bims-evares Biomed News
on Evaluation of research
Issue of 2026–06–21
twenty-two papers selected by
Thomas Krichel, Open Library Society
  1. Dataset for the study of gender disparities in publishing on energy.
  2. Retracted publications in medical journals: a cross-sectional, cross-disciplinary analysis.
  3. Gender bias in guidelines and recommendations on rheumatology in Argentina: A bibliometric analysis.
  4. Female authorship in "Women in STEM" fields: A bibliometric analysis.
  5. The 100 Most Cited Articles in Paediatric Dentistry: What Has Changed?
  6. Predominantly middle authors in radiology: a bibliometric assessment.
  7. Bibliometric characteristics of highly cited publications from the Indian Journal of Medical Research.
  8. Trends in Women Authoring Editorials in Cardiothoracic Surgery Journals.
  9. Assessment of influential authors and articles in spine surgery research: a narrative review.
  10. A Bibliometric Assessment of the Turkish Journal of Orthodontics after WoS Indexing.
  11. Scholarly productivity of non-pharmacy practice faculty in U.S. schools and colleges of pharmacy, 2019-2023.
  12. Global Trends and Collaborative Networks in Serotonin-Mediated Pain Modulation Research: A Scoping Review and Bibliometric Analysis.
  13. Iranian Researchers' Contribution to Emergency Medicine During 1972-2024; A Bibliometric and Scientific Visualization Study.
  14. The elephant in the room: impact factor.
  15. Authorship and citation trends in dementia research: A path to equitable career development for scientists.
  16. Balancing the Positives and Negatives: A Bibliometric Analysis of Positive and Negative Study Publication Patterns in High-Impact General Medical Journals.
  17. Gender gap in returns to publications.
  18. A reproducible bibliometric-content analysis workflow for mapping research fields in computer science.
  19. H-index and academic rank in psychiatry: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
  20. A bibliometric analysis describing the global scope of pharmacist roles (2000-2024).
  21. Research "junkification" is caused by researchers, not journals.
  22. Improving face-to-face communication can increase productivity.
  1. Data Brief. 2026 Aug;67 112896
    Dataset for the study of gender disparities in publishing on energy.
    Matúš Mišík, Veronika Oravcová, Kateryna Yakovenko, Raffaele Mattera, Péter Vakhal.
      Gender differences are studied in academic literature from various angles, including the variances in publishing strategies between male and female authors. In many research communities, the quantity and quality of publications are detrimental to career development, academic position, and other factors. The quality of publications is, however, difficult to evaluate, and the impact factor of a journal is often considered a proxy for the journal's quality. This article presents a dataset of 1842 articles published between 2004 and 2017 on the topic of energy in Central and Eastern Europe in journals with assigned impact factors and listed in the Web of Science database. Previously published studies relied on machine-assisted assignment of gender, which has limited accuracy in assigning gender. We have manually collected English-language articles and coded the gender of their authors to overcome these challenges. This dataset presents data on articles (journal in which they were published, year of publication, impact factor of the journal, research area, etc.), as well as their authors (name of the first author and their gender, number of co-authors, names of all co-authors) and their gender. The article "Gender and authorship in energy studies: Is there an impact?" [1] uses this data as the principal source for its analysis.
    Keywords:  Academia; Disparities; Energy; Gender; Impact factor; Research
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dib.2026.112896
  2. Swiss Med Wkly. 2026 Apr 27. 156 4685
    Retracted publications in medical journals: a cross-sectional, cross-disciplinary analysis.
    Paul Sebo.
       OBJECTIVE: To quantify the number and proportion of retracted publications across 131 high-impact medical journals spanning nine clinical disciplines and to compare retraction rates and the proportion of misconduct-related retractions across journals and disciplines.
    METHODS: This cross-sectional study analysed all retracted publications in 131 top-ranked journals (15 per discipline) in anaesthesiology, dermatology, general internal medicine, gynaecology/obstetrics, neurology, oncology, paediatrics, psychiatry and radiology. Journals were selected using the 2023 Journal Impact Factor from Clarivate's Journal Citation Reports. Retractions were identified in the Retraction Watch Database (RWD), PubMed and the Web of Science from journal inception to 15 December 2024. Retraction rates per 1000 publications were calculated using total publication output indexed in PubMed. The proportion of misconduct-related retractions was determined based on the RWD classification.
    RESULTS: 878 retracted publications have been identified among 422,827 publications in total, corresponding to a retraction rate of 2.1 per 1000. Among the 811 retractions with available data on reasons, 542 (66.8%) were attributed to misconduct. Retraction rates and the proportion of misconduct-related retractions varied widely across disciplines. Anaesthesiology accounted for the highest retraction rate (7.0 per 1000) and the highest proportion of misconduct-related retractions (88.9%). All authors with ≥20 retracted articles were anaesthetists based in Japan or Germany.
