Impact Factor Of Publishing Journal Research Articles

Detecting ChatGPT in published documents: Chatbot catchphrases and buzzwords

BackgroundNowadays, chatbot-written text can be present in academic documents, even without attribution. Development of an accurate manual screening paradigm would be helpful. MethodIn a series of four test manuscripts suspected of containing chatbot-written text, N=93 peculiar catchphrases were highlighted, and Google Search was used to find articles with each catchphrase. Paragraphs with the catchphrase in recent documents were checked for chatbot origin using the GPTZero detector. For paragraphs confirmed by GPTZero as likely to be chatbot-associated, the following statistics were recorded (N=50): the number of articles published with each catchphrase paragraph for time periods 2012-2014, 2015-2017, 2020-2022 (after GPT introduction), and 2023-March 2024 (after ChatGPT introduction), the citations per article, the publishing journal Impact Factor, and the document section in which the chatbot phrase appeared. ResultsN=86/93 suspected peculiar phrasings had paragraphs with chatbot association by GPTZero (92.5%). The mean number of published articles containing a chatbot-associated paragraph was 21.7 for 2012-2014, 25.6 for 2015-2017, and 43.2 for 2020-2022 versus 67.2 for 2023- March 2024 (p = 0.004). 75% of chatbot-containing articles studied were published in Impact Factor journals. The mean journal Impact Factor was 4.99, with some articles published in Impact Factor 10+ journals. Chatbot phrasing was commonly found in Abstracts and Introductions, but also in Methods, Results/Discussion, Limitations, and Conclusions. ConclusionsChatbot content often has peculiar phrasing that typically appears in other chatbot-associated documents as well. It is possible to manually detect odd chatbot phrasings. Chatbot content is increasing, and is present in top journals.

Seventy Percent of Abstracts Presented at the AANA Annual Meeting Are Later Published

To assess the future publication rates of abstracts presented at AANA annual meetings between 2015 and2019. Abstracts presented at the 2015-2019 AANA annual meetings were identified. The PubMed and Google Scholar databases were searched for a corresponding manuscript for each abstract using the name of the first author, abstract title, and keywords. A level of evidence and anatomic category were assigned to each abstract. For each corresponding manuscript identified, the authors, journal of publication, journal impact factor (IF), time to publication, and number of citations were recorded. Overall, 70.5% of abstracts presented at the 2015-2019 AANA annual meetings (275 of 390) went on to future publication, with 63.6% (248 of 390) achieving publication within 3 years. The median time to publication from presentation was 12.8 months. Arthroscopy (29.8%) was the most frequent journal of publication. The average IF of publishing journals was 4.92 ± 3.41, with 61.8% of manuscripts (170 of 275) published in journals with an IF of at least 4.00. Published manuscripts received an average of 36.30 ± 47.6 citations per manuscript. Astronger level of evidence was associated with an increased likelihood of future publication (P= .008). Pre-publication literature presented at the AANA annual meetings has continued to be associated with a strong likelihood of future publication in Arthroscopy and Arthroscopy, Sports Medicine, and Rehabilitation, as well as other respected peer-reviewed journals. Exposure to pre-publication literature may have an impact on clinical management. It is important to understand the quality of research presented in abstracts from AANA annual meetings. Knowing how many abstracts are ultimately published in peer-reviewed journals provides an indicator of the quality and reliability of the research.

Quality of systematic reviews in HIV: The case of clinical outcomes associated with patient medication adherence

