Publication Impact Factor Research Articles

Bibliographic analysis of psychiatric publications in Taiwan: An analysis of Web of Science subject category from 1970 to 2023.

Mental diseases continue to rank among the top 10 leading causes of global burden. Psychiatric research is a crucial avenue through which mental healthcare can be enhanced. Taiwanese academics have constantly concentrated their efforts on psychiatric research and published their findings. A systematic examination of these papers will provide an assessment of the present state and contribute to the formulation of future policies for psychiatric research in Taiwan. We assessed psychiatric papers from Taiwan using the Web of Science (WoS) database. Academic papers in the Psychiatry category of the WoS database from Taiwan were retrieved and evaluated. The analysis included papers published in Science Citation Index-Expanded and Social Science Citation Indexed journals between 1970 and 2023, excluding meeting abstracts and corrections. Of the 1 049 281 papers published globally in the Psychiatry category of the WoS system between 1970 and 2023, 6117 (0.58%) were published in Taiwan. Taiwan ranked 26th globally in terms of number of papers published. These publications have received 150 519 citations. Over the past 53 years, both the annual number of psychiatric papers from Taiwan and their citations received have significantly and rapidly increased. However, the average impact factor of publications remained constant over time. Over the last five decades, the number of psychiatric publications from Taiwan has increased. However, the average impact factor of these published papers did not increase over time. Investing in advanced research infrastructure and interdisciplinary projects may improve the quality and relevance of Taiwanese psychiatric research publications, potentially increasing their global citations and impact.

112 Flight Tracker: A REDCap Tool to Streamline Career Development Grant Preparation and Reporting

OBJECTIVES/GOALS: Compiling information about characteristics and progress of scholars is required for career development applications and progress reports. The range of information is substantial, and preparation is onerous. We sought to create a tool to facilitate gathering key data about trainees and mentors who participate in programs like NIH K- and T-awards. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: Using the REDCap platform, we developed forms and surveys to support intake of applicants, updates from scholars, and information about their participation in activities and use of resources. We deployed application programming interfaces (APIs) to automate capture of publicly available data about publications, impact metrics, and federal grant funding. Similar tools capture descriptions of mentor expertise including grant funding, prior trainees, and publications with mentees We also built modules to 1) allow connection to institutional grant and contract data to capture foundation and other funding; 2) pre-populate follow-up surveys to update information about career trajectories with minimal scholar effort; and 3) support mentee-mentor agreements as living documents. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: After a pilot period at our institution, we disseminated Flight Tracker to more than 50 academic institutions, most of whom are CTSA hubs. They track scholars in TL1/T32s, KL2/K12s, MSTP programs, and academic groups. Beyond federal reporting, uses now include publication impact factors (relative citation ratios, Altmetrics scores), grant funding of groups, maps of network relationships among investigators, scholar receipt of internal pilot awards, and statistics about transition to independence and time-to-promotion. Scholars can be separated into smaller cohorts by demographics, training dates, and funding dates. Over 34,000 scholars are tracked nationally among over 260 programs. Having structured data supports program evaluation, continuous improvements, and documents program strengths. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE: We informally estimate Flight Tracker reduces staff and leadership effort in preparation of program data by 75%, preserving time to focus on service to scholars. Ready access to data over time and within and across institutions creates new opportunities for collaborative data analysis to support evidence-based career development.

Research trends in drama therapy: a bibliometric analysis based on Scopus.

As drama therapy has become increasingly important in healthcare, the number of scientific publications has increased, complicating the orientation in the research field. Therefore, the aim of this study is to provide a comprehensive overview of research trends in drama therapy, assessing the impact factors of publications and analyzing the research structure. Three hundred and ninety-five scientific articles indexed in Scopus were analyzed without time, geographic and language restrictions using bibliometric analysis methods - performance analysis, citation analysis, and science mapping. Data processing was performed using MS Excel, VOSviewer and Biblioshiny software. The work of the pioneers of drama therapy continues to be actively cited, influencing the development of drama therapy. Today's leading researchers are increasingly engaging in collaborative research, working across disciplines and contributing to scientific progress. The hot topic of research is older adults and mental health. The diversity of terminology and the large volume of unpublished research point to the need for consolidation. Altmetric analysis would optimize the use of scientific information, promoting innovative research. This is the first study using the Scopus database to perform an extensive bibliometric analysis of research articles on drama therapy applying Biblioshiny and VOSviewer software. The results of the analysis reflect the evolution of the field from its historical roots to academic maturity, highlighting its current dynamic growth and the trend of drama therapy to establish itself as an interdisciplinary field in the healthcare system. This work serves as a valuable resource for the scientific community, professionals, students, and librarians in the field, helping to optimize the use of scientific resources in drama therapy and contributing to its future development.

