Search

Background Traditional measures of evaluating scholarly output do not capture the impact social media can provide in disseminating and promoting research. We sought to better understand the level of online attention that high-quality hand research received. Methods Scientific manuscripts published from 2017 in Journal of Hand Surgery (American Volume) ( JHS-A), Journal of Hand Surgery ( European Volume) ( JHS-E), and HAND were recorded. Manuscript characteristics were determined, including the number of citations. Altmetric Attention Score (AAS), a measure of a manuscript’s online attention and impact, was determined, as well as Twitter mentions, Facebook mentions, and news outlet mentions. Spearman rho (ρ) correlation coefficient was used to evaluate the relationship between the number of citations and AAS. Multivariable linear regression analysis was performed to determine which manuscript factors were associated with AAS. Results A total of 323 manuscripts were identified. There was a weak positive correlation between the number of citations and AAS; however, this relationship did not exist for each individual journal. Publication in HAND and JHS-E were associated with lower average manuscript AAS when using JHS-A as the reference group. Two additional factors were also associated with increased manuscript AAS: (1) being a clinical study focused on a specific upper extremity anatomical location; and (2) increasing number of institutions on a study. Conclusions Publication in HAND and JHS-E were associated with lower manuscript AAS when using JHS-A as the reference group, suggesting that HAND and JHS-E have room for improvement in using social media to share their high-quality hand surgery scientific articles.

The authors analyze leading management journals of the Academy of Management (the Academy of Management Journal, the Academy of Management Review, the Academy of Management Learning and Education, and the Academy of Management Perspectives, as well as the Journal of Management), collecting and analyzing information on the managerial research assessment tool of impact factor (IF) during two time periods—from 1997 through 2005 and from 2006 through 2019. The authors capture the changing nature of journal strategies, examining the number of references, self-citations, and cross-citations. The study shows a general increase in the number of references used, as well as self-citations and cross-citations, resulting in a corresponding IF gain. The evidence suggests some limitations to adopting performance metrics in academia. Thus, academic managers, editors, and authors who focus on IF may be overestimating its impact, obscuring institutional attempts to measure academic research performance.

To compare the quantity and quality of publications during the residency training period in Cardiology, Intensive Care Medicine, Internal Medicine and Medical Oncology in Spain.A retrospective cohort study of residents from 4 specialties lasting 5 years (2014-2019). The number and type of publications indexed in PubMed®, the names of the journals and their bibliometric indexes (impact factor and quartiles), and author's positions were evaluated.The 649 residents included in the study generated 801 publications (publication/resident ratio 1.23). Cardiology residents published significantly more (ratio 2.57) and Intensive Care Medicine residents less (ratio 0.42) than the remaining specialties (Internal Medicine, ratio 1.06; Medical Oncology, ratio 0.76; p .001). Overall, only 44.5% of residents participated in a publication, with 27.6% participating in an original article; this latter percentage increased significantly among cardiologists (47.7%; p .001). The predominant types of publications were original articles (47.9%) and clinical reports (36.8%). The proportion of publications in first quartile journals was higher for Cardiology residents (44.6% of total). The resident was the first or last author in only one-third of the publications. Scientific productivity was related to specialty, but not to gender or the size of the hospital in which the residency training occurred.Intensive Care Medicine, Internal Medicine and Medical Oncology residents publish insufficiently, while the scientific production from Cardiology residents could be considered acceptable.

Breast reconstruction is an important component of comprehensive breast cancer care. Although reconstructive plans require multidisciplinary clinical-decision making, research in cross-discipline collaborations is often limited. This study aims to evaluate multidisciplinary involvement in breast reconstruction outcomes research.A systematic review of breast reconstruction literature published from 2000 to 2019 using Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE, and PubMed databases was conducted. English language articles published in North America or Europe with n ≥ 12 nonpediatric patients were included. Articles concerning procedures not performed in the context of breast cancer care or articles that did not evaluate at least one outcome, diagnostic test, or risk factor were excluded. Authors' affiliations were used to define multidisciplinary involvement. Quality of research was evaluated using the level of evidence, journal impact factor (IF), and altmetrics.Of the 1679 articles screened, 784 met the stated eligibility criteria. Only half (50.6%) of these articles involved an author outside the discipline of plastic surgery. Compared to nonmultidisciplinary studies, multidisciplinary studies were more likely to be designated with a higher level of evidence (I or II) (p0.001), published in journals with higher IF (p0.05), have higher usage (p = 0.03), and mentions (p = 0.02). There was no difference in citations, captures, and social media posts (p0.05).Breast reconstruction outcomes research often fails to offer author collaborations from nonplastic surgery disciplines. Multidisciplinary involvement in breast cancer care research is strongly recommended to improve the quality and impact of clinical studies in breast reconstruction.

The bibliometric analysis was conducted to evaluate the publication characteristics of Journal of Dental Sciences (JDS) from ScienceDirect Online between 2009 and 2020. The most common published article type in JDS was original articles. The top four highest number of published articles were related to oral and maxillofacial surgery, periodontology, endodontology, and oral pathology. The most productive geographic region for articles was Asia. Taiwan ranked in the highest country in terms of successful publication in JDS. The impact factor of JDS ranged from 0.107 in 2009 to 2.080 in 2020. As compared with years between 2009 and 2014, there was a significant increase in impact factor during 2015–2020 (P = 0.026). By this bibliometric analysis, JDS needs to attract more audience outside the Asia to gain the higher international influence.

Background/aim Annals of Geriatric Medicine and Research held its inaugural international editorial board virtual meeting on September 16, 2021, to brainstorm ideas for sustainable growth. This special article summarizes the key concepts obtained from the webinar proceedings, with further development of ideas from ensuing discussions occurring after the meeting. Methods From the initial discussion points provided by eight editorial board members, including six presenters, email discussions further enriched these ideas to construct the current special article. The key points discussed were: 1) impactful research and impact factors, 2) international and Asian perspectives, and 3) challenges to sustainable growth. Results The editors noted the existing gap between the impact factor and research impact as a challenge for the growth paths of regional journals. However, they agreed that persevering with impactful research would ultimately translate into parallel and gradual gains in impact, which is, therefore, consistent with the organic growth of the journal. Acknowledging challenges in navigating between unique Asian perspectives and international outlooks, the editors encouraged academic journals to serve as bridges linking international evidence with the richness of local perspectives. For sustainable growth, the editors suggested that journals may be forged into the academic ecosystems of the region, diversify value streams, and establish themselves as reputable brands in disciplines. Conclusion By combining these discussions, we proposed the 'IMPACT' strategy for journals on the growth path in the region, which stands for 1) IMmersive user experience encompassing authors, reviewers, and readers; 2) Pasteur's quadrant use-inspired research; 3) Asia-Pacific context; 4) Collaborative; and 5) Translation to practice and policy.

Publishing articles in high-ranked journals brings a higher payoff that designates a greater likelihood of scholastic success of academics and researchers. In the present climate, it provides many opportunities for researchers to be in a "Golden Club" and catch a great deal of offers from Head-hunters, particularly for jobs, research grants, and consultancies, as many people in the research/academic industry still rely on the fact that greater impact is widely apparent in high ranked journals and the journals with high Impact Factor (IF). In universities, many researchers in academic administration positions, who have already progressed with high visibility by publishing research in journals with high IF, always attempt to put into action the same level of requirements and stipulations in publications for tenure decisions of academic and research staff together with rewarding and endowing perks including financial incentives. Assessing junior colleagues purely by exercising the IF score or journal ranks in senior researchers' mind-set has been widely prevalent in academia in the global context. Enforcing rules and regulations for promotion, recruitment, and financial incentives for tenure decisions only for the publications in high profiled journals with top IF is a kind of mania. It, in turn, creates a dismantle discrimination and precede for academic bullying and professional prejudice in universities. Thus, this paper discusses some of the problems with IF and journal ranking mechanisms, which consist of prevailing distortions in the scientific industry by disclosing the failures to predict the definite impact and creation of perverse incentives. It further proposes some points to be taken for reforming/devising an appropriate mechanism targeting the definite impact of essential scientific values of research and researchers that can be readily used for measuring the impact.