    CONCLUSION: Retractions and misconduct-related retractions are unevenly distributed across disciplines. These findings underscore the importance of strengthening editorial oversight and promoting research integrity.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.57187/4685
  3. Reumatol Clin (Engl Ed). 2026 May;pii: S2173-5743(26)00080-8. [Epub ahead of print]22(5): 502156
    Gender bias in guidelines and recommendations on rheumatology in Argentina: A bibliometric analysis.
    Belén Navarro, Gabriel Sequeira, Eduardo Kerzberg.
       INTRODUCTION: Women constitute the majority in Argentine rheumatology research, but their participation in rheumatology guidelines and recommendations (RGRs) has not been evaluated.
    OBJECTIVE: To analyze women's representation in RGRs published between 2010 and 2024 that included at least one Argentine rheumatologist.
    METHODS: Cross-sectional bibliometric study of rheumatology guidelines and recommendations published between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2024, including at least one rheumatologist affiliated with an Argentine center. Publications were identified through searches in PubMed, the Revista Argentina de Reumatología, and Google Scholar using predefined affiliation-based keywords. The main study variables were author gender, first and corresponding authorship, guideline classification national (NAC) or international (INT), and declared conflicts of interest with the pharmaceutical industry. Descriptive analyses were performed, and group comparisons were conducted using the Mann-Whitney U test and chi-square test.
    RESULTS: Eighty-seven RGRs were analyzed (79% INT), with a median publication year of 2021. Of 526 authors, 274 (52%) were women. In NAC RGRs, 57% of authors were women versus 43% in INT (p=0.003). Among 25 first authors based in Argentina, 11 (44%) were women; among 12 corresponding authors, 5 (42%) were women. COIs were reported in 24 RGRs, totaling 59 declarations, 37 (63%) from men.
    CONCLUSIONS: Although women are the majority among Argentine rheumatology researchers, their representation decreases in international publications and leadership roles. Conflicts of interest show a gender bias favoring men.
    Keywords:  Clinical practice guidelines; Conflictos de interés; Conflicts of interest; Equidad de género; Gender equity; Guías de práctica clínica; Reumatología; Rheumatology
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.reumae.2026.502156
  4. Integr Comp Biol. 2026 Jun 17. pii: icag090. [Epub ahead of print]
    Female authorship in "Women in STEM" fields: A bibliometric analysis.
    Morgan E Swanson, Andrea L Liebl.
      Women in STEM and STEM-related fields face many issues preventing their sustained inclusion and success, from as early as childhood. Many issues persist into adulthood and careers, including pay disparities, hostile workplace interactions, workload imbalances, and uneven expectations in domestic roles. A growing body of literature seeks to address and analyze female disparities by studying and publishing research related to societal and cultural issues faced by women in STEM. However, the gender of the authors of literature focusing on this type of research also matters as a woman's experience in STEM might provide a different context; equally, male allyship is imperative to furthering gains made in the field. To determine what proportion of authors publishing on female disparity in STEM fields are women, we employed a large-scale bibliometric study to examine the trends in the proportion of three metrics of female authorship on publications related to "Women in STEM" topics; specifically, we analyzed the total female authors, female first authors, and female last authors of 7,240 published manuscripts. Literature published between 2000 and 2024 was accessed using a search engine with nine search terms related to issues facing women in STEM, including terms about gender parity, gender inequity, gender attrition, pay gaps, the leaky pipeline, student gender bias, and motherhood in STEM. Overall, the proportion of female authors in any position, including specifically as both first and last author, increased over the period of our study. Our results also indicate a sustained overrepresentation of female authors during the latter portions of our analysis. These results highlight an increase in female authorship on "Women in STEM" literature and demonstrate that female researchers are becoming more central in studying these topics. Although increasing female participation in subjects related to women in STEM is important for perspective, context, and solutions, male inclusion is also important to ensure buy-in in the workplace and allow an equal distribution of labor.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1093/icb/icag090
  5. Eur J Paediatr Dent. 2026 Jun 01. 27(2): 154-163
    The 100 Most Cited Articles in Paediatric Dentistry: What Has Changed?
    C Salerno, S Cirio, A Allam, M Mazur, M G Cagetti.
       AIM: To identify and analyse the 100 most-cited articles published in paediatric dentistry journals, providing an updated bibliometric overview of the field and comparing findings with previous analysis.
    METHODS: The Web of Science database was searched up to January 2026 to identify the most-cited papers published in paediatric dentistry journals. The top 100 articles were selected and analysed for citation count, publication year, source journal, geographic distribution, authorship, study design, and thematic area. Co-occurrence network analysis was performed using VOSviewer.