Scholarly activity following National Institutes of Health Women’s Reproductive Health Research K12 training—a cohort study

National Institutes of Health funding to address basic reproductive health for common female conditions remains disproportionately low, in part because of low success rates of grant applications by obstetrician-gynecologists. This study aimed to evaluate the scholarly productivity of individuals supported by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Women's Reproductive Health Research K12 career development award, created to advance careers of obstetrician-gynecologist physician-scientists. We performed a cohort study of individuals who completed at least 2 years of Women's Reproductive Health Research training by June 30, 2015, and had at least 5-year follow-up. Earliest training start date was December 1, 1998. Primary outcomes from public data sources (National Institutes of Health RePORTER, PubMed, iCite) were (1) number of total and R01 National Institutes of Health grants as principal investigator; (2) numbers of total and first and last author publications; and (3) median and highest publication impact factor measured by the relative citation ratio. Secondary outcomes from an email survey subcohort were total number of research grants, federally funded grants, and number of National Institutes of Health grants as coinvestigator; institutional promotions and academic appointments, national and National Institutes of Health leadership roles; and career and mentorship satisfaction. Outcomes were recorded at 5, 10, and 15 years postgraduation, and aggregate anonymized data were divided into 3 groups using Women's Reproductive Health Research completion dates: June 30 of 2005, 2010, and 2015. Temporal trends were assessed. Results were stratified by gender, number of awarded grant cycles (1-2 vs 3-4), and specialty type. Analyses used Fisher exact or Pearson chi-square tests, and Mantel-Haenszel tests of trend. The distribution of the cohort (N=178) by graduation completion date was: on or before June 30, 2005 (57 [32%]); July 1, 2005 to June 30, 2010 (60 [34%]); and July 1, 2010 to June 30, 2015 (61 [34%]). Most participants were female (112 [64%]) and maternal-fetal medicine trained (53 [30%]), followed by no fellowship (50 [28%]). Of the 178 participants, 72 (40%) received additional National Institutes of Health funding as a principal investigator, 45 (25%) received at least 1 R01, and 23 (13%) received 2 to 5 R01s. There were 52 (31%) scholars with >10 first author publications, 66 (39%) with >10 last author publications, and 108 (63%) with ≥25 publications. The highest relative citation ratio was a median of 8.07 (interquartile range, 4.20-15.16). There were 121 (71%) scholars with relative citation ratio ≥5, indicating >5-fold greater publication impact than that of other National Institutes of Health-funded scientists in similar areas of research. No differences by gender, institution, or temporal trends were observed. Of the full cohort, 69 (45.7%) responded to the survey; most self-identified as women (50 [73%]) and White (51 [74%]). Our findings suggest that the infrastructure provided by an institutional K award is an advantageous career development award mechanism for obstetrician-gynecologists, a group of predominantly women surgeons. It may serve as a corrective for the known inequities in National Institutes of Health funding by gender.

Association of publication record and independent NIH funding.

BackgroundPublications may be a modifiable factor toward research project grant (RPG) funding decisions, the objective was to determine the association of publication record with later RPG receipt.MethodsThis was a retrospective cohort study of recipients of K01, K08, or K23 US career development awards (CDAs) starting from 2000–2015. Exposures were CDA awardees’ first-, middle-, and last-author publication counts, and the quartile of awardees’ highest and mean publication impact factors. The independent association of each exposure with time to RPG (R01 or equivalent) was determined using a Cox model, after adjustment for CDA type, awardee change in institution, and institutional CDA count. The proportion of CDA recipients with later independent funding was also determined by publication count.ResultsAmong 6744 CDA awardees, 3943 obtained an RPG. The median time to RPG was 5.6 years (interquartile range 4.2–7.5). The number of first-authorships was associated with a shorter time to RPG (1–4 versus 0: hazard ratio [HR] 1.22, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.10–1.36; 5–9: 1.59, 95% CI 1.40–1.79; 10–24: 1.78, 95% CI 1.54–2.07; 25+: 2.40, 95% CI 1.61–3.56). Last-authorships were associated with a shorter time to RPG (1–4 versus 0: HR 1.99, 95% CI 1.83–2.16; 5–9: 2.72, 95% CI 2.45–3.03; 10–24: 3.17, 95% CI 2.78–3.62; 25+: 3.12, 95% CI 2.17–4.50). Higher maximum impact factor was associated with a shorter time to RPG (Q2 versus lowest: HR 1.28, 95% CI 1.12–1.46; Q3: 1.45, 95% CI 1.24–1.70; Q4: 1.67, 95% CI 1.39–2.02). Mean impact factor and middle-authorships were not associated with time to RPG. Among 687 CDAs with zero associated first- or last-authorships, 158 (23%) achieved later RPG funding. Among those with at least 10 total first- or last-authorships, 1288/1554 (83%) obtained a later RPG.ConclusionsA higher number and impact of publications was associated with later independent funding.

