Altmetric Attention Score Research Articles

Is Open Access Criminology Influential?

Open access is a hot topic throughout the sciences, including in criminology and criminal justice (CCJ), with increasing calls for accessibility of high-quality research for the public and policymakers. Yet, the question remains: How influential are open access publications? We use Altmetric data from 95 CCJ journals to examine whether the presence and level of open access corresponds with variations in three influence indicators: Altmetric Attention Scores, Twitter/X mentions, and news mentions. Results indicate that open access is positively associated with Altmetric influence, even at lower tiers of access.

Public Interest in Research on Aging: Analysis of Altmetric Attention Scores Over 5 Years.

This study pinpoints the areas in gerontological research that have commanded the most public attention as scored by Altmetric. We collected 12,740 outputs published in gerontological journals over 5 years from 2017 to 2022. Next, we identified the top 5% of outputs with the highest Altmetric Attention Scores. After removing duplicate publications and those without an abstract, 588 outputs remained. Our content analysis of the abstracts was conducted deductively and inductively. Theme 1 (50%; N = 293) revolved around "Health and Well-Being" (Theme 1). Theme 2 (28%; N = 164) was about "Health Services, Interventions and Innovations." Theme 3 was about "Informal and Long-Term Care" (13%; N = 80). Theme 4 focused on "Structural Inequalities" affecting older adults (9%; N = 51). Gerontologists should strengthen collaboration with other stakeholders to better engage the public across different age-related issues. These partnerships will enable the creation of initiatives that better serve the needs of aging populations.

The Top-20 Studies About Anterior Shoulder Instability From an Altmetric Analysis Had Higher Levels of Evidence Than Those From a Traditional Bibliometric Analysis

To compare the characteristics of the top-20 studies about anterior shoulder instability according to the Altmetric Attention Score (AAS) with total citation counts. Two separate searches were performed for articles related to anterior shoulder instability. The Altmetric search identified the top-20 articles according to AAS. A bibliometric search using Web of Science identified the top-20 most-cited articles. Altmetric criteria were applied to the bibliometric list and vice versa. The AAS from the Altmetric list ranged from 44 to 432. The highest AAS from the bibliometric search was 70. One study appeared in both lists. Most online mentions were from X (formerly Twitter). The geographical breakdown of X mentions saw 71 countries appearing in the Altmetric search versus 21 in the bibliometric search. The total citations in the bibliometric list ranged from 91 to 358 versus 0 to 121 for the Altmetric list. The Altmetric top-20 list contained 8 studies that were Level II or higher versus 3 in the bibliometric list. The top-20 studies according to AAS or citation count are not the same. The top-20 studies by AAS are composed of studies at higher levels of evidence versus the top-20 studies when listed by citation count. Electronic searches are an important way to access information in the modern world. Different search options generate results according to different parameters and may generate different results for the same query. It is important to understand these differences so that users have a better understanding of where the most clinically useful information can be found, especially regarding medical conditions.

Assessing the impact of history of medicine research: A scientometric and altmetric analysis.

After conducting a comprehensive literature search of two medical electronic databases, PubMed and Embase, as well as two citation databases, Web of Science Core Collections (WoS) and Scopus, we aimed to conduct an Altmetric and Scientometric analysis of the History of Medicine literature in medical research. The following software tools were used for analyzing the retrieved records from PubMed and Embase databases and conducting a collaboration analysis to identify the countries involved in scientific medical papers, as well as clustering keywords to reveal the trend of History of Medicine research for the future. These software tools (VOSviewer 1.6.18 and Spss 16) allowed the researchers to visualize bibliometric networks, perform statistical analysis, and identify patterns and trends in the data. Our analysis revealed 53,771 records from PubMed and 54,405 records from EMBASE databases retrieved in the field of History of Medicine by 105,286 contributed authors in WoS. We identified 157 countries that collaborated on scientific medical papers. By clustering 59,995 keywords, we were able to reveal the trend of History of Medicine research for the future. Our findings showed a positive association between traditional bibliometrics and social media metrics such as the Altmetric Attention Score in the History of Medicine literature (p < 0.05). Sharing research findings of articles in social scientific networks will increase the visibility of scientific works in History of Medicine research, which is one of the most important factors influencing the citation of articles. Additionally, our overview of the literature in the medical field allowed us to identify and examine gaps in the History of Medicine research.

