Case report classics in otolaryngology - head and neck surgery: citation analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To analyse publication and citations trends of case reports within otolaryngology - head and neck surgery literature, with specific attention to the most-cited reports.Study designDatabase query. METHODS: Web of Science was searched for article type 'case reports' published in the leading otolaryngology - head and neck surgery journals since 1945. Variables including publication dates, citation dates and numbers, author, author number, and others were recorded and analysed for trends. The reports with the most citations (classics) were further studied. RESULTS: Of nearly 67 000 published articles in leading otolaryngology - head and neck surgery journals, the overall number of case reports as a percentage of the total has substantially decreased over time. A total of 110 case report classics were identified for which citations have increased. CONCLUSION: Although the case report may not be worthy of its tarnished record, declining trends in publication suggest a limited future for this valuable research and educational resource.

Citation analysis of otorhinolaryngology journals: follow-up study.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the changes in impact factors of otorhinolaryngology journals over the past 15 years. METHOD: Using the online edition of Journal Citation Reports, standard (2-year) and 5-year impact factors were calculated for the leading 15 journals. RESULTS: The results were compared with the impact factors for 1998. The average standard impact factor and 5-year impact factor increased by 2.72 and 2.05 fold respectively when compared with 1998. The average 2012 standard impact factor and 5-year impact factor were 1.82 and 1.99 respectively, reflecting a 9.3 per cent difference. The average 1998 standard impact factor and 5-year impact factor were 0.67 and 0.97 respectively, reflecting a 44.8 per cent difference. The Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology had the highest standard and five-year impact factors. CONCLUSION: These data may indicate changing clinical and research interests within our field, as well as increased speed and ease with which the internet has allowed citation. As a result, five-year intervals may no longer be necessary to adequately gauge journal impact.