Quantifying Publication Rates and Time to Publication for American Urological Association Podium Presentations.

The American Urological Association (AUA) Annual Meeting serves as the premier platform for presenting unpublished research in urology. Among selected abstracts, podium presentations represent the most impactful submissions. While podium presentations receive a large audience through conference attendance and social media posts, it is unclear how often they manifest as publications in peer-reviewed journals. Podium presentations from the 2017 AUA Annual Meeting were reviewed. Abstracts were assessed for publication between January 1, 2015 and May 31, 2020 allowing for a 3-year window of publication and accounting for publications prior to the submission deadline. Abstract authors were individually searched with key terms being added sequentially until <30 results were generated in PubMed®. Abstracts were deemed published if at least 1 author and 1 conclusion matched a manuscript. Publication rate, time to publication, and 2019 journal impact factor were collected. Statistical analysis was performed by linear and logistic regression. Of 872 podium presentations, 453 (51.9%) were published within 3 years. Median time from submission to publication was 12.5 months (IQR: 7.5-20.5). The number of articles published at 1, 2 and 3 years from submission was 203, 368 and 430, respectively. The median journal impact factor of publications was 3.2 (IQR: 2.0-5.8). Oncology studies (OR=1.21 [95% CI: 0.91-1.60], p=0.186) had similar rates of publication compared to non-oncology studies. While AUA podium presentations disseminate valuable data, approximately half were not published in peer-reviewed journals within 3 years. Therefore, care must be taken when promoting findings or adopting new practices based on these presentations alone.

The Pediatric Trauma Society Annual Meeting: An Analysis of Scholarly Output From the First 5 Years.

The Pediatric Trauma Society (PTS) is a multidisciplinary organization, with scientific presentations at its annual meeting addressing trauma care from prehospital through rehabilitation. The purpose of this study was to identify and describe the scholarly areas of focus of presentations at the annual meeting over the society's first 5 years and evaluate research dissemination. Data were collected on abstracts presented between 2014 and 2018, including titles, authors, and abstract classification. PubMed and Google Scholar searches identified abstracts that resulted in publications. Journal impact factors were identified. Over 5 years, 491 of 635 (77.3%) abstracts were accepted. The number of submitted and accepted abstracts increased, but the acceptance rate was stable (range = 72.1%-81.2%, p = NS [nonsignificant]). The most frequently accepted categories included "Epidemiology," "Abdominal or Thoracic Trauma," and "Neurosurgery or Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI)," whereas "Trauma Nursing" and "Quality Improvement" were less common. Among the 2014-2016 abstracts, 55.4% of podium and 24.3% of poster presentations were published. Abstracts categorized as "Epidemiology," "Education & Injury Prevention," and "Neurosurgery or TBI" were commonly presented but uncommonly published. The median journal impact factor of publications was 2.1 and 2.0 for podium and poster presentations, respectively (ranging from 0.11 to 10.25). Most of the scholarly effort presented at the PTS remains unpublished. Published work is mainly in low-impact factor journals. Mentorship in the publication process and encouragement of multidisciplinary collaboration within the society are needed to address limitations in the number and potential impact of the scientific content of the annual meeting. This type of analysis is relevant not only to the PTS but also to any professional society seeking to improve its impact.

An evaluation of impact factor bias of clinical trials published in pain journals.

