Search

Identifying factors that associate with more cited or higher quality research may be useful to improve science or to support research evaluation. This article reviews evidence for the existence of such factors in article text and metadata. It also reviews studies attempting to estimate article quality or predict long‐term citation counts using statistical regression or machine learning for journal articles or conference papers. Although the primary focus is on document‐level evidence, the related task of estimating the average quality scores of entire departments from bibliometric information is also considered. The review lists a huge range of factors that associate with higher quality or more cited research in some contexts (fields, years, journals) but the strength and direction of association often depends on the set of papers examined, with little systematic pattern and rarely any cause‐and‐effect evidence. The strongest patterns found include the near universal usefulness of journal citation rates, author numbers, reference properties, and international collaboration in predicting (or associating with) higher citation counts, and the greater usefulness of citation‐related information for predicting article quality in the medical, health and physical sciences than in engineering, social sciences, arts, and humanities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Open data as an integral part of the open science movement enhances the openness and sharing of scientific datasets. Nevertheless, the normative utilization of data journals, data papers, scientific datasets, and data citations necessitates further research. This study aims to investigate the citation practices associated with data papers and to explore the role of data papers in disseminating scientific datasets. Dataset accession numbers from NCBI databases were employed to analyze the prevalence of data citations for data papers from PubMed Central. A dataset citation practice identification rule was subsequently established. The findings indicate a consistent growth in the number of biomedical data journals published in recent years, with data papers gaining attention and recognition as both publications and data sources. Although the use of data papers as citation sources for data remains relatively rare, there has been a steady increase in data paper citations for data utilization through formal data citations. Furthermore, the increasing proportion of datasets reported in data papers that are employed for analytical purposes highlights the distinct value of data papers in facilitating the dissemination and reuse of datasets to support novel research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To what extent is the destiny of a scientific paper shaped by the cocitation network in which it is involved? What are the social contexts that can explain these structuring? Using bibliometric data, interviews with researchers, and social network analysis, this article proposes a typology based on egocentric cocitation networks that displays a quadruple structuring (before and after publication): polarization, clusterization, atomization, and attrition. It shows that the academic capital of the authors and the intellectual resources of their research are key factors of these destinies, as are the social relations between the authors concerned. The circumstances of the publishing are also correlated with the structuring of the egocentric cocitation networks, showing how socially embedded they are. Finally, the article discusses the contribution of these original networks to the analyze of scientific production and its dynamics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: This study assessed the features of the 100 most‐cited papers on oral health‐related quality of life (OHRQoL). Methods: The 100 most‐cited OHRQoL papers were collected from Web of Science, adopting a combined keyword search strategy. Google Scholar and Scopus databases were searched to compare citations. The following data were extracted from papers: title of the paper, number of citations, authorship, country, year of publication, title of the journal, study design, sample size, topic and OHRQoL instruments used. Graphical bibliometric networks were created using VOSviewer software. Results: The number of citations of the top 100 most‐cited OHRQoL papers ranged from 73 to 949. Fifty‐six papers received at least 100 citations and two received more than 400 citations. Most papers were from Canada (23%) and had been published in Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology (37%). David Locker was the most‐cited author (25 papers; 3,521 citations). The cross‐sectional study design was the most common (68%). The impact of oral health conditions on OHRQoL (43%) was the most frequent topic, and the Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP) was the most commonly used OHRQoL instrument (48%). Conclusions: This bibliometric analysis highlighted the characteristics of the 100 most‐cited OHRQoL papers, demonstrating that this field is far from saturated. This list of the most‐cited articles can provide a reference point to guide oral health research, education and services. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In 2014 leading publishers withdrew more than 120 nonsensical publications automatically generated with the SCIgen program. Casual observations suggested that similar problematic papers are still published and sold, without follow‐up retractions. No systematic screening has been performed and the prevalence of such nonsensical publications in the scientific literature is unknown. Our contribution is 2‐fold. First, we designed a detector that combs the scientific literature for grammar‐based computer‐generated papers. Applied to SCIgen, it has a 83.6% precision. Second, we performed a scientometric study of the 243 detected SCIgen‐papers from 19 publishers. We estimate the prevalence of SCIgen‐papers to be 75 per million papers in Information and Computing Sciences. Only 19% of the 243 problematic papers were dealt with: formal retraction (12) or silent removal (34). Publishers still serve and sometimes sell the remaining 197 papers without any caveat. We found evidence of citation manipulation via edited SCIgen bibliographies. This work reveals metric gaming up to the point of absurdity: fraudsters publish nonsensical algorithmically generated papers featuring genuine references. It stresses the need to screen papers for nonsense before peer‐review and chase citation manipulation in published papers. Overall, this is yet another illustration of the harmful effects of the pressure to publish or perish. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Understanding the impact different journal articles have in any academic field is important – particularly in emerging professions. A bibliometric analysis like this does not yet exist for paramedicine, despite the rapid increase in its primary literature. The objective of the present study was to identify and analyse the 100 top‐cited articles about paramedicine. Methods: We searched the Scopus database in August 2020 for studies relating to paramedicine. After screening titles and abstracts, we extracted the citation count, journal name, publication year, and country of origin. We manually assessed whether the study was clinical or not, noted the sex of the authors, the profession of first and last authors and the study design used. Results: The median citation count for the top 100 papers in paramedicine was 58 (interquartile range 46–84 citations). The articles were published across 48 different journals, with Resuscitation and Prehospital Emergency Care being the two most frequent. The top‐cited paramedic papers originated from 16 different countries and were written predominantly by medical doctors. Three quarters (73%) of the studies had a clinical focus, and a quarter (26%) were randomised controlled trials. Conclusions: The evolution of paramedicine towards professionalism is backed up by the growth of its own body of knowledge. This analysis of the 100 most cited studies in paramedicine is the first of its kind and highlights that paramedicine articles have a high citation count and are published across numerous journals, but with a relative lack of contribution from paramedic practitioners and female researchers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Our understanding of the oxytocin system has been built over the last 70 years by the work of hundreds of scientists, reported in thousands of papers. Here, we construct a map to that literature, using citation network analysis in conjunction with bibliometrics. The map identifies ten major 'clusters' of papers on oxytocin that differ in their particular research focus and that densely cite papers from the same cluster. We identify highly cited papers within each cluster and in each decade, not because citations are a good indicator of quality, but as a guide to recognising what questions were of wide interest at particular times. The clusters differ in their temporal profiles and bibliometric features; here, we attempt to understand the origins of these differences. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: This quali‐quantitative study analysed the 100 most‐cited papers in core dental public health (DPH) journals focusing on understanding international knowledge production. Methods: The DPH journals were selected from titles and scopes at Web of Science Core Collection database up to March 2020. Further comparisons were performed at Scopus and Google Scholar databases. Some bibliometric parameters were extracted as follows: title, number of citations, citation density (number of citations per year), first author's country, year of publication, study design and subject. VOSviewer software was used to create graphical bibliometric maps. Results: Papers were ranked by the total number of citations, which ranged from 104 to 1,019, and six papers were cited more than 400 times. Papers were published from 1974 to 2013, mainly in Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology. Most frequent study designs were cross‐sectional (30%) and nonsystematic review (25%). Most papers were from Europe (54%) and North America (31%). First authors were predominantly from the United Kingdom (17%), United States of America (17%) and Canada (14%). VOSviewer map of co‐authorship demonstrated the existence of clusters in the research collaboration. Although epidemiology was the most frequent subject (84%), health services research presented eight times higher citation density. Conclusions: Top 100 most‐cited papers in core DPH journals were predominantly observational studies from Anglo‐Saxon countries. Top 100 most‐cited papers in core DPH journals tend to be cross‐sectional studies carried out in the United States with highest citation in health services research. Locker D, Petersen PE and Sheiham A are a landmark for DPH field. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To more reasonably allocate a paper's credit, this article argues that both a paper's authors and references contribute to a given paper. Accordingly, we quantitatively represent the proportion of contributions from each author and reference to a paper. A paper's credit can be allocated among its authors and references based on their contributions. All papers carry innate credit because of publication. If cited, they also carry external credit from the citing papers. The proportion of a paper's credit allocated to references can be regarded as a credit output and serves as an input for these references. In this scenario, only the credit assigned to a paper's authors remains as the paper's deserved credit. The credit of papers can be transferred in a direction opposite that of knowledge diffusion. Via this method, the estimate of an individual reference's contribution incorporates content‐based citation analysis, a promising method to differentiate different citations. A paper's deserved credit represents the contribution of the paper's authors to the scientific community via the new knowledge they provide in the paper. Therefore, it is rational to evaluate papers according to their deserved credit, not the credit they carry. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article explores the factors influencing the future citations of conference papers. We concentrated on the explanatory power of early attention on conference papers for citations collected from Google Scholar and Scopus. The early attention data includes users' online activities in a conference support system: CN3. Bookmarks from the bibliographic management system, Citeulike, were used as a collateral source of early attention. To examine the chronological contributions of 13 factors on citations, a multiple sequential regression analysis was conducted for three timepoints of the publication cycle—paper submission, time of conferences, and months after conferences. Our results illustrate that online readers' early attention of Citeulike bookmarks were found to have the most influence on the future impact of the conference papers. The early attention records from CN3 made noteworthy improvements to explaining both the Google and Scopus citations as well. We also found that the type of papers the number of papers presented at a conference, and the best article award records were significant factors influencing future citations. However, the magnitude of the effects made by online readers' early attention from both sources appears to be larger than these three traditional factors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background/Aim: The updated version of the International Association of Dental Traumatology (IADT) guidelines was published online in May 2020 in the form of four papers. They are extensively used in dental trauma education in textbooks, undergraduate and postgraduate programs, and clinical workshops. Hence, this study aimed to assess the impact, global scientific reach, and utilization of these guidelines through altmetric and citation analysis. Material and Methods: The protocol was prepared after an expert group discussion. Dimensions database was used to derive the altmetric and citation data on April 10th, 2023. The data was extracted by using a self‐designed pre‐piloted form by two authors independently. The citing articles were further categorized into the type of study and the domains and subdomains of dental traumatology. The VOSviewer program was utilized to explore the correlation between the subdomains and the overlap of citations was assessed by creating a citation matrix. Results: A total of 552 citations had been collectively received by the four papers. The highest was seen for the guidelines for fracture and luxation in permanent teeth (FL), avulsion in permanent teeth (AV), general introduction (GI), and primary teeth (PT). Dental Traumatology had the maximum number of citing papers for each guideline. They were from 52 countries with English being the commonest language. Overall, the maximum number of citations had been received in narrative reviews (n = 104) and the majority of cited papers were categorized in the therapeutic domains. The most common subdomain for the papers that cited GI, FL, and AV was "treatment protocols in permanent teeth", while it was "awareness of prevention and emergency management of traumatic dental injuries" for the papers that had cited PT. Conclusions: This analysis highlighted that the IADT 2020 guidelines are globally popular resources, which are widely used by the researchers across specialities and are intended towards clinical application. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study presents and explains the phenomenon of indexjacking, which involves the systematic infiltration of hijacked journals into international indexing databases, with Scopus being one of the most infiltrated among these databases. Through an analysis of known lists of hijacked journals, the study identified at least 67 hijacked journals that have penetrated Scopus since 2013. Of these, 33 journals indexed unauthorized content in Scopus and 23 compromised the homepage link in the journal's profile, while 11 did both. As of September 2023, 41 hijacked journals are still compromising the data of legitimate journals in Scopus. The presence of hijacked journals in Scopus is a challenge for scientific integrity due to the legitimization of unreliable papers that have not undergone peer review and compromises the quality of the Scopus database. The presence of hijacked journals in Scopus has far‐reaching effects. Papers published in these journals may be cited, and unauthorized content from these journals in Scopus is thus imported into other databases, including ORCID and the WHO COVID‐19 Research Database. This poses a particular challenge for research evaluation in those countries, where cloned versions of approved journals may be used to acquire publications and verifying their authenticity can be difficult. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study compares the 45 “Best Paper” award articles with nonaward articles published in the Journal of Association for Information Science and Technology (JASIST) to observe the differences in citations. The results show that, in most cases, the citations of the award articles are more numerous than the median, belonging to the Top‐50% stratum. Only 15.6% of the award articles have the status of being the most‐cited article of the year in which the article was published; 24.4% belong to the Top‐5% stratum of the publication year; 44.4% belong to the Top‐10% stratum of the publication year; and 73.3% belong to the Top‐25% stratum of the publication year. Surprisingly, from 2000 to 2012, none of the award articles made it to the Top‐10% stratum, apart from the year 2004; the least‐cited award article received only three citations during a 5‐year period. The results show a wide range of citations among the Best JASIST Papers. This study also observes that the number of articles changed little from 1969 to 1995 but grew rapidly from 1996 to 2012. Suggestions for possible ways to better meet the challenges of the journal's growth in size and scope in selecting award articles are provided. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In recent years, the relationship of collaboration among scientists and the citation impact of papers have been frequently investigated. Most of the studies show that the two variables are closely related: An increasing collaboration activity (measured in terms of number of authors, number of affiliations, and number of countries) is associated with an increased citation impact. However, it is not clear whether the increased citation impact is based on the higher quality of papers that profit from more than one scientist giving expert input or other (citation-specific) factors. Thus, the current study addresses this question by using two comprehensive data sets with publications (in the biomedical area) including quality assessments by experts (F1000Prime member scores) and citation data for the publications. The study is based on more than 15,000 papers. Robust regression models are used to investigate the relationship between number of authors, number of affiliations, and number of countries, respectively, and citation impact-controlling for the papers' quality (measured by F1000Prime expert ratings). The results point out that the effect of collaboration activities on impact is largely independent of the papers' quality. The citation advantage is apparently not quality related; citation-specific factors (e.g., self-citations) seem to be important here. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As a follow-up to the highly cited authors list published by Thomson Reuters in June 2014, we analyzed the top 1% most frequently cited papers published between 2002 and 2012 included in the Web of Science ( WoS) subject category 'Information Science & Library Science.' In all, 798 authors contributed to 305 top 1% publications; these authors were employed at 275 institutions. The authors at Harvard University contributed the largest number of papers, when the addresses are whole-number counted. However, Leiden University leads the ranking if fractional counting is used. Twenty-three of the 798 authors were also listed as most highly cited authors by Thomson Reuters in June 2014 (). Twelve of these 23 authors were involved in publishing 4 or more of the 305 papers under study. Analysis of coauthorship relations among the 798 highly cited scientists shows that coauthorships are based on common interests in a specific topic. Three topics were important between 2002 and 2012: (a) collection and exploitation of information in clinical practices; (b) use of the Internet in public communication and commerce; and (c) scientometrics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Users of research databases, such as CiteSeerX, Google Scholar, and Microsoft Academic, often search for papers using a set of keywords. Unfortunately, many authors avoid listing sufficient keywords for their papers. As such, these applications may need to automatically associate good descriptive keywords with papers. When the full text of the paper is available this problem has been thoroughly studied. In many cases, however, due to copyright limitations, research databases do not have access to the full text. On the other hand, such databases typically maintain metadata, such as the title and abstract and the citation network of each paper. In this paper we study the problem of predicting which keywords are appropriate for a research paper, using different methods based on the citation network and available metadata. Our main goal is in providing search engines with the ability to extract keywords from the available metadata. However, our system can also be used for other applications, such as for recommending keywords for the authors of new papers. We create a data set of research papers, and their citation network, keywords, and other metadata, containing over 470 K papers with and more than 2 million keywords. We compare our methods with predicting keywords using the title and abstract, in offline experiments and in a user study, concluding that the citation network provides much better predictions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective To assess whether a correlation exists between newsworthiness (Altmetric score) and scientific impact markers, such as citation analysis, impact factors, and levels of evidence. Methods The top five most cited articles for the year 2014 and 2015 from the top 10 ranking urology journals (Scientific Impact Group) were identified. The top 50 articles each in 2014 and 2015 were identified from Altmetric support based on media activity (Media Impact Group). We determined the number of citations that these articles received in the scientific literature, and calculated correlations between citations with Altmetric scores. Results In the Scientific Impact Group, the mean number of citations per article was 37.6, and the most highly cited articles were oncology guidelines. The mean Altmetric score in these articles was 14.8. There was a weak positive correlation between citations and Altmetric score ( r s = 0.35, 95% confidence interval 0.16-0.52, P < 0.001). In the Media Impact Group, the mean Altmetric score was 121.1 and most widely shared articles all related to sexual medicine. In this group, the mean number of citations was 9.7 and there was a weak negative correlation between Altmetric score and citations ( rs = −0.20, P = 0.046). Conclusion The top articles based on Altmetric scores were not highly cited, suggesting that publications receiving the most media attention may not be the most scientifically rigorous, or that this audience places greater value on different subjects than the scientific community. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Scientific progress is driven by important, infrequent discoveries that cannot be readily identified and quantified, which makes research assessment very difficult. Bibliometric indicators of important discoveries have been formulated using an empirical approach, based on the mathematical properties of the high-citation tail of the citation distribution. To investigate the theoretical basis of such formulations this study compares the US/ European research performance ratios expressed in terms of highly cited papers and Nobel Prize-winning discoveries. The research performance ratio in terms of papers was studied from the citation distributions in the fields of chemistry, physics, and biochemistry and molecular biology. It varied as a function of the citation level. Selecting an appropriate high citation level, the ratios in terms of highly cited papers were compared with the corresponding ratios for Nobel Prize-winning discoveries in Chemistry, Physics, and Physiology or Medicine. Research performance ratios expressed in terms of highly cited papers and Nobel Prize-winning discoveries are reasonably similar, and suggest that the research success of the United States is almost 3 times that of Europe. A similar conclusion was obtained using articles published in Nature and Science. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Supplementary search methods, including citation searching, are essential if systematic reviews are to avoid producing biased conclusions. Little evidence exists on how to prioritise databases for citation searching or to establish whether using multiple sources is beneficial. Objectives: A systematic review examining urgent and emergency care reconfiguration was used to investigate the utility of citation searching on Web of Science (WOS) and/or Google Scholar (GS). Methods: This case study investigated numbers of studies, additional studies and unique studies retrieved from both sources. In addition, the time to search, the ease of adding references to reference management software and obtaining abstracts of studies for screening are briefly considered. Results: WOS retrieved 62 references after deduplication of the results, 52 being additional references not retrieved during the database searching. GS retrieved 134 unique references with 63 additional references. WOS and GS retrieved the same three additional included studies. WOS was less time intensive to search given the facility to restrict to English language papers and availability of abstracts. Conclusions: In a single systematic review case study, citation searching was required to identify all included studies. Citation searching on WOS is more efficient, where a subscription is available. Both databases identified the same studies but GS required additional time to remove non‐English language studies and locate abstracts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Purpose: Urticaria is a prevalent recurrent skin allergic condition. Severe itching significantly impacts patients' quality of life. This paper aims to investigate the development status of urticaria through bibliometric analysis to predict future research hotspots and trends. Methods: On October 29, 2023, a literature search was conducted in the Web of Science (WOS) database to collect urticaria‐related publications. The top 100 most cited articles were charted, and VOSviewer software was utilized for the literature data analysis. A visual analysis was performed on the number of articles, journals, main researchers, keywords, and so on. Results: The research involved 415 authors from 28 countries, published across 25 journals, ranging from 1963 to 2023. Marcus Maurer was the leading author, with the United States being the foremost country in urticaria research. CEH Grattan received the most citations, and The Medical University of South Carolina had the highest number of publications. Key research focuses include epidemiology, pathogenesis, drug therapy, and quality of life assessments. "Anti‐high affinity IgE receptor α chain (FcεRIα)," "chronic idiopathic urticaria," "autoantibodies," "histamine‐release" emerged as the keywords with the highest prominence. Conclusion: The field of urticaria research has attracted substantial attention over the past few decades, witnessing rapid development. This study highlighted the top 100 articles by citation frequency within the urticaria field. Bibliometric analysis revealed a shift in treatment methods from traditional antihistamines to biological agents, with significant emphasis on improving the quality of life in chronic urticaria management. These areas represent the current research focal points and indicate future trends in urticaria research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: An innovative and interactive real‐world environment can be presented with augmented reality (AR) that comprises digital visual elements, audio, or other sensory information delivered via technology to enhance one's experience. AR has numerous potential applications in various everyday fields. The education sector is one such arena where AR has been implemented prominently globally. AR in education can impact active students' learning to memorize effectively and can persuade them to engage in a meaningful process of learning. Objectives: This article presents a bibliometric analysis of some recent applications of AR, emphasizing the potential effects, challenges, and trends of AR in the education sector for the past 15 years. Methods: A total of 3909 documents published during 2006–2020 were retrieved from the Scopus database for analysis. The bibliometric analysis included document types, subject categorization, document growth, as well as top contributing sources, countries, authors, and funding sponsors. It also analyses keywords, abstracts, titles, and characteristics of the most cited documents. Additionally, it provides a brief account of the challenges for AR adaptation in education. Results and conclusions: The findings uncover an increased use of AR to promote enhanced learning in the education field. This work will provide the survey, limitations, and drawbacks, as well as open usability and technical issues that may represent new challenges for future research in this field. Lay Description: What is already known about this topic: AR has numerous potential applications in various everyday fields.The education sector is also one arena where AR has been implemented widely.AR in education can provide effective learning processes to students. What this paper adds: Survey of last 15 years (3909 documents) based on the Scopus database.Analysis of AR documents by authors, journals, countries, and funding agencies.Publication trends based on titles, keywords and abstract analysis.Literature survey for top 50 most cited publications on AR in education sector. Implications for practice and/or policy: An increased use of AR to promote enhanced learning in the education field.Reflects the limitations, drawbacks, open usability and technical issues.Future research challenges with AR adaptation in academics and other learners. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: In celebration of the journal's 50th anniversary, the aim of the study was to review the whole collection of Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology (CDOE) publications from 1973 to 2022 and provide a complete overview of the main publication characteristics. Methods: The study used bibliometric techniques such as performance and science mapping analysis of 3428 articles extracted from the Scopus database. The data were analysed using the 'Bibliometrix' package in R. The journal's scientific production was examined, along with the yearly citation count, the distribution of publications based on authors, the corresponding author's country and affiliation and citation count, citing source and keywords. Bibliometric network maps were constructed to determine the conceptual, intellectual and social collaborative structure over the past 50 years. The trending research topics and themes were identified. Results: The total number of articles and average citations has increased over the years. D Locker, AJ Spencer, A Sheiham and WM Thomson were the most frequently published authors, and PE Petersen, GD Slade and AI Ismail published papers with the highest citations. The most published countries were the United States, United Kingdom, Brazil and Canada, frequently