Journal Citation Reports Research Articles

Biomedical retractions due to misconduct in Europe: characterization and trends in the last 20 years

The aim was to describe biomedical retractions and analyse those retracted in 2000–2021 due to research misconduct among authors affiliated with European institutions. A cross-sectional study was conducted, using Retraction Watch database, Journal Citation Reports and PubMed as data sources. Biomedical original papers, reviews, case reports and letters with at least one author affiliated with an European institution retracted between 01/01/2000 and 30/06/2021 were included. We characterized rates over time and conducted an analysis on the 4 countries with the highest number of retractions: Germany, United Kingdom, Italy and Spain. 2069 publications were identified. Retraction rates increased from 10.7 to 44.8 per 100,000 publications between 2000 and 2020. Research misconduct accounted for most retractions (66.8%). The reasons for misconduct-related retractions shifted over time, ranging from problems of copyright and authorship in 2000 (2.5 per 100,000 publications) to duplication in 2020 (8.6 per 100,000 publications). In 2020, the main reason was fabrication and falsification in the United Kingdom (6.2 per 100,000 publications) and duplication in Spain (13.2 per 100,000 publications).Retractions of papers by authors affiliated with European institutions are increasing and are primarily due to research misconduct. The type of misconduct has changed over time and differ between European countries.

Publication patterns of posters and oral presentations at the Annual Meeting of the Joint AANS/CNS Cerebrovascular Section.

The American Association of Neurological Surgeons (AANS) and Congress of Neurological Surgeons (CNS) Joint Cerebrovascular (CV) Section serves as a centralized entity for the dissemination of information related to CV neurosurgery. The quality of scientific conferences, such as the CV Section's Society of NeuroInterventional Surgery Annual Meeting, can be gauged by the number of poster and oral presentations that are published in peer-reviewed journals. However, publication rates from the CV Section's meetings are unknown. The objective of this study was to assess the rate at which abstracts presented at the AANS/CNS CV Section Annual Meeting from 2014 to 2018 were subsequently published in peer-reviewed journals. The abstract titles for all accepted poster and oral podium presentation abstracts from the 2014-2018 Annual Joint AANS/CNS CV Section Meetings were searched using PubMed. A match was defined as sufficient similarity between the abstract and its corresponding journal publication with regard to title, authors, methods, and results. Five-year impact factors (IFs) from Journal Citation Reports (JCR), the country of the corresponding author, and the number of citations in the Scopus database were obtained using the articles' digital object identifier when available, or the exact article title, journal, and year of publication. Of the 607 total poster and oral presentations from the 2014-2018 Annual Meetings of the AANS/CNS Joint CV Section, 46.29% (n = 281) have been published. Published articles received 3233 total citations for an average number of citations per article (± SD) of 10.89 ± 16.37. The average 5-year JCR IF of published studies was 4.64 ± 3.13. Additionally, 98.22% of published abstracts were in publication within 4 years from the time the abstract was presented. The most common peer-reviewed neurosurgical journals featuring these publications were the Journal of Neurosurgery, World Neurosurgery, the Journal of NeuroInterventional Surgery, Neurosurgery, and the Journal of Clinical Neuroscience. Nearly half of all poster and oral presentations at the annual meetings of the AANS/CNS Joint CV Section from 2014 to 2018 have been published in PubMed-indexed, peer-reviewed journals. The average number of citations per publication (10.89 ± 16.37) reflects the high quality of abstracts accepted for presentation. It is important to continuously assess the quality of research presented at national conferences to ensure that standards are being maintained for the advancement of clinical practice in a given area of medicine. Conference abstract publication rates in peer-reviewed journals represent a way in which research quality can be gauged, and the authors encourage others to conduct similar investigations in their subspecialty area of interest and/or practice.

Are Orthopaedic Clinical Trials Linguistically and Culturally Diverse? A Systematic Review.