Use of systematic reviews (SRs) as first-level evidence for guideline recommendations hinges on review quality. In particular, US guidelines for adherence-related recommendations in the treatment of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) are not based on available SRs of adherence-outcome relationships; it is unclear why. No published studies report on the quality of SRs on HIV adherence and outcomes, which may be driving the lack of use. We describe the quality of this body of literature. Literature searches were conducted in Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PubMed Central, the Cochrane Library, Science Citation Index, Web of Science, ScIELO Citation Index, and Ovid Emcare. Screening and quality assessments were performed in duplicate using AMSTAR 2. Funding sources and impact factors of publishing journals were also extracted, and correlations between quality rankings and numbers of critical weaknesses versus impact factors were assessed using Spearman's rank correlation coefficient. Nine SRs of 1141 records met eligibility criteria. Overall confidence in the results was critically low for most (78%) SRs. Underperformance was found across all AMSTAR 2 domains. Impact factor (a surrogate or journal reputation) did not correlate with quality. SRs do not necessarily comprise top-level evidence despite the availability of quality appraisal tools and reporting guidance, which could explain the lack of SR evidence in US HIV medication adherence-related guideline recommendations. All parties to evidence synthesis publication should require quality assessment of studies.

Examining the Relationship between Altmetric Score and Traditional Bibliometrics in the Pathology Literature

Background: Recently, research data are increasingly shared through social media and other digital platforms. Traditionally, the influence of a scientific article has been assessed by the publishing journal's impact factor (IF) and its citation count. The Altmetric scoring system, a new bibliometric that integrates research “mentions” over digital media platforms, has emerged as a metric of online research distribution. The aim of this study was to explore the relationship of the Altmetric Score with IF and citation number within the pathology literature. Methods: Citation count and Altmetric scores were obtained from the top 10 most-cited articles from the 15 pathology journals with the highest IF for 2013 and 2016. These variables were analyzed and correlated with each other, as well as the age of the publishing journal's Twitter account. Results: Three hundred articles were examined from the two cohorts. The total citation count of the articles decreased from 21,043 (2013) to 14,679 (2016), while the total Altmetric score increased from 830 (2013) to 4066 (2016). In 2013, Altmetric score weakly correlated with citation number (r = 0.284, P < 0.001) but not with journal IF (r = 0.024, P = 0.771). In 2016, there was strong correlation between citation count and Altmetric Score (r = 0.714, P < 0.0001) but not the IF (r = 0.0442, P = 0.591). Twitter was the single most important contributor to the Altmetric score; however, the age of the Twitter account was not associated with citation number nor Altmetric score. Conclusions: In the pathology literature studied, the Altmetric score correlates with article citation count, suggesting that the Altmetric score and conventional bibliometrics can be treated as complementary metrics. Given the trend towards increasing use of social media, additional investigation is warranted to evaluate the evolving role of social media metrics to assess the dissemination and impact of scientific findings in the field of pathology.

Predictors of Citations in Neurosurgical Research

The number of citations an article receives is an important measure of impact for published research. There are limited published data on predictors of citations in neurosurgery research. We aimed to analyze predictors of citations for neurosurgical articles. All articles published in 14 neurosurgical journals in the year 2015 were examined and data collected about their features. The number of citations for each article was tallied using both Web of Science (WoS) and Google Scholar (GS) 2.5 years after their publication in print. Negative binomial regression was then performed to determine the relationship between article features and citation counts for scientific articles. A total of 3923 articles were analyzed, comprising 2867 scientific articles (72.6%) and 1056 nonscientific (editorial, commentary, etc.) articles (27.4%). At 2.5 years, scientific articles had a median [interquartile range] number of citations per article of 3.0 [6.0] and 7.0 [9.0] found in WoS and GS, respectively; nonscientific articles had accumulated median 0.0 [2.0] in both WOS and GS. Articles with the study topic "Spine" had the highest citation count at 4.0 [5.0] and 8.0 [10.0] in WoS and GS, respectively. Significant predictors of citation count in scientific articles were level of evidence, number of centers, number of authors, and impact factor. This is the largest investigation analyzing predictors of citations in the neurosurgical literature. Factors found to be most influential on citation rates in scientific articles included the study's level of evidence, number of participating centers, number of authors, and the publishing journal's impact factor.

Two New Factors for the Evaluation of Scientific Performance: U and U'.