Zusammenfassung Hintergrund Zu den Leistungskriterien einer Universitätsklinik gehören ihre Publikationsaktivitäten. Ziel der vorliegenden bibliometrischen Untersuchung war es, die Publikationsaktivitäten deutscher unfallchirurgischer Universitätskliniken in einem Benchmarking vergleichend darzustellen. Material und Methodik Die Publikationsleistung der Führungsmannschaften, bestehend aus Chef- und Oberärzten, Sektions- und Bereichsleitern von 39 deutschen unfallchirurgischen Universitätskliniken wurde über 10 Jahre (01.01.2010 bis 31.12.2019) erfasst. Berücksichtigt wurden alle Publikationen, die in PubMed gelistet waren und bei denen die entsprechenden Personen Erst- oder Letztautor waren. Zusätzlich wurde der Impact-Faktor (IF) bestimmt. Ergebnisse Insgesamt wurden 4438 Veröffentlichungen erfasst, publiziert von 381 Chirurgen. Der Anteil der publizierenden Mitarbeiter betrug 72,8 %. Publiziert wurde in 545 Journalen. Der durchschnittliche IF aller Publikationen war 1,81. Die Publikationsaktivitäten der Kliniken zeigten eine hohe Streubreite, dies galt sowohl für die Publikationsanzahl als auch für die generierten IF des einzelnen Mitarbeiters. Die Publikationsaktivität reichte von durchschnittlich 16,4 Publikationen pro Mitarbeiter in der bestplatzierten Klinik bis 1,5 Publikationen bei der letztplatzierten. Gleiches ergab die Summe der IF. In der nach diesem Maßstab bestplatzierten Klinik erzielte der einzelne Mitarbeiter durchschnittlich kumuliert 42,1 IF verglichen mit 1,7 IF bei der letztplatzierten. Schlussfolgerung Die Publikationsleistung deutscher unfallchirurgischer Universitätskliniken zeigt eine hohe Varianz, wie dies auch bei anderen Disziplinen gefunden wurde. Die Ursachen müssen offen bleiben, eine unterschiedliche Forschungsmotivation ist aber nicht auszuschließen.

Background: Mainland China is facing increasing demand for palliative care and has launched related policies after 2010. Research and publications are important for sustainable development of palliative care, and should be encouraged by policy. Objectives: This study aimed to describe the development of palliative care-related publications in Mainland China in various aspects. Design: We searched Web of Science, Scopus, PubMed, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Ovid MEDLINE, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure for publications from Mainland China for 2010–2020, with the topic words “hospice,” “palliative care,” “end-of-life care,” or “terminal care.” The publishing year, region, impacts, journals, publication types, and topics were analyzed. Results: A total of 3682 publications were identified, 754 of them (20.5%) published in Chinese core journals or international journals. The annual publication number and impact factor rose rapidly after 2016 and dropped again in 2020. There is no specialized palliative care journal in Mainland China. The publication numbers differed significantly between East and Western China and were closely linked to the economy ( R2 = 0.8120, P

BACKGROUND Academic conferences such as the annual Pediatric Orthopaedic Society of North America (POSNA) meeting provide opportunities to present up-to-date scientific work that can influence clinical decision making. This study reviewed 4 years of abstracts presented at POSNA to assess trends in poster and podium presentation publication rates and associated metrics and the impact of academic presentations on the pediatric orthopaedic literature. METHODS All abstracts presented at POSNA annual meetings from 2013 to 2016 were analyzed for presentation type, subspeciality, level of evidence, study design, peer-reviewed publication within 4 years of presentation, 1-year publication rates, journal impact factors, number of authors, and citations of the final publication. χ2, analysis of variance, and t tests were conducted to measure independence of variables. Statistical significance was indicated at P

Despite the feminization of the medical workforce, women do not have the same career perspectives as men. In nuclear medicine, little information is available on the gender gap regarding prominent author positions of scientific articles. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to evaluate recent trends in the gender distribution of first and last authorship of articles published in nuclear medicine journals. Methods: We conducted a bibliometric analysis of first and last author gender of articles published from 2014 to 2020 in 15 nuclear medicine journals. Manuscript title, article type, journal impact factor, date of publication, first and last name and country of provenance of first and last authors were noted. The Gender-API software was used to determine author gender. All statistics were descriptive. Results: Women represented 32.8% of first authors and 19.6% of last ones. Female authorship increased from 28.2% (428 of 1518 articles) in 2014 to 35.5% (735 of 2069 articles, relative increase 72%) in 2020 (p

Introduction The medical education research field operates at the crossroads of two distinct academic worlds: higher education and medicine. As such, this field provides a unique opportunity to explore new forms of cross-disciplinary knowledge exchange. Methods Cross-disciplinary knowledge flow in medical education research was examined by looking at citation patterns in the five journals with the highest impact factor in 2017. To grasp the specificities of the knowledge flow in medical education, the field of higher education was used as a comparator. In total, 2031 citations from 64 medical education and 41 higher education articles published in 2017 were examined. Results Medical education researchers draw on a narrower range of knowledge communities than their peers in higher education. Medical education researchers predominantly cite articles published in health and medical education journals (80% of all citations), and to a lesser extent, articles published in education and social science journals. In higher education, while the largest share of the cited literature is internal to the domain (36%), researchers cite literature from across the social science spectrum. Findings suggest that higher education scholars engage in conversations with academics from a broader range of communities and perspectives than their medical education colleagues. Discussion Using Pierre Bourdieu’s concepts of doxa and field, it is argued that the variety of epistemic cultures entering the higher education research space contributes to its interdisciplinary nature. Conversely, the existence of a relatively homogeneous epistemic culture in medicine potentially impedes cross-disciplinary knowledge exchange.

The article provides an overview of the most significant publications on the topic of male infertility. The main selection criteria were considered the practical significance of the article, as well as the impact factor of the journal in which it was published, according to the SCImago Journal Rank (SJR). As a result, a list of 10 works published in the II quarter (April – June) of 2021 was formed. The review includes articles on the following issues: the effectiveness of repeated micro-TESE in non-obstructive azoospermia, the role of COVID-19 in male fertility, the effect of testosterone therapy on spermatogenesis, testicular microlithiasis, electroejaculation as a method of obtaining spermatozoa, harm from carrying cell phones near the genitals, prediction of the effectiveness of intrauterine insemination, the effect of advanced paternal age on sperm aneuploidy, and the importance of the microbiome for male fertility.

