Association of scientific and nonscientific factors to citation rates of articles of renowned orthopedic journals

Purpose

The physician often relies on the prestige of a journal to identify the most relevant articles to be read in his field. This investigation studied associations of scientific and nonscientific criteria with the citation frequency of articles in two top-ranked international orthopedic journals.

Methods

The 100 most (mean, 88 citations/5 years for cases) and 100 least (mean, two citations/5 years for controls) cited articles published between 2000 and 2004 in the Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery and the Bone & Joint Journal (formerly known as JBJS (Br)), two of the most distributed general orthopedic journals, were identified. The association of scientific and nonscientific factors on their citation rate was quantified.

Results

Randomized controlled trials, as well as multicenter studies with large sample sizes, were significantly more frequent in the high citation rate group. The unadjusted odds of a highly cited article to be supported by industry were 2.8 (95 % confidence interval 1.5, 5.6; p?<?0.05) if compared with a lowly cited article.

Conclusion

Beside scientific factors, nonscientific factors such as industrial support seem associated to the citation rate of published articles. This, together with publication bias, questions whether scientific facts reach the readers in a balanced fashion. Level of Evidence 3     

Analysis of bibliographic citations received by Spanish anesthesiologists for work indexed by Science Citation Index, 1988-2002

OBJECTIVE: To analyze the international impact of articles published by authors in Spanish anesthesiology departments. METHOD: Citable articles indexed by Science Citation Index between 1988 and 2002 and authored by members of Spanish departments of anesthesiology were considered. Citations were counted 2 years and 5 years after publication. Authors and institutions were ranked according to number of citations received. We also determined the journals Spanish anesthesiologists most often chose for publishing their work. RESULTS: Of the 322 citable articles identified, 61.8% were cited in the 2 years following publication (total 587 citations), and 79.5% were cited within 5 years (total 1472 citations). The most frequently cited articles received 17 citations in 2 years and 45 in 5 years after publication. Articles from the Department of Anesthesiology of Hospital Clinic i Provincial of Barcelona received the largest number of citations (333 citations in 5 years). The author with the highest rate of citations received 11.57 per article. The author with the largest number of citations received 86. Anesthesia & Analgesia was the journal publishing the largest number of articles by Spanish anesthesiologists (35 articles). CONCLUSION: This citation analysis shows the international impact of publications by Spanish anesthesiologists.     

Femoral head avascular necrosis after interlocking nail of a femoral shaft fracture in a male adult: a case report

Reamed interlocking nail through the piriformis fossa remains the golden standard for treatment of femoral shaft fracture. Fracture healing rates are 95–99%, and infection rates less than 1% (Clawson et al. in J Bone Joint Surg (Am) 53:681–692, 1971; Winquist et al. in J Bone Joint Surg (Am) 66:529–539, 1984; Brumback et al. in J Bone Joint Surg (Am) 70:1453–1462, 1988). Previous reports recognize avascular necrosis of the femoral head as a complication of antegrade interlocking nail in the adolescent (Beaty et al. in J Pediatr Orthop 14:178–183, 1994; Mileski et al. in J Bone Joint Surg (Am) 76:1706–1708, 1994; O'Malley et al. in J Pediatr Orthop 15:21–23, 1995; Buckaloo et al. in J Southern Orthop Assoc 6(2):97–100, 1997). This report describes a male adult who developed avascular necrosis of the femoral head after an open antegrade interlocking nail of a proximal third femoral shaft fracture. To our knowledge, there is no similar report in the English medical literature.     

Basic science research publications in general surgical journals: are they obsolete?

Introduction: Basic science research (BSR) publications in general surgical journals are an important ‘translational bridge’ for practicing surgeons and surgical trainees. However, these articles are considered by some as left-over from higher impact basic science journals, and perhaps as obsolete. The purpose of this study is to characterize BSR articles published in general surgical journals and to analyze their citation frequencies. Methods: All BSR articles published in the five highest rated US general surgical journals (by Impact Factor, ISI Journal Citation reports) in the year 1996 were reviewed, characterized and their citation frequencies analyzed (total citations, citations within a year of publication, and citations in journals with impact factor greater than 5). The Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used to compare citation rates in different groups. Results: In 1996, 226 BSR articles were published in the five general surgical journals studied (10-43% of the total articles in each journal). Three fourths of BSR articles were from the USA (12% of total BSR articles by US surgeons in 1996), 12% from Europe and 8% from Japan. In 58% of the BSR articles, one of the authors was a basic scientist (PhD). Fifty-six percent of the publications were presented at a society conference. One in two US BSR publications was funded by the government (14% by private non-profit, 3% industry). On average a BSR article from these journals is cited 32 times (range 1-141, median 11). Half of the articles were cited more than ten times in six years (1-5: 24%; 6-10: 23%; >10: 52%) and 22% were cited twice or more within a year of publication. One in four publications were cited twice or more in journals with an impact factor greater than five (0: 35%; 1: 23%; 2: 17%; >2: 25%). Citation frequencies of BSR publications in general surgical journals were related to the journal impact factor (p = 0.07), to having a basic scientist (i.e. PhD) as one of the authors (p < 0.01) and to the research having been presented at a conference. Conclusions: Basic science research articles in US general surgical journals in the year studied have significant citation frequencies and were not obsolete.     

