bims-evares Biomed News
on Evaluation of research
Issue of 2026–01–18
twelve papers selected by
Thomas Krichel, Open Library Society



  1. Indian J Orthop. 2026 Jan;60(1): 3-17
       Background and Aims: This study performed a comprehensive bibliometric analysis comparing Indian and international highly-cited papers (HCPs) in the Indian Journal of Orthopaedics (IJO).
    Methods: The study used a bibliometric design to analyze HCPs published in the IJO between 2007 and 2024, a period selected based on the journal's Scopus coverage. The Scopus database was used for its comprehensive coverage and robust citation analysis capabilities. All documents published in the IJO during this period were retrieved on June 20, 2025. The threshold for an HCP was set at 51 or more citations, as this indicates significant peer recognition and influence within the academic community. For each HCP, the following data was extracted: the title, publication year, and citation count; the country of origin (Indian or foreign); the study type (original article, review, conference paper, editorial, or letter); the subject focus (e.g., trauma, joint disorders, or infection); author and institutional affiliations; and collaboration patterns, defined as single-institution, national collaboration (two or more institutions within India), or international collaboration (institutions from different countries).
    Results: The 54 HCPs accumulated 4697 citations, averaging 86.98 per paper. Indian HCPs, averaging 89.61 citations, predominantly comprised original articles and reviews focusing on trauma, joint disorders, and infection. Notably, 74% of Indian HCPs were single-institution studies, with limited international collaboration. In contrast, foreign HCPs, averaging 92.46 citations, exhibited a broader range of topics and more frequent national and international collaborations. Until 2011, Indian publications had a statistically significant lower mean difference in CPP (14.4 ± 2.0) compared to foreign publications (19.4 ± 3.9) with a p-value of 0.042; however, after 2011, this disparity vanished, with both Indian and foreign publications showing an 8.1 mean difference (± 4.2 and ± 4.4 respectively) and a p-value of 0.999.
    Conclusions: Indian HCPs focus on localized clinical priorities and have lower collaboration rates than their international counterparts. To enhance the global impact and citation potential of Indian orthopaedic research, expanding national and international collaborations and diversifying research topics is crucial.
    Graphical Abstract:
    Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s43465-025-01555-7.
    Keywords:  Academic journals; Bibliometrics; Citation analysis; Evidence-based medicine; High-impact papers; India; Orthopaedics; Research collaboration; Research design
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s43465-025-01555-7
  2. Acad Radiol. 2026 Jan 12. pii: S1076-6332(25)01171-7. [Epub ahead of print]
       RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: To determine the publication rates and characteristics of oral scientific presentations from the European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR) meetings held between 2019 and 2022, and to identify factors associated with subsequent publication.
    MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective observational study analyzed 407 oral abstracts from ESGAR meetings (2019-2022). Abstract data were categorized by country, subspecialty, study design, and collaboration type. Publication searches were performed in PubMed. Publication time, journal name, journal impact factor (JIF), and citation counts were recorded. Statistical analyses included chi-square, logistic regression and Kruskal-Wallis tests.
    RESULTS: Of 407 oral presentations, 215 (52.8%) were subsequently published in PubMed-indexed journals, significantly higher than rate from ESGAR 2000-2001 (39.5%) (P < .001). Median publication time was 11.3 months. Country of origin was significantly associated with publication outcome (P < .001). No significant differences were found in publication rates among subspecialties (P = .577). Prospective studies had higher JIF than retrospective studies (P = .004). International collaborations had higher JIF than local collaborations (P = .027).
    CONCLUSION: More than half of ESGAR oral presentations achieved publication within 3 years, showing a clear increase compared with earlier meetings and reflecting enhanced research productivity and dissemination in gastrointestinal and abdominal radiology.
