Journal Impact Factor Research Articles

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 <i>Science</i> and <i>Nature</i>, alongside those of top AI journals over the past decade. Additionally, we reviewed the top 10 most cited articles in 2021 from <i>Science</i> and <i>Nature</i> 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.

The 100 highest-cited original articles in large vessel occlusions: A bibliometric analysis.

Large vessel occlusions (LVO) are a common etiology of morbidity and mortality. The current literature lacks a synthesis of the landscape and trends in research. We aimed to conduct a bibliometric analysis of the 100 most cited original articles on LVOs to assess the current state of research. Scopus database was queried from inception to December 2022 to identify the most cited original articles from 4506 retrieved records on LVOs. Publication year, country of origin, total and average annual citation count, and type of study were collected for each article. The journal impact factor (JIF) was obtained from the Journal Citation Reports database. The articles were published between 1994 and 2021, with most (n = 82) published during the 2011-2020decade. The median total citation count was 108.5, with an interquartile range (IQR) of 81-149.5. The median (IQR) average annual citation count was 15.9 (11.5-22.9). Half of the articles were published in Stroke (n = 35) and Journal of NeuroInterventional Surgery (n = 15), with JIFs ranging from 1.8 to 202.7. The USA was the leading country in contributing to LVO research (n = 45). Most studies focused on the treatment (n = 63) and diagnosis (n = 22) of LVOs. Most articles were published during the past decade, highlighting the impact of the clinical trials of endovascular treatment on the discipline. With several ongoing clinical trials on the horizon, continued growth of the field is anticipated in the upcoming decades.

Real influence: A novel approach to characterize the visibility of journals and publications

Abstract For the last 50 years, the journal impact factor (IF) has been the most prominent of all bibliometric indicators. Since the first Journal Citation Report was launched, the IF has been used, often improperly, to evaluate institutions, publications, and individuals. Its well-known significant technical limitations have not detracted from its popularity, and they contrast with the lack of consensus over the numerous alternatives suggested as complements or replacements. This paper presents a percentile-distribution-based proposal for assessing the influence of scientific journals and publications that corrects several of the IF’s main technical limitations using the same set of documents as is used to calculate the IF. Nearly 400 journals of Library Science and Information Science and Biochemistry and Molecular Biology categories were analyzed for this purpose. The results show that the new indicator retains many of its predecessor’s advantages and adds benefits of its own: It is more accurate, more gaming resistant, more complete, and less influenced by the citation window or extreme observations.

A Longitudinal Evaluation of Collaboration in Plastic Surgery Clinical Research.

Few dedicated, funded clinical research fellowship positions exist in plastic surgery. This study provides insights from an established clinical research fellowship, highlighting its educational impact and confirming the impact of positive institutional support and a collaborative-first approach. All research fellows within the program from 2008 to 2020 were examined during their year of employment and subsequent 2 years. Internal and external collaboration trends were assessed using PubMed affiliations. Correlation between external collaborations and research impact were examined. Research impact was characterized by publication count, journal impact factor, and journal diversity. Thirty-one research fellows were identified, with a 100% match rate. Four phases of development were identified, and a three-period cycle of productivity was noted to occur every 3 years. A shift toward more external collaborations occurred after 2016 (P = 0.008). A positive correlation was observed between external collaborations and academic output (r = 0.72, P = 0.004), journal diversity (r = 0.74, P = 0.004), and journal impact (r = 0.63, P < 0.05). Significant growth was observed in the collaborative networks (P = 0.002), publications (P = 0.003), journal diversity (P < 0.001), and research personnel (P = 0.002). As a result of our strategic decision to engage collaborators across multiple disciplines, there is discernible improvement in measurable impact, contributing to the growth of our program. Dedicating resources to foster deeper collaborations can enrich the field of plastic surgery research, recognizing that this investment fuels the cycle of productivity, offering promising returns to the future.

Cultural and multicultural topics in Neuropsychology Journal titles from 2010-2020

Objective The values of a field are reflected in the science it publishes. The goal of this study was to present a historical analysis of the extent to which the field of clinical neuropsychology publishes journals with titles that address culture in the context of brain function and behavior between 2010 and 2020. Methods Titles from articles published in 13 neuropsychology journals from 2010–2020 were collected and coded with regard to culture and multicultural content. The aims of the study were to (1) determine how often cultural or multicultural topics were represented in journal titles, (2) determine if cultural or multicultural content in neuropsychology journal publication titles increased over time, and (3) to explore other neuropsychological content that was most and least likely to appear in publications pertaining to culture or multicultural issues. Results Results indicated that titles for publications in clinical neuropsychology journals with content relevant to cultural or multicultural neuropsychology represented 1.1% to 13.4% of titles across the 13 journals. The number of cultural/multicultural titles increased over time. The number of cultural/multicultural titles per journal was not significantly correlated with the journal impact factor. Normative data were addressed significantly more often in cultural/multicultural titles versus non-cultural/multicultural titles, whereas psychiatric issues were addressed significantly less often. Conclusions There are many actions that clinical neuropsychologists can take to increase the field’s attention to the effects of culture on brain function and behavior. It is vital to update our data from 2021 to the present, given the substantial increase in awareness of social justice issues that occurred since 2020.