engaging in collaborative efforts. The most common keywords used were 'dental caries', 'oral epidemiology' and 'oral health'. The trending topics were healthcare and health disparities, social determinants of health, systematic review and health inequalities. Epidemiology, oral health and disparities were highly researched areas. Conclusion: This bibliometric study reviews CDOE's significant contribution to dental public health by identifying key research trends, themes, influential authors and collaborations. The findings provide insights into the need to increase publications from developing countries, improve gender diversity in authorship and broaden the scope of research themes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The BRICS countries ( Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) are notable for their increasing participation in science and technology. The governments of these countries have been boosting their investments in research and development to become part of the group of nations doing research at a world-class level. This study investigates the development of the BRICS countries in the domain of top-cited papers (top 10% and 1% most frequently cited papers) between 1990 and 2010. To assess the extent to which these countries have become important players at the top level, we compare the BRICS countries with the top-performing countries worldwide. As the analyses of the (annual) growth rates show, with the exception of Russia, the BRICS countries have increased their output in terms of most frequently cited papers at a higher rate than the top-cited countries worldwide. By way of additional analysis, we generate coauthorship networks among authors of highly cited papers for 4 time points to view changes in BRICS participation (1995, 2000, 2005, and 2010). Here, the results show that all BRICS countries succeeded in becoming part of this network, whereby the Chinese collaboration activities focus on the US. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Supply chain disruptions have a significant negative impact on organizational performance, and while companies seek to mitigate the impact of disruption risks, supply chain members propose contingency governance measures from different perspectives to build resilient supply chain systems. However, there is no clear governance consensus on supply chain contingency governance, nor is it clear what research themes exist in this area, so to advance the scientific debate on this topic, this paper presents a systematic review of the literature. Based on the core literature base of Web of Science (WoS), screening 3791 academic publications closely related to supply chain emergency governance as research objects, using visual measurement tools to conduct descriptive statistical analysis and cluster analysis of the literature, summarizing the research on supply chain emergency governance. The results found that the literature in the field of supply chain emergency governance continues to rise, and with the outbreak of the COVID‐19, the number of publications in this field reached a record high in 2021. In the cluster analysis of the literature, supply chain management, blockchain, and emergency response research under the COVID‐19 ranked in the top three research themes. This paper provides a literature review for these three major clusters and summarizes the research on emergency governance under different themes. Finally, future research directions in this area are proposed based on the gaps and limitations of existing research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The quality of scientific publications can be measured by quantitative indices such as the h‐index, Source Normalized Impact per Paper, or g‐index. However, these measures lack to explain the function or reasons for citations and the context of citations from citing publication to cited publication. We argue that citation context may be considered while calculating the impact of research work. However, mining citation context from unstructured full‐text publications is a challenging task. In this paper, we compiled a data set comprising 9,518 citations context. We developed a deep learning‐based architecture for citation context classification. Unlike feature‐based state‐of‐the‐art models, our proposed focal‐loss and class‐weight‐aware BiLSTM model with pretrained GloVe embedding vectors use citation context as input to outperform them in multiclass citation context classification tasks. Our model improves on the baseline state‐of‐the‐art by achieving an F1 score of 0.80 with an accuracy of 0.81 for citation context classification. Moreover, we delve into the effects of using different word embeddings on the performance of the classification model and draw a comparison between fastText, GloVe, and spaCy pretrained word embeddings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To explore the citation evolution of papers published in the same year but different month, we selected papers from a discipline (physical geography), a subject (diabetes: endocrine and metabolism) and a journal (Journal of Biological Chemistry) published in 2005 as research objects. These papers were divided into six groups according to the difference in publication month, and we analyzed citations to these papers for the 9 years after publication. The results showed that within 5 years after papers from physical geography were published, the overall differences in citations of papers in different groups were statistically significant (P < 0.05); after that, the differences were not statistically significant. Within 5 years after papers from diabetes (endocrine and metabolism) were published, the overall differences in citations of papers in different groups were statistically significant (P < 0.05); thereafter, the differences were not statistically significant. Within 7 years after papers from the Journal of Biological Chemistry were published, the overall differences in citations of papers in different groups were statistically significant (P < 0.05); thereafter, the differences were not statistically significant. Citations of papers followed the same pattern irrespective of discipline, subject or journal: citations of papers published in the same year but different month were obviously different in the first few publishing years, but as time went on, only the difference in publication month in a calendar year did not affect the papers' longer-term citation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A network is constructed by nodes and links, thus the node degree and the link strength appear as underlying quantities in network analysis. While the power-law distribution of node degrees is verified as a basic feature of numerous real networks, we investigate whether the link strengths follow the power-law distribution in weighted networks. After testing 12 different paper cocitation networks with 2 methods, fitting in double-log scales and the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test ( K- S test), we observe that, in most cases, the link strengths also follow the approximate power-law distribution. The results suggest that the power-law type distribution could emerge not only in nodes and informational entities, but also in links and informational connections. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An editorial is presented with brief items on a variety of editorial topics including journal impact, editorial practices, and the editorial board and reviewers. Topics include the top ten most-cited papers for 2020 to 2021, changes in senior editors and performance metrics. [Extracted from the article]

