Search

Gold Open Access (OA) journals are crucial for scholarly communication, highlighting the need for a thorough evaluation of their academic influence on different research fields. This study leverages the InCites platform to examine article‐level characteristics relating to 22 Essential Science Indicators (ESI) research fields, with a focus on the dynamics of gold OA articles, including gold OA uptake in the Chinese mainland and gold OA adoption in the domestic English‐language academic journal publishing of the Chinese mainland. The findings reveal that disparities in gold OA adoption across 22 ESI fields are more pronounced in the Chinese mainland compared with the world scenario. In the Chinese mainland, there is a significant polarization in gold OA publishing volumes across different ESI fields, particularly in Chemistry, Clinical Medicine, and Engineering. This study builds on the understanding of OA citation advantage (OACA) by incorporating gold OA publishing volume into a two‐dimensional framework, resulting in the development of a "distance" metric. It further categorizes gold OA citation effects into four quadrants: positive citation effects (quadrants A and B) and negative citation effects (quadrants C and D), based on category normalized citation impact (CNCI) and journal normalized citation impact (JNCI) indicators from the InCites database. The findings underscore the importance of developing tailored strategies to address field‐specific challenges and promote gold OA dynamics in the Chinese mainland; while prioritizing high‐quality gold OA journals is essential for fostering gold OA development in the rest of the world. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose The influence of Open Access (OA) on the citation impact of scholarly articles remains a topic of considerable debate. This study aims to elucidate the relationship between OA publication and citation metrics, as well as article visibility, within the context of the Postgraduate Medical Journal (PMJ). Methods We conducted a retrospective analysis of 373 articles published in PMJ between 2020 and 2021. Data on OA status, citations, page views, PDF downloads, and other relevant variables were extracted from Journal Citation Reports and PMJ's official website. Multivariable linear regression and other statistical analyses were used to assess the impact of OA on these metrics. Results OA articles (n  = 78) demonstrated significantly higher citation counts, page views, and PDF downloads compared with subscription-based articles (n  = 295). Specifically, OA articles showed a significant increase in citation frequency with a β coefficient of 25.08 and a 95% CI of 17.168–32.992 (P  < .001). Similarly, OA status was independently associated with increases in page views [β = 288.636, 95%CI: 177.749–399.524, P  < .001] and PDF downloads [β = 118.966, 95%CI: 86.357–151.575, P  < .001]. Strong correlations among total citations, page views, and PDF downloads were observed in both OA and subscription articles. Conclusion The study highlights a significant and independent association of OA publishing with increased citation counts, page views, and PDF downloads in PMJ, suggesting that OA articles have broader reach and greater visibility. Further research, including randomized controlled studies across various journals, is needed to confirm these findings and explore the full impact of OA publishing. Key message 1. What is already known on this topic: Prior research on the impact of Open Access (OA) on scholarly articles has produced mixed results, with some studies indicating a citation advantage for OA articles in various fields, while others found no significant difference. This inconsistency in findings across disciplines highlighted the need for a focused study on the citation impact of OA in specific journals such as the Postgraduate Medical Journal (PMJ). 2. What this study adds: Our study uniquely demonstrates that OA articles in PMJ are associated with significantly higher citation counts, page views, and PDF downloads compared with subscription-based articles. It highlights a notable correlation between OA article visibility (as measured by page views and downloads) and citation counts, thereby enriching the current understanding of the benefits of OA publishing. 3. How this study might affect research, practice, or policy: These findings suggest a considerable advantage of OA publishing in increasing the visibility and impact of research. They highlight the potential benefits for journals and policymakers in advocating OA publications and underscore the strategic advantage for researchers in opting for OA to achieve wider dissemination and impact. This study may also serve as a catalyst for further research into the varied effects of OA across different disciplines and journal types. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The paper analyzes the citation impact of Library and Information Science (LIS) research articles published in 31 leading international LIS journals in 2015. The main research question is: to what degree do authors' disciplinary composition in association with topic, methodology, and type of contribution affect their citation impact? The impact is analyzed in terms of the number of citations received and their authority, using outlier normalization and subfield normalization. Quantitative content analysis is used to analyze article characteristics including topic, methodology, type of contribution, and the disciplinary composition of their author teams. The citations received by the articles are traced from 2015 to May 2021. Citing document authority is measured by the citations they had received up to May 2021. The overall finding was that authors' disciplinary composition is significantly associated with citation scores. The differences in citation scores between disciplinary compositions appeared typically within information retrieval and scientific communication. In both topics LIS and computer science jointly received significantly higher citation scores than many disciplines like LIS alone or humanities in information retrieval; or natural sciences, medicine, or social sciences alone in scientific communication. The paper is original in reporting a joint analysis of content characteristics, authorship composition, and impact. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A standard approach to compare research collaborations between pairs of countries is to look at the citations accrued by all publications with authors from both countries. This approach is often misleading, as aspects only marginally related to the collaboration between the country pairs may bias the result considerably. Among them, the main aspect is the number of co-authors. Publications with many co-authors have on average higher citation impact. If the mix of co-publications between two countries has a high share of such publications, the citation impact will likely be high. Moreover, publications with many co-authors tend to include many countries and are thus only to a limited extent characterising the actual collaboration between the selected pair of countries. The purpose of this study is to develop methods for comparisons of country pairs useful for policy makers, who use SciVal or similar tools. Five methods to compare international collaboration are developed and tested. It is noted that the standard approach for comparisons deviates the most. Fractional methods to calculate the citation impact are recommended, as they allow for the use of citations to all co-publications with a higher weight on the citations to publications in which the country pair dominates. As fractionalisation is laborious to carry out based on SciVal data, a more convenient option is also suggested, which is to use co-publications with maximum 10 co-authors. Elsevier should introduce better methods for comparisons of international collaborations and, until this has been made, help its users understand the limitations of the standard approach featured in SciVal. A by-product of the study is that international co-publications deliver a higher citation impact also when publications with the same number of co-authors are compared. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A Significant number of studies have been made on intestinal flora and health and it has flourished in the last 24years. In this study we have taken up an initiative to measure the literature outcome in intestinal flora using Scientometric analysis during the period 2000 to 2023 as extracted from SCOPUS interdisciplinary database. Total 6913 numbers of scholarly publications have been fetched which sum up most advanced achievements in this field according to the objectives. This research aims to assess the global research productivity on "Intestinal flora." In respect of Literature Publications "China" is at the top among the world with publications (TP=4773), followed by "Unites States" (TP=468)", and "India (TP=75)" is at the 11th position in this field during this time. "Frontiers in Microbiology" is the most prolific journal in the domain of "Intestinal flora" with 119 publications followed by "World Chinese Journal of Digestology" with 111 publications. Mostly Used Keywords are "Intestine Flora" (3947) followed by "article" (3157), then "non-human" (2897), "human" (2701) and so on. In this study Microsoft Excel, and open-source tool VOSviewer is used to study research publications trend, authors productivity, country collaboration the most prolific journals, authors, co-cited references, keywords etc. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Citation metrics are frequently used to assess research and rank journals and researchers. Nevertheless, this is still a process with asymmetric information. Tourism research has matured within a small community and through a multidisciplinary scientific paradigm. This paper aims to understand the determinants of tourism research citation patterns. To this end, 101,968 papers within fifteen years (2004-2018) are analysed. Our empirical results suggest that authors' prestige, the multidisciplinary nature of research, and the impact factor of journals and bibliometric articles will likely increase an article's citations. This paper represents a step forward in understanding the citation formation process in tourism research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper tried to analyze publications on "Human microbiome," globally over the last 22 years i.e. 2002- 2023 and summarize the most advanced achievements in this field, data retrieved from SCOPUS database. The total 3814 number of research publications found and extracted and further analyzed in selected parameters for fulfillment of the objectives of the study. This research aims to assess the global research productivity on the "Human microbiome." In respect of Literature Publications "United States" is at the top among the world with publications (TP=1858), followed by "China (TP=321)", "United Kingdom (TP=234)", "Germany (TP=216)", "Canada (TP=213)" and "India (TP=183)" in this field during this time. "Frontiers in Microbiology" is the most presiding journal in the field of "Human Microbiome" with 113 publications followed by "Plos One" with 100 publications. We use an open-source tool, VOSviewer for classic logical bibliometric analysis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The present study aims to explore the global landscape of neurotechnology research and investigate the factors that influence its citation impact. The data for the study were extracted from the Web of Science Core Collection database, resulting in a total of 1,473 articles related to neurotechnology. The study identified a notable increase in neurotechnology research over time, peaking at 37.20% from 2020 to 2023, with Scientific Reports as the leading journal. Collaborative efforts with two to four authors constituted 42.90% of the total articles. The United States led country-level contributions (29.26%). The University of California secured the top rank with 4.48% of the total publications. The United States Department of Health and Human Services remains at the top by contributing funding to 7.46% of research papers in the field of Neurotechnology research. Statistical tests confirmed significant correlations between research funding, collaboration, and research availability mode with citation impact. Positive correlations were identified between research funding and collaboration, while open access availability showed a negative correlation with citation impact. These findings deepen our understanding of neurotechnology research dynamics, providing insights for researchers, institutions, and policymakers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Over the past decades, international scientific collaborations have thrived as a vital avenue for generating new knowledge and advancing scientific breakthroughs. However, recent political tensions between the United States and China have raised concerns about potential ramifications on scientific productivity and innovation. While existing research highlighted the adverse effects of these tensions on scientific collaborations, limited attention focused on knowledge combinations. Drawing upon large-scale bibliometric datasets, we conduct a systematic study to examine the effects of the "China Initiative" on Chinese scientists' productivity, citation impact, and knowledge combinations at the individual level. Firstly, we find the "China Initiative" has shown detrimental effects on scientific productivity and citation impact of Chinese scientists collaborating with U.S. scientists. Moreover, scientists from prestigious Chinese institutions and those with dual affiliations from both countries experienced greater negative impacts from the "China Initiative". Furthermore, we explore knowledge combination patterns and find that Chinese scientists who collaborated with US scientists published less novel and interdisciplinary papers after the "China Initiative". Interestingly, we observe a shift in collaborative behaviors, with an increase in the quantity and citations of domestic papers and collaborative papers with countries other than the United States. By shedding light on the influence of the "China Initiative", our study contributes to the understanding of the complex interplay between political dynamics and scientific progress, highlighting the importance of an open academic environment in an era of geopolitical challenges. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Hijacked from medical and health sciences, Systematic Literature Reviews (SLRs) are widely (ab)used in many scientific domains. Considering the ability to provide transparency and replicability of research results, many scientists consider an SLR a safe avenue for attaining scientific impact, given that the theoretical probability of acceptance is relatively high. Relying on dual analysis of Partial Least Squares Discriminant Analysis (PLS-DA) and Network Analysis (NA), the study identifies key features associated with citation impact within top-tier SLRs. Next, the study introduces Rationale, Cogency, and Extent (RCE) criterion for evaluating potential markers that predict citation impact using two case studies of SLRs from engineering domain. The findings suggest that the informal logic for starting a review significantly correlates with citation impact. Additionally, journal- and author-level metrics, along with RCE composite scores, display significant difference between top- and bottom-ranked SLRs. Through NA, reporting the quality assessment of studies (QATR) emerges as the most influential node within the RCE network. Despite its lack of direct correlation with citation impact, we conclude that QATR is a moderating variable. Finally, the study concludes that a well-articulated research question, alignment with existing evidence, and rigorous data use collectively serve as a blueprint for producing a high-quality SLR. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Robust findings of citations have a positive impact on researchers and significantly contribute to academic development. As a paper is cited more frequently or used as a reference in other articles, its citation count increases. Papers with higher citations tend to be more influential than those less cited. Research on predicting citation counts has evolved throughout the year in various fields. However, despite its recent growth, research on identifying commonly used features and techniques still lacks a comprehensive literature analysis. The present study addresses this gap and identifies frequently used features and existing techniques and their evaluation process for predicting an article's citations. This study reviewed 150 articles from 2010 to 2023, and selected 107 based on established exclusion and inclusion criteria. It provides an overview of publication features and the standard techniques used for their identification to facilitate improvements in this field. The findings indicate that previous works frequently used (i) selected features such as paper features and citation features in predicting citations and (ii) machine learning techniques that are commonly applied to predict article citations. These findings can provide beneficial information for researchers aiming to enhance their papers and maximize their impact. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper presents a preliminary comparison of citation impact between two types of Best Paper Awards recipients: pre-and post-publication peer-selected best papers. Two hundred and ninety-nine pairs of pre-and post-publication peer-selected best papers from 15 highly prestigious computer science conferences spanning more than two decades were gathered for empirical analysis. Each pair was published in the same proceedings, and their citation information was collected within a 10-year period after their formal publication. A series of pairwise comparisons were performed in order to unbiasedly uncover their differences in citation counts (i.e., a good proxy for citation impact), as well as in citation speed, citation diversity, and citation location distributions (i.e., three characteristic properties of citation impact). The empirical results demonstrate that in computer science, the post-publication peer-selected best papers receive significantly more citations than their pre-publication counterparts, with an estimated probability of up to 0.79 (95% CI: 0.74 ~ 0.83). Meanwhile, they tend to accumulate their citations more quickly in the later (versus earlier) stages—they can scarcely be fast-aging papers, and their accumulated citations tend to cover a broader scope of academic disciplines. Overall, however, the pre-and post-publication peer-selected best papers have very similar citation location distributions. Both of them are most frequently cited in the Background sections, followed by the Methods sections, and finally the Results sections. In addition, the citation impact superiority of the post-publication peer-selected best papers remains consistent across different fields of research and over a long period of time, from 1997 to 2022. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Agricultural Sciences have become one of Brazil's most efficient and sustainable research areas, where most publications benefit from scientific collaboration. The present study analyzes the influence of the designation as the corresponding author to researchers linked to Brazilian institutions on the impact of co-authored articles in the category Agronomy from the Web of Science for five-year periods from 2005 to 2019. We have observed a noticeable growth in the number of documents in collaboration between the five-year periods. However, international partnership in the area still needs to be improved, although it is higher in non-academic institutions. The study verified that the documents published by Brazilian authors with international colleagues present a higher normalized citation impact in all types of institutions and five-year periods than documents with national collaboration. The total number of articles, their normalized citation impact, and the percentage of documents as the corresponding author of academic institutions presented less variation than non-academic institutions. For Brazilian academic institutions, assuming the role of the corresponding author of co-authored articles in Agronomy has little influence on citation impact. As for non-academic institutions, we found an association between the corresponding authorship position within the scope of international collaboration and the higher impact of their scientific production. We point out some potential implications and briefly describe the limitations and future research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The role that grant funding should play in the conduct and evaluation of psychological science is controversial, largely because few data are available to directly inform this issue. We sought to gain insights on grant funding in psychological science by examining the extent to which grant funding influenced eminent psychologists in their research pursuits. Participants were recruited from a compiled, published list of the most eminent psychologists of the modern era (N = 108). Participants were asked about their history of grant funding, including whether their most significant empirical publication received grant funding; participants were also asked about the perceived impact of grant funding on their scholarly productivity and creativity. Virtually all participants had career histories of external funding and reported that they received external funding for their most important published study. Whereas a small minority reported that funding had hindered their creativity, most reported that funding facilitated both their scholarly productivity and creativity. Open-ended comments revealed more nuance to these findings – a slim majority reported that grant funding positively impacted their scholarship whereas an important minority reported that grant funding negatively impacted their scholarship. In sum, our results indicate that grant funding is an important, albeit fallible, marker of eminence in psychological science. Still, even among successful, eminent psychologists, perceptions of grant funding are not invariably positive. Future research is needed to clarify the extent to which grant funding is biased in favor of eminence and to examine the necessity of grant funding for influential psychological research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We analyse the degree to which the popularity of scientific authors on Twitter and LinkedIn corresponds to publication-based indicators as to their visibility and interconnectedness. Departing from the extant literature's focus on the visibility of individual papers, we turn to the popularity of individuals on social media platforms. We explore whether this popularity is reflected in the visibility that researchers achieve and the collaborations they maintain in the publication domain. Studying a large sample of applied researchers in Germany, we find congruence between researchers' popularity on social media, and both their visibility and interconnectedness in the publication domain. Comparing the effects of Twitter and LinkedIn engagement, we furthermore find that the characteristics of this relationship are associated with the intended function of the social media platform in which researchers engage. We conclude that social media platforms are a relevant channel of academic communication, alongside existing channels of formal and informal exchange. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Journal Impact Factor and other indicators that assess the average citation rate of articles in a journal are consulted by many academics and research evaluators, despite initiatives against overreliance on them. Undermining both practices, there is limited evidence about the extent to which journal impact indicators in any field relate to human judgements about the quality of the articles published in the field's journals. In response, we compared average citation rates of journals against expert judgements of their articles in all fields of science. We used preliminary quality scores for 96,031 articles published 2014–18 from the UK Research Excellence Framework 2021. Unexpectedly, there was a positive correlation between expert judgements of article quality and average journal citation impact in all fields of science, although very weak in many fields and never strong. The strength of the correlation varied from 0.11 to 0.43 for the 27 broad fields of Scopus. The highest correlation for the 94 Scopus narrow fields with at least 750 articles was only 0.54, for Infectious Diseases, and there was only one negative correlation, for the mixed category Computer Science (all), probably due to the mixing. The average citation impact of a Scopus-indexed journal is therefore never completely irrelevant to the quality of an article but is also never a strong indicator of article quality. Since journal citation impact can at best moderately suggest article quality it should never be relied on for this, supporting the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