Underrepresentation and misrepresentation of historically underrepresented populations in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) may have implications for the validity of research results and their application for diverse populations. To evaluate the representation of historically linguistically, racially, and ethnically underrepresented participants in orthopaedic randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and to assess the use of translated and culturally adapted patient reported outcome measures (PROMs). Separate and comprehensive literature searches of PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase databases were performed to identify RCTs utilizing PROMs between the years 2012 - 2022 among the top five highest 5-year impact factor orthopaedic journals according to the 2021 Journal Citation Reports database. The primary outcomes of interest included reporting of linguistic, racial and ethnic demographic characteristics of trial participants and the utilization of translated PROMs. The methodological quality of each clinical trial was assessed using the Jadad Criteria. 230 RCTs met inclusion criteria. The language of participants was reported in 14% of trials and in 17% of trials when searching both the published text and clinical trial registration information. In addition, race and/or ethnicity was reported in 11% of trials, and the use of translated PROMs was reported in 7% of trials. Among the six multinational studies, none reported the language of the study population nor the use of translated PROMs. Notably, four studies (2%) reported utilizing culturally adapted PROMs. The average Jadad score was 3.07. Participant language, race, and ethnicity are infrequently reported in orthopaedic clinical trials, potentially limiting the application and interpretation of study results. Similarly, the linguistic and cultural adaptation of PROMs utilized are often not reported, which also limits interpretations of the validity and generalizability of orthopedic study results. Researchers and journals should promote standard reporting of demographic data and methods of PROM adaptation to ensure results are generalizable to diverse patient populations. III.

Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials: High-Intensity Electroacupuncture Outperforms Low-Intensity Electroacupuncture for Knee Osteoarthritis

Background: Electroacupuncture (EA) has been proven to be efficacious and safe in patients with knee osteoarthritis (KOA), yet the superior intensity current for pain control in KOA remains unspecified. The present meta-analysis aimed to assess the efficiency of high-intensity and low-intensity EA in pain relief and functional improvement in KOA. Methods: A thorough and comprehensive literature search for randomized controlled trials (RCTs), all looking at the intensity of EA for KOA, was carried out in PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, clinicaltrials.gov, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), China Science Journal Citation Report (VIP) and Wanfang database. All databases were searched from the available date of inception until the latest issue (Apr 2022). The study quality was evaluated via the Jadad five-point scale. Ultimately, a meta-analysis of all eligible RCTs was conducted utilizing Review Manager 5.3. Results: Three studies with 472 individuals were included in the Meta-analysis. The pain intensity reductions are significantly different between the high-intensity EA group and low-intensity EA group (MD=-0.22, 95%CI=-0.26 to -0.18, P< 0.00001). There is no significant difference between the two groups in the WOMAC index (MD=-3.62, 95%CI=-12.22 to 4.98, P= 0.41). High-intensity EA group significantly improve the emotional scale (ES) in comparison to the low-intensity EA group (MD=-0.72, 95%CI=-0.76 to -0.67, P< 0.00001). Conclusion: The findings of this work indicated that high-intensity EA provides superior pain relief and emotional scale in KOA patients. Moreover, both high-intensity and low-intensity EA exert a significant functional improvement effect in KOA.

Self-Citation Patterns of Anesthesiology Journals Indexed in the Journal Citation Reports.

Self-Citation Patterns of Anesthesiology Journals Indexed in the Journal Citation Reports.

Impact of Open Access status on journal metrics in infectious diseases and clinical microbiology – A cross-sectional study

IntroductionWhile Open Access (OA) journals provide free access to articles, they entail high article processing charges (APC), limiting opportunities for young researchers and those from low-middle income countries to publish OA. MethodsCross-sectional study, evaluating APC and academic impact of full OA (FOA) journals in infectious diseases (ID) and clinical microbiology (CM) compared to hybrid journals. Data were collected from Journal Citation Reports and journals’ websites. ResultsAmong 255 journals, median APC was 2850 (interquartile range [IQR] 1325–3654$). Median APC for 120 FOA journals was significantly lower than for 119 hybrid journals (2000, IQR 648–2767$ versus 3550, IQR 2948–4120$, p < 0.001). FOA journals had lower citation numbers and impact metrics compared to hybrid journals. ConclusionWhile FOA ID/CM journals have lower APCs, they also lower academic impact compared to hybrid journals. These findings highlight the need for reforms in the publication process in view of achieving equitable data dissemination.

The impact of open access on citations, Pageviews, and downloads: a scientometric analysis in Postgraduate Medical Journal.

