bims-evares 2026-05-17 papers

bims-evares

Biomed News

on Evaluation of research

Issue of 2026–05–17
twenty papers selected by
Thomas Krichel, Open Library Society

Authorial Influence in Orthodontic Scholarship: A Comparative Analysis of Authors Impact Across Three Leading Orthodontic Journals.
Worthwhile or wasteful? Assessing the impact of funding, author collaboration and article availability on article metrics.
Bibliometric analysis of the Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery: citation trends, evidence levels, and scholarly impact.
What are the most disruptive publications in shoulder surgery?
Trends in Authorship in American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education and 100 Pharmaceutical Journals (2021-2024).
Citation and policy influence of research using demographic and health survey data: a bibliometric analysis.
Conversion Rate of Abstracts Presented at Regional Plastic Surgery Conferences in the United States.
A Comprehensive Bibliometric Analysis of U.S. Neurosurgical Residency Programs: Evaluating Recent Research Productivity, Citation Impact, and Publication Equity.
A bibliometric analysis of optogenetics in cancer research based on the web of science core collection.
Gender Differences in National Institutes of Health Funding for Family Medicine Faculty.
The Open Versus Closed Access Publication Advantage in Orthopaedic Surgery.
On the mh-index and simple efficiency metrics for Assessing scientific contributions.
Challenges in Academic Authorship and Citation Metrics: Navigating Inflation, Biases, and the Rise of Evidence Synthesis.
Collaboration, impact, and research trends at the veterinary research institutes of the Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences: a bibliometric analysis from 2009 to 2023.
Conflicts of Interest, Funding Support, and Author Affiliation in Peer-Reviewed Research on the Relationship between Climate Change and Geophysical Characteristics of Hurricanes.
Editorial expressions of concern are infrequent even for researchers with multiple retracted publications - An observational study.
AI, bibliometric ethics, and the need for practical wisdom.
A National Oncology Fellows' Competition Advancing Clinical Research and Publication.
A portrait of commissioned literature: connecting the dots between medical education and communication companies, authors, funders and publishers.
Academic Collaboration with Medical Institutions to Promote Research Culture.

Orthod Craniofac Res. 2026 May 11.

Authorial Influence in Orthodontic Scholarship: A Comparative Analysis of Authors Impact Across Three Leading Orthodontic Journals.

Sarah Abu Arqub, Tvisha Patel, Alexandria Adler, Jennifer Crumpton, Lauren E Adkins, Dalya Al-Moghrabi, Nikolaos Pandis, Nikhillesh Vaiid.

   OBJECTIVE: To perform an authorship-focused bibliometric analysis of highly cited authors who published in the American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopaedics (AJODO), Angle Orthodontist (AO), and European Journal of Orthodontics (EJO). Furthermore, to evaluate the effect of journal type on bibliometric indices, and identify predictors of total citations.
METHODS: A bibliometric analysis using Dimensions Analytics and Scopus (inception-April 2025) identified authors with > 100 citations who published in the AJODO, AO, and the EJO. Extracted data included author-level metrics (total citations, citations per document, publication count, h-index, field-weighted citation impact (FWCI), collaboration, number of coauthors) and regional and institutional information. Descriptive statistics, regression analysis, and variable importance analysis were performed.
RESULTS: Authors with > 100 citations were common in AO (n = 230), followed by AJODO (n = 133) and EJO (n = 68). Compared with AJODO, authors publishing in AO and EJO had significantly lower total citations (incidence rate ratio (IRR) 0.52 and 0.57, p < 0.001), citations per document (0.52 and 0.54, p < 0.001), number of publications (0.47 and 0.51, p < 0.001), h-index (coefficients -15 and -18, p < 0.001), and number of coauthors (IRR 0.38 and 0.46, p < 0.001). No significant differences were observed between journals for collaboration or FWCI. Citations by documents and h-index were the strongest predictors of citation counts.
CONCLUSIONS: Although most highly cited authors were from AO, AJODO authors had higher citations, publications, and h-index. Authorial influence is multidimensional, and robust evaluation requires a combination of citation metrics, productivity measures, and context-specific assessments.

Keywords:   FWCI ; bibliometric analysis; citation impact; collaboration; orthodontic research; scholarly productivity

DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1111/ocr.70134
Eur J Orthod. 2026 Apr 03. pii: cjag015. [Epub ahead of print]48(3):

Worthwhile or wasteful? Assessing the impact of funding, author collaboration and article availability on article metrics.

Christos Livas, Nikolaos Pandis, Konstantina Delli.