Studies with nonsignificant results are less likely to be published or published in lower impact factor journals. To determine whether a similar phenomenon occurs in pain literature, we explored impact factor bias in peer-reviewed pain journals. A PubMed search involving randomized controlled trials in pain journals during 2012 through 2018 was performed. The primary outcome was the publication impact factor. Exclusion criteria included commentaries, editorials, meta-analyses, reviews, and animal studies. The average impact factor for each journal was determined. The primary independent variable was a study with a positive outcome. Of the 9 journals evaluated, 1108 articles met our inclusion criteria and were included in our analysis. The quartiles for the impact factor for the journals included were 2.5, 2.9, and 3.6. A multivariate analysis identified sample size greater than 100, description of a sample size calculation, presence of a stated hypothesis, and presence of sponsorship funding as independent predictors of publication in a journal with greater impact factor. In contrast, positive results were not associated with publication in a greater impact factor journal, even when forced into the model, P=0.49. After adjusting for study factors associated with publication, there is no evidence of impact factor bias within the pain literature. The lack of impact factor bias in the pain literature is a positive finding for the field and should benefit scientific development and the clinical care of patients.

54478 The NIH Reporter Database: A Wealth of Information for Developing Team Science Metrics?

ABSTRACT IMPACT: As scientific research is trending towards greater interdisciplinary and collaboration in order to meet the challenges of contemporary science, which has led to increased recognition of the importance of Team Science, this study will promote team science research within NJ ACTS Consortium as well as across the country. OBJECTIVES/GOALS: The objective of this study is to assess the feasibility of using the NIH Reporter database for developing and tracking team science metrics within the CTSA-funded NJ ACTS Consortium, which consists of RU, PU, and NJIT. The NIH Reporter database provides detailed information on single-PI and multiple-PI R01 grants funded by NIH. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: 58 multi-PI projects and 344 single-PI projects are currently funded within the NJ ACTS consortium. We will use information from the database on funding levels, institutional composition of projects (e.g., within-consortium projects vs. projects with PIs both within and outside of the consortium), numbers of publications, impact factors of publications, and funding supplements obtained to quantify and track NIH R01 Team Science activity in the consortium. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Preliminary analysis suggests that it will be both feasible and efficient to use the NIH reporter database to develop Team Science metrics and to augment information in the database with information on PI characteristics such as department/center/school/university, academic discipline, and rank/tenure status, as well and detailed composition of research teams, such as the mix in terms of senior and junior scholars. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF FINDINGS: This study will make an important contribution to this movement by demonstrating the feasibility of using the publicly available NIH Reporter Database to quantify the level and success of Team Science in the form of single-PI and multiple-PI R01 grants funded by NIH, which represent extremely important Team Science activities at universities.

Gender representation in authorship in later-phase systemic clinical trials in biliary tract cancer (BTC).

348 Background: The proportion of females in medicine is increasing (approx. 50% in medical school/workforce), but disparities in female authorship in oncology research publications exist; female corresponding authorship reportedly ranges from 7.2-39.1% in oncology clinical trials (Ludmir et al 2019). This study aimed to describe and assess factors associated with female first and senior authorship in later phase systemic clinical trials in BTC and to identify any changes over time. Methods: Embase/Medline were used to identify final primary trial publications in BTC (2000-2020) (excluding phase I (PI) (expected to move to later phase), mixed tumour site trials, reviews, editorials and trial-in-progress publications). Gender was determined by inspection of names, google search and author communication. Chi-square tests and log regression were used to assess factors associated with female first and senior authorship, including changes over time (STATA16). Results: Of 501 publications, 163 met inclusion criteria; 80% single-arm PII and 15% and 5% randomised PII and PIII respectively; 73% enrolled ≤50 patients. Tumour primary sites were all BTC: 86%, cholangiocarcinoma: 8%, gallbladder cancer: 6%; 80% involved chemotherapy, 13% targeted therapy and 5% localised/systemic combinations; 65% were in first-line (1L) advanced setting, 17% post 1L, 13% advanced non-specified and 5% neo-adjuvant/adjuvant. Forty-eight percent received industry funding and 65% met primary end-point. Sixty-four percent were published post ABC-02 (Valle et al 2010). Publication impact factor (IF) was ≤5 in 50% and &gt;20 in 12%. Median number of authors in all publications was 11. Geographic location of all first and senior authors were Asia (42%/42%), Europe (29%/29%), USA (24%/22%) and other (4%/6%), respectively. Median individual trial female author representation was 25%; there were no female authors in 12% of trials. Overall, female first and senior author representation was 21% and 11%, respectively. Median position of first female author was second. In publications with IF ≤20 and &gt;20, there were 22% and 16% female first and 13% and 0% female senior authors, respectively. The phase of trial, journal IF, industry funding, or whether met primary end-point did not impact female first or senior author representation (all P&gt;.05). There were more female senior authors associated with “other” geographic locations (40% in 10 trials) (P=.016) vs Asia (7%), Europe (8%) and USA (14%). There were no significant changes in female first or senior author representation over time (‘00-05: 21%/18%, ‘06-10: 27%/5%, ‘11-15: 15%/15%, ‘16-20: 22%/9%, P=.738, and P=.508 respectively). Conclusions: Female first and senior author representation in later phase systemic clinical trial publications in BTC is low and has not changed significantly over time. The underlying reasons for this imbalance need to be better understood and addressed.

