Search

While scientific researchers often aim for high productivity, prioritizing the quantity of publications may come at the cost of time and effort dedicated to individual research. It is thus important to examine the relationship between productivity and disruption for individual researchers. Here, we show that with the increase in the number of published papers, the average citation per paper will be higher yet the mean disruption of papers will be lower. In addition, we find that the disruption of scientists' papers may decrease when they are highly productive in a given year. The disruption of papers in each year is not determined by the total number of papers published in the author's career, but rather by the productivity of that particular year. Besides, more productive authors also tend to give references to recent and high-impact research. Our findings highlight the potential risks of pursuing productivity and aim to encourage more thoughtful career planning among scientists. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Ning Gao,1,* Meng Li,2,* Weiming Wang,1 Lei Wang,3 Zhen Liu,4 Yufeng Guo1 1Department of Acupuncture and Moxibustion, Guang’anmen Hospital, China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences, Beijing, 100053, People’s Republic of China; 2Department of Gastroenterology, Guang’anmen Hospital, China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences, Beijing, 100053, People’s Republic of China; 3Department of Dermatology, China-Japan Friendship Hospital, Beijing, 100020, People’s Republic of China; 4Department of Gastroenterology, Xiyuan Hospital, China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences, Beijing, 100091, People’s Republic of China*These authors contributed equally to this workCorrespondence: Zhen Liu, Department of Gastroenterology, Xiyuan Hospital, China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences, No. 1 Xiyuan Playground, Haidian District, Beijing, People’s Republic of China, Email doctorliuzhen@126.com Yufeng Guo, Department of Acupuncture and Moxibustion, Guang’ an Men Hospital, China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences, No. 5 Beixiange St., Xicheng District, Beijing, People’s Republic of China, Email gamgyf@139.comBackground: In recent years, the incidence of herpes zoster has risen steeply, the exact pathogenesis of the acute pain and the transformation into postherpetic neuralgia are still obscure, and the absence of effective management remains a major therapeutic challenge. The purpose of this study was to perform a qualitative and quantitative bibliometric analysis of the 100 most cited papers on herpes zoster.Materials and methods: Related literature were retrieved from the Web of Science Core Collection. Excel and VOSviewer software were applied to quantitatively analyze, and construct the bibliometric network charts.Results: The Top 100 most-cited papers published between 2000 and 2018 showed a fluctuating downward trend. The most studies were published in the year of 2000 (n = 12). The article entitled “A vaccine to prevent herpes zoster and postherpetic neuralgia in older adults” from Oxman MN, was the most-cited publication. The United States was the most contributing country, followed by the United Kingdom, and Italy. Finland occupied the highest citations per publication (CPP). The University of Colorado topped the list of institutions with the most publications with 18 articles and also had the most citations (average citations: 281.78 per article). Myron J Levin from the University of Colorado School of Medicine is the most published and most cited researcher overall, whereas Duke University’s John W Gnann tops the list in terms of average CPP.Conclusion: In terms of the quantity of T100 articles, researchers, and organizations, the US is the predominant country. The most T100 papers were published in the special journal Clinical Infectious Diseases. The most academic focus remain the remedies for postherpetic neuralgia and vaccine development for individualized groups.Keywords: herpes zoster, bibliometric study, top-cited, citation, VOSviewer

Once retracted, the citation count of a research paper might be intuitively expected to drop precipitously. Here, we assessed the post-retraction citation of life and medical sciences papers from two top-ranked, multidisciplinary journals Nature and Science, from 2010 to 2018. Post-retraction citations accounted for a staggering 47.7% and 40.9% of total citations (median values), respectively, of the papers included in our analysis. These numbers are comparable with those from two journals with lower impact factors, and with retracted papers from the physical sciences discipline. A more qualitative assessment of five papers from the two journals with a high percentage (>50%) of post-retraction citations, all of which are associated with misconduct, reveal different contributing reasons and factors. Retracted papers associated with highly publicized misconduct cases are more prone to being cited with the retraction status indicated, or projected negatively (such as in the context of research ethics and misconduct discussions), with the latter also indicated by cross-disciplinary citations by humanities and social sciences articles. Retracted papers that retained significant validity in their main findings/conclusions may receive a large number of neutral citations that are somewhat blind to the retraction. Retracted papers in popular subject areas with massive publication outputs, particularly secondary publications such as reviews, may also have a high background citation noise. Our findings add further insights to the nature of post-retraction citations beyond the plain notion that these are largely made through sheer ignorance or negligence by the citing authors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The present research attempts to identify the impact of retracted papers on previous or subsequent papers. We consider the 5693 retracted papers from 1975 to 2020 indexed in the Web of Science database based on bibliometric methods. We use HistCite, Excel, and SPSS software as technical means. The findings suggest a significant difference between the average number of retracted and unretracted papers when cited in retracted papers. Furthermore, there is a significant difference between the average number of unretracted and retracted papers citing retracted papers. The reasons for the retraction of an article may not be the previous retracted papers, yet unretracted papers may be retracted later because of referring to (many) retracted papers. It is deduced that proprietors of citation databases should carefully focus on these papers by checking references to each new paper citing previously retracted papers.https://dorl.net/dor/20.1001.1.20088302.2022.20.1.17.0

