5-year Impact Factor Research Articles

Reporting of Search Strategy Among Systematic Reviews in Leading Dental Specialty Journals: A Research-On-Research Study.

Literature searching is one of the main determinants of a systematic review (SR)'s reliability. Thus, adequate reporting of search strategy is essential for the critical appraisal of SRs and evidence-based practice. To assess the reporting quality of search strategy among SRs in leading dental specialty journals, and to identify factors associated with quality of reporting. Six leading dental journals with the highest 5-year impact factors in their respective specialty were included. A hand search was undertaken to identify SRs published between 2017 and 2022. Full texts were reviewed by two authors to identify eligible SRs. Reporting quality was assessed and scored using a modified 15-item checklist based on Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses literature search extension (PRISMA-S). Univariable and multivariable linear regression analyses were then performed. A total of 152 reviews were included and assessed. As for information sources, only 'citation searching' was adequately reported in most reviews 110 (72.4%). Only 23 (15.1%) of the included reviews clearly reported search strategies. Information about peer review was provided in only 10 reviews (6.6%). Only 91 (59.9%) of the included reviews documented the total records clearly. According to multivariable regression analysis, industrial funding (p = 0.012), registration (p = 0.013) and librarian involvement (p = 0.004) were significantly associated with higher reporting quality. The reporting quality of search strategy among SRs in leading dental specialty journals is suboptimal. Researchers, librarians, reviewers and journal editors in dentistry need to be familiar with the PRISMA-S checklist, and make concerted efforts to improve the reporting of search strategy in SRs.

Fate of Abstracts Presented at Annual Meetings of The Society of Thoracic Surgeons from 2015 to 2019

Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) annual meetings provide opportunities to disseminate cardiothoracic research. We assessed rates of publication of STS abstracts as manuscripts in peer-reviewed journals over five years and determined factors associated with successful publication. The STS "Annual Meeting Archive" was searched online for abstract books from STS annual meetings from 2015-2019. Abstract books were reviewed for information about presented abstracts. A PubMed and Google search was then performed to identify corresponding peer-reviewed journal publications. A total of 1451 abstracts were presented at STS annual meetings from 2015-2019. Overall publication rate of accepted abstracts as manuscripts in peer-reviewed journals was 1097/1451=75.60%. Most published manuscripts were published in The Annals of Thoracic Surgery (750/1097=68.37%). Median duration between abstract presentation and peer-reviewed journal publication was 313[IQR=212.5-458] days. Only 29/1451=2.00% of abstracts won an award, and all 29 of these award-winning abstracts were published as a manuscript. Oral presentation was associated with increased odds of publication compared to poster presentation (OR=1.28[95% CI=1.04-1.71], p=0.021). Median 5-year impact factor of peer-reviewed journals containing these manuscripts was 5.04[IQR=5.04-5.04], and corresponding manuscripts were cited a median of 4[IQR=1-9] times. Overall, 836/1097=76.20% of manuscripts published in peer-reviewed scientific journals had a corresponding North American author. Annual STS meetings are a forum for the presentation of high-quality research. The rate of publication of accepted STS abstracts as manuscripts in peer-reviewed journals is >75%, comparing favorably with national meetings of other surgical societies, and >2/3 of published manuscripts are published in STS's official journal.

Assessing Russian scientific journals in agriculture

The author discusses the results of scientometric assessment of Russian agricultural and forestry academic journals included into the RSCI database, HAC List and RCSI as of 2022. The essential bibliometrical data were obtained from the RSCI database. The serials selected for the analysis fall under the 68.00.00 index of the State Rubricator of Sci-tech Information (SRSTI).The author substantiates the validity of bibliometrical indicator of publication importance, namely the 5-year impact factor without self citation. He investigates into the journal information capabilities from the perspective of published articles and open access to RSCI database. The level-structured values accepted for ranging the impact factor (from minimum to maximum) included in RSCI, HAC, and RCSI, are provided; the average values make, correspondingly, 0.381, 0.470, and 0.623. The most significant scientific journals are revealed by their impact factor and SI, and by the number of published articles and accessibility via RSCI. The author emphasizes the drawbacks of HAC and RCSI resources, among them inclusion of low-cited and low SI journals. He also favors the proposal to develop the integrated method for journal ranging and, on this foundation, to build the national database of scientific periodicals.

