties on citations.
Racial disparities in research productivity among integrated plastic surgery applicants.
Examining retracted papers in the "Radiology, Nuclear Medicine, and Medical Imaging" category in the Web of Science database.
Global disparities in scientific publications: A 5-year analysis of 10 critical care journals.
Trends in gender representation of women as authors and participants over five decades of the journal of biomechanics.
The Price of Consensus: Reviewer disagreement, Editorial Dynamics, and Impact in Thoracic Oncology Publishing.
AI in peer review: can artificial intelligence be an ally in reducing gender and geographical gaps in peer review? A randomized trial.
Contributions to the discussion on societal impact assessment in graduate programs in dentistry in Brazil.
Female Representation in Rock Climbing Research.
Speaker Representation at the American College of Surgeons Clinical Congress: A Comparative Analysis of 2004, 2014, and 2024.
Navigating Terminology in Latino Research: Evolution, Challenges, and Strategies for Discoverability.
Unraveling Stuttering Through a Multi-Omics Lens.

Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2025 Oct 23. pii: S1877-0568(25)00335-4. [Epub ahead of print] 104486

Publication Dynamics and Metrics in Orthopaedic Research: A Retrospective Analysis of 128 French Articles.

Joe Ghanimeh, Guillaume Villatte, Christophe Jacquet, Pierre-Sylvain Marcheix, Renaud Siboni, Roger Erivan.

   BACKGROUND: The publication process in scientific journals typically involves multiple submissions, revisions, and delays. In the field of orthopaedics, limited data exist regarding publication dynamics. To address these gaps, we aimed to answer the following questions: 1) What is the average number of submissions needed for an article before publication? 2) What is the average time from submission to final publication? 3) What factors influence the number of submissions and the time to publication?
HYPOTHESIS: We hypothesized that the number of submissions to publication in different journals is relatively low MATERIALS AND METHODS: Nine French academic teams were contacted, of which five agreed to participate in this study. Each participating team provided all the manuscripts they had produced and submitted to any journal between 2015 and 2023. In total, 128 articles were collected. For each article, data were collected regarding the number of submissions to different journals, time from submission in the accepting journal to online publication, number of revision rounds within the final journal, study type, number of authors, level of evidence, journal impact factor (IF) and scope (general orthopaedic versus subspecialised), and post-publication citation count. Correlations between these different outcomes were investigated.
RESULTS: On average, articles were submitted to 1.7 ± 1.2 journals (range, 1-7), with 74/128 (58%) of them being accepted by the first journal. The mean time to publication was 256 ± 221 days (range, 22-1220), with 2.74 ± 1 revision rounds (range, 1-7). Most studies were retrospective (n = 72/128 (56.2%)) and Level 4 evidence (n = 101/128 (78.8%)). The average journal impact factor was 2.78 ± 1.98 (range, 0.5-18.5), and the mean citation count (according to Google Scholar) was 14.319.7 (range, 0-111). No significant correlation was found between time to publication or number of submissions and study type, author count, or level of evidence. However, time to publication was moderately negatively correlated with journal IF (ρ = -0.347, p = 0.0009), indicating that higher IF journals had shorter time to publication. Articles were more likely to be rejected when first submitted to high IF journal (p = 0.013) or a subspecialized journal compared to generalist orthopaedic journals (p = 0.013), but shorter delays were observed with the latter (p = 0.025). Citation count showed no correlation with journal impact factor.
DISCUSSION: Most orthopaedic research articles were accepted in the first or second journal they were submitted to, although the time to publication remained lengthy. Higher journal impact factor as well as a subspecialized journal scope were the only factors significantly associated with faster publication. Article type, number of authors, and level of evidence had no measurable impact. These findings emphasize the role of editorial dynamics over manuscript characteristics in determining publication timelines.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.

Keywords:  Orthopaedic surgery; bibliometric; citation; impact factor; peer review; publication delay; scientific publication; submission process; time to publication

DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.otsr.2025.104486
J Funct Biomater. 2025 Oct 01. pii: 364. [Epub ahead of print]16(10):

Bibliometric Analysis of the 100 Most-Cited Clinical Trials on Gingival Recession Treatment: Trends in Flap Design, Biomaterials, and Global Contributions.

Bartłomiej Górski, Kacper Nijakowski, Ilham Mounssif, Martina Stefanini, Anna Skurska.

   BACKGROUND: The aim of this bibliometric study was to evaluate publication trends in the most frequently cited clinical trials on the treatment of gingival recession, taking into account the augmentation materials used.
METHODS: A Web of Science search was performed among articles published by 30 September 2024. Two independent reviewers evaluated year of publication, journal, authorship country of authors, collaborative relationship, keywords, and the main domains.
RESULTS: The top one hundred most-cited clinical trials were published in the span of 26 years from 1993 to 2019, and the total citation counts varied from 44 to 284 (83.69 citations per paper). There was correlation between the time of publication and the number of citations. The articles were authored by 333 researchers representing twenty-two countries. Italy contributed the highest number of articles (n = 36), followed by the USA (n = 28) and Brazil (n = 17). International collaborations were predominantly observed between Italy, the USA, and Switzerland. The type of graft was the most cited field of research (34), followed by guided tissue regeneration (17) and enamel matrix derivative (13).
CONCLUSIONS: The country that produced the highest number publications among the 100 most-cited clinical trials on gingival recession treatment was Italy. The use of connective tissue graft (CTG) and coronally advanced flap (CAF) was the most prominent trend. Future work should combine bibliometric mapping with critical quality appraisal and explore whether citation trends align with best available evidence.