Identifying the factors that influence the citation of articles helps authors improve the impact and reach of their research. Analysis of publications in the Journal of Fish Biology between 2008 and 2021 revealed that variables such as the number of keywords, abstract length, number of authors, and page length were associated with higher impact papers. These trends applied to both review and regular papers. These findings suggest that papers that are more informative, have higher numbers of authors, and have more keywords are more likely to be cited. Adoption of some simple "best‐practice" behaviors can improve the likelihood that a paper is cited. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Once retracted, the citation count of a research paper might be intuitively expected to drop precipitously. Here, we assessed the post-retraction citation of life and medical sciences papers from two top-ranked, multidisciplinary journals Nature and Science, from 2010 to 2018. Post-retraction citations accounted for a staggering 47.7% and 40.9% of total citations (median values), respectively, of the papers included in our analysis. These numbers are comparable with those from two journals with lower impact factors, and with retracted papers from the physical sciences discipline. A more qualitative assessment of five papers from the two journals with a high percentage (>50%) of post-retraction citations, all of which are associated with misconduct, reveal different contributing reasons and factors. Retracted papers associated with highly publicized misconduct cases are more prone to being cited with the retraction status indicated, or projected negatively (such as in the context of research ethics and misconduct discussions), with the latter also indicated by cross-disciplinary citations by humanities and social sciences articles. Retracted papers that retained significant validity in their main findings/conclusions may receive a large number of neutral citations that are somewhat blind to the retraction. Retracted papers in popular subject areas with massive publication outputs, particularly secondary publications such as reviews, may also have a high background citation noise. Our findings add further insights to the nature of post-retraction citations beyond the plain notion that these are largely made through sheer ignorance or negligence by the citing authors.

Input, output, impact, and processes are central indicators of the science, technology, and innovation production. The input is usually associated to investments made in science and technology, and it varies among different countries and scientific fields. Thus, the input can influence other impact indicators. Here, we evaluated the effect of the input data (i.e., number of funding) on process (i.e., collaboration) and output (i.e., number of citation) indicators of ecological research. Moreover, we detailed the effect of the number of funding on the collaboration and number of citations by each country (based on the nationality of authors). We found that most of published papers had some degrees of financial support, and that the production of papers with funding increased over the years. Funding had a positive effect on the collaboration and citation of papers; however, we observed that: in countries with higher investments in Science and Technology, the number of funding impacts positively and directly on the number of authors (collaboration) and in countries with low levels of investments in Science and Technology, the number of funding impacts positively and directly on the number of citations. Our models presented a low predictive power, but similar to other informetric studies. Our results indicated that impact indicators evaluated have an integrated structure, and the effects at one level can affect other levels. Nonetheless, the impact of the number of funding on informetric data can vary among countries; therefore, these results are important to the development of national policies and future informetric studies.

Source-based writing research has received much attention in recent years, which generally shows that both novice and expert EFL (English as a foreign language) writers have difficulties in writing from sources. As many Chinese institutes of higher education attach increasingly more importance to publications in international journals, citation and plagiarism become critical issues for both student and teacher researchers as well as the institutes. Nevertheless, not much research can be found on the issues with Chinese students, especially undergraduate students. The present study thus investigated Chinese undergraduate EFL learners’ perceptions of plagiarism and use of citations in their course papers. A total of 141 students from a highly prestigious university answered an open-ended questionnaire and 97 of them submitted course papers. Major findings were: (1) the students had a (fairly) good knowledge of plagiarism and identified various reasons for plagiarism in academic writing, (2) they used summary the most often when citing from sources, followed by paraphrase and quotation, and (3) they mainly used single-source citations to primarily support their own ideas, position an author’s opinions and/or findings, and acknowledge the author’s ideas. These findings reveal a general overview of students’ perceptions of plagiarism and use of citations in their course papers, thus providing implications for formal classroom instruction of writing from sources.

