Dedicated COVID-19 Resource Center in Radiology Journals: Its Citation Metrics and Altmetrics Impact

2021 ◽  
Vol 17 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nosaiba Al-Ryalat ◽  
Lna Malkawi ◽  
Saif Aldeen AlRyalat
Keyword(s):  
Nuclear Medicine ◽  
Regression Analysis ◽  
Web Of Science ◽  
Citation Count ◽  
European Radiology ◽  
Resource Center ◽  
Normalization Strategy ◽  
Academic Radiology ◽  
Current Assessment ◽  
Citation Metrics

Background: Since the emergence of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), several journals established dedicated resource center for all articles published on COVID-19. Our study compared the altmetric impact captured by articles published in journals having such COVID-19 resource center. Methods: We used Web of Science database to assess radiology journals publishing most common articles on COVID-19. We used Dimensions database to assess citations received and altmetric attention score for each article. For each article, we extracted number of citation received and altmetric attention score. To account for the the variation in strength and exposure between included journals, we adopted a normalization strategy and we used regression analysis in our statistical analysis. Results: A total of 494 articles included in the current assessment, including 334 (67.6%) articles published in journals with dedicated COVID-19 resource center including European radiology, American Journal of Roentgenology, Radiology, and Journal of the American college of radiology, while European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, Academic Radiology did not have COVID-19 resource center. Journals with COVID-19 resource center had a mean normalized altmetric attention score of 0.38 higher (95% CI 0.25 to 0.50; p< 0.001) and a mean normalized citation count of 6.73 higher (95% CI 3.99 to 9.48; p< 0.001) than those without COVID-19 resource center. Conclusion: Radiology journals that provided COVID-19 articles in a dedicated resource center within its homepage had higher attention and citation for their COVID-19 articles compared to journals that did not have such dedicated resource center.

Citation Metrics in Psychological Science

2021 ◽  
pp. 174569162096412
Author(s):  
Nina Radosic ◽  
Ed Diener
Keyword(s):  
Citation Count ◽  
National Research Council ◽  
The United States ◽  
Early Career ◽  
Faculty Members ◽  
Psychological Science ◽  
Enormous Variation ◽  
Citation Counts ◽  
Citation Metrics ◽  
Number Of Citations

We present norms for faculty citation counts based on 811 faculty members at 30 PhD-granting psychology departments in the United States across the range of the National Research Council rankings. The metrics were highly skewed, with most scientists having a low to moderate number of citations of their work and a few scientists having extremely high numbers. However, the median per-year citation count was 149, showing widespread scientific contributions across scholars. Some individuals in lower ranked departments are more highly cited than the average scholar in higher ranked departments, with enormous variation in citation counts in both the low- and high-ranking departments. Citation counts overall have risen in recent years, and the citations of early-career scholars are increasing at a faster rate than their senior colleagues did at the same point in their careers. We found that citation counts at the beginning of scientists’ careers substantially predict lifetime citation success. Young scholars’ citation counts are associated with obtaining positions at higher ranked universities. Finally, we found no significant differences for subfields of psychology. In sum, although a few highly productive scientists have a very large influence, trends reveal that contributions to psychological science are growing over time, widespread, and not limited to a few stars and elite departments.

Radiology During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Mapping Radiology Literature in 2020

2021 ◽  
Vol 18 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nosaiba Al-Ryalat ◽  
Lna Malkawi ◽  
Ala'a Abu Salhiyeh ◽  
Faisal Abualteen ◽  
Ghaida Abdallah ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Machine Learning ◽  
Computed Tomography ◽  
Nuclear Medicine ◽  
Medical Imaging ◽  
Core Collection ◽  
Web Of Science ◽  
Vos Viewer ◽  
Literature Mapping ◽  
Link Strength ◽  
Linkage Strength

