Search tips
Search criteria

Results 1-25 (1246120)

Clipboard (0)

Related Articles

1.  Croatian Medical Journal Citation Score in Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar 
Croatian Medical Journal  2010;51(2):99-103.
To analyze the 2007 citation count of articles published by the Croatian Medical Journal in 2005-2006 based on data from the Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar.
Web of Science and Scopus were searched for the articles published in 2005-2006. As all articles returned by Scopus were included in Web of Science, the latter list was the sample for further analysis. Total citation counts for each article on the list were retrieved from Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar. The overlap and unique citations were compared and analyzed. Proportions were compared using χ2-test.
Google Scholar returned the greatest proportion of articles with citations (45%), followed by Scopus (42%), and Web of Science (38%). Almost a half (49%) of articles had no citations and 11% had an equal number of identical citations in all 3 databases. The greatest overlap was found between Web of Science and Scopus (54%), followed by Scopus and Google Scholar (51%), and Web of Science and Google Scholar (44%). The greatest number of unique citations was found by Google Scholar (n = 86). The majority of these citations (64%) came from journals, followed by books and PhD theses. Approximately 55% of all citing documents were full-text resources in open access. The language of citing documents was mostly English, but as many as 25 citing documents (29%) were in Chinese.
Google Scholar shares a total of 42% citations returned by two others, more influential, bibliographic resources. The list of unique citations in Google Scholar is predominantly journal based, but these journals are mainly of local character. Citations received by internationally recognized medical journals are crucial for increasing the visibility of small medical journals but Google Scholar may serve as an alternative bibliometric tool for an orientational citation insight.
PMCID: PMC2859414  PMID: 20401951
2.  Citation searching: a systematic review case study of multiple risk behaviour interventions 
The value of citation searches as part of the systematic review process is currently unknown. While the major guides to conducting systematic reviews state that citation searching should be carried out in addition to searching bibliographic databases there are still few studies in the literature that support this view. Rather than using a predefined search strategy to retrieve studies, citation searching uses known relevant papers to identify further papers.
We describe a case study about the effectiveness of using the citation sources Google Scholar, Scopus, Web of Science and OVIDSP MEDLINE to identify records for inclusion in a systematic review.
We used the 40 included studies identified by traditional database searches from one systematic review of interventions for multiple risk behaviours. We searched for each of the included studies in the four citation sources to retrieve the details of all papers that have cited these studies.
We carried out two analyses; the first was to examine the overlap between the four citation sources to identify which citation tool was the most useful; the second was to investigate whether the citation searches identified any relevant records in addition to those retrieved by the original database searches.
The highest number of citations was retrieved from Google Scholar (1680), followed by Scopus (1173), then Web of Science (1095) and lastly OVIDSP (213). To retrieve all the records identified by the citation tracking searching all four resources was required. Google Scholar identified the highest number of unique citations.
The citation tracking identified 9 studies that met the review’s inclusion criteria. Eight of these had already been identified by the traditional databases searches and identified in the screening process while the ninth was not available in any of the databases when the original searches were carried out. It would, however, have been identified by two of the database search strategies if searches had been carried out later.
Based on the results from this investigation, citation searching as a supplementary search method for systematic reviews may not be the best use of valuable time and resources. It would be useful to verify these findings in other reviews.
PMCID: PMC4048585  PMID: 24893958
Systematic reviews; Information retrieval; Citation searching
3.  Can Tweets Predict Citations? Metrics of Social Impact Based on Twitter and Correlation with Traditional Metrics of Scientific Impact 
Citations in peer-reviewed articles and the impact factor are generally accepted measures of scientific impact. Web 2.0 tools such as Twitter, blogs or social bookmarking tools provide the possibility to construct innovative article-level or journal-level metrics to gauge impact and influence. However, the relationship of the these new metrics to traditional metrics such as citations is not known.
(1) To explore the feasibility of measuring social impact of and public attention to scholarly articles by analyzing buzz in social media, (2) to explore the dynamics, content, and timing of tweets relative to the publication of a scholarly article, and (3) to explore whether these metrics are sensitive and specific enough to predict highly cited articles.
Between July 2008 and November 2011, all tweets containing links to articles in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (JMIR) were mined. For a subset of 1573 tweets about 55 articles published between issues 3/2009 and 2/2010, different metrics of social media impact were calculated and compared against subsequent citation data from Scopus and Google Scholar 17 to 29 months later. A heuristic to predict the top-cited articles in each issue through tweet metrics was validated.
A total of 4208 tweets cited 286 distinct JMIR articles. The distribution of tweets over the first 30 days after article publication followed a power law (Zipf, Bradford, or Pareto distribution), with most tweets sent on the day when an article was published (1458/3318, 43.94% of all tweets in a 60-day period) or on the following day (528/3318, 15.9%), followed by a rapid decay. The Pearson correlations between tweetations and citations were moderate and statistically significant, with correlation coefficients ranging from .42 to .72 for the log-transformed Google Scholar citations, but were less clear for Scopus citations and rank correlations. A linear multivariate model with time and tweets as significant predictors (P < .001) could explain 27% of the variation of citations. Highly tweeted articles were 11 times more likely to be highly cited than less-tweeted articles (9/12 or 75% of highly tweeted article were highly cited, while only 3/43 or 7% of less-tweeted articles were highly cited; rate ratio 0.75/0.07 = 10.75, 95% confidence interval, 3.4–33.6). Top-cited articles can be predicted from top-tweeted articles with 93% specificity and 75% sensitivity.
Tweets can predict highly cited articles within the first 3 days of article publication. Social media activity either increases citations or reflects the underlying qualities of the article that also predict citations, but the true use of these metrics is to measure the distinct concept of social impact. Social impact measures based on tweets are proposed to complement traditional citation metrics. The proposed twimpact factor may be a useful and timely metric to measure uptake of research findings and to filter research findings resonating with the public in real time.
PMCID: PMC3278109  PMID: 22173204
bibliometrics; blogging; periodicals as topic; peer-review; publishing; social media analytics; scientometrics; infodemiology; infometrics; reproducibility of results; medicine 2.0; power law; Twitter
4.  Citation Analysis of Iranian Journal of Basic Medical Sciences in ISI Web of Knowledge, Scopus, and Google Scholar 
Objective(s): Citation tracking is an important method to analyze the scientific impact of journal articles and can be done through Scopus (SC), Google Scholar (GS), or ISI web of knowledge (WOS). In the current study, we analyzed the citations to 2011-2012 articles of Iranian Journal of Basic Medical Sciences (IJBMS) in these three resources.