BackgroundAlzheimer’s disease (AD) is one of the common neurodegenerative diseases, which often coexists with epilepsy. It is very significant to study the treatment options and the relationship between AD and epilepsy.AimsThe purpose of this study was to analyze the top 100 cited papers about AD and epilepsy using bibliometrics, and to describe the current situation and predict research hot spots.MethodsTop 100 papers were obtained from the Web of Science Core Collection (WoSCC). The WoSCC was used to analyze the author, institution, country, title, keywords, abstract, citation, subject category, publication year, impact factor (IF), and other functions. SPSS25 software was used for statistical analysis and CiteSpace V.5.7.R2 was used to visualize the information through collaborative networks.ResultsThe number of publications gradually increased from 2000 to 2021. The total citation count for the top 100 papers ranged from 15 to 433(mean = 67.43). The largest number of papers were published in 2016 (n = 11). Meanwhile, USA (centrality: 0.93) and Columbia University (centrality: 0.06) were the most influential research country and institutions, respectively. The top contributing journals was Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease (8%). The IF for journals ranged from 1.819 to 53.44. A network analysis of the author’s keywords showed that “beta” (centrality: 0.39), “amyloid beta” (centrality: 0.29), “hyperexcitability” (centrality: 0.29) and “disease” (centrality: 0.29) had a high degree of centrality.ConclusionAD and epilepsy have been intensively studied in the past few years. The relationships, mechanisms and treatment of AD and epilepsy will be subjects of active research hotpots in future. These findings provide valuable information for clinicians and scientists to identify new perspectives with potential collaborators and cooperative countries.

The present research attempts to identify the impact of retracted papers on previous or subsequent papers. We consider the 5693 retracted papers from 1975 to 2020 indexed in the Web of Science database based on bibliometric methods. We use HistCite, Excel, and SPSS software as technical means. The findings suggest a significant difference between the average number of retracted and unretracted papers when cited in retracted papers. Furthermore, there is a significant difference between the average number of unretracted and retracted papers citing retracted papers. The reasons for the retraction of an article may not be the previous retracted papers, yet unretracted papers may be retracted later because of referring to (many) retracted papers. It is deduced that proprietors of citation databases should carefully focus on these papers by checking references to each new paper citing previously retracted papers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Retracted articles by Indian scholars have received significant attention in recent times. However, no comprehensive study has been conducted to analyse the citations of retracted papers authored by Indian researchers. This study aimed to assess the citations to retracted works published between 2001 and 2020 pre‐ and post‐retraction. The study found that there was an increase in retractions over time, with empirical data suggesting that the number of retractions has increased significantly, from 72 papers between 2001 and 2010 to 365 papers between 2011 and 2020. Duplication (n = 128) and plagiarism (n = 119) were the primary reasons for retraction. Notably, 90% of the retracted articles continued to receive citations after retraction. Among the retracted papers, eight received more than 50 post‐retraction citations, 39 received 20 to 50 citations, 347 received one to 19 citations, and 43 were not cited at all post‐retraction. There was an overall 8% decrease in citations after retraction. Retractions were observed across journals of varying impact factor, with a higher number of retractions observed in journals with an impact factor of less than 5 (n = 286; 65%). Furthermore, smaller research teams of two to five authors accounted for 72% of the total retractions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

