Tier Of Journals Research Articles

NIH funding and journal selection: trends in dermatology publication models across tiers from 2021 to 2023.

This study examines the influence of National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding on the publication choices of dermatologists, particularly in terms of journal tiers and pay-to-publish (P2P) versus free-to-publish (F2P) models. Utilizing k-means clustering for journal ranking based on SCImago Journal Rank, h-index, and Impact Factor, journals were categorized into three tiers and 54,530 dermatology publications from 2021 to 2023 were analyzed. Authors were classified as Top NIH Funded or Non-Top NIH Funded according to Blue Ridge Institute for Medical Research rankings. The study finds significant differences in publication patterns, with Top NIH Funded researchers in Tier I journals demonstrating a balanced use of P2P and F2P models, while they preferred F2P models in Tier II and III journals. Non-Top NIH Funded authors, however, opted for P2P models more frequently across all tiers. These data suggest NIH funding allows researchers greater flexibility to publish in higher-tier journals despite publication fees, while prioritizing F2P models in lower-tier journals. Such a pattern indicates that funding status plays a critical role in strategic publication decisions, potentially impacting research visibility and subsequent funding. The study's dermatology focus limits broader applicability, warranting further research to explore additional factors like geographic location, author gender, and research design.

The scholarly impact of diversity research

AbstractThis study contributes to the diversity literature by probing whether diversity papers are cited as frequently as nondiversity papers in management and industrial/organizational (I/O) psychology journals. Based on the stigma‐by‐association theory, I argue that as a result of their association with minority groups, diversity papers may be devalued and thus “othered” by scholars. Using a citation analysis of 46,930 papers published in 29 peer‐reviewed management and I/O psychology journals, I present empirical evidence in Study 1 that diversity papers were cited significantly less frequently than nondiversity papers. The authors' gender and institutional prestige, journal tier and domain, and year of publication were not moderators. In Study 2, I used a scenario experiment to demonstrate the stigma‐by‐association effect. The authors' gender demonstrated a significant moderating effect in this experiment.

How do scientific papers from different journal tiers gain attention on social media?

The emergence of social media has fundamentally changed the way of scholarly communication and allows for scientific research to be shared at an unprecedented speed and scale. While many studies have discussed what papers attract most online attention, how they prevail online is unclear. In this paper, we explore the diffusion patterns of ∼170,000 papers with different journal tiers from 2012 to 2019 based on over 3 million Twitter mentions. We first categorize journals by the elite (the top of Q1) and non-elite (Q2∼Q4) according to their journal impact factor quartiles, then use network analysis and time series analysis to characterize papers’ dynamic diffusion process, and finally discuss papers’ engaged users and disciplinary contexts. Results show that though elite journal papers spread significantly faster and more broadly than non-elite, some non-elite journal papers reached a sizable audience. For non-elite journal papers, a decent size of social media reach can be achieved through the aid of highly influential users or multiple waves of small spread that span a long period. As a result, popular non-elite journal papers tend to be more viral than the elite, focusing discussions around topics close to daily life. This study provides a new perspective to characterize the diffusion process of scientific papers and helps to further enhance the understanding of such a process.

Factors associated with altmetric attention scores for randomized phase III cancer clinical trials.