Factors That Determine Completion Rates of Biomedical Students in a PhD Programme

Purpose: The purpose of this retrospective study is to identify potential predictors of academic success or failure in Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) programmes in the field of biomedicine. Based on these, the policies and structure of academic programmes granting PhD degrees in biomedicine might be improved. Literature review (State of the art): At the present moment, most European and all of the EU doctoral education systems in biomedicine are regulated by the Salzburg principles of the Bologna process. Almost all the programmes formally comply with regulations, but the degree to which rules are applied varies greatly. The European Research Council (ERC) and various stakeholders’ associations, such as the Organisation for PhD Education in Biomedicine and Health Sciences in the European System (ORPHEUS), have recognised this and in their policies, they recommend regular evaluation of PhD programme structures. One such evaluation that was conducted at our institution motivated us to search for quantifiable factors that can help the process of PhD programme structural reform. Since the literature is scarce on this matter, we decided to conduct analysis of our own data and thus study the relationships between recommended EU policies and real-world data. Methods: Biology of Neoplasms is a PhD programme founded under Bologna process rules. It enrols students with Doctor of Medicine (MD), Doctor of Dental Medicine (DMD) or similar degrees in the biomedical field. A large portion of enrolled PhD students work full time in medical practices. A retrospective analysis was conducted on students who enrolled between 2006 and 2017. In order to quantify academic success, outcome measures of graduation (completion) rate, time to graduation, average impact factor of published papers comprising a PhD thesis and the ratio of the latter two were formed. Age, sex, employment institution, mentor experience and tuition subsidy were considered as potential predictors. Results: A total of 124 students were enrolled in the study—38% male. Out of the total, 21 (16.94%) students discontinued the study programme and 22 students graduated (17.7%). The average impact factor (IF) of published papers was 2.66 ± 1.51. Mentor experience (Odds ratio (OR) = 6.7) and student employment in academia (OR = 11.7) were significant predictors of successful graduation. Stricter criteria for graduation had no effect on graduation in newly enrolled students. Likewise, sex, tuition subsidy and age did not affect graduation rates. Surprisingly, time to graduation was not affected by any of the considered predictors. On the other hand, students that were mentored by experienced mentors and employed in academia outperformed their peers in terms of impact factors of publications related to their thesis. Conclusion: Characteristics such as gender, age at enrolment and even tuition paid by the institution do not have a significant impact on completion rate. Experienced mentors and employment in academic institutions seem to be the factors that predict a successful completion of a PhD programme. Furthermore, our results give a quantifiable support to the ORPHEUS and ERC recommendations and policies. These conclusions can be easily applied to any PhD programme formed under the tenets of the Bologna process.

Evaluating the Quality of Systematic Reviews & Meta-Analyses Published on Direct Oral Anticoagulants in the Past 5 Years

