bims-evares 2026-08-30 papers

Issue of 2026–08–30
nine papers selected by
Thomas Krichel, Open Library Society

Turk J Gastroenterol. 2026 Aug 18.

Gender Disparity in Academic Gastroenterology in Türkiye: A Nationwide Bibliometric Analysis.

Gülden Bilican, Stephan L Haas, Hanife Uzar, Çağdaş Kalkan.

Background/Aims: Gender disparities in academic medicine are well documented; however, no study has examined this within academic gastroenterology in Türkiye. The authors evaluated the gender distribution of academic gastroenterologists and examined relationships between gender, academic rank, research productivity, and leadership positions.
Materials and Methods: Academic gastroenterologists were identified using the Council of Higher Education database. Of 317 academic gastroenterologists, 305 with reliable Scopus profiles were included; 12 were excluded because of ambiguous or duplicate profiles. Productivity metrics (publication count, citation count, h-index, years of active research, and m-index) were obtained from Scopus. Leadership status was assessed using institutional websites for the full cohort of 317 gastroenterologists, with leadership status determinable for 309 individuals. The history of presidencies of the Turkish Society of Gastroenterology (TSG) was also reviewed.
Results: Among 305 gastroenterologists from 119 institutions across 47 cities, 77 (25.2%) were women and 228 (74.8%) were men. Female representation was lowest among professors (20.8%) compared with associate professors (32.5%) and assistant professors (33.3%) (χ2 = 5.36, P = .069). Leadership status was determined for 309 academics; among 55 department heads, only 10 (18.2%) were women (P = .247). Women had significantly fewer publications and citations, lower h index, and fewer years of active research than men (all P < .05), whereas the m-index did not differ significantly by sex (P = .066). When stratified by academic rank, no significant sex differences were observed for any metric (all P > .05). Of 20 documented terms of presidency of the TSG, only 2 (10.0%) had been held by women.
Conclusion: Women are substantially underrepresented in academic gastroenterology in Türkiye, particularly at the professor rank and in leadership positions. The absence of a significant difference in m-index suggests that lower productivity among women may partly reflect differences in career duration rather than an intrinsic gap. Structural interventions targeting mentorship, promotion, and leadership opportunities are needed to reduce these disparities.

Keywords: Bibliometrics; Türkiye; faculty; gastroenterology; leadership; medical; sex factors

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5152/tjg.2026.26389

J Orthop. 2026 Jul;77 165-171

Top-cited vs. highest altmetric-ranked shoulder arthroplasty articles: Does citation rate reflect online relevance and dissemination?

Hao Yik Lim, Liam O'Dwyer, Eilis Fitzgerald, J Tristan Cassidy.

Purpose: To compare the top 20 most cited articles with the 20 highest ranked by altmetric performance related to shoulder arthroplasty.
Background: Ongoing research is crucial for improving surgical outcomes. Citation count has long been the primary method of quantifying the importance and influence of research. However, the scientific forum is changing. Altmetric analysis offers a complementary approach to capture broader media of dissemination and influence.
Methods: The top-20 studies with the highest AAS (Altmetric Attention Score) were retrieved from http://www.altmetric.com/. Web of Science database was used to retrieve the 20 most cited studies. Study groups were compared based on respective AAS, citation counts, citation density, level of evidence and impact factor of the journal's identified.
Results: The top-20 altmetric articles had an average AAS of 144.95 ± 139.38 (47-567) and average citation count of 25.32 ± 34.93 (0-141). The top-20 bibliometric articles had an average citation count of 167.45 ± 52.99 (107-270) and an average AAS of 10.4 ± 10.95 (0-47). The most cited article (270) had an AAS of 10. The highest AAS (567) had zero citations. The bibliometric search had one level I study. There was no level I study on the altmetric list and no level II study on either list. There was no significant correlation between AAS and citations.
Conclusions: There is no significant correlation between the AAS and citation count among the most influential paper relating to shoulder arthroplasty. Altmetrics highlighted recent, clinically focused work. Whereas bibliometrics captured studies with established academic impact. Combining both approaches offers a clearer picture of which research is shaping current discussion and underpinning long-term evidence. There is a paucity of high-quality research among the most influential studies from the past decade relating to shoulder arthroplasty.

