Higher Citation Counts Research Articles

The Hundred Most Cited Publications in Orthopaedic HIP Research - A Bibliometric Analysis

The aim of this study was to identify the 100 most cited classics in the field of hip research analysing their qualities and characteristics. Hip joint related articles were identified and the hundred most cited selected for subsequent analysis of citation count, current citation rate, citation density (citations/article age), authorship, geographic origin institution, and level of evidence (LOE). In a total of 121 journals, 1,311,851 articles were published between 1945 and 2013, of which 1,287 (0.1%) possessed 250 citations or more. Total citations per article for the 100 most-cited ranged from 290 to 3,144 citations.The most common areas of research were degenerative disease and arthroplasty, followed by hip preserving surgery for which the leading authors were William H. Harris and Reinhold Ganz respectively. All articles were published in 8 journals and originated from 9 countries. 10 institutes published 48/100 of the articles. There was a significant negative correlation between both citation rate, citation density and article age. Total citation count was highest for articles published in the decade of 1970. Although 5% (2,103 articles) of hip literature comprised randomised trials (RCTs), only 1 (1%) of the citation classics was an RCT. The study provides intellectual milestones in hip research, reflecting on the qualities and characteristics of the research. Degenerative hip disease and arthroplasty research take up the greatest proportion of citations, followed by hip preserving research. LOE was low and there was only one RCT amongst the classics, emphasising that high LOE is not a prerequisite for a high citation count.

Most Common Publication Types in Radiology Journals:: What is the Level of Evidence?

This study aimed to assess the most common publication types in radiology journals, as well as temporal trends and association with citation frequency.PubMed was searched to extract all published articles having the following "Publication Type" indices: "validation studies," "meta-analysis," "clinical trial," "comparative study," "evaluation study," "guideline," "multicenter study," "randomized study," "review," "editorial," "case report," and "technical report." The percentage of articles within each category published within clinical radiology journals was computed. Normalized percentages for each category were also computed on an annual basis. Citation counts within a 2-year window following publication were obtained using Web of Science. Overall trends were assessed.Publication types with the highest fraction in radiology journals were technical reports, evaluation studies, and case reports (4.8% to 5.8%). Publication types with the lowest fraction in radiology journals were randomized trials, multicenter studies, and meta-analyses (0.8% to 1.5%). Case reports showed a significant decrease since 1999, with accelerating decline since 2007 (P = 0.002). Publication types with highest citation counts were meta-analyses, guidelines, and multicenter studies (8.1 ± 10.7 to 12.9 ± 5.1). Publication types with lowest citation counts were case reports, editorials, and technical reports (1.4 ± 2.4 to 2.9 ± 4.3). The representation in radiology journals and citation frequency of the publication types showed weak inverse correlation (r = -0.372).Radiology journals have historically had relatively greater representation of less frequently cited publication types. Various strategies, including methodological training, multidisciplinary collaboration, national support networks, as well as encouragement of higher level of evidence by funding agencies and radiology journals themselves, are warranted to improve the impact of radiological research.

Reflections of a Fulbright-Nehru Scholar: The need for physician action in India's child maltreatment challenge: Physicians should seed and support social change to address India's child maltreatment crisis

Fulbright Awards were initiated in 1946 and are designed to increase understanding between people of the United States and other countries through research, teaching, and/or practice. While hundreds of individuals have received such award, little is known about the impact of such engagement. The purpose of this study was to determine the extent and impact of a Fulbright Award by examining the primary publications emanating from research collaborations at one university. The paper presents global use of these primary works (n = 11) from 2012 to 2019 based on a bibliometric analysis of retrieved citations, as well as altmetric analyses. The primary referenced works included quantitative (n = 3), qualitative (n = 2), a review, and 5 discourse papers. Nine databases were searched to determine use of reference works. Analyses revealed that these primary sources were cited 42 times with lead authors most often from the South Africa or the United States. The main disciplines represented by first authors in these citing articles were nursing (n = 28, 66.6%), followed by midwifery (n = 11, 26.1%) and psychology/psychiatry (n = 8, 19%). Central keywords focused on healthcare systems, concept analysis, relationships, nursing/midwifery, and relationship centered. Citing articles were primarily quantitative (n = 15), qualitative (n = 11), reviews (n = 6), mixed methods (n = 1), and discourse papers which included concept analyses and policy papers n = 10). All papers demonstrated team science. Additional secondary analysis was conducted to identify the non-scientific use and potential impact of primary sources; three works demonstrated significant downstream utilization which correlated with those referenced citations with high citation counts. Determination of the extent to which scholarly works emanating from collaborative work by researchers impacted scientific and non-scientific sources provides powerful evidence of the value of a Fulbright Award. Additional qualitative research is needed to determine the less than obvious impact of presentations and non-scientific uses on Fulbright collaborations.