Background As reported by the World Health Organization, adolescent pregnancy is a major public health concern given its impact on the life of mothers and their family members. In this study we investigated possible cause-effect relations between teenage pregnancy and school dropout, and other attributes that gravitate around them, using the Bayesian network approach. Methods We used a database prepared by the Adolescent House Project and invited experts in the areas of Health, Education and Social Assistance to answer a survey containing questions aimed at detecting possible causal relationships. To perform the statistical analysis and the numerical simulations we employed the language and formalism of Bayesian networks. Results The analysis indicated a strong cause-effect relation between teenage pregnancy and school dropout, bolstered by economic vulnerability. We were able to identify the profile of the female teenager who drops out from school: white girls older than 15 years who got pregnant at least once, are not working to generate an income, and who belong to the group where the family income is less than or equal to US$780 per month. Also we detected the “maternal impact factor", i.e., the effect caused by whether or not the mothers of the teenagers have experienced teenage pregnancy. Conclusion There are many factors that lead teenagers to drop out of school; we confirmed not only the commonsense notion that pregnancy of the teenager is a major factor but found that a history of teenage pregnancy on the part of the mother is a major factor. Moreover, Bayesian networks emerged as an interesting mathematical framework to perform the statistical analysis.

PURPOSE: The citation count of a scientific article is considered as the recognition it received from this field. The purpose of this bibliometric analysis was to identify the top 100 most-cited scientific articles in penile surgical reconstruction. METHODS: The Web of Science database was used to extract the top 100 most-cited articles. Individual articles were reviewed to identify the authorship, published journal, journal impact factor (IF), primary disease, article type, institution and country of origin, and year of publication. RESULTS: The top 100 most-cited articles were published between 1947 and 2013. The number of citations ranged from 23 to 233. Journal of Urology contributed the most articles (n = 36). Articles with a high level of evidence like prospective analysis (n = 5), systematic review and meta-analysis (n = 2), and guideline (n = 1) were all published after 2000. The average citation per year of articles published in high-IF journals was significantly higher than that of other articles (p = 0.0129). There was a positive linear correlation between citation count per year and publication year (r2 = 0.26, p < 0.001). Among the top 100 articles, 74 articles were interlinked via citation of each other. The major topic of co-citation network was the application of flaps in penile reconstruction. CONCLUSIONS: The analysis of top 100 most-cited articles facilitates the comprehensive recognition of current focus in the field of penile surgical reconstruction, which is the exploration of flaps and development of new techniques in penile reconstruction. In the future, more attention should be paid to evidence-based medicine to provide high-level evidence for research. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE III: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .

PRECIS Characteristics of the most mentioned glaucoma articles on the internet were analyzed, allowing a better understanding of the dissemination of glaucoma research to the general public. PURPOSE To determine the 100 most mentioned articles on the internet in the field of glaucoma and analyze their characteristics. MATERIALS AND METHODS We identified the top 100 glaucoma articles with the highest Altmetric Attention Score (AAS), an automatically calculated metric for monitoring social media. Each article was evaluated for several characteristics including year of publication, title, journal name, journal impact factor (IF), article topic, article type, affiliation, and online mentions (news, blog, policy, Twitter, Facebook, etc). Correlation analysis was conducted for AAS with these characteristics. RESULTS The selected 100 articles came from 44 journals with more than half (56%) published in ophthalmology-specific journals. There was no significant correlation between IF and number of articles in a specific journal or AAS (P>0.1), but the number of articles in the top 100 was higher for ophthalmology journals with a higher IF (P

BACKGROUND Effective leadership is an integral component for optimal academic performance of surgical units. As one of the leading plastic surgery academic medical centers in China, the authors would like to share their experiences of using the combined parental and shared leadership approach in managing their surgical staff within the department. It has taken into account the essence of Eastern moral philosophies and Western leadership theories. METHODS The authors performed a review of the academic development of their staff and changes in the academic productivity of the department between 1999 and 2018. The difference between the first 10 years (1999 to 2008) and second 10 years (2009 to 2018) was analyzed to assess the effectiveness of the authors' leadership approach. RESULTS There is an increase in the number of Science Citation Index articles published in the past decade with a higher impact factor and more articles published in international journals. The timing to promotion was on average 8.4 years. The average age of promotion to consultants has increased, likely because of a later start in the training. With similar average age, prior education, and gender ratio of surgeons in the unit, the department also received 14 times more in research funding and four times more in national key topic research topic. CONCLUSIONS The effective application of this combined leadership approach has significantly improved the academic productivity and quality of the authors' residents and surgeons and the academic advancement of the unit.

Publications are an important component of academic careers. We investigated the financial costs to authors for submitting and publishing manuscripts in gastroenterology (GI) journals in the United States (US), United Kingdom (UK), and elsewhere. This was a cross-sectional study carried out from 11/1/2020 to 12/31/2020. We used the SCImago Journal and Country Rankings site to compile a list of gastroenterology and hepatology journals to analyze. We gathered information on the journals’ Hirsch indices (h indices), SCImago Journal Rank (SJR), Impact Factor (IF), and base countries as of 2019, processing and publication fees, open access fees, time to first decision, and time from acceptance to publication. We used t-testing and linear regression modeling to evaluate the effect of geography and journal quality metrics on processing fees and times. We analyzed 97 GI journals, of which 51/97 (52.6%) were based in the US/UK while the other 46/97 (47.4%) were based elsewhere. The mean IF (5.67 vs 3.53, p = 0.08), h index (90.5 vs 41.8, p

Induction of labour has become more common over the last decade, together with an increase in the number of systematic reviews of the subject. However, with multiple systematic reviews it is necessary to evaluate the methodological rigor to ensure the reliability of conclusions and recommendations for clinical practice. Therefore, the aim of this study was to appraise the quality of systematic reviews that examined the efficacy and/or safety of labour induction methods. An electronic search of MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library from 2000 to 2020 was conducted. Study selection, data extraction and quality assessment were conducted using A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) by two independent reviewers, in duplicate. The search identified 387 publications, of which 48 studies (13%) met the a priori inclusion criteria. No significant relationships were found between study quality and number of citations, journal impact factor, or publication year. Methodological quality for systematic reviews on the induction of labour were ranked as moderate with no significant changes in quality over the past 2 decades. Publication characteristics are not significantly associated with methodological quality, indicating that healthcare professionals should critically appraise studies before applying them to practice.

One of the most fundamental issues in academia today is understanding the differences between legitimate and questionable publishing. While decision-makers and managers consider journals indexed in popular citation indexes such as Web of Science or Scopus as legitimate, they use two lists of questionable journals (Beall’s and Cabell’s), one of which has not been updated for a few years, to identify the so-called predatory journals. The main aim of our study is to reveal the contribution of the journals accepted as legitimate by the authorities to the visibility of questionable journals. For this purpose, 65 questionable journals from social sciences and 2338 Web-of-Science-indexed journals that cited these questionable journals were examined in-depth in terms of index coverages, subject categories, impact factors and self-citation patterns. We have analysed 3234 unique cited papers from questionable journals and 5964 unique citing papers (6750 citations of cited papers) from Web of Science journals. We found that 13% of the questionable papers were cited by WoS journals and 37% of the citations were from impact-factor journals. The findings show that neither the impact factor of citing journals nor the size of cited journals is a good predictor of the number of citations to the questionable journals.

Background Social media has an increasing role within professional surgical practice, including the publishing and engagement of academic literature. This study aims to analyze the relationship between social media use and traditional and alternative metrics among academic surgical journals. Method Journals were identified through the InCites Journal Citation Reports 2019, and their impact factor, h-index, and CiteScore were noted. Social media platforms were examined, and Twitter activity interrogated between 1 January to 31 December 2019. Healthcare Social Graph score and an aggregated Altmetric Attention Score were also calculated for each journal. Statistical analysis was carried out to look at the correlation between traditional metrics, Twitter activity, and altmetrics. Results Journals with a higher impact factor were more likely to use a greater number of social media platforms (R2 = 0.648; P Conclusion Higher impact factor is associated with social media presence and activity, particularly on Twitter, with long-term activity being of particular importance. Modern alternative metrics correlate with impact factor. This relationship is complex, and future studies should look to understand this further.