Keywords:  enamel matrix derivative; gingival recession; guided tissue regeneration; mucogingival defect; periodontal diseases; periodontal plastic surgery; periodontitis; soft tissue graft

DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3390/jfb16100364
World Neurosurg. 2025 Oct 29. pii: S1878-8750(25)00962-3. [Epub ahead of print] 124604

Thirty Years of Innovation in Endovascular Treatment of Intracranial Aneurysms: A Bibliometric Review of the 100 Most Cited Articles Per Five-Year Period.

Hector R Martinez, Hugo Peña-Martinez, Astrid Nieto-Gutierrez, O Gutiérrez-Treviño, Jose A Figueroa-Sanchez.

   OBJECTIVE: To analyze the evolution of citation trends in the endovascular treatment of intracranial aneurysms (IAs) over the past 30 years through a structured bibliometric review.
METHODS: Using the Web of Science Core Collection, we identified the 100 most-cited articles from each five-year period between 1995 and 2024. Bibliometric analyses were performed to evaluate temporal shifts in citation patterns, authorship, global collaboration, and research focus. The analysis was performed using Biblioshiny (RStudio).
RESULTS: Six hundred articles were analyzed. Early articles focused on coil technology, later expanding into adjunctive devices and flow diversion. Recent periods emphasized systematic reviews, safety, and long-term outcomes. The proportion of original articles among the top-cited works steadily decreased from 91 in the 1995-1999 period to 65 in 2020-2024. Conversely, the number of review articles showed a tenfold increase, rising from 3 to 31 in the same timeframe. The USA led scientific production and citation count. International co-authorship among the top articles increased fourfold, rising from 10% in 1995-1999 to 41% in 2020-2024.
CONCLUSIONS: The 30-year bibliometric landscape of endovascular IA treatment reflects a field maturing from technological validation to an era focused on high-level evidence synthesis and procedural optimization. The observed trends highlight a clear trajectory toward more collaborative, data-driven, and outcomes-focused research paradigms.

Keywords:  bibliometric; citation trends; endovascular; intracranial aneurysm; neurointervention

DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2025.124604
J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2025 Oct 31. 15562646251392340

Authority and Authorship: Examining Leadership's Role in Medical Publications.

Vygintas Aliukonis, Eugenijus Gefenas.

  BackgroundAcademic medicine often struggles to balance leadership duties with maintaining research productivity. The impact of holding a position of power on authorship practices in a hierarchical environment remains underexplored. We addressed this gap by examining how leadership roles influence publication and collaboration patterns in Lithuanian medical academia.MethodsWe performed a bibliometric analysis of ten-year publication records for 633 Lithuanian medical researchers in formal leadership positions (department heads, center directors, and similar formal roles), comparing their output and authorship patterns to those of peers without such roles. Publication data were collected from PubMed and a national academic library, capturing total publications, author order (first/middle/last author positions), and co-authorship counts. We used statistical tests to compare groups and applied the Gini coefficient to assess inequality in research output.ResultsLeaders showed distinct authorship roles and collaboration patterns. Compared to equally productive non-leaders, leaders had significantly fewer first-authored papers (10.79% vs 36.31%) and more last-authored (36.42% vs 23.57%) and middle-authored contributions (52.78% vs 40.12%). Leaders published more papers (average 78.42 vs 49.41), in Web of Science-indexed journals (average 49.44 vs 27.68), and had higher h-indices (19.66 vs 12.59) (all p < 0.001). They also more frequently co-authored in larger teams (>5 co-authors: 58.76% vs 51.79%, p < 0.001). Output inequality among leaders was high (Gini = 0.718). Gender trends differed: prolific leaders were mostly men, while prolific non-leaders were mostly women. Importantly, these authorship patterns remained consistent across leader subgroups with varying productivity levels.ConclusionsLeadership position significantly impacts authorship practices and research productivity in Lithuanian medical academia -leaders display different patterns of collaboration and authorship positions, along with considerable institutional and gender disparities. The results illustrate how hierarchical power dynamics shape academic publishing in Lithuanian medical institutions. This evaluation could lead to important changes for organizational development and policies that ensure authorship credit accurately reflects actual contributions to research. From a research ethics perspective, authorship involves both accountability and recognition. The leadership-related shifts we observe require ethical scrutiny; our bibliometric analysis reveals structural patterns but cannot determine whether specific papers meet ICMJE authorship criteria.

Keywords:  academic ethics; authorship; bibliometrics; leadership; medical publishing; research integrity

DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1177/15562646251392340
Neurosurg Pract. 2025 Dec;6(4): e000170

Departments of Neurosurgery are Leaders in Highly Cited Glioblastoma Research.

Masih Tazhibi, Rishab Ramapriyan, Parker Kotlarz, Samuel J Steuart, Adrian Kalaw, Mona Tazhibi, Bob S Carter, E Antonio Chiocca, Brian V Nahed, William T Curry, Bryan D Choi.

   BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: We conducted a bibliometric analysis of highly cited glioblastoma (GBM) research published between 2013 and 2023, focusing on identifying key academic departments and institutional contributions within the United States.
METHODS: A comprehensive search of the Web of Science database was performed to identify "highly cited articles," defined as those receiving the top one percent for citations within their field each year. Primary research articles authored by researchers at U.S. institutions between 2013 and 2023 were included. We categorized articles by subject area and departmental contributions and used VOSviewer and R for data visualization and analysis.
RESULTS: Overall, 169 highly cited GBM articles were included in the study. Neurosurgery emerged as the largest contributing department type, accounting for 28.4% (48/169) of highly cited articles. This was followed by departments of biology or genetics (22/169), neurology or neuro-oncology (16/169), and radiology or radiation oncology (13/169). "Immunology and Immunotherapy" was the dominant subject area for highly cited papers, with 50.3% (85/169) investigating the immunological landscape of GBM or using immunotherapy as the primary treatment modality. Keyword analysis demonstrated a thematic shift toward tumor biology and immune-based therapies over the study period, highlighting emerging trends in GBM research.
CONCLUSION: Departments of neurosurgery have established themselves as key drivers in GBM research. The prominence of tumor biology and immunotherapy reflect broader shifts in treatment approaches. Continued support for neurosurgical departments and targeted funding initiatives is essential for advancing GBM research, fostering innovation, and improving patient outcomes in this challenging field.

Keywords:  Bibliometric analyses; Glioblastoma; Neurosurgery

DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1227/neuprac.0000000000000170
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2025 Oct 26. pii: ajnr.A9068. [Epub ahead of print]

Neuroradiology Publication Metrics by Rank: Current Status.

Norman J Beauchamp, Mahla Radmard, Caline Azzi, Armin Tafazolimoghadam, David M Yousem, Rohini N Nadgir.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Academic promotion criteria across U.S. medical schools vary substantially, however manuscript production, citations and h-index remain some of the most widely accepted, quantifiable yardsticks of scholarly productivity. Neuroradiology lacks published national scholarship benchmarks, which would permit faculty self-assessment and appraisal of promotion eligibility within and across academic institutions. We sought to provide such metrics for academic neuroradiologists.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional bibliometric analysis of academic neuroradiology faculty in the U.S. using Scopus data between July and August 2025. Faculty rosters were identified via ACGME-listed fellowship programs and departmental websites and confirmed with program directors. Academic rank, sex, publications, citations, and h-index were collected. Individuals without Scopus records were excluded. Descriptive statistics, percentile distributions, and comparisons across academic ranks were calculated, providing standardized measures of productivity for assistant, associate, and full professor neuroradiology cohorts nationally.
RESULTS: Of 1,200 neuroradiologists identified, 1190 with complete rank data were analyzed across 94 academic institutions. Scholarly output rose significantly with rank. Median citations increased from 105 (assistant) to 555.5 (associate) and 2702 (full professor). Median publications rose from 8 to 30 to 89, while h-index values increased from 4 to 11 to 27. Sex differences were minimal at junior ranks but emerged at the full professor level for papers only (median 92 in males and 75.5 in females, p = 0.04). Percentile values were provided at each academic rank.
CONCLUSIONS: This national analysis provides bibliometrics for academic productivity in neuroradiology, demonstrating progressive increases in publications, citations, and h-index across faculty ranks. While substantial variability exists, these percentile-based metrics provide neuroradiologists a reference for self-assessment, departmental evaluation, and promotion justification.
ABBREVIATIONS: SD = standard deviation; h-index = Hirsch index; n = number of individuals; p = probability value.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3174/ajnr.A9068
Insights Imaging. 2025 Oct 30. 16(1): 233

Global gender disparities in editorial leadership of radiology journals: a cross-sectional analysis of bibliometric and economic associations.

Paola Martinez-Greiser, Ernesto Roldan-Valadez, Sergey K Ternovoy, Filiberto Toledano-Toledano.

   OBJECTIVES: To evaluate gender representation among editors-in-chief and deputy editors of radiology journals indexed in the 2024 Journal Citation Reports (JCR) and to analyze associations with bibliometric indicators and global economic classification.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cross-sectional study was performed using publicly available data from radiology-related journals listed in the 2024 JCR (released June 2025). Journals were included if the editorial board composition was accessible online. Gender was identified through institutional profiles and standardized databases. Descriptive statistics summarized gender distribution. Associations between gender, editorial role, bibliometric performance, and World Bank income classification were tested using chi-square, Mann-Whitney U, Spearman's correlation, and nominal logistic regression.
RESULTS: Of 204 eligible journals, 135 met the inclusion criteria, comprising 387 editorial members. Women represented 20.2% of all editors, 21.4% of deputy editors, and 18.4% of editors-in-chief. Female representation was highest in Q1 journals (26.0%) and lowest in Q2 (15.1%). A significant association was observed between Eigenfactor Score and female representation (p = 0.0494), whereas no association was found with journal impact factor or income classification. Geographic disparities were evident, with some countries achieving parity while others had no female representation.
CONCLUSIONS: Gender inequities remain pronounced in radiology editorial leadership, particularly at the editor-in-chief level. Higher Eigenfactor Scores may modestly correlate with improved inclusion. Transparent policies and targeted interventions are required to address structural inequities and advance diversity in academic publishing.
CRITICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: Gender disparities exist in radiology editorial leadership, and the Eigenfactor Score was found to be associated with female representation. By providing a comprehensive overview, the findings underscore the structural barriers that limit diversity and the importance of transparent, equity-focused editorial policies.
KEY POINTS: Gender disparities persist in radiology editorial boards, with women underrepresented at both deputy editor and editor-in-chief levels. Eigenfactor Score, but not impact factor or national income classification, was significantly associated with increased female representation. Gender disparities persist across editorial leadership roles in radiology, underscoring the need for transparent policies and structural reforms to promote greater equity.