Material and Methods: The relevant data from SC, GS, and WOS official websites. Total number of citations, their overlap and unique citations of these three recourses were evaluated.
Results: WOS and SC covered 100% and GS covered 97% of the IJBMS items. Totally, 37 articles were cited at least once in one of the studied resources. Total number of citations were 20, 30, and 59 in WOS, SC, and GS respectively. Forty citations of GS, 6 citation of SC, and 2 citations of WOS were unique.
Conclusion: Every scientific resource has its own inaccuracies in providing citation analysis information. Citation analysis studies are better to be done each year to correct any inaccuracy as soon as possible. IJBMS has gained considerable scientific attention from wide range of high impact journals and through citation tracking method; this visibility can be traced more thoroughly.
PMCID: PMC3874088  PMID: 24379959
Citation tracking; Google Scholar; Impact factor; Iranian Journal of Basic Medical Sciences; Scopus; Web of Science
5.  Geographic trends of scientific output and citation practices in psychiatry 
BMC Psychiatry  2014;14(1):332.
Measures of research productivity are increasingly used to determine how research should be evaluated and funding decisions made. In psychiatry, citation patterns within and between countries are not known, and whether these differ by choice of citation metric.
In this study, we examined publication characteristics and citation practices in articles published in 50 Web of Science indexed psychiatric and relevant clinical neurosciences journals, between January 2004 and December 2009 comprising 51,072 records that produced 375,962 citations. We compared citation patterns, including self-citations, between countries using standard x2 tests.
We found that most publications came from the USA, with Germany being second and UK third in productivity. USA articles received most citations and the highest citation rate with an average 11.5 citations per article. The UK received the second highest absolute number of citations, but came fourth by citation rate (9.7 citations/article), after the Netherlands (11.4 citations/article) and Canada (9.8 citations/article).
Within the USA, Harvard University published most articles and these articles were the most cited, on average 20.0 citations per paper. In Europe, UK institutions published and were cited most often. The Institute of Psychiatry/Kings College London was the leading institution in terms of number of published records and overall citations, while Oxford University had the highest citation rate (18.5 citations/record).
There were no differences between the self-citation practices of American and European researchers.
Articles that examined some aspect of treatment in psychiatry were the most published. In terms of diagnosis, papers about schizophrenia-spectrum disorders were the most published and the most cited.
We found large differences between and within countries in terms of their research productivity in psychiatry and clinical neuroscience. In addition, the ranking of countries and institutions differed widely by whether productivity was assessed by total research records published, overall citations these received, or citations per paper. The choice of measures of scientific output could be important in determining how research output translates into decisions about resource allocation.
PMCID: PMC4265348  PMID: 25476202
Scientific output; Citation practices; Psychiatry
6.  Citations and the h index of soil researchers and journals in the Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar 
PeerJ  2013;1:e183.
Citation metrics and h indices differ using different bibliometric databases. We compiled the number of publications, number of citations, h index and year since the first publication from 340 soil researchers from all over the world. On average, Google Scholar has the highest h index, number of publications and citations per researcher, and the Web of Science the lowest. The number of papers in Google Scholar is on average 2.3 times higher and the number of citations is 1.9 times higher compared to the data in the Web of Science. Scopus metrics are slightly higher than that of the Web of Science. The h index in Google Scholar is on average 1.4 times larger than Web of Science, and the h index in Scopus is on average 1.1 times larger than Web of Science. Over time, the metrics increase in all three databases but fastest in Google Scholar. The h index of an individual soil scientist is about 0.7 times the number of years since his/her first publication. There is a large difference between the number of citations, number of publications and the h index using the three databases. From this analysis it can be concluded that the choice of the database affects widely-used citation and evaluation metrics but that bibliometric transfer functions exist to relate the metrics from these three databases. We also investigated the relationship between journal’s impact factor and Google Scholar’s h5-index. The h5-index is a better measure of a journal’s citation than the 2 or 5 year window impact factor.
PMCID: PMC3807595  PMID: 24167778
Soil science; Bibliometrics; h index; Impact factor; Citations; Transfer functions
7.  Improved citation status of World Journal Gastroenterology in 2004: Analysis of all reference citations by WJG and citations of WJG articles by other SCI journals during 1998-2004 
AIM: To determine the citation status in 2004 and the citation trend of WJG by analyzing all articles cited by WJG and all WJG articles cited by SCI journals during 1998-2004.
METHODS: The total number of published articles and reference citations in WJG, authors’ self-citations, WJG’ self-citations, citations of WJG articles by SCI journals and inappropriate citations in WJG during 1998-2004 were statistically analyzed. Data on self-citations of the articles published between 1998 and August 2004 (Issues 1-16) were from ISI SCI-E, and data on self-citations of articles published after August 2004 (Issues 17-24) were from the WJG Editorial Office. Data on citations of WJG articles by other journals between 1998 and August 2004 were from ISI SCI-E.
