Number Of High-quality Papers Research Articles

Bibliometric analysis of chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy

Objective: Chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR-T) therapy refers to the genetic material with specific antigen recognition domain and T cell activation signal is transferred into T cells through gene modification technology. By engineering T-cells to specifically target and eliminate tumor cells, CAR-T therapy has shown remarkable efficacy in treating certain hematological malignancies. Understanding its advancements helps optimize therapeutic strategies, enhance patient outcomes, and guide future innovations in immunotherapy. Therefore, this study aims to investigate the progress of CAR-T therapy by bibliometrics. Methods: By using the keywords of “CAR-T therapy” and “immune cells”, all relevant literature were comprehensively searched from the Web of Science. Research trends in related field were analyzed by using VOSviewer, Pajek, Microsoft Excel and Endnote software, to explore research hotspots, development trends, and future directions for CAR-T therapy. Results: The United States emerges as the most productive country in related field, and the institutions with the highest number of publications is the University of Pennsylvania. As for journals, Frontiers in Immunology appears to be one of the most productive journals. Notably, Gottschalk Stephen publishes the largest number of articles. Keyword cluster analysis shows that the current research trend is more focused on immune cell, so as to explore the mechanisms and modalities of CAR-T therapy. Conclusion: This study provides a comprehensive summary and analysis of global research trends in CAR-T therapy. In the past 5 years, the number of high-quality papers in this field has increased significantly. CAR-T therapy has emerged as a beacon of hope for tumor treatment, representing a significant advancement in healthcare for a wide range of patients, including those with major diseases and suboptimal health conditions.

Bibliometric analysis of chimeric antigen receptor macrophage therapy

Chimeric antigen receptor macrophage (CAR-M) therapy refers to the implantation of specific edited CAR genes into macrophages to equip macrophages to bind to the surface of tumor cells through specific antigens and subsequently activate the activity of macrophages to achieve tumor-killing function. This bibliometric analysis aims to decipher the emerging trends in CAR-M therapy and provide insights for future research. In this review, all relevant literature on CAR-M therapy in the Web of Science has been analyzed for its research trends in this field by using VOS viewer, Pajek, Microsoft Excel, and Endnote software. According to the research findings, it is the most productive in the United States. The institution with the highest number of publications is the University of Pennsylvania. Frontiers in Immunology is one of the most productive journals. Kenderian Saad Sirop publishes the largest number of articles. Keyword cluster analysis shows that the current research trend is more focused on tumor-associated macrophages as well as immunotherapy, exploring the mechanisms and modalities of CAR-M therapy. This study provides a comprehensive summary and analysis of global research trends in CAR-M therapy. In the past few decades, the number of high-quality papers in this field has increased significantly, and CAR-M therapy has provided hope for tumor treatment, truly bringing health gospel to the majority of tumor patients, patients with major diseases, and sub-healthy people.

Bibliometric analysis of natural killer cell therapy in anti-cancer research

Natural killer (NK) cells are key immune cells, equivalent to T cells, and act as the immune system’s “first responders.” Under abnormal conditions, NK cells will release cytotoxic particles containing perforin and granzyme to destroy cancer cells before T cells deploy. Especially in tumor patients and post-surgery, the number of NK cells and activity are reduced, impairing their anticancer role. This study aims to explore the research progress and trend of NK cells. This bibliometric analysis describes emerging trends in NK cell therapy and provides insights for future research. Relevant literature from the Web of Science was downloaded and analyzed using VOSviewer, Pajek, Microsoft Excel, and Endnote. The findings demonstrate that the United States is the most productive country in NK cell therapy research, with Harvard Medical School being the leading institution. Frontiers in Immunology is a highly productive journal in this field, and Miller Jeffrey Scott is the most prolific author. Keyword cluster analysis indicates that current research focuses on NK cells and immunotherapy, exploring the mechanisms and modalities of NK cell therapy. In summary, this study provides a comprehensive summary and analysis of global research trends in NK cell therapy. Over the past few decades, the number of high-quality papers in this field has increased significantly, offering new hope for tumor treatment and benefiting tumor patients, those with major diseases, and the sub-healthy population.

Bibliometric analysis of cerebral organoids and diseases in the last 10 years.