    CONCLUSION: Compared with the 2019 analysis, citation thresholds have risen substantially, systematic reviews have replaced cross-sectional studies as the dominant design, MIH has emerged as a leading research theme, and geographic disparities in citation accumulation persist and warrant attention.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.23804/ejpd.2026.2783
  6. Curr Probl Diagn Radiol. 2026 Jun 08. pii: S0363-0188(26)00113-1. [Epub ahead of print]
    Predominantly middle authors in radiology: a bibliometric assessment.
    Caline Azzi, Mahla Radmard, David M Yousem.
       PURPOSE: The participation in "team science" has led to the growth of co-authorship counts with resultant more middle authors in the medical and radiological literature. We sought to characterize predominantly middle author (PMA) academic radiologists and compare their bibliometrics with non-PMA (NPMA) faculty for advancement.
    METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional bibliometric analysis of 3,450 faculty who had ≥20 publications across 10 subspecialties at 143 U.S. institutions. PMAs were defined as authors with ≤10% combined first- and last-authored/total papers. A ≤20% sensitivity analysis was also performed. Mann-Whitney U tests, chi-square tests, and OLS regression (unadjusted, age-adjusted, and age+rank-adjusted) were performed.
    RESULTS: 139 (4.02%) of 3,450 faculty met PMA 10% criteria. 10% PMAs were significantly underrepresented at the full professor rank (19.4% vs 43.2%, p<0.001) and had shorter academic careers (median 16 vs 21 years, p<0.001) than NPMAs. PMAs had fewer total papers (median 34 vs 60) and lower h-indices (16 vs 19) (p<0.001). The number of citations/paper however favored PMAs (median 30.0 vs 24.6, p=0.040). After adjusting for academic age, total citations and h-index differences became non-significant, while the citations/paper advantage of PMAs strengthened (p<0.001). PMA prevalence correlated with subspecialty mega-author (>25 authors) paper participation (Spearman ρ=0.766, p=0.010). All findings were corroborated at the 20% sensitivity threshold.
    CONCLUSION: PMA radiologists demonstrate lower total publications and h-indices than NPMAs, yet their papers attract significantly more citations, suggesting participation in higher-impact collaborative research. They are under-represented at full professor ranks despite their contributions.
    Keywords:  Academic radiology; Authorship; Bibliometrics; Publications
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1067/j.cpradiol.2026.06.001
  7. Indian J Med Res. 2026 Jun;pii: 10.25259/IJMR_3273_2025. [Epub ahead of print]163(6): 819-828
    Bibliometric characteristics of highly cited publications from the Indian Journal of Medical Research.
    Raju Vaishya, Brij Mohan Gupta, Chaman Sab M, Abhishek Vaish, Albina Arjuman.
      Background and objectives Indian Journal of Medical Research (IJMR), established in 1913, is a cornerstone of Indian biomedical scholarship. This bibliometric study evaluated the highly cited publications (HCPs; ≥100 citations) to describe their profiles (themes and institutions). Methods From 14,834 Scopus-indexed records (1945-2024), 187 HCPs (1957-2022) were analysed using MS Excel and VOSviewer for citation trends, co-authorship networks (country, organisation, author), co-word analysis, and subject mapping across domains. Metrics included total citations (TC), citations per paper (CPP), and total link strength (TLS). Results Highly cited publications amassed 33,830 citations (average CPP: 180.9), with a predominance of review articles (58.3%; CPP: 197.6). Temporal peaks occurred in 2004-2015, stabilising post-2016. Communicable diseases led thematically (e.g., bacterial infections: 33 papers, 5,478 TC; virology: 23 papers, 3,432 TC), followed by non-communicable foci like diabetes (21 papers). India dominated (148 papers; >70%), with All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS)-New Delhi (23 papers; CPP: 181.5) and Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) (15 papers; CPP: 216.7) as hubs in a 12-cluster network (472 links; TLS: 447). International collaborations were limited (12.8%; CPP: 155.1), and so were external (national and international) funding (5.9%). Author networks emerging from the HCPS (5 clusters; 165 links; TLS: 170) centered on ICMR-AIIMS synergies; keywords clustered around metabolic ('diabetes mellitus': 17 occurrences) and infectious motifs. Interpretation and conclusions The findings of this analysis suggests that the IJMR reflects India's strengths in biomedical research, with a focus on review-based research and topics addressing the country's disease burden thus far. However, stronger national and international collaborations, along with improved research funding, are needed to enhance the global impact of its published research.
    Keywords:  Bibliometric analysis; Biomedical collaboration; Communicable diseases; Highly cited publications; Indian Journal of Medical Research; Non-communicable diseases
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.25259/IJMR_3273_2025
  8. Braz J Cardiovasc Surg. 2026 May 01. 41(3):
    Trends in Women Authoring Editorials in Cardiothoracic Surgery Journals.
