Dataset Information

Assessment of Korea's Orthopedic Research Activities in the Top 15 Orthopedic Journals, 2008-2017.

ABSTRACT: Background:Bibliometrics is increasingly used to assess the quantity and quality of scientific research output in many research fields worldwide. This study aims to update Korea's worldwide research productivity in the field of orthopedics using bibliometric methods and to provide Korean surgeons and researchers with insights into such research. Methods:Articles published in the top 15 orthopedic journals between 2008 and 2017 were retrieved using the Web of Science. The number of articles, citations and h-index (Hirsch index), funding sources, institutions, and journal patterns were analyzed. Results:Of the total 39,494 articles, Korea's contribution accounted for 5.6% (2,161 articles), ranking fifth in the world in the number of publications. Korea ranked sixth (with 29,456) for total citations worldwide but ranked 17th (13.64) in terms of average citation per item and 14th (55) in terms of h-index. Korea showed the most prolific productivity in the field of sports medicine and arthroscopy. The institution that produced the highest number of publications was Seoul National University (n = 386, 17.9%). Conclusions:Orthopedic research in South Korea demonstrated high productivity in terms of the number of publications in high-quality journals between 2008 and 2017. However, total citations and average citations per article were still relatively low. Efforts should be made to increase citation rates for further improvement in research productivity in the field of orthopedics.

SUBMITTER: Shon WY

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6526129 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Assessment of Korea's Orthopedic Research Activities in the Top 15 Orthopedic Journals, 2008-2017.

Shon Won Yong WY Yoon Byung-Ho BH Jung Eun-Ae EA Kim Jin Woo JW Ha Yong-Chan YC Han Seung Hwan SH Kim Hak-Sun HS

Clinics in orthopedic surgery 20190509 2

<h4>Background</h4>Bibliometrics is increasingly used to assess the quantity and quality of scientific research output in many research fields worldwide. This study aims to update Korea's worldwide research productivity in the field of orthopedics using bibliometric methods and to provide Korean surgeons and researchers with insights into such research.<h4>Methods</h4>Articles published in the top 15 orthopedic journals between 2008 and 2017 were retrieved using the Web of Science. The number of ...[more]

PMID: 31156778

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundMedical research is a central part of any residency training. In view of the new Saudi orthopedic committee promotion regulation that mandates each resident to participate in a research project, the challenges that stand in the way of completion of substantial research within surgical residency must be investigated. The aim of this study was to assess the practice, attitudes, perception, and limitations associated with research among residents in the Saudi orthopedic program in the central region.MethodsA cross-sectional study was conducted between June and July 2020 using an online-based survey. The total number of study participants was 128 orthopedic residents out of the 191 residents enrolled in the central region program. Data were analyzed, and descriptive statistics in the form of frequency and percentage were determined, analytical tests were performed with P < 0.05 being statistically significant.ResultsMost residents (95 %) participated in a research project during residency. Most projects (53.10 %) were case reports followed by retrospective studies (48.40 %). The majority (79.70 %) did not attend a research methods course during residency. Experience in research differed significantly (P < 0.05) by age, residency year, and center. The mean involvement score was significantly higher among males at 3 (± 1) than among females at 2 (± 0) (P < 0.001). Only 40.60 % have access to orthopedic journals, and the same percentage (40.60 %) knew how to Critique original articles. There was a statistically significant difference in the accessibility score according to the training center. Lack of faculty support and mentorship were the main barriers to medical research at 62.50 and 39.10 %, respectively. A total of 68.80 % reported that funding was not available through their institutes.ConclusionsIn Saudi Arabia, the level of meaningful clinical research and publications by orthopedic residents is still low. The results of this study should be taken into consideration before the implementation of the new promotion criteria in the centers under the umbrella of Saudi orthopedic committee.

