The Scholarly Influence of Orthopaedic Research According to Conventional and Alternative Metrics: A Systematic Review (original) (raw)
Related papers
Factors associated with citation rates in the orthopedic literature
Canadian journal of surgery. Journal canadien de chirurgie, 2007
Investigators aim to publish their work in top journals in an effort to achieve the greatest possible impact. One measure of impact is the number of times a paper is cited after its publication in a journal. We conducted a review of the highest impact clinical orthopedic journal (Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, American volume [J Bone Joint Surg Am]) to determine factors associated with subsequent citations within 3 years of publication. We conducted citation counts for all original articles published in J Bone Joint Surg Am 2000 (12 issues). We used regression analysis to identify factors associated with citation counts. We identified 137 original articles in the J Bone Joint Surg Am. There were 749 subsequent citations within 3 years of publication of these articles. Study design was the only variable associated with subsequent citation rate. Meta-analyses, randomized trials and basic science papers received significantly more citations (mean 15.5, 9.3 and 7.6, respectively) th...
Relation Between Impact Factor in Orthopedic Journals and Level of Evidence
Acta Ortopédica Brasileira, 2018
Objective: This study aims to assess the quality of articles published in the leading orthopedic surgery journals, by measuring the relation between the impact factor and the number studies with a high level of evidence. Methods: A literature review was performed of articles published in four previously selected journals. A score of journal evidence (RER - Relation between Randomized clinical trials and Systematic reviews) was calculated, considering the number of RCTs and SR published and the total number of full-text articles. Results: The selected journals were JBJS-Am, ASMJ, BJJ-Br and Arthroscopy, with Impact factors of 5.280, 4.362, 3.309 and 3.206 respectively in 2015. In the study, the RER Scores, in the same order, were 9.408, 6.153, 7.456 and 7.779. Conclusion: The journal JBJS-Am is the best available source of information on orthopedic surgery from this point of view. It has the highest Impact Factor and clearly the highest RER Score. On the other hand, we could conclude...
The open access model, where researchers can publish their work and make it freely available to the whole medical community, is gaining ground over the traditional type of publication. However, fees are to be paid by either the authors or their institutions. The purpose of this paper is to assess the proportion and type of open access evidence-based articles in the form of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in the field of musculoskeletal disorders and orthopedic surgery. PubMed database was searched and the results showed a maximal number of hits for low back pain and total hip arthroplasty. We demonstrated that despite a 10-fold increase in the number of evidence-based publications in the past 10 years, the rate of free systematic reviews in the general biomedical literature did not change for the last two decades. In addition, the average percentage of free open access systematic reviews and meta-analyses for the commonest painful musculoskeletal conditions and orthopedic procedures was 20% and 18%, respectively. Those results were significantly lower than those of the systematic reviews and meta-analyses in the remaining biomedical research. Such findings could indicate a divergence between the efforts engaged at promoting evidence-based principles and those at disseminating evidence-based findings in the field of musculoskeletal disease and trauma. The high processing fee is thought to be a major limitation when considering open access model for publication.