Cerebral organoids have emerged as a powerful tool for mirroring the brain developmental processes and replicating its unique physiology. This bibliometric analysis aims to delineate the burgeoning trends in the application of cerebral organoids in disease research and offer insights for future investigations. We screened all relevant literature from the Web of Scienceon cerebral organoids in disease research during the period 2013-2022 and analyzed the research trends in the field using VOSviewer, CiteSpace, and Scimago Graphica software. According to the search strategy, 592 articles were screened out. The United States of America (USA) was the most productive, followed by China and Germany. The top nine institutions in terms of the number of publications include Canada and the United States, with the University of California, San Diego (USA), having the highest number of publications. The International Journal of Molecular Sciences was the most productive journal. Knoblich, Juergen A., and Lancaster, Madeline A. published the highest number of articles. Keyword cluster analysis showed that current research trends focused more on induced pluripotent stem cells to construct organoid models of cerebral diseases and the exploration of their mechanisms and therapeutic modalities. This study provides a comprehensive summary and analysis of global research trends in the field of cerebral organoids in diseases. In the past decade, the number of high-quality papers in this field has increased significantly, and cerebral organoids provide hope for simulating nervous system diseases (such as Alzheimer's disease).

Opening Up of Editorial Activities at Chemistry Journals. What Does Editorship Mean and What Does It Involve?

The article unpacks the publishing practices and focuses on the curating work carried out by the editors of chemistry journals. Based on a qualitative analysis of multiple sources in two publishing houses (the American Chemical Society, ACS and Nature Research), it first shows that the role of editor-in-chief covers a wide range of realities and is far from being limited to that of a gatekeeper (the most common metaphor in the literature). In journals that are part of the Nature Research portfolio, in-house editors, who are no longer active scientists, work full time for the journals. The article describes the professional trajectories and skills required to join the publishing house. Interviews highlight collective identity-based actions, attention to the growth and the flow of manuscripts, but also specific epistemic properties of outputs in chemistry. Besides tasks that editors outline “as really the same as they were 100 years ago,” as they spend most of their time handling manuscripts and providing quality assurance, they also travel to conferences to support journals and encourage submissions, visit labs where researchers pitch their work or ask questions about journals, and “educate the actors themselves” about new fields. In both cases studied, the publishing houses partner with institutions to offer events (ACS on Campus programme, Nature masterclass) that a university or department can freely host or buy, where editors organize workshops on all aspects of manuscript preparation. Second, publishing houses, whether non-for-profit or commercial, have embraced a catalog logic, where the journals are not necessarily in competition and have an assumed place and hierarchy. At Nature Research, editors-in-chief head business units inscribed in the company's organization. Despite standardized processes imposed by the procedural chain, there is still room to maneuver in these relatively autonomous structures that are ultimately evaluated on their results (the annual production of a certain number of high-quality papers). On the other hand, ACS is seen as a vessel whose course cannot easily be deviated. The conclusion calls for extending this type of investigation to other contexts or types of journals.

Foreword Special Issue on the 2nd Latin American Electron Device Conference

This Special Issue is devoted to research and development in the field of electron devices science and technology. We have selected a number of high quality papers presented at the <inline-formula xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"> <tex-math notation="LaTeX">$2^{nd}$ </tex-math></inline-formula> Latin American Electron Device Conference (LAEDC 2020). The <inline-formula xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"> <tex-math notation="LaTeX">$2^{nd}$ </tex-math></inline-formula> LAEDC was held in San Jose, Costa Rica from the <inline-formula xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"> <tex-math notation="LaTeX">$25^{th}$ </tex-math></inline-formula> to 28 February, 2020 and was sponsored by the IEEE Electron Devices Society.

Editorial

Editorial

Ranking Leading Econometrics Journals Using Citations Data from ISI and RePEc

The paper focuses on the robustness of rankings of academic journal quality and research impact of 10 leading econometrics journals taken from the Thomson Reuters ISI Web of Science (ISI) Category of Economics, using citations data from ISI and the highly accessible Research Papers in Economics (RePEc) database that is widely used in economics, finance and related disciplines. The journals are ranked using quantifiable static and dynamic Research Assessment Measures (RAMs), with 15 RAMs from ISI and five RAMs from RePEc. The similarities and differences in various RAMs, which are based on alternative weighted and unweighted transformations of citations, are highlighted to show which RAMs are able to provide informational value relative to others. The RAMs include the impact factor, mean citations and non-citations, journal policy, number of high quality papers, and journal influence and article influence. The paper highlights robust rankings based on the harmonic mean of the ranks of 20 RAMs, which in some cases are closely related. It is shown that emphasizing the most widely-used RAM, the two-year impact factor of a journal, can lead to a distorted evaluation of journal quality, impact and influence relative to the harmonic mean of the ranks. Some suggestions regarding the use of the most informative RAMs are also given.