Clarivate Analytics’ suppression of the Journal Impact Factor (JIF) for three history of economics journals in 2018 resulted from the publication of a single review article solicited for History of Economic Ideas (HEI). That episode highlights several connections between JIF pressures on authors and editors, on the practice of writing review articles, and on the field of history of economics. We examine the different roles and proliferation of review articles, discuss recent examples of review articles in the history of economics literature, and conclude with a brief discussion of review articles, in connection with the way historians of economics cite. La suppression du facteur d’impact pour trois revues en histoire de l’économie par Clarivate Analytics en 2018 fait suite à la publication d’un unique article de « revue de littérature » par la revue History of Economic Ideas (HEI). Cet épisode met en lumière différents liens entre la pression exercée par les facteurs d’impact sur les auteurs et les éditeurs, sur la pratique d’écriture d’articles de revue de la littérature, et sur le champ de l’histoire de la pensée économique. Nous examinons les différentes fonctions et la diffusion d’article de revue de la littérature, nous discutons les exemples récents de tels articles en histoire de l’économie, puis nous concluons par une courte discussion sur le lien entre les articles de revue de la littérature et la manière dont les historiens de l’économie pratiquent la citation.

In 2018, Clarivate Analytics, publisher of the Web of Science Journal Citation Reports (JCR), suppressed publication of the 2017 Journal Impact Factor (JIF) for three of the four journals that it then indexed in the academic field of history of economics. Clarivate judged one of the journals, History of Economic Ideas (HEI), to be the “donor” of citations that distorted the impact factors of the European Journal of the History of Economic Thought (EJHET) and the Journal of the History of Economic Thought (JHET). The other journal, History of Political Economy (HOPE), was not included in that judgment. Our purpose is to define the JIF, summarize the controversy that gave rise to this symposium, and discuss methodologically and historically some of the problems with the use of citation indexes in general and the JIF in particular. We show how these problems pertain differently to the scholarly field of the history of economics than to economics in general. In so doing we also introduce the following five articles of this symposium. En 2018, Clarivate Analytics, l’éditeur du Web of Science Journal Citation Reports (JCR), a supprimé la publication du facteur d’impact pour 2018 de trois des quatre revues dans le champ de l’histoire de l’économie faisant partie de son index. Clarivate avait jugé que l’une des revues, History of Economic Ideas (HEI), avait « fait don » de citations créant une distorsion dans le facteur d’impact de deux autres revues, European Journal of the History of Economic Thought (EJHET) et Journal of the History of Economic Thought (JHET). La quatrième revue, History of Political Economy (HOPE), n’avait pas été inclue dans cette appréciation. Notre objectif est de définir ce qu’est un facteur d’impact, de résumer la controverse qui a donné lieu à ce symposium et de discuter d’un point de vue méthodologique et historique certains problèmes liés à l’usage des index de citations en général et du facteur d’impact en particulier. Nous montrons que ces problèmes se manifestent différemment dans le champ de l’histoire de l’économie qu’ils ne le font dans le champ de l’économie en général. Ce faisant, nous introduisons également les cinq articles du symposium.

Background The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) extension statement for network meta-analysis (NMA) published in 2015 promotes comprehensive reporting in published systematic reviews with NMA. PRISMA-NMA includes 32 items: 27 core items as indicated in the 2009 PRISMA Statement and five items specific to the reporting of NMAs. Although NMA reporting is improving, it is unclear whether PRISMA-NMA has accelerated this improvement. We aimed to investigate the impact of PRISMA-NMA and highlight key items that require attention and improvement. Methods We updated our previous collection of NMAs with articles published between April 2015 and July 2018. We assessed the completeness of reporting for each NMA, including main manuscript and online supplements, using the PRISMA-NMA checklist. The PRISMA-NMA checklist originally includes 32 total items (i.e. a 32-point scale original PRISMA-NMA score). We also prepared a modified version of the PRISMA-NMA checklist with 49 items to evaluate separately at a more granular level all multiple-content items (i.e. a 49-point scale modified PRISMA-NMA score). We compared average reporting scores of articles published until and after 2015. Results In the 1144 included NMAs the mean modified PRISMA-NMA score was 32.1 (95% CI 31.8–32.4) of a possible 49-excellence-score. For 1-year increase, the mean modified score increased by 0.96 (95% CI 0.32 to 1.59) for 389 NMAs published until 2015 and by 0.53 (95% CI 0.02 to 1.04) for 755 NMAs published after 2015. The mean modified PRISMA-NMA score for NMAs published after 2015 was higher by 0.81 (95% CI 0.23 to 1.39) compared to before 2015 when adjusting for journal impact factor, type of review, funding, and treatment category. Description of summary effect sizes to be used, presentation of individual study data, sources of funding for the systematic review, and role of funders dropped in frequency after 2015 by 6–16%. Conclusions NMAs published after 2015 more frequently reported the five items associated with NMA compared to those published until 2015. However, improvement in reporting after 2015 is compatible with that observed on a yearly basis until 2015, and hence, it could not be attributed solely to the publication of the PRISMA-NMA.

BACKGROUND The Pediatric Trauma Society (PTS) is a multidisciplinary organization, with scientific presentations at its annual meeting addressing trauma care from prehospital through rehabilitation. OBJECTIVE The purpose of this study was to identify and describe the scholarly areas of focus of presentations at the annual meeting over the society's first 5 years and evaluate research dissemination. METHODS Data were collected on abstracts presented between 2014 and 2018, including titles, authors, and abstract classification. PubMed and Google Scholar searches identified abstracts that resulted in publications. Journal impact factors were identified. RESULTS Over 5 years, 491 of 635 (77.3%) abstracts were accepted. The number of submitted and accepted abstracts increased, but the acceptance rate was stable (range = 72.1%-81.2%, p = NS [nonsignificant]). The most frequently accepted categories included "Epidemiology," "Abdominal or Thoracic Trauma," and "Neurosurgery or Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI)," whereas "Trauma Nursing" and "Quality Improvement" were less common. Among the 2014-2016 abstracts, 55.4% of podium and 24.3% of poster presentations were published. Abstracts categorized as "Epidemiology," "Education & Injury Prevention," and "Neurosurgery or TBI" were commonly presented but uncommonly published. The median journal impact factor of publications was 2.1 and 2.0 for podium and poster presentations, respectively (ranging from 0.11 to 10.25). CONCLUSION Most of the scholarly effort presented at the PTS remains unpublished. Published work is mainly in low-impact factor journals. Mentorship in the publication process and encouragement of multidisciplinary collaboration within the society are needed to address limitations in the number and potential impact of the scientific content of the annual meeting. This type of analysis is relevant not only to the PTS but also to any professional society seeking to improve its impact.