    Emily Hyunmin Lee, Zoya Gomes, Jinny Minji Kim, Kiera Liblik, Nicole Travis, Susan Moffatt-Bruce, Marc Pelletier, Mohammad El-Diasty.
       INTRODUCTION: Women have historically been underrepresented in leadership positions and academia in cardiothoracic surgery, creating barriers to career advancement and limiting role models for trainees. While publications are used to measure success in academia, invited articles such as editorials often represent a formal recognition of expertise. The objective of this study was to identify trends in the gender of editorial authors published in cardiothoracic surgery journals.
    METHODS: Editorials published between 2018 and 2022 across 16 peer-reviewed cardiothoracic surgery journals were analyzed. Author gender was estimated using a validated tool (https://gender-api.com/) with additional verification using available institutional profiles.
    RESULTS: In total, 806 editorials were published with a total of 1,858 authors (293 women, 16%). Women authors were predominantly from the United States of America (45%) followed by India (9%) and Germany (8%). The percentage of women first authors increased between 2018 and 2022 (P < 0.001); 9% in 2018, 9% in 2019, 17% in 2020, 16% in 2021, and 23% in 2022. A similar trend was observed for women senior authorship (P < 0.0001) (6% in 2018, 9% in 2019, 14% in 2020, 15% in 2021, and 18% in 2022) as well as for editorials with all-women authorship (P < 0.0001), increasing steadily from 9% in 2018 to 20% in 2022.
    CONCLUSION: Women authorship in editorials published in cardiothoracic surgery journals has steadily increased in recent years. Despite progress, women still make up less than a quarter of first and senior authors, highlighting a critical gap in gender equity in academic leadership that must be urgently addressed.
    Keywords:  Authorship; Cardiothoracic Surgery; Gender; Gender Equity.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.21470/1678-9741-2025-0395
  9. J Spine Surg. 2026 May 31. 12(5): 79
    Assessment of influential authors and articles in spine surgery research: a narrative review.
    Sarah Bergren, Natalie M Kistler, Maya S Abu-Zahra, Aidan Lindgren, Daniel Rusu, Chimere O Ezuma, Henry Avetisian, Ram K Alluri.
       Background and Objective: While other bibliometric analyses have looked at various topics within spine surgery, few have systematically examined highly cited authors and articles within this field as a whole. This study examined the most cited authors and articles within spine surgery research to characterize the intellectual architecture of the field by quantifying publication trends, citation patterns, and authorship networks. Understanding the influence of individual contributors and highly cited publications provides insight into shifts in research priorities and the evolution of evidence within spine surgery.
    Methods: The Web of Science Core Collection was used to identify reviews and articles in 19 spine surgery-related journals from January 1, 1979, to December 31, 2024, and the 20 most cited authors in first, any, and last author position and the 20 most cited articles from 1979-2024 and 2014-2024 were determined.
    Key Content and Findings: We found that there were repeat authors in multiple author categories and within the top cited articles, pointing to the presence of a core group of researchers that substantially contributes to research output within this field. Furthermore, comparing the most cited articles of all time to the most cited articles in the last 10 years revealed a shift toward a broader range of topics, higher level of evidence studies and an increase in the number of clinical guidelines.
    Conclusions: These findings demonstrate the utility of analyzing citation trends and fostering high-quality, up-to-date research that includes a diverse set of perspectives to support the advancement of spine surgery scholarship.
    Keywords:  Authorship; evidence-based practice; research
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.21037/jss-2026-1-0044
  10. Turk J Orthod. 2026 Jun 17.
    A Bibliometric Assessment of the Turkish Journal of Orthodontics after WoS Indexing.
    Aylin Alaçam, Tuğba Güngör, Banu Sağlam Aydınatay.
       Objective: This study analyzed the publication characteristics, citation patterns, and research trends of the Turkish Journal of Orthodontics (TJO) since its Web of Science (WoS) indexing in 2017.
    Methods: A retrospective bibliometric analysis was conducted using data from the WoS Core Collection (2018-24) on April, 2025. Network analysis was performed using CiteSpace 6.3.R1 and VOSviewer 1.6.18. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze publication trends, authorship patterns, geographical distribution, and citation performance.
    Results: A total of 244 publications were analyzed, comprising 192 (78.7%) original articles, 27 (11.1%) reviews, eight (3.3%) systematic reviews, and 17 (7.0%) case reports. The journal achieved an h-index of 15, with 1408 total citations and an average of 5.77 citations per article. Türkiye contributed the most publications (58.2%), followed by India (16.8%), the USA (6.6%), and Iran (5.3%). International collaboration involved 39 countries, and the most-cited article received 32 citations. The gender distribution of authorship was closely balanced: 52.2% female and 47.8% male. 94.7% of publications were multi-authored, with an average of 3.5 authors per article. Keyword analysis revealed thematic clusters dominated by clear aligners, malocclusion, cone-beam computed tomography, and dental materials.
