High Impact Factor Journals Research Articles

Gender differences in animal cognition science.

Women's representation in science is increasing steadily, with some fields closing gender parity in terms of participation and scientific output. Animal cognition appears to fall into that category. Our current analysis of gender author balance (women versus men) in 600 animal cognition papers supported parity in many aspects, but also revealed some remaining disparities. Women animal cognition scientists often held first authorship positions (58% of the studies), received similar numbers of citations, and published in equally high impact factor journals as men. Women were still under represented in last-author position, which often reflects seniority status (37% of last authors were women). There were interesting results when we considered the gender of teams (of two or more authors): all-women author teams were the minority in our dataset and received on average fewer citations than all men or mixed author teams, regardless of the quality of the journal (as measured by the journal's impact factor). Women more often focussed on mammals, whereas men more often focussed on fish, both as first authors and as same-gender teams. Men, as first author or in men-only teams, restricted their research more often to organisms of a single sex, compared to women, as first author and as members of a team. Our study suggests that there are many indices of the significant contribution of both women and men scientists in animal cognition, although some gender biases may remain.

Technology and Innovation Has Made Impact Factor Redundant—Better Alternatives Are Here to Thrive

Three recent publications have let the cat out of the bag. They are “Stop Congratulating Colleagues for Publishing in High Impact-Factor Journals,” “Who are the real parasite publishers and journals? What prevents all medical data from being open access in real time?” and “Against Parasite Publishers: Making Journals Free.”[1] [2] [3]

60 Years and Beyond of Reviews of Geophysics

AbstractReviews of Geophysics is an AGU journal, first established in February 1963. It is a hybrid open access invitation‐only journal that publishes comprehensive review articles across various disciplines within the Earth and Space Sciences. The selection criteria are rigorous and many submissions are declined without review. The journal is the highest ranked in the fields of Geochemistry and Geophysics, with a high Journal Impact Factor (JIF2021 = 24.9), which is indicative of its high visibility and influence within the scientific community. The journal's published review papers, beyond a mere summary of literature, provide crucial context for current work, and establish the framework for comprehensive understanding of research progress, challenges, and interconnections between different communities, so that research may be appreciated by a broad audience. We emphasize the importance of publishing studies that provide a comprehensive overview and synthesis of the current state of knowledge in a field, especially in the case of geophysics, where knowledge is rapidly developing, increasing and becoming more specialized.

Examining the Influence of Texas’ Strategic Plan for Increasing University Research: Loose Coupling and Research Production at Regional Public Universities

ABSTRACT States have adopted a variety of policies to encourage universities to expand research production, with the hope of supporting economic growth and competitiveness. This paper considers whether a state-level initiative succeeded in influencing university-based research outputs among regional public universities. We test whether the Texas Research Incentive Program increased research production at a set of state universities as measured by total research spending, federally-funded research spending, the number of scholarly publications, and the share of publications published in high impact factor journals. Using a novel dataset and difference-in-differences analytic strategy, we found that TRIP adoption was associated with a 19%-25% increase in research expenditures at emerging research universities in Texas relative to a matched set of comparable universities. However, TRIP did not influence federally-funded research expenditures or journal publication outputs. We also show that federally-funded research expenditures influence publication outputs — both in amount and quality — and that number of full-time faculty influences both federal research expenditures and publication outputs. We discuss contributions to the literature on regional public universities, loose coupling, and research production, as well as implications for policy.

Weekly updating of guideline recommendations was feasible: the Australian National COVID-19 clinical evidence Taskforce

ObjectivesTo investigate how quickly evidence was incorporated into the Australian living guidelines for COVID-19 during the first 12 months of the pandemic. Study Design and SettingFor each study concerning drug therapies included in the guideline from April 3, 2020 to April 1, 2021, we extracted the publication date of the study, and the guideline version the study was included in. We analyzed two subgroups of studies as follows: those published in high impact factor journals and those with 100 or more participants. ResultsIn the first year, we published 37 major versions of the guidelines, incorporating 129 studies that investigated 48 drug therapies informing 115 recommendations. The median time from first publication of a study to incorporation in the guideline was 27 days (interquartile range [IQR], 16 to 44), ranging from 9 to 234 days. For the 53 studies in the highest impact factor journals, the median was 20 days (IQR 15 to 30), and for the 71 studies with 100 or more participants the median was 22 days (IQR 15 to 36). ConclusionDeveloping and sustaining living guidelines where evidence is rapidly incorporated is a resource- and time-intensive undertaking; however, this study demonstrates that it is feasible, even over a long period.