Altmetric Attention Scores and Citations of Published Research With or Without Preprints

Altmetric Attention Scores and Citations of Published Research With or Without Preprints

Sex differences in altmetric attention scores and traditional impact metrics of top-cited general surgery literature: Cracks in the ceiling?

Sex disparities have previously been identified in surgical academia. This study examines sex differences in the top-cited contemporary general surgery articles and compares Altimetric Attention Score (AAS) and other impact metrics between male and female corresponding authors (CAs). We conducted a bibliometric analysis of the 100 most cited articles published between 2019 and 2021 in each of the top 10 general surgery journals based on the 2021 Journal Impact Factor. Impact metrics included AAS, citation count, and H-index of the CA. We used multivariable regression analyses to investigate whether the sex of the CA or first author (FA) was independently associated with AAS and citation count. Among 1000 articles, 23.1% had female CAs and 27.4% female FAs. Female CA articles had higher AAS (13.0 [2.0-63.0] vs. 8.0 [1.0-28.5]; p<0.001) and lower H-indices (24.0 [11.0-45.0] vs. 31.0 [17.0-50.0]; p=0.015). Although median citation count did not differ by CA sex, articles with Level 1 evidence and a female CA were cited more often (35.5 [24.0-85.0] vs. 25.0 [16.0 vs. 46.0]; p<0.05). In multivariable regression, female CA articles had higher AAS (OR: 1.002 [95% CI: 1.001-1.004]) and lower H-index (OR: 0.987 [95% CI: 0.977-0.997]). Despite having similar citation counts, articles authored by female CAs exhibit higher AAS scores compared to those authored by their male counterparts. While it is heartening that research authored by female surgeons achieves significant visibility, it remains to be understood how this translates into academic impact and scholarly recognition.

Coverage of the research documents with top altmetric attention scores in online news

PurposeThis paper investigates the news coverage of research documents with the top Altmetric attention score (AAS) using a descriptive and explorative approach.Design/methodology/approachA dataset comprising 1,000 articles with high AAS was retrieved from Altmetric.com. The DOIs of these articles were then used to retrieve citation data from Dimensions. Data collection was finalized on February 11, 2024, and separate Excel files were merged using SPSS. The research included subject analysis and conducted correlation and Mann–Whitney U statistical tests.FindingsThe study reveals that the highest number of articles with high AAS were published in 2020. News post correlation with citation count is stronger than with AAS score. From the top AAS documents, titles of those with the highest news post counts include public concern keywords, and their subjects were primarily biomedical and clinical sciences. While no significant difference exists between multidisciplinary and specialty journal news posts, there is an increase in the variety of news sources in 2020 and 2021. Documents on biomedical and clinical sciences receive the most attention primarily from US-based news outlets, and many of the news outlets covering top AAS documents do not have specific subject orientations.Practical implicationsResearchers and journal editors should prioritize factors influencing research news coverage, including subjects, writing styles, and publication sources. Science writers should expand their coverage to include academic publications from subject areas beyond biomedical and clinical sciences. They can also consider diverse publication sources, such as preprints.Originality/valueThis study offers insights into the news coverage of top social-attention academic articles and is among the first to analyze the news coverage of academic publications.Peer reviewThe peer review history for this article is available at: https://publons.com/publon/10.1108/OIR-12-2022-0666

