A bibliometric analysis of the spine journals

Jain, Mantu; Mohanty, ChittaRanjan; Sahoo, Jagannatha; Radhakrishnan, Rakesh Vadakkethil; Biswas, Mridul

doi:10.1016/j.jcot.2021.02.005

Cited by 11 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Numerous bibliometric evaluations of the spine literature have been conducted previously, but most focused on only a very specific subfield (such as minimally invasive spine 21,23 ) or pathology, 5,8,9,15,18,19,30 shorter timeframe of publications, 24,31 or only the top cited papers. 5,56 These focused analyses have allowed for a more granular dissection of various topics within the field of spine research, which would have been challenging with our larger data set.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Century of Evolution in Spine Surgery Publications: A Bibliometric Analysis of the Field From 1900 to 2023

Kurland,

Cheung,

Kim

et al. 2023

Neurosurgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Spine surgery has advanced in concert with our deeper understanding of its elements. Narrowly focused bibliometric analyses have been conducted previously, but never on the entire corpus of the field. Using big data and bibliometrics, we appraised the entire corpus of spine surgery publications to study the evolution of the specialty as a scholarly field since 1900. METHODS: We queried Web of Science for all contents from 13 major publications dedicated to spine surgery. We next queried by topic [topic = (spine OR spinal OR vertebrae OR vertebral OR intervertebral OR disc OR disk)]; these results were filtered to include articles published by 49 other publications that were manually determined to contain pertinent articles. Articles, along with their metadata, were exported. Statistical and bibliometric analyses were performed using the Bibliometrix R package and various Python packages. RESULTS: Eighty-five thousand five hundred articles from 62 journals and 134 707 unique authors were identified. The annual growth rate of publications was 2.78%, with a surge after 1980, concurrent with the growth of specialized journals. International coauthorship, absent before 1970, increased exponentially with the formation of influential spine study groups. Reference publication year spectroscopy allowed us to identify 200 articles that comprise the historical roots of modern spine surgery and each of its subdisciplines. We mapped the emergence of new topics and saw a recent lexical evolution toward outcomes- and patient-centric terms. Female and minority coauthorship has increased since 1990, but remains low, and disparities across major publications persist. CONCLUSION: The field of spine surgery was borne from pioneering individuals who published their findings in a variety of journals. The renaissance of spine surgery has been powered by international collaboration and is increasingly outcomes focused. While spine surgery is gradually becoming more diverse, there is a clear need for further promotion and outreach to under-represented populations.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Century of Evolution in Spine Surgery Publications: A Bibliometric Analysis of the Field From 1900 to 2023

Kurland,

Cheung,

Kim

et al. 2023

Neurosurgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In recent years, research on factors affecting journal publication speed and impact factors has attracted more and more attention ( Jain et al, 2021 ; Kalcioglu et al, 2015 ; Mohanty et al, 2021 ; Shah, Sherighar & Bhat, 2016 ). An increasing number of journals have adopted advance online publication (AOP) and open access (OA) models to accelerate the publication of papers and remove barriers to access to scientific knowledge ( Nature Publishing Group, 2002 ; Björk & Solomon, 2013 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Publication delays and associated factors in ophthalmology journals

et al. 2022

PeerJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction This study aimed to evaluate the publication delays and correlative factors of peer-reviewed ophthalmology journals. Methods The ophthalmology journals listed in the Journal Citation Report 2020 were retrieved from the Web of Science database. The first original research article of each journal issue from January to December 2020 was extracted, and its submission, final revision, acceptance, and publication dates were obtained. Information on impact factors, advance online publication (AOP) status, open access (OA) rate and acceptance rate in 2020 was also collected. The correlations between publication delays and potential associated factors were analyzed. Results A total of 58 ophthalmology journals were included and information on 685 articles was collected. The median times from submission to acceptance, from acceptance to publication, and from submission to publication were 118.0 (IQR, 74.0–185.0) days, 31.0 (IQR, 15.0–64.0) days, and 161.0 (IQR, 111.0–232.0) days, respectively. A higher impact factor was correlated with shorter delays of acceptance and publication (P < 0.05). There was a positive correlation between acceptance rates and publication delays (r = 0.726, P = 0.007). Forty-seven (81.03%) journals provided AOP. There was no statistically significant difference for impact factors and publication delays between journal with and without AOP (all P > 0.05). No correlation between OA rate and publication delays or impact factors was detected (all P > 0.05). Conclusions Journals with higher impact factors and lower acceptance rates tend to have quicker publication processes. No significant associations were detected between publication delays and AOP or OA rate.

show abstract

“…Mohanty et al16 analyzed 289 articles across 25 anesthesiology journals in 2018 and found median publication times between submitted and accepted (120; IQR, 83-167 days) and submitted and published in press (186; IQR, 126-246 days). Jain et al17 reviewed 517 articles from 14 spine journals in 2019 and found median publication times between submitted and accepted (107; IQR, 66-168 days) and submitted and published (published in press and in print) (175; IQR, 120-313 days). With a median publication time between received and accepted of 119 (IQR, 78-165) days, orthopaedic surgery journals demonstrated a quicker peer review time (time between submitted and accepted) than plastic surgery and ophthalmology journals, a similar peer review time to anesthesiology journals, and a longer peer review time than spine journals.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%