Study results from journals with a higher impact factor are closer to “truth”: a meta-epidemiological study

BackgroundScientists, physicians, and the general public legitimately expect scholarly publications to give true answers to study questions raised. We investigated whether findings from studies published in journals with higher Journal Impact Factors (JIFs) are closer to truth than findings from studies in less-cited journals via a meta-epidemiological approach.MethodsWe screened intervention reviews from the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) and sought well-appraised meta-analyses. We used the individual RCT study estimates’ relative deviation from the pooled effect estimate as a proxy for the deviation of the study results from the truth. The effect of the JIF on the relative deviation was estimated with linear regression and with local polynomial regression, both with adjustment for the relative size of studies. Several sensitivity analyses for various sub-group analyses and for alternative impact metrics were conducted.ResultsIn 2459 results from 446 meta-analyses, results with a higher JIF were on average closer to “truth” than the results with a lower JIF. The relative deviation decreased on average by −0.023 per JIF (95% CI −0.32 to −0.21). A decrease was consistently found in all sensitivity analyses.ConclusionsOur results indicate that study results published in higher-impact journals are on average closer to truth. However, the JIF is only one weak and impractical indicator among many that determine a studies’ accuracy.

Publication trends and usefulness of research in hysteroscopic myomectomy for heavy menstrual bleeding: A review of the published literature.

Despite the amount of research into hysteroscopic myomectomy, questions about the optimal treatment of heavy menstrual bleeding remain. This study reviewed publication trends on this topic from 2002 to 2019 and assessed the usefulness of studies. A total of 580 articles were published on PubMed in this time frame, in 15 different languages. There were meta-analyses (1.6%), systematic reviews (12%), and randomized controlled trials (4.2%). Twelve percent were published in high impact factor journals. After applying our selection criteria, the usefulness of 37 articles was assessed: one article scored high, 31 scored moderate, and five scored low. The costs of these studies were estimated at US$ 971 700.

Indicators of questionable research practices were identified in 163,129 randomized controlled trials

ObjectivesTo explore indicators of the following questionable research practices (QRPs) in randomized controlled trials (RCTs): (1) risk of bias in four domains (random sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding of participants and personnel, and blinding of outcome assessment); (2) modifications in primary outcomes that were registered in trial registration records (proxy for selective reporting bias); (3) ratio of the achieved to planned sample sizes; and (4) statistical discrepancy. Study Design and SettingFull texts of all human RCTs published in PubMed in 1996–2017 were automatically identified and information was collected automatically. Potential indicators of QRPs included author-specific, publication-specific, and journal-specific characteristics. Beta, logistic, and linear regression models were used to identify associations between these potential indicators and QRPs. ResultsWe included 163,129 RCT publications. The median probability of bias assessed using Robot Reviewer software ranged between 43% and 63% for the four risk of bias domains. A more recent publication year, trial registration, mentioning of CONsolidated Standards Of Reporting Trials-checklist, and a higher journal impact factor were consistently associated with a lower risk of QRPs. ConclusionThis comprehensive analysis provides an insight into indicators of QRPs. Researchers should be aware that certain characteristics of the author team and publication are associated with a higher risk of QRPs.

Indian Journal of Dermatology, Venereology and Leprology: A scientometric analysis.