Expected versus real impact factors of publications from Spanish departments of anesthesiology (1991-1996)

OBJECTIVE: To identify publications by Spanish anesthesiologists in journals indexed by Journal Citation Report from 1991 through 1996; to count the number of citations received and compare the results with the impact factor (IF) of the journals in which they were published. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Articles for which the first author was a member of a Spanish anesthesiology department were searched for in MEDLINE, Science Citation Index and EMBASE. Only publications for which the IF was known were included for analysis. We then counted the number of citations each article received over the two years following publication, recording the source journal in which the citation appeared and country of origin of each citing author.We then calculated the real IF (RIF) of each article, the RIF of all the Spanish articles, and the mean RIF. Also calculated for each article was the expected IF (EIF), based on the IF of the source journal, the overall EIF and the mean EIF. RESULTS: One hundred seventy-two articles were published; 49 of them were letters to the editors. Specialist anesthesiology journals published 72.7%. A total of 186 citations were received. American authors cited the articles more often than did other Spanish authors. Thirty-seven citations (19.9%) were self-citations. Ninety-two articles (53.5%) were never cited.With letters to the editor excluded, the RIF was 85.48 and the global EIF was 213.28; the mean EIF was 1.734 and the RIF was 0.695. Therefore, the rate of citation of the Spanish authors in the period studied was only 40% of the citation rate of the entire population of authors from all countries. The authors of the published articles worked mainly in hospitals in Barcelona, Madrid, La Coru?a, Valencia, Cantabria and Murcia. Hospital Germans Trias i Pujol (Badalona, Barcelona) had the largest number of publications and the highest EIF (39.41). Hospital del Mar (Barcelona) had the highest mean RIF and the highest global RIF.A gradual increase in the annual productivity of Spanish scientists can be discerned in a progressive increase in the number of publications as well as their EIF and RIF. CONCLUSIONS: Research by Spanish anesthesiologists is concentrated in only a few hospitals. Although the number of publications is increasing, their international repercussion has still not reached the desired level.     

The fifty most cited Latin-American articles in the orthopaedic literature

Purpose

The number of citations of an article is a marker of its academic influence. Several medical specialties, including orthopaedics, have ranked the articles with more citations. We identified the 50 most cited orthopaedic articles from Latin-America and analyzed the characteristics that made them citable.

Methods

Science Citation Index Expanded was searched for citations of articles originated in Latin-America, published in any of the 63 journals in the category “Orthopaedics” from 1988 to 2013. We created a list ranking the 50 most commonly cited articles and determined the citation density (Citations/years since publication). Information noted for each article included authors, year of publication, country of origin, source journal, article type, and field of research.

Results

Latin-American countries were the origin of 1 % of orthopaedic articles. The top 50 most cited articles had between 29 and 150 citations (mean, 44.48); the citation density ranged from 1.43 to 15.5 citations/years (mean, 5.25). The articles were published in 19 of the 63 journals (11 general and eight sub-specialty journals), and all were published in English. Most articles (n = 29) were published in 2000 or later. The majority were clinical articles (n=40), and the most common fields were arthroscopy (n = 15) and hip surgery (n = 13). The top 50 articles originated mainly from Brazil (n = 20) and Argentina (n = 15).

Conclusions

This top 50 list displays articles that have become important references for the orthopaedic scientific community. Researchers may use this work to make their future publications more influential on future investigators.     

Citation classics in main pain research journals

The number of citations of an article in scientific journals reflects its impact on a specific biomedical field and its recognition in the scientific community. In the present study, we identified and analyzed the characteristics of the 100 most frequently cited articles published between 1970 and 2010 in journals pertaining to pain research and related fields. These articles were identified using the database of the Science Citation Index (1970 to present). The most cited article received 3,017 citations and the least cited article received 302 citations, with a mean of 585 citations per article. These citation classics were published in six high-impact journals, led by Pain (84 articles). Of the 100 articles, 39 were observational studies, 25 were review articles, and 20 concerned basic science. The articles originated from 14 countries, with the United States contributing 47 articles; 67 institutions produced these 100 top-cited articles, led by National Institutes of Health of the United States (8 articles) and University College London (6 articles); 18 persons authored 2 or more of the top-cited articles. This analysis of the top citation classics allows for the recognition of major advances in pain research and gives a historical perspective on the scientific progress of this specialty.     