The influence of Open Access (OA) on the citation impact of scholarly articles remains a topic of considerable debate. This study aims to elucidate the relationship between OA publication and citation metrics, as well as article visibility, within the context of the Postgraduate Medical Journal (PMJ). We conducted a retrospective analysis of 373 articles published in PMJ between 2020 and 2021. Data on OA status, citations, page views, PDF downloads, and other relevant variables were extracted from Journal Citation Reports and PMJ's official website. Multivariable linear regression and other statistical analyses were used to assess the impact of OA on these metrics. OA articles (n = 78) demonstrated significantly higher citation counts, page views, and PDF downloads compared with subscription-based articles (n = 295). Specifically, OA articles showed a significant increase in citation frequency with a β coefficient of 25.08 and a 95% CI of 17.168-32.992 (P < .001). Similarly, OA status was independently associated with increases in page views [β = 288.636, 95%CI: 177.749-399.524, P < .001] and PDF downloads [β = 118.966, 95%CI: 86.357-151.575, P < .001]. Strong correlations among total citations, page views, and PDF downloads were observed in both OA and subscription articles. The study highlights a significant and independent association of OA publishing with increased citation counts, page views, and PDF downloads in PMJ, suggesting that OA articles have broader reach and greater visibility. Further research, including randomized controlled studies across various journals, is needed to confirm these findings and explore the full impact of OA publishing.

APPLICATION OF BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATES AS POTENTIAL BIO-INDICATORS IN MALAYSIAN'S RIVERS: GAP AND BIBLIOMETRIC ANALYSES

The literature on reliable indices, suitable bio-indicators, taxonomic level, frequency of measurements, and replications on benthic macroinvertebrates remains scarce in Malaysia. In addition, no review study was conducted using bibliometric analysis related to this discipline. Thus, this review aimed at gap and bibliometric analysis of publications on benthic macroinvertebrates as potential biological indicators. Sixty-six relevant scientific research papers from 2011 to 2022 were selected from the different databases. Then, descriptive and inferential statistical analyses were performed to assess the most reliable potential bio-indicators for river assessment and monitoring. Visualized statistics regarding bibliographic coupling analysis of authors, journal proceedings, and organizations were analyzed. The findings revealed that publications on invertebrates had no significant relationship in the last ten years (r = 0.241; p &gt; 0.05). Most publications on macroinvertebrates in Malaysian rivers were found in the Scopus database (53.57%). Therefore, research articles must be published in journals included in the Journal Citation Report (JCR) to improve their quality further. Besides, benthic macroinvertebrates are commonly identified only up to the family level (47%) due to incomplete tropical benthic macroinvertebrates identification keys. As such, using environmental DNA methods with the power of next-generation sequencing has come in handy in bio-indicator species identification. Among the potential bio-indicators found in Malaysian rivers are Chironomidae (9.11%), Baetidae (8.87%), and Hydropsychidae (8.62%). Based on the approaches utilized in analyzing benthic macroinvertebrates as bio-indicators, in-depth research such as bioassay and toxicology tests is necessary to realize the potential bio-indicators fully. Many studies focused on recreational rivers in Peninsular Malaysia. Therefore, research studies would be expanded to urban rivers and rivers in Sabah and Sarawak. Also, to overcome the limitation of the single biotic index, developing a multimetric index to evaluate the water quality by selecting many river basins is essential. Bibliographic analysis showed that the Institute for Tropical Biology and Conservation, Universiti Malaysia Sabah, made the greatest total link strength. The Serangga Journal published the highest number of research articles. Finally, utilizing advanced technologies is recommended to address Malaysia's lack of potential bio-indicator studies.

Composition of the editorial staff of major spinal journals based on geo-economic background: A survey analysis