Background A study related to an overview of the editorial workflow, editorial decision-making and timelines of the Indian Journal of Dermatology, Venereology and Leprology (IJDVL) had been published earlier. However, a study on publication pattern, citations, contributing organizations, most cited publications etc. of IJDVL has not been performed till now. Objectives This study aims to identify and analyse the impact of IJDVL on various scientometric indicators viz. year-wise publication growth, impact factor trend, most contributing organizations, global outreach, most cited papers, and cited and citing journals, over the years 2007 to 2019. Methods Data for this study were retrieved from the Web of Science-core collection database of Journal Citation Reports (Clarivate Analytics, 2021) on 12th May 2021. The search was performed by using the advanced search feature of the database. Using the "InCites", a search for journal citation reports of IJDVL was performed. Results The highest number of cumulative citations have been received by publications published in the year 2019 with 2,122 citations which is 91.53% in citable items. In the year 2009 journal, the impact factor was 0.976, which jumped to 2.712 (Journal Citation Reports™ 2018). IJDVL received its highest impact factor (3.030) in the year 2019. All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi is the most prolific organization contributing to IJDVL with 51 publications. Among foreign countries, China is leading with reference to most contributions by any foreign country with 51 publications in IJDVL. Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology having an impact factor 8.277 has been cited 145 times in this journal. Limitations Only one database was used for the study. Conclusion The high proportion of frequently cited articles in recent years, together with its currently high journal impact factor and quartile two-factor, give sustenance to the view that IJDVL publishes high-standard articles relevant to dermatology research and clinical practice.

Women and authorship in an international journal dedicated to cardiovascular diseases: analysis of the last decade

Abstract Introduction and purpose Scientific production has become very important in the progression of the healthcare profession, and the studies made in this field reflect a gender gap in the authorship of such production. In the last decade, a review of the publications made over 35 years in 6 high impact factor journals has evidenced a lesser proportion of women among the first and last signing authors (1,2). Nevertheless, the presence of women as preferential authors is desproportionately low considering the number of female cardiologists in Spain in the year 2017 (40%) (3). The Revista Española de Cardiología (REC) is an international journal dedicated to cardiovascular diseases. Our study investigates the authorship gender differences from publications in the REC. Methods A cross-sectional study was made of the REC issues published between January 2011 and December 2020. For each article we recorded the doi identifier, the year of publication, the type of article, the number of authors, the number of female authors, and the number of women with preferential authorship. Preferential authorship was defined as first signing author, corresponding author or last author. A gender-based analysis of the number of authors, the type and year of publication and preferential authorship was carried out. Female participation was calculated from the female/male ratio, with an analysis of the trend observed over the years. Results Of 2859 articles documented, 4275 signing authors were women and 12,061 were men. 699, 548 and 481 women were the first, corresponding and the last author, respectively. Table 1 shows the percentage of articles in which a woman was a preferential author, as well as the percentage of women that would have to be present in the general population to cancel statistical significance. The number of articles in which a woman was the first or the corresponding author was seen to increase (p=0.008 and p=0.002, respectively), while no significant changes were observed in relation to last authorship (p=0.09). The percentage of articles in which at least one woman held at least one of the three preferential authorship positions tended to increase over time (p=0.056). In the year 2011, a total of 90 articles out of 252 (35.7%) had at least one woman among the three preferential authors, while in the year 2020 the figure was 123 out of 296 (41.6%) (Figure 1). Conclusions Although the participation of female authors in the scientific production of the REC has increased during the last decade, authorship gender inequalities persist. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding sources: None.

A review of inflation from 1906 to 2022: a comprehensive analysis of inflation studies from a global perspective

Research background: Inflation has always been the core issue of economic research and there are many academic research achievements in this field. In recent years, global inflation has intensified, and many scholars focus on research in this field again, providing certain reference value for countries around the world to formulate corresponding macro policies. Purpose of the article: The five-year impact factors are used as the evaluation criteria in this paper, and 1,637 high-quality documents on inflation from 1906 to 2022 are collected from the Web of Science Core Collection database. Using bibliometrics, a comprehensive review of influential literature in the field of inflation is conducted to reveal the evolution and trends of the field. Methods: First, we focus on these high-quality documents about the descriptive statistical characteristics, high cited documents and high impact factor journals. Then, based on the visualization tool, the cooperative network of countries/regions, authors and institutions is depicted and the cooperative relationship between them is determined. At the same time, the most influential countries/regions, authors and institutions are identified by analyzing the citation structure. In addition, through thematic and keyword analysis, the topic hotspots and future research trends of high-quality literature in the field of inflation are deduced. Findings & value added: On the whole, the research on inflation in the United States is relatively mature, and has produced a large number of influential academic cooperation results. Finally, we have a series of discussions on the history of inflation in the United States and policy suggestions. In the future, governments of various countries, especially the United States, will still face certain challenges in how to formulate policies and measures to mitigate the impact of inflation.