Keywords:  Bibliometric analysis; Diversity in leadership; Editorial board; Gender equity; Radiology journals

DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1186/s13244-025-02128-w
Clin Dermatol. 2025 Oct 29. pii: S0738-081X(25)00287-1. [Epub ahead of print]

Rising Retractions in Dermatology (2006-2024): Causes, Geographic Disparities, and Post-Retraction Citation Risk.

Lu Yuan, Daohuan Kang, Jia Feng, Jiao Zhan, Kai Jin, Andrzej Grzybowski.

  We have analyzed dermatology retraction trends (2006-2024) by examining causes, geographic distribution, journal metrics, and citation patterns. Our purpose was to identify systemic issues and propose solutions to enhance research integrity and mitigate post-retraction citation risks in the field. A bibliometric analysis was conducted on 280 retracted dermatology contributions from the Retraction Database (2006-2024), supplemented by Scopus for publication and citation data. The annual number of retractions showed a highly significant increase over the period, peaking at 74 in 2023. Academic misconduct (data fabrication/tampering and plagiarism) was the leading cause, accounting for 45% of all retractions. While the USA had the highest absolute count (n=80), China exhibited the highest normalized retraction rate (357 per 10,000 publications), contrasting sharply with the USA rate (19.7 per 10,000). Post-retraction citation analysis (n=80 contributions) revealed a high rate of inappropriate citations (30%). The sharply increasing retraction trend, driven largely by misconduct and geographic disparities, requires urgent, multi-level interventions, including stricter oversight, ethical training, and improved peer review. Addressing post-retraction citations is critical to curbing misinformation.

Keywords:  Bibliometric; Citations; Dermatology; Literature; Retractions

DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clindermatol.2025.10.008
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2025 Oct 22. pii: S0301-2115(25)01063-2. [Epub ahead of print]315 114787

The rise of intrauterine adhesion research: Insights into global contributions and future directions.

Jing Zhou, Changlong Qiao, Li Yan, Lei Yan.

   BACKGROUND: Intrauterine adhesion (IUA) has become the subject of an expanding corpus of academic research. This study endeavors to perform a bibliometric analysis of the IUA literature to elucidate key research domains and trends over the past two decades.
METHODS: A thorough search was conducted within the Web of Science Core Collection, concentrating on publications pertaining to intrauterine adhesion from January 2005 to December 2024. Bibliometric analysis and visualization were carried out utilizing Microsoft Excel 2019, VOSviewer, R-bibliometrix, and CiteSpace.
RESULTS: Our analysis identified 1,488 relevant publications in this field, revealing a notable upward trajectory in annual publication rates. The People's Republic of China and the United States were identified as principal contributors to IUA research. The Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology was recognized as the most prolific journal in this area. Dabao Xu emerged as the most prolific author in terms of publication output and H-index. The analysis of keyword co-occurrence underscored an increasing emphasis on the mechanisms and therapeutic strategies for IUA. Keywords such as "endometrial regeneration," "fibrosis," "exosomes," "platelet-rich plasma," "mesenchymal stem cells," and "extracellular vesicles" indicate emerging trends and potential focal points for ongoing scientific research into IUA.
CONCLUSION: This bibliometric analysis delineates the evolution of IUA research from surgical management to biological regeneration, highlighting the pivotal roles of stem cell biology and bioengineering. Future progress depends on translating these preclinical advances into clinical practice through international collaboration and standardized trials.

Keywords:  Bibliometric analysis; Infertility; Intrauterine adhesion; Research hotspots; VOSviewer

DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2025.114787
Nurs Rep. 2025 Sep 26. pii: 349. [Epub ahead of print]15(10):

Analysis of Retractions in Nursing from Publications Between 2000 and 2024: A Bibliometric Analysis Using Retraction Watch.

María Paz Contreras-Muñoz, Cristian Zahn-Muñoz, Elizabeth Solís-Albanese, Ezequiel Martínez-Rojas.

  There has been a significant increase in scientific publications in recent years, and the nursing field has been no exception. Consequently, the number of publications containing errors that lead to document retractions has also increased. It is essential to understand and delve into this phenomenon within nursing research. Objective: This study aims to identify and analyze the retractions of scientific publications in nursing research worldwide between 2000 and 2024. Methodology: This is a descriptive and cross-sectional study with a bibliometric approach. Data were collected using the Retraction Watch database, from which 408 retracted documents related to nursing research were extracted. Results: Over the last 25 years (2000-2024), a total of 408 documents in the nursing field have been retracted, with the majority concentrated in the 2020-2024 period, accounting for 84.8%. Ethical misconduct was the cause of retraction in 87.3% of the cases. Of the 408 retracted documents, 42.6% involved human participants in research or control groups, totaling 21,369 patients who were part of flawed studies. Conclusions: It is crucial that nursing research remains rigorous and adheres to bioethical standards, as these guide evidence-based nursing practice. Flawed literature can have significant consequences for patient health and care.

Keywords:  Retraction Watch; nursing; retraction; scientific integrity; scientific publication

DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3390/nursrep15100349
PLoS One. 2025 ;20(10): e0335366

Citation proximus: The role of social and semantic ties on citations.

Diego Kozlowski, Carolina Pradier, Pierre Benz, Natsumi S Shokida, Jens Peter Andersen, Vincent Larivière.