Keywords: Altmetrics; Arthroplasty; Bibliometrics; Citations; Shoulder

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jor.2026.03.028

Cureus. 2026 Jul;18(7): e113172

Training-Stage Research Output as a Predictor of Long-Term Academic Productivity Among Orthopedic Sports Medicine Fellowship Faculty.

William H Cusma, Conner Robbins, Suleiman Y Sudah, Yuri Han, Francis J Sirch, Andrew Miller, Alexander Rompala, Ryan Plyler.

BACKGROUND: The relationship between research productivity during training and subsequent academic output as a practicing orthopedic sports medicine surgeon remains poorly understood. Although prior studies have evaluated this association in other subspecialties, it has not been examined in orthopedic sports medicine. This study evaluated the correlation between academic productivity during each stage of training and future academic productivity. It also assessed whether the geographic region of training or practice impacts long-term research output.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The 2021-2022 American Orthopedic Society for Sports Medicine (AOSSM) directory was queried to identify fellowship faculty and associated institutions. Surgeons' publications were counted across defined intervals: before residency, during residency, during fellowship, and after fellowship. Publication counts were compared by region of residency training and current practice location. A multivariable linear regression model identified predictors of the attending publication rate. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05.
RESULTS: A total of 90 attending surgeons from 58 programs were included. The mean total publications were 97.6 ± 102, and the mean h-index was 26.3 ± 20.6. The mean attending publication rate was 5.00 ± 6.42 publications per year. Multivariable regression demonstrated that attending publication rate correlated with pre-residency (β = 0.327, p = 0.042), residency (β = 0.236, p = 0.001), and fellowship publications (β = 0.448, p < 0.001). No regional differences were observed based on residency training (p = 0.30). By practice location, the Northeast had the highest mean publication count, followed by the Midwest, West, and Southeast; differences were not significant (p > 0.29).
CONCLUSIONS: Residency and fellowship publications significantly predicted long-term academic productivity, while pre-residency output showed a weaker association. Geographic location of training or practice did not significantly influence attending publication rate or h-index. These findings may inform evaluation of candidates for academic sports medicine positions.

Keywords: academic productivity; fellowship; fellowship training; h-index; orthopedic sports medicine; orthopedic surgery; research; residency program; scholarly productivity

DOI: https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.113172

J Surg Educ. 2026 Aug 27. pii: S1931-7204(26)00260-6. [Epub ahead of print]83(11): 104128

From Quantity to Quality: A New Framework for Evaluating the Research Productivity of Residency Applicants.

Kinan Sawar, Louie Mekani, Andrew Hannoudi, John Paul Atto, Dunya M Atisha.