RESULTS: Annual number of published articles: WJG published 179, 144, 211, 174, 236, 634 and 830 articles, respectively, in 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2004. The number in 2004 increased by 594, compared to that in 2002, giving an increased rate of 251.7%. Annual references cited by WJG were 2 123, 2 125, 6 244, 8 883, 11 442, 23 218 and 25 971, respectively, in 1998-2004. The average number was 31.3 per WJG article in 2004, which was less than that (48.5) in 2002, giving a reduction rate of 35.5%. Authors of WJG cited 125, 126, 343, 210, 354, 310 and 470 of their own published articles, respectively, in 1998-2004. The average number of authors’ self-citations was 0.57 per WJG article in 2004, which was decreased by 0.93 or 62.0%, compared with that in 2002. Annual numbers of journal’ self-citations: Authors of WJG articles cited 5, 7, 373, 733, 1474, 1947 and 1412 of WJG articles, respectively, in 1998-2004. The average number of journal’ self-citations was 1.70 per WJG article in 2004, which decreased by 4.55 or 72.8%. No WJG article was cited in 1998 by other SCI journals. However, the number of citations steadily increased afterwards, with 16, 18, 39, 85, 372 and 580, respectively, in 1999-2004. The average number of citations by other SCI journals was 0.11, 0.09, 0.22, 0.36, 0.59 and 1.06 per WJG article, respectively, 1999-2004 (January-August). There was an increase by 582%, when comparing the citation numbers between 2004 and 2002. Annual WJG self-citation rates and citation rates of WJG articles by other SCI journals: WJG self-citation rates were 30.43%, 95.40%, 95.07%, 94.55%, 83.96% and 67.47%, respectively, in 1999-2004 (January-August). Compared with 2002, the self-citation rate in 2004 decreased by 26.87%. The citation rates of WJG articles by other SCI journals were 69.57%, 4.60%, 4.93%, 5.45%, 16.04%, and 32.53%, respectively, in 1999-2004 (January-August). Compared with 2002, the citation rate in 2004 decreased by 26.87%. There were 8, 19, 218, 274, 461, 698 and 574 inappropriate citations, respectively, in 1998-2004. The average inappropriate citation in 2004 was 0.69 per article, which represents a decrease of 1.26, compared with that in 2002. Inappropriate citations were mostly those with the differences between the two sides of the hyphens of 5-9, and the proportions of inappropriate citations within the three subsections of the differences between the two sides of the hyphens (5-9, 10-19, and >=20) were approximately 7:2:1. In addition, inappropriate citations mostly occurred with frequencies of 1-3 in the articles, and the proportion of inappropriate citations within the two frequency subsections (1-3 and >3) have been approximately 4:1 since 1999.
CONCLUSIONS: In 2004, the average number of reference citations, authors’ self-citations and journal’ self-citations were 31.3, 0.57 and 1.70 per article, respectively, which represents a decrease in the numbers by 35.5%. 62.0%, and 72.8% respectively compared to the corresponding numbers in 2002. WJG self-citation rate was 67.47% in 2004 (January-August), which was a decrease by 26.87%, compared with 2002. The citation rate of WJG articles by other SCI journals was 32.53% in 2004 (January-August), an increase of 26.87%, compared to 2002. There were 574 inappropriate citations in 2004, with an average of 0.69 per article, which represents a decrease of 1.26, compared with that in 2002. These figures demonstrate that the overall citation status of WJG is improving.
PMCID: PMC4205365  PMID: 15609387
Gastroenterology; Citation status; Analysis
8.  Factors related to the frequency of citation of epidemiologic publications 
Previous studies have demonstrated that the frequency with which a publication is cited varies greatly. Our objective was to determine whether author, country, journal, or topic were associated with the number of times an epidemiological publication is cited.
We used outcome-based sampling and investigated one public health issue – child injury prevention, and one clinical topic – coronary artery disease (CAD) prevention. Using the Institute for Scientific Information's (ISI) Web of Science® databases, we limited searches to full articles involving humans published in English between 1998 and 2004. We calculated the citation rate and, after frequency-matching on year of publication, selected the 36 most frequently cited and 36 least frequently cited articles per year, for a total of 252 highly-cited and 252 infrequently-cited articles per topic area (child injury prevention and CAD prevention).
Highly-cited articles in both CAD and child injury prevention were more likely to be published in medium or high impact journals or in journals with medium or high circulations. They were also more likely to be published by authors from U.S. institutions. Among articles examining CAD prevention, the highly-cited articles often involved risk factors, and the association between topics and frequency of citation persisted after adjusting for impact factor. Among articles addressing child injury prevention, topic was not statistically associated with citation.
Journal and country appear to be the factors most strongly associated with frequency of citation. In particular, highly-cited articles are predominantly published in high-impact, high-circulation journals. The factors, however, differ somewhat depending on the area of research the journals represent. Among CAD prevention articles, for example, topic is also an important predictor of citation whereas the same is not true for articles addressing injury prevention.
Condensed Abstract
Our objective was to determine whether author, country, journal, or topic were associated with the number of times an epidemiological publication is cited. We used outcome-based sampling and investigated one public health issue, child injury prevention, and one clinical topic, coronary artery disease (CAD) prevention. Using the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) Web of Science® databases, we limited searches to full articles involving humans published in English between 1998 and 2004. We calculated the citation rate and, after frequency-matching on year of publication, selected the 36 most frequently cited and 36 least frequently cited articles per year, for a total of 252 highly-cited and 252 infrequently-cited articles per topic area (child injury prevention and CAD prevention). Highly-cited articles in both CAD and child injury prevention were more likely to be published in medium or high impact journals or in journals with medium or high circulations. They were also more likely to be published by authors from U.S. institutions. Among articles examining CAD prevention, the highly-cited articles often involved risk factors, and the association between topics and frequency of citation persisted after adjusting for impact factor. Among articles addressing child injury prevention, topic was not statistically associated with citation.
PMCID: PMC2291053  PMID: 18302781
9.  The top cited articles on glioma stem cells in Web of Science☆ 
Neural Regeneration Research  2013;8(15):1431-1438.
Glioma is the most common intracranial tumor and has a poor patient prognosis. The presence of brain tumor stem cells was gradually being understood and recognized, which might be beneficial for the treatment of glioma.
To use bibliometric indexes to track study focuses on glioma stem cell, and to investigate the relationships among geographic origin, impact factors, and highly cited articles indexed in Web of Science.
A list of citation classics for glioma stem cells was generated by searching the database of Web of Science-Expanded using the terms “glioma stem cell” or “glioma, stem cell” or “brain tumor stem cell”. The top 63 cited research articles which were cited more than 100 times were retrieved by reading the abstract or full text if needed. Each eligible article was reviewed for basic information on subject categories, country of origin, journals, authors, and source of journals. Inclusive criteria: (1) articles in the field of glioma stem cells which was cited more than 100 times; (2) fundamental research on humans or animals, clinical trials and case reports; (3) research article; (4) year of publication: 1899–2012; and (5) citation database: Science Citation Index-Expanded. Exclusive criteria: (1) articles needing to be manually searched or accessed only by telephone; (2) unpublished articles; and (3) reviews, conference proceedings, as well as corrected papers.
Of 2 040 articles published, the 63 top-cited articles were published between 1992 and 2010. The number of citations ranged from 100 to 1 754, with a mean of 280 citations per article. These citation classics came from nineteen countries, of which 46 articles came from the United States. Duke University and University of California, San Francisco led the list of classics with seven papers each. The 63 top-cited articles were published in 28 journals, predominantly Cancer Research and Cancer Cell, followed by Cell Stem Cell and Nature.
