Scientific productivity of Punjab Agricultural University (Ludhiana) in agricultural sciences : A bibliometric study

The objective of this study is to characterize the world scientific production on education and COVID-19 between the months of January 2020 to September 2021. A bibliometric study was carried out in five databases (Scopus, Web of Science, Google Academic, Microsoft Academic and Crossref) from which a universe of 5005 articles was extracted. The bibliometric indicators were analyzed with the help of the Publish or Perish v. 7.19 and the same analytical software of the chosen databases. Regarding the most cited article published in the analyzed databases, the one entitled "Medical Student Education in the Time of COVID-19" stands out, which received 419 citations in the Scopus database, 368 in Web of Science, 442 in Crossref, 870 in Google Scholar and 702 in Microsoft Academic. Regarding the authors with the highest scientific production on the subject, Maria Assuncao Flores stands out with 5 publications on the Web of Science and Francisco José García-Peñalvo with 5 articles indexed in the Scopus database. Regarding the journals with the highest number of articles on education and COVID-19, Sustainability stands out. These results show that the scientific production referring to education and Covid-19 confirms the radical change generated in education at all levels by the pandemic and the increase in scientific production to try to explore and describe the changing situation resulting from the pandemic in education. Regarding the journals with the highest number of articles on education and COVID-19, Sustainability stands out. These results show that the scientific production referring to education and COVID-19 confirms the radical change generated in education at all levels by the pandemic and the increase in scientific production to try to explore and describe the changing situation resulting from the pandemic in education. Regarding the journals with the highest number of articles on education and COVID-19, Sustainability stands out. These results show that the scientific production referring to education and Covid-19 confirms the radical change generated in education at all levels by the pandemic and the increase in scientific production to try to explore and describe the changing situation resulting from the pandemic in education.

After getting indexed by scientific databases - Web of Science, Journal Citation Reports - the obtained scientific performance of the journal needs to be kept up. The aim of this article is to analyse citation numbers based on different bibliometric indicators between 2012 and 2016 comparing data with an article published in 2012. Authors evaluated issues of Orvosi Hetilap published in 2013-2015 and searched data in various international databases. Number of citations, quality of citing journals were analysed based on the official 2015-2016 impact factor of Orvosi Hetilap. Scientific performance of the journal was evaluated according to data of SCImago webpage and Scopus database as well. The official 2016 impact factor of Orvosi Hetilap is 0,349 which is the highest value compared with the previous factors. The articles of Orvosi Hetilap are cited by international authors and high impact factor journals, too. Further, more than half of the publications cited are open access. The most frequently cited categories are original and review articles, and case reports. Scientific performance of Orvosi Hetilap is promising according to indicators of SCImago webpage and Scopus database. Mean self-citation rate of the journal is about 30%. Its h-index is 7 in Web of Science Core Collection, and 19 in Scopus database. Citation analysis of this article shows that citation numbers and various bibliometric indicators can increase in a short period, but drastic changes can only happen in a long period with keeping and pushing the obtained values, and focusing on the further development of the journal. Orv Hetil. 2018; 159(30): 1226-1234.

Appraising the Quality of Reporting of American College of Surgeons NSQIP Emergency General Surgery Studies

The field of health and communication has experienced significant growth over the past three decades, driven by the increasing integration of digital technologies in public health and the demand for effective health information dissemination. This study aims to explore global trends in health and communication research through a bibliometric analysis of publications indexed in the Scopus database from 1995 to 2025. Using bibliometric indicators such as publication volume, authorship patterns, institutional and country collaborations, and keyword co-occurrence, this research identifies major contributors, thematic developments, and emerging research fronts in the field. The study used bibliometric analysis of 210 publications in the Scopus database from 1995 to 2025. Publication data was selected using the keyword "health AND communication." Data processing was conducted by co-occurrence between keywords and data presentation with overlay visualization. The results of data processing with VosViewer and R-Studio revealed shifts in research topics in 1995 to 2025. The findings reveal an upward trend in scholarly output, with a notable concentration of publications originating from high-income countries. Furthermore, the analysis highlights the growing importance of interdisciplinary collaboration and digital health themes. This study provides valuable insights for researchers, policymakers, and institutions seeking to understand the evolution of health communication research and to identify gaps and opportunities for future exploration.