    Keywords:  Abdominal imaging; Gastrointestinal radiology; Publication outcome; Research productivity; Scientific congress
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2025.12.036
  3. Turk Patoloji Derg. 2026 ;42(1): 1-6
       OBJECTIVE: Despite the legal requirement to complete a thesis during residency training in Türkiye, the extent to which these theses are translated into high-quality scientific publications remains unclear. Disciplinary differences in research culture, resource availability, and clinical workload may influence these outcomes.
    MATERIAL AND METHODS: This cross-sectional study analyzed 1245 open access residency theses completed between 2018 and 2022 in the fields of pathology (n=344), endocrinology (n=525), and urology (n=376). Theses were retrieved from the National Thesis Center of the Council of Higher Education. Their publication status was identified via searches in PubMed and Google Scholar. Data collected included journal index status (SCI-E, ESCI, ULAKBIM), Journal Impact Factor™ (JIF), citation count, and time to publication. Statistical comparisons were made using chi-squared and Kruskal-Wallis tests with p < 0.05 considered significant.
    RESULTS: Among the 1245 residency theses analyzed, 344 (27.6%) were in pathology, 525 (42.2%) in endocrinology and metabolic diseases, and 376 (30.2%) in urology. The conversion rate to publication significantly differed across specialties (p = 0.0002): 86 of 344 pathology theses (25.0%), 115 of 525 endocrinology theses (21.9%), and 139 of 376 urology theses (37.0%) were published. Urology theses had the highest representation in SCI-E indexed journals (72.7%), while endocrinology demonstrated the highest mean Journal Impact Factor (2.3; p < 0.0001). The average number of citations per publication was also highest in urology (4.5), although this difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.0673). Median time to publication ranged from 2.3 to 2.7 years, with no significant difference between specialties (p = 0.1287). Differences in the distribution of Q2, Q3, and Q4 journal publications were statistically significant between specialties.
    CONCLUSION: Endocrinology had the highest number of theses, whereas urology had the highest publication rate and number of citations per publication.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.5146/tjpath.2026.14783
  4. Indian J Orthop. 2026 Jan;60(1): 30-43
       Purpose: This study aimed to explore the bibliometric characteristics of pediatric fracture research from its inception until 2024, specifically focusing on high-cited publications (HCPs) defined as those with 100 or more citations. Key indicators evaluated include publication frequency, citation counts, and collaboration metrics.
    Methodology: The Scopus database was utilized to identify global publications related to pediatric fractures. The top HCPs were retrieved for detailed analysis, employing bibliometric and network analyses with VOSviewer and Biblioshiny software to uncover key contributors, including organizations, authors, and journals, along with their collaborative interactions and significant keyword co-occurrences.
    Results: 262 HCPs in pediatric fracture research were identified and indexed in Scopus from 1929 to 2024 (95 years), accumulating a cumulative citation count of 42,675 and an average of 162.9 citations per publication. This body of work involved 931 authors from 160 organizations across 31 countries, with external funding at 9.16% and international collaboration at 7.25%. The United States of America was the leading contributor with 145 publications (55.34%), followed by the United Kingdom (11.83%) and Canada (11.45%). The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia emerged as the most productive organization, while the Journal of Pediatric Orthopaedics published the highest number of HCPs (n = 59). The journal 'Bone' exhibited the highest citation impact per paper, averaging 271.33 citations.
    Conclusion: This study elucidates research trends and influential contributions in pediatric fracture research, offering valuable insights into past, present, and future research priorities in this domain.
    Graphical Abstract:
    Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s43465-025-01551-x.
    Keywords:  Bibliometrics; Citations; Global publications; International collaboration; Orthopedics; Pediatric fractures
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s43465-025-01551-x
  5. Cureus. 2025 Dec;17(12): e98930
       INTRODUCTION: The shift of the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Step 1 to pass/fail scoring in 2022 elevated research productivity's role in orthopaedic surgery residency applications. With the 2027 Electronic Residency Application Service (ERAS) cycle reforms limiting research entries to peer-reviewed publications and consolidating repeated presentations, establishing verifiable research productivity baselines is critical. This study provides the earliest comprehensive verification of PubMed-indexed publications across an entire national orthopaedic match cohort, quantifying disparities between self-reported and verified activities and establishing benchmarks to assess future reform impacts.