Citation classics in anesthetic journals

The number of citations an article receives after its publication reflects its recognition in the scientific community. In the present study, therefore, we identified and examined the characteristics of the top 100 most frequently cited articles published in anesthetic journals. These articles were identified using the database of the Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED, 1945 to present) and the Web of SCIENCE(R). The most-cited article received 707 citations and the least cited article received 197 citations, with a mean of 283 citations per article. These citation classics were published between 1954 and 1997 in 5 high-impact anesthetic journals, led by Anesthesiology (73 articles) followed by Anesthesia & Analgesia (10), British Journal of Anesthesia (10), Anesthesia (6), and Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica (2). Seventy-eight articles were original publications, 22 were review articles, and one was an editorial. They originated from nine countries, with the United States contributing 70 articles. Within the United States, California leads the list of citation classics with 25 articles. Twenty-nine persons authored two or more of the top-cited articles. The main topics covered by the top-cited articles are pharmacology, volatile anesthetics, circulation, regional anesthesia, and lung physiology. This analysis of citation rates allows for the recognition of seminal advances in anesthesia and gives a historic perspective on the scientific progress of this specialty. IMPLICATIONS: We performed a citation analysis to identify important contributions and contributors to the anesthetic literature. These classic articles have influenced many people and have brought to our attention the many important advances in anesthesia made during the last 50 yr.     

The 50 Highest Cited Papers in Hip and Knee Arthroplasty

The 50 highest cited articles related to hip and knee arthroplasty were searched in Thomson ISI Web of Science®. The 50 highest cited articles had up to 2495 citations. The top 10 papers according to absolute number were cited 580 times at least. Most papers were published in the Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery American Volume (n = 22). Eight countries contributed to the list with most contributions from the United States (n = 30). The majority of papers were published since 1990 (n = 27). Studies focusing on the clinical outcome of hip arthroplasty dominate the literature in orthopedic arthroplasty in respect to absolute citations numbers. In the last decade however, papers on perioperative management have been published that show a high citation frequency.     

National bias in citations in urology journals: parochialism or availability?

OBJECTIVE: To determine any bias by authors of different nationalities in their citation rate of selected urological journals in papers published in the British Journal of Urology and the Journal of Urology. METHODS: Using a simple computer program and text files of accepted reports in the BJU, or those available on CD-ROM from J Urol, 212 recent papers in the BJU and 111 from J Urol were analysed to determine the number of citations to four major urological journals (BJU, J Urol, Eur Urol and Urology). The frequencies of citations to these journals were then compared with the national origin of the author(s), grouped as UK, Europe, North America and Other. RESULTS: In both the BJU and J Urol the citation rates of the selected journals differed significantly among authors from different regions. In BJU papers, the citation rate of the BJU was highest by UK authors and their citation rate of J Urol was amongst the lowest of the rates for J Urol. The highest citation rate for J Urol was that by European authors. American authors cited the BJU least, citing the J Urol about five times more often than they cited the BJU. Of the papers in the J Urol sample, over 60% were from American authors, with only four from UK authors; thus the UK group was not analysed separately but included in the European group. The mean citation rate of J Urol was highest in papers by American authors, at about 14 times that for citations to the BJU. The citation rates for the other two journals were not significantly different with nationality or journal, but were generally much lower in J Urol than in the BJU. CONCLUSION: There are significant differences in citation rates both with authors' nationality and between journals. Citation rates may be influenced by journal accessibility, perceived journal 'prestige' (impact factor) or national bias. Authors, editors and reviewers should be aware of this potential bias in citation habits. Authors should strive to conduct exhaustive searches using electronic methods, so that all relevant papers are assessed, regardless of their origin.     

