bims-evares Biomed News
on Evaluation of research
Issue of 2026–09–27
eight papers selected by
Thomas Krichel, Open Library Society
  1. Research integrity in orthopedics: a bibliometric analysis of retracted articles, and the role of publication incentives.
  2. Journal quartiles and article-level citation performance: a single-institution case study in academic dentistry.
  3. Fine wine, art, and medical physicist bibliometrics: Things that improve with age.
  4. Rethinking Academic Impact: A Context-Constrained Framework for Publication Strategy and Evaluation.
  5. 10-year analysis of selective dissemination in glaucoma research from major conferences to journals.
  6. Mass Citationism: A Deleterious Measure of Scientific Value.
  7. Scientific Clinical Trial Publication Productivity in Medical Oncology: A Comparative Analysis and Data Review of Northern and Southern Italy.
  8. Twenty-five years of the Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery (2000-2024): Bibliometric insights.
  1. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2026 Sep 23. pii: S1877-0568(26)00323-3. [Epub ahead of print] 104902
    Research integrity in orthopedics: a bibliometric analysis of retracted articles, and the role of publication incentives.
    Shirin Monadjemi, Pierre-Henry Paya, Pierre-Hugo Gratuze, Guillaume Villatte, Stéphane Descamps, Roger Erivan.
       BACKGROUND: Article retractions are increasing across scientific literature, raising concerns about research integrity. In orthopedics, the distribution of retracted publications across study designs and their relationship with bibliometric indicators remains poorly characterized. This study aimed to: (1) analyze study designs and publication characteristics of retracted orthopedic articles; (2) assess the reasons for retractions across different study designs; and (3) explore factors contributing to increasing retraction rates and implications for research integrity.
    HYPOTHESIS: We hypothesized that clinical studies would account for the greatest proportion of retractions.
    METHODS: We analyzed 134 English-language orthopedic journals and identified retracted publications issued between January 2000 and January 2026 using PubMed, Scopus, and Retraction Watch Database. Data extracted included study design, reasons for retraction, journal impact factor, SIGAPS rank, country of origin, citation count, and time to retraction.
    RESULTS: A total of 184 retracted articles from 58 journals were included. Clinical studies represent the largest proportion (118/184, 64.1%), followed by basic science (33/184, 17.9%) and secondary research (31/184, 16.8%). Cohort studies were most frequently retracted (44/184, 24.0%), while randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews with meta-analyses accounted together for 20.7% (38/184). Most retractions occurred in SIGAPS B-ranking journals (63/184, 34.2%). Misconduct was the leading cause of retraction. The most cited article was also associated with the longest retraction delay (22 years) and had been retracted for misconduct.
    CONCLUSION: Orthopedic research retractions are increasing and predominantly involve clinical studies. The retraction of randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews with meta-analyses is particularly concerning given their high level of evidence. Misconduct remains the leading cause of retraction. Improved detection methods and increasing publication pressure may contribute to these trends, underscoring the need to prioritize research quality and integrity over publication output.
    LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III; retrospective study.
    Keywords:  SIGAPS; ethics; misconduct; orthopedics; retracted publication
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.otsr.2026.104902
  2. Front Res Metr Anal. 2026 ;11 1894451
    Journal quartiles and article-level citation performance: a single-institution case study in academic dentistry.
    Andy Wai Kan Yeung.
      Journal quartiles derived from the journal citation reports are widely used for research evaluation, yet empirical evidence on their relationship with article-level normalized citation impact within specific disciplines remained limited. By examining this relationship using article-level indicators, the study explicitly addresses how journal quartiles function in institutional research evaluation practice, rather than as standalone bibliometric descriptors. This study analyzed 1,180 publications (2015-2024) from a research-intensive dental school to examine how journal quartile related to category normalized citation impact (CNCI). Descriptive analyses demonstrated a strong and orderly gradient in CNCI and raw citation counts from Q4 to Q1. Multivariable Gamma regression with log link and negative binomial models showed that quartile effects persist after adjusting for collaboration type, authorship, document type, and publication year. These findings aligned with cross-field scientometric evidence showing that higher-quartile journals attract disproportionate citation attention. The results extended prior journal-level analyses by showing a strong adjusted association between quartile and article-level normalized performance on aggregate. The study provided discipline-specific evidence relevant to institutional research strategy and publication planning. Future work could assess whether similar quartile gradients appear across other academic healthcare or biomedical subject areas.
