Average Journal Impact Factor Research Articles

Study Characteristics and Impact of Pediatric Orthopaedic Society of North America Annual Meeting's "Best Papers" From 2009 to 2019.

Award-winning abstracts are selected every year at the Pediatric Orthopaedic Society of North America (POSNA) annual meeting as "best paper" or poster. It is unknown how many achieve publication in peer-reviewed journals and the impact they have. We sought to determine the characteristics, including the level of evidence (LoE), publication rates, and the impact of award-winning abstracts on pediatric orthopaedic surgery practice from 2009 to 2019. Award-winning abstracts or "best papers" from 2009 to 2019 were retrospectively reviewed from the POSNA website from abstract publication to manuscript publication. A search across Pubmed was used to match abstracts to their publications by comparing author names, titles, study design and methodology, results, and conclusions. Area of focus, abstract authors, institutions, publication status, LoE, time to publication, authors of publication, journals of publication, and the journal's latest Hirsch Index and impact factor were recorded. There have been 54 "best papers" at the POSNA annual meeting from 2009 to 2019. Of those, 39 have been published across 17 different journals for a publication rate of 72%. The average time from abstract presentation to publication was 21.2 months with a range of 0 to 121 months. Of the published award-winning abstracts, 64% (25) were published within 2 years, 87% (34) within 3 years, and 95% (37) within 4 years. Out of the published abstracts, 26% (10) were in the Journal of Pediatric Orthopaedics , 23% (9) were in the Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery , and 10% (4) were in the Journal of Child Orthopaedics . The median number of abstract authors was 4 and increased to a median of 6 authors once published. Most award-winning abstracts had a LoE of 3. The average journal impact factor for all publications was 4; the average Hirsch Index for the corresponding author was 29.9, and the average number of citations for a publication was 41 with a range of 0 to 270. The majority of the "best papers" presented at POSNA annual meetings from 2009 to 2019 were published in peer-reviewed journals within 2 years of presentation, with approximately half being published in the Journal of Pediatric Orthopaedics or Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery . The publication rate of "best papers" at the POSNA annual meeting was found to be higher than rates reported for abstracts presented at the annual meetings of POSNA, American Society for Surgery of the Hand and European Pediatric Orthopaedic Society, but similar to the rates observed for American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons, American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, and Orthopaedic Trauma Association. Most of the selected "best papers" at the POSNA annual meeting are published and have a substantial impact on pediatric orthopaedic surgery practice. Level IV.

The 50 Most Cited Papers on Rugby since 2000 Reveal a Focus Primarily on Strength and Conditioning in Elite Male Players.

We sought to conduct a bibliometric analysis and review of the most cited publications relating to rugby since 2000 in order to identify topics of interest and those that warrant further investigations. Clarivate Web of Science database was used to perform a literature search using the search term "rugby." The top 200 papers by citation count were extracted and reviewed for the inclusion criteria: all subjects were rugby players. The top 50 manuscripts were included for analysis of author, publication year, country of lead authors, institution, journal name and impact factor, topic, participant sex, and level of rugby. The total number of citations was 9,071 (average of 181.4 citations/article), with an average journal impact factor of 7.21; the top article was cited 407 times at the time of analysis. The most frequent publication was the Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research (26%), followed by the British Journal of Sports Medicine (20%) and the Journal of Sports Sciences (18%). Forty-eight (96%) of the manuscripts contained only male subjects, with 1 manuscript including females only and 1 manuscript containing mixed sexes. Thirty-three (66%) of the manuscripts focused on professional rugby players, with the next highest player group being mixed levels (10%). Twenty-eight (56%) concentrated on topics regarding strength and conditioning, 11 (22%) on injury, and 4 (8%) on physiology. Despite rugby being one of the most injurious sports and community players representing the largest component of the player pool, most of the top-cited rugby articles are cohort studies of professional male athletes focused on performance and strength and conditioning, noting the bias in research towards socially relevant topics that may not impact the majority of stakeholders and long-term health of rugby athletes. These findings highlight the need for further research among women and community athletes and on topics in injury prevention.

Bibliometric and social network analysis of a Clinical and Translational Resource awardee: An Oklahoma experience 2014-2021.

