25 years of Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research (CIDRR): A modern bibliometric and Altmetrics network analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Since its establishment in 1999, the journal of Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research (CIDRR) has consistently disseminated notable clinical and translational research within the domain of oral implantology. As the journal approaches its milestone 25th anniversary, this study endeavors to systematically delineate the publication trends, level of evidence, and bibliometric indices characterizing the initial quarter-century of CIDRR's scholarly activity. Notably, the investigation adopts a contemporary methodology by incorporating Altmetric analysis, thereby enriching the evaluation with an assessment of the broader societal and online impact of the published research. METHODS: A comprehensive search was performed in SCOPUS and PubMed to access the bibliographic data of all articles published in the journal from 1999 to 2024. Additionally, Altmetric database was used to obtain social media attention scores (AAS). Journal's overall performance via impact factor and quartile range was assessed. Most cited papers were identified and the most prolific authors, institutions and countries and the collaboration networks among those were assessed. The level of evidence of all articles was determined based on Oxford level of evidence scale. All articles were categorized based on their major topic in the field of implant dentistry. RESULTS: Throughout its first 25 years of activity, CIDRR published 1912 articles with an annual growth rate of 2.67% and consistently being ranked at Q1 quartile in "Dentistry (miscellaneous)" and "Oral Surgery" journal categories. When clinical studies are considered, level I and II evidence constituted 22.82% and 11.82% of all articles, respectively. Sweden, the USA, and Italy as well as Göteborgs Universitet, Sahlgrenska Akademin. and Malmö Högskola were the most prolific countries and institutions respectively. "Implant system/design/characteristics," "Bone Augmentation," and "Implant Prosthesis" were the top most investigated topics. CONCLUSIONS: The examination of the journal's initial 25 years highlighted that CIDRR has surpassed similar dental research journals in publishing a greater number of high-level evidence articles. It also showcased diverse country- and author-collaboration networks. However, the journal's social media presence is still evolving. This article, presenting a comprehensive overview of the journal's scientometric and bibliographic activities, serves as a valuable reference for researchers, clinicians, and stakeholders, offering insights into both traditional and contemporary perspectives.

Endorsement of open science practices by dental journals: A meta-research study.

OBJECTIVES: This study evaluates the endorsement of open science practices by dental journals. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a meta-research study that included journals listed in the 2021 Journal Citation Reports under Dentistry. A comprehensive evaluation was performed by accessing journal websites to ascertain the availability of publicly accessible instructions to authors in Portuguese, English, or Spanish. A researcher extracted information from the "Instructions for Authors" section, encompassing the journal's impact factor, mention of any reporting guidelines, details on data sharing, acceptance of articles in preprint format, and information regarding study protocol registration. Descriptive data analysis was conducted using the Stata 14.0 program, and an Open Science Score (OSS) (ranging from 0 to 100 %) was calculated for each journal by considering five open science practices. Pearson's correlation test was conducted to determine the relationship between the OSS score and journal impact factor. RESULTS: Ninety journals were included in the study. Most journals (70 %) indicated the mandatory use of reporting guidelines, while 60 % recommended data sharing. Conversely, 46.7 % did not provide information on study protocol registration, and 44.4 % stipulated them as mandatory for authors. Regarding preprints, 50 % of the journals did not provide any information, but 46.7 % confirmed their acceptance. The mean OSS was 52.9 % (standard deviation 26.2). There was a weak correlation (Pearson's correlation coefficient of 0.221) between the journal impact factor and OSS (P-value=0.036). CONCLUSION: This study found varying degrees of endorsement of open science practices among dental journals. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Dental practitioners rely on high-quality, evidence-based research for informed decision-making. By assessing the endorsement of open science practices, our study contributes to improving the quality and reliability of dental research, ultimately enhancing the evidence base for clinical practice.

A Bibliometric Study on the Top 101 Most-Cited Articles of Dental Journals of the Middle East/North Africa Countries From 2011 to 2021.

