Citation Inaccuracies in Influential Surgical Journals.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Choi J
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8156172 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Aug
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Citation Inaccuracies in Influential Surgical Journals.
Choi Jeff J Gupta Anshal A Kaghazchi Aydin A Htwe Thinzar S TS Baiocchi Michael M Spain David A DA
JAMA surgery 20210801 8
Similar Datasets
Project description:Rankings of scholarly journals based on citation data are often met with scepticism by the scientific community. Part of the scepticism is due to disparity between the common perception of journals' prestige and their ranking based on citation counts. A more serious concern is the inappropriate use of journal rankings to evaluate the scientific influence of researchers. The paper focuses on analysis of the table of cross-citations among a selection of statistics journals. Data are collected from the Web of Science database published by Thomson Reuters. Our results suggest that modelling the exchange of citations between journals is useful to highlight the most prestigious journals, but also that journal citation data are characterized by considerable heterogeneity, which needs to be properly summarized. Inferential conclusions require care to avoid potential overinterpretation of insignificant differences between journal ratings. Comparison with published ratings of institutions from the UK's research assessment exercise shows strong correlation at aggregate level between assessed research quality and journal citation 'export scores' within the discipline of statistics.
| S-EPMC4755202 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Citations measure the importance of a publication, and may serve as a proxy for its popularity and quality of its contents. Here we study the distributions of citations to publications from individual academic institutions for a single year. The average number of citations have large variations between different institutions across the world, but the probability distributions of citations for individual institutions can be rescaled to a common form by scaling the citations by the average number of citations for that institution. We find this feature seems to be universal for a broad selection of institutions irrespective of the average number of citations per article. A similar analysis for citations to publications in a particular journal in a single year reveals similar results. We find high absolute inequality for both these sets, Gini coefficients being around 0.66 and 0.58 for institutions and journals respectively. We also find that the top 25% of the articles hold about 75% of the total citations for institutions and the top 29% of the articles hold about 71% of the total citations for journals.
| S-EPMC4709109 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundWikipedia, the multilingual encyclopedia, was founded in 2001 and is the world's largest and most visited online general reference website. It is widely used by health care professionals and students. The inclusion of journal articles in Wikipedia is of scholarly interest, but the time taken for a journal article to be included in Wikipedia, from the moment of its publication to its incorporation into Wikipedia, is unclear.ObjectiveWe aimed to determine the ranking of the most cited journals by their representation in the English-language medical pages of Wikipedia. In addition, we evaluated the number of days between publication of journal articles and their citation in Wikipedia medical pages, treating this measure as a proxy for the information-diffusion rate.MethodsWe retrieved the dates when articles were included in Wikipedia and the date of journal publication from Crossref by using an application programming interface.ResultsFrom 11,325 Wikipedia medical articles, we identified citations to 137,889 journal articles from over 15,000 journals. There was a large spike in the number of journal articles published in or after 2002 that were cited by Wikipedia. The higher the importance of a Wikipedia article, the higher was the mean number of journal citations it contained (top article, 48.13 [SD 33.67]; lowest article, 6.44 [SD 9.33]). However, the importance of the Wikipedia article did not affect the speed of reference addition. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews was the most cited journal by Wikipedia, followed by The New England Journal of Medicine and The Lancet. The multidisciplinary journals Nature, Science, and the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences were among the top 10 journals with the highest Wikipedia medical article citations. For the top biomedical journal papers cited in Wikipedia's medical pages in 2016-2017, it took about 90 days (3 months) for the citation to be used in Wikipedia.ConclusionsWe found evidence of "recentism," which refers to preferential citation of recently published journal articles in Wikipedia. Traditional high-impact medical and multidisciplinary journals were extensively cited by Wikipedia, suggesting that Wikipedia medical articles have robust underpinnings. In keeping with the Wikipedia policy of citing reviews/secondary sources in preference to primary sources, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews was the most referenced journal.