WHAT DO EXPERTS KNOW ABOUT FORECASTING JOURNAL QUALITY? A COMPARISON WITH ISI RESEARCH IMPACT IN FINANCE

Experts possess knowledge and information that are not publicly available. The paper is concerned with forecasting academic journal quality and research impact using a survey of international experts from a national project on ranking academic finance journals in Taiwan. A comparison is made with publicly available bibliometric data, namely the Thomson Reuters ISI Web of Science citations database (hereafter ISI) for the Business–Finance (hereafter Finance) category. The paper analyses the leading international journals in Finance using expert scores and quantifiable Research Assessment Measures (RAMs), and highlights the similarities and differences in the expert scores and alternative RAMs, where the RAMs are based on alternative transformations of citations taken from the ISI database. Alternative RAMs may be calculated annually or updated daily to answer the perennial questions as to When, Where and How (frequently) published papers are cited (see Chang et al., 2011a,b,c). The RAMs include the most widely used RAM, namely the classic 2-year impact factor including journal self citations (2YIF), 2-year impact factor excluding journal self citations (2YIF*), 5-year impact factor including journal self citations (5YIF), Immediacy (or zero-year impact factor (0YIF)), Eigenfactor, Article Influence, C3PO (Citation Performance per Paper Online), h-index, PI-BETA (Papers Ignored — By even the Authors), 2-year Self-citation Threshold Approval Ratings (2Y-STAR), Historical Self-citation Threshold Approval Ratings (H-STAR), Impact Factor Inflation (IFI), and Cited Article Influence (CAI). As data are not available for 5YIF, Article Influence and CAI for 13 of the leading 34 journals considered, 10 RAMs are analysed for 21 highly-cited journals in Finance. The harmonic mean of the ranks of the 10 RAMs for the 34 highly-cited journals are also presented. It is shown that emphasizing the 2-year impact factor of a journal, which partly answers the question as to When published papers are cited, to the exclusion of other informative RAMs, which answer Where and How (frequently) published papers are cited, can lead to a distorted evaluation of journal impact and influence relative to the Harmonic Mean rankings. A linear regression model is used to forecast expert scores on the basis of RAMs that capture journal impact, journal policy, the number of high quality papers, and quantitative information about a journal. The robustness of the rankings is also analyzed.

Ranking journal quality by harmonic mean of ranks: an application to ISI statistics &amp; probability

As the preponderance of journal rankings becomes increasingly more frequent and prominent in academic decision making, such rankings in broad discipline categories is taking on an increasingly important role. The paper focuses on the robustness of rankings of academic journal quality and research impact using on the widely-used Thomson Reuters ISI Web of Science citations database (ISI) for the Statistics & Probability category. The paper analyses 110 ISI international journals in Statistics & Probability using quantifiable Research Assessment Measures (RAMs), and highlights the similarities and differences in various RAMs, which are based on alternative transformations of citations and influence. Alternative RAMs may be calculated annually or updated daily to determine When, Where and How (frequently) published papers are cited (see Chang et al. (2011a, b, c), Chang et al. (2012)). The RAMs are grouped in four distinct classes that include impact factor, mean citations and non-citations, journal policy, number of high quality papers, and journal influence and article influence. These classes include the most widely used RAMs, namely the classic 2-year impact factor including journal self citations (2YIF), 2-year impact factor excluding journal self citations (2YIF*), 5-year impact factor including journal self citations (5YIF), Eigenfactor (or Journal Influence), Article Influence, h-index, PI-BETA (Papers Ignored - By Even The Authors), 5YD2 (= 5YIF/2YIF) as a measure of citations longevity, and Escalating Self Citations (ESC) as a measure of increasing journal self citations. The paper highlights robust rankings based on the harmonic mean of the ranks of RAMs across the 4 classes. It is shown that focusing solely on the 2-year impact factor (2YIF) of a journal, which partly answers the question as to When published papers are cited, to the exclusion of other informative RAMs, which answer Where and How (frequently) published papers are cited, can lead to a distorted evaluation of journal quality, impact and influence relative to the more robust harmonic mean of the ranks.

Search and research: the influence of editorial boards on journals’ quality

This paper considers the search for the best papers by the editors of an academic journal. Editors' search is sequential. At each period, each editor receives one submission from a researcher and has to decide if she accepts or rejects the paper. The editorial board is heterogeneous, some editors being more demanding than others. On the academic side, researchers choose the quality level of their papers in order to maximize their utility function taking as given the composition of the editorial board. We show that three equilibria may occur. When the number of the less demanding editors is high, or if the editors exhibit great differences in their demand for quality, the journal will attract fewer submissions, publish a small number of papers and these papers will be of low quality. When the editorial board is composed by a homogeneous set of very demanding editors, the journal will publish a high number of high quality papers. For some intermediate structure of the board, a situation of multiple equilibria allows a hybrid equilibrium to exist in which the journal receives both good and bad papers. The long run and welfare implications of these equilibria are analyzed.

The Michel Benoist and Robert Mulholland Yearly European Spine Journal Review: a survey of the “surgical and research” articles in the European Spine Journal, 2011

What has been impressive about the European Spine Journal this year is the large number of high quality papers from the Middle and Far East and India and Japan. The Editors have wisely felt that the title of the Journal should not limit its content, it is truly international. The Spanish and Italian supplements, allow those of us whose language is English alone, to appreciate the great contribution those countries make to our speciality. The educative value of the supplement on sagittal balance was immense, as it is clear that an understanding of this is vital in trauma, disc arthroplasty, spinal fusion, and the management of deformity.

Thank you for 2011

We can look back at 2011 with positive feelings. The number of submissions has increased substantially and we are heading for well over 900 submissions this year. This is more than double the number of submissions compared with 4–5 years ago. But, not only has the number of submissions increased, but also the number of high-quality papers, and I include both randomised controlled trials and basic scientific studies. This was reflected in our latest impact factor, which when announced last June at 1.857 was the highest our journal has ever achieved. Currently, we are working on several new projects that we hope will improve the journal. We have published 180 pages per issue this year, and next year, this will be increased to 196. The journal size will be increased by approximately 200 pages. We feel that as the overall standard of the published papers has also increased, we are really giving our readers a better quality journal. In order to meet the increasing workload with a higher number of submissions, the Editorial team will be strengthened as of January 2012. We are happy that Rainer Siebold and Stefano Zaffagnini will be joining us as new Associate Editors. Roland Becker’s role has evolved to cover responsibility for all papers on total knee arthroplasty, hemi-arthroplasty, osteotomies and related topics, all of which has seen a rise in paper submissions. The journal is still published in a printed version and will continue in this form for the foreseeable future. All our papers are published online first on the website approximately 2 weeks after they are accepted. In order to facilitate our work with the website and other cyberspace-related activities, we have decided to ask Sebastian Kopf to assist the Editorial Team, as Web Editor. We will be driving on an exciting and very fast road; FaceBook and Twitter beckon, but where these new ventures will lead is at present uncertain. In 2012, KSSTA will celebrate its 20th anniversary. To commemorate this, a themed issue (target publication April 2012) on ‘rotational knee laxity—pivot shift’, with Volker Musahl from Pittsburgh USA as Guest Editor, is planned. Other similar proposals during the year are on ‘Knee Osteotomies’, with Romain Seil, Dieter Kohn, Philippe Lobenhofer and Ronald van Heerwarden as Guest Editors, ‘Early Osteoarthritis’, with Elizaveta Kon as Guest Editor and ‘Posterior Cruciate and Postero-Lateral injuries’ with Asbjorn Aroen and Peter Verdonk as Guest Editors. Finally, we are planning a theme in ‘Beyond the Lachman’s test’, an exciting topic. Other projects include a series of specially invited review articles and Editorials on ‘hot topics’, reproduction of the paper(s) that have had the greatest impact during the lifetime of KSSTA and last, but not least, the ‘Best Paper award’, for the most outstanding study published in the journal during 2010–2011. This Award will be presented at the ESSKA meeting in Geneva May 2012 for the first time. J. Karlsson (&) Department of Orthopaedics, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden e-mail: jon.kssta@gmail.com

SoSyM at 7 years

Over its 7 years in circulation, SoSyM, the International Journal on Software and Systems Modeling, has received a reputation for publishing quality research and experience papers on building and using models in the development of software-based systems. During that time, we have witnessed a growing body of experience related to the use of modeling techniques in practice. The insights gained have led to the development of better solutions, but, more importantly, they have led to (1) a deeper understanding of some of the more critical problems that practitioners face when applying current modeling technologies, and (2) a broader vision of model-driven engineering (MDE) that encompasses not only development, but also software operation. Papers published in SoSyM, and in a number of related conferences and workshops that have contributed to special SoSyM issues, have made significant contributions to this growing body of experience and research on modeling software-based systems. Given the growing maturity of SoSyM, we decided to seek inclusion in the Thomson ISI Science Citation Index. We are happy to tell you that SoSyMhas been part of this index since 2007.Our inclusion in the ScienceCitation Index allows us to better track the impact that SoSyM has on themodeling community and will further increase the number of high quality papers that we will see in the future. As we have done on previous anniversaries, we take this opportunity to give a “state of the journal” report and to acknowledge the reviewers, editors, and publication staff that

5.3.3 i‐pub – Towards Electronic Access to INCOSE Publications

AbstractOver the years a large number of high quality papers have been published at INCOSE symposia and conferences. However, the knowledge encoded in these papers is not easily available to INCOSE members. Symposia papers are generally only available to the attendees of the symposium where the paper was published, and then only in a format that does not supports structured access, considering today's technical possibilities.In this paper, we propose the implementation of an internet‐based INCOSE publication database (i‐pub) for facilitating access to INCOSE published papers. Results from initial prototyping activities are presented and an available COTS‐based software system is proposed for implementing the system.