Use and Impact of Social Networks on Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Scientific Journals
Iranian Rehabilitation Journal, 2020
Objectives: Our research seeks to examine the correlation between the presence of physical medicine and rehabilitation journals in social networks and the SJR impact factor. Methods: We carried out a correlation study. For the research, we took into account all physical medicine and rehabilitation journals included in the SCImago Journal Rank. The number of followers on Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, and the number of tweets were extracted from verified accounts. Journal differences according to the presence in social networks were evaluated using non-parametric tests, and the Spearman correlation coefficient was calculated between the metrics of dissemination in social networks and the SCImago Journal Rank. Results: Out of 122 physical medicine and rehabilitation journals, 25.4% had the presence in one social network. The H Index medians (32 vs 17, P=0.014) and of the SJR (0.67 vs 0.32, P= 0.001) were better in journals with the presence in social networks. A moderate correlation was found between the SJR and the number of followers on Twitter (r=0.5, P=0.066). The global correlation between the SJR and followers on Facebook was acceptable (r=0.4, P=0.1205). Discussion: Our data show that scientific journals of physical medicine and rehabilitation with presence in social networks have superior quality metrics. Additionally, SJR and the indicators of dissemination in social networks are moderately correlated. Both metrics offer complementary information. Presence in social networks could improve the visibility of journals and their interaction with readers. Highlights • The medians of the H Index and the SJR were significantly higher as compared with the journals without social networks in physical medicine and rehabilitation journals with social networks. • Among the analyzed social networks, the most commonly used was Facebook followed by Twitter. • There is a moderate correlation between the SJR and the number of followers in Twitter. Plain Language Summary Our research seeks to evaluate the dissemination of information by scientific journals of physical medicine and rehabilitation. We evaluated the correlation between the presence of physical medicine and rehabilitation journals in social networks through indicators of social networks activity (number of followers, number of tweets) and the SJR impact factor (numeric value indicating the number of citations per year per manuscript published in a journal during the previous 3 years). Out of the 122 physical medicine and rehabilitation journals reviewed in the SCImago ranking platform, 25.4% were active at least in one social network. Among the analyzed social networks, the most commonly used was Facebook followed by Twitter. The H Index and SJR medians were significantly better in journals with the presence in social networks and the group of journals with social networks was more frequently classified in the Q1 quartile. Our data suggest that social networks facilitate access to information in real time reaching a wider audience. We found that having social networks is associated with a greater impact on scientific journals of physical medicine and rehabilitation. We consider social networks an opportunity for many journals to expand their scope, improve their visibility and interaction with readers, and finally, social networks can provide to the authors a tool to select the best journal to widely diffuse their research results.
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, 2010
Background: One of the disadvantages of the Impact Factor (IF) is self-citation. The SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) indicator excludes self-citations and considers the quality, rather than absolute numbers, of citations of a journal by other journals. The present study re-evaluated the influence of self-citation on the 2007 IF for 18 major orthopaedic journals and investigated the difference in ranking between IF and SJR. Methods: The journals were analysed for self-citation both overall and divided into a general group (n = 8) and a specialized group (n = 10). Self-cited and self-citing rates, as well as citation densities and IFs corrected for selfcitation (cIF), were calculated. The rankings of the 18 journals by IF and by SJR were compared and the absolute difference between these rankings (ΔR) was determined.
A bibliometric analysis of classic publications in web of science category of orthopedics
Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research
Background: The past century has witnessed the rapid development of operation technique, surgical instruments, and knowledge of the diseases in orthopedics. In the academic history, a number of classic papers boosted the advancement for surgery. In this paper, we performed a bibliometric analysis, aiming to determine the most influential studies within the field. Methods: Articles were searched from the publication year of 1900 to 2016 according to the Science Citation Index Expanded database of the Clarivate Analytics Web of Science Core Collection database. Two citation indicators TC year and C year were employed to characterize the classic articles and the articles were identified and analyzed. Results: A total of 30 classic articles with TC 2016 ≥ 1000 in Web of Science category of orthopedics were identified, all written in English between 1961 and 2007 by nine countries. The minimal value of TC 2016 was 1010; the maximum 3570; and the average 1591. Thirty classic articles were published in eight journals that were listed in the Web of Science category of orthopedics in 2016, and in two other orthopedics journals that were no longer tracked by Web of Science category of orthopedics as of 2016. Among the top 10 cited articles in both TC 2016 and C 2016 , five articles barely received attention in the first few years after their publication, while they became cited more and more frequently in the last decade. Conclusion: This study evaluated the development and trend of orthopedics research by adopting bibliometric analysis. It serves as a guide for investigators in the future research.