    Conclusion: TJO shows consistent growth in publication volume, expansion of international collaboration, and increases in citation impact since WoS indexing. The journal successfully captures emerging trends in clear aligners and rapid maxillary expansion while maintaining coverage of fundamental orthodontic topics. A strategic editorial evolution toward systematic reviews indicates a commitment to evidencebased practice. This bibliometric overview offers a data-driven foundation for future editorial decision-making and monitoring the journal's evolving role within orthodontic research.
    Keywords:  Abstracting and indexing; bibliometrics; journal impact factor; orthodontics; periodical
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.4274/TurkJOrthod.2026.2025.147
  11. Explor Res Clin Soc Pharm. 2026 Sep;23 100806
    Scholarly productivity of non-pharmacy practice faculty in U.S. schools and colleges of pharmacy, 2019-2023.
    Osama A Shoair, Sierra Pollard, Faith Fosuhene-Apenteng, Michael Pimentel-Galvan, Abrar Elagami, May H Abdel Aziz.
       Purpose: Scholarly productivity is central to academic advancement, institutional benchmarking, and accreditation in pharmacy education. This study evaluated the national scholarly productivity among non-pharmacy practice (NPP) faculty in U.S. schools and colleges of pharmacy and assessed variation in publication output across faculty and nppinstitutional characteristics.
    Methods: A retrospective bibliometric analysis was conducted between January 2019 and December 2023. Faculty were identified using the American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy Roster of Faculty and Professional Staff and classified as biomedical and pharmaceutical sciences (BPS) or social and administrative sciences (SAS). Publications were retrieved from Web of Science and characterized by type and scope.
    Results: The analysis included 1613 NPP faculty from 142 U.S. schools and colleges of pharmacy. The mean annual publication rate was 3.43 ± 4.35 per faculty member (median 2; IQR 0.8-4.6). Publication productivity was skewed, with 15% of faculty producing 50% of all publications. BPS faculty demonstrated higher productivity (median 2.8; IQR 1.0-7.8) than SAS faculty (median 1.8; IQR 0.6-4.2). Original research articles comprised 67.7% of publications, followed by meeting abstracts/proceedings (16.6%) and narrative reviews (8.9%). Most publications were BPS-focused (72.5%), followed by SAS/health economics and outcomes research/clinical trials (25.5%) and scholarship of teaching and learning (2.1%). Increased publication productivity was noted among senior academic ranks, at public institutions, within health science center-affiliated schools, and at institutions offering graduate programs and receiving higher levels of extramural funding.
    Conclusion: These findings provide contemporary national benchmarks for NPP scholarly productivity and highlight the influence of faculty and institutional characteristics on publication output.
    Keywords:  Biomedical and pharmaceutical sciences faculty; Publications; Research; Scholarly productivity; Social and administrative pharmacy faculty
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rcsop.2026.100806
  12. Curr Neuropharmacol. 2026 Jun 11.
    Global Trends and Collaborative Networks in Serotonin-Mediated Pain Modulation Research: A Scoping Review and Bibliometric Analysis.
    Alfonso Alfaro-Rodríguez, Jose-Luis Cortes-Altamirano, Samuel Reyes-Long, Elizabeth Herrera-Lopez, Francisco-Jacob Avila-Camacho, Herlinda Bonilla-Jaime, Abril Morraz-Varela, Karina Avendaño-Ortiz, Angelica Gonzalez-Maciel, Sergey K Ternovoy, Ernesto Roldan-Valadez.
       INTRODUCTION: Serotonin plays a critical role in pain modulation, making it a significant target for understanding and managing pain. Analyzing the most impactful publications can provide valuable insights into the intellectual structure, key contributors, and collaborative networks that have shaped the current state of knowledge in this field.
    METHODS: A systematic review and bibliometric analysis were conducted using the Scopus database, identifying 856 articles related to serotonin-mediated pain modulation. After applying the inclusion criteria, the top 100 most-cited articles published between 1999 and 2021 were selected, representing a total of 33,500 citations. Citation metrics, publication years, authorship, institutions, countries, and journals were analyzed. Additionally, co-citation, keyword co-occurrence, and collaboration network analyses were performed to map the intellectual structure and collaborative patterns within the field.
    RESULTS: The United States led contributions with 28% of publications, followed by France (15%) and Japan (12%). The 100 most-cited articles appeared across 45 journals, predominantly in Pain (15 articles) and Neuroscience (10 articles). Five major author clusters were identified, with key figures such as Hamon M., Yaksh T.L., and Porreca F. collectively accounting for over 5,000 citations. Four thematic keyword clusters, including "serotonin receptors," "analgesia," and "nociception," were identified. International collaborations accounted for 65% of the publications.