Exchange rate policy is regarded as a critical macroeconomic policy. Especially the misalignment of exchange rates is significantly impact on imported goods, particularly oil imports, which ultimately effect external and internal imbalances. This study conducts a systematic literature review on exchange rate misalignment, as well as an intriguing content analysis of the top 100 most cited articles. Further it identifies the most influential authors, papers and the journals in the field using citation analysis. The relevant articles are identified using the Scopus database. Three hundred and seventy‐two scholarly papers have been found relevant. The results of the content analysis show that the purchasing power parity is the most frequently used theoretical foundation, followed by the Behavioural Equilibrium Exchange Rate. Additionally, the analysis reveals that the authors primarily utilised time series data. The identification of essential and core journals is made through Bradford's Law. Schuh (American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 56, 1974, 1) is a pioneering study that discussed the misalignment of exchange rates in the US agriculture sector. Valérie Mignon is the most prolific author in terms of both productivity and impact. The paper authored by O'Connell (Journal of International Economics, 44, 1998, 1) titled 'overvaluation of purchasing power parity', is recognised as the most influential paper in terms of average citations per year. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper explores the effect of publishing a data paper in the Open Access journal Data in Brief (DIB) on the citation counts of the related research paper. Using regression analysis, citation content analysis and a survey method, we investigate whether research papers with a related data paper have higher citation counts and the potential reasons. After controlling variables that correlate with the citation counts, research papers with a related data paper were found to have higher citation counts than those published in the same issue of the same journal. Next, we explored the causal relationship between the two variables by surveying the corresponding authors of 618 papers who shared datasets in DIB from 2014 to 2021. The results show that the authors acknowledge the benefits of sharing data in DIB, including citation increase and career reputation enhancement. We further explored how the data papers in DIB increase the citations of the related research papers by using citation content analysis. We found that scientists co‐cite the data papers and their related research papers for the purpose of reusing the underlying data or portraying a better understanding of the underlying data and related research articles. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Although it is commonly expected that the citation context of a reference is likely to provide more detailed and direct information about the nature of a citation, few studies in the literature have specifically addressed the extent to which the information in different parts of a scientific publication differs. Do abstracts tend to use conceptually broader terms than sentences in a citation context in the body of a publication? In this article, we propose a method to analyze and compare latent topics in scientific publications, in particular, from abstracts of papers that cited a target reference and from sentences that cited the target reference. We conducted an experiment and applied topical modeling techniques to full-text papers in eight biomedicine journals. Topics derived from the two sources are compared in terms of their similarities and broad-narrow relationships defined based on information entropy. The results show that abstracts and citation contexts are characterized by distinct sets of topics with moderate overlaps. Furthermore, the results confirm that topics from abstracts of citing papers have broader terms than topics from citation contexts formed by citing sentences. The method and the findings could be used to enhance and extend the current methodologies for research evaluation and citation evaluation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Keeping up with rapidly growing research fields, especially when there are multiple interdisciplinary sources, requires substantial effort for researchers, program managers, or venture capital investors. Current theories and tools are directed at finding a paper or website, not gaining an understanding of the key papers, authors, controversies, and hypotheses. This report presents an effort to integrate statistics, text analytics, and visualization in a multiple coordinated window environment that supports exploration. Our prototype system, Action Science Explorer ( ASE), provides an environment for demonstrating principles of coordination and conducting iterative usability tests of them with interested and knowledgeable users. We developed an understanding of the value of reference management, statistics, citation text extraction, natural language summarization for single and multiple documents, filters to interactively select key papers, and network visualization to see citation patterns and identify clusters. A three-phase usability study guided our revisions to ASE and led us to improve the testing methods. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Historically, papers have been physically bound to the journal in which they were published; but in the digital age papers are available individually, no longer tied to their respective journals. Hence, papers now can be read and cited based on their own merits, independently of the journal's physical availability, reputation, or impact factor ( IF). We compare the strength of the relationship between journals' IFs and the actual citations received by their respective papers from 1902 to 2009. Throughout most of the 20th century, papers' citation rates were increasingly linked to their respective journals' IFs. However, since 1990, the advent of the digital age, the relation between IFs and paper citations has been weakening. This began first in physics, a field that was quick to make the transition into the electronic domain. Furthermore, since 1990 the overall proportion of highly cited papers coming from highly cited journals has been decreasing and, of these highly cited papers, the proportion not coming from highly cited journals has been increasing. Should this pattern continue, it might bring an end to the use of the IF as a way to evaluate the quality of journals, papers, and researchers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Impact factors (and similar measures such as the Scimago Journal Rankings) suffer from two problems: (a) citation behavior varies among fields of science and, therefore, leads to systematic differences, and (b) there are no statistics to inform us whether differences are significant. The recently introduced 'source normalized impact per paper' indicator of Scopus tries to remedy the first of these two problems, but a number of normalization decisions are involved, which makes it impossible to test for significance. Using fractional counting of citations-based on the assumption that impact is proportionate to the number of references in the citing documents-citations can be contextualized at the paper level and aggregated impacts of sets can be tested for their significance. It can be shown that the weighted impact of Annals of Mathematics (0.247) is not so much lower than that of Molecular Cell (0.386) despite a five-f old difference between their impact factors (2.793 and 13.156, respectively). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this study, reference standards and reference multipliers are suggested as a means to compare the citation impact of earlier research publications in physics (from the period of “Little Science” in the early 20th century) with that of contemporary papers (from the period of “Big Science,” beginning around 1960). For the development of time-specific reference standards, the authors determined (a) the mean citation rates of papers in selected physics journals as well as (b) the mean citation rates of all papers in physics published in 1900 (Little Science) and in 2000 (Big Science); this was accomplished by relying on the processes of field-specific standardization in bibliometry. For the sake of developing reference multipliers with which the citation impact of earlier papers can be adjusted to the citation impact of contemporary papers, they combined the reference standards calculated for 1900 and 2000 into their ratio. The use of reference multipliers is demonstrated by means of two examples involving the time adjusted h index values for Max Planck and Albert Einstein. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A central issue in evaluative bibliometrics is the characterization of the citation distribution of papers in the scientific literature. Here, we perform a large-scale empirical analysis of journals from every field in Thomson Reuters' Web of Science database. We find that only 30 of the 2,184 journals have citation distributions that are inconsistent with a discrete lognormal distribution at the rejection threshold that controls the false discovery rate at 0.05. We find that large, multidisciplinary journals are over-represented in this set of 30 journals, leading us to conclude that, within a discipline, citation distributions are lognormal. Our results strongly suggest that the discrete lognormal distribution is a globally accurate model for the distribution of “eventual impact” of scientific papers published in single-discipline journal in a single year that is removed sufficiently from the present date. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Open access (OA) publishing, whereby authors, their institutions, or their granting bodies pay or provide a repository through which peer-reviewed work is available online for free, is championed as a model to increase the number of citations per paper and disseminate results widely, especially to researchers in developing countries. We compared the number of citations of OA and non-OA papers in six journals and four books published since 2000 to test whether OA increases number of citations overall and increases citations made by authors in developing countries. After controlling for type of paper (e.g., review or research paper), length of paper, authors’ citation profiles, number of authors per paper, and whether the author or the publisher released the paper in OA, OA had no statistically significant influence on the overall number of citations per journal paper. Journal papers were cited more frequently if the authors had published highly cited papers previously, were members of large teams of authors, or published relatively long papers, but papers were not cited more frequently if they were published in an OA source. Nevertheless, author-archived OA book chapters accrued up to eight times more citations than chapters in the same book that were not available through OA, perhaps because there is no online abstracting service for book chapters. There was also little evidence that journal papers or book chapters published in OA received more citations from authors in developing countries relative to those journal papers or book chapters not published in OA. For scholarly publications in conservation biology, only book chapters had an OA citation advantage, and OA did not increase the number of citations papers or chapters received from authors in developing countries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Based on the principles of the h-index, I propose a new measure, the w-index, as a particularly simple and more useful way to assess the substantial impact of a researcher's work, especially regarding excellent papers. The w-index can be defined as follows: If w of a researcher's papers have at least 10w citations each and the other papers have fewer than 10(w+1) citations, that researcher's w-index is w. The results demonstrate that there are noticeable differences between the w-index and the h-index, because the w-index plays close attention to the more widely cited papers. These discrepancies can be measured by comparing the ranks of 20 astrophysicists, a few famous physical scientists, and 16 Price medalists. Furthermore, I put forward the w(q)-index to improve the discriminatory power of the w-index and to rank scientists with the same w. The factor q is the least number of citations a researcher with w needed to reach w+1. In terms of both simplicity and accuracy, the w-index or w(q)-index can be widely used for evaluation of scientists, journals, conferences, scientific topics, research institutions, and so on. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Gaining a rapid overview of an emerging scientific topic, sometimes called research fronts, is an increasingly common task due to the growing amount of interdisciplinary collaboration. Visual overviews that show temporal patterns of paper publication and citation links among papers can help researchers and analysts to see the rate of growth of topics, identify key papers, and understand influences across subdisciplines. This article applies a novel network-visualization tool based on meaningful layouts of nodes to present research fronts and show citation links that indicate influences across research fronts. To demonstrate the value of two-dimensional layouts with multiple regions and user control of link visibility, we conducted a design-oriented, preliminary case study with 6 domain experts over a 4-month period. The main benefits were being able (a) to easily identify key papers and see the increasing number of papers within a research front, and (b) to quickly see the strength and direction of influence across related research fronts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We studied the views of scientists who experience resistance to their new ideas by surveying a sample of 815 scientists who are authors of highly cited articles. The 132 responses (16.2%) received indicated that only 47 scientists (35.6%) had no problems with referees, editors, or other scientists. The most common causes of difficulty were rejection of the manuscript, and scepticism, ignorance, and incomprehension. The most common arguments given by referees against papers were that the findings were an insufficient advance to warrant publication, lacked practical impact, were based on a wrong hypothesis, or were based on a wrong concept. The strategies authors used to overcome resistance included obtaining help from someone to publish problematic papers, making changes in the text, and simple persistence. Despite difficulties, however, some respondents acknowledged the positive effect of peer review. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The author presents a different view on properties of impact measures than given in the paper of De Visscher (2011). He argues that a good impact measure works better when citations are concentrated rather than spread out over articles. The author also presents theoretical evidence that the g-index and the R-index can be close to the square root of the total number of citations, whereas this is not the case for the A-index. Here the author confirms an assertion of De Visscher. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

According to current research in bibliometrics, percentiles (or percentile rank classes) are the most suitable method for normalizing the citation counts of individual publications in terms of the subject area, the document type, and the publication year. Up to now, bibliometric research has concerned itself primarily with the calculation of percentiles. This study suggests how percentiles (and percentile rank classes) can be analyzed meaningfully for an evaluation study. Publication sets from four universities are compared with each other to provide sample data. These suggestions take into account on the one hand the distribution of percentiles over the publications in the sets (universities here) and on the other hand concentrate on the range of publications with the highest citation impact-that is, the range that is usually of most interest in the evaluation of scientific performance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study aims to provide a comprehensive examination of the evolution of regional science, a scholarly domain in the social sciences that applies analytical and quantitative approaches and methods to understand and address urban, rural, or regional problems. We conducted a bibliometric analysis of 8509 articles published in six regional science flagship journals (including the Journal of Regional Science, Annals of Regional Science, Regional Science and Urban Economics, Papers in Regional Science, Regional Science Policy and Practice, and International Regional Science Review) from 1958 to 2021. The analysis presents an objective data‐driven and unprecedented visualization of the field's intellectual, social, and conceptual structure and trends from the beginning to the present. It also provides a rich portrayal of the epistemology of regional science and illuminates matters related to regional science education and training. We find that regional science has moved well beyond its origins, shifting away from a heavy focus on theory and abstraction to modeling/simulation, empirical analysis, and policy research. We also find that there has been increasing attention to "people" in regions and the spatial characteristics of social problems, and some important shifts in the regional science community itself, particularly in terms of patterns of collaboration and the geography of scholarship. The findings of this paper provide implications for future directions of research and education for regional science. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study focussed on evaluating the status of recent research on medical decision‐making for adolescents with depression and identifying research hotspots and frontiers via CiteSpace. We extracted studies that were concerned with medical decision‐making for adolescents with depression from the Web of Science Core Collection (WoSCC), covering the period from 1 January 1999 to 20 September 2022. We used CiteSpace to generate online maps of worldwide cooperation among countries, institutions, and authors. Hotspots and frontiers were systematically summarized. A total of 368 papers related to medical decision‐making for adolescents with depression were obtained from WoSCC. The most prolific author was Nick Midgley (seven papers). The United States and University College London were the leading country and institution in this research area, with 177 and 17 papers, respectively. Countries, institutions, and authors all actively collaborated. Main recent research trends include the preference or attitude towards medical treatment in adolescents with depression; approaches for adolescents with depression to seeking medical help; and the key role of parent, family, and primary care in medical decision‐making for adolescents. Thus, further attention should be paid to determining how to promote the role of parents, families, and primary care in the decision‐making process and create appropriate online help‐seeking tools and decision aids to facilitate shared decision‐making in the future. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This short note contains some remarks on a recent bibliometric survey about some of the major scientific journals in the field of Quality Engineering/Management ( Qual. Reliab. Engng. Int. 2010; 26(6):593-604). In particular, thanks to Professor Woodall's precious indication, it has been freshly noticed that some results in the original work are biased by mistakes in the bibliometric databases (in this case Google Scholar). After a careful examination and correction of biased data, a synthetic analysis of the typical mistakes of bibliometric databases is presented, focussing the attention on the importance of using robust bibliometric indicators. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An editorial is presented on the Australian Journal of Rural Health (AJRH) has ranked as a Quartile journal by Scopus, meaning that aside from being well ranked, it receives many submissions from all over the world and particularly from within Australia. Topics include the journal relies on good-quality reviews from volunteer reviewers, the important therefore for people who have agreed to review for the journal to understand review requirements and processes.

Compared to previous studies that generally detect scientific breakthroughs based on citation patterns, this article proposes a knowledge entity‐based disruption indicator by quantifying the change of knowledge directly created and inspired by scientific breakthroughs to their evolutionary trajectories. Two groups of analytic units, including MeSH terms and their co‐occurrences, are employed independently by the indicator to measure the change of knowledge. The effectiveness of the proposed indicators was evaluated against the four datasets of scientific breakthroughs derived from four recognition trials. In terms of identifying scientific breakthroughs, the proposed disruption indicator based on MeSH co‐occurrences outperforms that based on MeSH terms and three earlier citation‐based disruption indicators. It is also shown that in our indicator, measuring the change of knowledge inspired by the focal paper in its evolutionary trajectory is a larger contributor than measuring the change created by the focal paper. Our study not only offers empirical insights into conceptual understanding of scientific breakthroughs but also provides practical disruption indicator for scientists and science management agencies searching for valuable research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A response by Alex De Visscher to a letter to the editor about his article "What Does the G-Index Really Measure?" in a 2011 issue is presented.

This study investigated the extent to which seven papers on mechanical weed control have been cited, understood and utilised in subsequent publications. Web of Science was used to identify the citing publications, and citation content analysis was conducted to investigate the cognitive links between the citing and cited publications. Cognition involves acquiring, understanding, and using knowledge. Citation of the seven publications in 305 publications was classified, and it was found that perfunctory citations (those that were routinely referenced, with little effort to understand or use content) accounted for 53% of all citations and 16% of the citing articles included citations that were not supported by the references. The most striking finding was that key content was rarely used in articles, despite being referenced in 42% of the published articles. It is recommended that more time be allocated by authors to understanding literature, as this would appear to be a matter of diminishing concern for the scientific community. For those who assume their research area has a better citation practice than found in this study, it is recommended that authors conduct a citation content analysis within their own research area to increase the focus on good literature practices. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Citation counts are widely used as indicators of research quality to support or replace human peer review and for lists of top cited papers, researchers, and institutions. Nevertheless, the relationship between citations and research quality is poorly evidenced. We report the first large‐scale science‐wide academic evaluation of the relationship between research quality and citations (field normalized citation counts), correlating them for 87,739 journal articles in 34 field‐based UK Units of Assessment (UoA). The two correlate positively in all academic fields, from very weak (0.1) to strong (0.5), reflecting broadly linear relationships in all fields. We give the first evidence that the correlations are positive even across the arts and humanities. The patterns are similar for the field classification schemes of Scopus and Dimensions.ai, although varying for some individual subjects and therefore more uncertain for these. We also show for the first time that no field has a citation threshold beyond which all articles are excellent quality, so lists of top cited articles are not pure collections of excellence, and neither is any top citation percentile indicator. Thus, while appropriately field normalized citations associate positively with research quality in all fields, they never perfectly reflect it, even at high values. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]