11014 Background: The rise of the internet and social media has created new opportunities for the rapid sharing of scientific findings among professional and public communities. Altmetric Attention Scores (Altmetrics) are real-time measures of scientific impact and attention through various public outlets, including news, blogs, and social media. Distributions and patterns of Almetrics for high-impact clinical cancer research remain under-reported. Our goal was to describe the relationship between Altmetrics and other characteristics of published trials. Methods: We identified all two-arm superiority phase III cancer randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with a publication date between 2015-2020 from HemOnc.org. For included trials, we tabulated the followed the data: Altmetric score as of February 11, 2022; positive study (yes/no); FDA registration trial (yes/no); primary endpoint (categorized as overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), event-free/disease-free survival (EFS/DFS), or other); journal tier (defined as tier 1: NEJM, Lancet, JAMA; tier 2: JCO, Blood, Lancet Oncology, JAMA Oncology, Annals of Oncology or Tier 3: other). Univariable testing was performed with Pearson correlation, Wilcoxon rank sum, and Kruskal-Wallis testing to identify associations between predictor variables and Altmetrics. For factors with significant univariable associations, we generated a multiple linear regression model to identify clinical trial factors predictive of Altmetric attention scores, with alpha = 0.05 defining statistical significance. Results: Of 673 publications identified per inclusion/exclusion criteria, Altmetric scores were found for 638 (95%). The median score was 38.9 (IQR 12.4-126.7) – well above the 95th percentile for all Altmetric scores. On univariable testing, positive studies (P < 0.001), registration trials (P < 0.001), those published in tier 1 journals (P < 0.001), and trials with primary endpoint of OS (P = 0.002) were associated with increased Altmetric scores. On multivariable testing, positive studies (P = 0.006), registration trials (P < 0.001), studies published tier 1 journals (P < 0.001), and those reporting on OS (P = 0.03) persisted as significantly associated with increased engagement as measured by Altmetric scores. Conclusions: Social media and other online platforms represent an increasingly important avenue for the sharing of scientific and medical research. In this cross-sectional observational study, we found that certain characteristics of cancer clinical trials and publications are predictive of impact as measured by Altmetric scores. Specifically, positive registration trials published in traditionally defined high-impact journals and those reporting on OS as a primary endpoint tend to have the greatest Altmetric attention scores. The significance and consequences of these relationships warrant further investigation.

Diversity Drives Innovation: The Impact of Female-Driven Publications.

Gender disparities are pervasive in academic plastic surgery. Previous research demonstrates articles authored by women receive fewer citations than those written by men, suggesting the presence of implicit gender bias. The aim of this study was to describe current citation trends in plastic surgery literature and assess gender bias. The expectation was that women would be cited less frequently than their male peers. Articles published between 2017 and 2019 were collected from 8 representative plastic surgery journals stratified by impact factor. Names of primary and senior authors of the 50 most cited articles per year per journal were collected and author gender was determined via online database and internet search. The median numbers of citations by primary and senior author gender were compared by Kruskal-Wallis test. Among 1167 articles, women wrote 27.3% as primary author and 18% as senior author. Women-authored articles were cited as often as those authored by men (P > 0.05) across all journal tiers. Articles with a female primary and male senior author had significantly more citations than articles with a male primary author (P = 0.038). No implicit gender bias was identified in citation trends, a finding unique to plastic surgery. Women primary authors are cited more often than male primary authors despite women comprising a small fraction of authorship overall. Additionally, variegated authorship pairings outperformed homogeneous ones. Therefore, increasing gender diversity within plastic surgery academia remains critical.

Estimating publication bias in meta-analyses of peer-reviewed studies: A meta-meta-analysis across disciplines and journal tiers.

Selective publication and reporting in individual papers compromise the scientific record, but are meta-analyses as compromised as their constituent studies? We systematically sampled 63 meta-analyses (each comprising at least 40 studies) in PLoS One, top medical journals, top psychology journals, and Metalab, an online, open-data database of developmental psychology meta-analyses. We empirically estimated publication bias in each, including only the peer-reviewed studies. Across all meta-analyses, we estimated that "statistically significant" results in the expected direction were only 1.17 times more likely to be published than "nonsignificant" results or those in the unexpected direction (95% CI: [0.93, 1.47]), with a confidence interval substantially overlapping the null. Comparable estimates were 0.83 for meta-analyses in PLoS One, 1.02 for top medical journals, 1.54 for top psychology journals, and 4.70 for Metalab. The severity of publication bias did differ across individual meta-analyses; in a small minority (10%; 95% CI: [2%, 21%]), publication bias appeared to favor "significant" results in the expected direction by more than threefold. We estimated that for 89% of meta-analyses, the amount of publication bias that would be required to attenuate the point estimate to the null exceeded the amount of publication bias estimated to be actually present in the vast majority of meta-analyses from the relevant scientific discipline (exceeding the 95th percentile of publication bias). Study-level measures ("statistical significance" with a point estimate in the expected direction and point estimate size) did not indicate more publication bias in higher-tier versus lower-tier journals, nor in the earliest studies published on a topic versus later studies. Overall, we conclude that the mere act of performing a meta-analysis with a large number of studies (at least 40) and that includes non-headline results may largely mitigate publication bias in meta-analyses, suggesting optimism about the validity of meta-analytic results.

DIFFERENCES IN CITATION PATTERNS ACROSS JOURNAL TIERS: THE CASE OF ECONOMICS

We study how citation patterns differ between journal tiers in economics by analyzing citations patterns of more than 6,000 research articles published in top five, second tier, and top field economics journals. We find that top five journals' articles receive more citations and that the life cycles of those citations are longer. However, their influence (in term of citations) is overestimated: in its first twenty years since publication, the median top five article accumulates 4.25 as many citations when compared to non‐top five median articles. This ratio is strongly associated with the field of economics research and with articles' impact. (JEL A14)

2564. What Predicts Journal Publication Tier and Audience Engagement in the Infectious Diseases Literature? A Review of 146 Publications

BackgroundAs part of an online medical education project (www.idjournal.club), we surveilled the infectious diseases (ID) literature, selecting subsets of what we deemed the most clinically impactful articles on a monthly basis using a prespecified search algorithm. We used this resource to perform a broad overview of articles published in the field and examine factors associated with publication in higher tier journals and higher rates of public and ID community engagement.MethodsWe examined articles reviewed on www.idjournal.club between June and September 2018. For each article, we recorded the publishing journal, subfield of ID, study type, nation and degree of the lead author, and sample size, and we assigned the paper up to three topic keywords. Our outcomes of interest were the publishing journal’s Scimago Journal Rank (SJR), a surrogate for journal tier, and the article’s Altmetric score, a surrogate for audience engagement.ResultsOf 146 articles included in the analysis, the most common study types were retrospective observational (n = 47), randomized controlled trial (n = 23), in vitro (n = 20), and prospective observational (n = 19). The median sample size was 238; median sample sizes were higher for randomized controlled trials (n = 400) and lower for in vitro and pharmacokinetic/pharmacokinetic studies (n = 53 and n = 44). Lead authors were based in the United States in 38% of cases and in North America or Europe in 86% of cases. Physicians accounted for 65% of lead authors, PhDs 23%, and PharmDs 10%. The most commonly referenced pathogens were HIV, MDR Gram-negative bacteria, S. aureus, and C. difficile; the most commonly referenced disease states were bacteremia, sexually transmitted infection, respiratory tract infection, and UTI. The mean SJR was 3.5 (SD 3.1) and the mean Altmetric score was 54.5 (SD 143). SJR and Altmetric score were associated with study type, sample size, and key topics; Altmetric score was also associated with publishing journal. In multivariate analysis, SJR was associated with study type and sample size, and Altmetric score was associated with ID subfield, journal, and sample size.ConclusionWe present a descriptive overview of the ID literature and identify article factors associated with journal tier and audience engagement after publication.Disclosures All authors: No reported disclosures.

Using partial least squares structural equation modeling in hospitality and tourism

PurposeThe purpose of this study is to review the use of partial least squares-structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) in the field of hospitality and tourism and thereby to assess whether the PLS-SEM-based papers followed the recommended application guidelines and to investigate whether a comparison of journal types (hospitality vs tourism) and journal qualities (top-tier vs other leading) reveal significant differences in PLS-SEM use.Design/methodology/approachA total of 206 PLS-SEM based papers published between 2000 and April 2017 in the 19 SSCI-indexed hospitality and tourism journals were critically analyzed using a wide range of guidelines for the following aspects of PLS-SEM: the rationale of using the method, the data characteristics, the model characteristics, the model assessment and reporting the technical issues.FindingsThe results reveal that some aspects of PLS-SEM are correctly applied by researchers, but there are still some misapplications, especially regarding data characteristics, formative measurement model evaluation and structural model assessment. Furthermore, few significant differences were found on the use of PLS-SEM between the two fields (hospitality and tourism) and between the journal tiers (top-tier and other leading).Practical implicationsTo enhance the quality of research in hospitality and tourism, the present study provides recommendations for improving the future use of PLS-SEM.Originality/valueThe present study fills a sizeable gap in hospitality and tourism literature and extends the previous assessments on the use of PLS-SEM by providing a wider perspective on the issue (i.e. includes both hospitality and tourism journals rather than the previous reviews that focus on either tourism or hospitality), using a larger sample size of 206 empirical studies, investigating the issue over a longer time period (from 2000 to April, 2017, including the in-press articles), extending the scope of criteria (guidelines) used in the review and comparing the PLS-SEM use between the two allied fields (hospitality and tourism) and between the journal tiers (top-tier and other leading).

Uptake and outcome of manuscripts in Nature journals by review model and author characteristics

BackgroundDouble-blind peer review has been proposed as a possible solution to avoid implicit referee bias in academic publishing. The aims of this study are to analyse the demographics of corresponding authors choosing double-blind peer review and to identify differences in the editorial outcome of manuscripts depending on their review model.MethodsData includes 128,454 manuscripts received between March 2015 and February 2017 by 25 Nature-branded journals. We investigated the uptake of double-blind review in relation to journal tier, as well as gender, country, and institutional prestige of the corresponding author. We then studied the manuscripts’ editorial outcome in relation to review model and author’s characteristics. The gender (male, female, or NA) of the corresponding authors was determined from their first name using a third-party service (Gender API). The prestige of the corresponding author’s institutions was measured from the data of the Global Research Identifier Database (GRID) by dividing institutions in three prestige groups with reference to the 2016 Times Higher Education (THE) ranking. We employed descriptive statistics for data exploration, and we tested our hypotheses using Pearson’s chi-square and binomial tests. We also performed logistic regression modelling with author update, out-to-review, and acceptance as response, and journal tier, author gender, author country, and institution as predictors.ResultsAuthor uptake for double-blind submissions was 12% (12,631 out of 106,373). We found a small but significant association between journal tier and review type (p value < 0.001, Cramer’s V = 0.054, df = 2). We had gender information for 50,533 corresponding authors and found no statistically significant difference in the distribution of peer review model between males and females (p value = 0.6179). We had 58,920 records with normalised institutions and a THE rank, and we found that corresponding authors from the less prestigious institutions are more likely to choose double-blind review (p value < 0.001, df = 2, Cramer’s V = 0.106). In the ten countries with the highest number of submissions, we found a large significant association between country and review type (p value < 0.001, df = 10, Cramer’s V = 0.189). The outcome both at first decision and post review is significantly more negative (i.e. a higher likelihood for rejection) for double-blind than single-blind papers (p value < 0.001, df = 1, Cramer’s V = 0.112 for first decision; p value < 0.001; df = 1, Cramer’s V = 0.082 for post-review decision).ConclusionsThe proportion of authors that choose double-blind review is higher when they submit to more prestigious journals, they are affiliated with less prestigious institutions, or they are from specific countries; the double-blind option is also linked to less successful editorial outcomes.

The "Champagne Tower" of Science Publishing

This article discusses the hierarchical nature of science publishing, whereby journals are organized in tiers with the most prestigious elite journals at the top (Cell, Nature, Science), and lowest-ranked journals at the bottom. When rejected from the top-tier journals, authors usually aim for a lower tier of journals, with some choosing smaller, specialist journals for the outlet of their work. Recently, however, a differentmechanism of cascading the papers down the hierarchy of journals has become popular, i.e., editors arrange to pass the rejected papers, with the authors’ permission, to their “sister journals” bearing the same brand. These transfer arrangements may be seen beneficial for the authors, as they reduce the publication time, but they also pose difficulties for smaller specialist journals that lose their shareof the market and experience a fall in manuscript submissions.

The "Champagne Tower" of Science Publishing

This article discusses the hierarchical nature of science publishing, whereby journals are organized in tiers with the most prestigious elite journals at the top (Cell, Nature, Science), and lowest-ranked journals at the bottom. When rejected from the top-tier journals, authors usually aim for a lower tier of journals, with some choosing smaller, specialist journals for the outlet of their work. Recently, however, a differentmechanism of cascading the papers down the hierarchy of journals has become popular, i.e., editors arrange to pass the rejected papers, with the authors’ permission, to their “sister journals” bearing the same brand. These transfer arrangements may be seen beneficial for the authors, as they reduce the publication time, but they also pose difficulties for smaller specialist journals that lose their shareof the market and experience a fall in manuscript submissions.

CITATIONS OR JOURNAL QUALITY: WHICH IS REWARDED MORE IN THE ACADEMIC LABOR MARKET?

Research quality can be evaluated from citations or from the prestige of journals publishing the research. We relate salary of tenured University of California (UC) economists to their lifetime publications of 5,500 articles and to the 140,000 citations to these articles. Citations hardly affect salary, especially in top‐ranked UC departments where impacts of citations are less than one‐tenth those of journals. In lower ranked departments, and when journal quality is less comprehensively measured, effects of citations on salary increase. If journal quality is just measured by counting articles in journal tiers, apparent effects of citations are overstated. (JEL A14, J44)

Research productivity in management schools of India during 1968-2015: A directional benefit-of-doubt model analysis

Given the growing emphasis on research productivity in management schools of India over the years, the present authors developed a composite indicator (CI) of research productivity, using the directional- benefit-of-doubt (directional-BOD) model. Specifically, we examined overall research productivity of the schools and their respective faculty members during the 1968-69–2014-15 and 2004-05–2014-15 periods. There are four key findings. First, the relative weights of the journal tier, total citations, author h-index, number of papers, impact factor, and journal h-index varied from high to low in order for estimating the CI of a faculty member. Second, both public and private schools were seemingly similar in research productivity. However, faculty members at the Indian Institutes of Technology (IITs) outperformed those at the Indian Institutes of Management (IIMs). Third, faculty members who had their doctoral degrees from foreign schools were more productive than those who had similar degrees from Indian schools. Among those trained in India, however, alumni of IITs were more productive than those of IIMs. Finally, IIMs at Ahmedabad and Bangalore and the Indian School of Business, Hyderabad have more names than other schools among the list of top 5% researchers during 2004-05–2014-15. These findings indicate a shift in the priority from mere training of managers to generating impactful knowledge by at least two of the three established public schools, and call further attention to improving the quality of doctoral training in India in general and IIMs in particular. Five suggestions for improving research productivity are offered.

Research Productivity in Management Schools of India: A Directional Benefit-of-Doubt Model Analysis