BACKGROUNDInsulin resistance is a risk factor for metabolic syndromes and is associated with a wide variety of metabolic illnesses, including obesity, type 2 diabetes, and cardiovascular disease.AIMTo investigate and map global insulin resistance studies.METHODSA bibliometric methodology was applied to the literature retrieved from the Scopus database and Reference Citation Analysis (https://www.referencecitationanalysis.com) by using a validated search strategy. The study period was limited from 2002 to 2021. Bibliometric indicators and mapping were presented.RESULTSA total of 26808 articles on the topic of insulin resistance were included in the Scopus database. The articles included research articles (n = 21918; 81.76%), review articles (n = 2641; 9.85%), and letters (n = 653; 2.44%). During the study period, 136 countries contributed to the research on insulin resistance. The highest number of articles was from the United States (n = 7360; 27.45%), followed by China (n = 3713; 13.85%), Japan (n = 1730, 6.45%), Italy (n = 1545; 5.54%), and the United Kingdom (n = 1484; 5.54%). The retrieved articles identified two main research themes: “inflammatory mechanisms in the regulation of insulin resistance” and “mechanisms linking obesity to insulin resistance”.CONCLUSIONOur data show that insulin resistance has steadily gained interest from researchers, as evidenced by the number of citations and yearly publications. Publications have grown significantly in the last decade, while low-income countries with greater burdens continue to produce fewer publications in this field. This approach might assist researchers in choosing new research areas and recognizing research hotspots and frontiers. In the future, perhaps high-quality clinical evidence will be acquired.

Courtesy authorship is defined as including an individual who has not met authorship criteria as an author. Although most journals follow strict authorship criteria, the current incidence of courtesy authorship is unknown. To assess the practices related to courtesy authorship in surgical journals and academia. A survey was conducted from July 15 to October 27, 2017, of the first authors and senior authors of original articles, reviews, and clinical trials published between 2014 and 2015 in 8 surgical journals categorized as having a high or low impact factor. The prevalence of courtesy authorship overall and among subgroups of authors in high impact factor journals and low impact factor journals and among first authors and senior authors, as well as author opinions regarding courtesy authorship. A total of 203 first authors and 254 senior authors responded (of 369 respondents who provided data on sex, 271 were men and 98 were women), with most being in academic programs (first authors, 116 of 168 [69.0%]; senior authors, 173 of 202 [85.6%]). A total of 17.2% of respondents (42 of 244) reported adding courtesy authors for the surveyed publications: 20.4% by first authors (32 of 157) and 11.5% by senior authors (10 of 87), but 53.7% (131 of 244) reported adding courtesy authorship on prior publications and 33.2% (81 of 244) had been added as a courtesy author in the past. Although 45 of 85 senior authors (52.9%) thought that courtesy authorship has decreased, 93 of 144 first authors (64.6%) thought that courtesy authorship has not changed or had increased (P = .03). There was no difference in the incidence of courtesy authorship for low vs high impact factor journals. Both first authors (29 of 149 [19.5%]) and senior authors (19 of 85 [22.4%]) reported pressures to add courtesy authorship, but external pressure was greater for low impact factor journals than for high impact factor journals (77 of 166 [46.4%] vs 60 of 167 [35.9%]; P = .04). More authors in low impact factor journals than in high impact factor journals thought that courtesy authorship was less harmful to academia (55 of 114 [48.2%] vs 34 of 117 [29.1%]). Overall, senior authors reported more positive outcomes with courtesy authorship (eg, improved morale and avoided author conflicts) than did first authors. Courtesy authorship use is common by both first and senior authors in low impact factor journals and high impact factor journals. There are different perceptions, practices, and pressures to include courtesy authorship for first and senior authors. Understanding these issues will lead to better education to eliminate this practice.

This study aimed at assessing whether there are differences in the reporting of ethical aspects of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) and mainstream medical research. Review of published literature. Research department of medical school. Reports of ethical aspects including adherence to clinical guidelines, ethical approval from ethics committees, consent of the patient, declaration of conflict of interest, and declaration of funding for a study. We included 21 articles from CAM journals, as well as 16 from equal impact factor mainstream (EIF) journals and 27 from high impact factor (HIF) journals. A statistically significant difference was found in the reporting of ethical approval: 62% of all CAM articles, 75% of the EIF and 93% of the HIF journal articles reported approval from ethics committees [chi2 = (2, n = 64) 6.631, p<0.05]. Regarding the reporting of obtaining patients' consent there were no statistically significant differences: 48% of all CAM articles, 38% of the EIF mainstream and 67% of the HIF mainstream journal articles explicitly stated that patients signed a consent form [chi2 = (2, n = 64) 3.813, p>.05]. High impact factor journals were more likely to report on ethical standards than other journals on conflicts of interests and sponsorship. However, they were less likely to report a reference to ethical guidelines. Articles from CAM journals had more strict reporting requirements than mainstream medicine journals with comparable impact factors. Differences exist between complementary and orthodox medical journals in the reporting of ethical aspects of trial design.

What is the most appropriate citation metric for a clinical journal?