Our bibliometric analysis provides a historical perspective on the progress of glioma stem cell research. Articles originating from outstanding institutions of the United States and published in high-impact journals are most likely to be cited.
PMCID: PMC4107765  PMID: 25206439
Neural regeneration; reviews; brain glioma; stem cells; glioma stem cells; cancer stem cells; literature analysis; Web of Science; bibliometrics; citation; neuroregeneration
10.  Twenty Years of Research on Mineral Trioxide Aggregate: A Scientometric Report 
Iranian Endodontic Journal  2013;8(1):1-5.
Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) has been suggested for root-end filling, vital pulp therapy, apical plug, perforations repair, and root canal filling. Since the introduction of MTA in 1993, many studies about this material have been published. The aim of this survey was to illustrate statistical information about published articles in PubMed-index journals vis-à-vis the various aspects of this biomaterial.
Material and Methods
A PubMed search was performed to retrieve the relative articles from 1993 to August 2012. The data of each article including publication year, journal name, number of authors, first author name, affiliations and study design were recorded. Citation of each article till 2009 was obtained from Scopus and Google scholar databases. Data were analyzed to determine the related scientometric indicators.
In total, 1027 articles were found in PubMed-indexed journals which show considerable increase from 2 papers in 1993 to 139 in 2011. While ~62% of articles had no level of evidence, only ~5% could be classified as having the highest level of evidence (LOE1); however, the majority of LOE1 articles originated from Iran (~1%: n=10). Journal of Endodontics, as the top rank journal, published 31.7% of MTA related articles. The majority of articles were four-authored (19.6%). Most of the articles originated from USA (21.9%), Brazil (18.5%) and Iran (8.76%). The average number of citation for the top ten articles from Scopus was 231.
This data demonstrates that during the past two decades, research on this novel endodontic biomaterial had a rapid positive trend especially during the last 5 years. Further high-level evidence articles for the various clinical applications of MTA would result in superior clinical decision making and stronger scientific-based endodontic practice.
PMCID: PMC3570971  PMID: 23411944
Biomaterial; Endodontic; Mineral trioxide aggregate; MTA; PubMed; Scientometric
11.  Citation Analysis of the Korean Journal of Urology From Web of Science, Scopus, Korean Medical Citation Index, KoreaMed Synapse, and Google Scholar 
Korean Journal of Urology  2013;54(4):220-228.
The Korean Journal of Urology began to be published exclusively in English in 2010 and is indexed in PubMed Central/PubMed. This study analyzed a variety of citation indicators of the Korean Journal of Urology before and after 2010 to clarify the present position of the journal among the urology category journals. The impact factor, SCImago Journal Rank (SJR), impact index, Z-impact factor (ZIF, impact factor excluding self-citation), and Hirsch Index (H-index) were referenced or calculated from Web of Science, Scopus, SCImago Journal & Country Ranking, Korean Medical Citation Index (KoMCI), KoreaMed Synapse, and Google Scholar. Both the impact factor and the total citations rose rapidly beginning in 2011. The 2012 impact factor corresponded to the upper 84.9% in the nephrology-urology category, whereas the 2011 SJR was in the upper 58.5%. The ZIF in KoMCI was one fifth of the impact factor because there are only two other urology journals in KoMCI. Up to 2009, more than half of the citations in the Web of Science were from Korean researchers, but from 2010 to 2012, more than 85% of the citations were from international researchers. The H-indexes from Web of Science, Scopus, KoMCI, KoreaMed Synapse, and Google Scholar were 8, 10, 12, 9, and 18, respectively. The strategy of the language change in 2010 was successful from the perspective of citation indicators. The values of the citation indicators will continue to increase rapidly and consistently as the research achievement of authors of the Korean Journal of Urology increases.
PMCID: PMC3630339  PMID: 23614057
Analysis; Bibliometrics; Database; Korea
12.  Anatomy of the Epidemiological Literature on the 2003 SARS Outbreaks in Hong Kong and Toronto: A Time-Stratified Review 
PLoS Medicine  2010;7(5):e1000272.
Weijia Xing and colleagues reviewed the published epidemiological literature on SARS and show that less than a quarter of papers were published during the epidemic itself, suggesting that the research published lagged substantially behind the need for it.
Outbreaks of emerging infectious diseases, especially those of a global nature, require rapid epidemiological analysis and information dissemination. The final products of those activities usually comprise internal memoranda and briefs within public health authorities and original research published in peer-reviewed journals. Using the 2003 severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) epidemic as an example, we conducted a comprehensive time-stratified review of the published literature to describe the different types of epidemiological outputs.
Methods and Findings
We identified and analyzed all published articles on the epidemiology of the SARS outbreak in Hong Kong or Toronto. The analysis was stratified by study design, research domain, data collection, and analytical technique. We compared the SARS-case and matched-control non-SARS articles published according to the timeline of submission, acceptance, and publication. The impact factors of the publishing journals were examined according to the time of publication of SARS articles, and the numbers of citations received by SARS-case and matched-control articles submitted during and after the epidemic were compared. Descriptive, analytical, theoretical, and experimental epidemiology concerned, respectively, 54%, 30%, 11%, and 6% of the studies. Only 22% of the studies were submitted, 8% accepted, and 7% published during the epidemic. The submission-to-acceptance and acceptance-to-publication intervals of the SARS articles submitted during the epidemic period were significantly shorter than the corresponding intervals of matched-control non-SARS articles published in the same journal issues (p<0.001 and p<0.01, respectively). The differences of median submission-to-acceptance intervals and median acceptance-to-publication intervals between SARS articles and their corresponding control articles were 106.5 d (95% confidence interval [CI] 55.0–140.1) and 63.5 d (95% CI 18.0–94.1), respectively. The median numbers of citations of the SARS articles submitted during the epidemic and over the 2 y thereafter were 17 (interquartile range [IQR] 8.0–52.0) and 8 (IQR 3.2–21.8), respectively, significantly higher than the median numbers of control article citations (15, IQR 8.5–16.5, p<0.05, and 7, IQR 3.0–12.0, p<0.01, respectively).
A majority of the epidemiological articles on SARS were submitted after the epidemic had ended, although the corresponding studies had relevance to public health authorities during the epidemic. To minimize the lag between research and the exigency of public health practice in the future, researchers should consider adopting common, predefined protocols and ready-to-use instruments to improve timeliness, and thus, relevance, in addition to standardizing comparability across studies. To facilitate information dissemination, journal managers should reengineer their fast-track channels, which should be adapted to the purpose of an emerging outbreak, taking into account the requirement of high standards of quality for scientific journals and competition with other online resources.
Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary
Editors' Summary
Every now and then, a new infectious disease appears in a human population or an old disease becomes much more common or more geographically widespread. Recently, several such “emerging infectious diseases” have become major public health problems. For example, HIV/AIDS, hepatitis C, and severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) have all emerged in the past three decades and spread rapidly round the world. When an outbreak (epidemic) of an emerging infectious disease occurs, epidemiologists (scientists who study the causes, distribution, and control of diseases in populations) swing into action, collecting and analyzing data on the new threat to human health. Epidemiological studies are rapidly launched to identify the causative agent of the new disease, to investigate how the disease spreads, to define diagnostic criteria for the disease, to evaluate potential treatments, and to devise ways to control the disease's spread. Public health officials then use the results of these studies to bring the epidemic under control.
Why Was This Study Done?
Clearly, epidemics of emerging infectious diseases can only be controlled rapidly and effectively if the results of epidemiological studies are made widely available in a timely manner. Public health bulletins (for example, the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report from the US Centers from Disease Control and Prevention) are an important way of disseminating information as is the publication of original research in peer-reviewed academic journals. But how timely is this second dissemination route? Submission, peer-review, revision, re-review, acceptance, and publication of a piece of academic research can be a long process, the speed of which is affected by the responses of both authors and journals. In this study, the researchers analyze how the results of academic epidemiological research are submitted and published in journals during and after an emerging infectious disease epidemic using the 2003 SARS epidemic as an example. The first case of SARS was identified in Asia in February 2003 and rapidly spread around the world. 8,098 people became ill with SARS and 774 died before the epidemic was halted in July 2003.
What Did the Researchers Do and Find?
The researchers identified more than 300 journal articles covering epidemiological research into the SARS outbreak in Hong Kong, China, and Toronto, Canada (two cities strongly affected by the epidemic) that were published online or in print between January 1, 2003 and July 31, 2007. The researchers' analysis of these articles shows that more than half them were descriptive epidemiological studies, investigations that focused on describing the distribution of SARS; a third were analytical epidemiological studies that tried to discover the cause of SARS. Overall, 22% of the journal articles were submitted for publication during the epidemic. Only 8% of the articles were accepted for publication and only 7% were actually published during the epidemic. The median (average) submission-to-acceptance and acceptance-to-publication intervals for SARS articles submitted during the epidemic were 55 and 77.5 days, respectively, much shorter intervals than those for non-SARS articles published in the same journal issues. After the epidemic was over, the submission-to-acceptance and acceptance-to-publication intervals for SARS articles was similar to that of non-SARS articles.
What Do These Findings Mean?
These findings show that, although the academic response to the SARS epidemic was rapid, most articles on the epidemiology of SARS were published after the epidemic was over even though SARS was a major threat to public health. Possible reasons for this publication delay include the time taken by authors to prepare and undertake their studies, to write and submit their papers, and, possibly, their tendency to first submit their results to high profile journals. The time then taken by journals to review the studies, make decisions about publication, and complete the publication process might also have delayed matters. To minimize future delays in the publication of epidemiological research on emerging infectious diseases, epidemiologists could adopt common, predefined protocols and ready-to-use instruments, which would improve timeliness and ensure comparability across studies, suggest the researchers. Journals, in turn, could improve their fast-track procedures and could consider setting up online sections that could be activated when an emerging infectious disease outbreak occurred. Finally, journals could consider altering their review system to speed up the publication process provided the quality of the final published articles was not compromised.
Additional Information
Please access these Web sites via the online version of this summary at
The US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases provides information on emerging infectious diseases
The US Centers for Control and Prevention of Diseases also provides information about emerging infectious diseases, including links to other resources, and information on SARS
Wikipedia has a page on epidemiology (note that Wikipedia is a free online encyclopedia that anyone can edit; available in several languages)
The World Health Organization has information on SARS (in several languages)
PMCID: PMC2864302  PMID: 20454570
13.  Author self-citation in the diabetes literature 
Author self-citation is the practice of citing one's previous publications in a new publication. Its extent is unknown. We studied author self-citation, choosing the major clinical field of diabetes mellitus to represent the general medical literature.
We identified every article about diabetes mellitus in 170 hand-searched clinical journals published in 2000. For every article, we recorded the bibliographic citation and publication type (original or review article) and assessed the methodologic rigour. Citation information was obtained from the ISI Web of Knowledge in April 2003.
Of 49 028 articles, 289 were about diabetes mellitus and had citation information. Citation counts ranged from 0 to 347 (median 6, interquartile range [IQR] 2–12). Author self-citation counts ranged from 0 to 16 (median 1, IQR 0–2). Author self-citations accounted for an average of 18% (95% confidence interval [CI] 15%–21%) and a median of 7% (95% CI 5%– 11%) of all citations of each publication that was cited at least once (n = 266). Original articles had double the mean proportion of author self-citations compared with review articles (19% v. 9%; median 7% v. 0%, difference 7%, 95% CI 0– 10%). Methodologic rigour and review type were not significantly associated with subsequent author self-citation.
Nearly one-fifth of all citations to articles about diabetes mellitus in clinical journals in the year 2000 were author self-citations. The frequency of self-citation was not associated with the quality of publications. These findings are likely applicable to the general clinical medicine literature and may have important implications for the assessment of journal or publication importance and the process of scientific discovery.