Bibliometric analysis of the top 50 most cited publications of the Journal of Clinical Orthopaedics and Trauma

BackgroundThe Journal of Clinical Orthopaedics and Trauma (JCOT) is one of the top three orthopaedic journals from India. We set out to analyse the top 50 cited articles from JCOT since indexing in PubMed and Scopus.MethodsWe looked into the bibliometrics of the top 50 cited articles and compared citations from PubMed and Scopus, and depicted outputs from VOS viewer analysis on co-authorship and keywords.ResultsTotal citations for top-cited articles were 1076 in numbers, with a maximum of 103.2016 and 2018 were the most productive years. The major contribution was from India with 74%, followed by the USA. New Delhi published maximally at 72%. Clinical topics and narrative reviews were the most common types of studies. Trauma and Adult reconstruction was the most common sub-specialities, and Level 4 was the most frequent level of study. The basic science and COVID-19 related articles received the maximum citations. The authors from Indraprastha Apollo Hospitals published the maximum number of top-50 cited articles in the JCOT.ConclusionsThere is a steady increase in the number of publications in the JCOT, with an increasing number of citation counts. Both the Indian and foreign authors have been publishing in this journal at a comparative rate. Although the citation counts in Scopus are more than those in PubMed for given articles, more than 80% of articles are listed in both databases as top 50 cited articles. The majority of top-cited articles belonged to trauma and adult reconstruction, level III studies, and narrative reviews.     

Misrepresentation of research criteria by orthopaedic residency applicants

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have shown that applicants for postgraduate training may misrepresent research citations. We evaluated the research citations that were identified in a review of the Publications and Work and Research sections from the Electronic Residency Application Service (ERAS) data for all applicants to our orthopaedic residency program for the 1998 to 1999 academic year. METHODS: The citations were searched for on Medline. We initially used the name of the first author, then the name of the applicant, the name of the journal, the volume number, the issue number, and the page numbers. When a journal was not listed in Medline, an interlibrary search was instituted with use of the same format. When no match was made for any category, the citation was defined as misrepresented. Point estimates are reported as percentages. RESULTS: Publications were listed on sixty-four (30.0 percent) of 213 applications. One hundred and thirty-eight publications were cited; there were fifteen citations (10.9 percent) to book chapters, twenty-six (18.8 percent) to journals not listed in Ulrich's International Periodicals Directory, and twenty-one (15.2 percent) to articles listed as in press, in print, or submitted for publication. Seventy-six articles that had been cited as appearing in journals listed in Ulrich's Directory were checked and verified. Fourteen (18 percent) of these seventy-six publications were misrepresented. Misrepresentations included citations of nonexistent articles in actual journals and nonauthorship of existing articles. CONCLUSIONS: We concluded that publications listed on postgraduate applications should be scrutinized carefully. Copies of cited publications should be required by residency programs before applications are considered complete. The importance of professionalism needs to be emphasized in the curricula of medical schools. Residency training programs should develop guidelines regarding misrepresentation.     

Predictors of citations in the urological literature

To assess the factors associated with increased citation rates in the urological literature by reviewing articles published in the four major urological journals to help authors improve the impact of their work. A random sample of 200 original research articles published between January and June 2004 was analysed from The Journal of Urology, Urology, European Urology and BJU International. Study information was abstracted by two independent reviewers and citation counts within 4 years of publication were collected using Web of Science(TM) . Study characteristics and citation rates were analysed using median and interquartile ranges (IQRs), and logistic regression analysis was used to evaluate which factors predicted greater citation rates. The overall median number of citations per published article was 6.0 (IQR 3-12). After univariate analysis, we found that study design, study topic, continent of origin and sample size were associated with greater median citation rates. In a multivariate linear regression model, study design and study topic (oncology) predicted increased citation rates. Randomized controlled trials were cited a median of 13.5 times and were the strongest predictor of citation rates with an odds ratio of 115.5 (95% confidence interval 9.4-1419.6). Citation rates are associated with study design and study topic in the urological literature. Authors may improve the impact of their work by designing clinical studies with greater methodological safeguards against bias.     

《中华烧伤杂志》2003-2005年载文与引文及著者的统计分析

目的了解《中华烧伤杂志》载文、引文及著者的特点。方法用文献计量学方法对《中华烧伤杂志）2003--2005年的载文、引文和著者的情况进行统计分析。结果《中华烧伤杂志》3年内共载文741篇，每期平均载文量41篇，篇密度为0．59，基金论文占19．7％；著者来自我国31个省、自治区、直辖市及美国，合著率87．9％，合作度3．94人；78．7％的论文有引文，90．6％的引文来自期刊．引文语种主要为英文，普莱斯指数为65．6％。结论《中华烧伤杂志》是一本高质量的学术期刊，具有广泛的社会影响力，积极推动着我国烧伤医学的发展和建设。     

An Analysis of References Used for the Orthopaedic In-Training Examination: What are Their Levels of Evidence and Journal Impact Factors?

Background

Although the references recommended for the Orthopaedic In-Training Examination (OITE) have been evaluated in certain subspecialty domains, suggested reference level of evidence (LOE), impact factor, and citation age have not been evaluated comprehensively to our knowledge.