BackgroundThe widespread absence of papers originating in low and middle income economies (LAMIE) across various scholarly disciplines has been widely acknowledged. One potential reason for this could be editorial biases against submissions from LAMIE. Although this bias has been observed in different academic areas, its extent in spinal research remains largely uninvestigated. This research endeavored to investigate the composition of editorial staff members (ESM) within major spinal journals and scrutinize the degree of international diversity represented among the ESM. MethodsWe pinpointed ten major spinal journals by referencing their presence in the Journal Citation Reports of 2021. Countries of the ESM affiliated with these journals were categorized according to World Bank classifications. Following this, we conducted a thorough analysis of the ESM compositions. ResultsA total of 982 ESM from 50 countries were identified. The United States exhibited the highest representation among ESM (395, 40.22%), followed by South Korea (57, 5.80%), Switzerland (53, 5.40%). When segmented by geographical regions, North America emerged with the highest representation, constituting 43.38% of ESM at 426, trailed by Europe & Central Asia at 31.16% (306), East Asia & Pacific at 17.92% (175). The majority of ESM, amounting to 87.98%, hailed from high income economies (HIE). There was an absence of ESM representation of low income economies. The relationship regarding the quantity of ESM in each country and its population failed to demonstrate significance (p = 0.274, r = 0.281). However, a notable positive correlation emerged when exploring the connection between ESM numbers and gross domestic product (p = 0.033, r = 0.517). ConclusionsMajor spinal journals exhibit a notable absence of international representation within their editorial boards, predominantly comprising members from HIE. This underscores a substantial underrepresentation of ESM originating from LAMIE within the sphere of spinal investigation.

Abstract 1288: Evaluating gender and country of origin diversity on editorial boards in thoracic, gastrointestinal, and breast oncology journals

Abstract Background: The composition and diversity of editorial board members in oncology journals are critical indicators of the field's inclusivity and global perspective. Despite a historical trend of female underrepresentation on editorial boards of peer-reviewed medical journals, the extent of diversity within oncology's various subspecialties remains less understood. This study aims to elucidate the landscape of gender and economic diversity among editorial boards in three major oncology subspecialties: thoracic, gastrointestinal (GI), and breast oncology. Methods: 5 top oncology journals in thoracic, GI, and breast oncology were selected based on 2022 Journal Citation Reports impact factors (Clarivate). Editorial board members, identified from each journal's website, were assessed for economic diversity using the World Bank's 2024 high-income country classification and gender based on academic profile data. Chi-square tests evaluated the gender and economic diversity differences. Results: A total of 762 editor positions from 15 journals were analyzed across the 3 subspecialties. In thoracic oncology, 64.6% were men, 33.5% women, with 7.3% from non-high-income countries. In GI oncology, 84.5% were men, 10.5% women, with 11.1% from non-high-income countries. In breast oncology, 59.3% were men, 39.7% women, with 2.8% from non-high-income countries. Significant disparities in gender and geographical origin were noted (χ² &amp;lt; 0.01). A majority of GI oncology journal editors are based in Asia (66.1%), while in thoracic and breast oncology, most editors are located in North America and Europe. Among 17 editors-in-chief, 88.2% were men, all from high-income countries. Conclusion: The study highlights a significant gender imbalance and a predominance of editors from high-income countries in oncology journals. This imbalance underscores the need for greater inclusivity and diversity in the editorial boards of prominent oncology journals. Gender and country of origin representation among thoracic, GI, and breast oncology Journals Editors in Subspecialties Male Female Unknown Gender Originating from High-Income Country Originating from Middle- or Low-Income Country Continent Thoracic Oncology (N=206) 133 (64.6%) 69 (33.5%) 4 (1.9%) 191 (92.7%) 15 (7.3%) Asia: 37 (18.0%) Africa: 1 (0.5%) Australia: 7 (3.4%) Europe: 73 (35.4%) North America: 86 (41.7%) South America: 2 (1.0%) GI oncology (N=342) 289 (84.5%) 36(10.5%) 17 (5%) 304 (88.9%) 38 (11.1%) Asia: 226 (66.1%) Africa: 1 (0.3%) Australia: 2 (0.6%) Europe: 71 (20.8%) North America: 40 (11.7%) South America: 2 (0.6%) Breast Oncology (N=214) 127 (59.3%) 85 (39.7%) 2 (0.9%) 208 (97.2%) 6 (2.8%) Asia: 10 (4.7%) Australia: 10 (4.7%) Europe: 63 (29.4%) North America: 130 (60.7%) South America: 1 (0.5%) Citation Format: Zhaohui Liao Arter, Robert Hsu, David Benjamin. Evaluating gender and country of origin diversity on editorial boards in thoracic, gastrointestinal, and breast oncology journals [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2024; Part 1 (Regular Abstracts); 2024 Apr 5-10; San Diego, CA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2024;84(6_Suppl):Abstract nr 1288.

