Does Reader Engagement with Neurosurgery Journal Websites Correlate with the Number of Citations Received by Articles?

BACKGROUND: Medicine has begun adapting to new information-sharing paradigms in the hyper-connected social media era. In this milieu, the role of journal websites in the dissemination of clinical and research information needs to be reevaluated. OBJECTIVE: We sought to explore whether reader engagement with neurosurgical journal websites, reflected by the number of article views and downloads, correlated with the eventual number of citations received by the articles. METHODS: The websites of all Medline indexed neurosurgical journals were screened to identify those that provided information regarding the number of abstract and full text views and downloads. Articles published in these journals between July 2010 and June 2011 were included in this analysis. Various article attributes were identified and the number of citations per article was obtained from Google Scholar. The impact factors of the selected journals for the year 2010 were obtained from the Journal Citation Reports. RESULTS: Twenty-two journals that had published 2527 articles were finally included in this analysis. The number of abstract views, full-text views, and downloads all correlated strongly with the journal impact factors in 2010 as well as the eventual citations per article. The number of article downloads independently predicted the citations per article on multivariate analysis. Neurology India had significantly higher article views and downloads but lower citations per article than the other journals. CONCLUSIONS: Readers were found to engage significantly with neurosurgical journal websites and therefore, open access to articles would lead to increased visibility of articles, resulting in higher citation rates.

A survey of surveys: an evaluation of the quality of published surveys in neurosurgery.

PURPOSE: Surveys generate valuable data in epidemiologic and qualitative clinical research. The quality of a survey depends on its design, the number of responses it receives, and the reporting of the results. In this study, we aimed to assess the quality of surveys in neurosurgery. METHODS: Neurosurgical surveys published between 2000 and 2020 (inclusive) were identified from PubMed. Various datapoints regarding the surveys were collated. The number of citations received by the papers was determined from Google Scholar. A 6-dimensional quality assessment tool was applied to the surveys. Parameters from this tool were combined with the number of responses received to create the survey quality score (SQS). RESULTS: A total of 618 surveys were included for analysis. The target sample size correlated with the number of responses received. The response rate correlated positively with the target sample size and the number of reminders sent and negatively with the number of questions in the survey. The median number of authors on neurosurgery survey papers was 6. The number of authors correlated with the SQS and the number of citations received by published survey papers. The median normalized SQS for neurosurgical surveys was 65%. The nSQS independently predicted the citations received per year by surveys. CONCLUSIONS: The modifiable factors that correlated with improvements in survey design were optimizing the number of questions, maximizing the target sample size, and incorporating reminders in the survey design. Increasing the number of contributing authors led to improvements in survey quality. The SQS was validated and correlated well with the citations received by surveys.

An Analysis of Eosinophil- and Basophil-Based Indices in Patients with Glioblastoma and their Correlation with Survival.

BACKGROUND: Glioblastoma (GBM) is the most frequently diagnosed malignant brain tumor in adults. GBM is usually lethal within 24 months of diagnosis, despite aggressive multimodality treatment. Although it has been established that cancer-related inflammation is associated with worse outcomes, the role of eosinophils, basophils, atopy, and allergy in glioma biology is only gradually being delineated. In this study, we aimed to examine if eosinophil-based and basophil-based indices were altered in patients with GBM compared with healthy controls. We also aimed to study if there was any correlation between these indices and patient-related and tumor-related factors and survival. METHODS: This study was a retrospective analysis of prospectively maintained databases. Data pertaining to patient-related and tumor-related factors, hemograms, and survival data were obtained from the electronic medical records of selected patients. Correlations between eosinophil-based and basophil-based indices and these factors were studied, as was the association with overall survival. RESULTS: All the indices were altered in patients with GBM compared with normal healthy controls. The absolute eosinophil count was higher and the neutrophils/eosinophils ratio was lower in the better prognosis groups: those with better performance status; those without features of increased intracranial pressure or altered sensorium at presentation; those with ATRX-retained tumors that did not overexpress p53; and in the long-term survivors. The total lymphocyte count/basophils ratio and the absolute eosinophil count both independently predicted survival in a multivariate analysis. CONCLUSIONS: The absolute eosinophil count was consistently higher in the better prognosis groups and is likely to be incorporated into prognostic models for GBM.

The Author-Level Metrics Study: An Analysis of the Traditional and Alternative Metrics of Scholarly Impact for Neurosurgical Authors.

Background and objective There is a paucity of information regarding the concordance of traditional metrics across publicly searchable databases and about the correlation between alternative and traditional metrics for neurosurgical authors. In this study, we aimed to assess the congruence between traditional metrics reported across Google Scholar (GS), Scopus (Sc), and ResearchGate (RG). We also aimed to establish the mathematical correlation between traditional metrics and alternative metrics provided by ResearchGate. Methods Author names listed on papers published in the Journal of Neurosurgery (JNS) in 2019 were collated. Traditional metrics [number of publications (NP), number of citations (NC), and author H-indices (AHi)] and alternative metrics (RG score, Research Interest score, etc. from RG and the GS i10-index) were also collected from publicly searchable author profiles. The concordance between the traditional metrics across the three databases was assessed using the intraclass correlation coefficient and Bland-Altman (BA) plots. The mathematical relation between the traditional and alternative metrics was analyzed. Results The AHi showed excellent agreement across the three databases studied. The level of agreement for NP and NC was good at lower median counts. At higher median counts, we found an increase in disagreement, especially for NP. The RG score, number of followers on RG, and Research Interest score independently predicted NC and AHi with a reasonable degree of accuracy. Conclusions A composite author-level matrix with AHi, RG score, Research Interest score, and the number of RG followers could be used to generate an "Impact Matrix" to describe the scholarly and real-world impact of a clinician's work.

An Estimation of the Retraction Gap Across Neurosurgery-A Crevice or a Chasm?

BACKGROUND: The incidence of retractions has been increasing steadily, in direct proportion to the volume of scientific literature. Retraction of published articles depends on the visibility of journals and on postpublication scrutiny of published articles by peers. The possibility thus exists that not all compromised ("retractable") articles are detected and retracted from the less-visible journals. The proportion of "retractable" articles and its converse, the proportion of published articles in each journal that are likely to be "true" (PTP), have not been estimated hitherto. METHODS: Three journal sets were created: pure neurosurgery journals (NS-P), the neurosurgery component of multidisciplinary journals (NS-MD), and high-impact clinical journals (HICJs). We described a new metric (the retraction gap [RGap]), defined as the proportion of retractable articles in journals that have not been retracted. We computed the expected number of retractable articles, RGap, and PTP for each journal, and compared these metrics across groups. RESULTS: Fifty-three NS-P journals, 10 NS-MD journals, and 63 HICJs were included in the analysis. The estimated number of retractable articles was 31 times the actual number of retractions in NS-P journals, 6 times higher in the NS-MD journals, and 26 times higher for the HICJs. The RGap was 96.7% for the NS-P group, 83.5% for the NS-MD group, and 96.2% for the HICJs. The PTP was 99.3% in the NS-P group, 99.2% in the NS-MD group, and 98.6% in the HICJs. CONCLUSIONS: Neurosurgery as a discipline had a higher RGap but also a higher PTP than the other 2 groups.