Questions/purposes

We present an analysis of all references cited in the OITE recommended readings for each test question including the duration of time between their initial publication and their use in the OITE, which we defined as citation age, LOE, and the impact factor of the journals referenced.

Methods

We evaluated all references for the 2010 to 2012 OITE administrations (three examinations; 825 questions total). Publication characteristics, including citation age, were noted. The LOE for each journal article and the impact factor of each journal were determined; differences in LOE and impact factor were compared between test sections. A total of 1817 references were cited in the 825 questions we evaluated; this denominator was used in all calculations that follow.

Results

The recommended reading references included 1337 journal article references (74%), 469 text references (26%), and 11 multimedia sources (0.6%; eg, websites, instructional DVDs). The three most commonly recommended journals were general orthopaedic journals, TheJournal of Bone and Joint Surgery (American Volume), Journal of American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, and Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research^®. The majority (72.2%) of the cited journal references were published within 10 years of the test date, with a mean ± SD citation age of 8.3 ± 7.4 years. The majority of the cited journal articles were Levels IV and V evidence (mean, 4.16 ± 1.1). The Spine section had higher LOE (3.74; p < 0.001), although the practical relevance of such a difference is questionable, as all but two sections’ LOE rounded to Level IV evidence. The Spine and Basic Science sections were published in journals with a larger mean impact factor (Basic Science, 7.16 ± 12.67; Spine, 5.73 ± 12.08; p < 0.001).

Conclusions

Our data show that the majority of the recommended readings for the OITE stem from higher impact general orthopaedic and major subspecialty journals. Furthermore the observed mean LOE of the recommended readings shows a preponderance of Levels IV and V research. These data may suggest that test-takers may find benefit in the review of high-level general orthopaedic journals, and review articles in particular while preparing for the OITE, although further study is necessary to determine optimal test preparation strategies. Finally, our study provides a baseline analysis of the study designs of OITE recommended references, and may provide insight for educators designing resident educational curricula.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s11999-014-3895-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.     

《中华手外科杂志》2005-2009年引文分析

目的 研究<中华手外科杂志>参考文献的引用规律,了解我国手外科领域论文引文的一般规律和科研人员吸收利用科技文献的情况.方法 采用文献计量学方法 ,对该刊2005至2009年共30期942篇文章的引文进行逐篇统计,记录分析,计算引文量、引文率、引文语种、引文类型、引文年代和普赖斯指数.结果 该刊共刊载文献942篇,引文率为87.37%引文量5 390条,平均为6.55条.主要引文类型为期刊(90.71%)和图书(9.29%),普赖斯指数44.9r7%,自引率31.61%,被引用频次前18位的中外文期刊的文献引用量占期刊引文总量的66.21%.结论 <中华手外科杂志>是手外科领域高质量的专业核心期刊,引文的外文语种较为单一,引文内容较新颖.     

《中华手外科杂志》2005-2009年引文分析

目的 研究<中华手外科杂志>参考文献的引用规律,了解我国手外科领域论文引文的一般规律和科研人员吸收利用科技文献的情况.方法 采用文献计量学方法 ,对该刊2005至2009年共30期942篇文章的引文进行逐篇统计,记录分析,计算引文量、引文率、引文语种、引文类型、引文年代和普赖斯指数.结果 该刊共刊载文献942篇,引文率为87.37%引文量5 390条,平均为6.55条.主要引文类型为期刊(90.71%)和图书(9.29%),普赖斯指数44.9r7%,自引率31.61%,被引用频次前18位的中外文期刊的文献引用量占期刊引文总量的66.21%.结论 <中华手外科杂志>是手外科领域高质量的专业核心期刊,引文的外文语种较为单一,引文内容较新颖.     

《中华手外科杂志》2005-2009年引文分析

目的 研究<中华手外科杂志>参考文献的引用规律,了解我国手外科领域论文引文的一般规律和科研人员吸收利用科技文献的情况.方法 采用文献计量学方法 ,对该刊2005至2009年共30期942篇文章的引文进行逐篇统计,记录分析,计算引文量、引文率、引文语种、引文类型、引文年代和普赖斯指数.结果 该刊共刊载文献942篇,引文率为87.37%引文量5 390条,平均为6.55条.主要引文类型为期刊(90.71%)和图书(9.29%),普赖斯指数44.9r7%,自引率31.61%,被引用频次前18位的中外文期刊的文献引用量占期刊引文总量的66.21%.结论 <中华手外科杂志>是手外科领域高质量的专业核心期刊,引文的外文语种较为单一,引文内容较新颖.