Characteristics of the Most Cited, Most Downloaded, and Most Mentioned Articles in General Medical Journals: A Comparative Bibliometric Analysis
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Methods and Materials
2.1. Selection of Journals and Articles
2.2. Data Extraction from Articles
2.3. Statistical Analysis
3. Results
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Garner, R.M.; Hirsch, J.A.; Albuquerque, F.C.; Fargen, K.M. Bibliometric indices: Defining academic productivity and citation rates of researchers, departments and journals. J. Neurointerv. Surg. 2018, 10, 102–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Duszak, R., Jr. The Impact Factory. Acad. Radiol. 2016, 23, 659–660. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Eyre-Walker, A.; Stoletzki, N. The assessment of science: The relative merits of post-publication review, the impact factor, and the number of citations. PLoS Biol. 2013, 11, e1001675. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Zhang, W.J.; Li, Y.F.; Zhang, J.L.; Xu, M.; Yan, R.L.; Jiang, H. Classic citations in main plastic and reconstructive surgery journals. Ann. Plast. Surg. 2013, 71, 103–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- DORA—San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA). Available online: https://sfdora.org/read/ (accessed on 9 November 2020).
- Bollen, J.; Van de Sompel, H.; Hagberg, A.; Chute, R. A principal component analysis of 39 scientific impact measures. PLoS ONE 2009, 4, e6022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Lawrence, S. Free online availability substantially increases a paper’s impact. Nature 2001, 411, 521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brigham, T.J. An introduction to altmetrics. Med. Ref. Serv. Q 2014, 33, 438–447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Trueger, N.S.; Thoma, B.; Hsu, C.H.; Sullivan, D.; Peters, L.; Lin, M. The Altmetric Score: A New Measure for Article-Level Dissemination and Impact. Ann. Emerg. Med. 2015, 66, 549–553. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Altmetrics: A Manifesto. Available online: http://altmetrics.org/manifesto (accessed on 9 November 2020).
- Most-downloaded abstracts and full-text views in 2005: A top-12 survey. Acta Radiol. 2006, 47, 1005–1006. [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Barbic, D.; Tubman, M.; Lam, H.; Barbic, S. An Analysis of Altmetrics in Emergency Medicine. Acad. Emerg. Med. 2016, 23, 251–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brandt, J.S.; Downing, A.C.; Howard, D.L.; Kofinas, J.D.; Chasen, S.T. Citation classics in obstetrics and gynecology: The 100 most frequently cited journal articles in the last 50 years. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 2010, 203, 355.e1-7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Brennan, P.A.; Habib, A. What are we reading? A study of downloaded and cited articles from the British Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery in 2010. Br. J. Oral. Maxillofac. Surg. 2011, 49, 527–531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Fardi, A.; Kodonas, K.; Gogos, C.; Economides, N. Top-cited articles in endodontic journals. J. Endod. 2011, 37, 1183–1190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Rosenkrantz, A.B.; Ayoola, A.; Singh, K.; Duszak, R., Jr. Alternative Metrics (“Altmetrics”) for Assessing Article Impact in Popular General Radiology Journals. Acad. Radiol. 2017, 24, 891–897. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tang, X.; Gong, W.; Yuan, F.; Li, R.; Han, X.; Huang, S.; Zhi, F.; Jiang, B. Top-cited articles in digestive system disease from 1950 to 2013. J. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2016, 31, 107–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, J.; Alotaibi, N.M.; Ibrahim, G.M.; Kulkarni, A.V.; Lozano, A.M. The Spectrum of Altmetrics in Neurosurgery: The Top 100 “Trending” Articles in Neurosurgical Journals. World Neurosurg. 2017, 103, 883–895 e1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Peters, I.; Jobmann, A.; Hoffmann, C.P.; Künne, S.; Schmitz, J.; Wollnik-Korn, G. Altmetrics for large, multidisciplinary research groups: Comparison of current tools. Bibliometrie-Praxis und Forschung 2014, 3, 1–19. [Google Scholar]
