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

Abstract

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.

Job satisfaction, engagement, and burnout in the population of orthopedic surgeon and neurosurgeon trainees in mainland China

“…Gross domestic spending on research and experimental development in mainland China has grown from US$78.7 billion in 2005 to US$317.8 billion in 2014, second in the world after the US. 38 During the same period, China contributed approximately 2.6% of orthopedic and 6.3% of neurosurgical articles in international journals, ranking fifth in the world. In addition, China is the only country among the top five producers (US, United Kingdom, Japan, Germany, and China) with substantial growth in research productivity.…”

“…The neurosurgical publications contributed by Chinese authors have increased at a rate of 121.9% ± 9.98% per year between 1996 and 2009. 8,38 However, it should be noted that behind these figures are the great efforts made by Chinese orthopedic and neurosurgical surgeons. Another reality is that the Chinese authority has made first/ corresponding authorship and successful funding applications prerequisites for doctors' promotions at all levels.…”

Bibliometric analysis of scientific publications in respiratory journals from China and other top‐ranking countries between 2007 and 2017

“…The IF of an academic journal is a measure reflecting the relative importance of a journal within its field, with journals of higher IFs deemed to be more important than those with lower ones . The annual total IFs of articles from MC has increased significantly over the past 10 years, and has been quite close to those from Canada.…”

Clinicians’ Publication Output: Self-Report Survey and Bibliometric Analysis

“…Measuring scientific publication quantity and quality is important for conceptualising the research impact of an individual and the nation [11]. Bibliometric and scientometric analysis has been the fundamental of measuring scientific productivity.…”

“…Bibliometric and scientometric analysis has been the fundamental of measuring scientific productivity. While bibliometric indicators like impact factors [12] or Scopus have been used to assess an individual's scientific productions or thematic fields in emergency medicine [13], cardiology [14] and orthopaedics [11], geospatial scientometrics have evaluated scientific productions across cities [15] and administrative regions [16]. While these indicators have exhibited global institutional trends of publication output, they are limited by the focus of geographical area and other specific medical fields.…”