    Keywords:  citation analysis; dentistry research; journal quartiles; normalized citation impact (CNCI); research evaluation; scholarly publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3389/frma.2026.1894451
  3. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2026 Oct;27(10): e70811
    Fine wine, art, and medical physicist bibliometrics: Things that improve with age.
    Sundari Mehta, J John Lucido, Douglas Moseley, Catherine Holly Frank, Christopher L Deufel.
       PURPOSE: Bibliometric indicators are widely used to evaluate faculty productivity, yet these metrics change with career stage, evolving authorship practices, and technological shifts in how science is produced. This study examines patterns of scholarly output among radiation therapy medical physics faculty at leading cancer centers and provides a framework and quantitative metrics for managing career age- and era-based effects.
    METHODS: Peer-reviewed articles (1969-2025) were collected from Scopus for 397 Ph.D. medical physics faculty at the 20 U.S. cancer centers most highly ranked by US News and World Report in 2025. The bibliometric measures included annual rates of authorships ( Ȧ ), first/last authorships ( FL̇ ), monograph-equivalents ( MĖ ), as well as the cumulative h-index and contribution-normalized ha-index. Career age was defined by year of first publication. Productivity distributions were evaluated by career age using empirical cumulative distribution functions derived from 2016-2025 data. Era-dependent fluctuations (1990-2025) were examined using age-normalized metrics and trends in authorship team size. Tabulated bibliometrics as a function of career age are provided for evaluation of individual performance.
    RESULTS: Productivity increased substantially with career age, peaking in late career. Senior faculty produced approximately two-fold higher annual output than early-career peers. At career ages of 1, 10, 20, 30, and 40 years, the median bibliometric rates were  Ȧ  = (1.2, 1.6, 2.5, 2.5,1.8) year-1,  FL̇  = (0.4, 0.4, 0.5, 0.5,0.2) year-1,  MĖ  = (0.2, 0.2, 0.3, 0.3,0.3) year-1, h-index = (0, 7, 15, 23,43), and ha-index = (0, 3.3, 6.0, 9.4,15.0). Era-based effects were substantial. Between 1990 and 2025, median authors per paper increased from 4 to 10, inflating authorship-based metrics. In contrast, contribution-weighted measures (FL, ME, ha-index) demonstrated greater temporal stability.
    CONCLUSIONS: Scholarly productivity in radiation therapy medical physics is strongly dependent on career age, with peak output occurring near the end of a typical career before declining modestly near retirement. Career-age-based percentile benchmarks provide a more balanced framework for evaluating academic performance than unadjusted bibliometric comparisons, especially for early-career investigators. Due to changes in authorship norms over time, first/last authorships, monograph equivalents, and ha-index may provide more accurate and equitable assessments of research performance than authorships or h-index.
    Keywords:  authorship inflation; bibliometrics; career age; medical physics; research productivity
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1002/acm2.70811
  4. J Nucl Med Technol. 2026 Sep 22. pii: jnmt.126.273072. [Epub ahead of print]
    Rethinking Academic Impact: A Context-Constrained Framework for Publication Strategy and Evaluation.
    Geoffrey M Currie.