Trends in Soil Science over the Past Three Decades (1992–2022) Based on the Scientometric Analysis of 39 Soil Science Journals

As one of the basic disciplines of agricultural, natural resource, and environmental science, soil science has played a critical role in global food security and socio-economic and ecological sustainability. The number of soil science journals and publications has increased remarkably with the development of soil science. However, there is a lack of systematic and comprehensive studies on the developmental trends of soil science based on journals and publications. In this study, 39 journals included under the soil science category in the 2022 Journal Citation Reports, and 112,911 publications in these journals from 1992 to 2022 were subjected to scientometric/bibliometric analysis to determine trends in publication, journal metrics, co-authorship, and research topics, in addition to general journal information. The results show that soil science ushered in a renaissance period with the number of publications, citations, impact factors, and CiteScore demonstrating an increasing trend. America and the Chinese Academy of Sciences had the most publications and citations. The most productive author published more than 400 articles. Soil science research focused mostly on its fundamental impact on the ecological environment based on the strongest citation bursts analysis of keywords. The analysis indicated that open access has increased in popularity. Current soil science journals still face a few common challenges, including an urgent need for a fairer evaluation mechanism on journal quality compared to the traditional use of single metrics as well as equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) in the whole editorial process. Artificial intelligence may bring new tools and more changes to the development of soil science. This study will help soil science researchers to better understand the development status and future trends of soil science. It will also guide authors in journal selection.

Variations in Citations Across Databases: Implications for Journal Impact Factors

ABSTRACT The Journal Impact Factor (JIF) is a widely used metric for ranking journals based on the number of citations garnered by papers published over a specific timeframe. To assess the accuracy of JIF values, I compared citation counts for 30 of my own publications across six major bibliography databases: CrossRef, Web of Science, Publisher records, Google Scholar, PubMed and Scopus. The analysis revealed noteworthy variations in citation counts, ranging from 10% to over 50% between the lowest and highest citation counts. Google Scholar records the highest citation numbers, while PubMed reported the lowest. Notably, Web of Science, whose citation data are used in JIF calculations, tend to underestimate citation counts compared to other databases. These observations raise concerns about the accuracy of JIF calculation based on Web of Science’s citation data. The real JIF values for most journals would differ from those annually reported by Clarivate’s journal citation reports (JCR). These citation discrepancies underscore the importance of comprehensive data collection and the necessity to include additional citation sources. Not because a paper is cited in one journal rather than another should it have a less or more citation weight. Ultimately, one citation remains one citation, regardless of its origin. Clarivate Analytics may thus need to consider integrating all citation sources for more accurate JIF values. Alternatively, Google Scholar could potentially develop its own journal or citation impact based on its extensive journal citation records. However, while making adjustments to how the Journal Impact Factor is calculated can make it more mathematically precise, it doesn’t address the fundamental biases built into the metric. Even with refinements, the Journal Impact Factor will remain skewed due to how it’s defined and used.

Does Reader Engagement with Neurosurgery Journal Websites Correlate with the Number of Citations Received by Articles?

Medicine has begun adapting to new information-sharing paradigms in the hyper-connected social media era. In this milieu, the role of journal websites in the dissemination of clinical and research information needs to be reevaluated. We sought to explore whether reader engagement with neurosurgical journal websites, reflected by the number of article views and downloads, correlated with the eventual number of citations received by the articles. The websites of all Medline indexed neurosurgical journals were screened to identify those that provided information regarding the number of abstract and full text views and downloads. Articles published in these journals between July 2010 and June 2011 were included in this analysis. Various article attributes were identified and the number of citations per article was obtained from Google Scholar. The impact factors of the selected journals for the year 2010 were obtained from the Journal Citation Reports. Twenty-two journals that had published 2527 articles were finally included in this analysis. The number of abstract views, full-text views, and downloads all correlated strongly with the journal impact factors in 2010 as well as the eventual citations per article. The number of article downloads independently predicted the citations per article on multivariate analysis. Neurology India had significantly higher article views and downloads but lower citations per article than the other journals. Readers were found to engage significantly with neurosurgical journal websites and therefore, open access to articles would lead to increased visibility of articles, resulting in higher citation rates.