Examining the Effectiveness of Social Media for the Dissemination of Research Evidence for Health and Social Care Practitioners: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Social media use has potential to facilitate the rapid dissemination of research evidence to busy health and social care practitioners. This study aims to quantitatively synthesize evidence of the between- and within-group effectiveness of social media for dissemination of research evidence to health and social care practitioners. It also compared effectiveness between different social media platforms, formats, and strategies. We searched electronic databases for articles in English that were published between January 1, 2010, and January 10, 2023, and that evaluated social media interventions for disseminating research evidence to qualified, postregistration health and social care practitioners in measures of reach, engagement, direct dissemination, or impact. Screening, data extraction, and risk of bias assessments were carried out by at least 2 independent reviewers. Meta-analyses of standardized pooled effects were carried out for between- and within-group effectiveness of social media and comparisons between platforms, formats, and strategies. Certainty of evidence for outcomes was assessed using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations) framework. In total, 50 mixed-quality articles that were heterogeneous in design and outcome were included (n=9, 18% were randomized controlled trials [RCTs]). Reach (measured in number of practitioners, impressions, or post views) was reported in 26 studies. Engagement (measured in likes or post interactions) was evaluated in 21 studies. Direct dissemination (measured in link clicks, article views, downloads, or altmetric attention score) was analyzed in 23 studies (8 RCTs). Impact (measured in citations or measures of thinking and practice) was reported in 13 studies. Included studies almost universally indicated effects in favor of social media interventions, although effect sizes varied. Cumulative evidence indicated moderate certainty of large and moderate between-group effects of social media interventions on direct dissemination (standardized mean difference [SMD] 0.88; P=.02) and impact (SMD 0.76; P<.001). After social media interventions, cumulative evidence showed moderate certainty of large within-group effects on reach (SMD 1.99; P<.001), engagement (SMD 3.74; P<.001), and direct dissemination (SMD 0.82; P=.004) and low certainty of a small within-group effect on impacting thinking or practice (SMD 0.45; P=.02). There was also evidence for the effectiveness of using multiple social media platforms (including Twitter, subsequently rebranded X; and Facebook), images (particularly infographics), and intensive social media strategies with frequent, daily posts and involving influential others. No included studies tested the dissemination of research evidence to social care practitioners. Social media was effective for disseminating research evidence to health care practitioners. More intense social media campaigns using specific platforms, formats, and strategies may be more effective than less intense interventions. Implications include recommendations for effective dissemination of research evidence to health care practitioners and further RCTs in this field, particularly investigating the dissemination of social care research. PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews CRD42022378793; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=378793. RR2-10.2196/45684.

The 100 Most Cited Androgenetic Alopecia Articles: An Analysis of Altmetrics Data from 2015 to 2022

Introduction: Androgenetic alopecia is the most common type of hair loss, and with increasing media integration in medicine, understanding social media consumption of literature is invaluable. Altmetric Attention Score analysis can quantify factors impacting article distribution on media platforms. Methods: To determine factors influencing literature dissemination and reader demographics, a bibliometric analysis was performed on the 100 most cited androgenetic alopecia articles. Results: Articles with top 25th percentile Altmetric Attention Scores were cited more frequently (41.76 vs. 24.59, p < 0.05). Open-access articles had lower odds of being read by healthcare professionals (aOR = 0.16, p < 0.05), while funded studies and journal impact factor increased odds of readership (aOR = 5.80; aOR = 1.55; p < 0.05 for both). Scientists and healthcare professionals showed interest in publications addressing 5α-reductase inhibitors (aOR = 26.08; aOR = 6.13; p < 0.05 for both). Articles with high social media viewership were also highly cited in academic literature. Conclusion: Healthcare professionals appeared more discerning about article readership compared to the public. With many outlets for consumption of media, members of the public not involved in dermatology may have difficulty in identifying reliable sources of material. Overall, Altmetrics can help quantify readership trends and public interest in dermatology research.

Altmetric, Bibliometric, and Visualized Study of Top 100 Most Cited Papers in Digital Health

Aim: This study aims to evaluate the research movements in the Digital Health topic through the most cited 100 products. Material and Method: Top-100 list was obtained by the help of Web of Science Core Collection (www.webofknowledge.com) database. Bibliometric analysis was employed to analyze the documents in detail in the area in question. Altmetric attention score provided by altmetric analysis was utilized to demonstrate the effect of articles on social media. Multiple linear regression analyses were applied to reveal related factors of Citation Count and Altmetric Attention Score. Results: The most-cited 100 papers in Digital Health topic were observed to be published between 2010 and 2020. Mean and standard deviation of the Citation Counts were 141.4±78. A poor positive association is noted between Citation Count and Altmetric Attention Score (r=0.256, p=0.012). Multiple linear regression analysis findings show that “Q2 level (p=0.050)”, “AAS” (p=0.002”), “Since 2013 Usage Count (p

The Top Ranked 101 Articles in Pediatric Surgical Journals from an Altmetric Perspective.