Purpose: Journal impact factor (IF) is often used to measure research quality and importance. We assessed trial factors associated with the publication of cancer trials in journals with higher IF and publications receiving higher citations. Materials and Methods: Cancer-specific phase III RCTs were screened through https://clinicaltrials.gov. We identified trials with published primary endpoints, along with their corresponding journal IF and relative citation ratio (RCR). Results: Seven-hundred ninety manuscripts were included in our study. Trials that met their primary endpoint were more commonly published in journals with higher IF (Median IF: positive trials 35.4 vs. negative trials 26.3, P < 0.001). Furthermore, trials that led to subsequent FDA drug approvals were also published in journals with higher IF (Median IF: 59.1 vs. 26.3 in trials not leading to FDA approvals, P < 0.001). When analyzing RCR, trial positivity (meeting primary endpoint) was not associated with increased citations on multivariable analysis (P = 0.56). Lastly, publications of trials leading to FDA approvals (P < 0.001), and publications of trials in journals with higher IF (P < 0.001) were associated with increased RCR. Conclusions: Positive trials are commonly published in journals with high IF, but do not necessarily lead to increased citations. Moreover, trials published in journals with higher IF are more likely to receive increased citations.

A gestão humanizada tem tido cada vez mais destaque nos estudos e nas práticas cotidianas organizacionais e territoriais. Com o objetivo de investigar as principais abordagens teóricas e conceituais do campo da gestão humanizada, foi realizado um estudo bibliométrico sobre este campo, em periódicos internacionais com alto fator de impacto, na base de dados Web of Science, no período de 1976 a 2019, utilizando as técnicas de cocitação e análise fatorial exploratória. Os dados coletados elucidaram quatro abordagens teóricas: cultura ética organizacional, capital social, comportamento moral e antropomorfismo. Os resultados confirmam a inter-relação da gestão humanizada com as quatro abordagens elucidadas, bem como a relevância da gestão humanizada nos estudos organizacionais e territoriais, com destaque para tais abordagens. Esse estudo contribui para ampliar o entendimento dos marcos científicos que permeiam a gestão humanizada, possibilitando desenvolver futuros estudos nesse campo, com base nas lacunas conceituais e empíricas identificadas. Palavras-chave: Gestão humanizada. Estudos organizacionais e territoriais. Bibliometria.

This study analyzes the journal impact factor and related bibliometric indicators in Education and Educational Research (E&ER) category, highlighting the main differences among journal quartiles, using Web of Science (Social Sciences Citation Index, SSCI) as the data source. High impact journals (Q1) publish only slightly more papers than expected, which is different to other areas. The papers published in Q1 journal have greater average citations and lower uncitedness rates compared to other quartiles, although the differences among quartiles are lower than in other areas. The impact factor is only weakly negative correlated (r=-0.184) with the journal self-citation but strongly correlated with the citedness of the median journal paper (r= 0.864). Although this strong correlation exists, the impact factor is still far to be the perfect indicator for expected citations of a paper due to the high skewness of the citations distribution. This skewness was moderately correlated with the citations received by the most cited paper of the journal (r= 0.649) and the number of papers published by the journal (r= 0.484), but no important differences by journal quartiles were observed. In the period 2013–2018, the average journal impact factor in the E&ER has increased largely from 0.908 to 1.638, which is justified by the field growth but also by the increase in international collaboration and the share of papers published in open access. Despite their inherent limitations, the use of impact factors and related indicators is a starting point for introducing the use of bibliometric tools for objective and consistent assessment of researcher.

Publication of research in anaesthesia is increasingly competitive. Understanding what topics of research are more likely to be published and where, is clearly valuable for authors seeking to optimise reach and impact of their work. This study aimed to identify the relative proportion of anaesthesia articles by topic for five anaesthesia journals over a 10-year period from 2010 to 2019, including any differences between journals and regions. We chose five anaesthesia journals based on current impact factor. All journal issues published between 2010–2019 were checked for total number of articles with only original research articles being further categorised by topic, country of research, funding status and citation count. Of 5782 original research articles analysed, the most frequent article topics published were translational studies (16%) and clinical practice (16%). Obstetric anaesthesia was the least frequent published (4%). Translational studies were the most frequently funded (84%) while articles on paediatric anaesthesia were least frequently funded (29%). The average number of citations per funded article was 37 versus 28 for non-funded articles. Translational studies were the most frequently published topic of research conducted in North America (25%) and Asia (25%), but of only average frequency in Europe (9%). Studies in obstetric and paediatric anaesthesia are less well-represented in anaesthesia literature and researchers may experience greater difficulty publishing these topics and obtaining funding accordingly. Authors should be aware of the diverse publishing tendencies of the different journals in anaesthesia in order to save time and effort when submitting research for publication.

Background Presentation at academic conferences is an important marker of research productivity. However, not all accepted abstracts progress to full publication, and there is anecdotal evidence suggesting an imbalance in sex and ethnicity amongst presenters. There is a lack of data evaluating the outcome of prize presentation sessions at academic surgical conferences in the UK. This study aimed to analyse the outcomes and demographics from presentations at prize sessions at two prestigious UK surgical conferences. Methods This retrospective observational study compared data on all Moynihan (Association of Surgeons of Great Britain and Ireland) and Patey (Surgical Research Society) prize presentations from 2000 to 2020. The primary outcome was rate of publication. Secondary outcomes included demographic differences in sex and ethnicity, publication according to prize outcome, academic affiliation, time to publication, and journal impact factor. Results Some 442 accepted abstracts were identified over the 21-year period, with 71.0% from the Moynihan sessions and 79.3% from the Patey sessions leading to full publications, with a median time to publication of 448 days (IQR 179–859) in journals with relatively high impact factors (median 5.00; IQR 3.15–6.36). Of the 442 prize presenters, 85 (19.2%) were female. The majority of the presenters were White males (211, 47.7%), followed by Asian males (112, 25.3%). However, there was a continuously increasing overall trend of female presenters from 2000 to 2020 (P = 0.019). Conclusion Publication rates from the two prize sessions were high, with presenters publishing in journals with high impact factors. There, however, was a disparity in sex and ethnicity amongst presenters.

PurposePredatory publishing is a growing and global issue infecting all scientific domains. Predatory publishers create counterfeit, not (properly) peer-reviewed journals to exploit the open access (OA) model in which the author pays. The plethora of predatory marketing journals along with the sophisticated deceptive practices of their publishers may create total confusion. One of the many highly likely risks of that bewilderment is when peer-reviewed, prestigious marketing journals cite these pseudo-marketing journals. This phenomenon is called citation contamination. This study aims to investigate the extent of citation contamination in the peer-reviewed marketing literature.Design/methodology/approachUsing Google Scholar as a citation gathering tool, this study investigates references to four predatory marketing journals in 68 peer-reviewed marketing journals listed in the 2018 version of the Academic Journal Guide by the Chartered Association of Business Schools (CABSs).FindingsResults indicate that 59 of the 68 CABS-ranked peer-reviewed marketing journals were, up to late January 2021, contaminated by at least one of the four sampled predatory journals. Together, these four pseudo-journals received (at least) 605 citations. Findings from nonparametric statistical procedures show that citation contamination occurred irrespective of the age of a journal or its 2019 Journal Impact Factor (JIF). They also point out that citation contamination happened independently from the fact that a journal is recognized by Clarivate Analytics or not.Research limitations/implicationsThis study investigated citations to only four predatory marketing journals in only 68 CABS-listed peer-reviewed marketing journals.Practical implicationsThese findings should sound an alarm to the entire marketing community (including academics and practitioners). To counteract citation contamination, recommendations are provided for researchers, practitioners, journal editors and academic and professional associations.Originality/valueThis study is the first to offer a systematic assessment of references to predatory journals in the peer-reviewed marketing literature.