PMCID: PMC421720  PMID: 15210641
14.  Going, Going, Still There: Using the WebCite Service to Permanently Archive Cited Web Pages 
Scholars are increasingly citing electronic “web references” which are not preserved in libraries or full text archives. WebCite is a new standard for citing web references. To “webcite” a document involves archiving the cited Web page through and citing the WebCite permalink instead of (or in addition to) the unstable live Web page. This journal has amended its “instructions for authors” accordingly, asking authors to archive cited Web pages before submitting a manuscript. Almost 200 other journals are already using the system. We discuss the rationale for WebCite, its technology, and how scholars, editors, and publishers can benefit from the service. Citing scholars initiate an archiving process of all cited Web references, ideally before they submit a manuscript. Authors of online documents and websites which are expected to be cited by others can ensure that their work is permanently available by creating an archived copy using WebCite and providing the citation information including the WebCite link on their Web document(s). Editors should ask their authors to cache all cited Web addresses (Uniform Resource Locators, or URLs) “prospectively” before submitting their manuscripts to their journal. Editors and publishers should also instruct their copyeditors to cache cited Web material if the author has not done so already. Finally, WebCite can process publisher submitted “citing articles” (submitted for example as eXtensible Markup Language [XML] documents) to automatically archive all cited Web pages shortly before or on publication. Finally, WebCite can act as a focussed crawler, caching retrospectively references of already published articles. Copyright issues are addressed by honouring respective Internet standards (robot exclusion files, no-cache and no-archive tags). Long-term preservation is ensured by agreements with libraries and digital preservation organizations. The resulting WebCite Index may also have applications for research assessment exercises, being able to measure the impact of Web services and published Web documents through access and Web citation metrics.
PMCID: PMC1550686  PMID: 16403724
Archives; editorial policies; information management standards; digital libraries; periodicals standards; publishing standards; information storage and retrieval; Internet
15.  Papers featured in the World Journal of Gastroenterology from 2006 to 2007 
AIM: To analyze papers published in the World Journal of Gastroenterology (WJG) from 2006 to 2007. We investigated the highly cited papers for geographic distribution of the cited authors, as well as the distribution of the citing journals and year of citation.
METHODS: Papers published in WJG from 2006 to 2007 and their citations were retrieved from the Science Citation Index Expanded (SCIE). The papers and their citations were analyzed according to bibliometric methods, including the number of citations for a given paper, the distribution of the highly cited papers, the geographic distribution of the cited authors, and the years of citation.
RESULTS: Two thousand five hundred and six papers published in WJG from 2006 to 2007 were collected through SCIE, and 2335 of these were categorized as articles, reviews or proceedings. In 2006 and 2007, the average citation rate was 85.08% and 70.48%, respectively, and the average number of citations per paper was 4.33 and 2.51. Among the 2506 papers, 1963 were cited 8788 times by other articles. The mean number of citations per paper was 3.51. The papers with over three citations accounted for 54.72% of all those that were cited, and the total number of citations accounted for 85.38% of the total of 8788 citations. Thirteen papers were cited over 30 times and the highest number of citations for any one paper was 98. The cited authors came from 70 different countries or regions, with China, Japan and the United States being the most frequent. The highest average citation rate and number of citations per paper were for authors from Canada (96.30%, 6.89), Hungary (92.31%, 5.62), Australia (88.46%, 5.46), Germany (87.04%, 5.33), and Spain (87.50%, 5.11). The impact factor was 2.081 and the self-citation rate was 9.41% in 2008. The papers published in WJG in 2006-2007 were cited by 1597 journals.
CONCLUSION: The papers in WJG have a high number of citations, and have been cited in numerous journals by authors from various countries. The results imply that WJG has an influential academic profile in gastroenterology around the world.
PMCID: PMC2747075  PMID: 19764106
Citation analysis; Bibliometrics; World Journal of Gastroenterology
16.  Public health citation patterns: an analysis of the American Journal of Public Health, 2003–2005 
Objectives: The research sought to determine the publication types cited most often in public health as well as the most heavily cited journal titles.
Methods: From a pool of 33,449 citations in 934 articles published in the 2003–2005 issues of American Journal of Public Health, 2 random samples were drawn: one (n = 1,034) from the total set of citations and one (n = 1,016) from the citations to journal articles. For each sampled citation, investigators noted publication type, publication date, uniform resource locator (URL) citation (yes/no), and, for the journal article sample, journal titles. The cited journal titles were analyzed using Bradford zones.
Results: The majority of cited items from the overall sample of 1,034 items were journal articles (64.4%, n = 666), followed by government documents (n = 130), books (n = 122), and miscellaneous sources (n = 116). Publication date ranged from 1826–2005 (mean = 1995, mode = 2002). Most cited items were between 0 and 5 years old (50.3%, n = 512). In the sample of 1,016 journal article citations, a total of 387 journal titles were cited.
Discussion: Analysis of cited material types revealed results similar to citation analyses in specific public health disciplines, including use of materials from a wide range of disciplines, reliance on miscellaneous and government documents, and need for older publications.
PMCID: PMC2000783  PMID: 17971888
17.  How Far Has the International Neurourology Journal Progressed Since Its Transformation Into an English Language Journal? 
The publisher of the International Neurourology Journal changed the text to English in 2010 to promote the journal as an international publication. Four years later, what has happened to this journal? This paper will use citation indicators to describe the degree of internationalization.
Citation indicators such as impact factors, total citations from Web of Science, Science Journal Rankings (SJR), cites per documents (2 years), and Hirsch indexes (h-indexes) from Web of Science, digital object identifier (DOI)/CrossRef, ScimagoJR, or Scopus were calculated. In addition, the native countries of the authors and researchers citing the journal in Web of Science were analyzed.
Impact factors in 2012 and 2013 were 0.645 and 0.857, respectively. Total citations in 2011, 2012, and 2013 from Web of Science were 15, 51, and 99, respectively, and the SJRs in 2011 and 2012 were 0.220 and 0.390, respectively. The h-indexes from DOI/CrossRef, Scopus, and Web of Science were 7, 8, and 6, respectively. Out of 153 unsolicited published papers, 27 (17.6%) were from outside of Korea. The researchers citing the journal in Web of Science and Scopus were primarily from the United States, Korea, China, the United Kingdom, and France. Funding agencies supported 39 of 101 original articles (38.6%).
After changing the text to the English language, the citation indicators show that the International Neurourology Journal has been elevated to an international journal. Although the nationality of authors varies from year to year, the increase in the number of manuscripts from international authors is obvious.
PMCID: PMC3983506  PMID: 24729921
Journal impact factor; Bibliographic database; PubMed
18.  Open access versus subscription journals: a comparison of scientific impact 
BMC Medicine  2012;10:73.
In the past few years there has been an ongoing debate as to whether the proliferation of open access (OA) publishing would damage the peer review system and put the quality of scientific journal publishing at risk. Our aim was to inform this debate by comparing the scientific impact of OA journals with subscription journals, controlling for journal age, the country of the publisher, discipline and (for OA publishers) their business model.
