Average Citation Impact Research Articles

Field‐specific gold open access dynamics in the Chinese mainland: Overviews, disparities, and strategic insights

AbstractGold Open Access (OA) journals are crucial for scholarly communication, highlighting the need for a thorough evaluation of their academic influence on different research fields. This study leverages the InCites platform to examine article‐level characteristics relating to 22 Essential Science Indicators (ESI) research fields, with a focus on the dynamics of gold OA articles, including gold OA uptake in the Chinese mainland and gold OA adoption in the domestic English‐language academic journal publishing of the Chinese mainland. The findings reveal that disparities in gold OA adoption across 22 ESI fields are more pronounced in the Chinese mainland compared with the world scenario. In the Chinese mainland, there is a significant polarization in gold OA publishing volumes across different ESI fields, particularly in Chemistry, Clinical Medicine, and Engineering. This study builds on the understanding of OA citation advantage (OACA) by incorporating gold OA publishing volume into a two‐dimensional framework, resulting in the development of a “distance” metric. It further categorizes gold OA citation effects into four quadrants: positive citation effects (quadrants A and B) and negative citation effects (quadrants C and D), based on category normalized citation impact (CNCI) and journal normalized citation impact (JNCI) indicators from the InCites database. The findings underscore the importance of developing tailored strategies to address field‐specific challenges and promote gold OA dynamics in the Chinese mainland; while prioritizing high‐quality gold OA journals is essential for fostering gold OA development in the rest of the world.

Using citation-based indicators to compare bilateral research collaborations

A standard approach to compare research collaborations between pairs of countries is to look at the citations accrued by all publications with authors from both countries. This approach is often misleading, as aspects only marginally related to the collaboration between the country pairs may bias the result considerably. Among them, the main aspect is the number of co-authors. Publications with many co-authors have on average higher citation impact. If the mix of co-publications between two countries has a high share of such publications, the citation impact will likely be high. Moreover, publications with many co-authors tend to include many countries and are thus only to a limited extent characterising the actual collaboration between the selected pair of countries. The purpose of this study is to develop methods for comparisons of country pairs useful for policy makers, who use SciVal or similar tools. Five methods to compare international collaboration are developed and tested. It is noted that the standard approach for comparisons deviates the most. Fractional methods to calculate the citation impact are recommended, as they allow for the use of citations to all co-publications with a higher weight on the citations to publications in which the country pair dominates. As fractionalisation is laborious to carry out based on SciVal data, a more convenient option is also suggested, which is to use co-publications with maximum 10 co-authors. Elsevier should introduce better methods for comparisons of international collaborations and, until this has been made, help its users understand the limitations of the standard approach featured in SciVal. A by-product of the study is that international co-publications deliver a higher citation impact also when publications with the same number of co-authors are compared.

Tracking changes in CNCI: the complementarity of standard, collaboration and fractional CNCI in understanding and evaluating research performance

AbstractUsing a global set of ~ 300 institutions, standard, collaboration and fractional Category Normalised Citation Impact (CNCI) indicators are compared between 2009 and 2018 to demonstrate the complementarity of the three variants for research evaluation. Web of Science data show that Chinese institutions appear immune to the indicator used as CNCI changes, generally improvements, are similar for all three variants. Other regions tend to show greater increases in standard CNCI over collaboration CNCI, which in turn is greater than fractional CNCI; however, decreases in CNCI values, particularly in established research economies like North America and western Europe are not uncommon. These findings may highlight the differing extent to which the number of collaborating countries and institutions on papers affect each variant. Other factors affecting CNCI values may be citation practices and hiring of Highly Cited Researchers. Evaluating and comparing the performance of institutions is a main driver of policy, research and funding direction. Decision makers must understand all aspects of CNCI indicators, including the secondary factors illustrated here, by using a ‘profiles not metrics’ approach.

National research impact is driven by global collaboration, not rising performance

We examine the link between a country’s average citation impact and both national research assessment and international collaboration. Our analysis finds little synchrony between national policies and performance change. We do find extensive, synchronous, cross-national change, however, despite a diversity of national research strategies. Specifically, during 1981–2020, there are synchronous cross-national changes in bilateral, and later multilateral, collaboration. We deconstruct the citation indicators and show that the average citation impact of domestic research and of collaborative research changes little for most countries. Net increases in average national citation impact have instead been driven by rising collaboration and the emerging global network. Greater collaboration enables greater subject diversity, contributes to convergence of subjects, and influences performance indicators. Coincidentally, it also results in all large nations apparently achieving higher average impact than the world average. These effects suggest a need both to strengthen policy analysis of the global context and to construct proper performance indicators when developing research strategy.