    DISCUSSION: The findings highlight the global and interdisciplinary nature of research on serotoninmediated pain modulation. Prominent research hubs, key contributors, and collaborative international networks have significantly shaped the field's development. The identified trends and thematic areas provide valuable insight into the evolving landscape of neuropharmacology and pain research.
    CONCLUSION: This systematic review and bibliometric analysis provide a comprehensive overview of serotonin-mediated pain modulation research, emphasizing the importance of international collaboration and offering direction for future investigations into therapeutic strategies targeting serotonergic mechanisms in pain management.
    Keywords:  Serotonin; bibliometric analysis; citation network; co-citation analysis; neuropharmacology.; pain modulation; systematic review
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.2174/011570159X397868251105080223
  13. Arch Acad Emerg Med. 2026 ;14(1): e18
    Iranian Researchers' Contribution to Emergency Medicine During 1972-2024; A Bibliometric and Scientific Visualization Study.
    Rasoul Salimi, Davoud Haseli, Heidar Mokhtari, Mohammad Karim Saberi, Abbas Fattahi, Bahram Heshmati.
       Introduction: Bibliometrics tends to analyze the scientific research items published on a specific field or topic. This study aimed to analyze Iranian researchers' production in the field of emergency medicine (EM).
    Methods: This bibliometric visualization study was conducted using a descriptive-analytical approach and based on data from the Scopus database. All scientific output of Iranian researchers in the field of EM by the end of 2024 was collected and analyzed using VOSviewer 1.6.20 software.
    Results: Iran's scientific output in the field of EM has grown significantly. The Archives of Academic Emergency Medicine is the top journal and Tehran University of Medical Sciences is the top institution publishing the scientific productions of Iranian researchers in the field. The United States, United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia are Iran's largest scientific collaborating partners. Iran is the second-ranked leading country in the Middle East, publishing 20.38% of the Middle Eastern scientific publications in the field. Out of 17 countries in the Middle East, only two countries, Turkey and Iran, are in the top 20 countries in the world. The co-occurrence map of keywords showed the five thematic clusters, including risk factors and clinical outcomes, clinical symptoms and laboratory indicators, emergency and psychiatric services, medical diagnostic and imaging tools, and vital signs and clinical monitoring.
    Conclusion: As the second-ranked country in the Middle East and the 16th-ranked in the world, Iran has a prominent position and a high capacity for scientific development and research diplomacy in EM. The trend of scientific productions of EM in Iran is also growing. Promoting this status and maintaining this trend requires special attention from officials and policy makers to research, expanding international cooperation, increasing the quality of research and focusing on interdisciplinary and problem-oriented research.
    Keywords:  Bibliometric Analysis; Data Visualization; Emergency Medicine; Iran; Social Network Analysis
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.22037/aaem.v14i1.2837
  14. Development. 2026 Jun 15. pii: dev205838. [Epub ahead of print]153(12):
    The elephant in the room: impact factor.
    Alex Eve, James Briscoe.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1242/dev.205838
  15. Alzheimers Dement. 2026 Jun;22(6): e71597
    Authorship and citation trends in dementia research: A path to equitable career development for scientists.
    Jayalakshmi Viswanathan, Diana Karamacoska, Lokendra S Thakur, Mouna Sawan, Angela Gomez-Arboledas, Ines Moreno-Gonzalez, C Elizabeth Shaaban, Sadaf A Milani, Giedre Milinkeviciute, Samantha M Loi, Anika Wuestefeld, Sindhuja T Govindarajan, Audrey Low, Giovanna Carello-Collar, Hom L Shreshta, Sunnie Kenowsky, Claudia K Suemoto, Michelle M Mielke, Shana D Stites.
       INTRODUCTION: Women are increasingly entering the dementia research workforce, but they frequently fail to attain senior leadership positions in academia. Discrepancies in academic research outputs were investigated to guide equity-focused policy recommendations.
    METHODS: Bibliometrics was conducted on 400,482 original research articles (2003-2022) followed by surveying the AD/ADRD research community, to quantitatively and qualitatively evaluate discrepancies in publication and authorship trends. In addition, an unsupervised learning algorithm was developed to analyze underlying relationships between author groups.
    RESULTS: Male author gender was consistently predictive of better publication and citation metrics across all bibliometrics outcomes, with senior male authors outperforming all other subgroups and fewer senior female authors in most research areas. Female survey respondents reported more barriers, but comparable productivity and citation strategies as male authors.
    DISCUSSION: Multi-pronged approaches by stakeholders across institutions, funders, and journals are necessary to provide career support for early-career scientists working to transition to senior research roles.
    Keywords:  Alzheimer's disease and related dementias; academic publishing; bibliometrics; gender disparities; machine learning
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1002/alz.71597
  16. Cureus. 2026 May;18(5): e108720
    Balancing the Positives and Negatives: A Bibliometric Analysis of Positive and Negative Study Publication Patterns in High-Impact General Medical Journals.
    Benjamin S Vipler, Cameron Arnet, Angela Keniston, Matthew Mardo, Christopher J King.
      Despite calls to publish negative studies in prominent medical journals, greater submission and acceptance of positive results remains an issue. We aimed to quantify the degree to which high-impact general medical journals publish negative study results. We searched MEDLINE/PubMed for all randomized controlled trials published in five high-impact general medicine journals: Annals of Internal Medicine, the British Medical Journal (BMJ), the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), the Lancet, and the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM). Our search spanned a 10-year period from 2014 to 2023, which included data from before and after the emergence of the COVID-19 global pandemic. We performed single-author data extraction via abstract review to determine study positivity, defined as statistical significance for the primary outcome, flagging abstracts for secondary review if positivity was not clear. Two authors reviewed all flagged abstracts. We calculated the proportion of negative studies (i.e., not meeting statistical significance for the primary outcome) overall, by journal, and by publication year. We used logistic regression to model the odds of a study reporting a negative result by journal and year. Our search yielded 3722 individual citations, with screening resulting in 3600 randomized controlled trials for review, with 31% of studies reporting negative results. The proportion of negative studies varied, ranging from 22% in the Lancet to 51% in BMJ and JAMA. The proportion of negative studies remained consistent over time. High-impact general medical journals vary widely in the percentage of negative studies that they publish but did not change over time, even during and after a global pandemic. Further study is needed to determine factors influencing this phenomenon and what can be done to minimize publication bias.
    Keywords:  bibliometric analysis; general internal medicine; negative studies; publication bias; randomized controlled trial
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.108720
  17. Sci Rep. 2026 Jun 14.
    Gender gap in returns to publications.
    Piotr Spiewanowski, Ivan Stetsyuk, Oleksandr Talavera.
      Gender equity in science depends not only on who participates in research, but also on how their work is rewarded. We examine gender gaps in monetary returns to research productivity, pay, and credit attribution using a novel dataset linking salary and publication records for professors at U.S. public universities. While our main contribution shows that there is no robust evidence of a significant gender gap in monetary returns to publications, we uncover substantial heterogeneity across disciplines and authorship structures. Women in medical and health sciences experience a negative gap in returns of 10.7% relative to men for equivalent research output. The unconditional gender pay gap averages 15.4%, with variation across disciplines, ranging from 5.5% in agricultural sciences to 20.9% in social sciences. It declines to 4.9% after controls. Finally, women earn higher returns to solo-authored work but lower returns to larger co-author networks than men.
    Keywords:  Credit attribution gap; Discrimination; Gender pay gap; Research productivity; Women in science
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-026-57252-4
  18. MethodsX. 2026 Dec;17 103991
    A reproducible bibliometric-content analysis workflow for mapping research fields in computer science.
    Thanh-Cong Truong.
      Computer science literature indexed in Scopus and Web of Science has grown at double-digit annual rates, making comprehensive manual synthesis infeasible for individual researchers. Bibliometric workflows partially address this problem but rarely yield the interpretive depth needed to characterize a field's accomplishments or gaps. This paper introduces a two-phase reproducible workflow integrating bibliometric science mapping (Phase 1) with structured thematic content analysis (Phase 2), implemented in R using the bibliometrix package. Phase 1 clusters publications by keyword co-occurrence; these clusters serve as the sampling frame for purposive selection of representative papers, which undergo deductive-inductive thematic coding in Phase 2. Thematic coding of this type typically requires dual-coder reliability checks; a test-retest procedure replaces that requirement, maintaining κ=0.82 without a second coder. Applied to 648 AI-FinTech publications (2017-2026), the workflow identifies four thematic clusters and achieves κ=0.82 . Regulatory compliance gaps and AI-blockchain integration opportunities, invisible to bibliometric analysis alone, emerged only through thematic coding. A single researcher completes the process in approximately 22 active working hours without dedicated infrastructure.•Integrates bibliometric science mapping with structured thematic content analysis into a single reproducible R-based workflow applicable to any computer science sub-field.•Links Phase 1 cluster outputs to Phase 2 sampling via an explicit allocation formula, replacing ad hoc paper selection with a principled, data-driven decision rule.•Enables single-author reliability verification via a test-retest procedure ( κ≥0.80 ), removing the dual-coder requirement as a practical barrier for PhD researchers.