| S-EPMC6356187 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Objective: We conducted a citation analysis in order to catalog and pay tribute to the 100 most influential clinical research articles in traumatic spinal cord injury.Design: The Thomson Reuters Web of Science was searched in a two-step process without time period limitations. Review articles were excluded. In the first stage of data extraction, a Boolean query was used to identify the top 100 most cited clinical papers on traumatic spinal cord injury. One hundred and seven keywords were manually chosen and extracted from titles and abstracts. A second Boolean query used these keywords to broaden search results. The top 100 articles from this second stage search comprised the final list.Outcome Measures: For each article, measures evaluated were number of citations, average number of citations per year, time elapsed before first citation, and time elapsed until the year in which each article received its respective highest number of citations in a one-year period.Results: 119,991 articles were found in the second stage search. The top 100 most cited articles meeting inclusion criteria were identified within the first 2,104 results. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation was the most represented journal, with 20 of the top 100 articles. The top 100 list averaged 255 citations per article. The most highly cited article was the NASCIS 2 trial by Bracken et al., cited 1500 times, which investigated the efficacy of methylprednisolone or naloxone for spinal cord injury.Conclusion: Clinical research in traumatic spinal cord injury has grown over time, expanding to encompass rehabilitation and experimental therapies in addition to acute management trials. The list may serve as an archive and reference for further studies in this field.
| S-EPMC7006647 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Cumulative advantage-commonly known as the Matthew Effect-influences academic output and careers. Given the challenge and uncertainty of gauging the quality of academic research, gatekeepers often possess incentives to prefer the work of established academics. Such preferences breach scientific norms of universalism and can stifle innovation. This article analyzes repeat authors within academic journals as a possible exemplar of the Matthew Effect. Using publication data for 347 economics journals from 1980-2017, as well as from three major generalist science journals, we analyze how articles written by repeat authors fare vis-à-vis less-experienced authors. Results show that articles written by repeat authors steadily decline in citation impact with each additional repeat authorship. Despite these declines, repeat authors also tend to garner more citations than debut authors. These contrasting results suggest both benefits and drawbacks associated with repeat authorships. Journals appear to respond to feedback from previous publications, as more-cited authors in a journal are more likely to be selected for repeat authorships. Institutional characteristics of journals also affect the likelihood of repeat authorship, as well as citation outcomes. Repeat authorships-particularly in leading academic journals-reflect innovative incentives and professional reward structures, while also influencing the intellectual content of science.
| S-EPMC9007338 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeThe research assesses the impact of online journals on citation patterns by examining whether researchers were more likely to limit the resources they cited to those journals available online rather than those only in print.SettingPublications from a large urban university with a medical college at an urban location and at a smaller regional location were examined. The number of online journals available to authors on either campus was the same. The number of print journals available on the large campus was much greater than the print journals available at the small campus.MethodologySearches by author affiliation from 1996 to 2005 were performed in the Web of Science to find all articles written by affiliated members in the college of medicine at the selected institution. Cited references from randomly selected articles were recorded, and the cited journals were coded into five categories based on their availability at the study institution: print only, print and online, online only, not owned, and dropped. Results were analyzed using SPSS. The age of articles cited for selected years as well as for 2006 and 2007 was also examined.ResultsThe number of journals cited each year continued to increase. On the large urban campus, researchers were not more likely to cite journals available online or less likely to cite journals only in print. At the regional location, at which the number of print-only journals was minimal, use of print-only journals significantly decreased.Conclusion/discussionThe citation of print-only journals by researchers with access to a library with a large print and electronic collection appeared to continue, despite the availability of potential alternatives in the online collection. Journals available in electronic format were cited more frequently in publications from the campus whose library had a small print collection, and the citation of journals available in both print and electronic formats generally increased over the years studied.
| S-EPMC2568853 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundWomen surgeons face numerous barriers to career advancement. Inequitable citation of surgical literature may represent a contributing factor to gender disparities in academic surgery.Study designThis was a cross-sectional analysis of publications from 50 top-ranking surgery journals in 2017 and 2018, as defined by the 2019 InCites Journal Citation Reports. The citation rate of publications by women vs men first authors was compared. Similarly, the citation rate of publications by men vs women last authors was also compared. Adjusted regression analyses of citation rates accounted for the time interval since publication as well as the journal within which the article was published, among other potential confounding factors.ResultsA total of 19,084 publications from 48 surgery journals with a median (interquartile range) of 8 (4 to 15) citations contributing to a median (interquartile range) Journal Impact Factor of 4.0 (3.4 to 4.6) were analyzed. Compared with man-first author publications, woman-first author publications demonstrated a 9% lower citation rate (incidence rate ratio 0.91, p < 0.001). Similarly, compared with publications by man-last authors, woman-last author publications demonstrated a 4% lower citation rate (incidence rate ratio 0.96, p = 0.03). These associations persisted after multivariable adjustment for additional confounding factors, however, not on sensitivity analysis of 24 of the highest-ranking journals.ConclusionsAmong top-tier surgical journals, publications by women-first and -last authors were less cited compared with publications by men-first and -last authors, but not among the highest-tier surgical journals. Gender bias may exist in the citation of surgical research, contributing to gender disparities in academic surgery.