Project description:ObjectivesRheumatology-related diseases remain a significant burden worldwide. However, little is known about the comparative status of rheumatology research between Mainland China (MC) and the world's leading countries. The aim of this study is to compare the quantity and quality of research output in the field of rheumatology that were written by researchers from MC, the USA, the UK, the Netherlands and France.MethodsBetween 2007 and 2017, all articles published in 30 rheumatology journals were identified via Science Citation Index Expanded database. The number of total and annual articles, article types (randomized controlled trials (RCTs), reviews, case reports, clinical trials and meta-analysis), impact factor (IF), citations, h-index and articles in the high-impact journals were collected for quantity and quality comparisons. The correlation of socioeconomic factors and annual publications was also analyzed.ResultsFrom 2007 to 2017, there were 53,439 articles published in rheumatology journals, of which researchers from the USA published 13,391 articles, followed by the UK, the Netherlands, France and MC with 6,179, 4,310, 4,066 and 2,898 articles, respectively. Publications from MC represented the ninth, but the number is growing rapidly. For total and average citations, MC still lags behind the other four countries in the study. Similar trends were observed in average IF, h-index and articles in the high-impact journals. In terms of article types, the USA occupies the dominant place, except for meta-analysis. The annual numbers of articles from MC and the USA were positively correlated with gross domestic product (p < 0.05).ConclusionsThe USA has played predominant role in rheumatology research for the last 11 years. The annual number of published articles from MC has increased notably from 2007 to 2017. Although MC has made progress in the number of published articles over the past decade, it still lags far behind the highly developed countries in most bibliometric indicators. Thus, the general quality of publications from MC needs further improvement.

Project description:Natural Language Processing (NLP) is a subset of artificial intelligence that enables machines to understand and respond to human language through Large Language Models (LLMs)‥ These models have diverse applications in fields such as medical research, scientific writing, and publishing, but concerns such as hallucination, ethical issues, bias, and cybersecurity need to be addressed. To understand the scientific community's understanding and perspective on the role of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in research and authorship, a survey was designed for corresponding authors in top medical journals. An online survey was conducted from July 13th, 2023, to September 1st, 2023, using the SurveyMonkey web instrument, and the population of interest were corresponding authors who published in 2022 in the 15 highest-impact medical journals, as ranked by the Journal Citation Report. The survey link has been sent to all the identified corresponding authors by mail. A total of 266 authors answered, and 236 entered the final analysis. Most of the researchers (40.6%) reported having moderate familiarity with artificial intelligence, while a minority (4.4%) had no associated knowledge. Furthermore, the vast majority (79.0%) believe that artificial intelligence will play a major role in the future of research. Of note, no correlation between academic metrics and artificial intelligence knowledge or confidence was found. The results indicate that although researchers have varying degrees of familiarity with artificial intelligence, its use in scientific research is still in its early phases. Despite lacking formal AI training, many scholars publishing in high-impact journals have started integrating such technologies into their projects, including rephrasing, translation, and proofreading tasks. Efforts should focus on providing training for their effective use, establishing guidelines by journal editors, and creating software applications that bundle multiple integrated tools into a single platform.

Project description:BackgroundHigh quality clinical research not only requires advanced professional knowledge, but also needs sound study design and correct statistical analyses. The number of clinical research articles published in Chinese medical journals has increased immensely in the past decade, but study design quality and statistical analyses have remained suboptimal. The aim of this investigation was to gather evidence on the quality of study design and statistical analyses in clinical researches conducted in China for the first decade of the new millennium.Methodology/principal findingsTen (10) leading Chinese medical journals were selected and all original articles published in 1998 (N = 1,335) and 2008 (N = 1,578) were thoroughly categorized and reviewed. A well-defined and validated checklist on study design, statistical analyses, results presentation, and interpretation was used for review and evaluation. Main outcomes were the frequencies of different types of study design, error/defect proportion in design and statistical analyses, and implementation of CONSORT in randomized clinical trials. From 1998 to 2008: The error/defect proportion in statistical analyses decreased significantly ( = 12.03, p<0.001), 59.8% (545/1,335) in 1998 compared to 52.2% (664/1,578) in 2008. The overall error/defect proportion of study design also decreased ( = 21.22, p<0.001), 50.9% (680/1,335) compared to 42.40% (669/1,578). In 2008, design with randomized clinical trials remained low in single digit (3.8%, 60/1,578) with two-third showed poor results reporting (defects in 44 papers, 73.3%). Nearly half of the published studies were retrospective in nature, 49.3% (658/1,335) in 1998 compared to 48.2% (761/1,578) in 2008. Decreases in defect proportions were observed in both results presentation ( = 93.26, p<0.001), 92.7% (945/1,019) compared to 78.2% (1023/1,309) and interpretation ( = 27.26, p<0.001), 9.7% (99/1,019) compared to 4.3% (56/1,309), some serious ones persisted.Conclusions/significanceChinese medical research seems to have made significant progress regarding statistical analyses, but there remains ample room for improvement regarding study designs. Retrospective clinical studies are the most often used design, whereas randomized clinical trials are rare and often show methodological weaknesses. Urgent implementation of the CONSORT statement is imperative.