Scientific performance of researchers that translates into academic improvement, tenure position in universities and project grants are commonly evaluated by using some bibliometric indicators. These indicators can be calculated through total number of papers and citations, impact factors of publishing journals, impact of each paper or impact of total papers. In addition, scientific impact of individuals is also determined by some indexes such as Hirsch (h) index. All of these measures and indexes have several limitations. Scientific projects and publications are mostly collaborative and all collaborators do not contribute to these projects and publications equally. Thus, it is difficult to understand and analyze an individual's performance by the outputs coming from collaborative studies. Here, a new practice for evaluating individual scientific performance is proposed. U and U' factors are able to detect a qualified article production capacity of the scientists producing from their research projects and studies objectively. Although these factors may not give an idea about their exact contributions and solutions on the specific scientific problems, U factors will assist a more objective evaluation for individual scientific performance or productivity of the scientists than other tools such as h factor and impact factor alone. Because h factor excludes certain articles of researchers, in this paper, I propose to use U factor instead of h for a more objective evaluation. Especially the U' factor may also be helpful for an objective selection in scientific awards, project grants and in appointing academical staff.

Measuring research impact: a large cancer research funding programme in Australia

BackgroundMeasuring research impact is of critical interest to philanthropic and government funding agencies interested in ensuring that the research they fund is both scientifically excellent and has meaningful impact into health and other outcomes. The Beat Cancer Project (BCP) is a AUD $34 m cancer research funding scheme that commenced in 2011. It was initiated by an Australian charity (Cancer Council SA), and supported by the South Australian Government and the state’s major universities.MethodsThis study applied Buxton and Hanney’s Payback Framework to assess research impact generated from the BCP after 3 years of funding. Data sources were an audit of peer-reviewed publications from January 2011 to September 2014 from Web of Knowledge and a self-report survey of investigators awarded BCP research funding during its first 3 years of implementation (2011–2013). Of the 104 surveys, 92 (88%) were completed.ResultsThe BCP performed well across all five categories of the Payback Framework. In terms of knowledge production, 1257 peer-reviewed publications were generated and the mean impact factor of publishing journals increased annually. There were many benefits to future research with 21 respondents (23%) reporting career advancement, and 110 higher degrees obtained or expected (including 84 PhDs). Overall, 52% of funded projects generated tools for future research. The funded research attracted substantial further income yielding a very high rate of leverage. For every AUD $1 that the cancer charity invested, the BCP gained an additional AUD $6.06. Five projects (5%) had informed policy and 5 (5%) informed product development, with an additional 31 (34%) and 35 (38%) projects, respectively, anticipating doing so. In terms of health and sector and broader economic benefits, 8 (9%) projects had influenced practice or behaviour of health staff and 32 (34%) would reportedly to do so in the future.ConclusionsResearch impact was a priority of charity and government funders and led to a deliberate funding strategy. Emphasising research impact while maintaining rigorous, competitive processes can achieve the joint objectives of excellence in research, yielding good research impact and a high rate of leverage for philanthropic and public investment, as indicated by these early results.

Scientific publications in gastroenterology and hepatology in Taiwan: An analysis of Web of Science from 1993 to 2013

BackgroundScientific publications are important for evaluating the achievements of a medical specialty or discipline. Gastroenterology and Hepatology is a medical specialty in great demand in Taiwan, therefore, this study aimed to analyze the Gastroenterology and Hepatology publications from 1993 to 2013 in Taiwan, using the Web of Science (WoS) database. MethodsScientific publications from departments/institutes of gastroenterology and hepatology were retrieved and analyzed from the WoS database, which included articles published in the Science Citation Index Expanded and Social Science Citation Index journals from 1993 to 2013. ResultsAmong 229,030 articles published from departments/institutes of gastroenterology and hepatology worldwide during 1993–2013, 5061 (2.21%) were published in Taiwan, ranking the country 13th in the world. In total, 4759 articles from Taiwan were selected for further analysis, excluding meeting abstracts and corrections. During these two decades, the number of gastroenterology and hepatology publications increased rapidly. There were 440 articles published during 1993–1997, 646 articles during 1998–2002, 1211 articles during 2003–2007, and up to 2462 articles during 2008–2013. However, the mean number of articles cited decreased from 25.35 to 27.25 to 20.64 to 7.28, and the mean impact factor of publishing journals decreased from 5.0 to 4.20 to 4.13 to 4.03 during 1993–1997, 1998–2002, 2003–2007, and 2008–2013, respectively. Most of those publications belong to the subject category gastroenterology and hepatology (2346 articles, 49.30%), followed by surgery (677 articles, 14.23%), medicine, general and internal (358 articles, 7.52%), oncology (316 articles, 6.64%), and pharmacology pharmacy (286 articles, 6.01%). The Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology published the most papers (326 articles, 6.9%), followed by World Journal of Gastroenterology (201 articles, 4.2%), Hepato-Gastroenterology (165 articles, 3.5%), Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (159 articles, 3.3%), and Hepatology (146 articles, 3.1%). ConclusionScientific publications from departments/institutes of gastroenterology and hepatology in Taiwan increased rapidly from 1993 to 2013. However, there were decreasing trends in the number of articles cited and journal impact factors.

Publication rates of abstracts presented at the 2007 and 2010 Canadian Association of Radiation Oncology meetings.

We set out to determine the rate, time-trend, and defining factors associated with publication of abstracts presented at two annual scientific meetings of the Canadian Association of Radiation Oncology (caro). All abstracts accepted for oral presentation in 2007 and 2010 were obtained from the caro program archives and searched using the PubMed database. Variables in the dataset included the year of presentation at caro and of publication in a scientific journal, time to publication (in months), publishing journal, impact factor of publishing journal, abstract research type (clinical, technical, or basic science) and disease site, country of origin, and university of the first author. Overall, 88 of 172 abstracts from the 2007 (n = 102) and 2010 (n = 70) caro meetings were published in peer-reviewed journals (publication rate: 51.2%). Mean time to publication was 18.5 months. Among research types, clinical research (62.5%) and, among disease sites, prostate cancer (40.4%) were most likely to be published. Of all the abstracts, 50.1% were contributed by only 2 universities, a proportion that resembles the overall abstract publication rate of 51.2%. The conversion rate for those 2 universities (51.1%) is very similar to that for all abstracts presented at the two meetings. Half the abstracts presented at the 2007 and 2010 caro meetings were ultimately published in journals indexed in PubMed by about 1.5 years after presentation. Half the abstracts and publications came from just 2 universities; more must to be done to close the gap.

FROM PODIUM TO PRESS: THE 10-YEAR PUBLICATION RATE OF ABSTRACTS PRESENTED AT THE ANNUAL MEETINGS OF THE QUEBEC UROLOGICAL ASSOCIATION (QUA)

Introduction: To determine the proportion of publications arising from abstracts presented at the Quebec Urological Association (QUA), to analyze differences in publication rates according to certain parameters, and to examine the quality of publications using journal impact factors. Methods: All abstracts presented at the annual meetings of the QUA between 2000 and 2010 were obtained from the QUA archives and searched using the PubMed database. Variables included: Institute, number of abstracts presented, year of presentation and publication, impact factor of publishing journal (according to 2010 Thomson Reuters report), time to publication (months), research type, presenter, and location of research. Kaplan Meier methods were used for analysis. Results: By May 2012, 248 out of 439 abstracts (QUA 2000 to 2010) were published in peer-reviewed journals resulting in a publication rate of 56%. There were significant differences in publication rate according to institute, research type, and location of research. Non-Quebec institutions were twice as likely to publish compared to Quebec institutions (Cox HR 2.13, CI 1.20 – 3.76, p-value &lt;0.01). Discussion: The QUA publication rate was considerably higher than previously studied by the American Urological Association (37.8%) and British Association of Urological Surgeons (≈42%); however length of follow up and presentation types differed. Research conducted outside Quebec was more likely to be published, reflecting the multi-institution robust study designs and higher level of evidence. Factors influencing publication deserve further attention, and clinicians are encouraged to conduct research with intent to publish.