| S-EPMC8931844 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Bibliometric indicators increasingly affect careers, funding, and reputation of individuals, their institutions and journals themselves. In contrast to author self-citations, little is known about kinetics of journal self-citations. Here we hypothesized that they may show a generalizable pattern within particular research fields or across multiple fields. We thus analyzed self-cites to 60 journals from three research fields (multidisciplinary sciences, parasitology, and information science). We also hypothesized that the kinetics of journal self-citations and citations received from other journals of the same publisher may differ from foreign citations. We analyzed the journals published the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Nature Publishing Group, and Editura Academiei Române. We found that although the kinetics of journal self-cites is generally faster compared to foreign cites, it shows some field-specific characteristics. Particularly in information science journals, the initial increase in a share of journal self-citations during post-publication year 0 was completely absent. Self-promoting journal self-citations of top-tier journals have rather indirect but negligible direct effects on bibliometric indicators, affecting just the immediacy index and marginally increasing the impact factor itself as long as the affected journals are well established in their fields. In contrast, other forms of journal self-citations and citation stacking may severely affect the impact factor, or other citation-based indices. We identified here a network consisting of three Romanian physics journals Proceedings of the Romanian Academy, Series A, Romanian Journal of Physics, and Romanian Reports in Physics, which displayed low to moderate ratio of journal self-citations, but which multiplied recently their impact factors, and were mutually responsible for 55.9%, 64.7% and 63.3% of citations within the impact factor calculation window to the three journals, respectively. They did not receive nearly any network self-cites prior impact factor calculation window, and their network self-cites decreased sharply after the impact factor calculation window. Journal self-citations and citation stacking requires increased attention and elimination from citation indices.
| S-EPMC4835057 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundDisparities in health outcomes across countries/areas are a central concern in public health and epidemiology. However, few authors have discussed legends that can be complemental to choropleth maps (CMs) and merely linked differences in outcomes to other factors like density in areas. Thus, whether health outcome rates on CMs showing the geographical distribution can be applied to publication citations in bibliometric analyses requires further study. The legends for visualizing the most influential areas in article citation disparities should have sophisticated designs. This paper illustrates the use of cumulative frequency (CF) map legends along with Lorenz curves and Gini coefficients (GC) to characterize the disparity of article citations in areas on CMs, based on the quantile classification method for classes.MethodsBy searching the PubMed database (pubmed.com), we used the keyword "Medicine" [journal] and downloaded 7042 articles published from 1945 to 2016. A total number of 41,628 articles were cited in Pubmed Central (PMC). The publication outputs based on the author's x-index were applied to plot CM about research contributions. The approach uses two methods (i.e., quantiles and equal total values for each class) with CF legends, in order to highlight the difference in x-indices across geographical areas on CMs. GC was applied to observe the x-index disparities in areas. Microsoft Excel Visual Basic for Application (VBA) was used for creating the CMs.ResultsResults showed that the most productive and cited countries in Medicine (Baltimore) were China and the US. The most-cited states and cities were Maryland (the US) and Beijing (China). Taiwan (x-index = 24.38) ranked behind Maryland (25.97), but ahead of Beijing (16.9). China earned lower disparity (0.42) than the US (0.49) and the rest of the world (0.53) when the GCs were applied.ConclusionCF legends, particularly using the quantile classification for classes, can be useful to complement CMs. They also contain more information than those in standard CM legends that are commonly used with other classification methods. The steps of creating CM legends are described and introduced. Bibliometric analysts on CM can be replicated in the future.
| S-EPMC6799475 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC10733844 | biostudies-literature