Heterogeneity in Systematic Reviews of Medical Imaging Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies

Systematic reviews of medical imaging diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) studies are affected by between-study heterogeneity due to a range of factors. Failure to appropriately assess the extent and causes of heterogeneity compromises the interpretability of systematic review findings. To assess how heterogeneity has been examined in medical imaging DTA studies. The PubMed database was searched for systematic reviews of medical imaging DTA studies that performed a meta-analysis. The search was limited to the 40 journals with highest impact factor in the radiology, nuclear medicine, and medical imaging category in the InCites Journal Citation Reports of 2021 to reach a sample size of 200 to 300 included studies. Descriptive analysis was performed to characterize the imaging modality, target condition, type of meta-analysis model used, strategies for evaluating heterogeneity, and sources of heterogeneity identified. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to assess whether any factors were associated with at least 1 source of heterogeneity being identified in the included meta-analyses. Methodological quality evaluation was not performed. Data analysis occurred from October to December 2022. A total of 242 meta-analyses involving a median (range) of 987 (119-441 510) patients across a diverse range of disease categories and imaging modalities were included. The extent of heterogeneity was adequately described (ie, whether it was absent, low, moderate, or high) in 220 studies (91%) and was most commonly assessed using the I2 statistic (185 studies [76%]) and forest plots (181 studies [75%]). Heterogeneity was rated as moderate to high in 191 studies (79%). Of all included meta-analyses, 122 (50%) performed subgroup analysis and 87 (36%) performed meta-regression. Of the 242 studies assessed, 189 (78%) included 10 or more primary studies. Of these 189 studies, 60 (32%) did not perform meta-regression or subgroup analysis. Reasons for being unable to investigate sources of heterogeneity included inadequate reporting of primary study characteristics and a low number of included primary studies. Use of meta-regression was associated with identification of at least 1 source of variability (odds ratio, 1.90; 95% CI, 1.11-3.23; P = .02). In this systematic review of assessment of heterogeneity in medical imaging DTA meta-analyses, most meta-analyses were impacted by a moderate to high level of heterogeneity, presenting interpretive challenges. These findings suggest that, despite the development and availability of more rigorous statistical models, heterogeneity appeared to be incomplete, inconsistently evaluated, or methodologically questionable in many cases, which lessened the interpretability of the analyses performed; comprehensive heterogeneity assessment should be addressed at the author level by improving personal familiarity with appropriate statistical methodology for assessing heterogeneity and involving biostatisticians and epidemiologists in study design, as well as at the editorial level, by mandating adherence to methodologic standards in primary DTA studies and DTA meta-analyses.

Does it pay to pay? A comparison of the benefits of open-access publishing across various sub-fields in biology.

Authors are often faced with the decision of whether to maximize traditional impact metrics or minimize costs when choosing where to publish the results of their research. Many subscription-based journals now offer the option of paying an article processing charge (APC) to make their work open. Though such "hybrid" journals make research more accessible to readers, their APCs often come with high price tags and can exclude authors who lack the capacity to pay to make their research accessible. Here, we tested if paying to publish open access in a subscription-based journal benefited authors by conferring more citations relative to closed access articles. We identified 146,415 articles published in 152 hybrid journals in the field of biology from 2013-2018 to compare the number of citations between various types of open access and closed access articles. In a simple generalized linear model analysis of our full dataset, we found that publishing open access in hybrid journals that offer the option confers an average citation advantage to authors of 17.8 citations compared to closed access articles in similar journals. After taking into account the number of authors, Journal Citation Reports 2020 Quartile, year of publication, and Web of Science category, we still found that open access generated significantly more citations than closed access (p<0.0001). However, results were complex, with exact differences in citation rates among access types impacted by these other variables. This citation advantage based on access type was even similar when comparing open and closed access articles published in the same issue of a journal (p<0.0001). However, by examining articles where the authors paid an article processing charge, we found that cost itself was not predictive of citation rates (p=0.14). Based on our findings of access type and other model parameters, we suggest that, in the case of the 152 journals we analyzed, paying for open access does confer a citation advantage. For authors with limited budgets, we recommend pursuing open access alternatives that do not require paying a fee as they still yielded more citations than closed access. For authors who are considering where to submit their next article, we offer additional suggestions on how to balance exposure via citations with publishing costs.