In the era of scientific digitalization, online media platforms gain increasing popularity to accomplish research output awareness. The Altmetric Attention Score AAS weights these online mentions based on a privy algorithm. We aimed to characterize the top 100 articles with the highest (AAS) published in pediatric surgery journals. Publications from six core pediatric surgery journals were retrieved from www.altmetric.com in January 2023 and ranked by their AAS. The top 101 publications were analyzed for their bibliometric measures, study design, and quality as well as online media mentions. The top 101 AAS articles were published between 1974 and 2022, preferentially from the United States (64%) and mainly in Journal of Pediatric Surgery (73%), followed by Journal of Pediatric Surgery Case Reports, Pediatric Surgery International, Seminars in Pediatric Surgery, and European Journal of Pediatric Surgery. Their AAS ranged between 21 and 389 (median: 33), with Twitter/X being mostly responsible for online mentions (n = 2,189; 75%). The number of citations in peer-reviewed journals ranged between 0 and 358 (median: 16) and did not correlate to AAS. Retrospective study design (33%) with low evidence level IV (43%) dominated. The Journal of Pediatric Surgery is the main source of high-profile AAS publications in pediatric surgery. The altmetric popularity of articles is predominantly achieved by their propagation via X, irrespective of the study quality and recognition in the scientific community. Thus, active "twitterism" may play the key role to reach high AAS scores.

Stranger things: the vanishing of the Altmetric Attention Score values in information and library science

AbstractThis study investigates the Altmetric Attention Score (AAS) fluctuations and altmetrics source stability in Information Science &amp; Library Sciences publications, analyzing 26,474 documents from 2012 to 2021. It finds that 23.7% of these publications experienced AAS fluctuations over a year. Significant influences on AAS variability include Twitter mentions and policy documents, with Twitter mentions showing high volatility, affecting nearly 30% of papers. The removal of the Analysis &amp; Policy Observatory as a policy source led to a notable drop in policy document mentions. Various types of mention vanishing are identified, such as administrative decisions by altmetrics aggregators, technological issues, user actions on digital platforms, and natural changes on platforms like Wikipedia. In response, the study proposes modifications in the tracking and monitoring system of mentions to not overlook these vanishings. This aims to enhance the reliability and stability of altmetrics at a time when there is a call for their use in the research evaluation.

Five decades of research on immediate implant therapy: A modern bibliometric network analysis via Altmetric and level of evidence mapping.

To conduct a bibliometric network analysis to explore the research landscape of immediate implant placement (IIP) and provide insights into its trends and contributors. The Scopus database was utilized as the bibliographic source, and a search strategy was implemented to identify relevant research articles. Various bibliometric parameters were extracted, including publication year, journal, authors, citations, and funding. The analysis involved examining authorship patterns, international collaborations, level of evidence, Altmetric data, and funding analysis. We identified a steady annual growth rate of 6.49% in IIP research. The top three countries contributing to research output were the USA, Italy, and China. Prolific authors were identified based on publication and citation metrics. International collaborations among different countries were observed. The level of evidence analysis revealed that over 30% of the articles fell into higher levels of evidence (levels 1 and 2). Altmetric data analysis indicated no significant correlations between citation counts and Altmetric Attention Score (AAS), and conversely a significant association with Mendeley readers count. Funding and open access did not significantly impact the bibliometric indices of the papers. The focus of research on IIP has been evolving as indicated by an exponential growth rate in this study. Only approximately 16% of the articles fit into level 1 evidence, therefore, emphasizing on higher quality level research study shortage in this field. Modern indices can be used as new bibliometric indicators as they also cover social media and online attention scores.

Open Access Publication in Total Ankle Arthroplasty Literature Is Associated With Increased Social Media Attention, but Not Increased Citations.