    Keywords:  Bibliometric analysis; Bibliometrix; Computer science; Content analysis; Research methodology; Science mapping
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mex.2026.103991
  19. Australas Psychiatry. 2026 Jun 15. 10398562261457051
    H-index and academic rank in psychiatry: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
    Paul A Maguire, Stephen Allison, Tarun Bastiampillai, Fiona A Wilkes, Jeffrey C L Looi.
      ObjectiveThe Hirsch-index (H-index) is a bibliometric measure of research productivity and citation impact. In this systematic review and meta-analysis we aimed to derive pooled H-index benchmarks across professorial academic ranks in psychiatry, and to determine whether H-index differs significantly between successive academic ranks.MethodsPRISMA guidelines were followed in conducting a comprehensive search using the databases Ovid MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE, and Google Scholar. Key search terms included: "Bibliometrics", H index", "H-index", "Career Mobility", "academic rank", "Faculty, Medical", "psychiatry", "academic psychiatry", "psychiatric", and "Psychiatry in Literature". Papers reporting data on mean H-index stratified by professorial academic rank were included. The DerSimonian and Laird random effects model was used to conduct the meta-analysis.ResultsFour studies (all North American) were included in the systematic review and three in the meta-analysis. Mean H-index increased across successive academic rank. Pooled random effects estimates for mean H-index were: 4.02 (95% CI: 3.01-5.02) for Assistant Professor, 8.04 (95% CI: 6.28-9.79) for Associate Professor, and 21.22 (95% CI: 19.96-22.48) for Full Professor.ConclusionH-index increases with successive academic rank in psychiatry, with pooled benchmarks identified for each professorial level. Available data are limited to North American institutions, underscoring the need for Australasian studies.
    Keywords:  H-index; academic rank; meta-analysis; psychiatry; systematic review
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1177/10398562261457051
  20. J Am Pharm Assoc (2003). 2026 Jun 17. pii: S1544-3191(26)00455-3. [Epub ahead of print] 103470
    A bibliometric analysis describing the global scope of pharmacist roles (2000-2024).
    Nicholas R Nelson, Aleda M H Chen, Fei Yu, Rebecca Carlson, Krisy-Ann Thornby, Kimberly K Daugherty, Eunice P Chung, Mariann D Churchwell, Stephanie L Sibicky, Erika L Kleppinger, Dennis Parker, Kelly R Ragucci, Cindy D Stowe, Tina P Brock, Denise H Rhoney.
       BACKGROUND: The roles of pharmacists are expanding in response to shifts in the healthcare environment and public need. An update on global expansion of pharmacists' scope of practice is needed to better understand the current and future directions of pharmacy practice. A bibliometric analysis is an effective way of examining the literature to provide valuable insights.
    OBJECTIVE: To describe the characteristics, trends, and interconnections of pharmacy-related publications addressing the scope of pharmacist-provided services.
    METHODS: A comprehensive literature search using keywords and subject headings for pharmacist-related scope of practice was conducted. The results were imported to Covidence and underwent title and abstract screening, then categorized into practice scope and pharmacist roles. A bibliometric analysis was used to describe the characteristics and trends as well as co-occurrence networks (i.e., connections) across thematic categories.
    RESULTS: From 6000 initial studies, a total of 1831 publications from 2000 to 2024 in 435 journals were included. Eight different pharmacy practice settings were identified, of which, Community, Hospital, and Ambulatory Care were the most frequently reported with 724 (39.5%), 592 (32.3%), and 430 (23.5%) publications, respectively. The most frequently reported subcategories were Patient Counseling and Medication Therapy Management, identified as the top 2 co-occurrence for all three practice settings. Clinical Outcomes, Health Care Quality, Substance Use Disorder Management, Telepharmacy, and Pharmacogenomics were identified more frequently in recent publications.
    CONCLUSION: This study used bibliometric analysis to examine the past and current trends in the scope of pharmacy practice globally. The results show that the scope of pharmacists is expanding beyond traditional dispensing roles, while also showing emerging practice areas in recent years that align with the current changes in health care and society.
    Keywords:  bibliometric analysis; pharmacist; pharmacist roles; pharmacist services; scope of practice
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.japh.2026.103470
  21. Front Psychol. 2026 ;17 1845947
    Research "junkification" is caused by researchers, not journals.
    Simon S Groome, Jose C Yong, Norman P Li.
      
    Keywords:  crowding out; evolutionary psychology; human capital; junkification of research; meta-science; research quality; scientific innovation; stabilizing selection
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2026.1845947
  22. BMJ. 2026 Jun 17. 393 e774930
    Improving face-to-face communication can increase productivity.
    Ieuan H Davies.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj-2026-774930
This page is being maintained by Thomas Krichel. It was last updated on 2026‒07‒15 at 2:27.