With academic journals widely published and distributed online, the paper usage data has been a focus not only by publishers, but also by many researchers, especially librarians. The main reason for this motivation is that this data is considered as a measure of interest in published research and that possible references to the paper in the future have been used as the first predictive tool. The aim of this study is to examine whether there is a relationship between paper usage data and citation counts for Library Philosophy and Practice between 2005 and 2020, taking into account the number of citations that papers cited ten and over in the Scopus database have received in the Google Scholar (GS) database at the same time. As a result of the analysis, the correlations between download and citation counts from the Scopus database and the GS database were determined to be statistically significant positive (rS=0.261 and rP=0.310; rS=0.636 and rP=0.356; p<0.01), respectively. Similarly, there was a positive correlation between citations in the Scopus database and citations in the GS database (rS=0.581 and rP=0.812; p<0.01). In the meanwhile, taking into consideration the papers' single-author and multi-author statuses; it was observed that single-author papers received more citations on average in the Scopus and GS databases, but the difference between groups was not statistically significant (p>0.05). The findings were compared with the studies in the literature and evaluations were made about what can be done for future studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Eytan Nov,1 Elad Moisseiev1,2 1Department of Ophthalmology, Meir Medical Center, Kfar Saba, Israel; 2Sackler School of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, IsraelCorrespondence: Elad Moisseiev Department of OphthalmologyMeir Medical Center, 59 Tshernichovsky Street, Kfar Saba 4428164, IsraelTel +97297471527Fax +97297472427Email elad_moi@netvision.net.ilPurpose: To analyze the top 100 most-cited papers on pars intravitreal injections.Methods: Literature search using the bibliographic databases of the ISI Web of Knowledge for all types of publications on intravitreal injections published between 1965 and 2019 in peer-reviewed journals.Results: Eighty-three of the top 100 papers on intravitreal injections were published in ophthalmology journals, their majority in the top five Q1 leading journals in the field. They originated from 16 different countries, predominantly from the USA (n=52), and were all published in English. These manuscripts cover a wide spectrum of topics but were mostly focused on retinal diseases (n=60) and the use of anti-VEGF or steroid agents (n=75).Discussion: This bibliographic study provides a unique perspective on the evolution and assimilation of intravitreal injections, from their introduction, through their present role as the most common therapeutic procedure in ophthalmology, to future developments.Keywords: bibliography, citation, historical, intravitreal injection

Background: A large number of published articlesexists, centered on pediatric and adult medulloblastomas. Objective: To accomplish a systematic review and meta-analysis concerningmedulloblastoma, focusing on the clinical features, diagnostic and currenttreatment modalities, as well as prognostic factors. Methods: In March 2020, we performed a title- focused search using Thomson Reuters Web of Science database in order to identify the most cited articles centered on adult and pediatric medulloblastomas. Results: Our search resulted in 4.779 articles, published from 1975 until March 2020. All of them combined have been cited 118,703 times, with an average citation per item of 24.84. The most cited article was published by Pomeroy SL, et al. in 2002 in Nature Journal, whereas the least cited one was published by Huang E., et al, in 2002. Conclusions: The aim of the study is, via the presentation of the 100 most cited papers focused on medulloblastoma, to describe their relevant contribution regarding advances in therapeutic prospects, prognosis, molecular characteristics andreconsideration of treatment protocols.We describe how, and to what degree, the treatment guidelines and management of this tumor have changed from 1975 to 2020. We reviewrecent advances in cancer genomics which have revealed 4 distinct subgroups of medulloblastomas, as well asthe importance of molecular biology on the development of new treatment features. We aim not only to answer the question: WHAT were the most cited publications, but also to approach the question of WHY the most-cited sources were so.

Scaphoid fractures are commonly seen following a fall on an outstretched hand and often missed on initial presentation. An untreated scaphoid fracture may result in avascular necrosis of the scaphoid due to its retrograde blood supply. Published articles guide our investigation and management of these injuries. A citation analysis was performed on the top 30 articles relating to scaphoid fractures ranked by citation number. The 30 articles have been cited a total of 4595 times originating from 9 different countries. The leading article was cited 443 times with an average of 12.66 citations/year. Although this may not directly correlate with study quality, it does provide an insight to the influence which a paper has had on the scientific community. This list may prove invaluable to clinicians involved in the treatment of patients with scaphoid fractures and those actively furthering the development of the field. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: There is a large amount of articles centered on ependymoma. Objective: To present the 100 most-cited articles on ependymoma and to perform a bibliometric analysis. Methods: We performed a search on January 2020, using Thomson Reuters Web of Science database to identify the most noteworthy papers about ependymomas, without publication date restrictions. The top 100 most cited articles were detected and reviewed. Results: Our search resulted in 4.254 articles, published from 1975 until now (January 2020). All articles are in English. All of them combined have been cited 10.128 times, in 4.531 different articles, with an average citation per item of 101.28. The article that was accompanied by the greatest citation count was published by Taylor, MD, et al in 2005. The paper has received 532 citations, with an average of 33,25 citations per year. Conclusions: A large proportion of the most cited articles were neither written by authors that were neurosurgeons, nor were published in neurosurgery journals. The review provided an excellent opportunity to summarize the historical development and advances achieved in the field of ependymoma and the important contributions of different authors, specialty fields, and countries.

