bims-evares Biomed News
on Evaluation of research
Issue of 2026–08–09
ten papers selected by
Thomas Krichel, Open Library Society
  1. TWENTY-FIVE YEARS OF THE JOURNAL OF EVIDENCE-BASED DENTAL PRACTICE: A BIBLIOMETRIC ANALYSIS OF RESEARCH ARTICLES.
  2. Evaluation of the Relative Citation Ratio Versus the H-Index as Measures of Citation-Based Scholarly Influence in Academic Neurosurgery.
  3. Mapping the Growth and Patterns of  Paediatric Orthopaedic Research in India (1971-2025): A Scopus-Based Bibliometric Study.
  4. Distribution of Research and Clinical Productivity among US Ophthalmologists, 2021 to 2023: A Cross-Sectional Analysis.
  5. Collaboration, Intellectual Basis, and Emerging Trends in Smart Senior Care Research: A Scientometric Analysis.
  6. Comparing international and US medical graduates in surgical subspecialties: meta-analysis of residency matching, research output, and postoperative outcomes.
  7. Local research productivity, trends, and collaboration among Filipino nuclear medicine physicians: A bibliometric analysis of the Philippine Journal of Nuclear Medicine.
  8. Research intensity for neglected tropical diseases and other infectious diseases before and after the COVID-19 pandemic.
  9. English or Perish? The Value of Linguistic Capital in the Social Sciences and Humanities.
  10. Publication Fate and Determinants of Registered Clinical Trials Investigating Sensorineural Hearing Loss.
  1. J Evid Based Dent Pract. 2026 Sep;pii: S1532-3382(26)00049-7. [Epub ahead of print]26(3): 102275
    TWENTY-FIVE YEARS OF THE JOURNAL OF EVIDENCE-BASED DENTAL PRACTICE: A BIBLIOMETRIC ANALYSIS OF RESEARCH ARTICLES.
    Xueqian Yu, Xinlei Liu, Wei Lu, Feiyang Guo, Daniel R Reissmann, Mike T John, Fang Hua.
       BACKGROUND: The Journal of Evidence-Based Dental Practice (JEBDP) is a peer-reviewed, broad-scope journal dedicated to advancing evidence-based dentistry (EBD) through the dissemination of high-quality research and critical summaries. The 25th anniversary of JEBDP presents a valuable opportunity for a bibliometric analysis of research articles published in the journal. The objectives of this study were to analyze the journal's performance, productive contributors, and thematic trends.
    METHODS: A literature search was carried out using the Scopus database and the official website of JEBDP to collect original research and review articles. After examination and deduplication, the following bibliometric information was extracted from each article: title, abstract, authors, affiliations, geographic origin (countries/regions), year of publication, keywords, research topics, and references. Four scientometric mapping tools including Microsoft Office spreadsheet, VOSviewer, Scimago Graphica, and R were employed to analyze basic bibliometric indicators, leading contributors, collaboration networks, and high-impact keywords.
    RESULTS: A total of 729 research articles published in the JEBDP between 2001 and 2025 were identified and included in the analysis. The annual publication volume fluctuated during the first 15 years, but has shown a steady upward trend over the past decade. Authors from the US ranked first in terms of publication output, with 339 publications, followed by China (n = 67) and the UK (n = 45). The most productive institutions were the University of Washington (n = 45), the University of California Los Angeles (n = 30), and the University of Minnesota (n = 25). Research articles published in JEBDP predominantly focused on EBD methodologies and their application across multidisciplinary fields, mainly covering fields of dental public health, periodontics, and implant dentistry. Additionally, the most highly cited articles primarily focused on hot topics such as "dental caries," "periodontitis," "tooth implant," and "dental patient-reported outcomes," encompassing 3 systematic reviews and 3 reporting guidelines.
    CONCLUSIONS: The academic influence of JEBDP has been steadily increasing, as demonstrated by the upward trends in its CiteScore and Journal Impact Factor, along with a consistent increase in the number of research articles published. Studies featured in the journal primarily focused on EBD methodologies and their implementation in multidisciplinary fields, contributing to the generation of robust evidence that supports clinical practice and advances dental research.
    Keywords:  Bibliometrics; Journal performance; Leading producers; Research articles; Thematic development
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebdp.2026.102275
  2. Neurosurgery. 2026 Aug 07.
    Evaluation of the Relative Citation Ratio Versus the H-Index as Measures of Citation-Based Scholarly Influence in Academic Neurosurgery.
