ABSTRACT
Publication metrics enable the assessment of the performance of citations or utilization of published work. Journal-level metrics depend on the database whose citations are analyzed. Publication metrics from the Web of Science include the widely-used journal impact factor (JIF) and other indices such as Journal Citation Impact, Eigenfactor, normalized Eigenfactor, and Article Influence Score. Metrics from Scopus include the CiteScore, Source Normalized Impact Factor, and SCImago Journal Rank. Author-level metrics such as total citations, h-index, i10-index, and g-index inevitably increase with time and can be inflated by self-citations. Article-level metrics such as total citations and online attention scores derived from Scopus (PlumX Metrics) or Altmetric indicate the extent of utilization and discussion in scientific circles of a particular article. Publication metrics are useful to provide a bird's eye view of how well an individual journal or article has been cited or used. They do not necessarily reflect article quality. As an example, some of the articles with the highest Altmetric Attention Scores are actually retracted publications that attained high scores due to the negative debate that they elicited. Journal-level metrics such as the JIF are fluid and prone to historical fluctuations from year to year, most recently observed by increases in the JIF of journals which published a lot of coronavirus disease 19-related content. Research assessment of individual scientists often misuses publication metrics such as the JIF, when they should instead rely on a critical appraisal of research articles by assessors.Copyright © 2022 Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications. All rights reserved.
ABSTRACT
Background: A team of 3 scientometrists led by John Ioannidis published in 2020 an extensive and updated database (ca. 6.9 million researchers in 22 disciplines and 176 sub-disciplines), ordering them according to a composite bibliometric index that measures their whole trajectory (career-long) impact and their annual impact at year 2019. They reported the top 100,000 scientists (1.45% across all disciplinary fields) or the top 2% of each subfield discipline, thus publishing the ranking of ca. 150,000 researchers worldwide. Methods and findings: We filtered that information for the disciplinary and sub-disciplinary areas corresponding to Ecology and identified a total of 14 ecologists with residence in Chile that appear in either of those two worldwide rankings. We report their measured productivity as both whole trajectory (career-long) and as annual impact at year 2019. We attribute their high registered productivity to their training at the doctoral level in prestigious foreign universities, their academic positions in internationally recognized Chilean universities, and their participation in state-funded research centers of scientific excellence. Exceptions to the rule are presented. Conclusions: The 14 ecologists identified with the scientometric algorithm proposed by Ioannidis and coworkers include, but are not restricted, to the most cited ecologists in Chile. We put forth possible reasons for some puzzling omissions from these rankings. [ FROM AUTHOR] Copyright of Revista Chilena de Historia Natural is the property of Springer Nature and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full . (Copyright applies to all s.)
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in an infodemic about the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 outbreak to build knowledge and develop mitigation strategies. In addition, scientific journals across the world have studied the impact of COVID-19 on trauma and orthopaedics. METHODS: A cross-sectional, bibliometric analysis of the literature was undertaken on COVID-19 related articles from three Pubmed and Scopus indexed orthopaedic journals from India, namely, Indian Journal of Orthopaedics(IJO),Journal of Clinical Orthopaedics and Trauma(JCOT), and Journal of Orthopaedics (JOO), in May 2021. All the article types and study designs were included for this review. The authors, institutions, countries, keywords, and co-authorship mapping were studied. RESULTS: A total of 112 COVID-19 related documents were retrieved. Period of these publications was from 2nd April 2020 to 31st May 2021. Vaishya R. (n = 16) was the most cited author, and Indraprastha Apollo Hospitals (n = 16) was the most cited research Institution. India led the list of countries in academic publication output. On keyword mapping, telemedicine was the most prominent Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) search word. CONCLUSION: The Indian orthopedic journals have addressed the impact of COVID-19 on orthopaedic practice in India and aborad whilst continuing to publish knowledge about basic science and clinical orthopaedic research studies. The JCOT has outperformed and become the most leading orthopaedic journal from India during the pandemic. COVID -19 articles have been fast tracked, open accessed and attracted more citations in reduced duration of time compared to non-COVID-19 papers.
ABSTRACT
The Covid-19 pandemic has been the highest disruptive event in the world recent history. Worldwide academic research on this topic has led to an explosion of scientific literature, never seen before. Bibliometrics provide methods to illustrate this exceptional phenomenon in academic publications. The objective of this paper is to analyze the Covid-19 research from a bibliometric perspective and to study the impact of the publication explosion on bibliometric indicators. The present study shows how an exceptional phenomenon has a disruptive impact on bibliometric indicators, such as the h-index and the Journal Impact Factor. The higher the specialization, the higher the possible impact of a disruptive phenomenon. In applied sciences, more important than the research or the discipline, the specific theme of the research is crucial for citations of articles and for their impact. The salience of the topic, the magnitude of the problem at study and the urgency to find solutions are drivers for citations. The study of the Covid-19 research illustrates the relativity of indicators and the need for context. The present study also confirms the plead for responsible metrics of the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA).
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Publication of a scientific article in a reputed journal is an uphill task that demands a significant amount of time and effort from the author and editorial team. It is a matter of great enthusiasm for all prospective researchers to know whether this daily evolving publication load of articles during this pandemic had changed the journal's inherent peer review or publication process. We aimed to compare the peer review speed of anesthesiology journal articles published during pandemic (2020) to the previous year and to analyze various factors affecting peer review speed. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Overall, 16 anesthesiology journals indexed in MEDLINE database were retrospectively analyzed. A set of 24 articles published in 2019 of the included journals were selected from each journal for control and a set of 12 articles published between January to September 2020 was selected for comparison. Time taken for acceptance and publication from the time of submission was noted. Peer review timing was calculated and its relationship with h-index, continent of journal origin and article processing charges were evaluated. RESULTS: The median peer review time in 2019 and 2020 were 116 (108-125) days and 79 (65-105.5) days, respectively. There was a 31.8% decrease (P = 0.0021) in peer review time of all articles in 2020 compared to 2019. The median peer review timings of COVID-19 articles were 35 (22-42.5) days. A 55.6% decrease was noted in peer review time of COVID-19 articles compared to non-COVID-19 articles in 2020. There was a significant correlation between peer review time and h-index (r = 0.558, P = 0.024). There was no significant difference in peer review timing of journals with or without article processing charge (P = 0.75) and between journals from different continents (P = 0.56). CONCLUSION: Anesthesiology journals managed to curtail their turnaround time for peer review during the pandemic compared to previous year. Journal with higher h-index had longer peer review time. The option for articles processing charge and continent of publishing journal had no impact on peer review speed.
ABSTRACT
Mass cytometry (CyTOF) is a relatively novel technique for the multiparametric analysis of single-cell features with an increasing central role in cell biology, immunology, pharmacology, and biomedicine. This technique mixes the fundamentals of flow cytometry with mass spectrometry and is mainly used for in-depth studies of the immune system and diseases with a significant immune load, such as cancer, autoimmune diseases, and viral diseases like HIV or the recently emerged COVID-19, produced by the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus. The objective of this study was to provide a useful insight into the evolution of the mass cytometry research field, revealing the knowledge structure (conceptual and social) and authors, countries, sources, documents, and organizations that have made the most significant contribution to its development. We retrieved 937 articles from the Web of Science (2010-2019), analysed 71 Highly Cited Papers (HCP) through the H-Classics methodology and computed the data by using Bibliometrix R package. HCP sources corresponded to high-impact journals, such as Nature Biotechnology and Cell, and its production was concentrated in the US, and specifically Stanford University, affiliation of the most relevant authors in the field. HCPs analysis confirmed great interest in the study of the immune system and complex data processing in the mass cytometry research field.