Social Network Analysis is a method of analyzing coauthorship networks or relationships through graph theory. Institutional Development Award (IDeA) Networks for Clinical and Translational Research (IDeA-CTR) was designed to expand the capability for clinical and translational research to enhance National Institutes of Health funding. All publications from a cohort of clinical and translational scientists in Oklahoma were collected through a PubMed search for 2014 through 2021 in October 2022. For this study's bibliometric portion, we pulled the citations from iCite in November of 2022. There were 2,391 articles published in 1,019 journals. The number of papers published by year increased from 56 in 2014 to 448 in 2021. The network had an average of 6.4 authors per paper, with this increasing by year from 5.3 in 2014 to 6.9 in 2021. The average journal impact factor for the overall network was 7.19, with a range from 0.08 to 202.73. The Oklahoma Shared Clinical and Translational Resources (OSCTR) network is a small world network with relatively weak ties. This study provides an overview of coauthorship in an IDeA-CTR collaboration. We show the growth and structure of coauthorship in OSCTR, highlighting the importance of understanding and fostering collaboration within research networks.

The evolution of Journal Impact Factors and related scientific output in Soil Science (1997–2022)

The Journal Impact Factor (JIF), calculated as the number of citations received by an indexed journal in a specific year, divided by the number of citable items (articles) published in the previous two years, is the most used bibliometric index across multiple scientific disciplines. There is a general perception about the growth in JIFs and scientific output (number of journals, authors, articles and citations) across most disciplines during the last decades, but the actual numbers are not widely known. Here, we assessed the evolution of JIFs, and data used in their calculation, during a 26-yrs interval in Soil Science, either as averages, or as actual data for some selected journals. Data for the area of Agronomy were also compiled, due to its affinity to Soil Science, as a meaningful comparison. Between 1997 and 2022, the number of indexed Soil Science journals grew from 24 to 45 (ca. 87%), whereas the number of articles and citations increased, respectively, from 2,158 to 6,346 (+194%) and 41,890 to 395,115 (+843%). In consequence, the average JIF for Soil Science increased from 0.788 to 3.578 (+354%). Such growth was higher than for Agronomy, which varied from 0.724 to 1.999 (+176%) in the same period, despite this area presenting a much larger output in number of journals, articles and citations. Some of the highest JIF growth rates in Soil Science occurred for traditional journals published by commercial scientific publishers, whereas non-profit journals maintained by scientific societies presented a much lower but still relevant growth rate. Finally, even when the highest JIFs were not ascribed to traditional Soil Science journals, their bibliometric footprint – understood as a combination of the number of articles published and the total number of cites – were clearly more indicative of relevance and leadership in the discipline than the JIF itself.

Evaluating the Outcomes and Trainee Performance of a Canadian Medical Imaging Clinician Investigator Program.

Purpose: To measure the research productivity of trainees from the University of Toronto's Medical Imaging Clinician Investigator Program (MI-CIP) and comparing it with the research productivity of trainees from MI-non-CIP and General Surgery (GSx) Clinician Investigator Program. Methods: We identified residents who completed an MI-CIP, MI-non-CIP and GSx-CIP from 2006-2016. In each group of trainees, we assessed 3 research productivity outcomes with non-parametric tests before residency and at 7years post-CIP completion/post-graduation. Research productivity outcomes include the number of total publications, the number of first-author publications, and the publication's average journal impact factor (IF). Results: We identified 11 MI-CIP trainees (male/female: 9 [82%]/2 [18%]), 74 MI-non-CIP trainees (46 [62%]/28 [38%]) and 41 GSx-CIP trainees (23 [56%]/18 [44%]). MI-CIP trainees had statistically significant higher research productivity than MI-non-CIP in all measured outcomes. The median (interquartile range, IQR) number of total publications of MI-CIP vs MI-non-CIP trainees was 5.0 (8.0) vs 1.0 (2.0) before residency and 6.0 (10.0) vs .0 (2.0) at 7years post-CIP completion/post-graduation. The median (IQR) first-author publications of MI-CIP vs MI-non-CIP trainees was 2.0 (3.0) vs .0 (1.0) before residency and 2.0 (4.0) vs (.0) (1.0) at 7years post-CIP completion/post-graduation. The median (IQR) average journal IF of MI-CIP vs MI-non-CIP trainees was 3.2 (2.0) vs .3 (2.4) before residency and 3.9 (3.2) vs .0 (2.6) at 7years post-CIP completion/post-graduation. Between MI-CIP and GSx-CIP trainees, there were no significant differences in research productivity in all measured outcomes. Conclusion: MI-CIP trainees actively conducted research after graduation. These trainees demonstrated early research engagement before residency. The similar research productivity of MI-CIP vs GSx-CIP trainees shows initial success of MI-CIP trainees.