Articles published in high Impact factor (IF) journals receive higher visibility and attached prestige, regardless of their actual scientific merit. This results in unfair gain in subsequent number of citations to these articles, which also further increases the journals’ IFs. While there is a gradual move in assessment of researchers from IFs towards individual performance metrics, such as the h-index, those metrics are calculated on the basis of citation counts, and hence are still affected by the described phenomena. Naturally, this leads to increased submission and rejection rates in high IF journals, considerably delaying publication of manuscripts and wasting researchers’ time. Additionally, an article’s visibility increases with time, as it accumulates citations, thus severely disadvantaging new articles and early-career researchers. Here I propose a simple method for evaluation of individual articles and researchers that compensates for the effects of the journal IF and article age. In essence, the number of citations to an article is divided by the median number of citations to the articles published in the same journal in the same year. This ratio indicates the performance of an article relative to its closest competitors, is free from journal and age bias, and thus reflects an article’s scientific merit. An author’s (or institution’s) index is calculated as the sum of these article scores. Widespread adoption of this index, especially by decision-making authorities, will refocus scientists from besieging elitist journals to actually doing research.

Background Increasing pressure on researchers and academicians to publish in high impact factor (IF) journals necessitates selecting useful quality journals in academia. Objectives To review IF’s role and the factors that influence the IF of dental journals, including the journals’ quartile distribution. Methods The Editorial board size of the journal, age of the journal, status (print or electronic) of publication, frequency of publication, quartile, and 5-year IF of all Clarivate Analytics’ oral-dental journals (Dentistry, Oral Surgery, and Medicine) were investigated. Descriptive and inferential statistics were utilized. The information was obtained from individual websites of the journals and Web of Science databases. Results The result shows that all four variables (Editorial board size, frequency of publication, status, and age of journals) were not correlated with the IF, and there was no statistically significant difference found on the IF based on all four factors. Discussion Studies on all four factors contribute to the current IF of individual journals. Five-year and yearly progress trends of journals with quartile rankings are helping to make learning choices for journal selection. The selection of high IF dental journals is a current need for oral health care professionals from academia. Irrespective of the impact factors, publish and flourish policy may be adopted by academic institutions to promote a writing culture. Incentives should be offered to faculty of academic institutions, and adequate time should be allocated to promote publishing culture. Novice authors should be encouraged to start writing and not initially only focus on high IF journals, as with time, quality should follow. If articles are published in medical journals, the keywords should include dental/or dentistry, so it could be classified in the dental literature as well, wherever it is applicable. Conclusion There is no influence on any of the four factors. The larger Editorial board size and higher frequency of publications per year were not significantly associated with the IF. Comparison of IF with status and age of journals also showed no association with the IF. Any particular journal’s choice should be based upon the current IF, journal quartile ranking, and journal domain specificity. Further research on acceptance rate, open access, waiting time, and cost influencing journal selection is suggested.

Background:We hypothesize that being an editorial board member (EBM) in a high impact factor specialty medical journal increases the chances of publishing in the same journal.Materials and Methods:The publication trends of the first five EBMs in the five highest impact factor Anesthesiology and Gastroenterology journals were analyzed. Preceding 5 years' publications appearing on PubMed were grouped into as follows: number of publications in the journal in which the EBM serves (N1), number of publications by the same author in the other four highest impact factor (IF) journals (N2) and number of publications in all the other journals (N3). We evaluated the probability of the observed distribution of publications in the five highest IF journals happening by chance alone, assuming that all the EBMs had the same opportunity of publishing in any of these journals. The probability of publishing in their own journal was assumed to be one fifth.Results:The EBMs published their manuscripts in their own journal at a very high frequency. Encompassing all ten journals, the calculated P value for such a distribution was <0.001. In two journals, Anesthesia and Analgesia and Anaesthesia, the EBMs' publications in their journal were more than twice the cumulative total in the remaining four journals. In three of the five gastroenterology journals analyzed, combined publications of the five EBMs were greater in their own journal than the remaining four journals combined.Conclusions:Despite proclaimed fair peer review process, EBMs seem to get preference in their own journals.

BackgroundBibliographic data can be used to map the research quality and productivity of a discipline. We hypothesized that bibliographic data would identify geographic differences in research capacity, species specialization, and interdisciplinary relationships within the veterinary profession that corresponded with demographic and economic indices.ResultsUsing the SCImago portal, we retrieved veterinary journal, article, and citation data in the Scopus database by year (1996–2011), region, country, and publication in species-specific journals (food animal, small animal, equine, miscellaneous), as designated by Scopus. In 2011, Scopus indexed 165 journals in the veterinary subject area, an increase from 111 in 1996. As a percentage of veterinary research output between 1996 and 2010, Western Europe and North America (US and Canada) together accounted for 60.9% of articles and 73.0% of citations. The number of veterinary articles increased from 8815 in 1996 to 19,077 in 2010 (net increase 66.6%). During this time, publications increased by 21.0% in Asia, 17.2% in Western Europe, and 17.0% in Latin America, led by Brazil, China, India, and Turkey. The United States had the highest number of articles in species-specific journals. As a percentage of regional output, the proportion of articles in small animal and equine journals was highest in North America and the proportion of articles in food animal journals was highest in Africa. Based on principal component analysis, total articles were highly correlated with gross domestic product (based on World Bank data). The proportion of articles in small animal and equine journals was associated with gross national income, research and development, and % urban population, as opposed to the proportion of food animal articles, agricultural output, and % rural population. Co-citations linked veterinary medicine with medicine in the United States, with basic sciences in Eastern Europe and the Far East, and with agriculture in most other regions and countries.ConclusionsBibliographic data reflect the demographic changes affecting veterinary medicine worldwide and provide insight into current and changing global research capacity, specialization, and interdisciplinary affiliations. A more detailed analysis of species-specific trends is warranted and could contribute to a better understanding of educational and workforce needs in veterinary medicine.