A scoping review of out-of-hospital research in Ireland from 2000 to 2022

A key component to the continued development of any profession is a strong research culture. For paramedicine, a research culture that acknowledges the uniqueness of the out-of-hospital setting allows clinical practice to develop. Recent international publications investigating paramedicine research outputs demonstrated that Ireland was not strongly represented in the production of paramedicine-based research. The aim of this scoping review was to identify and evaluate the quantity and quality of the research published to date in the Irish out-of-hospital literature, and to identify research gaps that may need to be addressed. A scoping review was conducted using the Joanna Briggs Institute guidance. All studies that reported on out-of-hospital care in the Republic of Ireland were included. MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and grey literature sources were searched from 2000 until 2022 for relevant articles in March 2023. Key authors were contacted to identify missing articles and data were extracted to present the final publication yield. Scientific quality was assessed using Clarivate Average Journal Impact Factor Percentiles. Over 3200 research outputs were identified from the databases with a final yield of 294 research outputs included in this review. Research outputs were identified for most years included in the review period, with outputs published in a large range of journals. Research heavily focused on areas linked to the Clinical Practice Guidelines, and predominantly used quantitative data collection methods. Most authors identified in this review were named on only one output. However, diversification in research topics and methodologies, a concerted effort to ensure practitioners are leading research and support to ensure that conference presentations are continued to peer-reviewed publication would strengthen this resolve.

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.

Data-Mining Methodology to Improve the Scientific Production Quality in Turkey Meat and Carcass Characterization Studies.

The present research aims to describe how turkey meat and carcass quality traits define the interest of the scientific community through the quality standards of journals in which studies are published. To this end, an analysis of 92 research documents addressing the study of turkey carcass and meat quality over the last 57 years was performed. Meat and carcass quality attributes were dependent variables and included traits related to carcass dressing, muscle fiber, pH, colorimetry, water-holding capacity, texture, and chemical composition. The independent variables comprised publication quality traits, including journal indexation, database, journal impact factor (JIF), quartile, publication area, and JIF percentage. For each dependent variable, a data-mining chi-squared automatic interaction detection (CHAID) decision tree was developed. Carcass or piece yield was the only variable that did not show an impact on the publication quality. Moreover, color and pH measurements taken at 72 h postmortem showed a negative impact on publication interest. On the other hand, variables including water-retaining attributes, colorimetry, pH, chemical composition, and shear force traits stood out among the quality-enhancing variables due to their low inclusion in papers, while high standards improved power.

La influencia de las autocitaciones en las decisiones editoriales a partir de la simulación de rankings de revistas

The manipulation of the Journal Impact Factor (JIF) through editorial decisions that increase self-citations has been empirically observed in recent studies, sparking discussions on how to avoid such practices. This study aims to verify whether a policy of removing self-citations from the JIF calculation is enough to eliminate incentives for manipulation. We introduce an agent-based model of the academic social network formed by journals to test this hypothesis. We model journals as rational agents seeking to gain positions in the JIF ranking. The model was implemented in NetLogo and calibrated using data from the SCIMago Journal Ranking. Simulation results demonstrate that the model is capable of reproducing patterns observed in empirical networks and that the removal of self-citations can significantly reduce the adoption of manipulation strategies (e.g., reduction from 90% to 30%). This study contributes to understanding the role of self-citations in the JIF and provides tools for developing policies that promote scientific integrity.

Assessing sex and gender equity in submission guidelines of radiology journals: A cross-sectional study

PurposeOur study aimed to determine the current percentage of gender and sex equity promoting (GSEP) radiology journals, defined as satisfying at least one criterion of the Sex and Gender Equity in Research (SAGER) checklist, published by the European Association of Science Editors (EASE). A secondary objective was to compare characteristics of GSEP and non-GSEP journals. MethodsA cross-sectional analysis between June 24 and July 3, 2023, was conducted. The author submission guidelines of radiology journals with a 2021 Journal Impact Factor (JIF) were assessed according to the SAGER checklist. GSEP journals were defined as satisfying one or more SAGER checklist criteria in their research instructions. Bibliometric data and journal information were collected from the Journal Citation Reports and National Library of Medicine catalogue. ResultsOnly 39.7 % (52) of 132 journals satisfied at least one SAGER checklist criterion. Median 2021 JIFs were higher in GSEP journals (4.62, IQR: 3.73 – 5.21) than non-GSEP journals (2.70, IQR: 2.32) (p = 0.00). Median 2021 Journal Citation Index (JCI) scores were higher in GSEP (0.64, 0.56 – 0.73) than non-GSEP journals (0.97, 0.83 – 1.10) (p = 0.00). Cited half-life was shorter for GSEP (5.40, 4.80 – 6.50) than non-GSEP journals (6.70, 5.70 – 7.40) (p = 0.05). Elsevier published 33 of 52 of GSEP journals. Conclusion60.3% of radiology journals with a 2021 JIF do not meet a single SAGER checklist criterion in their author submission guidelines. GSEP journals had higher impact and source metrics and a shorter cited half-life. Publishers may play a significant role in promoting endorsement of the SAGER checklist in the author submission guidelines of radiology journals.