    Shubhang Bhalla, Praveen Sanmugananthan, Andre A Payman, Damian A Sanchez, Yujin Kim, Belda Gulsuyu, Albert Schmidt, Carmelo Venero, Immaculate Christie, Sina Zoghi, Niel Pacheco-Barrios, Michael M Covell, Micheal Kogan, Sara Piccirillo, Marc Moisi, Christian A Bowers.
       BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Evaluating citation-based scholarly influence among academic faculty is foundational to academic medicine, as retention, promotion, and tenure to govern career advancement at every level. The h-index has been the standard metric across fields, including neurosurgery, but is considered ineffective due to multiple inherent deficiencies. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) developed the relative citation ratio (RCR) that addresses several of these shortcomings. We therefore sought to evaluate RCR vs the h-index for assessing citation-based scholarly influence among academic neurosurgery faculty, fellows, and residents in the United States.
    METHODS: A retrospective cross-sectional analysis used publicly available data on 3463 neurosurgery faculty, fellows, and residents at 115 Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education-accredited neurological surgery programs. RCR was calculated by NIH iCite and the h-index by Scopus. The mean RCR (m-RCR) is the average RCR across an author's publications; weighted RCR (w-RCR) is the sum of all RCR scores. RCR is benchmarked to NIH-funded publications, with an RCR of 1.0 corresponding to the median NIH-funded article in a given field and year; article-level fields are defined by cocitation networks rather than fixed journal categories.
    RESULTS: Men comprised 79.1% of the cohort and attendings 54.9%; most (53.8%) had 0 to 10 years of experience. Significant differences in h-index, m-RCR, and w-RCR were identified across sex, position, faculty rank, years in practice, and subspecialty (P < .001 for all). Neuro-oncology demonstrated high impact (m-RCR: 1.67; w-RCR: 76.09; h-index: 27.00) while pediatrics showed lower metrics (w-RCR: 28.55; m-RCR: 1.17). Correlation with career duration was highest for h-index (r = 0.61), followed by w-RCR (r = 0.37) and m-RCR (r = 0.11; P < .001 for all).
    CONCLUSION: m-RCR showed a weaker association with career duration than h-index, suggesting that it may provide a more career-stage-independent measure of citation-based scholarly influence. However, persistent subspecialty differences and the inability of both RCR-derived metrics and h-index to account for author-level contribution indicate that these bibliometrics should be interpreted as complementary tools rather than standalone measures.
    Keywords:  Academic neurosurgery; Bibliometrics; H-index; Relative citation ratio; Scholarly influence
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1227/neu.0000000000004176
  3. Indian J Orthop. 2026 Aug;60(8): 1967-1979
    Mapping the Growth and Patterns of  Paediatric Orthopaedic Research in India (1971-2025): A Scopus-Based Bibliometric Study.
    Anil Regmi, Bishwa Bandhu Niraula, Aditya Ks, Cury Sharma, Naveen Kumar, Vivek Singh.
       Background: Paediatric orthopaedics in India encompasses a broad range of congenital, developmental, and traumatic conditions that impose a significant health burden. Despite increasing academic output, national research trends in this field have not been comprehensively evaluated.
    Methods: A bibliometric analysis of Indian paediatric orthopaedic publications (1971-2025) indexed in the Scopus database was conducted on November 5, 2025. Publications were analysed for temporal growth, source journals, authorship, institutional productivity, citation impact, collaboration networks, and research themes. Descriptive and network analyses were performed using VOSviewer to visualise bibliographic coupling and keyword co-occurrence patterns.
    Results: A total of 2090 paediatric orthopaedic publications from India were identified during the study period. Annual outputs increased markedly after 2010, with the highest surges observed between 2017 and 2021. Citation performance also strengthened, with citation-per-paper peaking between 2018 and 2019. The most productive journals were Journal of Clinical Orthopaedics and Trauma (6.84%) and Indian Journal of Orthopaedics (6.12%). International collaboration was led by the United States (7.27%) and the United Kingdom (6.08%). PGIMER Chandigarh (8.80%) and AIIMS New Delhi (8.33%) were the top contributing institutions. The most cited Indian paediatric orthopaedic paper received 319 citations. Keyword analysis revealed dominant themes related to clubfoot, paediatric fractures, infections, and scoliosis.