Several different reporting biases cited in scientific literature have raised concerns about the overestimation of effects and the subsequent potential impact on the practice of evidence-based medicine and human health. Up to 7-8% of the population experiences neuropathic pain, and established treatment guidelines are based predominately on published, clinical trial results. Therefore, we examined published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of first-line drugs for neuropathic pain and assessed the relative proportions with statistically significant (i.e., positive) and non-significant (i.e., negative) results and their rates of citation. We determined the relationships between reported study outcome and the frequency of their citations with journal impact factor, sample size, time to publication after study completion, and study quality metrics. We also examined the association of study outcome with maximum study drug dosage and conflict of interest. We found that of 107 published RCTs, 68.2% reported a statistically significant outcome regarding drug efficacy for chronic peripheral and central neuropathic pain. Positive studies were cited nearly twice as often as negative studies in the literature (P=0.01), despite similar study sample size, quality metrics, and publication in journals with similar impact factors. The time to publication, journal impact factor, and conflict of interest did not differ statistically between positive and negative studies. Our observations that negative and positive RCTs were published in journals with similar impact at comparable time-lags after study completion are encouraging. However, the citation bias for positive studies could affect the validity and generalization of conclusions in literature and potentially influence clinical practice.

Background The incidence of retractions has been increasing steadily, in direct proportion to the volume of scientific literature. Retraction of published articles depends on the visibility of journals and on postpublication scrutiny of published articles by peers. The possibility thus exists that not all compromised (“retractable”) articles are detected and retracted from the less-visible journals. The proportion of “retractable” articles and its converse, the proportion of published articles in each journal that are likely to be “true” (PTP), have not been estimated hitherto. Methods Three journal sets were created: pure neurosurgery journals (NS-P), the neurosurgery component of multidisciplinary journals (NS-MD), and high-impact clinical journals (HICJs). We described a new metric (the retraction gap [RGap]), defined as the proportion of retractable articles in journals that have not been retracted. We computed the expected number of retractable articles, RGap, and PTP for each journal, and compared these metrics across groups. Results Fifty-three NS-P journals, 10 NS-MD journals, and 63 HICJs were included in the analysis. The estimated number of retractable articles was 31 times the actual number of retractions in NS-P journals, 6 times higher in the NS-MD journals, and 26 times higher for the HICJs. The RGap was 96.7% for the NS-P group, 83.5% for the NS-MD group, and 96.2% for the HICJs. The PTP was 99.3% in the NS-P group, 99.2% in the NS-MD group, and 98.6% in the HICJs. Conclusions Neurosurgery as a discipline had a higher RGap but also a higher PTP than the other 2 groups.

PURPOSE To assess for a positive results bias in recently published randomized controlled trials in the field of vitreoretinal disease. METHODS A bibliometric analysis was conducted examining randomized controlled trials published in the field of retina between January 1, 2016, and December 31, 2019. Studies were classified as positive result or negative result based on the statistical significance of their primary outcome. Publication date and sample size were documented. These variables were compared against Journal Citation Reports Impact Factor in the year of publication. RESULTS Two hundred and eighty-eight randomized controlled trials from 64 unique journals were included and analyzed. One hundred and eighty-five (64.2%) studies were classified as positive result, and 103 (35.8%) studies were classified as negative result. There was no association between impact factor and positive result. Studies classified as positive result had larger sample sizes, and higher sample size was associated with higher impact factor. CONCLUSION These results do not support the presence of a recent positive results bias in retina randomized controlled trials. This is reassuring, although several factors could be contributing to this finding including studies that were conducted but never submitted and selective reporting of outcomes. Thus, it will be important to remain cognizant of potential publication biases moving forward.

Objective Complete and transparent reporting is of critical importance for randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The present study aimed to determine the reporting quality and methodological quality of RCTs for interventions involving artificial intelligence (AI) and their protocols. Methods We searched MEDLINE (via PubMed), Embase, Web of Science, CBMdisc, Wanfang Data, and CNKI from January 1, 2016, to November 11, 2020, to collect RCTs involving AI. We also extracted the protocol of each included RCT if it could be obtained. CONSORT-AI (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials–Artificial Intelligence) statement and Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias (ROB) were used to evaluate the reporting quality and methodological quality, respectively, and SPIRIT-AI (The Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials–Artificial Intelligence) statement was used to evaluate the reporting quality of the protocols. The associations of the reporting rate of CONSORT-AI with the publication year, journal's impact factor (IF), number of authors, sample size, and first author's country were analyzed univariately using Pearson's chi-squared test, or Fisher's exact test if the expected values in any of the cells were below 5. The compliance of the retrieved protocols to SPIRIT-AI was presented descriptively. Results Overall, 29 RCTs and three protocols were considered eligible. The CONSORT-AI items “title and abstract” and “interpretation of results” were reported by all RCTs, with the items with the lowest reporting rates being “funding” (0), “implementation” (3.5%), and “harms” (3.5%). The risk of bias was high in 13 (44.8%) RCTs and not clear in 15 (51.7%) RCTs. Only one RCT (3.5%) had a low risk of bias. The compliance was not significantly different in terms of the publication year, journal's IF, number of authors, sample size, or first author's country. Ten of the 35 SPIRIT-AI items (funding, participant timeline, allocation concealment mechanism, implementation, data management, auditing, declaration of interests, access to data, informed consent materials and biological specimens) were not reported by any of the three protocols. Conclusions The reporting and methodological quality of RCTs involving AI need to be improved. Because of the limited availability of protocols, their quality could not be fully judged. Following the CONSORT-AI and SPIRIT-AI statements and with appropriate guidance on the risk of bias when designing and reporting AI-related RCTs can promote standardization and transparency.

The Brazilian Society of Cardiology’s most traditional scientific journal, with 73 years of history, Arquivos Brasileiros de Cardiologia or ABC Cardiol, has recently reached a new level of international recognition based on its 2020 impact factor, which is a new historical record. ABC Cardiol‘s new impact factor is 2.0, as published by the 2020 Journal of Citation Report (JCR, Clarivate), which means that, on average, each article published in ABC Cardiol was cited 2 times by other articles. This represents [...]

This study aims to systematically review the accuracy of the self-reporting of conflicts of interest (COIs) among studies related to the use of dermal substitute products in burn management and evaluate factors associated with increased discrepancies. To do so, a literature search was done to identify studies investigating the use of dermal substitutes in burn management published between 2015 and 2019. Industry payments were collected using the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Open Payments database. Declared COIs were then compared with the listed payments. Studies and authors were considered to have a COI if they received payments totaling more than $100 for each company. A total of 51 studies (322 authors) were included for analysis. Forty studies and 104 authors received at least one payment from the industry. Of these studies, 38 (95%) studies and 91 (88%) authors were found to have a COI discrepancy. From 2015 to 2019, 1391 general payments (totaling $1,696,848) and 108 research payments (totaling $1,849,537) were made by 82 companies. When increasing the threshold on what would be considered an undisclosed payment, the proportion of authors with discrepancies gradually decreased, from 88% of authors with undisclosed payments more than $100 to 27% of authors with undisclosed payments more than $10,000. Author order, journal impact factor, and study type were not significantly associated with increased risk of discrepancy. We found that the majority of studies investigating the use of dermal substitute products for burn management did not accurately declare COI, highlighting the need for a uniform declaration process and greater transparency of industry sponsorship by authors when publishing peer-reviewed burn surgery research papers.

