At the Leading Front of Neuroscience: A Bibliometric Study of the 100 Most-Cited Articles

Abstract

Background: It might be difficult for clinicians and scientists to identify comprehensively the major research topics given the large number of publications. A bibliometric report that identifies the most-cited articles within the body of the relevant literature may provide insight and guidance for readers toward scientific topics that are considered important for researchers and all relevant workers of academia. To our knowledge, there is a lack of an overall evaluation of the most-cited articles and hence of a comprehensive review of major research topics in neuroscience. The present study was therefore proposed to analyze and characterize the 100 most-cited articles in neuroscience.Methods: Based on data provided from Web of Science, the 100 most-cited articles relevant to neuroscience were identified and characterized. Information was extracted for each included article to assess for the publication year, journal published, impact factor, adjusted impact factor, citation count (total, normalized, and adjusted), reference list, authorship and article type.Results: The total citation count for the 100 most-cited articles ranged from 7,326 to 2,138 (mean 3087.0) and the normalized citation count ranged from 0.163 to 0.007 (mean 0.054). The majority of the 100 articles were research articles (67%) and published from 1996 to 2000 (30%). The author and journal with the largest share of these 100 articles were Stephen M. Smith (n = 6) and Science (n = 13) respectively. Among the 100 most-cited articles, 37 were interlinked via citations of one another, and they could be classified into five major topics, four of which were scientific topics, namely neurological disorders, prefrontal cortex/emotion/reward, brain network, and brain mapping. The remaining topic was methodology. Interestingly 41 out of 63 of the rest, non-interlinked articles could also be categorized under the above five topics. Adjusted journal impact factor among these 100 articles did not appear to be associated with the corresponding adjusted citation count.Conclusion: The current study compiles a comprehensive list and analysis of the 100 most-cited articles relevant to neuroscience that enables the comprehensive identification and recognition of the most important and relevant research topics concerned.

Brain responses to stimuli mimicking dental treatment among non‐phobic individuals: A meta‐analysis

“…Meanwhile, there are some inherent limitations in the use of ALE; for instance, some of the included studies had a relatively small sample size, which may lead to corresponding low statistical power and hence weaken the power of overall analysis (Lin et al., ). Also, ALE meta‐analysis focuses on consistency of activated brain locations but does not consider effect size of the activations (Eickhoff et al., ) and cannot model brain connectivity which is gaining popularity over the recent years (Yeung, Goto, & Leung, ,c,d; Yeung, Tanabe, Suen, & Goto, ).…”

Do Neuroscience Journals Accept Replications? A Survey of Literature

“…A replication award has been established by the Organization for Human Brain Mapping to recognize the best replication study in neuroimaging 1 . It was reported that publications of the neuroscience and particularly the neuroimaging fields have been growing steadily (Yeung et al, 2017a , b , c ), it could be intuitive to think that the number of published replication studies would also demonstrate a steady growth. However, Figure 3 has illustrated the annual publication count of replications fluctuated and never exceeded 20.…”

Are coronectomy studies being cited? A bibliometric study

“…One useful metric to be evaluated would be the citation count of coronectomy papers. A bibliometric study identifies and evaluates the relevance of scientific publications with citation analysis, thus enabling a better understanding of the overall research landscape of a particular field . Instead of a qualitative evaluation of existing evidence or an investigation of the overall effect size, a bibliometric study on coronectomy literature can evaluate the influence of the body of the literature as a whole and identify the seminal works within it.…”