From podium to press: The 10-year publication rate of abstracts presented at the annual meetings of the Quebec Urological Association (QUA)

Our objective was to determine the proportion of publications arising from abstracts presented at the Quebec Urological Association (QUA). We wanted to analyze differences in publication rates according to certain parameters, and to examine the quality of publications using journal impact factors. All abstracts presented at the annual meetings of the QUA between 2000 and 2010 were obtained from the QUA archives and searched using the PubMed database. Variables included: institute, number of abstracts presented, year of presentation and publication, impact factor of publishing journal (according to 2010 Thomson Reuters report), time to publication (months), research type, presenter and location of research. Kaplan Meier methods were used for analysis. By May 2012, 248 out of 439 abstracts (QUA 2000 to 2010) were published in peer-reviewed journals, resulting in a publication rate of 56%. There were significant differences in publication rates according to institution, research type and location of research. Researchers from non-Quebec institutions were twice as likely to publish compared to those from Quebec institutions (Cox HR 2.13, CI 1.20-3.76, p < 0.01). The QUA publication rate was considerably higher than previously studied by the American Urological Association (37.8%) and British Association of Urological Surgeons (≈42%); however length of follow-up and presentation types differed. Research conducted outside Quebec was more likely to be published, reflecting the multi-institution robust study designs and higher level of evidence. Factors influencing publication deserve further attention, and clinicians are encouraged to conduct research with intent to publish.

Research productivity in Syria: Quantitative and qualitative analysis of current status

Context:Scientific research output measured by the number and quality of publications reflects the research productivity of a certain community.Aims:To examine the quantity and quality of research produced by Syrian institutions with particular emphasis on the clinical and biomedical research.Settings and Design:Retrospective observational analysis of research originating from Syrian institutions indexed by Medline and Science Citation Index (SciVerse) Scopus bibliographic databases.Materials and Methods:Comprehensive review of the literature indexed by Medline and SciVerse was conducted including data from Jan 01, 1980 till February 2011 searching for authors affiliated with Syrian institutions. Clinical and biomedical research data were further analyzed quantitatively and qualitatively.Results:The total of manuscripts indexed by SciVerse originating from Syrian institutions during the last 3 decades is 3540. A total of 458 publications cover clinical and biomedical subject areas. The quality of these 458 publications was evaluated by the citation frequency and impact factor of publishing journals with h-index of 24.Conclusions:Although the spectrum of research originating from Syrian institutions is broad, the overall number of publications particularly in clinical and biomedical subjects is minuscule and of limited quality. The presented data indicate the need to promote research capabilities and to bridge the gap in research productivity by Syrian institutions.

Publication Rates for Hip Surgery-Related Abstracts Presented at National and International Meetings

Presentation at national and international meetings is a useful way to disseminate new information. Publication in a peer-reviewed journal remains the gold standard. We analyzed the publication rates of oral presentations from the British and European Hip Society, British Orthopaedic Association, and European Federation of Orthopaedics and Traumatology between 2003 and 2006. Multiple databases were used to identify publication of work presented as an abstract at these meetings. The publishing journal, time until publication, impact factor of publishing journal, and rate of publication identified by each database were analyzed. The overall mean publication rate across the 4 meetings was 23.4%; there were no significant differences between the meetings. Google Scholar (P<.01) and Medline (P<.05) identified significantly more publications than EMBASE. There were no significant differences between the mean impact factors of the publishing journals (P=.18). There were no significant differences in abstract publication rate or impact factor between meetings. The overall mean subsequent publication rates for presented abstracts related to hip surgery were low, and data presented but not yet published should be treated with caution. Google Scholar and Medline are superior to EMBASE for identification of peer-reviewed research.

