A bibliometric analysis of occupational therapy publications

Background: Bibliometrics involves the statistical analysis of the publications in a specific discipline or subject area. A bibliometric analysis of the occupational therapy refereed literature is needed.

Aim: A bibliometric analysis was completed of the occupational therapy literature from 1991-2014, indexed in the Science Citation Index-Expanded or the Social Sciences Citation Index.

Method: Publications were searched by title, abstract, keywords, and KeyWords Plus. Total number of article citations, citations per journal, and contributions per country, individual authors, and institution were calculated.

Results: 5,315 occupational therapy articles were published in 821 journals. It appears that there is a citation window of an approximate 10-year period between the time of publication and the peak number of citations an article receives. The top three most highly cited articles were published in Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology, JAMA, and Lancet. AJOT, BJOT and AOTJ published the largest number of occupational therapy articles with the United States, Australia, and Canada producing the highest number of publications. McMaster University, the University of Queensland, and the University of Toronto were the institutions that published the largest number of occupational therapy journal articles.

Conclusion: The occupational therapy literature is growing and the frequency of article citation is increasing.     

Review of Health Source – Consumer Edition

The pace of publication in consumer health continues unabated. EBSCO’s Health Source – Consumer Edition provides one of the few indexing and abstracting services to assist users looking to these types of publications for help with their health questions. This column provides a guide to some of the database features and resources. While the reading level for some of its indexed sources is relatively high, and the collection of books is dated at present. Health Source – Consumer Edition remains a valuable tool in the consumer health librarian’s toolkit.     

Transparency and credibility of industry-sponsored clinical trial publications: a survey of journal editors

Objective: To examine how medical journal editors perceive changes in transparency and credibility of industry-sponsored clinical trial publications over a 5 year period (2010 to 2015).

Methods: From July to September 2015, a survey link was emailed to journal editors identified from the Thomson Reuters registry. Editors ranked their perception of: a) change in transparency and credibility of industry-sponsored clinical trial publications; b) 8 “Publication Best Practices” and the impact of each on transparency; and c) the importance and adoption of the previously published “10 Recommendations for Closing the Credibility Gap in Reporting Industry-Sponsored Clinical Research”.

Results: Of 510 editors who opened the survey, the analysis pool comprised a total of 293 editors. The majority of respondents reported their location as the US (46%) or EU (45%) and most commonly reported editorial titles were deputy/assistant editor (36%), editor-in-chief (35%) and section editor (24%). More editors reported improved versus worsened transparency (63.5% vs. 6.1%) and credibility (53.2% vs. 10.4%). Best practices that contributed most to improved transparency were “disclosure of the study sponsor” and “registration and posting of trial results”. Respondents ranked the importance of nine recommendations as moderate or extremely important, and adoption of all recommendations was ranked minimal to moderate.

Conclusions: The 293 editors who responded perceived an improvement in the transparency and credibility of industry-sponsored publications from 2010 to 2015. Confirmation of the importance of 9/10 recommendations by the respondents was encouraging. Yet, low adoption rates suggest that additional work is required by all stakeholders to improve best practices, transparency and credibility.     

Open access for operational research publications from low- and middle-income countries: who pays?

Open-access journal publications aim to ensure that new knowledge is widely disseminated and made freely accessible in a timely manner so that it can be used to improve people''s health, particularly those in low- and middle-income countries. In this paper, we briefly explain the differences between closed- and open-access journals, including the evolving idea of the ‘open-access spectrum’. We highlight the potential benefits of supporting open access for operational research, and discuss the conundrum and ways forward as regards who pays for open access.     

Global research in sarcopenia: High-cited papers,research institutions,funding agencies and collaborations, 1993–2022

Background and aimsThis bibliometric analysis aims to analyze the high-cited papers (HCPs), those which have received >100 citations) on Sarcopenia to provide insight into publication performances and research characteristics of the literature.MethodsGlobal HCPs on Sarcopenia research were identified from the Scopus database from January 1993 to August 2022. VOSviewer, and Biblioshiny software were used to visualize the collaborative interaction among most productive countries, organizations, authors, and keywords. Select bibliometric measures were applied to evaluate the publication productivity and their influence in this area.ResultsOut of 6219 publications on Sarcopenia only 398 were HCPs. These HCPs received an average of 271.7 citations per publication (CPP). The most productive organizations were the Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Italy, and Jean Mayer USDA Human Nutrition Center on Aging, USA. The most impactful organizations in terms of CPP and relative citation index were CHU de Toulouse, France, and Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Italy. The most productive authors were Landi F and Morley JE, and Anker SD from Italy and Germany respectively. The most impactful authors were: Cederholm T (Sweden), Cruz JAJ (Spain) and Rolland Y (France). There were few/no HCPs from South America, Africa, South Asia, and USSR.ConclusionSarcopenia research has been predominantly done in USA, Europe, and China, and rarely from low and middle-income countries. Further focus of research should be on its etiopathogenesis (especially at the molecular level), prevalence in different communities, methods to diagnose it in early stages, and its cost-effective management.     

2010年国内医疗机构论文发表排名分析

目的 对2010年SCI收录论文发表数量排行前20位的医疗机构以及国内论文发表数量较多的前100个医疗机构的论文情况进行分析,为国内各医疗机构的科研管理部门制定科研决策提供参考.方法 统计2010年SCI收录论文数量排名前20位的医疗机构收录论文数量增长情况,以及2010年医疗机构国内论文发表排名前100名发文情况.结果 2010年排名前20名医疗机构SCI收录论文数量与2009年相比,增加了1061篇,增长幅度为28.35％,排名前100名医疗机构国内论文平均发文数量减少了20.36篇.结论 前20名医疗机构SCI发表论文数量增长势头减弱,前70名医疗机构国内论文发文数量出现负增长,70名以后的医疗机构发文还保持着一定的增长.     

2011年国内医疗机构论文发表排名分析

目的 对2011年国内医疗机构国内论文发文前20名和在SCI收录期刊发文前20名进行分析,了解医疗机构国内论文的期刊分布和SCI论文数量变化趋势.方法 检索SCI数据库和中国科学引文数据库,对中国科学技术信息研究所公布的国内医疗机构发文排名前20的机构发表论文的来源期刊情况及数量变化进行统计分析.结果 国内论文前20名医疗机构在CSCD核心期刊上发表论文情况与源期刊不同.2009-2011年前20名医疗机构SCI论文增长幅度分别为20.70％、28.35％和7.06％,同期国内全部医疗机构发表SCI论文增长率分别为34.11％、33.00％和21.49％.结论 对国内医疗机构排名从论文的期刊来源和分布分析更具有指导意义,前20名医疗机构SCI发表论文数量增长幅度下降明显.