Given the growing emphasis on research productivity in management schools in India, the present authors developed a composite indicator (CI) of research productivity, using the directional benefit-of-doubt (D-BOD) model, which can serve as a valuable index of research productivity in India. Specifically, we examined overall research productivity of the schools and the faculty members during the 1968-2014 and 2004-2014 periods in a manner never done before. There are four key findings. First, the relative weights of the journal tier, total citations, impact factor, author h-index, number of papers, and journal h-index varied from high to low in order for estimating the CI of a faculty member. Second, both public and private schools were similar in research productivity. However, faculty members at the Indian Institutes of Technology (IITs) outperformed those at the Indian Institutes of Management (IIMs). Third, faculty members who had their doctoral degrees from foreign, relative to Indian, schools were more productive. Among those trained in India, alumni of IITs, compared to those of IIMs, were more productive. Finally, IIMs at Ahmedabad and Bangalore and the Indian School of Business, Hyderabad have seemingly more superstars than other schools among the top 5% researchers during 2004-2014. These findings indicate a shift in the priority from mere training of managers to generating impactful knowledge by at least two of the three established public schools, and call attention to improving the quality of doctoral training in India in general and IIMs in particular. Suggestions for improving research productivity are also offered.

Trend and impact of international collaboration in clinical medicine papers published in Malaysia

Research collaboration is the way forward in order to improve quality and impact of its research findings. International research collaboration has resulted in international co-authorship in scientific communications and publications. This study highlights the collaborating research and authorship trend in clinical medicine in Malaysia from 2001 to 2010. Malaysian-based author affiliation in the Web of Science (Science Citation Index Expanded) and clinical medicine journals (n = 999) and articles (n = 3951) as of 30th Oct 2011 were downloaded. Types of document analyzed were articles and reviews, and impact factors (IF) in the 2010 Journal Citation Report Science Edition were taken to access the quality of the articles. The number of publications in clinical medicine increased from 4.5 % (n = 178) in 2001 to 23.9 % (n = 944) in 2010. The top three contributors in the subject categories are Pharmacology and Pharmacy (13.9 %), General and Internal Medicine (13.6 %) and Tropical Medicine (7.3 %). By journal tier system: Tier 1 (18.7 %, n = 738), Tier 2 (22.5 %, n = 888), Tier 3 (29.6 %, n = 1170), Tier 4 (27.2 %, n = 1074), and journals without IF (2.1 %, n = 81). University of Malaya was the most productive. Local collaborators accounted for 60.3 % and international collaborations 39.7 %. Articles with international collaborations appeared in journals with higher journal IFs than those without international collaboration. They were also cited more significantly than articles without international collaborations. Citations, impact factor and journal tiers were significantly associated with international collaboration in Malaysia’s clinical medicine publications. Malaysia has achieved a significant number of ISI publications in clinical medicine participation in international collaboration.

Nanomedicine: Transcending from Embryonic to Adolescent

Sometime in 2006 we embarked on a journey to establish a focused, accurate and well-respected scientific publication to reflect the excitement, opportunities as well as the scepticism and potential risks surrounding the newly fledged sub-field of nanomedicine. Almost 3 years later both the Editors and the Publishers of this journal are all delighted to see Nanomedicine at the publishing forefront of the field, with very rapid acceptances in most bibliographic search engines including PubMed and the ISI Science Citation Index and a very respectable first Impact Factor of 2.818. That numerically places our journal in the top-10 tier of journals with highest impact factors (number 9 out of 47) in the ISI Subject Category ‘NANOSCIENCE & NANOTECHNOLOGY’ and on number 38 out of 138 journals listed in the ISI Subject Category ‘BIOTECHNOLOGY & APPLIED MICROBIOLOGY’.

Identifying Tiers of Influence in Expert Systems Research: II

In the first part of this study we described an objective, multifaceted, citation-based methodology for assessing journal influence. We applied it to the field of artificial intelligence (AI) to gauge the most influential journals for AI research. In this paper we apply the same methodology to a broadened citation base drawn from journals devoted to expert systems (ES), as well as those with a broader AI editorial scope. The result is a pair of journal tiers that reflect the special emphasis that expert system research has among AI researchers in business schools. Taken together, the AI/ES findings reported here coupled with the general AI tiers identified in Part I provide a fairly complete and insightful picture of the most influential journals impacting AI in general, and AI/ES in particular. © 1996 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.