The 2-year impact factors (the average number of citations to the articles in a journal) were used as a proxy for scientific impact. The Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) was used to identify OA journals as well as their business model. Journal age and discipline were obtained from the Ulrich's periodicals directory. Comparisons were performed on the journal level as well as on the article level where the results were weighted by the number of articles published in a journal. A total of 610 OA journals were compared with 7,609 subscription journals using Web of Science citation data while an overlapping set of 1,327 OA journals were compared with 11,124 subscription journals using Scopus data.
Overall, average citation rates, both unweighted and weighted for the number of articles per journal, were about 30% higher for subscription journals. However, after controlling for discipline (medicine and health versus other), age of the journal (three time periods) and the location of the publisher (four largest publishing countries versus other countries) the differences largely disappeared in most subcategories except for journals that had been launched prior to 1996. OA journals that fund publishing with article processing charges (APCs) are on average cited more than other OA journals. In medicine and health, OA journals founded in the last 10 years are receiving about as many citations as subscription journals launched during the same period.
Our results indicate that OA journals indexed in Web of Science and/or Scopus are approaching the same scientific impact and quality as subscription journals, particularly in biomedicine and for journals funded by article processing charges.
PMCID: PMC3398850  PMID: 22805105
impact; open access; peer review; scientific publishing
19.  Using the Knowledge to Action Framework in practice: a citation analysis and systematic review 
Conceptual frameworks are recommended as a way of applying theory to enhance implementation efforts. The Knowledge to Action (KTA) Framework was developed in Canada by Graham and colleagues in the 2000s, following a review of 31 planned action theories. The framework has two components: Knowledge Creation and an Action Cycle, each of which comprises multiple phases. This review sought to answer two questions: ‘Is the KTA Framework used in practice? And if so, how?’
This study is a citation analysis and systematic review. The index citation for the original paper was identified on three databases—Web of Science, Scopus and Google Scholar—with the facility for citation searching. Limitations of English language and year of publication 2006-June 2013 were set. A taxonomy categorising the continuum of usage was developed. Only studies applying the framework to implementation projects were included. Data were extracted and mapped against each phase of the framework for studies where it was integral to the implementation project.
The citation search yielded 1,787 records. A total of 1,057 titles and abstracts were screened. One hundred and forty-six studies described usage to varying degrees, ranging from referenced to integrated. In ten studies, the KTA Framework was integral to the design, delivery and evaluation of the implementation activities. All ten described using the Action Cycle and seven referred to Knowledge Creation. The KTA Framework was enacted in different health care and academic settings with projects targeted at patients, the public, and nursing and allied health professionals.
The KTA Framework is being used in practice with varying degrees of completeness. It is frequently cited, with usage ranging from simple attribution via a reference, through informing planning, to making an intellectual contribution. When the framework was integral to knowledge translation, it guided action in idiosyncratic ways and there was theory fidelity. Prevailing wisdom encourages the use of theories, models and conceptual frameworks, yet their application is less evident in practice. This may be an artefact of reporting, indicating that prospective, primary research is needed to explore the real value of the KTA Framework and similar tools.
PMCID: PMC4258036  PMID: 25417046
Knowledge translation; Conceptual framework; Systematic review; Implementation; Citation analysis; Knowledge to Action Framework; Theory; Theory fidelity
20.  The level of non-citation of articles within a journal as a measure of quality: a comparison to the impact factor 
Current methods of measuring the quality of journals assume that citations of articles within journals are normally distributed. Furthermore using journal impact factors to measure the quality of individual articles is flawed if citations are not uniformly spread between articles. The aim of this study was to assess the distribution of citations to articles and use the level of non-citation of articles within a journal as a measure of quality. This ranking method is compared with the impact factor, as calculated by ISI®.
Total citations gained by October 2003, for every original article and review published in current immunology (13125 articles; 105 journals) and surgical (17083 articles; 120 journals) fields during 2001 were collected using ISI® Web of Science.
The distribution of citation of articles within an individual journal is mainly non-parametric throughout the literature. One sixth (16.7%; IQR 13.6–19.2) of articles in a journal accrue half the total number of citations to that journal. There was a broader distribution of citation to articles in higher impact journals and in the field of immunology compared to surgery. 23.7% (IQR 14.6–42.4) of articles had not yet been cited. Levels of non-citation varied between journals and subject fields. There was a significant negative correlation between the proportion of articles never cited and a journal's impact factor for both immunology (rho = -0.854) and surgery journals (rho = -0.924).
Ranking journals by impact factor and non-citation produces similar results. Using a non-citation rate is advantageous as it creates a clear distinction between how citation analysis is used to determine the quality of a journal (low level of non-citation) and an individual article (citation counting). Non-citation levels should therefore be made available for all journals.
PMCID: PMC434502  PMID: 15169549
21.  Bridging knowledge translation gap in health in developing countries: visibility, impact and publishing standards in journals from the Eastern Mediterranean 
Local and regional scientific journals are important factors in bridging gaps in health knowledge translation in low-and middle-income countries. We assessed indexing, citations and publishing standards of journals from the Eastern Mediterranean region.
For journals from 22 countries in the collection of the Index Medicus for the Eastern Mediterranean Region (IMEMR), we analyzed indexing in bibliographical databases and citations during 2006–2009 to published items in 2006 in Web of Science (WoS) and SCOPUS. Adherence to editorial and publishing standards was assessed using a special checklist.
Out of 419 journals in IMEMR, 19 were indexed in MEDLINE, 23 in WoS and 46 in SCOPUS. Their impact factors ranged from 0.016 to 1.417. For a subset of 175 journals with available tables of contents from 2006, articles published in 2006 from 93 journals received 2068 citations in SCOPUS (23.5% self-citations) and articles in 86 journals received 1579 citations in WoS (24.3% self-citations) during 2006–2009. Citations to articles came mostly from outside of the Eastern Mediterranean region (76.8% in WoS and 75.4% in SCOPUS). Articles receiving highest number of citations presented topics specific for the region. Many journals did not follow editorial and publishing standards, such addressing requirements about the patient’s privacy rights (68.0% out of 244 analyzed), policy on managing conflicts of interest (66.4%), and ethical conduct in clinical and animal research (66.4%).
