Orthopaedic journals, impact factors, research impact and research quality

Simpson, A. H. R. W.

doi:10.1302/2046-3758.47.2000488

Cited by 2 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 23 publications

(12 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Journals with higher IF are generally considered to be more important and more influential. 13 14 We took IF as an objective parameter evaluating the quality of publications from each region. However, it is possible that articles published in journals with low IF may be excellent work, and the opposite situation could also be the case.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Scientific research output in orthopaedics from China and other top-ranking countries: a 10-year survey of the literature

Zou

Quan

2016

BMJ Open

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectivesOrthopaedics-related diseases and conditions are a significant burden worldwide. In this study, we aimed to compare the quantity and quality of research output in the field of orthopaedics from Mainland China (MC), USA, UK, Japan and Germany.SettingThe USA, UK, Japan, Germany and MC.ParticipantsWe selected orthopaedics journals from the subject category ‘orthopedics’ from the Science Citation Index Expanded (SCIE).Outcome measuresThe number of publications, the number of publications in the surveyed publication types, impact factor (IF) and citations from the corresponding country from 2005 to 2014 were collected for quantity and quality comparisons.ResultsA total of 128 895 articles were published worldwide in orthopaedics-related journals from 2005 to 2014. The USA contributed the largest proportion (31 190 (24.20%)), followed by the UK (6703 (5.20%)), Japan (5718 (4.41%)), Germany (4701 (3.66%)) and MC (3389 (2.63%)). Publications from MC represented the fewest, but this quantity is rapidly increasing. The quantity of annual publications from MC has exceeded that of Germany since 2012. The USA plays a predominant role in all kinds of publication types under investigation in the study, except in the category of meta-analysis. MC was in the last place for cumulative IFs, and the average IF actually decreased from the beginning of the study. For total and average citations, MC still lags behind the other countries in the study.ConclusionsThe USA has occupied the dominant place in orthopaedics-related research for the last 10 years. Although MC has made great progress in the number of published works in the field of orthopaedics over the last 10 years, the quality of these publishing efforts needs further improvement.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Scientific research output in orthopaedics from China and other top-ranking countries: a 10-year survey of the literature

Zou

Quan

2016

BMJ Open

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These requirements have traditionally been operationalised as conventional indicators especially for articles cited in or submitted to journals. These indicators include (a) presence or absence of scientific peer reviewing processes prior to the publication of the article (Bornmann 2011;Harnad 1999;Rowland 2002;Resnick and Almore 2016;Wicherts 2016), (b) post-publication assessments by means of comments and review articles (Eyre-Walker and Stoletzki 2013;Nentwich 2005;von Elm, Wandel and Jueni 2009); (c) citations received by an article (Bornmann and Daniel 2008;Cronin 1984;Haddawy et al 2016), (d) Journal Impact Factor (Abramo, D'Angelo and Di Costa 2010);Garfield 1986;Simpson 2015), (e) the reputation of the channel used to communicate the article (Ahlgren and Waltman 2014;Kling 2004), and (e) the author's or publisher's reputation and institutional affiliation (Abrizah et al 2015;Becher and Trower 2001;Allen and Heath 2013).…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%