Twitter Mentions Influence Academic Citation Count of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery Publications
Cureus
Background Social media use among scholars and journals is growing and has augmented the academic impact of published articles in several areas of medicine. However, the influence of social media postings on academic citations of shoulder and elbow surgery publications is not known. In this study, we sought (1) to quantify the adoption of Twitter use for the dissemination of research publications by three prominent shoulder and elbow surgery journals and (2) to determine the correlation between Twitter mentions and academic citations in shoulder and elbow surgery publications. Methodology A total of 396 original research articles from three shoulder and elbow surgery journals (Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery (JSES), Shoulder & Elbow, and JSES International) published in 2018 were assessed 34 to 45 months after print publication. For each article, the total number of Twitter mentions were obtained using Altmetric Bookmarklet and grouped into those tweeted by authors, an official outlet, or a third party. Article citation data was obtained using the Google Scholar search engine. Pearson correlation was used to determine the association between the number of Twitter mentions and citation count. Results Of all articles, 51% (202/396) had at least one Twitter mention. Of all Twitter mentions, 12.7% (367/2,879) occurred within the first week of online publication dates, while 51.5% (1,482/2,879) occurred between online and print publication dates. Articles mentioned on Twitter had 1.3-fold more Google Scholar citations (17.7 ± 15.2) than articles with no Twitter mentions (14.0 ± 15.7) (p = 0.017). The number of Twitter mentions had a weakly positive correlation with academic citation count (r = 0.25; p < 0.001). No significant difference in academic citation rates was found between articles tweeted by authors or official outlets when compared to articles tweeted by a third party only (p = 0.97 and p = 0.34, respectively). Conclusions Approximately half of shoulder and elbow surgery publications are shared on Twitter, with the majority of the activity occurring prior to their print publication date. The finding that tweeted articles have more academic citations within three years of release suggests that social media activity seems to amplify the academic impact of shoulder and elbow surgery publications.
The Journal Impact Factor of Orthopaedic Journals Does not Predict Individual Paper Citation Rate
JAAOS: Global Research and Reviews, 2017
Background: The journal impact factor (JIF) is thought to reflect the average number of citations an article will receive and therefore can influence study impact and clinical decision making. However, analysis of citation rates across multiple scientific and research domains has shown that most articles will not reach this expected number of citations. This phenomenon is known as citation skew and it has not previously been examined in the orthopaedic literature. The objective of this study was to determine the extent to which citation skew exists within orthopaedic journals and thus to determine whether the JIF in the orthopaedic literature reflects individual study citation rates. Methods: We used data from the Thomson Reuters (now Clarivate Analytics) Web of Science to determine the 2015 JIF and citation distribution for all orthopaedic journals listed in the database. We calculated the percentage of articles with fewer citations than the JIF for each journal. Finally, we analyzed the citation distribution within groups of orthopaedic subspecialty publications. Results: We identified a total of 74 orthopaedic journals and 29,296 publications for the years 2013 and 2014. Across all orthopaedic journals, 85% of published articles are cited fewer times than the JIF would indicate. The median number of citations of all articles was zero for all journals (interquartile range = 0-0) except for seven journals, for which the median number of citations per article was 1. Conclusion: Citation skew is prevalent across the orthopaedic literature. Most published work is not cited in the first 2 years following publication, and the JIFs are the result of a few highly cited articles. The assessment of an individual orthopaedic study's quality should not be determined by the JIF but rather by direct evaluation of the methodology, relevance, and appropriateness of the study's conclusions. O rthopaedic surgeons and evidence users may be familiar with the journal impact factor (JIF). The JIF was originally conceived in 1972 to help bibliometricians decide which journals to purchase for their
Subspecialty Variation in Academic Citations of Orthopedic Surgery Publications
Clinics in Orthopedic Surgery, 2021
Research productivity is a central consideration in academic promotion. 1) One metric of research productivity is the h-index, defined as the number of publications (h) that have attained at least h number of citations. 2) By design, the h-index measures both the quantity and quality of an author's scholarly works, though it is based exclusively on academic citations. In orthopedic surgery, the h-index has been correlated with academic rank 1,3,4) and funding. 5) Some have advocated for the use of discrete h-index thresholds for consideration of promotion. 3) While the h-index has merit, it is difficult to simplify an author's scholarly success into a single statistic. Whether the citation of orthopedic surgery publications differs across subspecialties is not well-described. Significant baseline subspecialty variation in the citation of orthopedic literature would argue against a single, uniform benchmark for an orthopedic surgery department. The primary objective of this study was to assess the variation across subspecialties of academic citations of recent orthopedic surgery publications in high-impact general interest orthopedic surgery journals. The secondary objective of this study was to assess the variation across