Purpose The publication activity of 38 German general/visceral surgery university departments, documented by first or last authorship from staff surgeons (chief and consultants), was evaluated. Methods The observation period extended from 2007 to 2017 and all PubMed-listed publications were considered. Impact factor (IF) was evaluated through the publishing journal’s 5-year IF in 2016, as was the IF for each individual publication. Ranking was expressed in quartiles. Results The staff surgeons of the 38 departments comprised 442 surgeons, of which only 351 (79.4%) were active as first or last authors. Four thousand six hundred and ninety-nine publications published in 702 journals were recorded. The four leading departments in publication number published as much as the last 20 departments (1330 vs. 1336 publications, respectively). The mean of the first (most active) department quartile was 19.6 publications, the second 15.4, the third 11.0, and the last quartile 7.6 per publishing surgeon. The total cumulative impact factor was 14,130. When examining the mean number of publications per publishing surgeons per the 10 year period, the mean of the first quartile was 57.9 cumulative IF, the second 45.0, the third 29.5, and the fourth quartile 17.1. With 352 (7.5%) publications, the most frequently used journal was Chirurg, followed by Langenbeck’s Archives of Surgery with 274 (5.8%) publications. Pancreas-related topics led in terms of publication number and IF generated per individual publication. Conclusion A significant difference in publication performance of individual departments was apparent that cannot be explained by staff number. This indicates that there are as yet unknown factors responsible for minor publication activity in many university departments.

In Part 2, the authors are testing the methods of assessing Russian science journals citation in the natural, agricultural sciences and the humanities based on Web of Science Core Collection. The methodological approach is based on calculating citation coefficient which is a modified version of impact factor, calculated as the ratio of the number of citing documents to the number of scientific articles in Russian journals. The method is tested on the scientific articles published in Russian journals of 2012–2018 and indexed in the Web of Science Core Collection. As a result, recommendations are developed on how to promote Russian journals to the international databases based on Web of Science Core Collection taking into account the specifics of OECD domains under the examination. The general recommendations are: to decrease the share of mono-national publications thus increasing the share of articles written in the international collaboration; and to increase the share of articles by foreign authors. The study is accomplished through the funding within the State Order of the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian federation “Organizational, technological, research and methodological support of promoting national journals to the international science citation bases and information analytical support of the national subscription to international science information resources for scientific and educational organizations”.

Background The scientific rigor of the abstracts presented at the American Society of Breast Surgeons (ASBrS) annual meeting has not been recently evaluated. In this study, we sought to determine the rate at which abstracts presented at the 2017 and 2018 ASBrS meetings were published in peer-reviewed journals, and compared the rates with breast abstracts presented at the 2018 Society of Surgical Oncology (SSO) meeting. Methods Abstracts from the 2017 and 2018 ASBrS and 2018 SSO conferences were searched in PubMed for published manuscripts using the abstract title and/or first or last author. Results In 2017, 21.6% of the 268 abstracts presented at the ASBrS conference resulted in full publication, compared with 36.6% of the 273 abstracts presented at the 2018 ASBrS conference, resulting in a significant difference in the publication rate (p

Introduction Female authors are underrepresented in cardiology journals, although prior work suggested improvement in reducing disparities over time. Early in the recent COVID-19 pandemic, female authorship continued to lag that of their male counterparts despite a surge in publications. The cumulative impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on authorship gender disparities remains unclear. We aimed to characterize gender disparities in COVID-19-related cardiology publications across the duration of the ongoing pandemic. Methods We retrospectively analyzed COVID-19-related research articles published in the top 20 impact factor cardiology journals between March and June 2021. Gender representation data were extracted for any author, first authors, and senior authors. Results We found that 841 articles were related to COVID-19, with a total of 5586 authors and an average of 42 articles per journal. Less than a third (29.9%) of the total authors from publications were women. Women represented a smaller proportion of first authors (21.3%) and senior authors (16.4%). Conclusions Female authorship has continued to lag male authorship for the duration of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. The pandemic may have impeded progress in reducing gender disparities in academic cardiology publications. The low proportions of first and senior female authors may reflect the impact of the pandemic on women in cardiology in leadership domains.

The article provides an overview of the most significant publications on the topic of male infertility. The main selection criteria were the practical significance of the article, as well as the impact factor of the journal in which it was published, according to the SCImago Journal Rank (SJR). As a result, a list of 10 works published in the first quarter (January - March) of 2021 was formed. The review included articles related to the following issues: sperm DNA fragmentation, the use of testicular spermatozoa in ART programs (assisted reproductive technologies), advanced paternal age, the role of the human papillomavirus for male fertility, hormonal modulation by clomiphene, the risk of birth defects in children in ART programs, andrological examination of patients with CFTR gene mutations. And also, an analysis of the new clinical guidelines of the American Urological Association (AUA) was carried out.

Research is a key element of any profession and an analysis of published research enables professional communities to understand the dynamics of growth in a profession and its literature. Bibliometrics is used to carry out the analysis of Library and Information Science (LIS) research articles published by Pakistani authors because it is an important method for measuring impact of published research. We used relatedness measures to estimate the correlation among research growth, authorship patterns and publishing outlets. The sample consists of the research articles published during 2001–2016 by Pakistani authors who mostly remained associated with Pakistani institutions during this period. Chi-square and Binary Logistic Regression was used to find the relationship among different research indicators. Overall annual growth rate of the research articles remained between 8 and 9% from 2004 to 2016. During 2001 and 2016, 166 Pakistani authors contributed 600 articles with an average of 3.61 articles per author. Growth of articles published in foreign journals remained higher as compared to local journals. Out of 600 articles, 31% were contributed by 48 female and 71% articles were published by 118 male authors. Females were slightly more productive with an average of 3.85 than males with an average of 3.51. Collaboration among authors was seven times higher during 2009–16. Collaboration was higher among practitioners and for impact factor publishing. Females contributed more research during 2009–16 as compared to 2001–08. During the 2009–16, foreign articles were contributed with higher percentage by females and faculty. The current study depicts a comprehensive picture of LIS research publishing by Pakistani authors while exploring relationships among different bibliometric indicators.

Purpose To quantify the gap between radiology and other specialties regarding the amount of literature on healthcare disparities (HCD). Methods Four different searches were conducted to evaluate the amount of literature on HCD in radiology as compared to internal medicine and surgery. Initially, the Journal Citation Report was utilized to search for the five highest ranking journals in each field and a second search used impact factor. A combination of search terms “health” AND “disparities” was used. Two additional searches were performed with PubMed using the terms “health” AND “disparities AND “radiology” with the final term changed for each specialty. The second PubMed search added the term “medical education” for each specialty. Articles were limited to years 2017 to 2020. Results The initial search found 1817 articles discussing “health” and “disparities”. 14.6% of these were radiology, 65.7% internal medicine, and 19.7% surgery. The subsequent search controlling for impact factor found 2176 articles. 12.2% were for radiology, 66.1% were for internal medicine, and 21.7% for surgery. The initial PubMed search found 6543 articles. 9.9% were for radiology, 32.4% for internal medicine, and 57.7% were for surgery. The addition of “medical education” decreased the articles to 807. Radiology had 9.9%, internal medicine was 44.2%, and surgery was 45.9 %. Conclusion A gap in HCD literature exists for radiology as compared to surgery and internal medicine. However, radiology has demonstrated a recent significant push towards understanding HCD. Radiology should continue to capitalize on its momentum and develop HCD curricula and research.