Transparency and reproducibility in the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development (ABCD) study

BackgroundTransparency can build trust in the scientific process, but scientific findings can be undermined by poor and obscure data use and reporting practices. The purpose of this work is to report how data from the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development (ABCD) Study has been used to date, and to provide practical recommendations on how to improve the transparency and reproducibility of findings. MethodsArticles published from 2017 to 2023 that used ABCD Study data were reviewed using more than 30 data extraction items to gather information on data use practices. Total frequencies were reported for each extraction item, along with computation of a Level of Completeness (LOC) score that represented overall endorsement of extraction items. Univariate linear regression models were used to examine the correlation between LOC scores and individual extraction items. Post hoc analysis included examination of whether LOC scores were correlated with the logged 2-year journal impact factor. ResultsThere were 549 full-length articles included in the main analysis. Analytic scripts were shared in 30 % of full-length articles. The number of participants excluded due to missing data was reported in 60 % of articles, and information on missing data for individual variables (e.g., household income) was provided in 38 % of articles. A table describing the analytic sample was included in 83 % of articles. A race and/or ethnicity variable was included in 78 % of reviewed articles, while its inclusion was justified in only 41 % of these articles. LOC scores were highly correlated with extraction items related to examination of missing data. A bottom 10 % of LOC score was significantly correlated with a lower logged journal impact factor when compared to the top 10 % of LOC scores (β=-0.77, 95 % −1.02, −0.51; p-value < 0.0001). ConclusionThese findings highlight opportunities for improvement in future papers using ABCD Study data to readily adapt analytic practices for better transparency and reproducibility efforts. A list of recommendations is provided to facilitate adherence in future research.

Transparency and Reproducibility in the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development (ABCD) Study.

Transparency can build trust in the scientific process, but scientific findings can be undermined by poor and obscure data use and reporting practices. The purpose of this work is to report how data from the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development (ABCD) Study has been used to date, and to provide practical recommendations on how to improve the transparency and reproducibility of findings. Articles published from 2017 to 2023 that used ABCD Study data were reviewed using more than 30 data extraction items to gather information on data use practices. Total frequencies were reported for each extraction item, along with computation of a Level of Completeness (LOC) score that represented overall endorsement of extraction items. Univariate linear regression models were used to examine the correlation between LOC scores and individual extraction items. Post hoc analysis included examination of whether LOC scores were correlated with the logged 2-year journal impact factor. There were 549 full-length articles included in the main analysis. Analytic scripts were shared in 30% of full-length articles. The number of participants excluded due to missing data was reported in 60% of articles, and information on missing data for individual variables (e.g., household income) was provided in 38% of articles. A table describing the analytic sample was included in 83% of articles. A race and/or ethnicity variable was included in 78% of reviewed articles, while its inclusion was justified in only 41% of these articles. LOC scores were highly correlated with extraction items related to examination of missing data. A bottom 10% of LOC score was significantly correlated with a lower logged journal impact factor when compared to the top 10% of LOC scores (β=-0.77, 95% -1.02, -0.51; p-value < 0.0001). These findings highlight opportunities for improvement in future papers using ABCD Study data to readily adapt analytic practices for better transparency and reproducibility efforts. A list of recommendations is provided to facilitate adherence in future research.

Assessing publication trends in selected GIScience journals

This study examines recent publishing trends in geographic information science (GIScience) journals. The study considers citable items (research articles, reviews) in 24 selected journals, and assesses them for the period between 2018 and 2023. The study begins by providing an overview of GIScience journal publishing trends, including growth in absolute numbers and the proportion in which they disseminate research as open access (OA). The geographic footprint of GIScience authors and international collaboration are also explored. Journals and their impact, reputation, and perceived quality are assessed using common journal metrics, including impact factor, 5-year impact factor, CiteScore, source normalized impact per paper (SNIP), SCImago Journal Rank (SJR), immediacy index, article influence score and normalized Eigenfactor. A composite index consisting of all these metrics from 2022 is established. The paper finds that GIScience is increasingly disseminated as OA. There is evidence that the Global South is underrepresented in GIScience, which necessitates greater inclusion and support in these regions. Finally, the assessment of journal metrics helps researchers identify prominent GIScience journals for disseminating their work effectively. This paper contributes to the knowledge and understanding of recent publishing trends in GIScience, offering valuable insights to researchers, practitioners and journal editors.