Project description:Background:With the development of new magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) techniques, an increasing number of articles have been published regarding hepatocellular carcinoma magnetic resonance imaging (HCCMRI) in the past decade. However, few studies have statistically analyzed these published articles. In this study, we aim to systematically evaluate the scientific outcomes of HCCMRI research and explore the research hotspots from 2008 to 2017. Methods:The included articles regarding HCCMRI research from 2008 to 2017 were downloaded from the Web of Science Core Collection and verified by two experienced radiologists. Excel 2016 was used to analyze the literature data, including the publication years and journals. CiteSpace V was used to perform co-occurrence analyses for authors, countries/regions and institutions and to generate the related collaboration network maps. Reference co-citation analysis (RCA) and burst keyword detection were also performed using CiteSpace V to explore the research hotspots in the past decade. Results:A total of 835 HCCMRI articles published from 2008 to 2017 were identified. Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging published the most articles (79 publications, 9.46%). Extensive cooperating relationship were observed among countries/regions and among authors. South Korea had the most publications (199 publications, 21.82%), followed by the United States of America (USA) (190 publications, 20.83%), Japan (162 publications, 17.76%), and the People's Republic of China (148 publications, 16.23%). Among the top 10 co-cited authors, Bruix J (398 citations) was ranked first, followed by Llovet JM (235 citations), Kim YK (170 citations) and Forner A (152 citations). According to the RCA, ten major clusters were explored over the last decade; "LI-RADS data system" and "microvascular invasion" (MVI) were the two most recent clusters. Forty-seven burst keywords with the highest citation strength were detected over time. Of these keywords, "microvascular invasion" had the highest strength in the last 3 years. The LI-RADS has been constantly updated with the latest edition released in July 2018. However, the LI-RADS still has limitations in identifying certain categories of lesions by conceptual and non-quantitative probabilistic methods. Plenty of questions still need to be further answered such as the difference of diagnostic efficiency of each major/ancillary imaging features. Preoperative prediction of MVI of HCC is very important to therapeutic decision-making. Some parameters of Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced MRI were found to be useful in prediction of MVI, however, with a high specificity but a very low sensitivity. Comprehensive predictive model incorporating both imaging and clinical variables may be the more preferable in prediction of MVI of HCC. Conclusions:HCCMRI-related publications displayed a gradually increasing trend from 2008 to 2017. The USA has a central position in collaboration with other countries/regions, while South Korea contributed the most in the number of publications. Of the ten major clusters identified in the RCA, the two most recent clusters were "LI-RADS data system" and "microvascular invasion", indicative of the current HCCMRI research hotspots.

Project description:IntroductionIn December 2017, Lancet called for gender inequality investigations. Holding other factors constant, trends over time for significant author (i.e., first, second, last or any of these authors) publications were examined for the three highest-impact medical research journals (i.e., New England Journal of Medicine [NEJM], Journal of the American Medical Association [JAMA], and Lancet).Materials and methodsUsing randomly sampled 2002-2019 MEDLINE original publications (n = 1,080; 20/year/journal), significant author-based and publication-based characteristics were extracted. Gender assignment used internet-based biographies, pronouns, first names, and photographs. Adjusting for author-specific characteristics and multiple publications per author, generalized estimating equations tested for first, second, and last significant author gender disparities.ResultsCompared to 37.23% of 2002 - 2019 U.S. medical school full-time faculty that were women, women's first author publication rates (26.82% overall, 15.83% NEJM, 29.38% Lancet, and 35.39% JAMA; all p < 0.0001) were lower. No improvements over time occurred in women first authorship rates. Women first authors had lower Web of Science citation counts and co-authors/collaborating author counts, less frequently held M.D. or multiple doctoral-level degrees, less commonly published clinical trials or cardiovascular-related projects, but more commonly were North American-based and studied North American-based patients (all p < 0.05). Women second and last authors were similarly underrepresented. Compared to men, women first authors had lower multiple publication rates in these top journals (p < 0.001). Same gender first/last authors resulted in higher multiple publication rates within these top three journals (p < 0.001).DiscussionSince 2002, this authorship "gender disparity chasm" has been tolerated across all these top medical research journals. Despite Lancet's 2017 call to arms, furthermore, the author-based gender disparities have not changed for these top medical research journals - even in recent times. Co-author gender alignment may reduce future gender inequities, but this promising strategy requires further investigation.

Dataset Information

Assessment of Korea's Orthopedic Research Activities in the Top 15 Orthopedic Journals, 2008-2017.

Publications

Assessment of Korea's Orthopedic Research Activities in the Top 15 Orthopedic Journals, 2008-2017.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets