Journal Impact Factor Research Articles

Essential Reads in Rhinology: A Bibliometric Analysis

Abstract Aims Rhinology is a progressive subspecialty within otolaryngology. Bibliometric analysis is a powerful method to survey the landscape of literature on a specific topic and identify publication trends. We aimed to analyze the 50 most impactful English-language rhinology manuscripts of all time to create a targeted reading list for otolaryngologists. Material and Methods The Journal Citation Report within the Web of Science database was utilized to identify articles relating to rhinology. Web of Science Research categories were restricted to otolaryngology. The articles were then ranked by number of citations. The top 50 articles of all time ranked by number of citations were analyzed. The articles were analyzed for publication year, journal impact factor, citation density, first author (FA), and senior author (SA) name, country, and institution. Statistical analyses were performed. Results Most articles were published in the 2000s (N = 22, 44%) and 1990s (N = 11, 22%). Male FA (N = 37, 74%) and SA (N = 43, 86%) published most articles. Most articles were clinical studies (N = 36, 72%) followed by clinical guidelines/expert opinions. Most articles were published in the United States (N = 28, 56%) and England (N = 9, 18%). There were more female FAs of guidelines/position papers than basic lab, reviews, and clinical studies. England had more female FAs than other countries, and the United States had more female SA. There was an average of 585.2 citations per study. Conclusion This investigation highlights the most influential literature within rhinology. The most impactful studies are consensus statements, large multicenter studies, and technique studies. Significant gender disparities in authorship exist.

Poor sample size reporting quality and insufficient sample size in economic evaluations conducted alongside pragmatic trials: a cross-sectional survey

ObjectivesEconomic evaluations based on well-designed and -conducted pragmatic randomized controlled trials (pRCTs) can provide valuable evidence on the cost-effectiveness of interventions, enhancing the relevance and applicability of findings to healthcare decision-making. However, economic evaluation outcomes are seldom taken into consideration during the process of sample size calculation in pragmatic trials. The reporting quality of sample size and information on its calculation in economic evaluations that are well-suited to pRCTs remain unknown. This study aims to assess the reporting quality of sample size and estimate the power values of economic evaluations in pRCTs. Study Design and SettingWe conducted a cross-sectional survey using data of pRCTs available from PubMed and OVID from 1 January 2010 to 24 April 2022. Two groups of independent reviewers identified articles; three groups of reviewers each extracted the data. Descriptive statistics presented the general characteristics of included studies. Statistical power analyses were performed on clinical and economic outcomes with sufficient data. ResultsThe electronic search identified 715 studies and 152 met the inclusion criteria. Of these, 26 were available for power analysis. Only 9 out of 152 trials (5.9%) considered economic outcomes when estimating sample size, and only one adjusted the sample size accordingly. Power values for trial-based economic evaluations and clinical trials ranged from 2.56% to 100% and 3.21%–100%, respectively. Regardless of the perspectives, in 14 out of the 26 studies (53.8%), the power values of economic evaluations for quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were lower than those of clinical trials for primary endpoints (PEs). In 11 out of the 24 (45.8%) and in 8 out of the 13 (61.5%) studies, power values of economic evaluations for QALYs were lower than those of clinical trials for PEs from the healthcare and societal perspectives, respectively. Power values of economic evaluations for non-QALYs from the healthcare and societal perspectives were potentially higher than those of clinical trials in 3 out of the 4 studies (75%). The power values for economic outcomes in Q1 were not higher than those for other journal impact factor quartile categories. ConclusionTheoretically, pragmatic trials with concurrent economic evaluations can provide real-world evidence for healthcare decision makers. However, in pRCT-based economic evaluations, limited consideration, and inadequate reporting of sample-size calculations for economic outcomes could negatively affect the results’ reliability and generalisability. We thus recommend that future pragmatic trials with economic evaluations should report how sample sizes are determined or adjusted based on the economic outcomes in their protocols to enhance their transparency and evidence quality.

Endometriosis and Infertility: A Bibliometric Analysis of the 100 Most-Cited Articles from 2000 to 2023

Objectives: This study aimed to conduct a bibliometric analysis of research on endometriosis and infertility, focusing on the 100 most-cited (TOP100) articles in the literature. Design: The design of this study is a bibliometric analysis. Participants/Materials, Setting, Methods: The SCOPUS database was searched using the terms “endometriosis” and “infertility.” The productivity and impact of research publications by authors, countries, and journals were assessed using the following indicators: total number of publications, total number of citations (TNC), journal impact factor, and journal citation indicator. The bibliometric analysis was conducted from January 1, 2000, to December 31, 2023, using IBM SPSS™ for Windows and VOSviewer 1.6.20. VOSviewer was used to evaluate the TNC, total number of authors/coauthors, and collaboration network between countries of the TOP100 articles. VOSviewer was also used to create keyword co-occurrence networks. Results: Of the TOP100 articles, 69 were literature review articles, with a mean of 448.97 ± 513.5 citations (range: 191–2,705). The TOP100 articles were published by 479 authors (mean 5.8 ± 7.3 per study) from 40 countries in 39 high-impact journals. The keyword co-occurrence network revealed a grouping of four clusters, with terms related to pathophysiology, clinical management, assisted reproductive technology, and hormonal treatment of endometriosis. Limitations: The main limitation of our study is the use of only one database and TNC as the main bibliometric indicator. Studies need at least 2–3 years after publication to accumulate sufficient citations for bibliometric indicators to be reliable. This means that large number of recent studies were not included in this bibliometric analysis. Conclusions: This study revealed trends in endometriosis and infertility research, especially in the fields of immunology and genetics. It also highlights the importance of global collaboration to improve diagnostics, treatments, and outcomes.

Impact Factor of Journal of Wrist Surgery for 2023

Impact Factor of Journal of Wrist Surgery for 2023

Fate of Abstracts Presented at Annual Meetings of The Society of Thoracic Surgeons from 2015 to 2019

Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) annual meetings provide opportunities to disseminate cardiothoracic research. We assessed rates of publication of STS abstracts as manuscripts in peer-reviewed journals over five years and determined factors associated with successful publication. The STS "Annual Meeting Archive" was searched online for abstract books from STS annual meetings from 2015-2019. Abstract books were reviewed for information about presented abstracts. A PubMed and Google search was then performed to identify corresponding peer-reviewed journal publications. A total of 1451 abstracts were presented at STS annual meetings from 2015-2019. Overall publication rate of accepted abstracts as manuscripts in peer-reviewed journals was 1097/1451=75.60%. Most published manuscripts were published in The Annals of Thoracic Surgery (750/1097=68.37%). Median duration between abstract presentation and peer-reviewed journal publication was 313[IQR=212.5-458] days. Only 29/1451=2.00% of abstracts won an award, and all 29 of these award-winning abstracts were published as a manuscript. Oral presentation was associated with increased odds of publication compared to poster presentation (OR=1.28[95% CI=1.04-1.71], p=0.021). Median 5-year impact factor of peer-reviewed journals containing these manuscripts was 5.04[IQR=5.04-5.04], and corresponding manuscripts were cited a median of 4[IQR=1-9] times. Overall, 836/1097=76.20% of manuscripts published in peer-reviewed scientific journals had a corresponding North American author. Annual STS meetings are a forum for the presentation of high-quality research. The rate of publication of accepted STS abstracts as manuscripts in peer-reviewed journals is >75%, comparing favorably with national meetings of other surgical societies, and >2/3 of published manuscripts are published in STS's official journal.

Do infographics ‘spin’ the findings of health and medical research?

ObjectiveTo compare the prevalence of ‘spin’, and specific reporting strategies for spin, between infographics, abstracts and full texts of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) reporting non-significant findings in the field of...

Journal Metrics of the Journal of Craniofacial Surgery: An Analysis Based on the Journal Citation Report 2024.

This study aims the analysis of the journal metrics of Journal of Craniofacial Surgery based on 2024 Journal Citation Reports (JCR) data. In the Journal Citation Reports 2024, shared by Clarivate Analytics on June 20, 2024, the journal metrics of the Journal of Craniofacial Surgery were examined in detail. According to the reports published by Clarivate Analytics in 2024, the journal's impact factor in 2023 was determined as 1.0 and the impact factor excluding self-citations was calculated as 0.8. These values show that the impact factor of the journal has increased in recent years. Also, it is seen that the Journal of Craniofacial Surgery, which has been in the fourth quartile (Q4) among the journals in the "Surgery" category for the last 10 years, has risen to the third quartile (Q3) this year. The increase in the impact factor and ranking of the Journal of Craniofacial Surgery shows that the journal has strengthened its position in the scientific field and is moving toward higher levels. However, it is suggested that other metrics should be taken into consideration in addition to the impact factor.

Growth of Knowledge Synthesis in a University Setting: Types, Disciplines, and Librarian Involvement

Librarian co-authorship of knowledge synthesis (KS) research is on the rise, demonstrating growing recognition of the value librarians bring to research teams. This study analyzes trends in KS research output at a mid-sized doctoral granting university between 2017 and 2022, with a focus on librarian involvement. Using PubMed, Scopus, and the Social Sciences Citation Index & Arts and Humanities Citation Index, all KS research published by researchers at our institution between 2017 and 2022 was retrieved. A content analysis was conducted, and findings reveal a 280 % increase in librarian co-authorship during this period, coinciding with a 54 % overall growth in KS publications. Health sciences continue to dominate as the primary creators of KS research, with <10 % of published KS published in the sciences, humanities, and social sciences. Notably, systematic reviews with librarian co-authors were published in journals with higher Journal Impact Factors (JIFs) than those without. This research underscores the vital role librarians play in advancing KS research, the importance of advocating for librarian co-authorship, and highlights the need for increased librarian engagement in non-health disciplines.

Five problems plaguing publishing in the life sciences-and one common cause.

Although publication in scholarly peer-reviewed journals remains the gold standard for communication of findings in the life sciences, the gold has been debased in the digital age by various impurities, including (a) reviewer fatigue, (b) fraud, paper mills, and the perils of artificial intelligence, (c) predatory journals, (d) the ongoing use of journal impact factor as a proxy for individual article quality, and (e) salami-slicing and other unethical practices. In this article, I present a detailed overview of these problems, as well as solutions proposed and implemented to counter them. Finally, I suggest that these are all symptomatic of a wider problem, namely the culture of 'publish or perish' and ongoing issues with how researcher performance is evaluated for grant, hiring, and promotion decisions. Only by working towards a global shift in the way scientists view the purpose of publication can we finally remove the impurities and refine the gold.

The Growth and Development of a Research Division in the Plastic Surgery Department of a Large Urban Academic Medical Center.

Research is a critical component of academic medicine that may or may not be prioritized in centers with high clinical volumes. The benefits of research expansion go beyond notoriety and industry partnerships, expanding into resident training and preparation of the next generation of physician-scientists. Improving a division or department's research portfolio requires a commitment to reorganizing structure, personnel, resources, and a dedication to innovative funding models. To improve research productivity and quality, our group placed several initiatives into motion beginning in August 2017 that we have outlined and evaluated in the present study. Some of these initiatives included restructuring leadership, resourcing both bench and clinical outcomes research, providing initial funding directly from clinical profits and rewarding research fiscally. Reviews of hiring records, publications, grant allocations, and interviews with key personnel were used to generate a road map of initiatives. Average impact factor was calculated by averaging journal impact factors for all publications from the department each year, excluding any publications with greater than 5 times the raw average, and creating a corrected average that more accurately represented the work. Student t tests were used to compare mean number of publications and impact factors from 2010 to 2017 to those from 2018 to 2022. Prior to restructuring (2010-2017), the department published an average of 9 articles annually, which increased to an average of 42 articles since that time (P < 0.01). Average impact increased from 0 in 2010 to 4.02 in 2022, with the number of publications in top 10 plastic surgery journals following a similar trajectory with 1 publication in 2010 and 31 in 2023. Following an initial $1 million investment to create an institutionally directed fund in 2018, the department leveraged its research to earn $3 million in endowments, $1.25 million in industry partnerships, $3.23 million in Department of Defense funding, and $1.65 million from a multi-institutional National Institutes of Health grant. Deliberate prioritization of research initiatives as noted above has led to remarkable growth in academic output.

Factors associated with the publication and impact of CUA abstracts over the last decade.

The Canadian Urological Association's (CUA) annual meeting is the largest gathering of Canadian urologists, and many abstracts that are presented go on to be published as peer-reviewed papers. Our objective is to determine the publication rates and impact of these abstracts, and examine predictors associated with their publication. We identified abstracts presented at the 2010, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2018, 2020, and 2021 CUA meetings, and determined if there were matching manuscripts based on author and title using a comprehensive Medline search. Standardized data was extracted. Medians and interquartile ranges are presented, and regression models were used to determine factors associated with manuscript publication, journal impact factor, and time to publication. There were 1732 CUA abstracts in our years of interest. The overall publication rate was 45.4%. Median journal impact factor was 2.27 for all published abstracts and time to publication was 13.2 months. Type of presentation was significantly associated with publication rate (p<0.001), with 63.7% of podiums, 46.7% of moderated posters, and 39.5% of unmoderated posters published. The median journal impact factor was 3.45 for published podiums, 2.19 for moderated posters, and 2.10 for unmoderated posters. Approximately 45% of CUA annual meeting abstracts are eventually published. The type of presentation correlates well with both publication and impact factor, suggesting the CUA review process and scientific program committee does a good job of judging abstract quality.

Sex and gender bias in chronic coronary syndromes research: analysis of studies used to inform the 2019 European Society of Cardiology guidelines

Sex and gender inequalities in ischemic heart diseases persist. Although ischemic heart disease is less common in women, they experience worse clinical outcomes and are less likely to receive guideline-recommended treatments. The primary scientific literature from which clinical guideline recommendations are derived may not have considered potential sex- and gender biases. This study aims to determine whether the literature cited in recent cardiovascular guidelines' clinical recommendations contain sex and gender biases. We analysed publications cited in the 2019 European Society of Cardiology (ESC) guideline recommendations on chronic coronary syndromes, using a checklist to guide data extraction and evaluate the individual studies for sex- and gender-related aspects, such as inclusion/exclusion criteria, outcome measures, and demographic data reporting. To assess representation over time, the proportion of women participants in each study was computed and analysed using a beta regression model. We also examined the associations between women's representation, journal impact factor and author gender. Among the 20 ESC recommendations on chronic coronary syndromes, four contained sex-related statements; we did not identify any gender-specific suggestions. The referenced literature upon which these recommendations were based consisted of 108 articles published between 1991 and 2019, encompassing more than 1.6 million study participants (26.8%; 432,284 women). Only three studies incorporated sex-sensitive designs; none were gender-specific. The term "gender" did not occur in 84% (n=91/108) of the publications; when used, it was exclusively to denote biological sex. The proportion of women (assumed by investigators) among study participants fluctuated over time. Having a woman as first (odds ratio (OR)=1.68, 95% CI: 1.19-2.39) or last author (OR=2.28, 95% CI: 1.31-3.97), was significantly associated with having more women participants in the study. The data underlying ESC guideline recommendations largely lack reporting of possible sex- and gender-specific aspects, and women are distinctly underrepresented. To what extent these recommendations apply to members of specific population groups who are not well-represented in the underlying evidence base remains unknown. This study is part of the Gender and Health Inequalities (GENDHI) project, ERC-2019-SyG. This project has received funding from the European Research Council (ERC).

Is there an editorial glass ceiling? Editorial leadership in nephrology and transplantation journals: A gender-based cross-sectional analysis.

Editors-in-Chief (EiC) play a key role as gatekeepers in academic medicine, often shaping research agendas. Women have historically been underrepresented in editorial leadership roles in academic medicine. The purpose of this study was to examine gender representation among EiC of contemporary transplantation and nephrology journals. This cross-sectional study evaluated gender disparities among EiC of transplantation and nephrology medical journals. The study population was drawn from journals in two subject categories (1) 'Transplantation' and (2) 'Urology and Nephrology' in the 2023 Journal Citation Reports. Binary gender classification (woman/man) was determined by the names/pronouns used to describe the EiC on the journal or institutional webpage. The primary outcome was the proportion of women EiC. Secondary outcome was the proportion of women EiC based on journal topic, location and metrics. Descriptive statistics were used. Gender differences were compared using students t-test or Fisher's exact test. A total of 79 EiC were identified of which 16 (20%) were women and 63 (80%) were men (p < .001). Transplantation and nephrology journals had 21% and 20% women EiC, respectively. The proportion of women to men EiC was not impacted by journal category (p = .93), journal location (p = .61), journal impact factor (p = .71) or quartile (p = .59). There was a disparity in gender representation in EiC in nephrology and transplantation journals, with men holding 80% of all positions. These findings, among growing evidence of gender disparity, highlight a need for targeted efforts to promote gender equity in academic medicine.

Publications on COVID-19 and artificial intelligence: trends and lessons

Purpose: This study investigates shifts in scientific research focus, particularly the decline in COVID-19-related research and the rapid growth of artificial intelligence (AI) publications.Methods: We analyzed publication data from the Web of Science, comparing yearly publication counts for COVID-19 and AI research. The study also tracked changes in the impact factors of leading journals like &lt;i&gt;Science&lt;/i&gt; and &lt;i&gt;Nature&lt;/i&gt;, alongside those of top AI journals over the past decade. Additionally, we reviewed the top 10 most cited articles in 2021 from &lt;i&gt;Science&lt;/i&gt; and &lt;i&gt;Nature&lt;/i&gt; and the most influential AI publications from the past five years according to Google Scholar. The impact trends of the top 100 AI journals in computer science were also explored.Results: The analysis reveals a noticeable decline in COVID-19 related publications as the pandemic urgency diminishes, contrasted with the continued rapid growth of AI research. Impact factors for prestigious journals have shifted, with AI journals increasingly dominating the academic landscape. The review of top-cited articles further emphasizes these trends.Conclusion: Our findings indicate a significant shift in research priorities, with AI emerging as a dominant field poised to address future challenges, reflecting the evolving focus of the scientific community.

Bibliometric Analysis of Predictors of Altmetric Attention Scores in Orthopedic Research: Investigating Online Visibility.

Altmetric Attention Score (AAS) captures online attention received by a research article in addition to traditional bibliometrics. We present a comprehensive bibliometric analysis of high AAS articles and identify predictors of AAS in orthopedics. The top 30 articles with highest AAS were selected from orthopedic journals using the Dimensions App. Multilevel mixed-effects linear regression was used to address clustering in articles from the same journal, with journals as the leveling variable. A total of 750 articles from 25 journals were included. In the final multivariable model, the funding source (none, industry, government, foundation, university, or multiple), findings (positive, negative, neutral, or not applicable), and the journal's impact factor were significant at P<.05. Predictors of AAS are similar to predictors of traditional bibliometrics. Future studies need prospective dynamic data to further elucidate the AAS. [Orthopedics. 20XX;4X(X):XXX-XXX.].

The cutting-edge roles of lasers in endodontics: A bibliometric and scientometric analysis of the 100 most-cited articles

Purpose: This bibliometric and scientometric analysis aimed to delve into the forefront roles of lasers in endodontics from 1990 to 2024. Methods: A comprehensive electronic search was conducted using “Clarivate Analytics Web of Science, All Databases” to retrieve the most-cited articles pertaining to the topic. These articles were then ranked in descending order according to their citation counts and the top 100 were selected for further analysis. Parameters including citation density, publication year, journal, journal impact factor (IF), country, institution, author, study design, study field, evidence level, laser type, and keywords were meticulously analyzed. Results: The mean and standard deviations of total citation and citation density were 106.47 ± 65.76 and 7.61 ± 5.13, respectively. Positive and negative correlations were found between the number of citations and citation density and age of publication. While the mean number of citations was significantly higher in the period 2001–2010 compared to the other periods (P < 0.05), values were similar between the periods 1990–2000 and 2011–2014 (P > 0.05). Articles were mainly published in the Journal of Endodontics. The most productive country, institutions, and author were the United States, the University of Showa, and Koukichi Matsumoto. Diode and Er: YAG lasers were commonly investigated. Ex vivo studies were mainly performed followed by in vitro ones. The main study field was “antimicrobial effect”. Among keywords, “photodynamic therapy” was used more frequently. Conclusion: Lasers are predominantly utilized to leverage their antimicrobial efficacy. Advancements in technology will lead to improvements in the properties of lasers, thereby enhancing the disinfection of the root canal system.

Quantity over quality of publications: Are we using the right metrics to judge author's productivity and impact in biomedical research?

The "publish and flourish" culture in the biomedical field has led to an increase in the number of publications worldwide, creating pressure on researchers to publish frequently. However, this focus on quantity over quality has resulted in an inflation of the number of authors listed in articles, leading to authorship issues and the rise of fraudulent or predatory scientific and medical journals. To maintain the credibility of scientific research, it is necessary to reform the publication metrics and explore innovative ways of evaluating an author's contributions. Traditional metrics, such as publication counts, fail to capture the research's quality, significance, and impact. As a result, this viewpoint explores and highlights different metrics and novel methods by which an author's productivity and impact can be assessed beyond traditional metrics, such as the H index, i10 index, FWCI, HCP, ALEF, AIF, AAS, JIF, CNA, awards/honors, citation percentile, n-index, and ACI. By using multiple metrics, one can determine the true impact and productivity of an author, and other measures such as awards and honors, research collaborations, research output diversity, and journal impact factors can further aid in serving the purpose. Accurately assessing an author's productivity and impact has significant implications on their academic career, institution, and the broader scientific community. It can also help funding agencies make informed decisions, improve resource allocation, and enhance public trust in scientific research. Therefore, it is crucial to address these issues and continue the ongoing discussion on best method to evaluate and recognize the contributions of authors in today's rapidly changing academic landscape.

A cross‐domain analysis of research performance: Conventional and altmetric indicators in Medicine, Physical Sciences, and Social Sciences