On a formula for the h-index

Abstract The h -index is a celebrated indicator widely used to assess the quality of researchers and organizations. Empirical studies support the fact that the h -index is well correlated with other simple bibliometric indicators, such as the total number of publications N and the total number of citations C . In this paper we introduce a new formula h ˜ w = h ˜ w ( N , C , c MAX ) , as a representative predictive formula that relates functionally h to these aggregate indicators, N , C and the highest citation count c MAX . The formula is based on the ‘specific’ assumption of geometrically distributed citations, but provides a good estimate of the h -index for the general case. To empirically evaluate the adequacy of the fit of the proposed formula h ˜ w , an empirical study with 131 datasets (13,347 papers; 288,972 citations) was carried out. The overall fit (defined as the capacity of h ˜ w to reproduce the true value of h , for each single scientist) was remarkably accurate. The predicted value was within one of the actual value h for more than 60% of the datasets. We found, in approximately three cases out of four, an absolute error less than or equal to 2, and an average absolute error of only 1.9, for the whole sample of datasets.

Publication Speed, Reporting Metrics, and Citation Impact of Cardiovascular Trials Supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.

BackgroundWe previously demonstrated that cardiovascular (CV) trials funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) were more likely to be published in a timely manner and receive high raw citation counts if they focused on clinical endpoints. We did not examine the metrics of trial reports, and our citation measures were limited by failure to account for topic-related citation behaviors.Methods and ResultsOf 244 CV trials completed between 2000 and 2011, we identified 184 whose main results were published by August 20, 2014. One investigator who was blinded to rapidity of publication and citation data read each publication and characterized it according to modified Delphi criteria. There were 46 trials (25%) that had Delphi scores of 8 or 9 (of a possible 9); these trials published faster (median time from trial completion to publication, 12.6 [interquartile range {IQR}, 6.7 to 23.3] vs. 21.8 [IQR, 12.1 to 34.9] months; P<0.01). They also had better normalized citation impact (median citation percentile for topic and date of publication, with 0 best and 100 worst, 1.92 [IQR, 0.64 to 7.83] vs. 8.41 [IQR, 1.80 to 24.75]; P=0.002). By random forest regression, we found that the 3 most important predictors of normalized citation percentile values were total costs, intention-to-treat analyses (as a modified Delphi quality measure), and focus on clinical (not surrogate) endpoints.ConclusionsNHLBI CV trials were more likely to publish results quickly and yield higher topic-normalized citation impact if they reported results according to well-defined metrics, along with focus on clinical endpoints.

Geometric journal impact factors correcting for individual highly cited articles

Journal impact factors (JIFs) are widely used and promoted but have important limitations. In particular, JIFs can be unduly influenced by individual highly cited articles and hence are inherently unstable. A logical way to reduce the impact of individual high citation counts is to use the geometric mean rather than the standard mean in JIF calculations. Based upon journal rankings 2004-2014 in 50 sub-categories within 5 broad categories, this study shows that journal rankings based on JIF variants tend to be more stable over time if the geometric mean is used rather than the standard mean. The same is true for JIF variants using Mendeley reader counts instead of citation counts. Thus, although the difference is not large, the geometric mean is recommended instead of the arithmetic mean for future JIF calculations. In addition, Mendeley readership-based JIF variants are as stable as those using Scopus citations, confirming the value of Mendeley readership as an academic impact indicator.