The score after 10 years of registration of systematic review protocols

BackgroundWith the exponential growth of published systematic reviews (SR), there is a high potential for overlapping and redundant duplication of work. Prospective protocol registration gives the opportunity to assess the added value of a new study or review, thereby potentially reducing research waste and simultaneously increasing transparency and research quality. The PROSPERO database for SR protocol registration was launched 10 years ago. This study aims to assess the proportion SRs of intervention studies with a protocol registration (or publication) and explore associations of SR characteristics with protocol registration status.MethodsPubMed was searched for SRs of human intervention studies published in January 2020 and January 2021. After random-stratified sampling and eligibility screening, data extraction on publication and journal characteristics, and protocol registration status, was performed. Both descriptive and multivariable comparative statistical analyses were performed.ResultsA total of 357 SRs (2020: n = 163; 2021: n = 194) were included from a random sample of 1267 publications. Of the published SRs, 38% had a protocol. SRs that reported using PRISMA as a reporting guideline had higher odds of having a protocol than publications that did not report PRISMA (OR 2.71; 95% CI: 1.21 to 6.09). SRs with a higher journal impact factor had higher odds of having a protocol (OR 1.12; 95% CI 1.04 to 1.25). Publications from Asia had a lower odds of having a protocol (OR 0.43; 95% CI 0.23 to 0.80, reference category = Europe). Of the 33 SRs published in journals that endorse PROSPERO, 45% did not have a protocol. Most SR protocols were registered in PROSPERO (n = 129; 96%).ConclusionsWe found that 38% of recently published SRs of interventions reported a registered or published protocol. Protocol registration was significantly associated with a higher impact factor of the journal publishing the SR and a more frequent self-reported use of the PRISMA guidelines. In some parts of the world, SR protocols are more often registered or published than others. To guide strategies to increase the uptake of SR protocol registration, further research is needed to gain understanding of the benefits and informativeness of SRs protocols among different stakeholders.Systematic review registrationosf.io/9kj7r/

Spin of information and inconsistency between abstract and full text in RCTs investigating upper limb rehabilitation after stroke: An overview study.

Researchers may be tempted to favorably distort the interpretation of their findings when reporting the abstract (i.e., spin). Spin bias overemphasizes the beneficial effects of the intervention compared with the results shown in the full text. To assess the occurrence of spin bias and incompleteness in reporting abstracts in post-stroke upper limb (UL) rehabilitation randomized clinical trials (RCTs). A sample of 120 post-stroke UL rehabilitation RCTs (indexed in PEDro database), published in English between 2012 and 2020, was included. The completeness of reporting and spin were assessed using the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials for Abstracts (CONSORT-A) and the spin checklist. The relationship between CONSORT-A and spin checklist scores with RCT and journal characteristics was assessed. CONSORT-A and spin checklist scored 5.3±2.4 (max 15-points, higher scores indicating better reporting) and 5.5±2.0 (max 7-points, higher scores indicating presence of spin), respectively; Significant differences were detected between abstract and full-text scores in the CONSORT-A checklist (p < 0.01) and the spin checklist (p < 0.01). Items of the CONSORT-A checklist in the abstracts and full text showed a fair agreement (k = 0.31), while a moderate agreement (k = 0.59) for the spin checklist was detected. Completeness of abstract was associated (R2 = 0.46) with journal Impact Factor (p < 0.01), CONSORT Guideline endorsement (p = 0.04), and abstract word number (p = 0.02). A lower spin was associated with a higher journal Impact Factor (p = 0.01) and CONSORT Guideline endorsement (p = 0.01). Post-stroke UL rehabilitation RCTs abstracts were largely incomplete showing spin. Authors, reviewers, publishers, and stakeholders should be aware of this phenomenon. Publishers should consider allowing more words in abstracts to improve the completeness of reporting abstracts. Although we have investigated only stroke rehabilitation, our results suggest that health care professionals of all disciplines should avoid clinical decision-making based solely upon abstracts.