Despite being considered as key indicators of research impact, citations are shaped by factors beyond intrinsic research quality-such as including prestige, social networks, and research topics. While the Matthew Effect explains how prestige accumulates, our study contextualizes this by showing that other mechanisms also play a role in citation accumulation. Analyzing a large dataset of U.S. economic (N = 43,467) and their citation linkages (N = 264,436), we find that close ties in the collaboration network are the strongest predictor of citations, closely followed by semantic similarity between citing and cited papers. This suggests that citations are not only driven by prestige but are strongly affected by f social networks and intellectual proximity. Prestige remains an important factor affecting citations for highly cited papers, but for most papers, proximity-both social and semantic-plays a more significant role. These findings redirect focus from extreme cases of highly cited research to the overall citation distribution, which influences most scientists' career paths and knowledge production. Recognizing the diverse factors influencing citations is critical for science policy and for developing a reward system of science that is fairer and reflects a diversity of contributions to science.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0335366
J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2025 Oct 14. pii: S1748-6815(25)00594-7. [Epub ahead of print]111 109-115

Racial disparities in research productivity among integrated plastic surgery applicants.

Forrest Bohler, Zachary A Koenig, Aaquib Noorani, James R Burmeister, Ethan Dimock, Ava Harvey, Kongkrit Chaiyasate, Jesse C Selber.

   INTRODUCTION: Prior findings reported no racial differences in research productivity among plastic surgery trainees, but by combining integrated and independent pathways, they may obscure disparities relevant at residency selection. Given the competitiveness of integrated plastic surgery (IPS) and its emphasis on scholarly output, understanding the differences among applicants is critical.
METHODS: We analyzed 555 matched IPS applicants from the 2022-2024 cycles identified via program websites. Bibliometric data on PubMed-indexed publications up to electronic residency application service deadlines were collected. Applicants were classified as underrepresented (URM) or overrepresented in medicine (ORM) by headshot and surname analysis. The Mann-Whitney U tests were used to assess differences.
RESULTS: ORM applicants had significantly higher median total publications (5 vs. 3; p=0.021), first-author publications (1 vs. 0; p=0.008), second-author publications (1 vs. 0; p=0.006), and published in marginally higher impact journals, although this was not significant (2.7 vs. 2.5; p=0.1). There was no significant difference in plastic surgery-specific publications (median 1 in both groups; p=0.13). Despite fewer publications, URM applicants published a higher percent of articles in open access (OA) journals and incurred significantly higher average OA costs per publication ($750 vs. $657; p=0.001).
DISCUSSION: These findings demonstrated measurable differences in research portfolios between URM and ORM IPS applicants, contradicting earlier findings that did not separate training pathways. Reasons for these trends and the solutions to address them warrant further exploration. Higher proportion of the Top 40 medical school graduates and OA publications among URM applicants challenge assumptions that financial resources and lack of research opportunities drive ORM publication advantages.
CONCLUSIONS: ORM applicants to IPS programs had stronger research profiles across key metrics and lower average OA spending per publication. These differences underscore the need to examine structural factors contributing to the disparities at the residency application stage.

Keywords:  Integrated plastic surgery; Open access publication; Racial disparities; Research productivity; Residency match competitiveness

DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjps.2025.10.012
Radiologie (Heidelb). 2025 Oct 29.

Examining retracted papers in the "Radiology, Nuclear Medicine, and Medical Imaging" category in the Web of Science database.

Habip Eser Akkaya, Erhan Kaya, Muhammed Mustafa Beyoğlu, Muhammed Semih Gedik.

   OBJECTIVE: We conducted a comprehensive analysis to address the limited knowledge regarding retracted articles in the field of radiology, nuclear medicine, and medical imaging within the Web of Science (WoS) database.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The category "Radiology, Nuclear Medicine, and Medical Imaging" was selected in the WoS search interface without specifying a time range and with document types limited to "retraction, retracted publication, withdrawn publication." A total of 113 retracted articles were retrieved and analytically categorized into subgroups for examination. Two independent researchers evaluated the reasons for retraction.
RESULTS: Of the 113 articles identified as retracted, 106 were included in the study. The median publication duration prior to retraction was 183 days (range: 1-16,406 days). The highest retraction rate by country was found in China (55.66%), and by journal category, in the Science Citation Index (SCI) and SCI-Expanded (86.79%). The primary reasons for retraction were concerns and errors related to the data (37 articles), plagiarism (33 articles), and ethical issues (13 articles). In terms of sources, 66 retractions were initiated by the publisher/editor, 25 by the author, and 13 jointly by the author and editor.
CONCLUSION: The findings of our study emphasize the need for increased transparency, ethical oversight, and data accuracy in academic publishing. Implementing such measures is essential to safeguarding the credibility and validity of scientific research and ensuring more reliable progress in the academic community moving forward.

Keywords:  Bibliometric indicators; Publication ethics; Research integrity; Retraction analysis; Scientific publishing

DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00117-025-01523-0
Crit Care Resusc. 2025 Dec;27(4): 100137

Global disparities in scientific publications: A 5-year analysis of 10 critical care journals.

R Daltro-Oliveira, A Quintairos, L I O Santos, F Amado, J I F Salluh, A P Nassar.