Erratum to: Proof over promise: towards a more inclusive ranking of Dutch academics in Economics &amp; Business

An unfortunate error occurred in the collection of ISI data for author Alfons Oude Lansink. This was caused by the fact that his articles in Science journals such as Poultry Science and Journal of Dairy Science were listed under a different author name format and hence were inadvertently excluded in his ISI article and citation count. Although this does not change the conclusions of our article, which are based on Google Scholar data, we offer our sincere apologies for our underreporting of this author’s ISI publication and citation record. In the results section, the paragraph that starts with ‘‘The high rank of Alfons Oude Lansink...’’ should read as ‘‘Alfons Oude Lansink (#8) published an even more impressive 53 articles between 2008 and 2012, many of which in journals with a high AIS, such as PLOS One, Biomass & Bioenergy and Phytopathology. However, although they deal with topics of high societal significance, none of these articles achieved high citation counts. As the articles were also normally co-authored with several co-authors, the CAY metric is fairly low.’’ In addition, Table 3 reported the wrong number of articles (80 instead of 111) and cites (622 instead of 841) for this author. The correct version of Table 3 is provided in this erratum.

Network-Driven Reputation in Online Scientific Communities

The ever-increasing quantity and complexity of scientific production have made it difficult for researchers to keep track of advances in their own fields. This, together with growing popularity of online scientific communities, calls for the development of effective information filtering tools. We propose here an algorithm which simultaneously computes reputation of users and fitness of papers in a bipartite network representing an online scientific community. Evaluation on artificially-generated data and real data from the Econophysics Forum is used to determine the method's best-performing variants. We show that when the input data is extended to a multilayer network including users, papers and authors and the algorithm is correspondingly modified, the resulting performance improves on multiple levels. In particular, top papers have higher citation count and top authors have higher h-index than top papers and top authors chosen by other algorithms. We finally show that our algorithm is robust against persistent authors (spammers) which makes the method readily applicable to the existing online scientific communities.

Validity of altmetrics data for measuring societal impact: A study using data from Altmetric and F1000Prime

Can altmetric data be validly used for the measurement of societal impact? The current study seeks to answer this question with a comprehensive dataset (about 100,000 records) from very disparate sources (F1000, Altmetric, and an in-house database based on Web of Science). In the F1000 peer review system, experts attach particular tags to scientific papers which indicate whether a paper could be of interest for science or rather for other segments of society. The results show that papers with the tag “good for teaching” do achieve higher altmetric counts than papers without this tag – if the quality of the papers is controlled. At the same time, a higher citation count is shown especially by papers with a tag that is specifically scientifically oriented (“new finding”). The findings indicate that papers tailored for a readership outside the area of research should lead to societal impact. If altmetric data is to be used for the measurement of societal impact, the question arises of its normalization. In bibliometrics, citations are normalized for the papers’ subject area and publication year. This study has taken a second analytic step involving a possible normalization of altmetric data. As the results show there are particular scientific topics which are of especial interest for a wide audience. Since these more or less interesting topics are not completely reflected in Thomson Reuters’ journal sets, a normalization of altmetric data should not be based on the level of subject categories, but on the level of topics.

Testing the strength of the normative approach in citation theory through relational bibliometrics: The case of italian sociology

In scientometrics, citer behavior is traditionally investigated using one of two main approaches. According to the normative point of view, the behavior of scientists is regulated by norms that make the detection of citation patterns useful for the interpretation of bibliometric measures. According to the constructivist perspective, citer behavior is influenced by other factors linked to the social and/or psychological sphere that do not allow any statistical inferences that are useful for the purposes of interpretation. An intermediate position supports normative theories in describing citer behavior with respect to high citation frequencies and constructivist theories with respect to low citation counts. In this paper, this idea was tested in a case study of the Italian sociology community. Italian sociology is characterized by an unusual organization into three “political” or “ideological” camps, and belonging to one camp can be considered a potentially strong constructivist reason to cite. An all‐author co‐citation analysis was performed to map the structure of the Italian sociology community and look for evidence of three camps. We did not expect to find evidence of this configuration in the co‐citation map. The map, in fact, included authors who obtained high citation counts that are supposedly produced by a normative‐oriented behavior. The results confirmed this hypothesis and showed that the clusters seemed to be divided according to topic and not by camp. Relevant scientific works were cited by the members of the entire community regardless of their membership in any particular camp.