Editorial

You have accessMoreSectionsView PDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack Citations ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditEmail Cite this article Charlesworth Brian 2005EditorialBiol. Lett.11http://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2005.0300SectionYou have accessEditorial Brian Charlesworth Brian Charlesworth Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed Search for more papers by this author Brian Charlesworth Brian Charlesworth Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed Search for more papers by this author Published:22 March 2005https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2005.0300Welcome to the first issue of the independent Biology Letters. I am pleased to be Editor at the beginning of what is sure to be an internationally important journal in the biological sciences.Biology Letters was launched as a supplement to Proceedings of The Royal Society B: Biological Sciences at the end of 2002, and published its first on-line article at the beginning of 2003. In this short time, Biology Letters has developed a strong reputation across the broadest scope of organismal, population and evolutionary biology, very much in the mould of its parent journal. In view of its success, the decision was taken to separate the two journals, in order to ensure that Biology Letters could fully expand and develop its own identity as a leading publication in the biological sciences.To enhance the position of Biology Letters as a leading rapid publication journal for the biological sciences, we will work hard to ensure a rapid turnaround for all papers. Currently, we publish papers on-line around 100 days after receipt, with a decision provided to authors within, on average, 55 days. Our times from peer-review through to publication are kept low through having full on-line submission and peer-review. However, we can always do better, and I hope to see these times reduced as Biology Letters breaks out as a standalone journal.We have put together an impressive international editorial board, with wide-ranging expertise, to ensure that the breadth of papers we receive and publish continues to develop. I look forward to developing the scope of the journal with the board, and expect that the board will grow along with the journal. Although we hope to continue to be a natural home for short ecological, behavioural and evolutionary biology papers, we also wish to expand the journal into further reaches of biology. The areas in particular that we are hoping to encourage in this journal include plant sciences (with an emphasis on genetics), neurobiology and genomics. We feel that these fields require a journal for short papers that can achieve a rapid turnaround, as well as high-visibility once the papers are published—we have already had a number of papers highlighted in Nature as well as receiving extensive coverage in the wider media.I would also like to take this opportunity to thank everyone involved with Biology Letters so far: in particular, Professor Neill Alexander for his careful editorship of the journal while it was still a supplement to Proceedings B. This has ensured that the journal is already attracting a large number of high quality papers across the biological sciences.Finally, a thank you to all the staff at The Royal Society for their hard work since the start of Biology Letters, including all in editorial, production and marketing, as well as the powerhouse behind any journal—the referees, who play an essential, but thankless, role in any peer-reviewed journal. Next Article VIEW FULL TEXT DOWNLOAD PDF FiguresRelatedReferencesDetailsCited byBattarbee R (2015) Ten years and counting, Biology Letters, 11:8, Online publication date: 1-Aug-2015. This Issue22 March 2005Volume 1Issue 1 Article InformationDOI:https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2005.0300Published by:Royal SocietyOnline ISSN:1744-957XHistory: Published online22/03/2005Published in print22/03/2005 License:© 2005 The Royal Society Citations and impact Large datasets are available through Biology Letters' partnership with Dryad

Editorial

Editorial

From the Editor

The longer I serve as editor, the more frustrated I feel at turning down good or promising manuscripts. Whether there has been a change in my own standards or a change in submissions, my overall impression is that I have had to turn away an increasing number of high quality papers. I have dealt with this by reducing the type size in volume 22 and exceeding the page limits by a bit. The result in this issue should be obvious just by the feel of it—it is longer.

Professional Papers in Sanitary Engineering

The Publications Committee of the Sanitary Engineering Division reviews procedures require for publication of needed papers in the field of sanitary engineering. These include a description of the increase in the number of published papers; profession reviews by competent engineers; standards of acceptance of papers; comments of reviews about submitted papers; and other procedures. More attention is being paid to systems engineering in the field of sanitary engineering. The aim of this paper is to clarify the operations of the Publications Committee for increasing the number of high quality papers included in the Journal of the Sanitary Engineering Division.