   OBJECTIVES: To examine the profile of funded orthodontic articles and compare the citation impact and online visibility of grant-supported versus unfunded publications.
METHODS: All orthodontic articles published in 2021 that included funding acknowledgments were retrieved through a systematic search of the Web of Science (WoS) Core Collection. Article, authorship collaboration and funding characteristics were analysed using negative binomial regression to evaluate their association with the number of WoS citations. Altmetric Attention Scores (AASs) and citations for a subsample of funded articles were compared with those of unfunded articles published in the same journals to assess the impact of funding.
RESULTS: A total of 484 publications were identified, with a median of 6 authors [interquartile range (IQR): 4], 3 institutions (IQR: 3), and 8 WoS citations (IQR: 10). More than half of the articles originated from Asia, and nearly one-fourth were published in journals issued by publishers once claimed as predatory. National collaboration, extramural funding, and national public funders accounted for the greatest proportion of publications. The number of collaborating countries and PubMed indexing were significantly associated with more citations (P < 0.05), while free article availability and author origin showed weaker associations (P = 0.05 and P = 0.06, respectively). Unfunded publications appeared to receive significantly higher citation counts and AASs compared with funded ones.
CONCLUSIONS: The number of collaborating countries and PubMed indexing were significantly associated with a higher citation impact among grant-supported orthodontic articles. Funding did not appear to significantly influence citation numbers or online attention. The substantial involvement of formerly flagged predatory publishers in the publication of funded orthodontic studies could prompt ethical concerns.

Keywords:  altmetrics; bibliometrics; funding; social media

DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjag015
JSES Int. 2026 Jul;10(4): 101691

Bibliometric analysis of the Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery: citation trends, evidence levels, and scholarly impact.

Joseph Torkieh, Keanu Shah, Kira N Kornienko, James M Lee, Rahul Mittal.

   Background: The Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery (JSES) is a leading publication for upper-extremity research; however, no comprehensive bibliometric evaluation of its most influential work has been performed. This study aimed to identify the most-cited articles and authors in JSES and to analyze trends in evidence level, study design, and authorship characteristics.
Methods: A bibliometric analysis using Scopus identified all JSES publications from 1992 to 2024. The 20 most-cited articles and 100 most-cited authors were assessed for citation impact, article type, evidence level, author demographics, and relative citation index. Authorship patterns were analyzed across first, last, and any author positions.
Results: Among 7,171 JSES publications, 606 articles (8.5%) had ≥100 citations. The top 20 articles received 495-1,441 citations and were all clinical studies, most commonly Level II (55%) and Level IV (30%). The most-cited article was "A standardized method for the assessment of shoulder function" (1,441 citations). Gilles Walch (France) was the most-cited author overall (10,908 citations), while John W. Sperling (USA) was the most prolific (134 publications). U.S.-based authors represented the majority of highly cited contributors, followed by France and Switzerland, while female and non-Western authors remained underrepresented.
Conclusion: Highly cited JSES publications are predominantly mid-level evidence of clinical studies, reflecting the practical nature of upper-extremity research and challenges in conducting randomized trials. Authorship trends show both increasing participation and broad international involvement. Improving study quality and continuing to broaden global representation are key priorities for future scholarship.

Keywords:  Authorship trend; Bibliometrics; Citation analysis; Evidence level; Orthopedics; Shoulder surgery

DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jseint.2026.101691
JSES Int. 2026 Jul;10(4): 101701

What are the most disruptive publications in shoulder surgery?

Sameer R Khawaja, Shragvi Balaji, Corey Hryc, Hussein A Elkousy, Michael B Gottschalk, Jon J P Warner, Eric R Wagner, T Bradley Edwards.