Open access (OA) publications are increasingly common in orthopaedic literature. However, whether OA publications are associated with increased readership or citations among total ankle arthroplasty (TAA) literature is unclear. We hypothesize that compared with non-OA status, OA status is associated with increased social media dissemination, and readership, but not with citation count. This study aimed to analyze social media attention, citations, readership, and cost of TAA OA and non-OA publications. Using a PubMed query search, there were 368 publications from 81 journals, with 25% (91/368) being OA articles and 75% (277/368) non-OA articles from 2016 to 2023. We analyzed the Altmetric Attention Score (AAS), Mendeley readership score, and citations between OA vs non-OA articles. Citations and cost of OA articles were determined using an altered timeline and publisher's website, respectively. Subgroup analysis was performed among articles published in the top 5 TAA journals (Tables 2 and 3). Negative binomial regression was used while adjusting for days since publication. Significance was considered at P <.05. OA publication was associated with a larger mean AAS score (8.7 ± 37.0 vs 4.8 ± 26.3), Mendeley readership (42.4 ± 41.6 vs 34.9 ± 25.7), and Twitter mentions (4.6 ± 7.4 vs 3.3 ± 8.1), but not citations (19.7 ± 24.8 vs 20.3 ± 23.5) (Table 1). TAA OA publications and top 5 journals were associated with significantly increased social media attention but not Mendeley readership or citation counts.

Guidance for systematic reviews in journal author instructions: Findings and recommendations for editorial teams

AbstractIntroductionSystematic reviews play a crucial role in informing clinical decision‐making, policy formulation, and evidence‐based practice. However, despite the existence of well‐established guidelines, inadequately executed and reported systematic reviews continue to be published. These highly cited reviews not only pose a threat to the credibility of science but also have substantial implications for medical decision‐making. This study aims to evaluate and recommend improvements to the author instructions of biomedical and health journals concerning the conducting and reporting of systematic reviews.MethodsA sample of 168 journals was selected based on systematic reviews published between 2020 and 2021, taking into account their Altmetric attention score, citation impact, and mentions in Altmetric Explorer. Author instructions were downloaded, and data extraction was carried out using a standardized web form. Two reviewers independently extracted data, and discrepancies were resolved by a third reviewer. The findings were presented using descriptive statistics, and recommendations for editorial teams were formulated. The protocol is registered with the Open Science Framework Registries (osf. io/bym8d).ResultsOne‐third of the journals lack tailored guidance for systematic reviews, as demonstrated by the absence of references to conducting or reporting guidelines, protocol registration, data sharing, and the involvement of an information specialist. Half of the author instructions do not include a dedicated section on systematic reviews, hampering the findability of tailored information. The involvement of information specialists is seldom acknowledged. Ultimately, the absence of an update date in most author instructions raises concerns about the incorporation of the most recent developments and tools for systematic reviews.ConclusionJournals that make substantial contributions to synthesizing evidence in biomedicine and health are missing an opportunity to provide clear guidance within their author instructions regarding the conducting and reporting of reliable systematic reviews. This not only fails to inform future authors but also potentially compromises the quality of this frequently published research type. Furthermore, there is a need for greater recognition of the added value of information specialists to the systematic review and publishing processes. This article provides recommendations drawn from the study's observations, aiming to help editorial teams enhance author instructions and, consequently, potentially assisting systematic reviewers in improving the quality of their reviews.

Authorship of Publications Supported by NCI-Funded Grants Involving Low- and Middle-Income Countries