   Objective: To evaluate the global distribution of original research articles in intensive care journals, analysing differences by country income level and assessing study characteristics, including type, funding, and accessibility.
Design: A retrospective bibliometric analysis of original research articles published between 2018 and 2022.
Setting: The 10 intensive care journals with the highest 2022 Impact Factors, as identified by Clarivate Analytics.
Participants: Original research articles (observational studies and randomised controlled trials) in adult intensive care, excluding paediatric and preclinical studies.
Main outcome measures: Country of affiliation of the corresponding author (classified by World Bank income level), study type, funding source, number of participating centres, open-access status, and thematic category.
Results: Among 12,441 manuscripts reviewed, we included 4982 original research articles. Of these, 4479 (89.9 %) were from high-income countries (HICs), 446 (9.0 %) from upper-middle-income countries (UMICs), 53 (1.1 %) from lower-middle-income countries (LMICs), and 4 (0.1 %) from low-income countries (LICs). Overall, 434 (8.7 %) were randomised controlled trials, with higher proportions in UMICs (13.2 %) and LMIC (20.8 %) studies compared with HICs (8.1 %). Multicenter design was reported in 44.6 % of all studies, but less frequently in UMICs (29.1 %) and LMICs (30.2 %). The median sample size was 228 patients (interquartile range, 76-1052), ranging from 231 in HICs to 211 in UMICs and 100 in LMICs. Funding was reported in 56.9 % of studies, most often from public sources. Public funding supported 28.0 % of UMICs and 9.4 % of LMICs studies, compared with 14.3 % of HIC studies. Open-access articles represented 44.8 % overall and were more common among funded studies.
Conclusions: Publications from UMICs, LMICs, and LICs remain underrepresented in high-impact intensive care journals. Structural barriers, limited funding, and potential publication bias contribute to this imbalance. Addressing these gaps requires greater funding opportunities, equitable collaborations, and stronger editorial commitment to inclusivity.

Keywords:  Critical care; Global health disparities; Low- and middle-income countries; Scientific publishing

DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ccrj.2025.100137
J Biomech. 2025 Oct 22. pii: S0021-9290(25)00539-1. [Epub ahead of print]193 113027

Trends in gender representation of women as authors and participants over five decades of the journal of biomechanics.

Axelle M Wasiak, John H Challis.

  The study's purposes were, by analyzing all Journal of Biomechanics publications from one year in each of six decades, to quantify in those published studies 1) the contribution of female authors, 2) the inclusion of female participants, and 3) if female or male authors were more likely to conduct studies with only female participants. All research articles published in the Journal of Biomechanics for one year of each decade, 1970 to 2020, were analyzed. Two trained assessors identified the gender of the authors of 1490 research papers, and the gender and number of participants in the studies. The proportion of women as authors grew over the decades from 5.5 % in 1970 to 26.5 % in 2020. Women as first or last author had a similar pattern (4.9 % - 1970; 43.3 % - 2020). There were 658 experimental studies with human participants, but not all of them reported the gender of their participants and/or the number of participants. In studies reporting gender, in 1980 52.4 % had male participants only, 9.5 % women only, and 38.1 % were mixed; by 2020 these numbers were 23.1 %, 11.0 %, and 65.9 %. Female authors were more likely than male authors to produce studies with female only participants (p < 0.001). To improve the reporting and proportions of the genders in studies journal guidelines, their editors and reviewers, and funding agencies all have a role to play. This study provides benchmark data that future research can be used to monitor changes in gender representation among authors and participants in biomechanics studies.

Keywords:  Authorship; Bias; Sex

DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiomech.2025.113027
Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2025 Oct 28. pii: ezaf375. [Epub ahead of print]

The Price of Consensus: Reviewer disagreement, Editorial Dynamics, and Impact in Thoracic Oncology Publishing.

Luca Bertolaccini, Pierre-Emmanuel Falcoz.

   OBJECTIVES: Peer review remains central to scientific publishing; yet, its reliability and true influence on scientific visibility remain debated, especially within subspecialized fields such as thoracic oncology. We aimed to evaluate reviewer agreement in manuscripts submitted to the European Journal of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EJCTS) and to examine whether review intensity predicts bibliometric outcomes.
METHODS: A retrospective analysis of 144 thoracic oncology manuscripts submitted in 2021 was conducted. Each was assessed by 2-4 blinded reviewers. Reviewer recommendations were coded ordinally. Agreement was quantified using Fleiss' Kappa, Cohen's Kappa, and Krippendorff's Alpha, while reviewer heterogeneity was assessed through entropy metrics. Citation and download counts were modeled using negative binomial regression adjusted for manuscript type and time to publication.
RESULTS: Reviewer concordance was low (Fleiss' Kappa = -0.03; Krippendorff's Alpha = 0.041), with complete agreement observed in only 9.5% of manuscripts. Increasing the number of reviewers was associated with greater disagreement. Nevertheless, both higher reviewer count (Inter-Rater Reliability [IRR] = 1.16; p = 0.004) and additional review rounds (IRR = 1.21; p < 0.001) independently predicted increased citation counts. Longer editorial timelines were associated with slightly reduced downloads (-0.9% per week; p = 0.048).
CONCLUSIONS: Reviewer consensus is uncommon in thoracic oncology submissions. However, greater reviewer engagement-both in number and iteration-was independently associated with improved bibliometric impact. These findings suggest that structured diversity of reviewer perspectives may enrich peer review and enhance scholarly dissemination, provided that editorial efficiency is preserved. This supports the view that disagreement among reviewers, when properly managed, may act as a catalyst rather than a constraint in scientific dissemination.

Keywords:  Bibliometric Analysis; Editorial Process; Inter-Rater Reliability; Lung Cancer; Peer Review; Reviewer Agreement; Scholarly Dissemination

DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1093/ejcts/ezaf375
Res Integr Peer Rev. 2025 Oct 27. 10(1): 23

AI in peer review: can artificial intelligence be an ally in reducing gender and geographical gaps in peer review? A randomized trial.

André L Teixeira.