Access to unpublished protocols and statistical analysis plans of randomised trials

BackgroundAccess to protocols and statistical analysis plans (SAPs) increases the transparency of randomised trial by allowing readers to identify and interpret unplanned changes to study methods, however they are often not made publicly available. We sought to determine how often study investigators would share unavailable documents upon request.MethodsWe used trials from two previously identified cohorts (cohort 1: 101 trials published in high impact factor journals between January and April of 2018; cohort 2: 100 trials published in June 2018 in journals indexed in PubMed) to determine whether study investigators would share unavailable protocols/SAPs upon request. We emailed corresponding authors of trials with no publicly available protocol or SAP up to four times.ResultsOverall, 96 of 201 trials (48%) across the two cohorts had no publicly available protocol or SAP (11/101 high-impact cohort, 85/100 PubMed cohort). In total, 8/96 authors (8%) shared some trial documentation (protocol only [n = 5]; protocol and SAP [n = 1]; excerpt from protocol [n = 1]; research ethics application form [n = 1]). We received protocols for 6/96 trials (6%), and a SAP for 1/96 trial (1%). Seventy-three authors (76%) did not respond, 7 authors responded (7%) but declined to share a protocol or SAP, and eight email addresses were invalid (8%). A total of 329 emails were sent (an average of 41 emails for every trial which sent documentation). After emailing authors, the total number of trials with an available protocol increased by only 3%, from 52% in to 55%.ConclusionsMost study investigators did not share their unpublished protocols or SAPs upon direct request. Alternative strategies are needed to increase transparency of randomised trials and ensure access to protocols and SAPs.

Who games metrics and rankings? Institutional niches and journal impact factor inflation

Ratings and rankings are omnipresent and influential in contemporary society. Individuals and organizations strategically respond to incentives set by rating systems. We use academic publishing as a case study to examine organizational variation in responses to influential metrics. The Journal Impact Factor (JIF) is a prominent metric linked to the value of academic journals, as well as career prospects of researchers. Since scholars, institutions, and publishers alike all have strong interests in affiliating with high JIF journals, strategic behaviors to ‘game’ the JIF metric are prevalent. Strategic self-citation is a common tactic employed to inflate JIF values. Based on empirical analyses of academic journals indexed in the Web of Science, we examine institutional characteristics conducive to strategic self-citation for JIF inflation. Journals disseminated by for-profit publishers, with lower JIFs, published in academically peripheral countries and with more recent founding dates were more likely to exhibit JIF-inflating self-citation patterns. Findings reveal the importance of status and institutional logics in influencing metrics gaming behaviors, as well as how metrics can affect work outcomes in different types of institutions. While quantitative rating systems affect many who are being evaluated, certain types of people and organizations are more prone to being influenced by rating systems than others.

The future of surgical technique publication at JCRS and JCRO.

The future of surgical technique publication at JCRS and JCRO.

173 Analyzing the impact of COVID-19 on trends in the dermatology literature

Intro: For the past two years, the COVID-19 pandemic has significantly impacted scientific publishing across medical specialties. We sought to characterize the rising body of evidence related to COVID-19 within the dermatology literature since March 2020, the WHO-declared start of the pandemic. Methods: We extracted all publications indexed in PubMed from March 11, 2020 to Sept 31, 2021, from the four highest impact factor journals in dermatology: Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology (JAAD), JAMA Dermatology (JAMADerm), British Journal of Dermatology (BJD), and Journal of Investigative Dermatology (JID).