   Background: Shoulder surgery literature has demonstrated significant advances over the past century, but a quantitative understanding of which publications truly disrupt the field vs. those that consolidate existing knowledge remains limited. The Disruption Index (DI), a validated bibliometric value, provides a novel approach to assessing whether subsequent research shifts attention away from a publication (disruptive innovation) or builds upon them (consolidation). We hypothesized that the DI analysis would identify distinct shoulder literature compared to publications identified by citation count alone.
Methods: A retrospective bibliometric analysis was performed using PubMed and the DI framework to query and analyze shoulder-related publications from 15 prominent orthopedic surgery journals. Disruption scores were calculated as DS = (A-B)/(C + D), where A = future publications citing the focal article without citing its references; B = number of publications citing the focal article and at least one of its references; C = number of times the focal article was cited; and D = number of future publications that cited at least one of the references of the focal article but did not cite the focal article itself. The top 25 most disruptive publications were identified, while also recording author count and temporal trends. Statistical analyses included correlation testing and descriptive statistics.
Results: A total of 5,878 shoulder surgery publications published in 15 journals between 1954 and 2014 were identified and analyzed. The mean DI for all publications was -0.01 ± 0.04. Disruptive scores were found to be poorly correlated with citation count (r = 0.148, P < .001). Shoulder literature published in 1955 and 1967 had the highest mean disruption scores, 0.16 ± 0.27 and 0.15 ± 0.21, respectively. Mean disruption values remained close to zero across team sizes. The most disruptive publication was "A Clinical Method of Functional Assessment of the Shoulder" (DI: 0.77; 1,724 citations). The top 25 publications had a mean DI of 0.37 ± 0.17, citation count of 230.9 ± 395.1, and 2.8 ± 1.8 authors. With the top 25 publications, DI and citation count were strongly correlated (r = 0.81, P = .005).
Discussion: This study marks the first use of the disruption metric in orthopedic surgery. In contrast to prior studies investigating disruption within other specialties, shoulder literature exhibits a lower level of disruption. These findings offer a glimpse into the trajectory of shoulder literature, potentially underscoring the need to move beyond established paradigms and possibly toward paradigm-shifting topics.

Keywords:  Disruption; Disruption index; Innovation; Publication; Shoulder literature; Shoulder surgery

DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jseint.2026.101701
Am J Pharm Educ. 2026 May 07. pii: S0002-9459(26)01352-5. [Epub ahead of print] 101996

Trends in Authorship in American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education and 100 Pharmaceutical Journals (2021-2024).

Siddig Ibrahim Abdelwahab, Abdullah Farasani, Zenat A Khired, Ahmad Assiri, Abdelkhalig Hussein Elhilu, Waseem Hassan.

   BACKGROUND: Although short-term authorship trends in the American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education (AJPE) have been examined, comprehensive long-term, field-wide assessments remain limited.
OBJECTIVE: To (1) evaluate authorship trends in the American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education (AJPE) from 1946 to 2024, and (2) examine the relationship between author growth rate and CiteScore across top pharmaceutical science journals (2021-2024).
METHODS: Phase one analyzed 4,095 AJPE articles (3,697 originals; 398 reviews) indexed in Scopus. Publications were grouped by era to assess changes in average authors per article. Phase two examined 100 leading pharmaceutical journals (2021-2024), selected by publication volume. Data on publication count, total citations, authorship, and author growth rate were collected. Linear regression assessed the association between author growth (independent) and CiteScore (dependent).
RESULTS: AJPE showed a steady rise in authorship, from 1.48 authors/article before 2000 to 3.50 in 2021-2024. In the broader pharmaceutical field (Phase two) 150,774 papers yielded 1,438,377 citations with average citations per article dropping from 16.4 in 2021 to 2.7 in 2024, reflecting citation lag. Among 100 journals, 137,717 papers involved 677,141 authors; 57 journals had increasing authorship. However, regression on 68 journals found no significant association between author growth and CiteScore. The regression coefficient was near zero.
CONCLUSION: AJPE data confirm a decades-long rise in collaborative publishing.

Keywords:  AJPE; Authorship trends; bibliometric analysis; multi-authorship; pharmacy education; scholarly publishing

DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajpe.2026.101996
Health Res Policy Syst. 2026 May 14.

Citation and policy influence of research using demographic and health survey data: a bibliometric analysis.

Evans Omondi, Eliud Wekesa, Symon M Kariuki, Rachel Odhiambo, Daniel Osuka, Soumaila Ouedraogo, Patricia Kitsao-Wekulo, Agnes Kiragga, Catherine Kyobutungi.

   BACKGROUND: While citation counts are critical metrics for scholarly impact of research articles, they cannot objectively measure other impacts of research to society. Research articles have broader impact beyond academic, including informing health policy-making, planning and practice, but this utility has not been systematically examined for the Demographic and Health Survey (DHS)-based publications. This paper examines both the academic and policy-related impacts of DHS-based articles.
METHODS: A systematic search was conducted in PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Wiley Online Library and Dimensions and grey literature (theses and dissertations) to identify DHS-based publications since 1984. Academic impact was assessed through journal destinations, scope, accessibility and citation counts. To assess policy impact, this study utilizes the Overton database to identify citations of scientific research in policy documents.
RESULTS: Citation to DHS-based publications have increased over the last four decades, contributing significantly to the public health evidence that has been utilized for academic and policy in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Multidisciplinary and open-access journals such as PLOS One have predominantly published DHS-citation related research, often led by researchers from high-income countries (HICs). While open-access has improved accessibility for LMIC-led research, citation impact is skewed towards HIC-led studies, suggesting inequities in the citation impact landscape. The steady increase in both scholarly and policy citations indicates that DHS-based research is an important resource for academic and global health policy-making.
CONCLUSIONS: DHS-based evidence plays a critical role in both academic and policy spheres. Its consistent citation growth demonstrates the scientific value of open, standardized, nationally representative data and its citation growth in policy documents underscores the need for continued investment in the programme to support evidence-based decision-making in LMICs.