Scientific publication is an important tool for knowledge dissemination and career advancement, but authors affiliated with institutions in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) are historically underrepresented on publications. To assess the country income level distribution of author affiliations for publications resulting from National Cancer Institute (NCI)-supported extramural grants between 2015 and 2019, with international collaborating institutions exclusively in 1 or more LMICs. This cross-sectional study assessed authorship on publications resulting from NCI-funded grants between October 1, 2015, and September 30, 2019. Grants with collaborators in LMICs were identified in the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Query/View/Report and linked to publications using Dimensions for NIH, published between 2011 and 2020. Statistical analysis was performed from May 2021 to July 2022. Author institutional affiliation was used to classify author country and related income level as defined by the World Bank. Relative citation ratio and Altmetric data from Dimensions for NIH were used to compare citation impact measures using the Wilcoxon rank sum test. In this cross-sectional study, 159 grants were awarded to US institutions with collaborators in LMICs, and 5 grants were awarded directly to foreign institutions. These 164 grants resulted in 2428 publications, of which 1242 (51%) did not include any authors affiliated with an institution in an LMIC. In addition, 1884 (78%) and 2009 (83%) publications had a first or last author, respectively, affiliated with a high-income country (HIC). Publications with HIC-affiliated last authors also demonstrated greater citation impact compared with publications with LMIC-affiliated last authors as measured by relative citation ratios and Altmetric Attention Scores; publications with HIC-affiliated first authors also had higher Altmetric Attention Scores. This cross-sectional study suggests that LMIC-affiliated authors were underrepresented on publications resulting from NCI-funded grants involving LMICs. It is critical to promote equitable scientific participation by LMIC institutions in cancer research, including through current and planned programs led by the NCI.

The Top 100 Most Impactful Articles on the Achilles Tendon According to Altmetric Attention Score and Number of Citations.

Achilles tendon injuries often generate substantial discussion in the mainstream media. The Altmetric Attention Score (AAS) measures the online dialogue pertaining to Achilles tendon research that occurs outside scientific journals, which traditional citation-based metrics fail to capture. To characterize the top 100 most-cited Achilles tendon articles and compare them with the 100 Achilles tendon articles with the highest AAS. A secondary goal was to gain an improved understanding of the online dissemination and interpretation of Achilles tendon research through this comparison. Cross-sectional study. The Web of Science Clarivate database was queried to isolate the 100 most-cited Achilles tendon articles, and the Altmetric database was queried to identify the Achilles tendon articles with the top 100 AAS values. Data elements were extracted for each article including study type, study topic, and geographic origin. The Web of Science Clarivate database search yielded 10,890 articles published between 1970 and 2021. The 100 most-cited articles were published in 35 journals, with the American Journal of Sports Medicine being the most prevalent. The mean (±SD) number of citations was 214.5 ± 86.47. The most prevalent study type was laboratory (28.0%). The most prevalent study topic was treatment (41.0%). Of these articles, 72.0% were European. The Altmetric database search yielded 3810 articles published between 1957 and 2021. The AAS of the top 100 articles ranged from 37 to 476 with a mean of 98.17 ± 85.53. The selected articles were published in 39 journals, with the British Journal of Sports Medicine being the most prevalent. The most prevalent study type was randomized controlled trial (25.0%). The most common study topic was treatment (40.0%). Of these articles, 46.0% were European. Our findings suggest that, although the scientific community remains committed to high-impact journals with articles backed by high citation numbers, there is an increasing opportunity to consume Achilles tendon literature through social media.

The bibliometric and altmetric analysis of chronic traumatic encephalopathy research: how great is the impact?

The study of chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE) has received great attention from academia and the general public. This study aims to analyze the research productivity on CTE and investigate the most discussed articles in academia and the general public by conducting bibliometric and altmetric analyses. Data of articles were obtained from the Web of Science Core Databases and Altmetric Explore. VOSviewer and CiteSpace software were used to analyze and visualize the articles. The correlation between Altmetric attention scores (AAS) and citation counts were assessed by Spearman correlation coefficient. 788 publications of CTE were eventually gathered and analyzed, and 100 articles with highest citation counts (Top-cited) and 100 articles with highest AASs (Top-AAS) were then identified. The keywords density map showed both the general public and the scientists were particularly interested in the risk factors and pathology of CTE, and scientists were interested in the causes and characteristics of neurodegenerative diseases while the public became increasingly concerned about the detection and prevention of CTE. By examining the shared characteristics of the 44 articles (High-High articles) that overlapped between Top-cited and Top-AAS articles, we identified certain traits that may potentially contribute to their high citation rates and high AASs. Besides, significant positive correlations with varied strength between AAS and citation were observed in the 788 articles, Top-cited, Top-AAS and High-High datasets. This study is the first to link bibliometric and altmetric analyses for CTE publications, which may provide deeper understanding of the attention of the scientists and the general public pay to the study of CTE, and offer some guidance and inspiration for future CTE in the selection of research topics and directions.