Identifying Citation Classics in Fuzzy Decision Making Field Using the Concept of H-Classics

Citation classics identify those highly cited papers which are an important reference point in a research field. Identifying citation classics in a research field is one of the main approaches used to conduct a systematic evaluation of research performance. Highly cited articles are interesting due to the potential association between high citation counts and high quality research.The aim of this study is to identify and analyze the most frequently cited papers published into the Fuzzy Decision Making research field, using the H-Classics approach which is based in the well-known H-index. The Fuzzy Decision Making is represented by 70 highly citations classics which where published from 1981 to 2010. Furthermore, authors, affiliations, journals and the concept covered by those 70 highly cited documents are analyzed.We identify three countries that have contributed substantially to development of the Fuzzy Decision Making research field: Spain, Peoples Republic of China and USA. Regarding the journals, Fuzzy Sets and Systems, European Journal of Operation Research, IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems and International Journal of Intelligent Systems are the ones where the citations classics have been mainly published. Finally, the concepts covered by those citations classics are related with techniques and tools used in Fuzzy Sets theory and Fuzzy Decision Making research field, and terms related with Decision making theory and its developments.

Highly cited publications in pediatric neurosurgery: part 2

Citation counting can be used to evaluate the impact an article has made on its discipline. This study characterizes the most cited articles related to clinical pediatric neurosurgery as of July 2013. A list of search terms was computed using Thomson Reuters Web of Science® (WOS) to capture the 100 most cited articles in the overall literature and the top 50 articles from 2002 to 2012 related to clinical pediatric neurosurgery from non-dedicated pediatric neurosurgical journals. The following information was recorded for each article: number of authors, country of origin, citation count adjusted for number of years in print, topic, and level of evidence. The 100 most cited articles appeared in 44 journals. Publication dates ranged from 1986 to 2008; two were class 1 evidence, nine class 2, 26 class 3, and 52 class 4. Citations ranged from 90 to 321 (mean = 131); average time-adjusted citation count was 10. The 50 most cited articles from 2002 to 2012 appeared in 31 journals; four were class 2 evidence, 15 class 3, and 21 class 4. Citations ranged from 68 to 245 (mean = 103); average time-adjusted citation count was 13. Overall, papers from non-pediatric neurosurgical journals had higher citation counts and improved level of evidence grades compared to articles from pediatric neurosurgical periodicals. An original paper related to clinical pediatric neurosurgery in a non-pediatric neurosurgical journal having a total citation count of 100-150 or more and an average citation count of 10-15 per year or more can be considered a high-impact publication.

What makes an article citable?

To date, no research has been undertaken to examine what constitutes high citation counts. This study examined the quantifiable characteristics in publications and investigated their associations with citation per year. That is, this study empirically examined the relationships with length, authorship, and collaboration and citation counts in the 300 most cited publications in tourism and hospitality journals. The results reveal a negative relationship between the length of a title and citation per year.

Influences of return migration on international collaborative research networks: cases of Japanese scientists returning from the US

The emigration of scientists facilitates the formation of international networks. However, are ties in such networks maintained after the scientists return to their respective home countries? Using data from the Web of Science, this paper analyzes whether Japanese migrant scientists returning from the US maintain the collaborative research network ties that they formed during their stay in the US and, if so, what features of these ties contribute to maintaining these relationships. The geographical distance between the US and Japan can impede the transfer of knowledge that is transmitted most effectively through face-to-face interactions. However, social proximity may compensate for geographical distance. Accordingly, the ties that Japanese scientists have formed with other Japanese scientists living in the US are more likely to be maintained than the ties that they have formed with scientists of different ethnicities. Social proximity was also measured by past experiences in collaborative research. The ties to scientists with whom Japanese scientists collaborated more frequently or co-produced papers with higher citation counts are more likely to be maintained after the scientists return to Japan. When collaborative research of American and Japanese scientists is worthwhile, they obtain mutual benefits through a ‘give and take’ in which they compensate for one partner’s lack of knowledge by the other partner’s knowledge. In a research field with which the developmental gap between the US and Japan is great, ties are less likely to be maintained.