Keywords:  Academic impact; Demographic and health survey; Policy influence; Public health; Research evaluation; Societal impact

DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-026-01487-0
Ann Plast Surg. 2026 May 11.

Conversion Rate of Abstracts Presented at Regional Plastic Surgery Conferences in the United States.

Isaac Mordukhovich, Lindsay Park, Mihir Patel, Thomas Traub, Emanuella Brito, Bahar Bassiri Gharb, Antonio Rampazzo.

   BACKGROUND: Conference presentations are a crucial instrument for disseminating research and measuring academic productivity in plastic surgery education. Much attention has been given to outcomes of abstracts presented at national conferences, but less so in regional settings. To better understand the validity and ultimate outcomes of abstracts presented at regional conferences, we evaluated their trends in abstract-to-peer-reviewed publication conversion.
METHODS: Regional plastic surgery conferences' publicly available oral abstract information for 2022 and 2023 was used to find corresponding full-length publications using keywords and author names. Abstract topic, study design, and author institutions/degrees were collected and evaluated for their influence on publication odds and lag time within 2.5 years of presentation.
RESULTS: Southeast (SESPRS), Northeast (NESPS), New England (NESPRS), California (CSPS), Ohio Valley (OVSPS), and Mountain West (MWSPS) conferences were evaluated and compared with national conferences [Plastic Surgery Research Council (PSRC) and American Association of Plastic Surgeons (AAPS) annual meetings]. 2.5-year publication time ( P =0.050) and odds ( P <0.01) differed significantly across conferences, as did the composition of abstract topics and study designs ( P <0.01). The journals that published abstracts also differed significantly by conference ( P <0.01). CSPS, NESPS, and SESPRS had comparable publication conversion rates (66.7% to 68.4%) as national conferences (65.7% to 69.6%) and published in plastic surgery journals more often (87.3% to 92.3% vs. 56.5% to 80.0%). Notably, NESPS and OVSPS abstracts presented on medical education and reconstruction/microsurgery more often, respectively, and also published these topics with greater frequency. On multivariate analysis, abstract year strongly influenced the odds of an abstract converting to a full-length, peer-reviewed, published manuscript within 2.5 years (OR=0.67, P <0.01). Database, systematic review, and retrospective clinical studies increased 2.5-year conversion odds (OR≥3.04, P ≤0.036), whereas MWSPS and OVSPS conference abstracts had lower odds ( P ≤0.012). The only significant predictor of the time from presentation to publication was presentation of an abstract at PSRC (β=-2.73, P =0.021).
CONCLUSIONS: Regional conferences contribute equally to research metrics, but differences in real-world impact and peer-reviewed outputs exist. However, these trends are not necessarily inferior to those of national conferences. Different regions also generate more abstracts on specific plastic surgery topics, although such specializations rarely persist into published full-length manuscripts.

Keywords:  medical education; plastic surgery; research conferences

DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1097/SAP.0000000000004773
Cureus. 2026 Apr;18(4): e106806

A Comprehensive Bibliometric Analysis of U.S. Neurosurgical Residency Programs: Evaluating Recent Research Productivity, Citation Impact, and Publication Equity.

Maxon Bassett, Ivy B Nguyen, Sachi Patel, Leah Kunneth, Makenna Taylor, Jada E Ashford, Isha Patel, Josephine Jalkh, Nickalus Khan, L Madison Michael Ii.