Are Orthopaedic Clinical Trials Linguistically and Culturally Diverse? A Systematic Review.

Underrepresentation and misrepresentation of historically underrepresented populations in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) may have implications for the validity of research results and their application for diverse populations. To evaluate the representation of historically linguistically, racially, and ethnically underrepresented participants in orthopaedic randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and to assess the use of translated and culturally adapted patient reported outcome measures (PROMs). Separate and comprehensive literature searches of PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase databases were performed to identify RCTs utilizing PROMs between the years 2012 - 2022 among the top five highest 5-year impact factor orthopaedic journals according to the 2021 Journal Citation Reports database. The primary outcomes of interest included reporting of linguistic, racial and ethnic demographic characteristics of trial participants and the utilization of translated PROMs. The methodological quality of each clinical trial was assessed using the Jadad Criteria. 230 RCTs met inclusion criteria. The language of participants was reported in 14% of trials and in 17% of trials when searching both the published text and clinical trial registration information. In addition, race and/or ethnicity was reported in 11% of trials, and the use of translated PROMs was reported in 7% of trials. Among the six multinational studies, none reported the language of the study population nor the use of translated PROMs. Notably, four studies (2%) reported utilizing culturally adapted PROMs. The average Jadad score was 3.07. Participant language, race, and ethnicity are infrequently reported in orthopaedic clinical trials, potentially limiting the application and interpretation of study results. Similarly, the linguistic and cultural adaptation of PROMs utilized are often not reported, which also limits interpretations of the validity and generalizability of orthopedic study results. Researchers and journals should promote standard reporting of demographic data and methods of PROM adaptation to ensure results are generalizable to diverse patient populations. III.

Первые полсотни номеров журнала Biomics

The journal Biomics has been published by the Institute of Biochemistry and Genetics of the Ufa Federal Research Center of the Russian Academy of Sciences for 14 years and this issue can be considered the fiftieth anniversary issue. During this time, about 400 articles have been published in regular issues of the journal in Russian and English, the authors of which were almost 500 scientists from different parts of our country, as well as near and far abroad. Since 2018, articles have been assigned a digital object identifier (doi) with the prefix 10.31301. In the national bibliographic database of scientific citation "Russian Science Citation Index" (RSCI), the journal "Biomics" according to the results for 2022 is in 1815th place among 3950 journals, characterized by generally good indicators, including a 2-year impact factor from the core of the RSCI without self-citation indirectly indicating a fairly high level of articles, published in Biomics, as they are cited in leading Russian journals. It can be considered that the journal Biomics has occupied its niche and publishes review and experimental articles on a wide range of areas of modern biology, giving preference to physico-chemical biology.

Comparing Orthopaedic Randomized Control Trials Published in High-Impact Medical and Orthopaedic Journals.