The expansion of team size in library and information science (LIS): Is bigger always better?

The increasing prevalence of large research teams in contemporary science has prompted an investigation into the trends of team size in library and information science (LIS). In this study, we analysed 103,299 LIS publications written by 129,560 unique authors between 2000 and 2020 sourced from the Microsoft Academic Graph (MAG) data sets. We conducted a temporal analysis from multiple dimensions, including journal quartiles, research topics and researchers with varying impact levels. In addition, we employed two multivariate linear regression models – with and without author fixed effects – to scrutinise the relationship between team size and publication impact. Our findings reveal continuous growth in LIS team size. Notably, publications in higher-quartile journals tend to have larger teams; the team size of technical topic publications is generally larger than that of theoretical topic publications; and researchers with a higher h-index are able to assemble larger teams. Although we observed that co-authored papers have a higher average citation impact than single-authored papers, the overall positive impact of team expansion on citation growth is not always significant within the common LIS team size range (three to six authors). Our research suggests that indiscriminately increasing the size of a team may not be a prudent decision.

Bibliometric evaluation of negative publications from orthopedics and traumatology from the ten most influential journals of 2009–2010 and 2019–2020: A comparative study with the “Orthopedics & Traumatology: Surgery & Research” journal, using the same analysis of submitted and accepted articles

BackgroundThere is a paucity of data in the literature regarding negative articles concerning surgery in orthopedics and trauma. Knowledge pertaining to treatments or techniques which confer a beneficial effect remains important, as does knowledge regarding those which have a null or pejorative effect. Thus, this study was carried out on negative articles in order to: (1) determine their proportion in the ten predominant journals concerning orthopedic and trauma surgery; (2) assess variability in their publication rate depending on the journal and the year, and compare their citation rate to that of positive articles; (3) specify whether a positive article was more likely to be cited compared to a negative article; (4) carry out the same bibliometric analysis with the “Orthopedics & Traumatology: Surgery & Research (OTSR)” journal, and detect possible selection bias for negative articles during the review. HypothesisThere are fewer negative articles than positive articles in the literature relating to orthopedic and trauma surgery. Material and methodThe study was carried out using the ten orthopedic and trauma surgery journals with the highest impact factors for the year 2021. Two periods were compared, 2009–2010 and 2019–2020. Among the 17,812 publications obtained, 11,962 publications were retained to carry out the analysis (technical notes, meta-analyses, editorials and letters to the editor were all excluded). An analysis using the same method was carried out on the 3,727 articles submitted to OTSR from 2015 to 2021, which made it possible to compare the rejected articles to the accepted articles. ResultsNegative articles represented 11% (1,342/12,023) of the literature relating to orthopedic and trauma surgery. There were differences in the rate of publication of negative articles depending on the journals (from 4.04% to 17.14%) (p<0.0001). The negative article publication rate did not change between the two periods studied: 534/4963 articles (10.76%) in 2009–2010 versus 802/6999 (11.46%) in 2019–2020 (p=0.23). Positive articles were not cited more often than negative ones: no significant difference between the Category Normalized Citation Impact (CNCI) classes (respectively for classes 0;1[/[1;2[/≥ 2 with 45.66% 28.22% and 26.12% for negative articles versus 44.90% 27.46% and 27.64% for positive articles [p=0.4]) and the Top10% (with 18.86% for negative articles versus 20.10% for positive ones [p=0.28]). The OTSR journal had a rate of negative articles of 9.46% which was within the average range of the journals studied. A selection bias (p<0.02) for negative articles during the review of the OTSR journal was identified with fewer negative articles accepted (115/1216 [9.46%]) than positive articles (164/1330 [12.33%]). DiscussionThe publication of negative articles varies according to the journals and although it is modest, at only 11%, it is essential because it allows us not to repeat errors but also not to bias the carrying out of meta-analyses, and among other things to avoid useless studies. Level of evidenceIII; case control study from the literature.

BATTERY 2030+ and its Research Roadmap: A Bibliometric Analysis.

In this bibliometric study, we analyze two of the six battery research subfields identified in the BATTERY 2030+ roadmap: Materials Acceleration Platform and Smart functionalities: Sensing. In addition, we analyze the entire research field related to BATTERY 2030+ as a whole. We (a) evaluate the European standing in the two subfields/the BATTERY 2030+ field in comparison to the rest of the world, and (b) identify strongholds of the two subfields/the BATTERY 2030+ field across Europe. For each subfield and the field as a whole, we used seed articles, i. e. articles listed in the BATTERY 2030+ roadmap or cited by such articles, in order to generate additional, similar articles located in an algorithmically obtained classification system. The output of the analysis is publication volumes, field normalized citation impact values with comparisons between country/country aggregates and between organizations, co-publishing networks between countries and organizations, and keyword co-occurrence networks.

Gender-Related Differences in the Citation Impact of Scientific Publications and Improving the Authors’ Productivity

The article’s purpose is an analysis of the citation impact of scientific publications by authors of different gender compositions. The page method was chosen to calculate the citation impact of scientific publications, and the obtained results allowed to estimate the impact of the scientific publications based on the number of citations. The normalized citation impact is calculated according to nine subsets of scientific publications that correspond to patterns of different gender compositions of authors. Also, these estimates were calculated for each country with which the authors of the publications are affiliated. The Citation database, Network Dataset (Ver. 13), was chosen for the scientometric analysis. The dataset includes more than 5 million scientific publications and 48 million citations. Most of the publications in the dataset are from the STEM field. The results indicate that articles with a predominantly male composition are cited more than articles with a mixed or female composition of authors in this direction. Analysis of advantages in dynamics indicates that in the last decade, in developed countries, there has been a decrease in the connection between the citation impact of scientific publications and the gender composition of their authors. However, the obtained results still confirm the presence of gender inequality in science, which may be related to socioeconomic and cultural characteristics, natural homophily, and other factors that contribute to the appearance of gender gaps. An essential consequence of overcoming these gaps, including in science, is ensuring the rights of people in all their diversity.

Do bibliometrics introduce gender, institutional or interdisciplinary biases into research evaluations?

Systematic evaluations of publicly funded research sometimes use bibliometrics alone or bibliometric-informed peer review, but it is not known whether bibliometrics introduce biases when supporting or replacing peer review. This article assesses this by comparing three alternative mechanisms for scoring 73,612 UK Research Excellence Framework (REF) journal articles from all 34 field-based Units of Assessment (UoAs) 2014–17: REF peer review scores, field normalised citations, and journal average field normalised citation impact. The results suggest that in almost all academic fields, bibliometric scoring can disadvantage departments publishing high quality research, as judged by peer review, with the main exception of article citation rates in chemistry. Thus, introducing journal or article level citation information into peer review exercises may have a regression to the mean effect. Bibliometric scoring slightly advantaged women compared to men, but this varied between UoAs and was most evident in the physical sciences, engineering, and social sciences. In contrast, interdisciplinary research gained from bibliometric scoring in about half of the UoAs, but relatively substantially in two. In conclusion, out of the three potential sources of bibliometric bias examined, the most serious seems to be the tendency for bibliometric scores to work against high quality departments, assuming that the peer review scores are correct. This is almost a paradox: although high quality departments tend to get the highest bibliometric scores, bibliometrics conceal the full extent of departmental quality advantages, as judged by peer review. This should be considered when using bibliometrics or bibliometric informed peer review.

In which fields do higher impact journals publish higher quality articles?

The Journal Impact Factor and other indicators that assess the average citation rate of articles in a journal are consulted by many academics and research evaluators, despite initiatives against overreliance on them. Undermining both practices, there is limited evidence about the extent to which journal impact indicators in any field relate to human judgements about the quality of the articles published in the field’s journals. In response, we compared average citation rates of journals against expert judgements of their articles in all fields of science. We used preliminary quality scores for 96,031 articles published 2014–18 from the UK Research Excellence Framework 2021. Unexpectedly, there was a positive correlation between expert judgements of article quality and average journal citation impact in all fields of science, although very weak in many fields and never strong. The strength of the correlation varied from 0.11 to 0.43 for the 27 broad fields of Scopus. The highest correlation for the 94 Scopus narrow fields with at least 750 articles was only 0.54, for Infectious Diseases, and there was only one negative correlation, for the mixed category Computer Science (all), probably due to the mixing. The average citation impact of a Scopus-indexed journal is therefore never completely irrelevant to the quality of an article but is also never a strong indicator of article quality. Since journal citation impact can at best moderately suggest article quality it should never be relied on for this, supporting the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment.