Objectives: Our aim was to assess articles published in the field of radiology, nuclear medicine, and medical imaging in 2020, analyzing the linkage of radiology-related topics with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) through literature mapping, along with a bibliometric analysis for publications. Methods: We performed a search on Web of Science Core Collection database for articles in the field of radiology, nuclear medicine, and medical imaging published in 2020. We analyzed the included articles using VOS viewer software, where we analyzed the co-occurrence of keywords, which represents major topics discussed. Of the resulting topics, literature map created, and linkage analysis done. Results: A total of 24,748 articles were published in the field of radiology, nuclear medicine, and medical imaging in 2020. We found a total of 61,267 keywords, only 78 keywords occurred more than 250 times. COVID-19 had 449 occurrences, 29 links, with a total link strength of 271. MRI was the topic most commonly appearing in 2020 radiology publications, while “computed tomography” has the highest linkage strength with COVID-19, with a linkage strength of 149, representing 54.98% of the total COVID-19 linkage strength, followed by “radiotherapy, and “deep and machine learning”. The top cited paper had a total of 1,687 citations. Nine out of the 10 most cited articles discussed COVID-19 and included “COVID-19” or “coronavirus” in their title, including the top cited paper. Conclusion: While MRI was the topic that dominated, CT had the highest linkage strength with COVID-19 and represent the topic of top cited articles in 2020 radiology publications.

scholarly journals Citation Classics on Dental Caries: A Systematic Review

2020 ◽  
Vol 14 (01) ◽  
pp. 128-143 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anas Imran Arshad ◽  
Paras Ahmad ◽  
Paul M.H. Dummer ◽  
Mohammad Khursheed Alam ◽  
Jawaad Ahmed Asif ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Dental Caries ◽  
Study Design ◽  
Critical Appraisal ◽  
Web Of Science ◽  
Citation Index ◽  
Citation Count ◽  
Significant Negative Correlation ◽  
Changing Trends ◽  
Citation Classics

Abstract Objective A systematic search was performed for the identification and analysis of the 100 most often cited articles on dental caries and to highlight the changing trends in the field of dentistry over time. Materials and Methods The search was performed without any restriction on the study design, publication year, or language using the Web of Science (WoS) group of Clarivate Analytics enabling the search through “All Databases.” Based on the citation count as available in WoS, the articles were sorted in a descending manner. Information regarding each article was then extracted, which included its authorship, counts of citation (in other databases), citation density, current citation index (2019), publication year, country of publication, journal of article, evidence level based on study design, and keywords description. Results The count of citation for each article varied in each database, that is, 175 to 2,003 in WoS, 89 to 1,981 in Scopus, and 126 to 3,492 when searched in Google Scholar. The highest number of articles (n = 10) related to dental caries were published in 2004. A total of 301 authors made valuable contributions to this field, out of which J.D. Featherstone had coauthored 6 articles. A significant negative correlation (p < 0.01) was found between the age of the article and the citation density (r =–0.545). However, a nonsignificant correlation (p = 0.952) occurred between the age of publication and the citation count (r = 0.006). Conclusion The results of this systematic review provide a critical appraisal of the context underpinning scientific developments in the field of dental caries and also highlighted trends in clinical management and research.

Citations to chemical databases in scholarly articles: to cite or not to cite?

2019 ◽  
Vol 75 (6) ◽  
pp. 1317-1332 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert Tomaszewski
Keyword(s):  
Web Of Science ◽  
Scientific Literature ◽  
Citation Index ◽  
Citation Count ◽  
Growth Curves ◽  
Communication Process ◽  
Chemical Databases ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Major Chemical ◽  
Science Citation Index Expanded