Orthopaedic studies published in high-impact medical journals are often believed to have a high prevalence of negative or neutral results and possess methodological characteristics that may bias toward nonsurgical treatments. The purpose of this study was to compare study characteristics, methodologic quality, exposure, and outcome direction among orthopaedic randomized control trials (RCTs) published in high-impact medical and orthopaedic journals and to identify study attributes associated with greater impact. RCTs published between January 2010 and December 2020 in the five medical journals and 10 orthopaedic journals with the highest 5-year impact factors were analyzed. Inclusion criteria were RCTs reporting on orthopaedic surgical intervention compared with nonsurgical or less-invasive surgical procedures. Study characteristics, methodologic quality (Jadad scale), outcomes, and altmetric data were collected. Primary outcomes were categorized as positive (favoring surgical/more-extensive surgery), negative (favoring nonsurgical/less-extensive surgery), or neutral. One hundred twenty-eight RCTs were analyzed; 26 from medical and 102 from orthopaedic journals. Studies published in medical journals included more authors ( P < 0.001), larger sample sizes ( P < 0.001), more institutions ( P < 0.001), and more often received funding ( P < 0.001). The average Jadad scale did not significantly differ between journals ( P = 0.14). The direction of the primary study outcome did not differ between journals ( P = 0.22). Average AAS and annual citation rates were higher in RCTs published in medical journals ( P < 0.001). Publication in a medical journal was the only covariate associated with higher annual citation rates ( P < 0.001) and AAS ( P < 0.001) on multivariable analyses. High-impact medical journals do not publish orthopaedic RCTs with negative or neutral findings at a rate that significantly differs from orthopaedic journals. However, the higher impact and digital coverage of the studies published in medical journals may disproportionally influence the practices of nonorthopaedic providers. Raising awareness of critical findings published in orthopaedic journals may be particularly important for improving healthcare policies and orthopaedic referral patterns for musculoskeletal problems.

Publication Trends of Research on Intrathecal Baclofen Therapy: A Bibliometric Analysis of the Literature

The objective of this study was to analyze the trends in publications on intrathecal baclofen (ITB) therapy. We searched Elsevier's Scopus database in February 2022 to find articles focused on ITB therapy. Data extracted included citation count, publication year, author's country and income category, journal and its 5-year impact factor, research type, disease requiring ITB, and target population. The analysis covered 615 articles from 1985 to 2022. The average citation count per article was 27.47 (95% confidence interval 23.75-31.18) and the mean impact factor was 4.54 (95% confidence interval 3.84-5.24). The majority (76.42%) were primary research, with 8.1% being interventional and 91.9% observational. Even so, one half of the top ten most cited were interventional. Secondary research and case reports made up 12.68% and 10.73% respectively, with narrative reviews making up most of the secondary research (79.48%). Only 1 study conducted a meta-analysis. The United States was the most prolific country. High-income countries published 96.42% of articles. The rising number of ITB articles and citations indicates growing interest and expanding knowledge in this field. However, there's a notable scarcity of research from low- and middle-income countries, particularly those with high prevalence of ITB-treatable diseases. The need for more evidence to overcome potential barriers to ITB implementation is emphasized. Despite an increasing number of publications, a large proportion presented low levels of evidence, such as case reports and narrative reviews, highlighting the need for more rigorous research methods to solidify the evidence base for ITB therapy.

Bibliometric analysis of the top 100 cited articles in breast radiology.

Bibliometrics analysis is a widely used approach that enables influential research within specific fields to be identifiedTo identify the 100 most-cited articles in breast radiology and analyse the trend in breast imaging research. A systematic search was conducted using the Thomson Rheuters Web of Science database. The results were ranked according to citation count and screened to create a single database. Data including first author, year of publication, journal, country of origin, primary institution, number of citations and average number of citations per year were extracted, as well as the impact factor and the 5-year impact factor of journals publishing the articles. The systematic search yielded a total of 114,426 articles, after filters were applied to include papers that were available in English only. Citations for the 100 most-cited articles ranged from 515 to 3660. Half of the articles on the list were published between 2001 and 2010. Radiology has the most number of publications (n = 17), followed by JAMA-Journal of The American Medical Association (n = 9). CA-A Cancer Journal For Clinicians had the highest impact factor of 286.13. Mammogram (n = 49) was the most commonly studied modality, followed by Magnetic Resonance (n = 26). The most common topic of publication was diagnosis (n = 83). This research serves as a guide to the most influential articles on the topic of breast radiology.

Factors Associated With Open Access Publishing Costs in Oncology Journals: Cross-sectional Observational Study.