OBJECTIVE: With USMLE Step 1 becoming pass/fail, publication count has become an increasingly important metric that medical students strive to maximize for residency applications. This has resulted in the pursuit of less meaningful research and engagement in unethical research practices (e.g., gift authorship) by students. We present a new metric designed for use by residency program directors to better evaluate a student's cumulative research contribution (CRC).
DESIGN: We conducted a cross-sectional study of all 2024 PGY-1 integrated United States plastic surgery residents' publication profiles. We utilized Elsevier's Scopus to identify each applicant's total number of publications and variables related to each publication including authorship rank, publication study design, and SCImago Journal Rank indicator. Two independent reviewers agreed upon study design classifications for each publication. We then developed a general CRC formula, which was used to create 48 CRC models that were used to calculate a CRC score for each applicant and compared the distribution of students' ranks using their CRC scores within each model versus total publication counts. We calculated the mean, median, standard deviation, and quartile coefficient of dispersion for the total publication count and for each CRC score distribution. We then performed Kendall's Tau-B rank correlation tests to assess the strength of association between total publication count and each CRC model, and to determine whether student rank order differed significantly across these ranking methods.
PARTICIPANTS: We analyzed 194 PGY-1 integrated plastic-surgery residents and 1467 publications in total.
RESULTS: The most frequently published study designs were retrospective cohort studies (n = 417). Mean publication count was 7.56 ± 6.77. Applicants with larger authorship teams produced more publications, but their individual contribution to the publications declined. Ranking applicants with any of the 48 CRC models significantly reshuffled student ranking relative to total publication count (τ = 0.69-0.87; all p < 0.001) and widened the spread of the cohort distribution (quartile coefficient of dispersion 0.58-0.68 for CRC models vs 0.54 for total publication count). CRC per publication showed no association with total publication count (τ ≤ 0.06, p ≥ 0.18 for all CRC models), indicating that simply publishing more does not equate to higher scholarly value. Students working in small teams (≤5 authors) achieved an average CRC score of 16.1, which was comparable to the CRC score of those in medium sized teams (5.01-10 authors) (p = 0.18). Students working in small teams (≤5 authors) achieved an average CRC score per publication of 2.52, which was significantly greater than the CRC score per publication of those in medium sized teams (5.01-10 authors) (p = 0.013). Medium sized teams (5.01-10 authors) achieved an average CRC score per publication of 2.09, which was significantly greater than the CRC score per publication of 2.18 of those in large teams (≥10 authors) (p = 0.013).
CONCLUSIONS: Ranking residents by publication count versus a CRC score that takes into account the quality of the contribution of a researcher's publications yields a significant difference when ranking the profiles of students who have successfully matched into integrated plastic surgery residency. Given that no metric has been publicly created for use to rank medical student research profiles, we recommend that residency programs adopt ours or a similar CRC metric when evaluating applicants. Rather than relying solely on total publication count, this approach may help encourage students to engage in higher quality research and promote ethical research practices.

Keywords: cumulative research contribution; geometric adaptive counting; plastic surgery; research; research productivity; residency application

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsurg.2026.104128

Clin Res Cardiol. 2026 Aug 24.

Quantifying the inclusion of cardiovascular research into clinical guidelines.

Johan Skov Bundgaard, Jonas Skjold Raaschou-Pedersen, Kasper Iversen, Henning Bundgaard, Mark P Khurana, Daniel Raaschou-Oddershede.

BACKGROUND: The number of cardiovascular research articles is growing rapidly, but the subsequent incorporation into newer guidelines remains uncertain. We aimed to quantify the proportion of topic-relevant literature published between consecutive European Society of Cardiology (ESC) guideline editions that was cited in the later edition.
METHODS: Using PubMed Medical Subject Heading (MeSH) searches and OpenAlex citation graphs, we identified all publications published between two ESC guideline editions across eight topics. We quantified the proportion of inter-guideline publications that were cited in the subsequent guideline.
RESULTS: Across the eight topics, a mean of 2.2% (SD = 2.0) of inter-guideline publications were directly cited in the successive guideline. Clinical trials were more frequently cited than non-clinical trial publications (8.5% [SD = 6.8] vs 2.0% [SD = 2.0]) in a topic-adjusted logistic regression; the odds were roughly fivefold higher (OR 5.45, 95% CI 4.87-6.10).
CONCLUSIONS: ESC guidelines cite a small proportion of the cardiovascular literature published since their preceding edition, drawing disproportionately on clinical trials.

Keywords: Bibliometrics; Cardiovascular Science; Clinical research; Guidelines

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00392-026-03011-4

OTO Open. 2026 Jul-Sep;10(3):10(3): e70295

Establishing the State of Sponsorship in Academic Otolaryngology Departments.

Maeher Grewal, Caitlin Faust, Kelly Daniels, Kristine A Smith, Abigail Pulsipher, Amanda Stapleton, Jeffrey Simons, Reema Padia.