   BACKGROUND: Gender and geographical disparities have been widely reported in the peer-review process of biomedical journals. Artificial Intelligence (AI) is increasingly transforming the publishing system; however, its potential to identify suitable reviewers, and whether it might reduce, replicate or reinforce existing biases in peer review has never been comprehensively investigated. This study sought to determine the usefulness of AI in identifying expert scientists in medicine taking into consideration gender and geographical diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI).
METHODS: The title and abstract of 50 research articles published in high-impact biomedical journals between November 2023 and September 2024 were fed into a large language model software (GPT-4o), which was prompted to identify 20 distinguished scientists in the study's field. Two trials were randomly performed with and without a gender and geographical DEI prompt. Scientists were classified based on gender, geographical location, and country of affiliation income level. Furthermore, the number of peer-reviewed publications, Google Scholar-derived total citations and h-index were computed.
RESULTS: Without a DEI prompt, GPT-4o primarily identified male scientists (68%) and those affiliated to high-income countries (95.3%). Conversely, when DEI was explicitly prompted, GPT-4o generated a gender-balanced (51% females) and geographically diverse list of scientists. Specifically, the proportion of scientists from high-income countries decreased to 42.3%, while representation from upper-middle (3.2% to 26.2%), lower-middle (1.2% to 26.1%), and low-income (0.2% to 5.4%) countries significantly increased. The number of publications (without vs. with DEI: 284 ± 237 vs. 281 ± 245, P = 0.77), citations (48,445 ± 60,270 vs. 53,792 ± 71,903, P = 0.13), and h-index (79 ± 43 vs. 76 ± 43, P = 0.15) did not differ between groups.
CONCLUSIONS: When not prompted to consider DEI, GPT-4o successfully identified expert scientists, but primarily males and those from high-income countries. However, when DEI was explicitly prompted, GPT-4o generated a gender-balanced and geographically diverse list of scientists. The academic productivity was considerably high and comparable between groups, suggesting that GPT-4o identified potentially skilled scientists who could reasonably serve as reviewers for scientific journals. These findings provide evidence that AI can be an ally in combating gender and geographical gaps in peer review, though DEI should be explicitly prompted. Conversely, AI could perpetuate existing biases if not carefully managed.

Keywords:  AI in medicine; ChatGPT; Diversity; Equity; Gender disparities; Geographical disparities; Inclusion; Scientific review

DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-025-00182-y
Braz Dent J. 2025 ;pii: S0103-64402025000100227. [Epub ahead of print]36 e236764

Contributions to the discussion on societal impact assessment in graduate programs in dentistry in Brazil.

Mauro Henrique Nogueira Guimarães de Abreu, André Luiz Brasil Varandas Pinto, Cecilia Claudia Costa Ribeiro de Almeida, Vicente Castelo Branco Leitune, José Mauro Granjeiro, Altair Antoninha Del Bel Cury, Antonio Gomes Souza Filho, Manoel Damião Sousa-Neto.

This article aims to discuss the scientific and societal impact of Brazilian graduate programs in dentistry and propose an impact assessment framework considering recent changes in the national evaluation model. The study highlights the high scientific productivity and global relevance of Brazilian dental research by examining bibliometric data from the Scopus and Scival platforms. The bibliometric map of abstracts from theses and dissertations developed at graduate programs in dentistry between 2013 and 2022 leads to at least three thematic clusters, suggesting consistency and diversity in the knowledge produced. Three consolidated frameworks were reviewed to explore the societal impact: the Payback Model, SIAMPI, and CIROP. Based on these theoretical frameworks, the article proposes a set of illustrative indicators based on the Kellogg Foundation's logic model and the Strategy Evaluation Protocol (SEP), aligned with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). These indicators may support the self-assessment of graduate programs and feed into the national evaluation systems. Integrating these elements enables a multidimensional view of impact, capturing excellence in knowledge production and contributions to public health, innovation, and equity promotion. The proposed framework is flexible and adaptable to different institutional missions and regional realities, and is particularly relevant in a country where academic and professional graduate programs coexist. The article concludes by emphasizing the importance of including scientific and societal impact in evaluation processes, thus strengthening the connection between research, health policies, and Society's needs.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/0103-644020256764
Wilderness Environ Med. 2025 Oct 27. 10806032251387991

Female Representation in Rock Climbing Research.

Danielle Lee, Shyamala Subramanian, Linda E Keyes, Ziva Petrin.

  IntroductionAlthough rock climbing is approaching gender parity in participation, female representation in rock climbing research remains to be investigated. We evaluated the gender distribution of study participants and authorship in the rock climbing literature.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review with PubMed and Embase to identify original research articles involving rock climbers. We categorized articles by and extracted data on the sex (female and male) of study participants and authors. Author gender was classified with Genderize.io, an automated probability-based assessment software.ResultsWe identified 298 original research articles from 1973 to 2023. Among the 266 articles that reported study participant gender, females comprised 36% of climber participants. Eighty-two articles (31%) had all-male climber participants, whereas 7 articles (3%) had an all-female cohort. Female climbers were the most underrepresented in articles investigating chronic climbing injuries (13% female), imaging studies (15%), and injury rehabilitation (20%). Female representation was highest in studies about youth climbing (43%) and epidemiology (36%). Of 1360 total authorships, 290 (21%) were female. Females were first authors for 54 articles (18%) and last authors for 53 articles (18%). Articles with female first authors had a higher proportion of female study participants than those with male first authors (39 vs 36%; P<0.001), whereas the proportion was similar between female and male last authors (36 vs 36%; P=0.592).ConclusionsFemale representation in climbing research and authorship is limited. Most research has studied male climbers, limiting the ability to apply these results to female climbers.