The most influential articles on stem cells in intervertebral disc degeneration

BackgroundStem cell-related studies have been increasingly conducted to facilitate the regeneration of degenerative discs. However, analyses of high-impact articles focused on this topic are rare. This study aimed to determine and summarize the most-cited studies examining stem cells in the context of intervertebral disc degeneration (IDD).MethodsWe searched the Web of Science (WoS) database for stem cell-related articles in IDD, and the 50 highest-cited papers were summarized. A correlation analysis was conducted to determine the relationship among WoS citations, Altmetric Attention Score (AAS), and Dimensions.ResultsThe number of citations of the top 50 manuscripts ranged from 92 to 370. The top three countries were the United States (14), China (10), and Japan (9). Spine (12) was the most prevalent journal, and this was followed by Biomaterials (6). Bone marrow-derived stem cells were the most common subject (38), and they were followed by nucleus pulposus-derived stem cells (4) and annulus fibrosus-derived stem cells (4). Humans were the most studied species (31), and the next most studied were rabbits (9) and rats (7). There was a very high correlation between WoS and Dimension citations (p < 0.001, r = 0.937).ConclusionsFor the first time, the highest impact articles examining stem cells in the context of IDD were assessed together. The current study provides a deepened understanding of historical studies focused on stem cells in IDD and is beneficial for future studies in this field.

Systemic sclerosis associated respiratory involvement: Scopus-based analysis of articles in 2013-2022.

Systemic sclerosis (SSc), a complex autoimmune disorder, manifests as a convergence of rheumatologic, dermatologic, and pulmonary challenges. Among the severe complications contributing to morbidity and mortality are SSc Associated Interstitial Lung Disease (SSc-ILD) and pulmonary hypertension. Over the past decade, research on pulmonary involvement in SSc has intensified, leading to a heightened understanding of its pathogenesis, diagnostic methods, and therapeutic strategies. This study aims to provide a data-driven overview of the current state of systemic sclerosis research, identifying emerging trends and fostering informed decisions regarding resource allocation and research priorities. A literature search was conducted in the Scopus database, using MESH keywords such as "systemic sclerosis" AND "lungs" OR "pulmonary hypertension" OR "interstitial lung disease". After applying exclusion criteria, a thorough analysis was performed, considering factors such as document category, authorship, journal source, citation frequency, country of publication, language, and keywords. The bibliometric analysis utilized Scopus as the preferred database, leveraging its extensive coverage, user-friendly interface, and commitment to data accuracy. Visual networks were constructed using VOSviewer software to map the relationships between keywords, countries, and authors. Altmetric Attention Scores (AAS) were employed to assess the social impact of articles. The analysis revealed a total of 2538 scholarly items, with 55.7% identified as open access. The USA (n = 532), Italy (n = 458), France (n = 304), Japan (n = 271), and the UK (n = 236) emerged as primary contributors, with English being the predominant language. A notable upward tendency in annual publication and citation scores indicated sustained interest and relevance in SSc-ILD research. The top journals, including Rheumatology United Kingdom, Clinical and Experimental Rheumatology, Clinical Rheumatology, Arthritis and Rheumatology, and Journal of Rheumatology, played a pivotal role in scholarly output. Original Articles (n = 1795; 70.7%) constituted the majority of publications, followed by Reviews, Letters, Notes, and Editorials. The analysis of publication impact within different scholarly formats revealed varying citation patterns, with Original Articles and Reviews leading in influence. The identification of influential research hubs and key contributors provided insights into collaborative efforts and geographic distribution. A strong correlation (rho = 0.612, p < 0.001) was observed between the quantity of Mendeley readers and the citations received by scholarly articles. This bibliometric analysis offers a comprehensive overview of SSc-ILD research, highlighting its dynamic and interdisciplinary nature. The surge in publications, citation scores, and the identification of key contributors underscore the continued relevance and impact of this field. The nuanced relationships between social attention and scientific recognition, as revealed by Mendeley readership and AAS, contribute to a deeper understanding of the multifaceted nature of scholarly impact.