Comparison of academic productivity and funding support between United States and international medical graduate vascular surgeons

ObjectiveThe demand for vascular surgeons in the United States stands to far exceed the current supply. International medical graduates (IMGs) are not only vital to meeting the country’s growing health care needs, but also help to advance clinical research and medical education in the field of vascular surgery. Nearly 17% of practicing vascular surgeons in the United States are IMGs, yet little is known about their relative contributions to academic vascular surgery. Our study aims to compare the academic profiles and funding support for IMG vascular surgeons to that of their US medical graduate (USMG) counterparts. MethodsA cross-sectional study was performed on all IMG and USMG academic vascular surgeons practicing in US-based hospitals with vascular surgery residency and/or fellowship programs. In addition to the baseline surgeon characteristics, academic profiles and research output were also collected. Furthermore, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) research reporting tool and open payments database were queried for any funding/payments to surgeons in both groups. Matching for year of vascular surgery training program graduation was performed where appropriate. ResultsA total of 908 academic vascular surgeons were included; 759 (83.6%) were USMGs and 149 (16.4%) were IMGs. The median year of graduation was comparable between the two groups, but USMGs had a significantly higher proportion of female surgeons (23.6% vs 10.7%; P = .0003). There were no significant differences in the academic profiles and leadership positions between the two groups. Although research productivity is similar between the two groups, IMG surgeons were more likely to have first or senior-authorship papers (47.1% vs 37.5%; P < .001). Additionally, faculty departments chaired/cheifed by a USMG were less likely to be staffed with IMG vascular surgeons (1.6 surgeons vs 3.1 surgeons; P < .0001). Following grant analysis, USMG surgeons received more NIH R01 grants (5.7% vs 1.3%; P = .026). R01-funded surgeons had significantly greater research output by number of publications (121.0 vs 47.5), citations (3872 vs 938), H-index (32.0 vs 17.5), and average journal impact factor (>10: 86.7% vs 33.3%) (all P < .001). ConclusionsThe efforts to further diversify vascular surgery are vital to better serving an increasingly diverse US population, amid growing disparities in health care. Although IMGs account for a minority of academic vascular surgeons, and contribute significantly to their published research, they had less NIH R01 funding, warranting further investigation.

Impact Assessment of Sports Medicine Studies on Knowledge Production and Development

In order to justify the investments made in research in the field of sports medicine, the outcomes and impacts of these investments should be assessed. The purpose of this study was to investigate the status and impact of sports medicine studies on the production and development of knowledge. In this descriptive study bibliometric and scientometric methods were used on 1145 scientific productions of sports medicine indexed in the Web of Science database. Data were analyzed through Excel Software, and cooperation maps were drawn using VOSviewer Software. According to the findings, the ratio of citations to the articles on the scientific productions of sports medicine was 23.17, which is higher than the clinical medicine area (6.8). The ratio of citations to the authors was 5.46% and 52 articles (4.54%) of the articles appeared without citations. The average impact factor of journals publishing papers was 3.9. Most of the articles were published with the collaboration of five authors. The results of the present study, based on a selected model and a combination of indicators of the UK’s and Canadian Capital Return frameworks (from the production and development dimension), generally highlighted the validity and effectiveness of all indicators, including activity, quality, and development. The results revealed the most significant impact of the number and quality of each of the indicators in sports medicine in this area.

Blockbuster effect of COVID-19 on the impact factor of infectious disease journals

Blockbuster effect of COVID-19 on the impact factor of infectious disease journals

Uses of the Journal Impact Factor in national journal rankings in China and Europe

AbstractThis paper investigates different uses of the Journal Impact Factor (JIF) in national journal rankings and discusses the merits of supplementing metrics with expert assessment. Our focus is national journal rankings used as evidence to support decisions about the distribution of institutional funding or career advancement. The seven countries under comparison are China, Denmark, Finland, Italy, Norway, Poland, and Turkey—and the region of Flanders in Belgium. With the exception of Italy, top‐tier journals used in national rankings include those classified at the highest level, or according to tier, or points implemented. A total of 3,565 (75.8%) out of 4,701 unique top‐tier journals were identified as having a JIF, with 55.7% belonging to the first Journal Impact Factor quartile. Journal rankings in China, Flanders, Poland, and Turkey classify journals with a JIF as being top‐tier, but only when they are in the first quartile of the Average Journal Impact Factor Percentile. Journal rankings that result from expert assessment in Denmark, Finland, and Norway regularly classify journals as top‐tier outside the first quartile, particularly in the social sciences and humanities. We conclude that experts, when tasked with metric‐informed journal rankings, take into account quality dimensions that are not covered by JIFs.