Open access (OA) publishing represents an exciting opportunity to facilitate the dissemination of scientific information to global audiences. However, OA publishing is often associated with significant article processing charges (APCs) for authors, which may thus serve as a barrier to publication. In this observational cohort study, we aimed to characterize the landscape of OA publishing in oncology and, further, identify characteristics of oncology journals that are predictive of APCs. We identified oncology journals using the SCImago Journal & Country Rank database. All journals with an OA publication option and APC data openly available were included. We searched journal websites and tabulated journal characteristics, including APC amount (in US dollars), OA model (hybrid vs full), 2-year impact factor (IF), H-index, number of citable documents, modality/treatment specific (if applicable), and continent of origin. All APCs were converted to US-dollar equivalents for final analyses. Selecting variables with significant associations in the univariable analysis, we generated a multiple regression model to identify journal characteristics independently associated with OA APC amount. An audit of a random 10% sample of the data was independently performed by 2 authors to ensure data accuracy, precision, and reproducibility. Of 367 oncology journals screened, 251 met the final inclusion criteria. The median APC was US $2957 (IQR 1958-3450). The majority of journals (n=156, 62%) adopted the hybrid OA publication model and were based in Europe (n=119, 47%) or North America (n=87, 35%). The median (IQR) APC for all journals was US $2957 (1958-3540). Twenty-five (10%) journals had APCs greater than US $4000. There were 10 (4%) journals that offered OA publication with no publication charge. Univariable testing showed that journals with a greater number of citable documents (P<.001), higher 2-year IF (P<.001), higher H-index (P<.001), and those using the hybrid OA model (P<.001), or originating in Europe or North America (P<.001) tended to have higher APCs. In our multivariable model, the number of citable documents (β=US $367, SD US $133; P=.006), 2-year IF (US $1144, SD US $177; P<.001), hybrid OA publishing model (US $991, SD US $189; P<.001), and North American origin (US $838, SD US $186; P<.001) persisted as significant predictors of processing charges. OA publication costs are greater in oncology journals that publish more citable articles, use the hybrid OA model, have a higher IF, and are based in North America or Europe. These findings may inform targeted action to help the oncology community fully appreciate the benefits of open science.

Accuracy of data in abstracts of veterinary ophthalmology research articles published in peer-reviewed journals.

Assess the accuracy of abstracts in published veterinary ophthalmology articles. Abstracts and contents of 204 original research articles in veterinary ophthalmology published in seven peer-reviewed journals between 2016-2020 were reviewed. Abstracts were considered inconsistent if they contained data that were either missing from or inconsistent with corresponding data in the article's body. Each abstract was graded between 0 (inaccurate) to 3 (accurate), and each inconsistency was subjectively classified as minor or major. The influence of selected variables was assessed: journal, impact factor, year of publication, number of words in abstract, study type (prospective/retrospective), and characteristics of the corresponding author [institution (academia/private practice), country of domicile (native/non-native English), number of publications]. Most abstracts were accurate, with 1%, 4%, 9% and 86% receiving a score of 0, 1, 2 and 3, respectively. When detected, most inconsistencies were considered minor (77%). Although not statistically significant (p≥ .130), the proportion of articles with a perfect score (=3) was higher in prospective (88%) vs. retrospective (81%) studies, academia (88%) vs. private practice (78%), and studies from corresponding authors domiciled in English (89%) vs. non-English (83%) speaking countries. A significant but very weak (r= -0.15 to -0.19; p≤ .034) negative correlation was found between accuracy score and number of words, as well as 1-year and 5-year impact factors. Although relatively uncommon, data in abstracts that are inconsistent or missing from the article's body do occur in veterinary ophthalmology articles, and could adversely influence a reader's interpretation of study findings.

The Correlation between Altmetric Attention Score and Traditional Bibliometrics in Top Nursing Journal Articles