  Bibliometric analyses are essential for assessing research productivity and impact in academic medicine, particularly in neurosurgery. Traditional indices, such as the h-index, provide valuable insights into scholarly output but may disproportionately reflect past productivity. The five-year h-index (ih(5)-index) addresses this limitation by focusing on recent academic contributions. This study aims to update bibliometric assessments of U.S. neurosurgical residency programs, ranking institutions based on recent research performance and examining factors influencing publication equality. All Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME)-accredited U.S. neurosurgical residency programs were included. Faculty rosters were compiled from departmental websites, and publication and citation data from 2019 to 2024 were retrieved using Scopus. Bibliometric indices, including the ih(5)-index, ig(5)-index, ie(5)-index, and i10(5)-index, were calculated. Programs were ranked based on these metrics, and regional variations were analyzed. Additionally, publication equality was assessed using Lorenz curves and Gini coefficients, with statistical analyses identifying predictors of balanced scholarly contributions. The Western region demonstrated the highest median ih(5)-index (32.5), followed by the Northeast and Midwest (both 27), and the South (25). The top five neurosurgical programs in recent research productivity were the University of California San Francisco, Stanford Health Care, Duke University Hospital, Johns Hopkins University, and McGaw Medical Center of Northwestern University. The ih(5)-index correlated positively with total research output and negatively with publication inequality, emerging as an independent predictor of a balanced distribution of scholarly contributions. This study provides an updated evaluation of neurosurgical research productivity, offering valuable insights for prospective residents, academic institutions, and funding bodies. The ih(5)-index serves as a key metric for assessing recent research performance and equitable scholarly contributions, ensuring that bibliometric evaluations remain relevant and informative.

Keywords:  academic output; h-index; neurosurgery; publication trends; residency

DOI:  https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.106806
Discov Oncol. 2026 May 14.

A bibliometric analysis of optogenetics in cancer research based on the web of science core collection.

Yulai Yin, Yang Jiang, Shuo Gong, Shufa Tan, Ling Huang, Chen Xu.

   OBJECTIVE: To conduct a bibliometric analysis of the research literature on optogenetics in the field of cancer.
METHODS: A literature search and screening were performed using the query "ALL FIELD = (Cancer) AND ALL FIELD = (Optogenetics)" in the Core Collection database of Web of Science. Bibliometric analyses at the levels of country, institution, journal, author, and keyword were carried out using CiteSpace, VOSviewer, and the Bibliometrix online platform. Additionally, co-citation and keyword clustering analyses were performed.
RESULTS: A total of 304 articles published between 2009 and September 2025 (including early online and pending publications) were identified, sourced from 146 different journals. The average publication time was 4.7 years, with an average citation count of 44.76 per article. A total of 791 unique author keywords were identified, corresponding to 2,215 distinct authors, including one single-author article. The analysis reveals that research on optogenetics in cancer remains vibrant, with a consistent increase in publication volume over the years. Research is primarily concentrated in economically advanced countries such as the United States and China. High-impact journals, such as Nature Communications, publish the majority of these studies. Leading authors are primarily from China and the United States, with research hotspots emerging in recent years. "Optogenetics" has emerged as the dominant keyword, with research topics shifting from early studies on optical control to more recent areas, such as engineered bacteria and differentiation.
CONCLUSION: Current research trends in optogenetics and cancer focus on engineered bacteria, differentiation, and the exploration of cellular signaling mechanisms. Future research should prioritize the development of optogenetic cancer cell models and the investigation of underlying cellular pathway mechanisms. Moreover, future studies integrating optogenetic control with immunotherapeutic strategies may offer transformative advances in cancer treatment.

Keywords:  Bibliometrics; Cancer; Optogenetic proteins; Optogenetics

DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12672-026-05107-9
J Am Board Fam Med. 2026 Jan;pii: 158310. [Epub ahead of print]39(1):

Gender Differences in National Institutes of Health Funding for Family Medicine Faculty.

Shurjeel Uddin Qazi, Jeanne Cawse-Lucas, Mehwish Hussain, Kiran Khurshid, Faisal Khosa.

   INTRODUCTION: The present study investigated the current trends of gender disparity in the National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding patterns for research within Family Medicine.
METHODS: Funding data was collected from the online NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools Expenditure and Results (RePORTER) system for fiscal years 2017-2020, and information regarding each Principal Investigator (PI) was retrieved from the Scopus database and departmental websites. Mann-Whitney U and Kruskal Wallis tests were performed on collected data for statistical comparison of continuous variables.
RESULTS: We analyzed 730 grants in our analysis. Amongst them, 398 (54.5%) were awarded to women PIs and 332 (45.5%) to men PIs. The mean NIH grant amount awarded to men PIs (518,862±490,793.32) was significantly higher than the mean grant amount awarded to women PIs (450,195±428,405.62) (p = 0.04). The strongest correlation between NIH funding and academic output was observed for the number of publications of men PIs. When the gender of PI and co-PI were analyzed together, there was no significant difference in the number of grants or mean grant amount. Stratification by academic degree revealed no significant difference between both genders for the mean NIH grant amount.
CONCLUSION: Despite the increasing representation of women within the discipline of family medicine, men continue to receive higher average NIH grant amounts compared to women. The differences are multifactorial and may include differences in academic productivity or grant committees' heuristics. Overall, the results were promising with little evidence of significant gender disequilibrium within NIH-funding for researchers in FM.