Understanding disparities in research publications in high-impact factor journals by cancer site.

e13626 Background: Prior studies have shown disparities in funding allocation for gynecologic cancers after accounting for their mortality, incidence, and person-years of life lost. Whether disparities exist in high impact factor journals is unknown. The purpose of this study is to analyze research publication trends in high impact factor journals comparing gynecologic cancers to other cancers from 2000 to 2018. Methods: Abstracts from the top 55 impact factor journals, as measured by Clarivate, from 2000 to 2018 were extracted from PubMed. We developed an algorithm to search the title of the abstract to determine whether the abstract was about cancer and identify the cancer type. The algorithm was validated against the gold standard of human review in 1143 abstracts and yielded a sensitivity of 97% and a specificity of 100% for identifying cancer abstracts and an accuracy of 95% for identifying cancer site. Using NCI’s SEER database, site-specific mortality to incidence ratios were calculated and multiplied by person-years of life lost to derive cancer-specific lethality for 19 cancer sites. An article proportion for each cancer site was calculated. Article proportion was divided by lethality to calculate Article to Lethality scores for gynecologic malignancies and compared to the other cancer sites. Results: We identified 128,377 articles; 31,045 (24%) were about cancer and 1,189 (3.8%) were about gynecologic cancers. Ovarian, uterine, and cervical cancers ranked 12th (score 21.9), 13th (20.9), and 18th (10.1) out of 19 cancers for median Article to Lethality scores. The highest scores were for breast cancer (score 427) and prostate cancer (234). Ovarian and uterine cancers had lower Article to Lethality scores compared to 11 other cancers, while cervical cancer was lower than 16 other cancers (p &lt; 0.01 for all comparisons). Analyses of the trends for gynecologic cancers over the last 18 years showed no change in Article to Lethality scores. Conclusions: Article to Lethality scores for gynecologic cancers are significantly lower than other cancer sites, indicating a disparity in research publications in high impact factor journals that persists over the last 18 years. Increased funding is essential to ensure continued advancement and progress in research for women with gynecologic cancers.[Table: see text]

Critical Appraisal of Anesthesiology Educational Research for 2019.

This study reviews and appraises the articles published about anesthesiology education in 2019. Through this critical appraisal, those interested in anesthesiology education are able to quickly review literature published during this year and explore innovative ways to improve education for all those involved in the practice of anesthesiology. Three Ovid MEDLINE databases, Embase.com, ERIC, and PsycINFO were searched followed by a manual review of articles published in the highest impact factor journals in both the fields of anesthesiology and medical education. Abstracts were double-screened and quantitative articles were subsequently scored by 3 randomly assigned raters. Qualitative studies were scored by 2 raters. Two different rubrics were used for scoring quantitative and qualitative studies; both allowed for scores ranging from 1 to 25. In addition, reviewers rated each article on its overall quality to create an additional list of top articles based solely on the opinion of the reviewers. A total of 2374 unique citations were identified through the search criteria and the manual review. Of those, 70 articles met the inclusion criteria (62 quantitative and 8 qualitative). The top 12 quantitative papers and the top 2 qualitative papers with the highest scores were reported and summarized.Conclusions: This critical appraisal continues to be a useful tool for those working in anesthesiology education by highlighting the best research articles published over the year. Highlighting trends in medical education research in anesthesiology can help those in the field to think critically about the direction of this type of research.

Rhetorical Structures and Cyclical Patterns in Forestry Research Articles

There have been a considerable number of studies on the research article genre (RA) from different perspectives of form and function. However, limited studies have examined the overall organizational structure of articles with all the main sections of the research article, Introduction-Methods-Results-Discussion (IMRD). There are also variations in the IMRD sections of the research article across different disciplines. The present study sought to analyze a) the rhetorical structure of individual sections of Forestry RAs in ISI journals, and b) analyze the cyclical patterns appearing in each section. A corpus of 40 research articles from five ISI journals were selected for this study. The selected articles were extracted from high impact factor journals in Forestry. The corpus was analysed based on Kanoksilapatham (2005) model as the analytical tool to explore the rhetorical moves in the corpus. Analysis of the research articles revealed that all sections did not follow the same rhetorical structure as specified in Kanoksilapatham (2005) model. On the basis of the analysis, some new moves or steps were realized. In terms of cyclical patterns, the findings pointed to the pervasiveness of salient move cycles in each section. Awareness of the rhetorical structure of RAs functions as an avenue to empower scholars, particularly novice writers, to integrate robustly into the academic community of their discipline.