Introduction In the past decades evidence-based medicine has begun to drive clinical decision making. With direct oral anti-coagulants (DOACs) emerging as alternatives to warfarin for the treatment and prevention of thromboembolic disorders, it has become crucial that clinicians utilize unbiased and robust evidence to inform their decisions about their use. Systematic reviews (SRs) sit at the "top" of the hierarchy of research evidence - the goal of this study was to evaluate the quality of SRs published on DOACs using AMSTAR criteria. Methods A comprehensive search of Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from Jan 2013 to February 2019 was performed. Screening was done across two stages with title and abstract followed by full-text analysis. Any study that was a SR (with or without a meta-analysis) published on DOACs was included. Data extracted included AMSTAR rating, journal of publication, year of publication, number of studies included, reporting adherence to PRISMA guidelines, number of citations, and journal of publication impact factor. Screening and data extraction were both done by two reviewers independently in duplicate. AMSTAR evaluation was done by three reviewers, one of which was a senior author. Statistical analyses comparing AMSTAR scores in relation to the above factors were done. Results A total of 3729 articles were found with 249 being included for analysis. Quality of SRs was highly variable across years with the mean (SD) being 5.68 (2.21). [Figure 1]. There were no significant relationships between quality vs citation rate (r=-0.04; 95% CI -0.17, 0.09; p=0.26) and impact factor (r=-0.05; 95% CI -0.18, 0.08; p=0.219). One-way ANOVA revealed no significant difference of AMSTAR scores between years (F6,242 = 1.85 p=0.09) [Figure 1.]. Reporting adherence to PRISMA guidelines increased the likelihood of being moderate (AMSTAR Score = 5-8) or high-quality evidence (AMSTAR Score = 9-11) (OR = 4.159; 95% CI 2.32, 7.46, p&lt;0.01). Studies included/excluded in reviews (17, 7%) and conflicts of interests in both the review and included studies (21, 8%) were the least reported AMSTAR criteria while characteristics of included studies (226, 90%) and appropriate use of combining findings (217, 87) were the most. [Figure 2.] Conclusions The overall quality of SRs published on DOACs was moderately low and there was no relationship between journal impact factor and quality of the reviews that journals published. Our findings highlight specific areas within which authors can improve their reporting. Reviewers and editors of journals should familiarize themselves with AMSTAR criteria to ensure robust and transparent quality reporting in an effort to increase the quality of evidence being used to guide clinical decision making. Disclosures Crowther: Diagnostica Stago: Other: preparing educational material and/or providing educational presentations, Research Funding; Bayer: Other: Data and Safety Monitoring Board, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; BMS Canada: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Servier Canada: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Other: preparing educational material and/or providing educational presentations; CSL Behring: Other: preparing educational material and/or providing educational presentations; Asahi Kasei: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Octapharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Shionogi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Alexion: Speakers Bureau; Alnylam: Equity Ownership.

Analysis of Quotes from Articles Published in “Folia Turistica” in 1990-2016

Purpose. The aim of this article is to acquire as much knowledge as possible on the changing impact factor of publications in “Folia Turistica” („FT”) in 1990-2016, the subjects of these works, the most frequently cited articles, and their authors. The aim is also to explore the works citing the articles in the periodical (including the time and countries in which they were written, their subjects, authors, and the sources of the publications). Method. The analysis was conducted from 4 February to 8 March 2019, using Google Scholar and the Scopus and Web of Science (Core Collection) databases. The data acquired was processed using statistical methods. Findings. The analyses found the numbers of citations of articles published in FT and the sum total of citations of published works in 1990-2016 in sources indexed in Google Scholar, Scopus, and Web of Science. This allowed us to establish the changing percentage of citations over the years and the average impact of articles published in various issues of the journal. Based on the data from the analyzed sources, an h-index was established for the journal, with the most frequently cited articles and their fields, as well as the most frequently cited authors of works of articles published in the relevant period. Data collected at Web of Science and Scopus allowed us to establish the number of references to articles published in „FT”, appearing in various years, titles, authors, sources, and fields, and the most often quoted publications published in „FT” and the countries with which these publications were affiliated. Research and conclusions limitations. The analysis concerns citations in Google Scholar and the Scopus and Web of Science (Core Collection) databases, accessed 8 March 2019 and limited to articles published in “Folia Turistica” in period 1990-2016. Practical implications. This analysis could be a source of information for defining the later publishing policies of “Folia Turistica” and a basis for future comparative analyses. Originality. This is the first analysis of citations of articles published in “Folia Turistica”. Type of work. This article presents the results of empirical studies.