Purpose Chemical databases have had a significant impact on the way scientists search for and use information. The purpose of this paper is to spark informed discussion and fuel debate on the issue of citations to chemical databases. Design/methodology/approach A citation analysis to four major chemical databases was undertaken to examine resource coverage and impact in the scientific literature. Two commercial databases (SciFinder and Reaxys) and two public databases (PubChem and ChemSpider) were analyzed using the “Cited Reference Search” in the Science Citation Index Expanded from the Web of Science (WoS) database. Citations to these databases between 2000 and 2016 (inclusive) were evaluated by document types and publication growth curves. A review of the distribution trends of chemical databases in peer-reviewed articles was conducted through a citation count analysis by country, organization, journal and WoS category. Findings In total, 862 scholarly articles containing a citation to one or more of the four databases were identified as only steadily increasing since 2000. The study determined that authors at academic institutions worldwide reference chemical databases in high-impact journals from notable publishers and mainly in the field of chemistry. Originality/value The research is a first attempt to evaluate the practice of citation to major chemical databases in the scientific literature. This paper proposes that citing chemical databases gives merit and recognition to the resources as well as credibility and validity to the scholarly communication process and also further discusses recommendations for citing and referencing databases.

Evaluation of h and h-type Indices for Research Performance at Researcher's Level

2016 ◽  
Vol 34 (1) ◽  
pp. 64-76 ◽  
Author(s):  
Muzammil Tahira ◽  
Abrizah Abdullah ◽  
Rose Alinda Alias ◽  
Aryati Bakri
Keyword(s):  
Performance Evaluation ◽  
Citation Count ◽  
Strong Association ◽  
Research Performance ◽  
Comparative Performance ◽  
New Developments ◽  
H Index ◽  
Total Citation ◽  
Evaluation Measure ◽  
Citation Metrics

Various new performance evaluation indices for impact have been proposed and studied in various contexts. This study carried out a quantitative evaluation of the case of Malaysian engineering researchers at the micro level using a scientometric approach. In order to understand the behavior of new developments, a comparative performance evaluation is carried out of h-index, a set of h-type indices along with publication and citation metrics. Findings are compared with earlier major studies. We looked for institutional h-index and researchers’ h-index scores and did not find any relationship. Exploratory Factor Analysis is employed to examine the valid categorization and to study the underlying dimensions of the studied metrics and indices. The inter-correlation among h-index, its variants, and traditional metrics is probed in detail. The h, q and g-indices along with publication and citation hold the position on ‘quantity of the productive core’, while the R index showed equal loading on both cores. For the case of Malaysian engineering researchers, two conspicuous findings are observed about the total citation and g-index. These have association with the first component named as ‘quantity of the productive core.’ Our findings strengthen the point that citation count has a strong association with the ‘quantity of the productive core’ and cannot be used as sole impact evaluation measure.

scholarly journals Tracking self-citations in academic publishing

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ameni Kacem ◽  
Justin W. Flatt ◽  
Philipp Mayr
Keyword(s):  
Web Of Science ◽  
Research Evaluation ◽  
Academic Disciplines ◽  
Academic Publishing ◽  
Citation Data ◽  
Playing Field ◽  
Accurate Picture ◽  
Subject Areas ◽  
Problematic Area ◽  
Citation Metrics

AbstractCitation metrics have value because they aim to make scientific assessment a level playing field, but urgent transparency-based adjustments are necessary to ensure that measurements yield the most accurate picture of impact and excellence. One problematic area is the handling of self-citations, which are either excluded or inappropriately accounted for when using bibliometric indicators for research evaluation. Here, in favor of openly tracking self-citations we report on self-referencing behavior among various academic disciplines as captured by the curated Clarivate Analytics Web of Science database. Specifically, we examined the behavior of 385,616 authors grouped into 15 subject areas like Biology, Chemistry, Science & Technology, Engineering, and Physics. These authors have published 3,240,973 papers that have accumulated 90,806,462 citations, roughly five percent of which are self-citations. Up until now, very little is known about the buildup of self-citations at the author-level and in field-specific contexts. Our view is that hiding self-citation data is indefensible and needlessly confuses any attempts to understand the bibliometric impact of one’s work. Instead we urge academics to embrace visibility of citation data in a community of peers, which relies on nuance and openness rather than curated scorekeeping.

scholarly journals Bibliometric Analysis of 100 Top-Cited Articles in Gastric Disease

2020 ◽  
Vol 2020 ◽  
pp. 1-8
Author(s):  
Fangfang Yuan ◽  
Jizhen Cai ◽  
Bin Liu ◽  
Xiaowei Tang
Keyword(s):  
Bibliometric Analysis ◽  
Web Of Science ◽  
Gastric Bypass Surgery ◽  
Citation Count ◽  
Scientific Progress ◽  
Gastric Disease ◽  
The Usa ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Number Of Citations ◽  
Royal Perth Hospital

Objectives. The bibliometric analysis uses the citation count of an article to measure its impact in the scientific community, yet there is still no comprehensive summary of gastric disease researches via bibliometric analysis. We aimed to evaluate the situations and trends of the most cited articles in gastric disease via bibliometric analysis and to provide physicians a practical guide in assessing the most influential articles written on this subject. Methods. The 100 top-cited articles in gastric disease were compiled using Web of Science. The articles selected were evaluated for their number of citations, year of publication, country of origin, type of study, and others. Results. The database had 484,281 articles published between 1965 and 2019. The most cited article received 4,017 citations and the least received 604, with a mean of 1,149 citations. We classified the articles into seven categories: gastric cancer (n=53), Helicobacter pylori (n=17), ulcer (n=7), gastrointestinal stromal tumors (n=6), gastritis (n=5), gastric bypass surgery (n=2), and others (n=10). Altogether, 69 of the articles were from the USA (n=41), the UK (n=17), and Japan (n=11). Among all the institutions, Royal Perth Hospital led the list with 5 articles. One-quarter of authors owned three or more of these top-cited articles. The 100 papers were published in 33 journals, and most of them were clinical researches (n=47). Conclusions. Our study provides a historical perspective for the scientific progress of gastric disease, and the articles of significant findings that contributed great impact on the prevention and treatment of gastric disease had been identified.

scholarly journals Bibliometric profiles of top 50 most cited articles on bioactive glass

2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 70-84
Author(s):  
Mamun Khan Sujon ◽  
Siti Noor Fazliah Mohd Noor ◽  
Muhammad Azrul Bin Zabidi ◽  
Khairul Anuar Shariff ◽  
Mohammad Khursheed Alam
Keyword(s):  
Bioactive Glass ◽  
Scientific Community ◽  
Web Of Science ◽  
Citation Index ◽  
Citation Count ◽  
Imperial College ◽  
Google Scholar ◽  
Density Current ◽  
Article Title ◽  
The Web

AbstractCitation analysis of a certain publication acknowledges its impact on the scientific community. This study conducted a multivariate analysis of the top 50 most cited articles published on the field of Bioactive Glass. A systemic search was performed using the “All database” section of the Web of Science to retrieve the top 50 most cited original publications. The selected articles were then manually cross-matched with Elsevier Scopus and Google Scholar Database. Parameters such as article title, authorship, institution, country of publication, year, citation count, citation density, current citation index, and journal name were retrieved from Web of Science. Different ranges of citation numbers were retrieved for these publications in which 197-913 are from Web of Science, 209-962 are from Elsevier Scopus, and 269-1225 are from Google Scholar. A total of 153 authors contributed to this marked list, where Professor L.L. Hench contributed the highest number of articles (n=21). Imperial College London published the highest number of articles (n=21). In summary, this study provides a good scientometric picture of bioactive glass related publications, which illustrate the trend of biomaterials development over the years and suggests future scopes to the scientific community.

scholarly journals Academic Publication of Neurodegenerative Diseases From a Bibliographic Perspective: A Comparative Scientometric Analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 13 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zhenxin Liao ◽  
Wei Wei ◽  
Mengling Yang ◽  
Xuyuan Kuang ◽  
Jian Shi
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Neurodegenerative Diseases ◽  
Web Of Science ◽  
Citation Count ◽  
The United States ◽  
Scientometric Analysis ◽  
Main Research ◽  
Research Activities ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Tremendous Impact