Developing a tool to optimize research on antioxidants for rooster semen cryopreservation

This study aimed to develop a tool for predicting the potential impact of research studies involving the effect of antioxidants in rooster semen freezing diluent, depending on the variables that have been studied. To achieve this, a comprehensive meta-analysis of fifty-eight research documents was performed. Sixty-two traits were sorted into four major categories: study demographics, study design-related parameters, rooster semen quality-related parameters, and fertility level indicators. The quartile determination of each research document was collected from the Journal Citation Reports database. After twenty-five testing rounds, all variables that showed multicollinearity problems were discarded from further analyses (VIF < 5). HOST, pellet volume, mass motility, light hours, and sperm concentration were the most influential traits for the classification of papers in different quartiles (Wilks’ lambda: 0.797, 0.891, 0.895, 0.896, and 0.904, respectively). The research was validated as reported in the cross-validation analysis, with 93.60% of papers being correctly classified within their group. The present research assists researchers not only in the decision-making process for journals in which to publish the outcomes of their studies, but also to seek for the inclusion of parameters which attract a wider interest for the matter from scientific readers. This leads to the optimisation of resources in studies evaluating the effect of antioxidants in poultry reproduction by identifying the most scientifically relevant variables and those which in trun will lead toa greater impact on research publications.

Meta-research on reporting guidelines for artificial intelligence: are authors and reviewers encouraged enough in radiology, nuclear medicine, and medical imaging journals?

To determine how radiology, nuclear medicine, and medical imaging journals encourage and mandate the use of reporting guidelines for artificial intelligence (AI) in their author and reviewer instructions. The primary source of journal information and associated citation data used was the Journal Citation Reports (June 2023 release for 2022 citation data; Clarivate Analytics, UK). The first- and second-quartile journals indexed in the Science Citation Index Expanded and the Emerging Sources Citation Index were included. The author and reviewer instructions were evaluated by two independent readers, followed by an additional reader for consensus, with the assistance of automatic annotation. Encouragement and submission requirements were systematically analyzed. The reporting guidelines were grouped as AI-specific, related to modeling, and unrelated to modeling. Out of 102 journals, 98 were included in this study, and all of them had author instructions. Only five journals (5%) encouraged the authors to follow AI-specific reporting guidelines. Among these, three required a filled-out checklist. Reviewer instructions were found in 16 journals (16%), among which one journal (6%) encouraged the reviewers to follow AI-specific reporting guidelines without submission requirements. The proportions of author and reviewer encouragement for AI-specific reporting guidelines were statistically significantly lower compared with those for other types of guidelines (P < 0.05 for all). The findings indicate that AI-specific guidelines are not commonly encouraged and mandated (i.e., requiring a filled-out checklist) by these journals, compared with guidelines related to modeling and unrelated to modeling, leaving vast space for improvement. This meta-research study hopes to contribute to the awareness of the imaging community for AI reporting guidelines and ignite large-scale group efforts by all stakeholders, making AI research less wasteful. This meta-research highlights the need for improved encouragement of AI-specific guidelines in radiology, nuclear medicine, and medical imaging journals. This can potentially foster greater awareness among the AI community and motivate various stakeholders to collaborate to promote more efficient and responsible AI research reporting practices.

Gender and geographic representation in editorial boards of education journals

BackgroundPrevious studies have examined the gender and geographic diversity within editorial boards across various academic disciplines, excluding the field of education. Thus, the purpose of this study was to address this gap by investigating the extent of gender and geographic disparity within the editorial boards of education journals.MethodsThe selection of top five education journals from each quartile (Q1–Q4) was performed based on Clarivate Analytics’ Journal Citation Reports (JCR) 2021 within the category of “Education &amp;amp; Educational Research.” The information of editors was collected through online sources.ResultsOverall, female editors accounted for 17 out of the 29 editors-in-chief (58.62%), 36 out of the 64 deputy/associate editors (56.25%), 378 out of the 728 editorial/advisory board members (51.92%) and 15 out of the 28 other types of editors (53.57%). There was no significant association between the impact factor (IF) and the proportion of female editors (Pearson’s r = −0.095, p = 0.689). The United States had the highest number of editors (n = 459, 54.06%), followed by the United Kingdom (n = 98, 11.54%), Australia (n = 63, 7.42%), China (n = 29, 3.42%), Germany (n = 25, 2.94%), and Canada (n = 22, 2.59%). Notably, the majority of the included editors were from developed countries (n = 794, 93.52%), while editors from developing countries constituted a significantly smaller proportion (n = 55, 6.48%).ConclusionEditorial boards of education journals exhibit reasonable gender diversity than other disciplines, though still fall short when considering the proportion of women in the discipline. Besides, obvious geographical disparity was observed among editorial boards of education journals. There was a notable lack of representation of researchers associated with institutions from developing countries on the editorial boards of education journals. While maintaining sufficient gender diversity, it is imperative to enhance the geographical diversity in these journals, ensuring a more equitable number of positions to individuals from these underrepresented groups.