Objectives: Recent studies suggest sponsorship opportunities are not equal between men and women in academic surgical medicine. We aimed to quantify the state of sponsorship in academic otolaryngology based on gender to establish a baseline by which to mark future progress.
Study Design: Cross-sectional study.
Setting: Publicly available department roster.
Methods: A cross-sectional study was performed in which academic rank, gender, and leadership role were obtained from departmental websites of all ACGME-accredited United States otolaryngology programs from June to September 2024.
Results: Of 2253 academic ranks and 1113 leadership roles identified across 125 otolaryngology departments, 29.0% and 25.5% were respectively held by women (P < .0001). Fourteen of 99 (14.1%) department chairs, 44 of 122 (36.1%) program directors (P < .0001), and 54 of 301 division chief or directorship roles (17.9%, P < .01) were held by women. Two of 26 (4.3%) professor emeriti, 113 of 626 (18.1%) full professor, 186 of 633 (29.4%) associate professor, and 352 of 948 (37.1%) assistant professor roles were held by women (P < .0001). Significant differences were observed in the proportion of women in leadership roles in departments chaired by women versus men (45% vs 25%, P < .0005), and with female versus male program directors (43% and 15%, P < .0001).
Conclusions: Women held higher proportions of leadership positions within departments chaired and residency programs run by women. Research efforts to determine the factors associated with these trends, including surveys of personal experiences with sponsorship, are ongoing.

Keywords: academic; department; equity; gender; otolaryngology; sponsorship

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/oto2.70295

Nat Comput Sci. 2026 Aug 24.

Self-rankings as a predictor of scientific impact beyond peer review.

Buxin Su, Natalie Collina, Garrett Wen, Didong Li, Kyunghyun Cho, Jianqing Fan, Bingxin Zhao, Weijie Su.

Peer review in academic research aims to ensure factual correctness and identify work of high scientific potential, but rapid submission growth has made this increasingly difficult. Here we investigate an additional measure for identifying high-impact research: authors' rankings of their own submissions to the same artificial intelligence (AI) conference. Grounded in game-theoretic reasoning, we hypothesize that self-rankings are informative because authors understand their work's conceptual depth and long-term promise. We tested this hypothesis in a large-scale experiment at a leading AI conference. Over more than a year, papers ranked highest by their authors received twice as many citations as their lowest-ranked counterparts, and self-rankings were especially effective at identifying highly cited papers. Self-rankings also outperformed peer-review scores in predicting future citation counts. These findings show that authors' self-rankings can complement peer review when identifying high-impact AI research.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s43588-026-01039-0

Perspect Psychol Sci. 2026 Aug 28. 17456916261452961

Estimating the Prevalence of Replication Research Is Challenging, Not Least Because Even a Thorough Database Search Can Be Shallow.

Tim Rakow.

Replication-duplicating methods to reexamine findings-is the bedrock of science. To survey this foundation for psychological science, Makel et al. (2012) searched 100 psychology journals, finding that all-fields database searches for replicat* returned 2% to 3% of articles. Coding the contents of 500 such articles, they estimated that only 1% to 2% of psychology articles report new replication research. Four studies, reported here, reexamined these results-including two preregistered replications with extension that sampled psychology articles (published pre-2012) without first searching databases. Nearly 20% of these 1,224 articles used "replication" or a variant term to identify replication as a study aim, report duplicating methods, or describe reexamining findings from prior studies. Moreover, authors frequently described reproducing procedures or retesting results without referring to "replication." My investigation identified possible reasons why previous prevalence estimates for author-identified replication in behavioral research ranged from 1% to 76%, including what discipline, subdiscipline, report sections, study features, or terminology the researchers considered when identifying replications. Chief among these reasons is the fact that around 90% of articles that discuss replication and over 80% of articles with author-identified replications are missed by searching databases for replicat* because databases hold few details per article. Equivalent limitations of database searches may present similar challenges for metascience investigations and research syntheses.

Keywords: conceptual replication; direct replication; file drawer effects; metascience; research culture; research synthesis

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/17456916261452961