Background. Altmetric Attention Score (AAS) is a quantitative measurement of the online impact of research and has a potential correlation with traditional bibliometrics. However, the correlation for nursing journal articles is still unknown. The objective of the study was to analyze the correlation between AAS and traditional bibliometrics in the top nursing journal articles. Materials and Methods. Articles published in top nursing journals (the journals with the top 20 5-year impact factors) from 2010 to 2019 were included. The correlations between AAS and citations, AAS and Relative Citation Ratio (RCR) score, AAS and Category Normalized Citation Impact (CNCI) value, and AAS and impact factors were analyzed. Statistical analyses were performed using Stata 25.0 software. Results. A total of 15,212 journal articles were included in the study. Very weak correlations were found between AASs and citations [0.124 (95% CI, 0.108–0.14)], AASs and RCRs [0.26 (95% CI, 0.244–0.275)], and AASs and CNCIs [0.207 (95% CI, 0.192–0.223)]. The weak correlations were also found between AASs and impact factors in several journals. The weak correlations between AASs and citations, AASs and CNCIs, and AASs and RCRs were also found for most journals based on subgroup analysis. Conclusions. There is very weak correlations between AASs and traditional bibliometrics in top nursing journal articles. More studies should be conducted to assess how AAS influence bibliometrics, and how they can help manage nursing journal articles and research.

How publication timelines effect the impact metrics: studying the influence of submission to first decision and submission to acceptance on impact factor and 5-year impact factor of journals

Purpose The purpose of the study is to analyze the impact of the Publication Timeline, i.e. Submission to First Decision and Submission to Acceptance on Journal Metrics, i.e. Impact Factor (IF) and 5-year IF. Design/methodology/approach Data related to the IF and 5-year IF were retrieved from Clarivate Analytics’ Journal Citation Report 2020. The Publication Timeline of each journal was ascertained through their respective websites. To attain the model fit summary, an analysis of variance (ANOVA) test was performed. Regression analysis was also performed on the models using SPSS 21 software to ascertain the nature and degree of impact the Publication Timeline (Submission to First Decision and Submission to Acceptance) has on Journal Metrics (IF and 5-year IF). Findings Submission to First Decision has a significant inverse relationship with both the IF and 5-year IF, whereas Submission to Acceptance has a significant direct relation with 5-year IF and an inverse but insignificant relationship with IF. Research limitations/implications Journals published by Springer Nature and of multidisciplinary nature have been considered for the study. Only those journals were selected that provided the information regarding the Publication Timeline, whereas those which did not provide the same, were excluded. However, new insights can be revealed if the journals published by different publishers and belonging to one particular discipline are studied. Practical implications The study helps to ascertain the impact of the Publication Timeline on the Impact Metrics of the journals. It can help the authors select the journals as their publishing venues considering the Publication Timeline. Publishers can also be benefitted from the findings of this study since improvisations and modifications in their Publication Timelines can positively influence the impact metrics of their respective journals. Originality/value The study attempts to measure the impact of the Publication Timeline on Journal Metrics using cross-sectional secondary data, by performing regression analysis. Though various studies have examined the influence of the Publication Timeline on the IF using correlation analysis, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, this study is the first of its kind to use regression analysis to check the relation, as well as the degree of impact the Publication Timeline, has on Journal Metrics.

H-Index, Journal Citation Indicator, and Other Impact Factors in Neurosurgical Publications: Is There a Cost Factor That Determines the Quality?

There has been an increase in number of Neurosurgical publications, including open access (OA), in recent years. We aimed to compare journals' performance and the relationship to submission fees incurred in publication. We identified 53 journals issuing neurosurgery-related work. Quantitative analysis from various search engines involved obtaining h-index, Journal Citation Indicator (JCI), and other metrics such as Immediacy Index and 5-year impact factor utilising Journal Citation Reports. OA fees and individual subscription fees were collected. Correlations were produced using Spearman rho (ρ) (P < 0.05). Median h-index for 53 journals was 54 (range: 0-292), with JCI median reported as 0.785 (range: 0-2.45). Median Immediacy Index was 0.797 (range: 0-4.076), and median for 5-year impact factor was 2.76 (range: 0-12.704). There was a very strong positive correlation between JCI and Immediacy Index, JCI and 5-year impact factor, and 5-year impact factor and Immediacy Index (ρ > 0.7, P < 0.05). It is unclear whether there was any correlation between the indices and the OA costs and subscription costs for personal usage (P > 0.05). Larger costs incurred for OA fees and subscription costs for personal use do not clearly reflect on the journals' performance, as quantified by using various indices. There appears to be a strong association with performance across the journals' metrics. It would be beneficial to include learning about bibliometric indices' impact for research publications in medical education training to maximize the quality of the scientific work produced and increase the visibility of the information produced. The potential full movement to exclusively OA journals would create a significant barrier for junior researchers, small institutions, and full time-trainee physicians with limited funding available. This study suggests the need for a robust measurement of journals' output and the quality of the work produced.