Gender distribution in publishing in five leading optometry journals.

To explore gender distribution in authorship and citation parameters of articles published in five optometry journals included in the Ophthalmology category of Journal Citation Reports. The Scopus database was used to retrieve all citable articles published in 2011 and 2021 in Optometry and Vision Science, Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics, Clinical Experimental Optometry, Contact Lens and Anterior Eye, and Eye and Contact Lens. Gender of the first, last and single authors of all articles, and citation parameters of articles published in 2011 up to May 2023 were determined. Gender of the editor-in-chief and members of the editorial board of these journals was investigated (May 2023). Only one journal had a female editor-in-chief and three journals had more males than females in their editorial board. In 2011 and 2021, respectively, 40.1% and 48.0% of articles had female as the first authors ( = 5.77; p = 0.02), and 32.7% and 39.6% had female as the last authors ( = 4.61; p = 0.03). Gender parity was observed in one journal for the first author and none for the last author in 2011, and in three journals for the first author and one for the last author in 2021. Regarding combinations of male (M) and female (F) first and last authorship positions, the authors of articles in 2011 were MM (44.5%), FM (22.8%), FF (17.3%) and MF (15.4%), and MM (34.6%), FM (25.8%), FF (22.1%) and MF (17.5%) in 2021. Differences between 2011 and 2021 were statistically significant ( = 9.80; p = 0.02). The proportion of authorship combinations did not show statistically significant differences among journals in 2011 or in 2021. Neither citation nor self-citation were influenced by gender. Gender disparities persist in optometry journals, with females being under-represented in senior and leadership positions. Increasing the awareness of gender disparity in authorship is a necessary step towards ensuring fairness in science in general, and optometry in particular.

Endorsement of open science practices by dental journals: A meta-research study

ObjectivesThis study evaluates the endorsement of open science practices by dental journals. Materials and methodsThis was a meta-research study that included journals listed in the 2021 Journal Citation Reports under Dentistry. A comprehensive evaluation was performed by accessing journal websites to ascertain the availability of publicly accessible instructions to authors in Portuguese, English, or Spanish. A researcher extracted information from the "Instructions for Authors" section, encompassing the journal's impact factor, mention of any reporting guidelines, details on data sharing, acceptance of articles in preprint format, and information regarding study protocol registration. Descriptive data analysis was conducted using the Stata 14.0 program, and an Open Science Score (OSS) (ranging from 0 to 100 %) was calculated for each journal by considering five open science practices. Pearson's correlation test was conducted to determine the relationship between the OSS score and journal impact factor. ResultsNinety journals were included in the study. Most journals (70 %) indicated the mandatory use of reporting guidelines, while 60 % recommended data sharing. Conversely, 46.7 % did not provide information on study protocol registration, and 44.4 % stipulated them as mandatory for authors. Regarding preprints, 50 % of the journals did not provide any information, but 46.7 % confirmed their acceptance. The mean OSS was 52.9 % (standard deviation 26.2). There was a weak correlation (Pearson's correlation coefficient of 0.221) between the journal impact factor and OSS (P-value=0.036). ConclusionThis study found varying degrees of endorsement of open science practices among dental journals. Clinical significanceDental practitioners rely on high-quality, evidence-based research for informed decision-making. By assessing the endorsement of open science practices, our study contributes to improving the quality and reliability of dental research, ultimately enhancing the evidence base for clinical practice.