      In nuclear medicine, scholarly value is not always captured by the metrics used to judge it. Work that improves protocols, strengthens radiation safety, supports technologist education, clarifies clinical decision-making, or advances professional practice may have substantial impact without generating high citation counts or appearing in high-impact journals. Yet academic performance is increasingly evaluated through bibliometric indicators that offer incomplete, and sometimes distorted, representations of scholarly contribution. When citation counts, impact factors, and journal rankings become targets rather than descriptive tools, they can create tension between productivity, journal prestige, audience alignment, and meaningful clinical impact. This tension is particularly important for nuclear medicine technology, where scholarship often serves a specialized professional audience within a comparatively constrained journal ecosystem. Methods: A conceptual framework was developed that models academic impact as a nonlinear, context-dependent function of publication volume, journal standing, and audience alignment, moderated by career stage and disciplinary structure. The framework introduces parameters that account for the nonlinear contribution of journal rank and the influence of audience fit on citation performance. Results: The model is not intended as a universal metric for evaluating research quality. Consistent with Goodhart's law, optimization of any single measure risks distorting scholarly behavior. Instead, the framework is positioned as a decision-support tool to guide researchers in balancing competing priorities and aligning publication strategies with disciplinary context, career stage, and professional goals. Conclusion: By reframing impact as an optimization problem under constraint, the model supports more deliberate, context-sensitive, and sustainable approaches to research dissemination.
    Keywords:  academic; impact; metrics; publishing; quality; research
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.2967/jnmt.126.273072
  5. Br J Ophthalmol. 2026 Sep 25. pii: bjo-2026-329990. [Epub ahead of print]
    10-year analysis of selective dissemination in glaucoma research from major conferences to journals.
    Glaucoma Research Metrics Study Group
       AIMS: To evaluate the rates and determinants of full-text publication of abstracts presented at international glaucoma meetings and the impact factors (IFs) of the journals in which they were published.
    METHODS: Abstracts presented at American Glaucoma Society (AGS), European Glaucoma Society (EGS), International Congress on Glaucoma Surgery (ICGS) and World Glaucoma Congress (WGC) between 2010 and 2020 were classified by society, year of presentation, number of authors, first and last author sex, first author geographic affiliation, study design, single-centre versus multicentric design and positiveness of findings. Corresponding full-text publications and journals were identified using PubMed. Publication rates were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier curve, while associations with publication likelihood and journals' IF were assessed using Cox and linear regressions, respectively.
    RESULTS: 6129 abstracts were analysed, with a 6-year publication rate of 40.5% (95% CI 39.2% to 41.8%). Higher likelihood of publication was observed for positive findings (HR 1.54 (95% CI 1.25 to 1.91), p<0.001), AGS (EGS: HR 0.35 (95% CI 0.21 to 0.59), p<0.001; ICGS: HR 0.42 (95% CI 0.25 to 0.68), p<0.001; WGC: HR 0.37 (95% CI 0.23 to 0.58), p<0.001), more recent years (HR 1.06 for 1-year increase (95% CI 1.02 to 1.10), p=0.01), larger research group (HR 1.02 per additional author (95% CI 1.00 to 1.04), p=0.03), multicentric design (HR 1.46 (95% CI 1.19 to 1.79), p<0.001) and male first authorship (HR 1.45 (95% CI 1.22 to 1.72), p<0.001). Multicentric design (estimate 0.69 (95% CI 0.37 to 1.02), p<0.001) and male last authorship (estimate 0.25 (95% CI 0.02 to 0.47), p=0.03) were associated with higher IF.
    CONCLUSIONS: Glaucoma research dissemination appears selective and non-random, resulting in systematic loss of information with implications for evidence synthesis.
    Keywords:  Glaucoma
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1136/bjo-2026-329990
  6. Tomography. 2026 Aug 24. pii: 119. [Epub ahead of print]12(9):
    Mass Citationism: A Deleterious Measure of Scientific Value.
    Emilio Quaia.
      This editorial examines the phenomenon of mass citationism, often critiqued as using bibliometrics as "weapons of mass citation" [...].
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3390/tomography12090119
  7. Clin Pract. 2026 Aug 27. pii: 159. [Epub ahead of print]16(9):
    Scientific Clinical Trial Publication Productivity in Medical Oncology: A Comparative Analysis and Data Review of Northern and Southern Italy.