Characterization of the Conversion of Meeting Presentation to Publication From the 2016 and 2018 ISSVA Workshops

Objectives: Presentations at scientific conferences and subsequent publications play a critical role in a specialty’s advancement. Previous estimates suggest that about half of the content presented at conferences is not published. The objective of this study is to characterize the conversion from meeting presentations to publications from the 2016 and 2018 International Society for the Study of Vascular Anomalies (ISSVA) Workshops. Methods: The PubMed interface (MEDLINE) and Google Scholar were used to search for published works. Excluded presentations included keynotes, research letters, and education-related theses. Parameters reviewed included conversion rate, time to publication, senior author subspecialty, study design and level of evidence, journal name, and 5-year impact factor. Results: 40.43% of searched conference abstracts were published in peer-reviewed journals. The median publication time from presentation was 16 months (range −28.9 to 41.1). The most frequent specialties of 224 senior authors were: plastic surgery (21.4%), dermatology (20.0%), and radiology (10.7%). Authors published in 111 separate journals, where the majority of publications appeared in Pediatric Dermatology (5.8%). A majority of publications (51.3%) had a case series study design and were level 4 evidence. The median 5-year impact factor was 3.49. Conclusions: From the 2016 and 2018 ISSVA meetings reviewed, less than half of presentations were converted to publications. Studies were published in a wide range of journals, in alignment with specialty. A significant portion of vascular anomalies research at ISSVA that may have the potential to improve patient care does not reach a wider audience.

ESCP President's report.

ESCP President's report.

Editorial Outstanding Associate Editors and Top Reviewers

The IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation is one of the most influential publications of IEEE. Its scientific contributions attract a lot of interest and are among the most downloaded across all IEEE publications. In 2021, the IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation ranked third out of 389 publications available on IEEE Xplore for total number of downloads. The IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation ranks second for total number of downloads out of all IEEE publications, when open access journals are excluded. In addition, the bibliometric measures released by Clarivate for year 2021 indicate that the journal performance has set a new record in its history, with an impact factor of 4.824, a 5-year impact factor that reached 5.005, an eigenfactor score of 0.041, and article influence score of 1.048.

Promotion to Top-Tier Journal and Development Strategy of the Annals of Laboratory Medicine for Strengthening its Leadership in the Medical Laboratory Technology Category: A Bibliometric Study.

BackgroundA bibliometric analysis of the Annals of Laboratory Medicine (ALM) was performed to understand its position in the medical laboratory technology category and to suggest a developmental strategy.MethodsJournal metrics, including the number of articles by publication type, country of authors, total citations, 2-year impact factor, country of cited authors, journals citing ALM, and Hirsch-index, were obtained from the Journal Citation Report and Web of Science Core Collection. Target data included ALM content in the Web of Science from January 1, 2012, to October 5, 2021. Bibliometric analysis was performed using Biblioshiny.ResultsThe impact factor increased from 1.481 in 2013 to 3.464 in 2020. Authors belonging to the USA, China, and Korea cited ALM articles the most. Plos One, Scientific Reports, and Frontiers in Microbiology most frequently cited ALM, besides ALM itself. The Hirsch-index was 34. The co-occurrence network of Keyword Plus indicated four clusters diagnosis, identification, prevalence, and risk. The conceptual structure map of Keyword Plus based on multiple correspondence analysis showed two clusters bacterial susceptibility at the bench and clinical courses. The co-citation network showed that ALM was in the cluster of the New England Journal of Medicine, The Lancet, JAMA, and the Annals of Internal Medicine. The collaboration network showed that Korean authors collaborated mainly with authors from the USA, Germany, and Italy.ConclusionsThe journal’s promotion to an international top-tier journal has been successful. “Principles of transparency and best practice in scholarly publishing” and a preprint policy are yet to be added.