Research topics, author's specialty, and funding sources of articles published in an emergency medicine journal

All original articles published in JACEP and Annals of Emergency Medicine in 1972, 1975, 1978, and 1981 were reviewed and classified according to topic, author's specialty, and funding source. The number of articles published in each category was as follows: toxicology, 44; emergency medical services (EMS), 34; general surgery, 31; emergency department, 28; educational techniques, 19; orthopedics, 17; cardiovascular disease, 15; pulmonary, 13; cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), 10; shock, 8; airway management, 8; and other, 71. The number of authors per article ranged from one to eight; the mean number of authors increased from 1.1 in 1972 to 2.6 in 1981 (P less than .001). The authors' backgrounds most frequently included were as follows: emergency medicine, 53.4%; surgery, 12.8%; internal medicine, 7.9%; and pediatrics, 1.6%. The percentage of articles with specific funding sources increased from 2.9% in 1972 to 25% in 1978, then decreased to 14.3% in 1981. The percentage for each funding source was as follows: government, 7.9%; industry, 2.0%; university, 3.3%; foundation, 2.0%; other, 1.0%; and none, 83.8%. This study demonstrates that there is a defined body of knowledge in emergency medicine, that emergency physicians author the majority of publications in this emergency medicine journal, and that emergency medicine is not supported by traditional funding sources.     

ORIGINAL ARTICLE: Comparison of the distribution of citations received by articles published in high,moderate, and low impact factor journals in clinical medicine

Background: Whether the journal impact factor (JIF) indicator reflects the number of citations to an average article of a journal in different subject categories is controversial. We sought to further investigate this issue in general and internal medicine journals. Methods: We selected to evaluate three journals of the above subject category, in each of three different JIF levels (high: 15.5–28.6, moderate: 4.4–4.9 and low: 1.6). Using the Scopus database, we retrieved the original research articles (after detailed screening) and review articles (as classified by Scopus) that were published in the selected journals in 2005 along with the number of citations they received in 2006 and 2007. We pooled the citations for articles of the same type in journals with the same JIF level into distinct variables. Results: There was no marked association between the distribution of citations per article published in general medical journals and their JIF. All distributions studied were skewed to the right (higher number of citations). Specifically, 16–22% of the original research articles accounted for 50% of the total citations to this type of article for all three categories of studied journals; 34–37% of original research articles accounted for 75% of citations. The respective values for review articles were 12–18% and 29–39%. Conclusion: The distribution of citations received by articles published in high, moderate and low impact factor journals in clinical medicine seems similar. The JIF is not an accurate indicator of the citations the average article receives; articles published in low impact factor journals can still be highly cited and vice versa.     

Citation classics: Top 50 cited articles in ‘respiratory system’

Identifying citation classics in the field is one of the key methodologies used to conduct a systematic evaluation of research performance. The objective of this study was to determine the most frequently cited articles published in journals that are placed under the ‘respiratory system’ subject category (Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) Journal Citation Reports) and to compare them with the most frequently cited respiratory‐related articles published in any journal, regardless of subject category. The authors utilized the ISI Journal Citation Reports: Science Edition 2010 database in April 2012 to determine the most frequently cited articles by respiratory system subject category and by respiratory‐related keywords. The top 50 most‐cited articles were identified in each category and evaluated according to various characteristics. The majority of these papers originated from the United States. The median numbers of citations for the top 50 cited articles stratified by respiratory system subject category and respiratory‐related keywords were 841.5 and 2701, respectively. Half of the top 50 cited articles identified by respiratory‐related keywords were published in general medical or basic science journals, whereas only three out of these were published in journals under the respiratory system subject category in ISI Journal Citation Reports. In summary, respiratory‐related articles published in general medical or science journals attracted more citations than those published in the specific respiratory journals.     

A bibliometric analysis of global research production in respiratory medicine

STUDY OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the contribution of different world regions in respiratory research productivity. METHODS: The world was divided into nine regions based on a combination of geographic, economic, and scientific criteria. Using the PubMed database, we retrieved information about the origin of articles from 30 journals included in the Respiratory System category of the Journal Citation Reports database for a 9-year period (1995 to 2003). We estimated the total number of publications, their mean impact factor, the product of these two parameters, and the research productivity per million of population of the world area divided by the gross national income per capita (GNIPC), for every year and the whole period of the study, for all defined world regions. MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: Data on the country of origin of the publications was available for 48,614 of 49,382 retrieved articles (98.5%). The majority of articles published between 1995 and 2003 originated from Western Europe (40.4%) and the United States (35.4%). The research productivity compared to population and the GNIPC was found to be higher for Canada and Oceania compared to the United States and Western Europe. The rate of increase of the total published research product (number of published articles multiplied by the impact factor) was higher in the United States and Europe. The total research contribution of Asia, Eastern Europe, Central and Latin America, and Africa regarding the number of published articles was notably very low (approximately 8%). CONCLUSIONS: The data suggest that there was a significant research activity in the field of respiratory medicine during the studied period. Although leaders of production of respiratory medicine research were from Western Europe and the United States, Canada, and Oceania had the best performance after adjustment for population and GNIPC.     

Estimates of global production in cardiovascular diseases research

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the contribution of different world regions in cardiovascular research production. METHODS: The world was divided into 9 regions based on a combination of geographic, economic and scientific criteria. Using the Medline database, we retrieved articles from 77 journals included in the "Cardiac and Cardiovascular Systems" category of the "Journal Citation Reports" database for the period 1995-2002. We then, estimated the total number of publications, their mean impact factor, the product of these two parameters, the research productivity per billion of US dollars spent on research and development, and the research productivity per number of scientists-years in research and development for different world regions. RESULTS: Data on the country of origin for the authors was available for 86,711 out of 87,939 retrieved articles (98.6%). The majority of articles published between 1995-2002 were originated from Western Europe (39.4%) and the USA (37.1%). The USA, Oceania and Canada had the highest mean impact factor of published articles and Eastern Europe had the lowest. The research productivity per unit of expenditure for research and development was found to be significantly higher for Canada compared to the USA and Western Europe while the rate of increase in the number of published articles was higher in Eastern Europe, Latin America and the Caribbean, and Asia. The research contribution of Africa in the number of published articles was notably very low (0.3%). CONCLUSIONS: The data suggest a promising trend: developing world regions, with the important exception of Africa, achieved a higher rate of increase in the number of published articles in the studied period.