The Correlation between Altmetric Attention Score and Traditional Bibliometrics in Top Nursing Journal Articles

Background. Altmetric Attention Score (AAS) is a quantitative measurement of the online impact of research and has a potential correlation with traditional bibliometrics. However, the correlation for nursing journal articles is still unknown. The objective of the study was to analyze the correlation between AAS and traditional bibliometrics in the top nursing journal articles. Materials and Methods. Articles published in top nursing journals (the journals with the top 20 5-year impact factors) from 2010 to 2019 were included. The correlations between AAS and citations, AAS and Relative Citation Ratio (RCR) score, AAS and Category Normalized Citation Impact (CNCI) value, and AAS and impact factors were analyzed. Statistical analyses were performed using Stata 25.0 software. Results. A total of 15,212 journal articles were included in the study. Very weak correlations were found between AASs and citations [0.124 (95% CI, 0.108–0.14)], AASs and RCRs [0.26 (95% CI, 0.244–0.275)], and AASs and CNCIs [0.207 (95% CI, 0.192–0.223)]. The weak correlations were also found between AASs and impact factors in several journals. The weak correlations between AASs and citations, AASs and CNCIs, and AASs and RCRs were also found for most journals based on subgroup analysis. Conclusions. There is very weak correlations between AASs and traditional bibliometrics in top nursing journal articles. More studies should be conducted to assess how AAS influence bibliometrics, and how they can help manage nursing journal articles and research.

The Research Trends and Scientometric Assessment of Rheumatoid Arthritis in India During 2016-2021.

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic autoimmune disorder that affects the synovial joints, causing swelling and joint damage. RA has become a major public health concern, harming more than 1500 people per lakh of the world's population. This inflammatory disorder is more common in females in comparison to males (3:1). In the present work, a scientometric analysis of published articles on RA during the last five years [1st January 2016 to 2021] on 19/08/2021 in the Scopus database is performed and investigates the contribution of India. In this study, the top most productive countries and the contribution of India in this field were analyzed. The different journals, funding agencies, and productive authors from India who contributed to this field are also recognized. The average citation impact is 10 citations per paper. A total of 61% share was found for the International collaboration in India's publication on rheumatoid arthritis. In India's output on rheumatoid arthritis, medicine produced the largest percentage of paper (60 percent). The top 15 journals publishing the maximum number of Indian papers contribute 1% share of global rheumatoid arthritis research (The highest number of papers (95 papers) published by the Indian Journal of Rheumatology). During the period 2016-2021, the top 10 highly cited papers got a total of 7045 citations, averaging 705 citations per publication. India was found to have a 5% (1974 publications) share of global output (42312 publications). In conclusion, there is a small number of researches on rheumatoid arthritis in a country, which holds the 2nd position in population across the world. There is a need for more research on rheumatoid arthritis in India.

The impact of Canadian-produced research on the global orthopedic literature: a bibliometric analysis.

Little is known about the quality and impact of Canadian-produced research relative to that of other developed nations. The purpose of this study was to determine the contribution of Canadian authors to the orthopedic literature globally and nationally as well as Canada's research productivity in orthopedics. We hypothesized that Canada ranks among the most impactful countries in terms of orthopedic research productivity. We performed a bibliometric analysis to identify articles published between 2001 and 2020 in the category of orthopedics. We identified Canada's global rank in terms of overall productivity and assessed the contributions of individual Canadian authors. We also examined the quality of publications as determined by category normalized citation impact (CNCI) and publication in the top quartile of journals (%Q1) in terms of impact factor. In addition, we calculated the percentage of Canadian publications that were in orthopedics. We identified 10 821 orthopedic publications from 2001 to 2020. Canada placed sixth globally in terms of productivity in orthopedic research. The annual productivity of Canadian orthopedic researchers increased over the study period by a factor of 3.2. In terms of research quality, with a %Q1 of 36.5% and a CNCI of 1.22, Canada outperformed Asian countries and the United States; the latter country had a %Q1 of 35.3% and a CNCI of 1.14 over the study period. The body of Canadian orthopedic literature has grown consistently over the past 20 years. Despite the overall leadership of the United States and other developed nations such as China and Japan, Canada ranks among the most influential countries in terms of the quality and quantity of orthopedic research.

High-impact papers in the field of anesthesiology: a 10-year cross-sectional study.

This study was performed to evaluate trends in and provide future direction for anesthesiology education, research, and clinical practice. We collected high-impact papers, ranking in the top 10% in the field of anesthesiology and published from 2011 to 2020, by the InCites tool based on the Web of Science Core Collection. We analyzed the trends, locations, distribution of subject categories, research organizations, collaborative networks, and subject terms of these papers. A total of 4,685 high-impact papers were included for analysis. The number of high-impact papers increased from 462 in 2011 to 520 in 2020. The paper with the highest value of category normalized citation impact (115.95) was published in Anesthesia and Analgesia in 2018. High-impact papers were mainly distributed in the subject categories of "Anesthesiology," "Clinical Neurology," "Neurosciences," and "Medicine General Internal." They were primarily cited in "Anesthesiology," "Clinical Neurology," "Neurosciences," "Medicine General Internal," and "Surgery." Most of these high-impact papers came from the USA, UK, Canada, Germany, and Australia. The most productive institutions were the League of European Research Universities, Harvard University, University of Toronto, University of London, University of California System, and University Health Network Toronto. Research collaboration circles have been formed in the USA, UK, and Canada. Subject-term analysis indicated postoperative analgesia, chronic pain, and perioperative complications were high-interest topics, and COVID-19 became a new hot topic in 2020. The current study provides a historical view of high-impact papers in anesthesiology in the past ten years. High-impact papers were mostly from the USA. Postoperative analgesia, chronic pain, and perioperative complications have been hot topics, and COVID-19 became a new topic in 2020. These findings provide references for education, research, and clinical practice in the field of anesthesiology.

A converging global research system

Abstract We examine the hypothesis that research collaboration has enabled a global research network to evolve, with self-organizing properties transcending national research policy. We examine research output, bilateral and multilateral collaboration, subject diversity, and citation impact over 40 years, in detail for the G7 and BRICK groups of countries and in summary for 26 other nations. We find that the rise in national output was strongly associated with bilateral collaboration until the 2000s but after that by multilateral partnerships, with the shift happening at much the same time across countries. There was a general increase in research subject diversity, with evenness across subjects converging on a similar index value for many countries. Similar diversity is not the same as actual similarity but, in fact, the G7 countries became increasingly similar. National average citation impact (CNCI) rose and groups converged on similar impact values. The impact of the largest economies is above world average, which is a phenomenon we discuss separately. The similarities in patterns and timing occur across countries despite variance in their research policies, such as research assessment. We suggest that the key agent facilitating global network self-organization is a shared concept of best practice in research.

The association between research funding status and clinical research papers' citation impact in Japan: A cross-sectional bibliometric study.

Studies have not sufficiently clarified the differences in citation impact between funded and non-funded clinical research papers. Hence, this study seeks to evaluate the relation between research funding status and clinical research papers' citation impact in different research fields using multiple evaluation indices. In this cross-sectional bibliometric study, clinical research papers published by core clinical research hospitals in Japan were compared retrospectively in terms of times cited (TC), category normalized citation impact (CNCI), citation percentile (CP), journal impact factor (JIF), the Software to Identify, Manage, and Analyze Scientific Publications (SIGAPS) category, and whether they were the funded clinical research. The association between research funding status or the SIGAPS category and CNCI ≥ 2 was analyzed using logistic regression analysis. 11 core clinical research hospitals published 553 clinical research papers, of which 120 were non-funded and 433 were funded (public institution-funded and industry-funded). The study found that funded clinical research papers (public institution-funded and industry-funded) had significantly higher TC, CNCI, CP, and JIF than non-funded ones [TC: 8 (3-17) vs. 14 (8-31), p < 0.001; CNCI: 0.53 (0.19-0.97) vs. 0.87 (0.45-1.85), p < 0.001; CP: 51.9 (24.48-70.42) vs. 66.7 (40.53-88.01), p < 0.001; JIF: 2.59 (1.90-3.84) vs. 2.93 (2.09-4.20) p = 0.008], while the proportion of A or B rank clinical research papers of the SIGAPS category was not significantly different between the two groups (30.0 vs. 34.9%, p = 0.318). In the logistic regression analysis, having a CNCI ≥ 2 was significantly associated with research funding (public institution-funded and industry-funded) and publication in A or B rank journals of the SIGAPS category [research funding: Estimate 2.169, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.153-4.083, p = 0.016; SIGAPS category A/B: Estimate 6.126, 95% CI 3.889-9.651, p < 0.001]. Analysis via multiple indicators including CNCI and the SIGAPS category, which allows for a comparison of the papers' citation impact in different research fields, found a positive relation between research funding status and the citation impact of clinical research papers.