1588 Background: Prior studies have shown disparities in federal funding allocation by cancer site after accounting for mortality, incidence, and person-years of life lost. Whether disparities exist in publications in high impact factor journals is unknown. The aim of this study is to analyze research publications in high impact factor journals by cancer site relative to their burden from 2000 to 2018. Methods: Abstracts from the top 55 impact factor journals from 2000 to 2018 were extracted from PubMed. We developed an algorithm to search the title of the abstract to determine whether the abstract was about cancer and identify the cancer type. The algorithm was validated against the gold standard of human review in 1143 abstracts and yielded a sensitivity and a specificity of &gt;95%. An article proportion for each cancer site was calculated (abstracts for a cancer site / total cancer abstracts). Article proportion was compared to cancer site-specific incidence, mortality and lethality from NCI’s SEER database using scatter plots and non-parametric Wilcoxon signed rank test. Results: We identified 128,377 articles; 31,045 (24%) were about cancer. Cancers with the most publications in high impact factor journals were breast (22%), lung (11%), and colorectal (10%) cancer. Breast, lung and colorectal cancer were also well represented in high impact factor journals compared to their incidence, mortality, and lethality. Gynecologic (ovarian, cervical, and endometrial), pancreatic, hepatobiliary, and prostate cancers were poorly represented in all 3 metrics. Breast, lung, and colorectal cancer ranked in the top half of Article to Lethality scores, while the gynecologic, pancreatic, and hepatobiliary cancers were in the bottom half (p &lt;0.05 for all comparisons). Comparison of rankings by lethality versus by funding indicates relative underfunding of the gynecologic, pancreatic, hepatobiliary, and prostate cancers. Conclusions: Research publications in high impact factor journals by cancer site are not proportionate to individual societal cancer burden. Significant disparities exist between breast, lung, and colorectal cancer when compared to gynecologic, pancreatic, hepatobiliary, and prostate cancers relative to their disease burden. Underfunding of these cancer sites likely contributes to this publication gap.[Table: see text]

The paper brings out the results of a bibliometric study of research output of eight universities of Punjab namely Panjab University (PU), Punjabi University (PBU), Guru Nanak Dev University (GNDU), Punjab Agriculture University (PAU), Thapar University, IKG Punjab Technical University, Central University Bhatinda, and Lovely professional university in sciences. The analysis has been made for the two periods of time i.e. 1991–2002 and 2003–2014 for each university. The research activity of each university has been determined in terms of total publications, year wise distribution of papers, citations, authorship pattern, impact factor, h-index, collaborations within institute and foreign etc. The progress of each university has been compared between the periods of two decades and accordingly the ranking to the universities has been given both in terms of publication number and also in terms of total citations. In terms of h-index of each university, PU, GNDU and PAU were first second and third for the period 1991–2002 but for the period 2003–2014, PBU ranks third after PU and GNDU.

This research is a report of the findings of a study of the information seeking behaviour of agricultural scientists working in the Indian Council of Agriculture Research (ICAR) institutions of Delhi, and Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana. A structured questionnaire was developed to explore the information seeking behaviour of agricultural scientists. Data collected were analysed using the latest version of MS-Excel for appropriate statistical procedures for description (frequencies, per cent, means, and standard deviations), etc. The paper discusses the findings of various strategies and procedures adopted by the agricultural scientists in meeting their information requirement. The agricultural scientists were asked torank the information sources indicating their order of priority while seeking information. They were askedto use a scale in order to their priority on the basis of I, II and III. The results show that agricultural scientists have expressed great dependence in meeting their information requirement on their institutional library/information centre. Seventy-two per cent of the respondents for all categories of agricultural scientists preferred their library/information centre as the most preferred source. For accessing information agricultural scientists highly depend on the library collection, followed by the personal collection, collection of their supervisor and of colleagues in order of decreasing priority.http://dx.doi.org/10.14429/djlit.28.3.175