(1) Introduction: Psoriasis is a chronic, immune-mediated disease that negatively impacts patients' quality of life and predisposes them to cardiovascular or metabolic diseases. This paper aims to summarize the knowledge structure and future directions in psoriasis research by means of bibliometrics. (2) Material and methods: The Thomson Reuters Web of Science database was interrogated using preestablished keywords. A list of the top 100 most cited articles focusing solely on psoriasis was compiled and analyzed. VOSviewer software was used to assess and visualize collaboration networks, citation, co-citation and co-wording analysis, and bibliographic coupling. (3) Results: The articles were written by 902 authors from 20 countries and were published in 31 journals. The United States was at the forefront of this field. Griffiths, CEM had the most citations, while the most prolific institution was Rockefeller University, New York City. Pathogenesis, especially key-pathogenic factors, immune pathways, and epidemiology were the most discussed topics. Work published in the last decade focused on the use of biologics. Keywords such as "quality of life", "efficacy", and "necrosis-factor alpha" have been widely used. (4) Conclusion: Research interest regarding psoriasis is high, leading to the rapid development of this field. Treatment modalities, especially novel-targeted therapies, immune pathways, and an integrative approach to such cases are receiving great interest and represent research hotspots in the future. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Culturo-behavior science addresses many of the world's most significant problems and therefore has potential to create world-changing outcomes. Before systems level changes that improve the world can be implemented, however, it is first necessary for the public to know about and take interest in the accomplishments of culturo-behavior science. Measurable evidence that this kind of influence is being achieved is a component of "dissemination impact," an important but often overlooked form of accountability on sciences that target real-world problems. We describe a method for quantifying some aspects of dissemination impact and present data on how much of this impact has been earned by articles published in Behavior and Social Issues. The results provide considerable food for thought about how culturo-behavior science can proceed toward making the strategic pursuit of dissemination impact a component of its evidence-based practices. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The effect of research collaboration (RC) on citation impact (the citations that the scientific knowledge has received) has been studied over the years. However, the extant literature has not considered that the effect of RC can not be efficiently assessed if the level of development of the research and innovation system (RIS) of the collaborating countries is disregarded. I have addressed this gap by looking at the articles published by 36 countries and controlling for other variables that also influence citation impact. The results show that the higher the development of the RIS, the higher the citation impact, as measured by the percentile each article occupies in the respective Web of Science subject area, of single–authored articles and of articles with domestic research collaboration (DRC). The articles representing DRC always have a higher citation impact than single-authored articles, regardless of the level of development of RIS of the countries. Even the articles representing an international research collaboration do not always have a higher impact than single-authored articles; (1) there is no statistically significant difference between the citation impact of articles published in collaboration between scientists from countries considered strong innovators and modest innovators and the citation impact of single-authored articles of scientists from countries considered strong innovators; and (2) articles published by scientists from countries considered innovation leaders in collaboration with scientists from countries considered modest innovators have a lower impact than single-authored articles published by scientists from countries considered innovation leaders. In general, collaboration between scientists from countries with a well-developed RIS and those with a less developed RIS results in articles with a lower citation impact than articles with DRC originating from scientists from countries with a well-developed RIS and higher than articles with DRC originating from scientists from countries with a less developed RIS. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Gas hydrates, or clathrate hydrates, is a multidisciplinary field of research involving potential applications to the oil and gas industry, energy security, and innovative technological applications with literature referenced back to 1810. The field of gas hydrates or clathrate hydrates has progressed over the past several decades from academic curiosity‐driven research to industrially relevant research related to flow assurance and methane hydrates in nature as an energy resource. In the recent few decades, several innovative and sustainable applications have emerged with gas hydrate or clathrate hydrate as a technology enabler. In this work, I present a bibliometric analysis of the field of gas hydrates or clathrate hydrates for the period from 1901 to 2020 from the Web of Science core collection database of Clarivate Analytics. In total, 12 152 journal publications (review and original research articles) were analyzed from Web of Science core collection database spanning 121 years (1901–2020). Top countries, top cited review articles, and original research articles along with top source titles (journals) are identified and highlighted. In addition, the field classifications and citation rate trends have been analyzed and presented. Network visualization maps are presented for countries, sources, and organizations by analysing citations in VOSviewer. Co‐occurrence analysis is performed to identify the top keywords and their links through network visualization based on VOSviewer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Research productivity has become one of the main indicators used by higher education institutions (HEIs) as well as the country to support their innovation capability. This study purposely describes the research productivity among ASEAN countries, which is considered to be the world's current economic hotspot. By using SciVal database to examine the literature over the last 10 years, we describe productivity, citation impact, and economic impact metrics. The findings indicate that Singapore is superior in terms of publication quality (citation) and patents while Malaysia is leading in terms of the number of scientific research. Interestingly, Indonesia's scientific publication growth has the highest percentage. Furthermore, Engineering & Technology and Life Sciences & Medicine are the two major contributors to ASEAN research productivity. These subjects could be the major locomotives for ASEAN countries to use to sustain their competitiveness if the leaders can transform it into successful commercialization. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Social media is opening up new avenues for disseminating research outputs. While prior literature points to the essential role of Twitter in this context, evidence on what determines variation in researchers´ Twitter engagement remains scarce. In this account-level study of Twitter usage, we consider how research productivity, research quality, and participation in academic conferences relate to Twitter uptake, activity and popularity, while also taking into account differences between academic disciplines. We use a population sample comprising data on Twitter engagement of researchers employed at the Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft, Europe´s largest applied research organization. We find that participation in academic conferences is strongly associated with Twitter uptake and popularity, but not with Twitter activity as such. We also find positive associations between research productivity and Twitter uptake as well as between research quality and popularity. Moreover, physicists use Twitter more than researchers from other disciplines, female researchers use Twitter less, and scientific age is negatively associated with Twitter activity. Our findings contribute to the literature on academic social media usage by providing indications for both push and pull mechanisms at play within social media research dissemination. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Revista CienciaUAT is the property of Universidad Autonoma de Tamaulipas and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The aim of this study is to analyze to which extent the Journal Impact Factor (JIF) reflects the amount of excellent publications contained in a journal in the corresponding subject category. We are introducing two percentile-based indicators in order to measure the excellence contribution at journal level. Calculations of these indicators have been carried out for twenty different Journal Citation Reports (JCR) subject categories to investigate the correlation with Garfield's Journal Impact Factor. Differences in the ranking according to all three indicators especially in First Quartile (Q1) of each category are shown and discussed. We have also studied the effect of multidisciplinary journals to the excellence contribution at category level and observed considerable differences between the twenty considered categories under analysis. Their omission would lead to neglect a large part of excellent publications, especially in the hard sciences. The introduced excellence indicators are very robust considering the types of documents considered for their calculation. The results of this study show that the journal excellence content is not completely reflected in the JIF measure and affects both Science and Social Science Edition categories. Therefore, the introduction of journal excellence indicators will help to give a more complete picture of the citation impact of a journal, because they are informing directly about the total and normalized excellence contribution of each journal to the corresponding subject category. They are a valuable enrichment and complement of the JIF, and more suitable than the Journal Citation Indicator, recently added to the JCR, because they reflect the inherent skewness of the citation distribution. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The present study aims to analyze (1) the relationship between Citation Normalized Score of scientific publications and Article Processing Charges (APCs) of Gold Open Access (OA) publications (2) the determinants of APCs. To do so, we used APCs information provided by the OpenAPC database, citation scores of publications from the WoS database and, for Altmetrics, data from Altmetrics.com database, over the period from 2006 to 2019 for 83,752 articles published in 4751 journals belonging to 267 distinct publishers. Results show that contrary to common belief, paying high APCs does not necessarily increase the impact of publications. First, large publishers with high impact are not the most expensive. Second, publishers with the highest APCs are not necessarily the best in terms of impact. Correlation between APCs and impact is moderate. Regarding the determinants, results indicate that APCs are on average 50% higher in hybrid journals than in full OA journals. The results also suggest that Altmetrics do not have a great impact: OA articles that have garnered the most attention on internet are articles with relatively low APCs. Another interesting result is that the "number of readers" indicator is more effective as it is more correlated with classic bibliometrics indicators than the Altmetrics score. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

What are patterns of gender and authorship in urban land science? Our bibliometric analysis shows that the proportion of women shrinks among highly productive, impactful, and senior authors, akin to a pyramid shape. First, women are only one in ten researchers with an h-index above the 95th percentile. Second, women are first authors on 20% of all influential papers cited more than one hundred times. Third, women publish less frequently (1.6 papers/year) than men (2.2). Fourth, women have shorter career lengths (9.4 years) than men (11.8). Since the 2000s, citation rates for women and men have converged. For the generation starting careers since 2016, the proportion of women with an h-index above the 90th percentile increased to 25%. During the Covid-19 pandemic, there was a 51% increase in productivity for women. Despite these changes, gender disparities in urban land science are most pronounced among the most productive and impactful authors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

With the ongoing evolution of scientific research collaboration in depth and breadth, the age distribution among paper collaborators is becoming increasingly varied. The question of whether this age distribution affects the quality of collaborative papers has emerged as a significant topic in recent research. In this study, we have compiled a comprehensive scientific database comprising more than 3.5 million papers from over 180 countries. These papers include multiple attribute information about their authors. We define the age diversity of a paper based on the academic ages of its co-authors and examine the relationship between age diversity and citation impact using regression analyses. Our findings reveal a clear upward trend in the age diversity of authors over time. The results indicate that the average age diversity of highly cited papers is consistently higher than that of general papers across the entire timeline, spanning four disciplines: economics, engineering, computer science, and physics. Moreover, we demonstrate a significantly positive correlation between age diversity and citation impact. In the aforementioned four disciplines, an increase in the collaborators' age diversity is associated with a corresponding rise in the paper's citation impact. This study contributes to a deeper understanding of age-related dynamics in scientific collaboration. It also offers insights into the age distribution of research teams, providing practical suggestions for researchers engaged in collaborative endeavors. • Rising age diversity of co-authors over time shows an inverse homophily. • Highly cited papers consistently show greater age diversity across disciplines. • Age diversity is significantly positively correlated with citation impact. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

ABSTRACTWhat are patterns of gender and authorship in urban land science? Our bibliometric analysis shows that the proportion of women shrinks among highly productive, impactful, and senior authors, akin to a pyramid shape. First, women are only one in ten researchers with an h-index above the 95th percentile. Second, women are first authors on 20% of all influential papers cited more than one hundred times. Third, women publish less frequently (1.6 papers/year) than men (2.2). Fourth, women have shorter career lengths (9.4 years) than men (11.8). Since the 2000s, citation rates for women and men have converged. For the generation starting careers since 2016, the proportion of women with an h-index above the 90th percentile increased to 25%. During the Covid-19 pandemic, there was a 51% increase in productivity for women. Despite these changes, gender disparities in urban land science are most pronounced among the most productive and impactful authors.