Factors, components and dynamics: investigation of journal self-citation and citation by equal opportunity model

The effectivity of journal impact factor (JIF) is questioned in evaluating academic players. Coercive self-citation was widely criticized and Clarivate annually suppressed journals with high journal self-citation (JSC) rates. Recently, some journals significantly increased their articles but their JIFs and JSC rates were diversified which lacks reasonable explanations. Here, we revealed the complexities of the dynamical interactions among different influence factors and different components of journal citation. Journal citation frequencies have strong correlations with JSC rates regarding citable items, significant correlations with numbers of journals' articles and negative significant correlations with JSC rates regarding total citations. Journal citation consists of JSC, intradisciplinary non-JSC and interdisciplinary non-JSC. JSC has the quickest dynamic and interdisciplinary non-JSC has the slowest dynamic while most journals are more cited by interdisciplinary citations. Journal citation is initially decided by the number of citable items. Journal's share (citing articles) in related disciplines influence JSC and intradisciplinary non-JSC positively and negatively, respectively. Multiple citations promoted by the increase in articles, the skewness of the topic profile, preference-related self-citation and anomalous self-citation are of benefit to citation. The complex dynamical interactions result in increment effects of the number of articles acting on JIF, which is stronger for JSC and citable items. The increase in articles also promotes intradisciplinary non-JSC when the journal's shares in related disciplines are low. This process will be reversed after the journal's shares become high enough which may finally decrease its impact factor. It is quicker for the journal with a stronger intradisciplinary citation. The calculational results of the average JIFs of selected journals agree with the statistical results. In addition, we can explain the related situations of some journals. Finally, we suggested that the JSC rate in terms of citable items should be considered for judging the level of JSC.

Effectiveness of research grants funded by European Research Council and Polish National Science Centre

• WEIG - a new measure for efficiency of research grant is introduced. • Grants for young scientists are more efficient than for experienced researchers. • ERC and NSC preserved overall efficiency while increasing their budgets year by year. • Polish NSC grants are more efficient than European Research Council projects. • The source data and results are publicly available. We propose WEIG – Wroclaw Effectiveness Indicator for Grants . This new scientometric measure is an aggregated quality measure of scientific papers published with the grant support divided by its budget. Several WEIG variations have been considered with respect to journal quality indicators like Impact Factor (IF), Article Influence Score (AIS), and Average Journal Impact Factor Percentile (IF%). Projects from two public agencies were analysed utilising the WEIG measures: European Research Council (ERC) and National Science Centre, Poland (NSC). The studies revealed that NSC grants are overall more effective than ERC ones, constantly 2–3 times more for Physical Sciences and Engineering (PE). There are four NSC panels distinctively more efficient than their counterparts in ERC: Mathematics (PE1), Fundamental Constituents of Matter (PE2), Computer Science and Informatics (PE6) and Universe Sciences (PE9). The most efficient NSC funding schemes are Etiuda, Preludium, and Harmonia. The higher average effectiveness of programmes aimed at young scientists has been observed: the ERC Starting Grants have greater effectiveness than Advanced Grants. Both agencies manage to keep overall efficiency regardless of increasing their budget over the years. Limitations of the proposed approach to assess project effectiveness, especially for Social Sciences and Humanities, are also discussed.

Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic on Biomedical Publications and Their Citation Frequency.