AbstractComparing research performance across distinct subject domains is not recommended unless proper treatments are applied to normalize the domain‐specific characteristics. Except for limited research aimed at exploring the field‐dependent behaviours of specific research performance indicators, it is difficult to find comprehensive research examining both conventional and altmetric indicators for their influence on journals, articles, and authors in distinct subject domains. This research used Scopus and PlumX as sources to collect conventional and altmetric data, respectively. In addition to descriptive statistics, the Mann–Whitney U test, cluster plots, and correlation analysis were employed for data analysis. The results reveal that all three levels of indicators behave in notably different ways in Medicine compared with that of the Physical and Social Sciences. Most indicators in all three levels attain higher maximum and average values in Medicine. For instance, the maximum values for most indicators, except for citations and documents, are significantly higher in Medicine than in the Physical and Social Sciences. However, the citations and productivity of Physical Sciences journals surpass the two in other domains. SNIP deviates lightly across subject domains compared with that of other journal‐level indicators. Further, citations do not have a large influence on SNIP and SJR as they do Journal Impact Factor and CiteScore. All article‐level indicators show significant differences between Medicine and the Physical Sciences. Between the Physical and Social Sciences, all indicators except page count show significant differences. Further, article‐level indicators in the Social Sciences behave in nearly the same way as in the Physical Sciences. Citation counts positively influence captures. In addition, Medicine authors are likely to make more impact and be more productive in their field than authors in other fields. Collaboration was also found to improve both the productivity of authors and the impact of their research, irrespective of the domain they work in. These findings are important to authors, research evaluators, and publishers from different viewpoints. Discouraging performance comparisons based on raw indicator values can protect researchers from inaccurate assessments, enabling them to fully realize their potential for conducting cutting‐edge research. Finally, this research indicates different directions along which this area of research can be extended.

Gender Differences in Citation Rate: An Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials in Nephrology High-Impact Journals Over Two Decades.

Historically, women's scientific contributions have been under-recognized. We investigated whether the number of citations, a key metric used for academic promotions and scientific productivity, differs in nephrology high impact publications based on author's gender. We identified randomized clinical trials (RCTs) from 2000-2021 in ten high impact journals. We assessed author gender, citations, h-index, m-index, years active publishing, education, and grant funding. The main predictor of interest was the gender of the first author. The main outcome was the standardized citation count for analysis of the selected publications. Additionally, we evaluated standardized author citation counts using the author, rather than paper. Among the selected publications, women were first authors of 65 (17.1%) and men of 315 manuscripts (82.9%). In crude analyses, publications with male first authors had a significantly higher median number of standardized citations (14 vs. 10, P=0.01). Adjusted analyses revealed, the m-index (β=29.48, P≤0.01) and journal impact factor (β=0.78, P<0.001) were significantly associated with the standardized citation index. In contrast, neither the gender of the first author (βmale gender=1.42, P=0.71) nor of the last author (βmale gender=8.89, P=0.38) were significantly associated with the standardized citations. Similarly, in adjusted analyses based on author profiles, male authorship was not significantly associated with the standardized author citation number (βmale gender=-7.79, P=0.08). Our study highlights marked disparities in the overall number of women publishing high impact nephrology trials and the number of papers with women scientists as first authors of high impact trials in the nephrology literature. Although crude citation rates were lower in papers with female first authors, the gender of the first author was not independently associated with citation metrics. Addressing gender disparities in academic recognition requires nuanced approaches extending beyond authorship and a broader focus on complex factors that influence academic recognition and scientific contributions.

The 100 most cited articles about molar-incisor hypomineralization: a bibliometric analysis

Introduction: Molar-Incisor Hypomineralization (MIH) is an enamel defect of systemic origin that affects from 1 to 4 permanent first molars and is frequently associated with permanent incisors. Bibliometric studies may be considered a useful approach to describing a trend of development of a research field. Objective: To identify the 100 most cited articles about MIH and analyze their characteristics. Material and Methods: Two authors evaluated the articles found in Web of Science (WOS) database. The extracted data included: number and mean number of citations, title, authors, country, year, impact factor of journals, study design, thematic field, institutions. To create collaboration and co-occurrence network maps between keywords, the VOSviewer software was used. Results: The most cited articles received 5,354 citations and 138.92 citations per year. The majority of studies were published in the decade of 2010 (58%) and were related to Epidemiology (35%). Europe was the continent with the greatest contribution to the list of the most cited articles (43%). Australia was responsible for most of the papers included (23%). The majority of the studies were of the cross-sectional type (39%). Conclusion: Evaluation of the 100 most cited articles in the area of enamel defects allowed better understanding of the world scenario with reference to MIH.