The IEEE Access journal started in 2013, and in a short period, it has attained recognition for being a preferred multidisciplinary journal, with characteristics of rapid and continuous publishing. It is now ranked among the top journals in Engineering and Computer Science (General) by Scopus. Recognizing the distinctive nature of the journal and its contributions in the broader area of Engineering and Computer Science, this article attempts to present a detailed bibliometric analysis of the journal to identify publishing patterns, authorship and collaboration structure, citation impact, funding patterns of the published research, and the thematic structure of the publication. The gender distribution is also computed to identify papers published by male and female authors. The social media visibility of the articles and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) connections of articles were also identified. The results indicate that the IA journal can attract novel, high-quality multidisciplinary research, which aligns with the relevant and the most pressing SDGs. Furthermore, the journal has experienced increased multi-authored multidisciplinary research, and it is publishing a more significant percentage of articles with female first authors.

In this research letter, we build upon recent studies about the sleeping beauties awakened by the COVID-19 pandemic. We prove that a peak of citations for sleeping beauties is associated with a sharp increase in the number of citations received by their references. This demonstrates the existence of a cascading activation of citation-based sleeping beauties. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Special issues are a unique mode of scholarly communication designed to highlight essential or emerging research themes through high-quality manuscripts. Special issues are increasingly becoming a fixture across a wide range of disciplines. Yet whether publishing special issues is necessarily a beneficial practice remains controversial. In this paper, we explore whether the actual effect of special issues meets the academic community's expectations, which is to enhance citation impact and highlight important research topics. Our sample, which comprises all special issue articles in all disciplines published between 2008 and 2017, reveals that there has been a proliferation of special issues across countries, institutions, and journals, with some differences among the disciplines. Opportunities to appear in special issues are more given to countries/institutions that achieved the highest overall research output. The effectiveness of special issues in promoting academic development varies across disciplines and even across journals. Honing in on library and information science as a case area to explore citation impacts and the topic distribution of special issues, we find that many special issues present high-impact manuscripts, especially those of the less prominent journals. However, the issue of publishing low impact manuscripts through special issues also exists in many fields. Special issues are also more likely to publish interdisciplinary or cross-disciplinary articles and rarely discussed research themes compared to regular issues. Further, such topics are seldom explored on a large scale in the normal editions of the journal. To ensure the quality of the manuscripts, we recommend optimizing the procedures for selecting special issue topics and reviewing submissions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Interdisciplinary research figures high on today's policy agendas. This short introduction and overview sketches the complexity of defining and mapping the nature of interdisciplinary research (IDR). The paper focuses on the different approaches to IDR and different methods applied in bibliometric studies that allow measuring it. These methods should not only be able to capture quantitative aspects of IDR but also to monitor evolutionary aspects and help answer the question of whether IDR stimulates collaboration and results in larger impact and visibility. Two specific indicators, variety and disparity, are developed, validated and applied to bibliometric data. They enable the visualization of the interdisciplinary nature of research activities at various levels of analysis (both institutional and individual). And, given the longitudinal character of bibliometric data and databases, both indicators allow for mapping time-dependent phenomena and evolutions. Relevant examples based on the literature and recent results from research conducted at the Leuven bibliometrics group of ECOOM (e.g., Glänzel et al., Proceedings of the 18th International Conference of the International Society of Scientometrics and Informetrics, 453–464, 2021; Huang et al., Proceedings of the 18th International Conference of the International Society of Scientometrics and Informetrics, 533–538, 2021) are given, and concrete proposals for future research are articulated. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

IntroductionStudies have not sufficiently clarified the differences in citation impact between funded and non-funded clinical research papers. Hence, this study seeks to evaluate the relation between research funding status and clinical research papers’ citation impact in different research fields using multiple evaluation indices.MethodsIn this cross-sectional bibliometric study, clinical research papers published by core clinical research hospitals in Japan were compared retrospectively in terms of times cited (TC), category normalized citation impact (CNCI), citation percentile (CP), journal impact factor (JIF), the Software to Identify, Manage, and Analyze Scientific Publications (SIGAPS) category, and whether they were the funded clinical research. The association between research funding status or the SIGAPS category and CNCI ≥ 2 was analyzed using logistic regression analysis.Results11 core clinical research hospitals published 553 clinical research papers, of which 120 were non-funded and 433 were funded (public institution-funded and industry-funded). The study found that funded clinical research papers (public institution-funded and industry-funded) had significantly higher TC, CNCI, CP, and JIF than non-funded ones [TC: 8 (3–17) vs. 14 (8–31), p < 0.001; CNCI: 0.53 (0.19–0.97) vs. 0.87 (0.45–1.85), p < 0.001; CP: 51.9 (24.48–70.42) vs. 66.7 (40.53–88.01), p < 0.001; JIF: 2.59 (1.90–3.84) vs. 2.93 (2.09–4.20) p = 0.008], while the proportion of A or B rank clinical research papers of the SIGAPS category was not significantly different between the two groups (30.0 vs. 34.9%, p = 0.318). In the logistic regression analysis, having a CNCI ≥ 2 was significantly associated with research funding (public institution-funded and industry-funded) and publication in A or B rank journals of the SIGAPS category [research funding: Estimate 2.169, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.153–4.083, p = 0.016; SIGAPS category A/B: Estimate 6.126, 95% CI 3.889–9.651, p < 0.001].ConclusionAnalysis via multiple indicators including CNCI and the SIGAPS category, which allows for a comparison of the papers’ citation impact in different research fields, found a positive relation between research funding status and the citation impact of clinical research papers.