Keywords:  authorship; exercise science; female; gender bias; sports medicine

DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1177/10806032251387991
J Am Coll Surg. 2025 Oct 16.

Speaker Representation at the American College of Surgeons Clinical Congress: A Comparative Analysis of 2004, 2014, and 2024.

Kathryn Radulovacki, Simran S Khanna, Emmy Duerr, Madelynne Olexa, Alexandria L Soto, Shannon Barter, Brian Gilmore, Susanna S Hill.

   BACKGROUND: Gender gaps in surgery exist across multiple domains. We sought to analyze the progress made over the last twenty years by comparing representation of women among moderators, oral presentations, and research awards at the American College of Surgeons Clinical Congress (ACSCC) in 2004, 2014, and 2024. We hypothesized that representation of women in all three categories would increase but not achieve parity.
STUDY DESIGN: Invited panel moderators, scientific abstracts selected for oral presentations, and research award recipients at the 2004, 2014, and 2024 ACSCC were retrospectively reviewed. Participants' gender (based on published pronouns), training level, academic rank, specialty, institution type, and research category were extracted. Data were analyzed with chi-square tests for differences by year and gender.
RESULTS: A total of 1,248 oral presentations, 568 panel moderators, and 92 award recipients were identified. Women first authorship (FA) significantly increased each decade (20.8%; 36.2%; 48.6%; p<0.001). Similarly, increases were seen at the senior authorship (SA) (7.9%; 18.4%; 30.0%; p<0.001) and panel moderator levels (10.9%; 30.0%; 40.1%; p<0.001). Among moderators, the proportion of women associate professors increased (15.4%; 15.7%; 39.8%; p<0.001) but full professors decreased (46.2%; 61.4%; 28.9%; p<0.001). Across all three years, recipients of "Excellence in Research Award" did not significantly differ in gender.
CONCLUSIONS: Representation of women among presenters and moderators at the ACSCC has increased significantly from 2004 to 2024, and research awardees did not differ significantly by gender. FAs have nearly reached parity, but substantial gaps persist at the SA and moderator levels. This highlights the potential to increase research opportunities for mid and senior faculty. Future institutional and societal interventions to target these faculty could further promote equity and research visibility.

Keywords:  Gender representation; conference speakers; speaker analysis

DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1097/XCS.0000000000001662
J Immigr Minor Health. 2025 Oct 29.

Navigating Terminology in Latino Research: Evolution, Challenges, and Strategies for Discoverability.

Christina Huerta, Kristin Ray, Carlos Melendez Garcia.

  Terminology used to refer to individuals of Latin American and Hispanic descent has shifted over time. These linguistic shifts affect the discoverability of research concerning Latino populations, which can have downstream policy, clinical and academic implications. We aimed to analyze trends in the usage of these terms in academic literature to determine the most effective search terms to improve research discoverability for these populations. Conducted a structured search of PubMed ranging from January 2000 and December 2022. We quantify the frequency of publications that used the terms "Hispanic," "Latin", "Latino," "Latina," "Latinx", "Latine" in titles and abstracts or the "Hispanic and Latino" MeSH term. We searched for individual and combination use of these terms. The total number of publications identified per term and extent of overlap between terms was described. We focused on documenting article counts without assessing content and quality of publications. We found a 9-fold increase in the number of articles referencing Latino population over the study period. No individual term captured the entire body of literature available in PubMed; rather, different combinations of terms were used across studies. Shifts in terminology used over time were observed with new terms such as "Latine" and Latinx" rising in the last 10 years. Our study underscores how evolving terminology used in Latino-focused research can affect the discoverability of publications, which has practical implications for policymakers, researchers, and health providers. Scholars should adopt diverse terminologies and strategic keyword integration to promote engagement with Latino-oriented research.

Keywords:  Academic literature trends; Health disparities in latino populations, keyword optimization in research; Hispanic research discoverability; Latino terminology; Latinx and latine usage

DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10903-025-01801-y
Life (Basel). 2025 Oct 19. pii: 1630. [Epub ahead of print]15(10):

Unraveling Stuttering Through a Multi-Omics Lens.

Deyvid Novaes Marques.

  Stuttering, a complex and multifactorial speech disorder, has long presented an enigma regarding its etiology. While earlier approaches often emphasized psychosocial influences, historical clinical and speech-language strategies have considered multiple contributing factors. By integrating genomic, transcriptomic and phenomic evidence, the ongoing research illustrates how functional genomics can unravel the biological architecture of complex speech disorders. In particular, advances in omic technologies have unequivocally positioned genetics and underlying biological pathways at the forefront of stuttering research. I have experienced stuttering and lived with it since my early childhood. This perspective article presents findings from omic studies, highlighting relevant aspects such as gene discoveries, implicated cellular mechanisms, and the intricate genetic architecture of developmental stuttering. As a person who stutters, I offer an intimate perspective on how these scientific insights are not merely academic but profoundly impactful for the affected community. A multi-omic integration strategy, combining large-scale genetic discovery with deep phenotyping and functional validation, is advocated to accelerate understanding in this field. Additionally, a bibliometric analysis using an international database was conducted to map trends and identify directions in stuttering research within the omic context. Ultimately, these scientific endeavors hold the potential to inform not only personalized interventions but also critical policy and regulatory changes, enhancing accessibility, support, and the recognized rights of people who stutter.

Keywords:  biomarkers; developmental stuttering; genetics; genome-wide association studies; genomics; multi-omics; omics; phenomics; speech disorders; stuttering

DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3390/life15101630