BackgroundThe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has resulted in enormous related publications. However, the citation frequency of these documents and their influence on the journal impact factor (JIF) are not well examined. We aimed to evaluate the impact of COVID-19 on biomedical research publications and their citation frequency.MethodsWe searched publications on biomedical research in the Web of Science using the search terms “COVID-19,” “SARS-Cov-2,” “2019 corona*,” “corona virus disease 2019,” “coronavirus disease 2019,” “novel coronavirus infection” and “2019-ncov.” The top 200 journals were defined as those with a higher number of COVID-19 publications than other journals in 2020. The COVID-19 impact ratio was calculated as the ratio of the average number of citations per item in 2021 to the JIF for 2020.ResultsThe average number of citations for the top 200 journals in 2021, per item published in 2020, was 25.7 (range, 0–270). The average COVID-19 impact ratio was 3.84 (range, 0.26–16.58) for 197 journals that recorded the JIF for 2020. The average JIF ratio for the top 197 journals including the JIFs for 2020 and 2021 was 1.77 (range, 0.68–8.89). The COVID-19 impact ratio significantly correlated with the JIF ratio (r = 0.403, P = 0.010). Twenty-five Korean journals with a COVID-19 impact ratio > 1.5 demonstrated a higher JIF ratio (1.31 ± 0.39 vs. 1.01 ± 0.18, P < 0.001) than 33 Korean journals with a lower COVID-19 impact ratio.ConclusionCOVID-19 pandemic infection has significantly impacted the trends in biomedical research and the citation of related publications.

Characteristics and Research Techniques Associated with the Journal Impact Factor and Other Key Metrics in Pharmacology Journals

In the present age, there is intense pressure on researchers to publish their research in ‘high-impact factor’ journals. It would be interesting to understand the trend of research publications in the field of pharmacology by exploring the characteristics of research articles, including research techniques, in relation to the journal’s key bibliometrics, particularly journal impact factor (JIF), the seemingly most mentioned metric. This study aimed to determine the characteristics and research techniques in relation to research articles in pharmacology journals with higher or lower JIF values. A cross-sectional study was conducted on primary research journals under the ‘Pharmacology and Pharmacy’ category. Analysis of 768 original research articles across 32 journals (with an average JIF of 2.565 ± 0.887) demonstrated that research studies involving molecular techniques, in vivo experiments on animals, and bioinformatics and computational modeling were significantly associated with a higher JIF value of the journal in which such contributions were published. Our analysis suggests that research studies involving such techniques/approaches are more likely to be published in higher-ranked pharmacology journals.

Assessing the publication output in the field of forensic science and legal medicine using Web of Science database from 2011 to 2020

The aim of this study was threefold. First, it analyzed the characteristics of the publication outputs for the Legal Medicine (LM) category using the Web of Science (WoS) database during 2011–2020. Second, it discussed the distribution of the papers for the 25 most productive countries/regions in terms of quality and quantity, such as the h-index and GDP per capita. Finally, it investigated the trend and temporal stability of the journal impact factor (JIF) and determined the percentage of the journal self-citations. The findings suggested that the number of papers, the average number of pages of the papers, the average number of cited references in the papers, the average number of authors per paper, the percentage of open access papers, as well as international and domestic collaboration tended to increase regularly. However, the productivity was limited when compared to the whole WoS database, since there was no significant change in the number of the journals. The countries/regions with the highest number of publications were not those that made the most impact in terms of the widespread impact of the publications. The level of international cooperation and the funding for the research had dramatic impact on the visibility of papers. The average JIF has increased significantly while the journal self-citation rates have decreased in a similar way. The journals have had very stable (have not fluctuated) impact factors over time. During the period studied, the journals with the higher impact factors (Q1, Q2) published many more papers than journals with the lower impact factors (Q3, Q4).

Publication Rates of Abstracts Presented at Pediatric Orthopaedic Society of North America Meetings Between 2013 and 2016.

Academic conferences such as the annual Pediatric Orthopaedic Society of North America (POSNA) meeting provide opportunities to present up-to-date scientific work that can influence clinical decision making. This study reviewed 4 years of abstracts presented at POSNA to assess trends in poster and podium presentation publication rates and associated metrics and the impact of academic presentations on the pediatric orthopaedic literature. All abstracts presented at POSNA annual meetings from 2013 to 2016 were analyzed for presentation type, subspeciality, level of evidence, study design, peer-reviewed publication within 4 years of presentation, 1-year publication rates, journal impact factors, number of authors, and citations of the final publication. χ2, analysis of variance, and t tests were conducted to measure independence of variables. Statistical significance was indicated at P<0.05. A total of 1135 abstracts were included with 676 published in peer-reviewed journals by August 2020 and 38 excluded because of publication before presentation. The number of accepted abstracts increased yearly. Total of 58.2% of POSNA abstracts were published and 42.5% had the same first author on the final manuscript. Average journal impact factor was 2.60±1.30 with a mean 14.3±16.0 citations. Podium presentations were significantly more likely to be published than poster presentations (63.1% vs. 51.2%, P<0.001) and in higher-impact factor journals. Level I evidence abstracts were published in journals with an average 1.663 higher impact factor than level V evidence abstracts, with no significant difference between overall publication rate and study type (P=0.69) or level of evidence (P=0.95) for podium presentations. The Journal of Pediatric Orthopaedics accepted the most abstracts, 38.4% overall, with 64.1% of acceptances resulting from podium presentations and no difference in time to publication based on subspecialty. The overall publication rate for POSNA abstracts has increased 8.7% from prior analysis. Podium presentations are more likely than poster presentations to be published, overall and in higher-impact journals, and are cited more frequently. Level IV-descriptive retrospective epidemiological study.