A Bibliometric Analysis of the 100 Most-Cited Articles on Otoplasty.

A bibliometric analysis was conducted in April 2024, to review the current trends in otoplasty. It involved literature search on Scopus database for original articles using the query term "otoplasty" and "pinnaplasty", without restricting publication dates or selecting journals in the database. The top 100 articles with the highest citations were reviewed. Bibliometric analysis was performed using Scimago journal impact factor. The screening was done using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and MetaAnalyses (PRISMA) guidelines to extract the top 100 most cited articles in otoplasty. We excluded articles not focused on otoplasty, those involving other surgical procedures, and non-English articles. Scopus and manual screening were used together to perform citation analysis of selected articles. Mean values were calculated for the number of citations and citations per year. Of the 951 studies identified, 100 (10.5%) were analyzed in detail. The studies were published between 1941-2024, with a mean of 36 ± 23.7 citations per paper. The journal "Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery" reported the highest number (23[23%]) of articles, followed by "Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery" with 13% (n=13) articles. The highest number of articles originated from the United States (38%, n=38), followed by United Kingdom (15%, n=15). Our bibliometric analysis provides a comprehensive overview of the landscape of otoplasty research, highlighting key publications, authors, and journals. This study contributes to the understanding of the evolution and impact of otoplasty literature, laying the groundwork for further research and innovation in this field.

The Unique citing documents Journal Impact Factor (Uniq-JIF) as a supplement for the standard Journal Impact Factor

The Unique citing documents Journal Impact Factor (Uniq-JIF) as a supplement for the standard Journal Impact Factor

Methodological quality of umbrella reviews in endodontics: A cross-sectional study.

In endodontics, the number of umbrella reviews has increased significantly over the last few years, but there is no evidence that they were methodologically sound. The aim of the current study was to appraise the methodological quality of umbrella reviews in endodontics, and to identify possible predictive factors associated with methodological quality. Umbrella reviews published in the discipline of endodontics until December 2023 were included. The methodological quality of the reviews was evaluated using a checklist consisting of 11 items. Each item in the checklist was evaluated by two independent assessors who assigned a score of '1' if it was fully addressed, '0.5' if it was partially ddressed, and '0' if it was not addressed. Bootstrapped multiple linear regression analysis was used to examine the association between the total scores awarded and five predictor variables (a priori protocol registration, year of publication, number of authors, journal impact factor (IF) and continent of the corresponding author). The statistical significance level was set as 5%. A total of 27 reviews were included. Ninety-six per cent of the reviews adequately reported: eligibility criteria for selecting the reviews, details of the reviews, techniques for assessing the risk of bias or methodological quality of the individual systematic reviews they included. Only 30% of the reviews adequately managed overlapping primary studies within individual systematic reviews. Among the five predictors analysed, a priori protocol registration and journals with IFs were associated with significantly greater total methodological quality scores. Several methodological shortcomings in the umbrella reviews published within the field of endodontics were revealed. Umbrella reviews published in journals with IFs and those with protocols registered a priori had significantly superior methodological quality scores. In endodontics, authors intending to publish umbrella reviews should consider the limitations revealed in this study and follow the appropriate rules to ensure their reviews comply with the highest standards and provide accurate and dependable information and conclusions.

Survey Research Among Neurosurgeons: A Bibliometric Review of the Characteristics, Quality, and Citation Predictors of the Top 50 Most-Influential Publications in the Neurosurgical Literature.

Survey research enables the gathering of information on individual perspectives in a large cohort. It can be epidemiological, attitude or knowledge focussed. Assessmentof survey studies sampling neurosurgeons is currently lacking in the literature. This study aimed to highlight the characteristics, quality, and citation predictors of the most influential survey research studies published in the neurosurgical literature. Using PubMed and Google Scholar, the 50 most cited survey research publications were identified and reviewed. Data relating to the characteristics of the articles, participants and questionnaires were retrieved. The studies' quality and citation patterns were assessed. The median articles' age and publishing journal impact factor (IF) were 15.5 years and 2.82, respectively. Thirty-two (64%) articleswere first authored by researchers from the USA while 28(56%) studies were focussed on specific disease management. The median number of participants and response rates were 222 and 51%, respectively. A full version of the questionnaire was provided in 18 (36%) articles. Only four (8%) articles reported validation of the questionnaire. The overall quality of reporting of the surveys was considered fair (based on good grading in five parameters, fair grading in one parameter, and poor grading in four parameters). The median citation number was 111. The citation analysis showed that the participantnumber, articleage (≥15.5 years), and questionnairecategory (surgical complications) were significant predictors of citation numbers. The citation rates were not influenced by the response rates or the journal's IF. In conclusion, high-impact survey publications in the neurosurgical literature were moderately cited and of fair quality. Their citation numbers were not affected by response rates but were positively influenced by the publicationage, number of participants, and by novel data or the questions raised in the survey category. Surveys are valuable forms of research that require extensive planning, time, and effort in order to produce meaningful results. Increasing awareness of the factors that could affect citations may be useful to those who wish to undertake survey research.