    Conclusion: Indian paediatric orthopaedic research has evolved into a more dynamic and collaborative field with growing international visibility. Strengthening multicentric partnerships, mentorship, and national registries will further enhance research quality and impact. This study provides the first comprehensive overview of India's contributions and future opportunities in paediatric musculoskeletal research.
    Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s43465-025-01670-5.
    Keywords:  Bibliometric analysis; Collaboration networks; India; Paediatric orthopaedics; Research trends
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s43465-025-01670-5
  4. Ophthalmol Sci. 2026 Sep;6(9): 101297
    Distribution of Research and Clinical Productivity among US Ophthalmologists, 2021 to 2023: A Cross-Sectional Analysis.
    Muhammad Z Chauhan, Ahmed Shakarchi, Xiaoran Zhang, Porter Jones, Alexander Kwok, Jawad Muayad, Asad Loya, Abdelrahman M Elhusseiny, Paul H Phillips, Jennifer E Thorne, Ahmed B Sallam.
       Purpose: To quantify the association between research output and Medicare-weighted clinical volume among ophthalmologists and to examine variation by gender, career stage, and institution.
    Design: Cross-sectional study linking PubMed publications (January 1, 2021-December 31, 2023) to the National Plan and Provider Enumeration System and Medicare Part B claims data.
    Subjects: US ophthalmologists with at least one PubMed-indexed publication during 2021 to 2023 (N = 2914). For location-based analyses, 2684 after excluding 230 lacking geographic data.
    Methods: Calculated a publication score using fractionally weighted authorship credits with multipliers based on journal impact factor and estimated Medicare-weighted clinical volume as annualized work relative value units (RVUs) from Medicare claims (scaled from 5% sample). Defined a composite productivity metric as publication score × RVU. Conducted descriptive analyses, Spearman correlation between publication score and RVUs, and comparisons by gender and years in practice.
    Main Outcome Measures: Our primary outcomes included publication score, annualized work RVUs, and composite publication score × RVU.
    Results: Among 2684 ophthalmologists (1764 men [65.7%], 920 women [34.3%]; median years in practice, 19), median publication score was 0.41 (interquartile range, 0.04-2.19). and median RVUs were 2792 (interquartile range, 982-6246). Publication score and RVUs were weakly inversely correlated (Spearman r = -0.13; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.16 to - 0.10). Women and men had similar publication scores (median, 0.52 vs. 0.36; difference, 0.16; 95% CI, -0.02‑0.32) but women performed fewer RVUs (median, 1833 vs. 3750; difference, -1917; 95% CI, -2112 to -1722). The composite score × RVU peaked at 21 to 30 years in practice (median, 1436) and was highest in Maryland (median, 6111). Five flagship eye centers accounted for 24% of national publication credit and 34% of combined productivity.
    Conclusions: Among publishing ophthalmologists, research output showed only a small trade-off with clinical workload. Women published at rates comparable to men despite lower Medicare volumes, and peak combined productivity occurred mid-career. Operationally, these data support piloting protected research time and equitable workload targets without materially reducing clinical throughput, while using regional partnerships to diffuse research opportunities.
    Financial Disclosures: Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article.
    Keywords:  Career stage; Clinical workload; Clinician-scientist; Research productivity; Workforce planning
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.xops.2026.101297
  5. Comput Inform Nurs. 2026 Aug 01. pii: e01588. [Epub ahead of print]44(8):
    Collaboration, Intellectual Basis, and Emerging Trends in Smart Senior Care Research: A Scientometric Analysis.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1097/CIN.0000000000001588
  6. Surg Endosc. 2026 Aug 04.
    Comparing international and US medical graduates in surgical subspecialties: meta-analysis of residency matching, research output, and postoperative outcomes.
    Nir Horesh, Sameh Hany Emile, Zoe Garoufalia, Ilana Grosman Setton, Emanuele Lo Menzo, Steven D Wexner, Raul J Rosenthal.
       BACKGROUND: Performance of International Medical Graduates (IMGs) compared to US Medical Graduates (USMGs) remains a key area of interest. This meta-analysis compared performance of IMGs and USMGs regarding surgical residency matching, research productivity, and postoperative outcomes.
    METHODS: Systematic literature search of PubMed and Scopus was conducted up to December 2024. Data from eligible studies were synthesized to assess differences between IMGs and USMGs in matching, research, and postoperative outcomes. Random-effect meta-analyses were conducted, and risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale.