Introduction: This retrospective descriptive study evaluated the Scopus-indexed dental journals and their most-cited documents affiliated with the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) countries from 2011 to 2021. Methods: Dental journals affiliated with MENA countries, their bibliometric indicators (SJR, CiteScore, SNIP, and H-index), and the 101 most cited articles of the considered journals were extracted and studied through descriptive statistics. In addition, the "citation per year" of each top 101 articles was calculated. Spearman's rho test was used for pairwise comparisons of the correlation coefficient values between each two of the considered bibliometric indicators. Results: The number of citations of the 101 most-cited papers ranged from 35 to 203. The mean (SD) citations of studied articles were 61.33 (37.58) and the median was 46. Furthermore, CiteScore had the highest significant correlation with SJR (r=0.828, P˂0.001). Moreover, the citation per year of the top 101 documents had no significant relationship with any of the journals' bibliometric indicators. Conclusion: Because journal performance and citation rate are multi-dimensional concepts, a single metric cannot express them thoroughly despite correlations between indices. "European Journal of Dentistry" from Turkey, "Saudi Dental Journal" from Saudi Arabia, and "Iranian Endodontic Journal" and "Journal of Lasers in Medical Sciences" both from Iran had the highest ranks in the SCImago portal and the highest scores in bibliometric indices amongst the MENA dental journals.

Journal Self-Citation Rates and Impact Factors in Dentistry, Oral Surgery, and Medicine: A 3-year Bibliometric Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to evaluate the evolution of journal self-citation rates (SCRs) and impact factors (IFs) over time in the dental journals. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The journals listed under the category "dentistry, oral surgery, and medicine" in the Journal Citation Reports for the years 2014-2016 were screened for the following: citations and self-citations to years used in IF calculation, IF, IF without self-citations (corrected IF), SCR, and quartile of the IF distribution the journal occupied (Q1-Q4). Additional data regarding the number of issues published annually, journal's access options, and country of publication were extracted from the "Journal Profile Page." RESULTS: The median SCR significantly declined between 2014 and 2016 (13.725 [0-57.049], 12.687 [0-52.326], and 10.667 [0-53.208], respectively [P < .05]), while at the same time, IFs and corrected IFs significantly increased. SCR was significantly higher in subspecialty journals than that in general journals, as well as in the ones publishing more issues per year. Open-access journals tended to present lower SCR compared to journals requiring payment. No statistically significant differences in SCR were observed with respect to the origin and quartile. Nonsignificant correlations (r < 0.3, P > .05) were found for SCR-IF and SCR-corrected IF for all years. CONCLUSIONS: There was a statistically significant decrease in SCR during the observation period. SCR was not correlated to IF of dental journals. Subspecialty journals and journals publishing more frequently presented significantly higher SCRs. These findings suggest favorable publishing conditions and citation practices in the dental literature.

Do dental research journals publish only positive results? A retrospective assessment of publication bias.

BACKGROUND: The study aimed to determine the presence of publication bias in the top five dental journals with high impact factor published during 2007-2016. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The journals included are Journal of Clinical Periodontology, Dental Materials, Clinical Oral Implant Research (COIR), Journal of Endodontics, and Journal of Dental Research (JDR). The content of these journals was hand searched by two authors for scouring the proportion of positive or negative results. Articles showing two outcomes (primary and secondary) were registered depending on the primary result. RESULTS: The present study revealed higher percentage of statistically significant results in the published dental literature. Of five journals, JDR has shown fewer tendencies toward publication of nonsignificant results, whereas COIR has evidenced the highest publication of nonsignificant results. The journals with higher impact factor showed significantly different acceptance rate for research with positive results. However, year-wise publication (2007-2016) did not depict any significant difference. CONCLUSION: In dental research journals, articles with positive results are finding a better way in getting published compared to articles with negative results.

La responsabilidad de validar el conocimiento científico y promover la formación en investigación en odontología / The responsibility of validating scientific knowledge and promoting dental research education

Este editorial analiza algunas de las implicaciones de validar casi exclusivamente el trabajo investigativo y las revistas académicas arbitradas mediante sistemas de evaluación de revistas (índices), como Publindex en Colombia. Se reconoce la contribución que estos sistemas han hecho para mejorar la calidad de publicaciones y artículos pero enfatiza la necesidad de involucrar las comunidades académicas para determinar el valor del conocimiento y los procesos para generarlo. Se reflexiona también sobre el contexto de la investigación odontológica, las estrategias que Universitas Odontologica ha empleado para cumplir su misión y visión, y sus desafíos como revista institucional pequeña en odontología.

Measuring the social impact of dental research: An insight into the most influential articles on the Web.