    Vittorio Gebbia, Sergio Rizzo, Dario Piazza, Daniela Sambataro, Giuseppa Scandurra, Maria Rosaria Valerio.
      Background: Italy exhibits a socioeconomic divide between its northern and southern regions, which extends into healthcare delivery and biomedical research. Medical oncology is particularly affected by this structural imbalance. This paper examines geographic disparities in clinical trial scientific publication output, citation impact, research funding, and collaboration networks in medical oncology between northern and southern Italy. Methods: A narrative bibliometric analysis was conducted using data from PubMed and other institutional databases of Italian Scientific Institutes for Hospitalization and Care. Data from the Italian National Agency for the Evaluation of Universities and Research Institutes, the Alliance Against Cancer, and the Italian Association for Cancer Research were also reviewed. Regional output was compared across two macro-areas, namely north and south Italy. Results: Northern Italian institutions account for a disproportionate share of publications, high-impact citations, and funded research projects. Northern Italy produces an estimated four to six times more medical oncology papers than southern Italy, driven by a higher concentration of cancer institutes, better-funded university hospitals, and stronger multidisciplinary infrastructure than in the south. Clinical trial density is highest in the north compared to the south (0.53 versus 0.02 per 100,000 inhabitants). Conclusions: The north-south divide in Italian oncology research productivity is real, multi-factorial, and persistent. The analysis reveals a substantial gap in research productivity, institutional capacity, and access to clinical trials between the two macro-regions. Targeted policy interventions, including decentralized trial models, dedicated funding streams for southern institutions, and stronger infrastructure for inter-regional collaboration, are urgently needed to ensure representativeness in oncology evidence generation and equitable scientific progress.
    Keywords:  bibliometrics; impact factor; institutions; medical oncology; organization; regional divide; scientific productivity
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3390/clinpract16090159
  8. JTCVS Open. 2026 Aug;32 101807
    Twenty-five years of the Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery (2000-2024): Bibliometric insights.
    Jiangfeng Yi, Guiqiang Zeng, Litao Li, Lulin Liu, Dechong Zhang, Honglei Wang, Zhenyu Wang, Kuntan Liu, Jinlin Wu.
       Objective: To analyze research trends and key contributors in The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery over 25 years (2000-2024) using bibliometric methods.
    Methods: A total of 9190 articles from Web of Science were analyzed using CiteSpace, VOSviewer, and Bibliometrix to assess publication trends, citation metrics, author/institution/country contributions, co-citation networks, and keyword co-occurrence.
    Results: Annual publications increased from 329 (2000) to 659 (2014), then stabilized at an average of 319 ± 32 (2015-2024). Impact factor peaked at 6.44 in 2021. The United States led with 4695 publications, followed by Japan and Canada. Harvard University topped institutional output (662 publications), whereas Blackstone EH was the most influential author (h-index: 65). The 20 most-cited articles were predominantly clinical studies focused on surgical techniques and outcomes. Co-citation analysis identified aortic surgery, cardiac valve surgery, and coronary artery surgery as major domains. Citation burst analysis revealed transcatheter aortic valve replacement as the most dynamic recent frontier, with Mack MJ and Popma JJ showing strongest citation bursts. Cardiac surgery was the most frequent key word (300 occurrences), followed by non-small cell lung cancer and coronary artery bypass. Recent emerging terms include acute kidney injury, coronavirus disease, and surgical aortic valve replacement.
    Conclusions: This 25-year bibliometric analysis reveals The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery as a leading platform for cardiothoracic surgery research with sustained growth and increasing scholarly impact. The field demonstrates strong North American institutional dominance, with transcatheter aortic valve replacement emerging as the primary research frontier. Future directions should emphasize international collaboration, research in low- and middle-income regions, transcatheter technologies, and translational research integration.
    Keywords:  Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery; bibliometric analysis; cardiothoracic surgery; citation analysis; research trends
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.xjon.2026.101807
This page is being maintained by Thomas Krichel. It was last updated on 2026‒10‒02 at 0:33.