Background: For measuring the impact in clinical and scientific research, the citation count of the articles is used in the bibliometric analysis, although there is no comprehensive summary of neurodegenerative disease research. This study intends to provide the neuroscientists and investigators with a practical reference guide to appraise the most important and influential articles written on this subject through a macroscopic view of the research activities on neurodegenerative diseases.Materials and Methods: The Clarivate Analytics Web of Science was searched in July 2020. To ensure the breadth of the search scope, the search terms were confirmed as “multiple sclerosis” (MS) or “amyotrophic lateral sclerosis” (ALS) or “Parkinson's” or “Alzheimer's” or “Huntington's” or “neurodegenerative.” After excluding completely unrelated articles, the top-cited articles were collected and evaluated from special characteristics. The data analysis was performed using SPSS 18.0. The articles were characterized by citation number, publication year, topic, study type, authorship, journal, country, and institute of responding author and foundation.Results: The query identified 593,050 articles. A total of 45% of the top-cited articles were published during 2000–2009, followed by 30 articles from 1990–1999. Diagnosis and pathology were the main research categories (n = 62). Alzheimer's disease (AD) was the main study topic (n = 43). Meanwhile, the United States confirmed the tremendous impact on the field of neurodegenerative diseases. Notably, 69 of 100 articles were studied in the United States, and the National Institutes of Health sponsored 49 articles. There were only 22 articles that can be divided by evidence level. No article was categorized as level 1 evidence. In the journal list with multiple articles, seven of 15 were general journals. The 58 authors, who contributed to more than one article, have been identified by VOSviewer, and the clusters of authors reveal the evolution of research focus in neurodegenerative diseases.Conclusions: This study analyzed the bibliometric characteristics and connections of 100 top-cited articles in the field of neurodegenerative diseases in the Web of Science. Their main outcomes were as follows: First, the pathology and diagnostic researches took a major role in top-cited articles while the therapy articles are relatively less. Second, the United States confirmed the tremendous impact on the field of neurodegenerative diseases. Third, researchers also submitted their researches to general journals, not just focused on specialty journals.

scholarly journals Publication Performance and Trends in Mangrove Forests: A Bibliometric Analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (22) ◽  
pp. 12532
Author(s):  
Yuh-Shan Ho ◽  
Sharif A. Mukul
Keyword(s):  
Bibliometric Analysis ◽  
Research Collaboration ◽  
Web Of Science ◽  
Citation Count ◽  
Critical Role ◽  
Knowledge Exchange ◽  
Bibliometric Study ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Mangrove Forests ◽  
The Usa

Mangroves are one the most productive ecosystems on Earth, and they are geographically located in the tropics and sub-tropics. Notwithstanding their critical role in providing a large number of environmental services and benefits as well as livelihood provisions, mangrove forests are being lost globally at an alarming rate. At the same time, they are increasingly recognized as a cost-effective nature-based climate solution for their carbon sequestration and storage capacity. Despite their enormous importance to people’s lives and the ecosystem, no bibliometric study on this topic has been published to our knowledge. Here, we provide a bibliometric analysis of the research on mangroves with research trends, most influential research based on citation count, and the origins (country and institution) of major research. Using the Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED) database of the Web of Science Core Collection (Clarivate Analytics), we identified 13,918 documents published between 1990 and 2019. Nevertheless, 12,955 articles met our final criteria and were analyzed in detail. Six publications and their citations per publication (CPP2019) were applied to evaluate the publication performance of countries and institutes. When considering the top ten Web of Science subject categories, articles published on the ecology of mangroves had the highest CPP2019 of 28. Environmental sciences have been the major category since 2013. The USA dominated the total articles and single-author articles. The USA was also the most frequent partner of international collaborative publications. China published the most single-country articles, first-author articles, and corresponding-author articles. However, articles by the USA and Australia had a higher CPP2019. Sun Yat Sen University in China was the most active university. The Australian Institute of Marine Science dominated all kinds of publications with the top CPP2019. Together with the USA, Australia, China, India, Brazil, and Japan ranked both the top six on total publications and total publications in 2019. Our bibliometric study provides useful visualization of the past and current landscape of research on mangroves and emerging fields, to facilitate future research collaboration and knowledge exchange.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document