Keywords:  Academic Success; Bibliometrics; Faculty; Family Medicine; Funds; Gender Equity; Grants; National Institutes of Health; Women Physicians

DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3122/jabfm.2025.250118R1
J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2026 May 13.

The Open Versus Closed Access Publication Advantage in Orthopaedic Surgery.

Serena K Kothari, Daniel Nemirov, Simran Shamith, Neshal K Kothari, Asif M Ilyas.

BACKGROUND: As scientific publishing has shifted to digital platforms, two primary article-publishing modalities have emerged: open access and closed access. Open access is freely accessible with an article processing charge (APC) paid by authors, whereas closed access lies behind paywalls, with low to no APC for authors. As the academic community increasingly relies on digital dissemination, it is critical to evaluate how these models influence research visibility and impact. This study compared open versus closed access randomized control trials (RCTs) across five prevalent orthopaedic conditions by analyzing attention scores, social media metrics, readership, and citations. The study hypothesis was that open access publications would have higher attention and readership, whereas closed access articles would yield more citations.
METHODS: A PubMed search was conducted in May 2025 to identify RCTs on rotator cuff tears, carpal tunnel syndrome, hip fractures, anterior cruciate ligament tears, and Achilles tendon ruptures. Altmetric Attention Scores, X mentions, Facebook mentions, news mentions, Mendeley readers, and Dimensions citations were collected for each article using the Altmetric Explorer database. A negative binomial regression, adjusted for time since publication, was used to compare metrics between open and closed access publications.
RESULTS: Of 1,223 articles studied, 53.8% of the articles were open access and 46.2% were closed access. Open access articles had significantly higher Altmetric Attention Scores (44.1 ± 197 vs 17.2 ± 52.0), X mentions (32.2 ± 27.1 vs 17.4 ± 38.4), Facebook mentions (1.2 ± 4.3 vs 1 ± 2.5), news mentions (4.1 ± 25.2 vs 1.0 ± 7.2), number of Mendeley readers (136.6 ± 127.9 vs 113.4 ± 108), and, notably, number of Dimensions citations (36.8 ± 88.9 vs 30.1 ± 45.6) compared with closed access articles ( P < 0.05).
CONCLUSION: Contrary to our initial hypothesis, open access articles had higher attention metrics and citation numbers when compared with closed access publications. These findings suggest that open access publishing not only enhances visibility and engagement but also may increase academic impact across multiple orthopaedic subspecialties.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5435/JAAOS-D-25-00915
Int J Cardiol Heart Vasc. 2026 Feb;62 101853

On the mh-index and simple efficiency metrics for Assessing scientific contributions.

Paulo Roberto Benchimol-Barbosa.



Keywords:  Bibliometrics; Cardiology; H-index; Research evaluation; Scientometrics

DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcha.2025.101853
Indian J Community Med. 2026 Mar-Apr;51(2):51(2): 229-232

Challenges in Academic Authorship and Citation Metrics: Navigating Inflation, Biases, and the Rise of Evidence Synthesis.

Sudip Bhattacharya, Samiksha Bhattacharjee, Sunil Kumar Panigrahi, Ananda Datta, Soumi Kundu, Indranil Das, Anirban Ganguly.

  This paper examines the challenges in academic publishing related to authorship inflation, citation bias, and the overreliance on quantitative metrics to evaluate research impact. Authorship inflation, including "gift authorship," occurs when individuals with minimal contributions are listed as co-authors, often due to institutional or political norms, inflating academic profiles without reflecting actual input. The study also discusses how citation patterns differ across disciplines, with high-citation fields like biomedical sciences benefiting from larger, faster publications, while researchers in humanities or social sciences may be overlooked despite producing impactful work. The "Matthew Effect" further exacerbates this disparity as highly cited researchers continue to accumulate citations regardless of their contributions. Geographical and institutional biases also play a role, with researchers from high-income countries or prestigious institutions often receiving more recognition than those from low-income regions. The paper highlights how large collaborative works, such as the Human Genome Project or COVID-19 studies, can distort citation metrics and create inequalities in recognition. It proposes solutions such as transparent authorship roles, normalized citation metrics, and focus on qualitative assessments in hiring and promotion processes to address these issues and promote a more equitable academic environment.