The article’s purpose is an analysis of the citation impact of scientific publications by authors of different gender compositions. The page method was chosen to calculate the citation impact of scientific publications, and the obtained results allowed to estimate the impact of the scientific publications based on the number of citations. The normalized citation impact is calculated according to nine subsets of scientific publications that correspond to patterns of different gender compositions of authors. Also, these estimates were calculated for each country with which the authors of the publications are affiliated. The Citation database, Network Dataset (Ver. 13), was chosen for the scientometric analysis. The dataset includes more than 5 million scientific publications and 48 million citations. Most of the publications in the dataset are from the STEM field. The results indicate that articles with a predominantly male composition are cited more than articles with a mixed or female composition of authors in this direction. Analysis of advantages in dynamics indicates that in the last decade, in developed countries, there has been a decrease in the connection between the citation impact of scientific publications and the gender composition of their authors. However, the obtained results still confirm the presence of gender inequality in science, which may be related to socioeconomic and cultural characteristics, natural homophily, and other factors that contribute to the appearance of gender gaps. An essential consequence of overcoming these gaps, including in science, is ensuring the rights of people in all their diversity.

(1) Introduction: Psoriasis is a chronic, immune-mediated disease that negatively impacts patients’ quality of life and predisposes them to cardiovascular or metabolic diseases. This paper aims to summarize the knowledge structure and future directions in psoriasis research by means of bibliometrics. (2) Material and methods: The Thomson Reuters Web of Science database was interrogated using preestablished keywords. A list of the top 100 most cited articles focusing solely on psoriasis was compiled and analyzed. VOSviewer software was used to assess and visualize collaboration networks, citation, co-citation and co-wording analysis, and bibliographic coupling. (3) Results: The articles were written by 902 authors from 20 countries and were published in 31 journals. The United States was at the forefront of this field. Griffiths, CEM had the most citations, while the most prolific institution was Rockefeller University, New York City. Pathogenesis, especially key-pathogenic factors, immune pathways, and epidemiology were the most discussed topics. Work published in the last decade focused on the use of biologics. Keywords such as “quality of life”, “efficacy”, and “necrosis-factor alpha” have been widely used. (4) Conclusion: Research interest regarding psoriasis is high, leading to the rapid development of this field. Treatment modalities, especially novel-targeted therapies, immune pathways, and an integrative approach to such cases are receiving great interest and represent research hotspots in the future.

This article explores the relationships between supervisor–supervisee gender difference and the scientific impact of doctoral dissertations. We use the China Doctoral Dissertations Full-text Database and pay special attention to the fields of Humanities and Social Sciences in China in our empirical study. By establishing regression models, we find that the ranks of the scientific impact regarding doctoral dissertations are female–female (first), female–male (second), male–male (third) and male–female (fourth) pairs (sequence: student gender and then supervisor gender). The finding has many interesting implications for science policy and gender inequality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The systematic application of science plays a critical role in innovation, and universities are the largest source of scientific knowledge. This makes university knowledge transfer critical to the growth of knowledge-based economies. Academic entrepreneurship is a promising route for university knowledge spillover, and the creation of university spinoffs (USOs) has been supported by the national and local governments in Japan. Against a backdrop of recent findings suggesting that the quality of science signals growth potential of USOs, this study examines the relationship between the quality of scientific publications authored by university-based scientists affiliated with USOs and the probability of the firm owner intending the initial public offering. A national government's USO database combined with Elsevier's SciVal was analyzed. Estimated random-effects logistic regression models show that citation impact matters more than publication count. Meanwhile, field-weighted citation impact indicators do not exhibit significant effects. Moreover, comparison between USOs that exclusively aim to commercialize university patents and those defined by non-technological aspects emphasizes the heterogeneity in growth strategy among USOs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Research performance metrics inform decision making across the higher education sector. In this study we calculated up-to-date lifetime bibliometric research performance norms for academic psychologists in the UK, stratified by academic level and university mission group. Our performance metrics were publications, citations, h-index scores, first-author publications and average SJRs (SCImago Journal Ranks) for published in journals. These metrics were extracted from Scopus for a representative sample of 1339 academic psychologists employed at UK universities offering BPS (British Psychological Society) accredited undergraduate courses. We found that lifetime performance increased with seniority, though not in the predictable manner observed overseas. Academic psychologists in the Russell Group outperformed those outside of the Russell Group on all metrics, but these differences were largely due to the very strong research performance of the Russell Group professoriate, and could not be accounted for by the tendency for Russell Group academics to have been research active for a longer period of time than their equivalents outside the group. Overall, the research performance of UK academic psychologists was comparable to that of their Australian equivalents. Our research performance norms will be useful for benchmarking at the individual, departmental and institutional levels. However, they must be interpreted