    METHODS: Cross-sectional bibliometric analysis examined first-year orthopaedic surgery residents who matched in the 2023-2024 National Resident Matching Program (NRMP) or military cycle (N=929, 97% of matched positions). A novel automated disambiguation system integrated institutional affiliation matching, name uniqueness, and temporal filtering to verify publications prior to September 24, 2023, yielding 4,774 verified publications from 46,897 extracted. Programs were assigned to six tiers based on composite scores integrating established program rankings with contemporary research productivity. Tier 1 (10 programs, score ≥ 50) and Tier 6 (76 programs, score < 2) represented the highest and lowest tiers. Statistical analyses employed Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U tests for group comparisons, receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis for threshold determination, and incremental benefit analysis to assess diminishing returns.
    RESULTS: Of 958 identified positions, 929 residents were collected (773 with complete data). The mean verified publication count was 5.5 ± 9.0 (median 3.0; range 1-139), representing 23% of mean self-reported outputs (23.8) in the 2024 NRMP Charting Outcomes report; 77% comprised non-peer-reviewed activities. Clinical research constituted 46% (n=2187) of publications, with original research accounting for 75% (n=3566). Residents were first, second, or third author on 68.2% (n=3254) of publications. Higher-tier programs had significantly greater publication counts (Tier 1: 9.7 ± 8.8 vs. Tier 6: 3.7 ± 6.7; H=100.54, p < 0.0001). ROC analysis identified an optimal threshold of two to four publications (AUC = 0.66) for predicting high-tier matches. Incremental benefit analysis revealed the largest marginal gain between one and two publications (mean tier improvement=0.55; p < 0.001), with diminishing returns thereafter, and a secondary benefit peak at seven publications (0.80; p < 0.05).
    CONCLUSIONS: This study establishes the earliest verified baseline for research productivity in an orthopaedic surgery match cohort, documenting substantial inflation between self-reported activities and peer-reviewed publications. Positioned between the 2022 Step 1 pass/fail transition and the 2027 ERAS application reforms, these data provide benchmark metrics for evaluating the impact of future verification systems and application changes. Identification of optimal thresholds (two to four papers) and quantification of incremental benefits offer evidence-based guidance for students, advisors, and program directors. Our novel verification methodology, achieving 83.2% (n=773 residents) cohort coverage, establishes a reproducible framework applicable across specialties for transparent scholarly productivity assessment.
    Keywords:  bibliometric analysis; clinical research productivity; electronic residency application services (eras); medical education; orthopaedic surgery; publication threshold; publication verification; pubmed database; residency application; surgical education
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.98930
  6. medRxiv. 2026 Jan 08. pii: 2026.01.06.26343564. [Epub ahead of print]
       Background: Gender disparities in academic medicine have been previously reported, but prior bibliometric studies have been limited by small sample sizes and reliance on manual gender annotation methods. These bottlenecks constrain previous analyses to only a small subset of clinical literature. To assess gender-based differences in authorship trends, research impact, and scholarly output over time in clinical research at scale, we hypothesized that large language models (LLMs) can be an effective tool to facilitate systematic bibliometric analysis of academic research trends.
    Methods: We conducted a retrospective, cross-sectional bibliometric study evaluating manuscripts published between January 2015 and September 2025 across over 1,000 PubMed-indexed academic medical journals. Over 1 million manuscripts, written by more than 10 million authors across 13 medical specialties, were analyzed. To enable this large-scale study, the genders of manuscript authors were annotated using a scalable LLM-based pipeline compatible with consumer-grade hardware.
    Results: We found that the proportion of female principal investigators has increased over time across different medical subspecialties. However, studies led by male authors tended to be published in higher-impact journals and cited more frequently than those led by female authors. We also observed that researchers of the same gender tended to work together when compared to colleagues of the opposite gender.