Keywords:  Authorship; biases; citation metrics; evidence synthesis

DOI:  https://doi.org/10.4103/ijcm.ijcm_9_25
BMC Vet Res. 2026 May 16.

Collaboration, impact, and research trends at the veterinary research institutes of the Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences: a bibliometric analysis from 2009 to 2023.

Zaib Ur Rehman, Muhammad Jahandad Basra, Adnan Hassan Tahir, Zahid Manzoor, Shanhui Ren, Alia Afzal, Chunchun Meng.

  This paper examines the research output and impact of Veterinary Research Institutes (VRIs) of the Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences (CAAS), namely Shanghai Veterinary Research Institute (SHVRI), Harbin Veterinary Research Institute (HVRI), and Lanzhou Veterinary Research Institute (LVRI), to answer research questions. The study explores publication count, citation structure, h-index, most-cited articles, keyword trends, trend topics, co-authorship, thematic maps, and bibliographic coupling. The data is extracted from Scopus, covering publications from 2009 to 2023. Utilizing Excel, R (Biblioshiny), and VOSviewer (version 1.6.20, Leiden University, Netherlands), we found that VRIs of the CAAS demonstrated a steady upward trend in their research output, with SHVRI leading in top-cited articles, HVRI in citations and h-index, and LVRI in publications. Key journals include Veterinary Microbiology and Parasites and Vectors. Leading authors are Chan Ding (SHVRI), Xiaomei Wang (HVRI), and Xing-Quan Zhu (LVRI). Key research focus is on parasitology, virology, immunology, and molecular biology. SHVRI and HVRI's demonstrated focus is on virology, while LVRI's interest is in genetic analyses of the pathogens. Bibliographic coupling highlights core themes: SHVRI on Newcastle disease, Schistosoma japonicum, Toxoplasma gondii, and Porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus; HVRI on African swine fever virus, Influenza viruses, and Porcine epidemic diarrhea virus; and LVRI on Toxoplasma gondii, the parasitic mitochondrial genome, and Foot and Mouth disease virus. Findings reflect CAAS's commitment to addressing critical animal diseases for China's development and food security.

Keywords:  Bibliometric analysis; Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences; Science mapping; VOSviewer; Veterinary Research Institutes

DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1186/s12917-026-05531-7
Bull Am Meteorol Soc. 2026 Mar;107(3): E356-E371

Conflicts of Interest, Funding Support, and Author Affiliation in Peer-Reviewed Research on the Relationship between Climate Change and Geophysical Characteristics of Hurricanes.

Jessica Weinkle, Paula Glover, Ryan Philips, Wiliam Tepper, Min Shi, David B Resnik.

  We analyzed 82 peer-reviewed articles on the relationship between climate change and the geophysical properties of hurricanes published between 1994 and 2023 to determine whether conflicts of interest (COI) disclosures, funding support, or author affiliation are associated with study outcomes or recommendations. There were no associations between COI disclosures and study outcomes or recommendations because none (0) of the 331 authors disclosed COIs. First author having a government affiliation was a significant predictor of making a policy recommendation in the article (odds ratio = 5.44; p value = 0.03). Publication year 2016 or later [odds ratio (OR) = 17.2; p value = 4 × 10-4] and journal impact factor (OR = 1.08; p value = 0.004) were significant predictors of finding a positive association between climate change and geophysical properties of hurricanes. To promote objectivity, transparency, and trust in climate science, journals that publish this research should clearly state that authors must disclose financial and nonfinancial COIs and provide clear processes for doing so. Scientific societies and journals should foster COI disclosure as a norm of professional ethics through policy development, education, and peer modeling.

Keywords:  Climate; Hurricanes/typhoons; Policy; Social Science

DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1175/bams-d-24-0260.1
Account Res. 2026 May 14. 2671154

Editorial expressions of concern are infrequent even for researchers with multiple retracted publications - An observational study.

Andrew Grey, Alison Avenell, Mark Bolland.