- Marx, W.; Schier, H.; Wanitschek, M. Citation analysis using online databases: Feasibilities and shortcomings. Scientometrics 2001, 52, 59–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Braun, T. The reliability of total citation rankings. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 2003, 43, 45–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, C.L.; Xu, Y.Q.; Wu, H.; Chen, S.S.; Guo, J.J. Correlation and interaction visualization of altmetric indicators extracted from scholarly social network activities: Dimensions and structure. J. Med. Internet Res. 2013, 15, e259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Butler, J.S.; Kaye, I.D.; Sebastian, A.S.; Wagner, S.C.; Morrissey, P.B.; Schroeder, G.D.; Kepler, C.K.; Vaccaro, A.R. The Evolution of Current Research Impact Metrics: From Bibliometrics to Altmetrics? Clin. Spine Surg. 2017, 30, 226–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Thelwall, M.; Haustein, S.; Lariviere, V.; Sugimoto, C.R. Do altmetrics work? Twitter and ten other social web services. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e64841. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Haustein, S.; Larivière, V.; Thelwall, M.; Amyot, D.; Peters, I. Tweets vs. Mendeley readers: How do these two social media metrics differ? arXiv 2014, arXiv:1410.0569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Haustein, S.; Peters, I.; Sugimoto, C.R.; Thelwall, M.; Lariviere, V. Tweeting Biomedicine: An Analysis of Tweets and Citations in the Biomedical Literature. J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 2014, 65, 656–669. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Costas, R.; Zahedi, Z.; Wouters, P. Do “altmetrics” correlate with citations? Extensive comparison of altmetric indicators with citations from a multidisciplinary perspective. J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 2015, 66, 2003–2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mohammadi, E.; Thelwall, M.; Haustein, S.; Larivière, V. Who reads research articles? An altmetrics analysis of Mendeley user categories. J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 2015, 66, 1832–1846. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Schloegl, C.; Gorraiz, J. Comparison of citation and usage indicators: The case of oncology journals. Scientometrics 2010, 82, 567–580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schloegl, C.; Gorraiz, J. Global usage versus global citation metrics: The case of pharmacology journals. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 2011, 62, 161–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Amath, A.; Ambacher, K.; Leddy, J.J.; Wood, T.J.; Ramnanan, C.J. Comparing alternative and traditional dissemination metrics in medical education. Med. Educ. 2017, 51, 935–941. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baek, S.; Yoon, D.Y.; Lim, K.J.; Cho, Y.K.; Seo, Y.L.; Yun, E.J. The most downloaded and most cited articles in radiology journals: A comparative bibliometric analysis. Eur. Radiol. 2018, 11, 4832–4838. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Haustein, S.; Costas, R.; Larivière, V. Characterizing Social Media Metrics of Scholarly Papers: The Effect of Document Properties and Collaboration Patterns. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0120495. [Google Scholar]
- Van Noorden, R. Open access: The true cost of science publishing. Nature 2013, 495, 426–429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