    Conclusions: While our findings revealed persistent gender-based differences in authorship trends, citation practices, and journal placement, we also observed ongoing, meaningful progress in female representation within academic medical research over time. Our results suggest that LLMs can be a powerful tool to scalably and periodically track this continued progress in future academic medical research.
    Plain Language Summary: Academic research is important to advance the field and practice of medicine. To obtain an accurate picture of the differences in medical research and impact between male and female researchers, we leveraged large language models (LLMs) to identify author genders for over one million medical research papers published between 2015 and 2025. We found that the number of women serving as lead researchers has increased over time across many medical specialties. However, important gaps in achieving gender equality in medical research remain. Our study ultimately helps demonstrate that LLMs can help us monitor gender-based trends in academic research in the future.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.01.06.26343564
  7. NIHR Open Res. 2025 ;5 59
       Background: Since 2010, the UK's National Institute for Health and Care Research has funded a policy research unit (PRU) focused on maternal and neonatal health, with a remit to build an evidence base for policy and clinical practice in this field. We explored the usefulness of the platforms Overton and Altmetric as tools to gain insight into the use of PRU research evidence in policy and practice.
    Methods: We searched Overton and Altmetric using article DOIs to identify citations of PRU-funded articles in policy documents and clinical guidelines. We excluded citations of the research in lists of excluded evidence, academic journal articles, and unverifiable citations. To obtain a count of unique citing documents for each article, we merged multiple editions/versions, translations, and duplicates of the same document. We calculated latency from article publication date to citation date, and citation distribution over time. We also developed descriptive case studies to explore how the citing policy documents used highly-cited research evidence.
    Results: The 110 published articles reporting research funded by the PRU received 134 unique policy document and clinical guideline citations; 43/110 articles (39%) were cited in at least one document. Most citing documents were authored by organisations based in the UK (52/134) and other high-income countries. Intergovernmental organisations accounted for around 15% of citations (20/134). The median time from article publication to citation was 183 weeks (range 0.4-575 weeks). Citation contexts varied; use of the evidence in citing documents included provision of general background information, detailed summaries of findings, and support/rationale for specific clinical recommendations.
    Conclusions: Overton and Altmetric are useful tools for identifying and exploring the use of research evidence in healthcare policy and clinical guidance. However, citation analysis alone cannot provide the complete picture. The delay between evidence publication and use in policy warrants further investigation.
    Keywords:  Overton; altmetrics; bibliometrics; clinical guidelines; evidence; impact; policy research; research evaluation
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3310/nihropenres.13999.1
  8. BMJ Open. 2026 Jan 12. 16(1): e109320
       OBJECTIVES: Qualitative research addresses 'how' and 'why' questions in healthcare. It captures the complexity of clinical practice by providing insights into experiences, behaviours and context often missed by quantitative methods. The objective of this review was to explore the volume, trends and adherence to reporting standards in qualitative research across hospital-based medical subspecialties.
    DESIGN: Longitudinal bibliometric review.
    SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Ovid Medline, Embase and Emcare were searched for qualitative research published between 2000 and 2024 in 12 medical subspecialties. For each subspecialty, the number and percentage of qualitative publications was identified. Adherence to reporting standards was assessed in a random sample of publications covering all subspecialties.
    RESULTS: Between 2000 and 2024, 715 471 qualitative research studies were published across 12 medical subspecialties, representing 1.36% of all studies (52 620 042). Neurology and oncology had the highest number of qualitative studies (116 835 and 106 360). Although infectious diseases contributed a lower absolute number of qualitative studies (59 947), they had the highest proportion relative to all studies (4.07%). Conversely, nephrology and haematology exhibited the lowest number of qualitative studies (14 510 and 29 198) and smallest proportions (0.90% and 0.81%). Overall, the annual proportion of qualitative research increased from 0.64% (6052/945 008) in 2000 to 1.95% (56 909/2 919 825) in 2024. However, the relative positions remained largely stable over time.Adherence to reporting standards was generally good, particularly in relation to methodological coherence. However, there was under-reporting of positionality (where researchers consider how their identity and standpoint may influence the research process) and reflexivity (where researchers critically reflect on how their assumptions and decisions shape the study).