in context and considered alongside other indicators of scholarly productivity and performance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study used bibliometrics to analyze the characteristics of funded papers in the social sciences in Taiwan from 2015 to 2019, including the number of funded papers, funded paper ratio, document types, fields, type of publishing organizations, journal impact, and paper citation impact. The results indicate that the number of funded papers and the funded paper ratio of SSCI papers from Taiwan have both increased. In addition to articles and reviews, conference papers are a major type of funded paper for local SSCI papers. In terms of fields, the nontraditional social sciences, such as environmental sciences, psychiatry, and public/environmental & occupational health, have a particularly high funded paper ratio. However, the number of funded papers and funded paper ratio is the highest in the field of education & educational research. The fields of economics, management, and business have a large number of funded papers but a low funded paper ratio. Universities are the main funded institutions, but hospitals have the highest funded paper ratio. Funded papers tend to have higher paper citation impacts. Therefore, funding positively affects the productivity and impact of SSCI papers from Taiwan. (Article content in Chinese with English extended abstract)

Igor Kissin The Department of Anesthesiology, Perioperative and Pain Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USACorrespondence: Igor KissinThe Department of Anesthesiology, Perioperative and Pain Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, MA, 02115, USATel +1 617-732-5052Email ikissin@bwh.harvard.eduAbstract: The aim of this work is to identify the most influential initial clinical studies that fomented important developments in anesthesiology over the past 50 years. Studies fomenting new development can be selected using vastly different approaches and, therefore, might provide diverse outcomes. In the present work, two basic aspects of study assessments – the stage of development (eg, generation of idea, preclinical studies, clinical trials) and the method of selection (eg, committee vote, various types of citation analysis, method of finding the invention disclosure) – were chosen according to the following model. The stage of development: the initial clinical studies demonstrating the basic advantage of an innovation for providing anesthesia. The method: a combination of two factors – the study priority in terms of the time of its publication and the degree of its acknowledgement in the form of citation impact; the time of study publication was regarded as a primary factor, but only if the study’s citation count was =/> 20. The initial high-impact studies were selected for 16 drug-related topics (ketamine, isoflurane, etomidate, propofol, midazolam in anesthesia, vecuronium, alfentanil, atracurium, sevoflurane, sufentanil, rocuronium, desflurane, ropivacaine, remifentanil, dexmedetomidine in anesthesia, and sugammadex), and 9 technique-related topics (ultrasound-guided peripheral nerve block, capnography in anesthesia, target-controlled intravenous anesthesia, pulse oximetry in anesthesia, total intravenous anesthesia, transesophageal echocardiography in anesthesia, combined spinal-epidural anesthesia, and bispectral index). Twenty-five studies were designated the first high-impact studies (one for each topic); 16 are drug-related and 9 are technique-related. Half of the first high-impact studies had a citation count of =/> 100, (range: 100 to 555). The citation count of the other half of high-impact studies did not reach the 100-citation threshold (range: 41 to 97). If a selected first high-impact study had a citation count < 100, a next-on-timeline, additional study with citation count =/> 100 was also selected; (range: 100 to 344). The present results show that an initial high-impact clinical study on a new development in anesthesiology can be determined and that related citations usually vary from one hundred to five hundred.Keywords: anesthetic techniques, citation impact, clinical trials, drugs, priority rules, scientometrics

INTRODUCTION: The are many published papers on COVID-19 in the field of anesthesia recently. However, there isn’t any study that indicates what kind of issues countries and journals are focusing on this particular subject. The aim of this paper is to determine the countries and journals that contribute the most to the literature on COVID-19 in the field of anesthesia and also to examine the features that make the difference in the total cited count numbers of related papers. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The search engine of the Web of Science was used for the selection of papers. The search yielded 359 published materials in total. However, 78 (61 Articles, 17 Reviews) of them did not have keywords. Therefore, they were excluded from the analysis. The remaining 196 articles plus 84 reviews, in total 280 papers were examined. In order to examine the differences between published materials in terms of total cited count numbers, independent samples t-tests and one-way Anova test were performed with SPSS. In order to explore the topical differences, the keywords according to country of the first author, and the journal were mapped. KNIME and FactoMiner software were used for the analysis. RESULTS: Results indicated that international papers were cited more compared to domestic papers; multi-centered national papers were cited more compared to single-centered national papers. The largest percentage (34.64%) of the overall publications originated from Anglo-American countries (USA=13.93%; England=12.14%; Canada=6.07%; Australia=2.50%). The keyword mapping showed that COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2, Pandemic, Anesthesia, Airway, Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome, Critical Care, Intensive Care, Personal Protective Equipment, Infection, Mortality, and Mechanical Ventilation were the main keywords of these published materials. CONCLUSIONS:This paper not only showed the features of papers that are cited more but also showed the ranking of countries that contribute the most to the literature and reflected the hot topics about COVID-19 in the field of anesthesia. Extensive studies about COVID-19 have already begun, and the number of studies keep increasing. Therefore, this study could provide hints for authors who would like their papers to be cited more as well as useful information for further research.