A Historical Review and Analysis of Impact Factors Across School Psychology Journals from 1977 to 2019

School psychology journals yield hundreds of articles each year. As these journals are often evaluated based on the impact factors they produce, the aim of this study was to provide a historically complete record of the five impact factor values for the generalist school psychology journals that yield them. This study identified impact factors beginning in 1977, 20 years earlier than previously reported, and ending in 2019. Across all years and journals, the average Journal Impact Factor (JIF) was about 1.0, the average Immediacy Index was less than 0.4, the average 5-year Impact Factor was about 2.3, the average original CiteScore was 1.8, and the average new CiteScore was about 3.0. Increases in values were evident across time, and the highest recorded values across journals are held by the Journal of School Psychology (for the JIF, 5-year Impact Factor, and both CiteScore metrics) and School Psychology Review (for the Immediacy Index). Most impact factors, with the exception of the Immediacy Index, were moderately to highly correlated. The new CiteScore values were always the highest, and Immediacy Index values were always the lowest. School psychology has added journals to the list of those indexed by major databases, and these journals have increased their impact over time.

Analysis of the journal impact factor and related bibliometric indicators in education and educational research category

This study analyzes the journal impact factor and related bibliometric indicators in Education and Educational Research (E&amp;ER) category, highlighting the main differences among journal quartiles, using Web of Science (Social Sciences Citation Index, SSCI) as the data source. High impact journals (Q1) publish only slightly more papers than expected, which is different to other areas. The papers published in Q1 journal have greater average citations and lower uncitedness rates compared to other quartiles, although the differences among quartiles are lower than in other areas. The impact factor is only weakly negative correlated (r=-0.184) with the journal self-citation but strongly correlated with the citedness of the median journal paper (r= 0.864). Although this strong correlation exists, the impact factor is still far to be the perfect indicator for expected citations of a paper due to the high skewness of the citations distribution. This skewness was moderately correlated with the citations received by the most cited paper of the journal (r= 0.649) and the number of papers published by the journal (r= 0.484), but no important differences by journal quartiles were observed. In the period 2013–2018, the average journal impact factor in the E&amp;ER has increased largely from 0.908 to 1.638, which is justified by the field growth but also by the increase in international collaboration and the share of papers published in open access. Despite their inherent limitations, the use of impact factors and related indicators is a starting point for introducing the use of bibliometric tools for objective and consistent assessment of researcher.

184. Pharmacist role in antimicrobial stewardship research: a 30-year experience

BackgroundAntimicrobial stewardship program (ASP) guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends co-leadership of both an infectious-diseases (ID) physician and ID-trained pharmacist. Pharmacists play a key role in the therapeutic management, administration, and implementation of ASP interventions. The purpose of this study, conducted on behalf of the Society of Infectious Diseases Pharmacists, was to describe the involvement of pharmacists in publications of ASP interventional research.MethodsA PubMed search was conducted to identify publications in the United States and Canada from 1990–2019 including “antimicrobial (or antibiotic) stewardship” or “antimicrobial (or antibiotic) intervention.” Articles were screened for active interventions with comparator arms. A random subset of 100 pharmacist-authored manuscripts were selected using a time-based clustering strategy to review specific study designs, populations, interventions, and endpoints.ResultsOf 1,426 publications, 340 met inclusion. Two-thirds (228/340) of all interventional antimicrobial stewardship studies included a pharmacist author. Pharmacists were lead authors in 59% (135/228) of studies that included a pharmacist. Among the randomized subset of pharmacist-authored manuscripts (n=100), the average impact factor of journals with pharmacists as the first author was 3.52, compared to 5.25 as middle authors. Most studies were inpatient focused (89%), included adults (81%), and conducted in a single-site setting (84%). Pediatrics, immunocompromised, post-acute care, and ambulatory populations comprised less than 10% of the publications. The most common interventions described were audit and feedback (55%), guideline implementation (49%), and education (40%). Endpoints included drug utilization (66%), clinical outcomes (57%), safety events (46%), cost (40%), and appropriateness of therapy (35%).Figure 1. ConclusionPharmacists have an integral role in publication and dissemination of ASP research. Opportunities exist in multi-site collaboration as well as research in ambulatory, pediatric, and immunocompromised groups. Future research endpoints should be practical, generalizable, and patient-centered.Disclosures Kelly E. Pillinger, PharmD, BCIDP, Pharmacy Times (Other Financial or Material Support, Speaker) Haley Appaneal, PharmD, Shionogi (Grant/Research Support)