Bibliometric Analysis of Nursing Research in Taiwan 1991-2004

This study examined nursing research performance in Taiwan from 1991 to 2004 by conducting bibliometric analysis of papers published by researchers affiliated with nursing institutes in Taiwan. Bibliometric information of papers that were published between 1991 and 2004 and had contact address including the words "Taiwan", and "nursing" were downloaded from the ISI Web of Knowledge website. The information used for this research included number of papers, number of authors, number of references listed, impact factors of publishing journals, times cited, and whether the paper was written through international or domestic collaboration. The information was coded and tabulated. Bibliometric characteristics were compared between 1995- 1999 and 2000-2004. Furthermore, an exponential model was fitted to show the past growth trend in research outputs. The results showed that there was a significant growth in quantity of papers from 1991 to 2004. In general, recent papers had averaged more authors, more domestic collaboration, more international collaboration, higher impact factors, and more references listed than earlier papers. Papers written with collaboration tended to have a higher average number of authors and more references listed, and tended to be published in journals with higher impact factors. The exponential model proved to be in good fit with the past growth pattern. The authors speculate that the recent increase in research collaboration, both internationally and domestically, may have contributed to the significant increase in output. It is not clear whether the growth in quantity of papers will continue or for how long. Based on past data, however, no sign of leveling off has been observed. More research is needed to understand what societal and individual level factors were involved in fueling such a dramatic increase in quantity in the last decade. Furthermore, as the quantity of papers has increased steadily, more focus can be placed on improving the quality of research papers.

Journal prestige, publication bias, and other characteristics associated with citation of published studies in peer-reviewed journals.

Citation by other authors is important in the dissemination of published science, but factors predicting it are little studied. To identify characteristics of published research predicting citation in other journals, we searched the Science Citations Index database for a standardized 3.5 years for all citations of published articles originally submitted to a 1991 emergency medicine specialty meeting. Analysis was conducted by classification and regression trees, a nonparametric modeling technique of regression trees, to determine the impact of previously determined characteristics of the full articles on the outcome measures. We calculated the the number of times an article was cited each year and calculated the mean impact factor (citations per manuscript per year) in other citing journals. Of the 493 submitted manuscripts, 204 published articles met entry criteria. The mean citations per year was 2.04 (95% confidence interval, 1.6-2.4; range, 0-20.9) in 440 different journals. Nineteen articles (9.3%) were never cited. The ability to predict the citations per year was weak (pseudo R(2) = 0.14.). The strongest predictor of citations per year was the impact factor of the original publishing journal. The presence of a control group, the subjective newsworthiness score, and sample size predicted citation frequency (24.3%, 26.0%, and 26.5% as strongly, respectively). The ability to predict mean impact factor of the citing journals was even weaker (pseudo R(2) = 0.09). The impact factor of the publishing journal was the strongest predictor, followed by the newsworthiness score (89.9% as strongly) and a subjective quality score (61.5%). Positive outcome bias was not evident for either outcome measure. In this cohort of published research, commonly used measures of study methodology and design did not predict the frequency of citations or the importance of citing journals. Positive outcome bias was not evident. The impact factor of the original publishing journal was more important than any other variable, suggesting that the journal in which a study is published may be as important as traditional measures of study quality in ensuring dissemination.

Fate of abstracts presented at five International Conferences on Pharmacoepidemiology (ICPE): 1995-1999.

Meetings are an important way of exchanging scientific information, but full diffusion of new information can only be achieved when results are published in scientific journals. (1) To determine the publication frequency of accepted abstracts for the yearly international conferences on pharmacoepidemiology (ICPE) and to examine predicting variables; (2) if published, to determine impact differences between 'oral' and 'poster' abstracts and to determine type and nature of publishing journals. Abstracts accepted for ICPE 1995-1999, published in the official conference supplement of Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety, were included. Publication status for the information contained in each abstract was evaluated through MEDLINE and IPA searches. Impact factors of publishing journals were retrieved and journals were included in one of five groups. Overall, one out of three abstracts resulted in a publication in the peer-reviewed journals studied. Abstracts from North America were more often presented orally than abstracts from Europe, but had lower publication chances. 'Oral' abstracts were more likely to be published than 'poster' abstracts; abstracts with a strong methodological content had a lower publication frequency. Most of the published abstracts were found in pharmacology and pharmacy journals (33%) and journals on specific clinical topics (30%). Only one out of three papers presented at ICPE ends up in established peer-reviewed journals. Although the publication characteristics for ICPE are not very different from other conferences, there are certain questions that warrant further investigation.