    RESULTS: A total of 22 studies, published from 2002 to 2024, were included. Neurosurgery (n = 8, 36.4%) was the most assessed subspecialty, followed by General Surgery (n = 6, 27.3%), Orthopedic, and Plastic Surgery (n = 3 each, 13.6%). Residency matching was assessed in 17 studies, while academic productivity was assessed in five, and surgical outcomes in three. IMGs had significantly lower pooled rates of matching into Residency programs (5.4%, 95%CI 3-7.7%; p < 0.001) and Fellowship programs (0.518, 95%CI 0.19-0.83; p = 0.001) but had a significantly higher mean number of publications (WMD 10.9, 95%CI 2.45-19.3; p = 0.011) and H-index (WMD 2.41, 95%CI 1.46-3.36; p < 0.001). IMG faculty had slightly higher odds of postoperative mortality (OR 1.076, 95%CI 1.01-1.14; p = 0.023) but no significant difference in 30-day complications (OR 1.033, 95%CI 0.92-1.16; p = 0.576).
    CONCLUSIONS: IMGs were less likely to match into surgical residencies but outperformed USMGs in research output. Postoperative outcomes appear broadly comparable, although limited observational data suggested a small mortality signal that should be interpreted cautiously given high heterogeneity and potential residual confounding. Further nuanced investigation is warranted.
    Keywords:  Academic advancement; International medical graduates; Matching; Surgical outcomes
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-026-13225-2
  7. Asia Ocean J Nucl Med Biol. 2026 ;14(2): 157-172
    Local research productivity, trends, and collaboration among Filipino nuclear medicine physicians: A bibliometric analysis of the Philippine Journal of Nuclear Medicine.
    John Kenneth V Gacula, Raniv D Rojo.
       Objectives: The Philippine Journal of Nuclear Medicine, the official publication and peer-reviewed journal of the Philippine Society of Nuclear Medicine, serves as a primary repository of research articles by Filipino nuclear medicine physicians. Despite rapid global developments in nuclear medicine, local research output remains underexplored. With 20 volumes and multiple articles published, the PJNM best reflects the situation of nuclear medicine research in the country. This study analyzed and described local research productivity through a bibliometric analysis of PJNM from 2002 to 2025.
    Methods: Full-text research articles were retrieved from both physical and online sources. Eligible articles were classified by study type. Bibliographic data such as authorship and institutional affiliation were extracted. Descriptive statistics and bibliometric mapping using VOSviewer were employed to evaluate publication trends, collaboration networks, and keyword occurrences.
    Results: A total of 134 full text articles were included. Publication output peaked during 2010-2012, followed by stable but modest productivity in subsequent years. Observational studies (53%) comprised the majority of publications, followed by case report/series (40%), and meta-analyses/systematic review (7%). No experimental studies were published. JM Obaldo was the most prolific author (n=24), while GFL Goco demonstrated the strongest collaborative links (37). St. Luke's Medical Center-Quezon City produced the highest research output and linkages. Keyword mapping revealed seven thematic clusters, namely: bone imaging, cardiac and parathyroid scintigraphy, radioactive iodine therapy for thyroid cancer, pediatric scintigraphy, prostate cancer and theranostics, MPI SPECT image quality, and renal scintigraphy. The more recent articles focused on oncology, PET/CT, and theranostics.
    Conclusion: PJNM reflects the growth and evolving focus of nuclear medicine research in the Philippines. While research output is diverse and increasingly aligned with international trends, there is a need to strengthen experimental and translational studies, foster broader collaborations, and achieve international indexing to enhance visibility and global impact.
    Keywords:  Bibliometric analysis; Filipino; Productivity; Research
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.22038/aojnmb.2026.93010.1689
  8. J Glob Health. 2026 Aug 07. 16 04255
    Research intensity for neglected tropical diseases and other infectious diseases before and after the COVID-19 pandemic.
    Ryo Komorizono, Raita Tamaki, Naoko Fujita, Masakaze Hamada, Kana Suzuki, Satoshi Kaneko, Yuki Furuse.
       Background: Infectious diseases can cause tremendous health and economic damage, as shown by past pandemics. Although research tends to spotlight emerging infectious diseases, neglected tropical diseases (NTDs) require sustained research and development to advance global public health. However, there is concern that the recent COVID-19 pandemic may have interrupted research on NTDs, leading to further neglect of these diseases.