Ten years of Arabian Journal of Chemistry: A bibliometric analysis

Since 2009, Scopus database is regularly covering the Arabian Journal of Chemistry (AJC). Ten years of continuous and successful journey motivated us to celebrate its contribution through the 1st comprehensive bibliometric study. For simplicity we will divide the abstract in four (4) parts. In part 1, the publications and citations details are provided. From 2009 to 2019, the total number of publications (TP) were found to be 2134, majorly comprising of research articles (n = 2009/94.14%) and reviews (n = 119/5.57%). The relative per year growth rate (%) from 2009, one way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and the doubling time was calculated. The details of impact per publication (IPP), SNIP, % self cit, citation per document, external cites per document, self-citations and total cites are also provided. In part 2, the lists of top ten (10) authors, institutions and countries are described with total number of publications (TP), h-index, total citations (TC), h-index without selfcitations (WSC) and total WSC. We also discussed and provided the list of top ten (10) most cited documents with TC, WSC and other Scopus metrics like Crossref citation indexes, Mendeley reader and field-weighted citation impact. In 3rd part, various other parameters were presented as visualization map, using VOSviewer. Precisely, the co-authorship, citations and co-citations patterns were described in detail. While, based on the co-words analysis of titles, abstract and authors keywords, we proposed the overall trend of publications in AJC. In part 4, we will specifically mention that in 2019, SCImago journal rank has declared AJC in Q1 (1st Quartile) state while Scopus has ranked it at 22nd (in 281 general chemical engineering journals) and 45th position (in 398 chemistry journals). From Web of Science (after 2009), we also retrieved the data about the journal AJC impact factor, 5 year impact factor, immediacy index and average journal impact factor percentile. The data confirms that AJC showed a continuous growth in the number of publications, citations, impact factor and ranking.

International co-authorship in Kazakhstan’s authors publications in medicine

Abstract Background Starting in 2013, the rating of medical universities Republic of Kazakhstan(RK) on scientific and innovational activities was introduced. Various characteristics that can influence on scientific performance were investigated. We assessed the impact of national and international collaboration on the scientific performance of medical universities of RK. Methods Publications metrics such as impact factor (IF) of journals, quartile of the journal and the number of citations of RK authors in the field of medicine published in 2013-2018 in Web of Science database were analyzed, according to the level of co-authorship. Results Authors affiliated with one organization (group 1) average impact factor of journals was (0.391(CI = ±0.04), in national co-authorship (group 2) (0.648(CI = ±0,04), in international co-authorship (group 3) 3.703 (CI = ±0.08) There is no statistically significant difference between IF of journals in which authors are from one organization or in national co-authorship, and there is a statistically significant difference between 3 (international co-authorship) and the 1 and 2 groups. Further, the journals were distributed depending on the quartile of the journal (Q1,Q2,Q3,Q4) and an analysis was carried out depending on citations and the level of co-authorship (one organization, national, international). The highest percentage of co-authorship was found in the journals of the first quartile (92.8%), in the journals Q2-80.1%,Q3-74%,Q4-28.6%). 95.9% of citations come from publications in international co-authorship. Conclusions International cooperation expands the possibilities of obtaining an interest in the study. Not the poor quality of research of local authors, but the difficulty of publishing the results of research in top journals for authors from developing countries without the support of international co-authors, also due to the 'Matthew effect' for some countries. It is recommended that medical researchers should expand international cooperation Key messages When presenting the results of their research, researchers should consider the impact and possibilities of international co-authorship to expand the audience. The difficulty of publishing research results in leading journals for authors from developing countries without the support of international co-authors.