Journals from the Eastern Mediterranean are visible in and have impact on global scientific community. Coordinated effort of all stakeholders in journal publishing, including researchers, journal editors and owners, policy makers and citation databases, is needed to further promote local journals as windows to the research in the developing world and the doors for valuable regional research to the global scientific community.
PMCID: PMC3430582  PMID: 22577965
22.  Published Endodontic Articles in PubMed-Indexed Journals from Iran 
Iranian Endodontic Journal  2012;7(1):1-4.
The aim of this survey was to illustrate statistical information about endodontic research published in pubmed index journals from the different universities of Iran.
Materials and Methods
A PubMed search was performed to retrieve the endodontic publications of authors affiliated to different universities of Iran. Abstracts were reviewed and unrelated articles were omitted. Citation of each article was obtained from Scopus and Google scholar databases. Data were extracted and transferred to Microsoft Excel to determine the related scintometric indicators.
A total of 307 papers were found according to the defined criteria which shows considerable increase from 2 papers in 1992 to 54 in 2011. The majority of the papers (48%) were related to in vitro studies; this number was 33% for in vivo surveys. Meta-analysis, systematic review and clinical trial constituted 10% of all publications. The average number of authors for the overall publications was 3.84; majority of articles (20%) were written by three authors. The average number of citation from Google Scholar (8.93) was higher than those from Scopus (4.74). Most of the endodontic articles originated from the Mashad University of Medical Sciences (16%).
Endodontic publication from different universities in Iran has considerably increased, showing that research is becoming more important.
PMCID: PMC3467117  PMID: 23060905
Endodontic research; Impact factor; Iran; Publications; PubMed- indexed papers; Scintometric
23.  Trends in Citations to Books on Epidemiological and Statistical Methods in the Biomedical Literature 
PLoS ONE  2013;8(5):e61837.
There are no analyses of citations to books on epidemiological and statistical methods in the biomedical literature. Such analyses may shed light on how concepts and methods changed while biomedical research evolved. Our aim was to analyze the number and time trends of citations received from biomedical articles by books on epidemiological and statistical methods, and related disciplines.
Methods and Findings
The data source was the Web of Science. The study books were published between 1957 and 2010. The first year of publication of the citing articles was 1945. We identified 125 books that received at least 25 citations. Books first published in 1980–1989 had the highest total and median number of citations per year. Nine of the 10 most cited texts focused on statistical methods. Hosmer & Lemeshow's Applied logistic regression received the highest number of citations and highest average annual rate. It was followed by books by Fleiss, Armitage, et al., Rothman, et al., and Kalbfleisch and Prentice. Fifth in citations per year was Sackett, et al., Evidence-based medicine. The rise of multivariate methods, clinical epidemiology, or nutritional epidemiology was reflected in the citation trends. Educational textbooks, practice-oriented books, books on epidemiological substantive knowledge, and on theory and health policies were much less cited. None of the 25 top-cited books had the theoretical or sociopolitical scope of works by Cochrane, McKeown, Rose, or Morris.
Books were mainly cited to reference methods. Books first published in the 1980s continue to be most influential. Older books on theory and policies were rooted in societal and general medical concerns, while the most modern books are almost purely on methods.
PMCID: PMC3646840  PMID: 23667447
24.  Air pollution research: visualization of research activity using density-equalizing mapping and scientometric benchmarking procedures 
Due to constantly rising air pollution levels as well as an increasing awareness of the hazardousness of air pollutants, new laws and rules have recently been passed. Although there has been a large amount of research on this topic, bibliometric data is still to be collected. Thus this study provides a scientometric approach to the material published on this subject so far.
For this purpose, data retrieved from the "Web of Science" provided by the Thomson Scientific Institute was analyzed and visualized both with density-equalizing methods and classic data-processing methods such as tables and charts.
For the time span between 1955 and 2006, 26,253 items were listed and related to the topic of air pollution, published by 124 countries in 24 different languages. General citation activity has been constantly increasing since the beginning of the examined period. However, beginning with the year 1991, citation levels have been rising exponentially each year, reaching 39,220 citations in the year 2006. The United States, the UK and Germany were the three most productive countries in the area, with English and German ranked first and second in publishing languages, followed by French. An article published by Dockery, Pope, Xu et al. was both the most cited in total numbers and in average citation rate. J. Schwartz was able to claim the highest total number of citations on his publications, while D.W. Dockery has the highest citation rate per publication. As to the subject areas the items are assigned with, the most item were published in Environmental Sciences, followed by Meteorology & Atmospheric Sciences and Public, Environmental & Occupational Health. Nine out of the ten publishing journals with more than 300 entries dealt with environmental interests and one dealt with epidemiology.
Using the method of density-equalizing mapping and further common data processing procedures, it can be concluded that scientific work concerning air pollution and related topics enjoys unbrokenly growing scientific interest. This can be observed both in publication numbers and in citation activity.
PMCID: PMC2865481  PMID: 20359334
25.  References that anyone can edit: review of Wikipedia citations in peer reviewed health science literature 
Objectives To examine indexed health science journals to evaluate the prevalence of Wikipedia citations, identify the journals that publish articles with Wikipedia citations, and determine how Wikipedia is being cited.
Design Bibliometric analysis.
Study selection Publications in the English language that included citations to Wikipedia were retrieved using the online databases Scopus and Web of Science.
Data sources To identify health science journals, results were refined using Ulrich’s database, selecting for citations from journals indexed in Medline, PubMed, or Embase. Using Thomson Reuters Journal Citation Reports, 2011 impact factors were collected for all journals included in the search.
Data extraction Resulting citations were thematically coded, and descriptive statistics were calculated.
Results 1433 full text articles from 1008 journals indexed in Medline, PubMed, or Embase with 2049 Wikipedia citations were accessed. The frequency of Wikipedia citations has increased over time; most citations occurred after December 2010. More than half of the citations were coded as definitions (n=648; 31.6%) or descriptions (n=482; 23.5%). Citations were not limited to journals with a low or no impact factor; the search found Wikipedia citations in many journals with high impact factors.
Conclusions Many publications are citing information from a tertiary source that can be edited by anyone, although permanent, evidence based sources are available. We encourage journal editors and reviewers to use caution when publishing articles that cite Wikipedia.
PMCID: PMC3944683  PMID: 24603564

Results 1-25 (1246120)