Background: There is a vast amount of published articles, centered on tethered cord syndrome, which is related to a constellation of diverse pathological entities, included under the term occult spinal dysraphism. Objective: To present the 100 most-cited articles dedicated to the entity of tethered cord syndrome and to present a comprehensive review of the relevant literature. Methods: In April 2020, we executed a title- focused search using Thomson Reuters Web of Science database in order to identify the most cited articles relevant to tethered cord syndrome. Consequently, we reviewed the results to certify that they were relevant to the criteria of our research protocol. The 100 most cited papers were chosen and further analyzed. Results: Our search resulted in 769 articles, published from 1976 until now. All of them combined, have been cited 5.340 times, in a total of 2.097 different articles, with an average citation per item of 53.4.The most cited article was published by Yamada S., in 1981, while the last in our list was published by Walton, M et al in 1995. Conclusions: We distinguished the top 100 most-cited articles dedicated to tethered cord syndrome, all of which are demonstrating important aspects and conclusions, being well-supported and methodologically fully adequate. We also reviewed the relevant evolution of the concept of management and the knowledge of the natural history, as well as new data in tethered cord syndrome research, alongside with the relevant contributions of different authors, fields of special interest, and countries.

Differentiation/ranking of authors in the scientific sphere is carried out according to their influence on the particular field(s) of science. The impact of the contribution is measured by the impact a text has on the development of the field/issue. It can be measured by the usage of ideas from other researchers works given as citations. Nowadays, citations are tracked by specific algorithms and citation management systems that have access to various databases, catalogues and bibliography systems through metadata. In the presented article, I discuss problematic issues that authors are facing while writing texts in different languages (other than the English language) and publishing them in periodicals. The most popular (often indicative) texts/authors still fail to be captured/cached by the algorithms, therefore creating an imbalance between the actual number of citations performed by other scholars and cached h-index displayed by the algorithm. The paper discusses the causes of the problem and suggests solutions for both authors and publishers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study quantitatively analyzes the patterns and impact of collaboration at author and country levels in China's social sciences from 1998 to 2017. Chinese Social Sciences Citation Index (CSSCI) and Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI) are combined as data sources to show a comprehensive picture of collaboration in China's social sciences, and to compare the differences in the way Chinese social scientists work when publishing nationally and internationally. Results show that there are huge differences in patterns and impact of collaboration between China's national and international publications in social sciences. Specifically, non-collaboration dominates in China's CSSCI papers while collaboration dominates in China's SSCI papers; two-authored is the main form of collaboration in China's CSSCI papers but the teamwork of three or more authors is the main form in China's SSCI papers; few of China's CSSCI papers are published in international collaboration but Sino-foreign cooperation is very common in China's SSCI papers; collaboration benefits citations of China's SSCI papers in all disciplines but international collaboration doesn't work well for citations of China's CSSCI papers. Besides, similarities between China's national and international publications can also be observed, e.g., disciplines more cooperative in China's CSSCI papers are also those more cooperative in China's SSCI papers; the top ten countries collaborate with China in CSSCI and SSCI are the same, and the USA accounts for about half of Sino-foreign collaborations in both CSSCI and SSCI. Finally, the usage of bibliometric databases and possible reasons for collaboration differences are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A stylised fact in bibliometric research is that in the field of management studies, half or more of the papers published are never cited. If true, this implies that efforts and resources are considerably wasted because half of the academic work is not considered worthy by the same community that developed them. We studied a sample of 2777 papers published in 20 journals and representing different levels of quality. Of these, only 191 papers, representing 6.5% of the sample, were never cited, suggesting that the aforementioned stylised fact is a myth. We identified the factors that contribute to the level of citations, including the ranking of the journal in the quality list, time since last citation, and number of authors. The implications discussed suggest a need for reflection regarding the relevance of the factors that predict future citations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A new simple bibliometric indicator is based on the number of highly cited papers (as defined by WoS®). It can be used to assess individuals, journals and universities. Unlike most other citation-based-indicators it equalizes the chances of young scientists (vs. their more experienced colleagues) and of scientists working in less-popular disciplines. The ranking of scientists based on the new indicator is not correlated with the rankings based upon the number of citations or on the Hirsch-index. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]