    CONCLUSIONS: Qualitative research is under-represented in medical subspecialties but has increased steadily over time, with notable variation in adoption between subspecialties. While overall adherence to reporting standards is good, greater attention to positionality and reflexivity is needed to enhance transparency and rigour.
    Keywords:  INTERNAL MEDICINE; Medicine; QUALITATIVE RESEARCH; Review
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2025-109320
  9. Sex Reprod Health Matters. 2026 Jan 16. 1-33
      National research leadership is critical for generating locally responsive knowledge, especially grounded in gender approaches, given its engagement with local social contexts. We conducted a focused analysis of a scoping review to examine patterns in authorship, geographic and institutional contexts, and funding sources, in studies that apply gender approaches to sexual and reproductive health (SRH) across Africa. The review examined 45 publications in PubMed and Scopus (2012 - 2022) and included consultation with African gender and health experts. Our analysis revealed unequal distribution of papers across sub-regions in Africa (48.9% were based in Southern Africa, 37.8% in Eastern Africa, 11.1% in Western Africa, and 2.1% in Northern Africa). The distribution of articles by first and last authors' country of residence depicted disparity between authors in high-income countries and those in Africa, and between authors based in South Africa and those stationed in the rest of Africa (USA 46.7%, Europe 17.8%, Canada 2.2%, South Africa 22.2%, and rest of Africa 11.1%). Similarly, unequal patterns exist regarding the distribution of last authors (USA 42.9%, Europe 9.5%, Canada 4.8%, South Africa 28.6%, and the rest of Africa 14.3%). One-fifth of the papers feature no local authors. Funding sources shows a stark difference, with just 9.4% of the funding coming from Africa, exclusively South Africa, and the rest originating from high-income countries (USA 36.5%, UK 14.1%, Canada 8.2%, and Sweden 5.9%). The authors call for ensuring local ownership and leadership of research in Africa, and increasing domestic investment and addressing disparities across sub-regions.
    Keywords:  epistemic injustice; gender equality; gender transformative approach; global health; research leadership; sexual and reproductive health; sexual and reproductive health and rights
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1080/26410397.2026.2616137
  10. Account Res. 2026 Jan 14. 2614062
       PURPOSE/SIGNIFICANCE: This study investigates the awareness, perceptions, and responses of library and information science (LIS) researchers toward retracted papers, aiming to inform the improvement of research integrity governance.
    METHOD/PROCESS: A questionnaire survey of 280 LIS researchers examined their sources of retraction information, understanding of causes, perceived consequences, and attitudes toward evaluation. The influence of academic background, publication volume, and discipline was also explored.
    RESULT/CONCLUSION: Findings indicate generally low retraction awareness and a primary reliance on informal channels. Critically, the analysis reveals several nuanced patterns: (1) Significant disciplinary differences exist in perceiving retraction causes; (2) Opinions are sharply divided on including retraction records in research evaluation, reflecting concerns about uniform responsibility attribution; (3) A considerable proportion of researchers mistakenly view retraction's impact as reversible. These attitudes are strongly associated with educational background and publication experience. In response, this paper proposes five key recommendations: establishing authoritative retraction platforms, improving journal retraction mechanisms, differentiating retraction types in evaluation, strengthening integrity education, and building a coordinated governance framework. These measures contribute to fostering a more transparent, fair, and sustainable scholarly correction ecosystem.
    Keywords:  Retraction; evaluation; institutional governance; research integrity; scientific research
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2026.2614062
  11. Nature. 2026 Jan;649(8097): 527
      
    Keywords:  Authorship; Publishing; Research management
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-026-00006-z