Is there a need for a new journal metric? Correlations between JCR Impact Factor metrics and the Journal Citation Indicator—JCI

• The JCI has similar properties to the JIF and the 5-Year JIF. • The JCI indicator has very significant correlations with the JIF and the 5-year JIF. • The JCI can be very useful for ESCI and arts and humanities journals. In 2021, Clarivate published a new version of the Journal Citation Reports (JCR) including a new indicator. The Journal Citation Indicator (JCI) is a new field-normalized metric at journal-level, which is calculated by averaging the Category Normalized Citation Impact (CNCI) of the journal's articles and reviews published in the preceding three-year period. Unlike the Journal Impact Factor (JIF), it is also calculated for the journals of the Arts & Humanities Citation Index (AHCI) and the Emerging Sources Citation Index (ESCI), which are now included in the JCR. To better understand this new indicator, this article analyses its main statistical characteristics in comparison with the other JCR indicators using all JCR journals and categories. The results highlight the similarities between the JCI and JIF, with a high Pearson correlation (0.853) and a similar distribution. This correlation is also high and homogeneous in the different categories, both for Science and Social Sciences. The JCI is therefore a perfect complement to the JIF, as well as representing an alternative to resolve the well-known problems of the JCR.

Aligning research trends of NIPERs, India (2010–2021)

PurposeThis study aims to measure the global research landscape of the National Institute of Pharmaceutical Education and Research (NIPER) of India on a set of quantitative and qualitative metrics in terms of research output toward exploring research trends and give an overview of collaborative practices by researchers of NIPERs.Design/methodology/approachThe present study has selected the Scopus database as a tool to retrieve potential publications of studied NIPERs during the last 12 years (2010–2021). NIPER-Mohali, NIPER-Hyderabad, NIPER-Ahmedabad, NIPER-Guwahati and NIPER-Kolkata have been selected for the study. The study has adopted a comprehensive search strategy to extract 3,926 publications data. VOS viewer 1.6.17, BibExcel and Microsoft Excel were used for data analysis and visualization.FindingsThe global scientific research output of NIPERs accrued 3,926 publications with an average of 327 publications per year. The retrieved publications fetched a total of 67,772 citations with an average citation impact of 17.26. There observed a steady growth of publications from 168 to 509 registered with an average growth rate of 18.44%. The mean relative growth rate and doubling time of research output are 0.26 and 2.94. The authorship patterns explore collaborative trends as most of the publications were published by multiple authors (99.39%). NIPERs have expanded their outreach to collaborate with the USA, Malaysia, Saudi Arabia, Australia and the UK to collaborate on research and regulatory reforms exhibits in the USA as a major contributor.Originality/valueThe present study is the first effort to evaluate the global research productivity of NIPERs and assess the current research trends on a set of quantitative and qualitative metrics to provide some insights into the complex dynamics of research productivity. The study’s outcome may help to identify the current research progress of NIPERs at the global level.

Global Research Trends of Gender-Related Artificial Intelligence in Medicine Between 2001-2020: A Bibliometric Study.

This study aimed to assess the research on medical Artificial intelligence (AI) related to sex/gender and explore global research trends over the past 20 years. We searched the Web of Science (WoS) for gender-related medical AI publications from 2001 to 2020. We extracted the bibliometric data and calculated the annual growth of publications, Specialization Index, and Category Normalized Citation Impact. We also analyzed the publication distributions by institution, author, WoS subject category, and journal. A total of 3,110 papers were included in the bibliometric analysis. The number of publications continuously increased over time, with a steep increase between 2016 and 2020. The United States of America and Harvard University were the country and institution that had the largest number of publications. Surgery and urology nephrology were the most common subject categories of WoS. The most occurred keywords were machine learning, classification, risk, outcomes, diagnosis, and surgery. Despite increased interest, gender-related research is still low in medical AI field and further research is needed.

Medicine-Engineering Interdisciplinary Research Based on Bibliometric Analysis: A Case Study on Medicine-Engineering Institutional Cooperation of Shanghai Jiao Tong University.

This article aims to provide reference for medicine-engineering interdisciplinary research. Targeted at the scientific literature and patent literature published by Shanghai Jiao Tong University, this article attempts to set up co-occurrence matrix of medicine-engineering institutional information which was extracted from address fields of the papers, so as to construct the medicine-engineering intersection datasets. The dataset of scientific literature was analyzed using bibliometrics and visualization methods from multiple dimensions, and the most active factors, such as trends of output, journal and subject distribution, were identified from the indicators of category normalized citation impact (CNCI), times cited, keywords, citation topics and the degree of medicine-engineering interdisplinary. Research on hotspots and trends was discussed in detail. Analyses of the dataset of patent literature showed research themes and measured the degree for technology convergence of medicine-engineering.