   BACKGROUND: Early notification of journal readers of the existence of publication integrity concerns by an editorial expression of concern (EoC) can mitigate the adverse effects of unreliable research.
METHODS: We extracted EoCs and retraction notices from the Retraction Watch database up until the end of 2024. We assessed temporal trends in publication of each notice, the proportion of retracted papers with an associated EoC, and the timing of EoCs according to publication date and retraction status. We examined the ratio of EoCs to retractions among authors, including those with multiple retractions, and among both journals and publishers.
RESULTS: EoCs were rarely published during the 14y assessment period. Only 3.3% of retracted papers had a preceding EoC. For 56% of publications with an EoC, the EoC was the latest notice. 92% of authors had an EoC:retraction ratio < 1. Only 35% of authors with > 5 retractions had an EoC, and 99% had an EoC:retraction ratio < 1. Publication of an EoC was more common in journals which had published > 5 retractions than in those which had published < 5.
CONCLUSIONS: EoCs are rarely employed during the assessment of publication integrity concerns. Journal readers are disadvantaged by delayed notification of potentially unreliable research.

Keywords:  Expression of concern; publication integrity; retraction

DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2026.2671154
BMJ. 2026 May 13. 393 s873

AI, bibliometric ethics, and the need for practical wisdom.

Timothy P Daly, Jaime A Teixeira da Silva.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.s873
J Med Educ Curric Dev. 2026 Jan-Dec;13:13 23821205261441379

A National Oncology Fellows' Competition Advancing Clinical Research and Publication.

Joseph G Kattan, Tala A Najdi, Clarisse J Kattan, Elie F Nemr.

   Purpose: Encouraging research and scientific publication among oncology trainees is a central component of fellowship training, yet opportunities can be limited in resource-constrained settings. The Forum of Research in Oncology (FRON) was established in Lebanon in 2014 to foster clinical research skills, mentorship, and academic output among oncology fellows.
Design: Initially held within a single institution, FRON expanded to include 6 medical schools across Lebanon and neighboring countries, thereby promoting national and regional collaboration. The competition's structure includes abstract submission, preselection, presentations, and evaluation by an expert jury.
Results: Over the past decade, FRON has demonstrated a substantial positive impact on research productivity, with a marked increase in peer-reviewed publications, higher journal impact factors, and enhanced participation of fellows and students.
Conclusion: Beyond measurable academic output, FRON participation has facilitated career advancement and fostered a culture of scientific inquiry by providing a structured, competitive, and mentorship-driven platform.

Keywords:  Medical research; oncology trainees; peer-reviewed articles; publication

DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1177/23821205261441379
Res Integr Peer Rev. 2026 May 15. pii: 16. [Epub ahead of print]11(1):

A portrait of commissioned literature: connecting the dots between medical education and communication companies, authors, funders and publishers.

Maud Bernisson.

   BACKGROUND: Medical education and communication companies (MECCs) are key actors in the production of commissioned publications. Analyzing publications that acknowledge medical writing offers a broad overview of their role, which is scarce in the literature. The reason is that activities related to industry-funded research are highly opaque, which makes access to this information particularly hard, and related analyses scarce. This article offers a novel approach to collecting, and thus, analyzing data. It maps how MECCs, funders, authors, and publishers organize to produce this literature and identifies risks of research integrity breaches.
METHODS: The database contains the metadata of 29 911 commissioned papers collected from Web of Science (WoS). All articles involving medical writing were collected if they mentioned "medical writing" in WoS, if they were published by MECCs websites, and if they were listed in publication trackers (documents that list the publications of companies, found on the Industry Documents Library (IDL)). The metadata were collected semi-automatically (manually and with R). Reference lists were built to extract MECCs from acknowledgments and harmonize organizations' names. The analysis maps the relationships among MECCs, authors, funders, and publishers and shows how they connect.
RESULTS: In contrast with pharmaceutical companies and research institutes, only 33.6% of MECCs are listed in the bylines and even less (18%) are acknowledged in the publications found on their websites and on the Industry Documents Library. Even though they provide writing, MECCs are usually not considered as authors. Medical writing is a flourishing business and MECCs are key actors. Only a few sponsors (5.5%) outsource medical writing to many MECCs, and a few MECCs (7.7%) have a high number of clients. The medical writing market is thus very competitive and can benefit sponsors. MECCs sometimes publish in journals that are owned by their parent or sister companies. The business model of the publishers largely benefits from medical writing by publishing their product, and sometimes providing it as a service.
CONCLUSIONS: The database presented in this article offers new routes to explore the key role of MECCs in industry-funded research and to further assess the commissioned literature and its impacts on biomedical science and research integrity.

Keywords:  Authorship; Industry-funded research; Medical writing

DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-026-00194-2
Pak J Med Sci. 2026 Apr;42(411AASC): S1-S2

Academic Collaboration with Medical Institutions to Promote Research Culture.

Shaukat Ali Jawaid.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.12669/pjms.42.(11AASC).15921