    Results: We assessed the bias of research intensities for 67 infectious diseases, including 18 NTDs, from 2016 to 2023. We calculated the burden-adjusted research intensity (BARI) index for each disease, based on disease burden and scholarly publications. Significantly high research intensity was observed for COVID-19, HIV, influenza, and Zika, while paratyphoid fever showed significantly low BARI. We found no significant difference in the median BARI index between NTDs and non-NTDs during the pandemic period of 2020-2023. Among the lowest quartile of BARI index scores, seven were still NTDs. The BARI index for cysticercosis, dengue, and schistosomiasis has declined significantly when comparing the pre- and post-pandemic periods. As for non-NTDs, the BARI of 12 diseases decreased; there was no significant difference in the proportion of diseases for which the BARI decreased during the COVID-19 pandemic between NTDs and non-NTDs. Disease characteristics and research locations were modestly associated with research intensity, and the impact of COVID-19 was not evident even in the subgroups.
    Conclusions: We found no evidence that NTDs, as a formal disease category, were disproportionately deprioritised in research during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, several diseases, including both NTDs and non-NTDs, showed persistently low or declining relative research intensity. As research on non-pandemic infectious diseases, including NTDs, should be viewed not as competing with pandemic preparedness and response, but as integral to it, this study emphasises the importance of sustained, wide-reaching research investments for global equity.
    Keywords:  COVID-19; bibliometrics; disease burden; equity; neglected tropical diseases; research and development
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.7189/jogh.16.04255
  9. Sociology. 2026 Aug;60(4): 929-951
    English or Perish? The Value of Linguistic Capital in the Social Sciences and Humanities.
    Julien Larregue, Alice Pavie.
      This article examines the relationship between linguistic practices and funding success in Canadian social sciences and humanities. Through a mixed-methods approach combining data on 56,680 successful and unsuccessful grant applications submitted to the Canadian Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council and 45 interviews with past members of review committees, we analyse how language intersects with knowledge hierarchies and disciplinary cultures. Our findings show that writing a grant proposal in English rather than in French is associated with slightly higher chances of securing funding, mostly reflecting the greater recognition of applicants who have published in prestigious anglophone journals. However, the worth of this linguistic capital varies significantly across disciplines. These differences stem from how each discipline defines scientific value - whether through a more universal or context-dependent perspective and according to singular or plural hierarchies.
    Keywords:  English; French; disciplines; funding; grants; hierarchies; inequalities; language; linguistic capital; social sciences
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1177/00380385251406882
  10. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2026 Aug 04.
    Publication Fate and Determinants of Registered Clinical Trials Investigating Sensorineural Hearing Loss.
    Hao Gan, Zhuoyi Chen, Hao Xiong.
       OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the publication proportion of completed clinical trials regarding sensorineural hearing loss (SNHL) registered on ClinicalTrials.gov and identify factors associated with successful and timely publication.
    STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional observational study.
    SETTING: ClinicalTrials.gov registry and peer-reviewed literature databases.
    METHODS: We identified completed clinical trials related to SNHL with completion dates before November 1, 2022. Trials were categorized by intervention type, sponsorship, phase, age group, results and location. Publication status was determined by searching ClinicalTrials.gov, PubMed, and Google Scholar. Multivariate logistic regression and survival analysis were used to analyze factors influencing publication likelihood and time-to-publication.
    RESULTS: Of 250 completed SNHL trials, 31.2% were published. Multivariable logistic regression identified intervention type, results availability, and PI location as independent predictors of publication: device, behavioral, and other trials had significantly lower odds than drug trials, while reported results increased and US-based PI decreased publication odds. Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazards analyses showed drug trials achieved significantly faster publication than device and other categories, with non-US PI location and results availability also predicting faster publication.
    CONCLUSION: The publication rate of SNHL-related trials is lower than that of other otolaryngology subfields, with significant disparities observed across intervention types. Our findings indicate that there is substantial room for improvement in the publication of sensorineural hearing loss trials to further mitigate publication bias in this field.
    Keywords:  clinical trial; publication bias; research transparency; sensorineural hearing loss
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1002/ohn.70354
This page is being maintained by Thomas Krichel. It was last updated on 2026‒09‒10 at 12:10.