OBJECTIVES: To identify the most discussed dental articles on the Web and to assess the association between the intensity of online attention, publication characteristics, and citations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An Altmetric Explorer search was conducted for articles published in the 91 dental journals included in 2015 InCites™ Journal Citation Report® and mentioned online at all times. The 100 articles with the highest online attention, as measured by the "Altmetric Attention Score" (AAS), were screened for journal title, quartile of impact factor distribution (Q1-Q4), publication date, origin and affiliation of first author, article topic, type, and access. Citation counts were harvested from Scopus. RESULTS: The top 100 articles presented a median AAS of 119 and were mostly discussed on news outlets, Twitter, and Mendeley. Forty-one articles were published in Q1 journals, 24 in Q2 journals, 32 in Q3 journals, and three in Q4 journals. AAS was significantly higher in articles of Q2 journals (median AAS = 398, range = 70-513) than in articles of Q1. A weak reverse correlation existed between AAS and time since publication (r = -.25, p < .05). No correlation was detected between AAS and other publication characteristics or number of citations. CONCLUSIONS: Increased social impact of dental articles is not significantly associated with high citation rates.

Under-representation of women in the editorial boards of medical and dental journals of Pakistan.

OBJECTIVE: To explore the representation of females in the field of medical journal editing in Pakistan. METHODS: This cross-sectional study was conducted from July 3 to 15, 2015 at Combined Military Hospital, Lahore. After exploring the website of Pakistan Medical and Dental Council, we surveyed the website of each journal and from their latest available edition discerned the editorial board's gender composition. Designations of female members were noted. Data was analysed using SPSS 20. RESULTS: A total of 2342 members served on the editorial boards of 79 journals of which 410(17.51%) were females. The maximum strength of women in a single journal was 23/30(76.6%). There were no women in the editorial boards of 11 (13.92%) journals. Among others, there were 188 (45.9%) Members of Editorial Board, 39 (9.5%) Editors, 39 (9.5%) Associate Editors, 34 (8.3 %) Members Advisory Board, 22 (5.4%) Subject Editors, 10 (2.4%) Editors-in-chief, 8 (2.0%) Student Editors, 7 (1.7%) Statisticians, 3 (0.7%) Bibliographers, 2 (0.5%) Deputy Editors-in-chief, 1 (0.2%) Trainee Editor and 1(0.2%) epidemiologist. CONCLUSIONS: There was a low representation of women in the field of journal editing. A number of factors may be incriminated for this poor visibility.

¿Estar indizados o no? Esa es la cuestión / To Be Indexed or not to Be Indexed? at is the Question

El Departamento Administrativo de Ciencia, Tecnología e Innovación Colciencias, de Colombia, lanzó la más reciente convocatoria del Índice Bibliográfico Nacional Publindex para evaluar las revistas científicas arbitradas correspondientes a 2016. En esta oportunidad se utilizó una modificación de la anterior metodología que mantuvo la clasificación (A1, A2, B y C) y los criterios internacionales, aunque aumentó la exigencia en algunos ítems. Incluyó también una valoración predeterminante para inclusión de las revistas en los sistemas de información bibliográfica: el escalafón en otros sistemas.

Ethical Process Reporting in Indian Dental Journals.

AIM: To study the proportion of articles reporting ethical review board (ERB) approval and informed consent process (ICP) in articles published in dental journals in India. METHODS: A descriptive study was designed, and ten Indian dental journals published by different dental specialty professional associations were selected. Among 702 retrieved articles, from 40 issues of the 10 selected journals published in 2008 and 2011, 428 meet the inclusion criteria, and they were analyzed. The entire text of the articles was manually searched for statements for ICP and ERB approval. The data was retrieved independently by two observers using an ad hoc developed template. RESULTS: 10.3% (44) of authors stated ICP, while 9.8 % (42) reported ERB approval in their articles; 6.1% (26) articles reported both the ICP and ERB. There are 21 times more chances that authors who report the ERB will also report ICP in their articles when compared to authors who report either ICP or ERB only (OR 21.3, 95% CI 8.5-52.8). Seven journals stated the ethical process reporting in the instructions for authors. Overall, 15.7% articles declared the conflicts of interests. CONCLUSIONS: The low compliance of reporting ethical protection measures in dental research among Indian dental journals is of high concern.