Articles with short titles describing the results are cited more often

OBJECTIVE:The aim of this study was to evaluate some features of article titles from open access journals and to assess the possible impact of these titles on predicting the number of article views and citations.METHODS:Research articles (n = 423, published in October 2008) from all Public Library of Science (PLoS) journals and from 12 Biomed Central (BMC) journals were evaluated. Publication metrics (views and citations) were analyzed in December 2011. The titles were classified according to their contents, namely methods-describing titles and results-describing titles. The number of title characters, title typology, the use of a question mark, reference to a specific geographical region, and the use of a colon or a hyphen separating different ideas within a sentence were analyzed to identify predictors of views and citations. A logistic regression model was used to identify independent title characteristics that could predict citation rates.RESULTS:Short-titled articles had higher viewing and citation rates than those with longer titles. Titles containing a question mark, containing a reference to a specific geographical region, and that used a colon or a hyphen were associated with a lower number of citations. Articles with results-describing titles were cited more often than those with methods-describing titles. After multivariate analysis, only a low number of characters and title typology remained as predictors of the number of citations.CONCLUSIONS:Some features of article titles can help predict the number of article views and citation counts. Short titles presenting results or conclusions were independently associated with higher citation counts. The findings presented here could be used by authors, reviewers, and editors to maximize the impact of articles in the scientific community.

A quantitative analysis of Arctic related articles in the humanities and social sciences appearing in the world core journals

To demonstrate the importance and the actual research situation of Antarctic studies in the humanities and social sciences, we collected data from the SSCI and A&HCI covering a period of over 100 years and focused on the number of articles published each year, major journals, types of document, authors and their countries publishing the most articles, collaboration, the major research subjects covered, and citations. Comparisons were also made with the Arctic studies to show some similarities and differences. The results suggest that the research in the fields of humanities and social sciences has been in the long-run developing without interruption over 100 years. With regard to the number of articles in high-capacity journals, Geographical Journal performs best, followed by the Petermanns Geographische Mitteilungen and Scottish Geographical Magazine. The documentation is rather scattered without a strong cohesion, while book review and article are the two most common types of document. There haven't many stable collaborated teams on Antarctic topics. Joyner, Savours, and Beck are the three authors having the highest number of publications. USA is the most active country while the most active research institute is University of Tasmania in Australia. The Antarctic expedition has been the main theme lasted for centuries. In addition, the research in the fields of humanities and social sciences has generated a lot of high-impact articles, among which the article entitled "Chemical concentrations of pollutant lead aerosols, terrestrial dusts and sea salts in Greenland and Antarctic snow strata" enjoys the highest citation counts.

Citability of Original Research and Reviews in Journals and Their Sponsored Supplements

BackgroundThe contents of pharmaceutical industry sponsored supplements to medical journals are perceived to be less credible than the contents of their parent journals. It is unknown if their contents are cited as often. The objective of this study was to quantify the citability of original research and reviews contained in supplements and compare it with that for the parent journal.Methodology/Principal FindingsThis was a cohort study of 446 articles published in the Journal of Clinical Psychiatry (JCP) and its supplements for calendar years 2000 and 2005. The total citation counts for each article up to October 5, 2009 were retrieved from the ISI Web of Science database. The main outcome measure was the number of citations received by an article since publication. Regular journal articles included 114 from calendar year 2000 and 190 from 2005. Articles from supplements included 90 from 2000 and 52 from 2005. The median citation counts for the 3 years post-publication were 10 (interquartile range [IQR], 4–20), 14 (IQR, 8–20), 13.5 (IQR, 8–23), and 13.5 (IQR, 8–20), for the 2000 parent journal, 2000 supplements, 2005 parent journal, and 2005 supplements, respectively. Citation counts were higher for the articles in the supplements than the parent journal for the cohorts from 2000 (p = .02), and no different for the year 2005 cohorts (p = .88). The 2005 parent journal cohort had higher citation counts than the 2000 cohort (p = .007), in contrast to the supplements where citation counts remained the same (p = .94).Conclusions/SignificanceArticles published in JCP supplements are robustly cited and thus can be influential in guiding clinical and research practice, as well as shaping critical thinking. Because they are printed under the sponsorship of commercial interests, they may be perceived as less than objective. A reasonable step to help improve this perception would be to ensure that supplements are peer-reviewed in the same way as regular articles in the parent journal.