ANALYSIS OF QUOTES FROM ARTICLES PUBLISHED IN “FOLIA TURISTICA” IN 1990-2016

Purpose. The aim of this article is to acquire as much knowledge as possible on the changing impact factor of publications in “Folia Turistica” („FT”) in 1990-2016, the subjects of these works, the most frequently cited articles, and their authors. The aim is also to explore the works citing the articles in the periodical (including the time and countries in which they were written, their subjects, authors, and the sources of the publications). Method. The analysis was conducted from 4 February to 8 March 2019, using Google Scholar and the Scopus and Web of Science (Core Collection) databases. The data acquired was processed using statistical methods. Findings. The analyses found the numbers of citations of articles published in FT and the sum total of citations of published works in 1990-2016 in sources indexed in Google Scholar, Scopus, and Web of Science. This allowed us to establish the changing percentage of citations over the years and the average impact of articles published in various issues of the journal. Based on the data from the analyzed sources, an h-index was established for the journal, with the most frequently cited articles and their fields, as well as the most frequently cited authors of works of articles published in the relevant period. Data collected at Web of Science and Scopus allowed us to establish the number of references to articles published in „FT”, appearing in various years, titles, authors, sources, and fields, and the most often quoted publications published in „FT” and the countries with which these publications were affiliated. Research and conclusions limitations. The analysis concerns citations in Google Scholar and the Scopus and Web of Science (Core Collection) databases, accessed 8 March 2019 and limited to articles published in “Folia Turistica” in period 1990-2016. Practical implications. This analysis could be a source of information for defining the later publishing policies of “Folia Turistica” and a basis for future comparative analyses. Originality. This is the first analysis of citations of articles published in “Folia Turistica”. Type of work. This article presents the results of empirical studies.

Pharmacological interventions in social cognition deficits: A systematic mapping review

Social cognition is an important research field in psychiatry due to its relevance in the functioning and quality of life of patients. The objective of this work is to conduct a systematic mapping review of pharmacological strategies for improving social cognition deficits. Publications from 2006 to 2016 were reviewed in Scopus, PsycINFO, PubMed, and Embase. From the initial 1059 publications obtained, a final number of 110 were selected. The results show an increasing interest in pharmacological approaches in different medical fields (especially psychiatry, pharmacology, and endocrinology, with schizophrenia and autism as the most studied disorders), as can be observed in the progressive increase in the number of publications, the high degree of scientific evidence, and the high impact factor of publications. However, it is also observed that most studies were conducted with oxytocin, psychostimulants, and antipsychotics (mainly risperidone and olanzapine), with few studies using other drugs. In the different social cognition domains, the majority of publications were focused on emotional processing or theory of mind, with few studies in other domains. Thus, this systematic mapping review shows that, even though there are increasing research activities, there are some important gaps to cover in future investigation.

Analysis of Publication Trends for the 2011-2015 American Orthopaedic Society for Sports Medicine Annual Meeting Abstracts.

Background:Academic conferences are sources of novel research that can influence clinical decision making. Orthopaedic surgery maintains a relatively high rate of publication compared with other surgical subspecialties, and sports medicine conferences hold an even higher rate within the subspecialty. The American Orthopaedic Society for Sports Medicine (AOSSM) annual meetings have been shown to have among the highest rates of publication for accepted abstracts.Purpose:To determine differences between 2-year publication rates of poster and podium abstracts accepted into the AOSSM annual meetings and identify factors associated with publication.Study Design:Cross-sectional study.Methods:The AOSSM archives were queried for all accepted poster and podium presentations for annual meetings from 2011 through 2015. Google Scholar and MEDLINE databases were used to determine which abstracts transitioned into journal articles. Publication rates were compared based on publication 2 years following presentation. Logistic regression was performed to demonstrate which variables were most correlated with successful publication. Data on publication impact factor and number of citations were collected by use of the InCites database.Results:Of 628 abstracts accepted during this period, 265 were poster presentations and 363 were podium presentations. Overall, 44.7% of abstracts presented were accepted into peer-reviewed journals within 2 years of presentation. No statistical difference was found between poster and podium presentations for journal publication (P = .328). Poster presentations were published in journals with statistically lower impact factor (P = .005) and had a statistically lower number of citations (P < .001) compared with podium presentations. Multivariate logistic regression analysis demonstrated that only number of authors was correlated with publication (P = .003).Conclusion:Podium and poster presentations accepted into AOSSM conferences had equal rates of publication within 2 years and should influence decision making equally. The relative impact of podium presentations appeared to be greater, which suggests that the AOSSM selects podium presentations that will have greater clinical impact. Increasing number of coauthors was the only factor found to be correlated with publication.

Scientific impact of the TraumaRegister DGU®

The trauma registry of the German Trauma Society (TraumaRegister DGU®) is not only atool for quality management but also for research purposes. Evaluation of the impact of the TraumaRegister DGU® on scientific output and patient treatment. Analysis of publications from the TraumaRegister DGU® with respect to numbers, impact factors, journals, citations and presentations. The number and impact factors of publications from the TraumaRegister DGU® rose steeply during the last 10years and in the last 3 years consisted of 25 publications per year. More than two thirds of them were published in high quality international journals and reflect the great scientific importance. For the German speaking readership and the specific aspects of treatment of the severely injured relevant to Germany, the large number of German language articles are just as important. Independent of the impact factor publications in Deutsches Ärzteblatt, the journal with the highest circulation and Der Unfallchirurg play the most important role. A large amount of scientific information gained from the TraumaRegister DGU® has been included in treatment guidelines and structures. The register is a basic prerequisite for the TraumaNetzwerk DGU®. Since almost all severely injured patients in Germany are now included in the registry, it is possible to obtain epidemiologically reliable data of treatment and outcomes for these patient groups.