Background Early reports show the unequal effect the COVID-19 pandemic might have on men versus women engaged in medical research. Purpose To investigate whether the COVID-19 pandemic has had an impact on scientific publishing by female physicians in medical imaging. Materials and Methods The authors conducted a descriptive bibliometric analysis of the gender of the first and last authors of manuscripts submitted to the top 50 medical imaging journals from March to May 2020 (n = 2480) compared with the same period of the year in 2018 (n = 2238) and 2019 (n = 2355). Manuscript title, date of submission, first and last names of the first and last authors, journal impact factor, and author country of provenance were recorded. The Gender-API software was used to determine author gender. Statistical analysis comprised χ2 tests and multivariable logistic regression. Results Percentages of women listed as first and last authors were 31.6% (1172 of 3711 articles) and 19.3% (717 of 3711 articles), respectively, in 2018-2019 versus 32.3% (725 of 2248 articles) and 20.7% (465 of 2248 articles) in 2020 (P = .61 and P = .21, respectively). For COVID-19-related articles, 35.2% (89 of 253 articles) of first authors and 20.6% (52 of 253 articles) of last authors were women. No associations were found between first- and last-author gender, year of publication, and region of provenance. First and last authorship of high-ranking articles was not in favor of North American women whatever the year (odds ratio [OR], 0.79 [P = .05] and 0.72 [P = .02], respectively). Higher rates of female last authorship of high-ranking articles were observed in Europe (P = .003) and of female first authorship of low-ranking publications in Asia in 2020 (OR, 1.38; 95% CI: 0.98, 1.92; P = .06). Female first and last authorship of COVID-19-related articles was overrepresented for lowest-rank publications (P = .02 and P = .01, respectively). Conclusion One in three first authors and one in five last authors were women in 2018-2019 and 2020, respectively. Although the first 2020 lockdown did not diminish the quantity of women-authored publications, the impact on the quality was variable. ©RSNA, 2021 See also the editorial by Robbins and Khosa in this issue.

Background Degenerative disease of the elbow is a unique dilemma due to the different pathologies of arthritis. Outcome measures are used by physicians to provide a quantitative measure of patient progression. While there has been a substantial number of case series and studies on treatment of elbow arthritis, the heterogeneity of outcome measures reported in the literature makes it difficult for surgeons to compare results between treatment options. There is no consensus on outcome measure reporting as no measure has been found to be superior to others in the literature. The purpose of this study was to examine the elbow arthritis literature for the most commonly reported outcomes measures after treatment of elbow arthritis and recommend a guideline for reporting in future studies in an attempt to standardize the literature. Methods A query was performed of all studies written in English literature from 2010 to 2020 using PubMed and Scopus databases utilizing PRISMA guidelines. Articles that met inclusion criteria were reviewed for reporting of patient-reported outcome, range of motion, return to work/sport, complication rate, satisfaction rate, revision rate, number of patients, minimum and mean follow-up time, type of treatment, journal, journal impact factor, level of evidence, and number of citations as of April 2020. Results Eighty three studies met inclusion criteria with a mean number of 39 patients per study with a mean age of 53 years. Mayo elbow performance score (MEPS) was the most commonly reported outcome measure (81%) followed by quick Disabilities of Arm Shoulder Hand (qDASH; 23%), DASH (16%), and modified American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score (m-ASES; 16%). The average number of outcome measures per study was 1.6. Studies that reported MEPS had higher number of citations compared to studies that did not (14.21 vs. 7.62 citations; P = .031). Studies that reported MEPS were found to publish more in journals with higher impact factors (ie, impact factor of ≥2) (88% vs. 71%; P = .051). Discussion Outcome measures are inconsistently reported in elbow arthritis literature. Studies that report MEPS were found to be cited more. We recommend reporting of at least two outcome measures in future studies as well as range of motion for easier cross-study analysis. Additional measures such as return to work/sport, satisfaction rate, complication rate, and revision rate should be reported to provide more complete understanding of post-treatment outcome. Conclusion Increased standardization of outcome measure reporting may improve future patients’ outcomes following treatment of elbow arthritis. Levels of Evidence Level IV

Background In line with aging populations and increased application of anesthesia and surgery, perioperative neurocognitive disorder (PND) has received growing attention worldwide. Considerable researches into PND are being conducted; however, the quantity and quality of such researches have not been reported. Through a retrospective bibliometric analysis, this study aims to identify and characterize the top 100 cited publications on PND. Methods We searched the Web of Science database to find the top 100 cited articles focusing on PND. We collected bibliographic information, including year of publication, country of origin, article type, published journal, citation count, and authorship. To determine changes with time, we compared older and newest articles. Results The top 100 cited articles were published between 1955 and 2016; the number of citations ranged from 111 to 1248. The United States had the most published papers; clinical trial was the most common article type. The specialty journals of Anesthesiology and Anesthesia & Analgesia were the two most cited journals. Newest articles had a comparable number of citations to older articles, but the former had higher annual citation rates, greater funding disclosures, more focus on basic research, and more open access publications. Conclusions This study provides a comprehensive overview of the most cited articles and highlights the increasing attention on PND. High-quality clinical trials with a greater journal impact factor receive more citations. However, there has been a growth in the number of basic science studies as an area of research with respect to the pathogenesis of PND.

CPT: Pharmacometrics & Systems Pharmacology (PSP) is a cross‐disciplinary journal which publishes research articles, reviews and tutorials that bridge various disciplines including pharmacometrics, systems pharmacology modeling, physiologically based pharmacokinetics (PBPK), translational research, model‐based meta‐analyses (MBMA) of clinical trials, computational pharmacology and bioinformatics. PSP was launched in September 2012, as the second journal of American Society for Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics (ASCPT), with the first being Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics (CPT). Since the launch of Clinical & Translational Science (CTS), PSP is now part of a family of three journals. In June 2021, approaching its 9th anniversary, PSP was granted for the first time, an impact factor. We are proud to announce that the impact factor for 2020 is 4.054. Of note, the cite score of PSP was already increasing from 4.1 in 2015 to 6.3 in 2020, which is great news for both the journal and our scientific community. Hence, for the July 2021 issue, we introduce our first video‐abstract, and in this editorial present our vision for the journal for the next ten years, and last, but certainly not least, present our new cover (Figure 1). It was selected by the Editor in Chief, associate editors and the ASCPT board members to illustrate the various aspects of PSP (molecules, equations, models, patients) and their interplay but also the cycling of the different components of model‐informed drug development (MIDD) and development and application of models as they continue to evolve. Open in a separate window FIGURE 1 New Cover for CPT:PSP

Interdisciplinary research (IDR) has become an important component in the conduction of leading-edge science and innovation. From the different approaches available to measuring IDR, bibliometric indicators have experienced the greatest growth. Despite the frequent use of bibliometric measures of IDR in research and policymaking, their adequacy has not been validated against scientists’ perceptions. Using the case of an IDR-oriented research institute in Japan, this study aims to investigate the differences and similarities between the outcomes of common bibliometric measures of IDR and the scientists’ perceptions of IDR. We used a unique dataset combining bibliometric measures with survey data collected from the scientists’ self-assessment of their research. This study also investigates the factors influencing the outcomes of bibliometrics and scientists' perceptions. Moreover, this study explores how IDR qualitative and quantitative measures differ from those that are more intuitive, such as scientific impact. It was observed that there is no “holy grail” measure for interdisciplinarity when compared with scientific impact, for which the impact factor is considered as a key metric by scientists. While bibliometric measures of interdisciplinarity show mild correlations with scientists' perceptions, they display high discriminatory power. The disagreement between qualitative and quantitative evaluations, as well as the significant field-specific nature of interdisciplinarity, calls for the use of multidimensional assessment approaches for assessing IDR, and the building of a consensus about the meaning and measurement of interdisciplinarity among scientists, respectively. The results of this study provide a series of guidelines for a more effective implementation of interdisciplinarity-oriented R&D policies at different organizational levels.