Asthma Research Performance in Asia-Pacific: A Bibliometric Analysis by Searching PubMed Database

Background and Objective. Countries in the Asia-Pacific region have experienced an increase in the prevalence of asthma, and they have been actively involved in asthma research recently. This study aimed to analyze asthma research from Asia-Pacific in the last decade by bibliometric method. Method. Asthma articles from Asia-Pacific countries published between 1998 and 2007 were retrieved from PubMed by searching MeSH for “asthma.” Results. Most of published asthma articles in Asia-Pacific are from affluent countries in northeast Asia and Oceania. Australia and Japan have been the regional powerhouses since they contributed more than half of regional articles on asthma. Asthma publications from emerging economies in Asia such as South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Singapore, have dramatically increased in the last decade in terms of quantity and quality aspects and were considerable sources of basic and translational research in the region. Mainland China and India have significantly increased their research capacity as well, but quality needs to be improved. Asthma publications from New Zealand and Australia, countries with the highest asthma prevalence rates in the world, yielded highest citation counts per articles and were published in journals with high impact factor. Asthma research parameters per million population correlate well with gross domestic product per capita. Almost half (41%) of total articles were produced from only 25 institutions in the region and almost half of them (47%) were published in 20 journals. Conclusions. Asthma research in Asia-Pacific were mainly conducted in countries in Oceania and Northeast Asia and research performance strongly correlated with the nation's wealth. Interesting asthma research projects in the region were recommended.

The selection of high-impact health informatics literature: a comparison of results between the content expert and the expert searcher

The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) National Resource Center for Health Information Technology (NRC) created the Health IT Bibliography that contains peer-reviewed articles in eleven different health informatics categories. To create the bibliography, informatics experts identified what they considered the seminal articles in each category. Using the same eleven categories, an expert searcher (librarian) compiled a list of the "best" health informatics articles using information seeking and retrieval tools. The two sets of articles were then compared using high citation counts as a measure of value. The expert searcher set (8,230) contained more than 3 times the citations to chosen articles compared to the content expert set (2,382). Of 60 articles, 27% of those articles (n = 16) were included in both sets. The frequently cited journals were similar for both sets, and one-third of the same authors were cited in both sets. While citation counts and the timeliness of the articles differed in the two sets, the same authors and same journals were frequently present in both sets. A best practice for locating high-quality articles may be collaboration between expert searchers and content experts.

Hot Topics and Popular Papers in Evolutionary Psychology: Analyses of Title Words and Citation Counts in Evolution and Human Behavior, 1979 – 2008

What do evolutionary psychologists study, which are their most highly cited articles, and which variables predict high citation counts? These are important questions for any emerging science. To help answer these questions, we present new empirical research on publication trends in evolutionary psychology's flagship journal, Evolution and Human Behavior (and its predecessor, Ethology and Sociobiology), from its inception in 1979 to 2008. First, analyses of 8,631 title words published in these journals between 1979 and 2008 (808 articles) show an increasing interest in researching sex, sex differences, faces, and attractiveness. For example, during the Ethology and Sociobiology era (1979–1996), the most frequent title words were “evolutionary,” “human,” “behavior,” “reproductive,” “evolution,” “selection,” and “altruism,” whereas during the Evolution and Human Behavior era (1997–2008), they were “sex,” “attractiveness,” “differences,” “sexual,” “human,” “male,” and “facial.” Second, we reveal the 20 most-cited articles in these journals, which show the importance of research teams. Third, citation analyses for these journals between 1979 and 2002 (562 articles) suggest articles that cite more references are in turn cited more themselves ( r = .44, R2 = .19). Lastly, we summarize recent research that suggests evolutionary psychology is not only surviving, but also thriving, as a new interdisciplinary science.