Publication impact factors — A measure of your paper’s impact on your career, on your science, and on those who read your paper?

All authors want their submitted papers to have maximum impact. Perhaps the greatest compliment you can earn as an author is to have your paper cited by other authors whom you respect. The impact of your paper can be on your professional reputation, your company’s ability to solicit customers and/or enlist partners, and if you are a university or government employee, on your yearly performance evaluation. For these reasons, authors sometimes consider journals’ impact factors when deciding to which journal they will submit. Institutions often use impact factors when evaluating professors for tenure. Librarians often consider them when making subscription decisions. Where did impact factors originate, and what do these numbers really mean?

Oral Presentations Have a Significantly Higher Publication Rate, But Not Impact Factors, Than Poster Presentations at the International Society for Study of Lumbar Spine meeting: Review of 1126 Abstracts From 2010 to 2012 Meetings.

A retrospective study. The aim of this study was to determine the publication rate and impact factors (IFs) among all abstracts presented at the 2010 and 2012 meetings of the International Society for the Study of Lumbar Spine (ISSLS). The publication rate of abstracts presented at overseas meetings was reported to be around 50%. However, the publication rate and IFs of oral and poster presentations made at ISSLS meetings were unclear. Moreover, whether the publication rates and IFs differed for papers associated with oral or poster presentations at ISSLS meetings was unknown. We investigated all 1126 abstracts (oral, special posters, general posters) presented at ISSLS meetings held between 2010 and 2012. PubMed was searched to identify publications and IFs were determined using journal citation reports. We also compared the publication rates and IFs between oral and poster presentations. The overall publication rate was 50.1% for three ISSLS meetings (564 publications/1126 abstracts). The overall publication rate for oral presentations, special posters, and general posters given in the 2010 to 2012 meetings was 62.0%, 48.3, and 46.6%, respectively. Overall, papers related to oral presentations had significantly higher publication rates than those of special and general posters (P = 0.0002). The average IFs of publications associated with abstracts presented at three ISSLS meetings was 2.802 for oral presentations, 2.593 for special posters, and 2.589 for general posters. There were no significant differences in average IFs between oral and poster presentations (P > 0.05). The publication rate for abstracts presented at ISSLS meetings was high and similar to publication rates for abstracts presented at other meetings concerning orthopedic and spine research. However, there was no significant difference in IFs between oral and poster presentations, suggesting that abstract evaluations cannot predict IFs of the eventual publication. 4.

Surgeon Scientists Are Disproportionately Affected by Declining NIH Funding Rates

Obtaining National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding over the last 10 years has become increasingly difficult due to a decrease in the number of research grants funded and an increase in the number of NIH applications. National Institutes of Health funding amounts and success rates were compared for all disciplines using data from NIH, Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology (FASEB), and Blue Ridge Medical Institute. Next, all NIH grants (2006 to 2016) with surgeons as principal investigators were identified using the National Institutes of Health Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools Expenditures and Results (NIH RePORTER), and a grant impact score was calculated for each grant based on the publication's impact factor per funding amount. Linear regression and one-way ANOVA were used for analysis. The number of NIH grant applications has increased by 18.7% (p= 0.0009), while the numbers of funded grants (p < 0.0001) and R01s (p < 0.0001) across the NIH have decreased by 6.7% and 17.0%, respectively. The mean success rate of funded grants with surgeons as principal investigators (16.4%) has been significantly lower than the mean NIH funding rate (19.2%) (p= 0.011). Despite receiving only 831 R01s during this time period, surgeon scientists were highly productive, with an average grant impact score of 4.9 per $100,000, which increased over the last 10 years (0.15 ± 0.05/year, p= 0.02). Additionally, the rate of conversion of surgeon scientist-mentored K awards to R01s from 2007 to 2012 was 46%. Despite declining funding over the last 10 years, surgeon scientists have demonstrated increasing productivity as measured by impactful publications and higher success rates in converting early investigator awards to R01s.