Medical Specialty | Most Cited Articles (n = 640) | Most Downloaded Articles (n = 662) | Most Mentioned Articles (n = 652) | p Value |
---|---|---|---|---|
Health care | 258 (40.3) ‡ | 185 (27.9) | 163 (25.0) | <0.0001 |
Hematology/oncology | 47 (7.3) | 40 (6.0) | 34 (5.1) | 0.3 |
Endocrinology | 46 (7.2) | 40 (6.0) | 44 (6.7) | 0.7 |
Neuroscience | 38 (5.9) | 71 (10.7) † | 77 (11.8) † | 0.0007 |
Infection | 38 (5.9) | 35 (5.3) | 36 (5.5) | 0.9 |
Cardiology | 29 (4.5) | 49 (7.4) † | 32 (4.9) | <0.05 |
Pulmonology | 17 (2.7) | 14 (2.1) | 14 (2.1) | 0.8 |
Pain medicine | 12 (1.9) | 25 (3.8) † | 28 (4.3) † | 0.04 |
Gastroenterology/hepatology | 14 (2.1) | 29 (4.4) * | 15 (2.3) | 0.03 |
Miscellaneous | 141 (22.0) | 174 (26.3) | 209 (32.1) § | 0.0002 |
Publication Type | Most Cited Articles (n = 640) | Most Downloaded Articles (n = 662) | Most Mentioned Articles (n = 652) | p Value |
---|---|---|---|---|
Original article | 344 (53.8) † | 232 (35.0) | 449 (68.9) ‡ | <0.0001 |
Review | 191 (29.8) § | 249 (37.6) ǁ | 122 (18.7) | <0.0001 |
Case report | 7 (1.1) | 56 (8.5) ǁ | 27 (4.1) ¶ | <0.0001 |
Guideline/consensus statement | 9 (1.4) | 29 (4.4) ǁ | 3 (0.5) | <0.0001 |
Editorial/commentary | 47 (7.3) § | 41 (6.2) | 27 (4.1) | <0.05 |
Systematic review/meta-analysis | 36 (5.6) § | 31 (4.7) | 18 (2.8) | 0.04 |
Others * | 6 (0.9) | 24 (3.6) ǁ | 6 (0.9) | 0.0002 |
Country/Region | Most Cited Articles (n = 640) | Most Downloaded Articles (n = 662) | Most Mentioned Articles (n = 652) | p Value |
---|---|---|---|---|
United States | 223 (34.8) | 244 (36.9) | 229 (35.1) | 0.7 |
United Kingdom * | 104 (16.3) | 104 (15.7) | 116 (17.8) | 0.6 |
Canada | 61 (9.5) | 64 (9.7) | 59 (9.0) | 0.9 |
China † | 39 (6.1) | 36 (5.4) | 36 (5.5) | 0.9 |
Turkey | 17 (2.7) | 29 (4.4) | 28 (4.3) | 0.2 |
Korea | 27 (4.2) | 22 (3.3) | 24 (3.7) | 0.7 |
Nigeria | 24 (3.8) | 21 (3.2) | 19 (2.9) | 0.7 |
The Netherlands | 17 (2.7) | 12 (1.8) | 14 (2.1) | 0.6 |
India | 10 (1.6) | 13 (2.0) | 16 (2.5) | 0.5 |
Belgium | 13 (2.0) | 12 (1.8) | 10 (1.5) | 0.8 |
Taiwan | 11 (1.7) | 9 (1.4) | 15 (2.3) | 0.4 |
Sweden | 8 (1.3) | 10 (1.5) | 11 (1.7) | 0.8 |
Australia | 14 (2.2) ‡ | 2 (0.3) | 6 (0.9) | 0.005 |
Others | 72 (11.3) | 84 (12.7) | 69 (10.6) | 0.5 |
Publication Information | Most Cited Articles (n = 640) | Most Downloaded Articles (n = 662) | Most Mentioned Articles (n = 652) | p Value |
---|---|---|---|---|
Publication Year | ||||
−2010 | 332 (51.9) * | 154 (23.3) † | 113 (17.3) | <0.0001 |
2011−2012 | 88 (13.8) | 76 (11.5) | 69 (10.6) | 0.2 |
2013−2014 | 79 (12.3) | 76 (11.5) | 116 (17.8) ‡ | 0.002 |
2015−2016 | 121 (18.9) | 132 (19.9) | 176 (27.0) ‡ | 0.0006 |
2017−2018 | 20 (3.1) | 224 (33.8) § | 178 (27.3) ǁ | <0.0001 |
Accessibility | 0.01 | |||
Open access | 473 (73.9) | 465 (70.2) | 505 (77.5) ¶ | |
Pay-for-access | 167 (26.1) | 197 (29.8) | 147 (22.5) |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Hong, J.H.; Yoon, D.Y.; Lim, K.J.; Moon, J.Y.; Baek, S.; Seo, Y.L.; Yun, E.J. Characteristics of the Most Cited, Most Downloaded, and Most Mentioned Articles in General Medical Journals: A Comparative Bibliometric Analysis. Healthcare 2020, 8, 492. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare8040492
Hong JH, Yoon DY, Lim KJ, Moon JY, Baek S, Seo YL, Yun EJ. Characteristics of the Most Cited, Most Downloaded, and Most Mentioned Articles in General Medical Journals: A Comparative Bibliometric Analysis. Healthcare. 2020; 8(4):492. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare8040492
Chicago/Turabian StyleHong, Ji Hyun, Dae Young Yoon, Kyoung Ja Lim, Ji Yoon Moon, Sora Baek, Young Lan Seo, and Eun Joo Yun. 2020. "Characteristics of the Most Cited, Most Downloaded, and Most Mentioned Articles in General Medical Journals: A Comparative Bibliometric Analysis" Healthcare 8, no. 4: 492. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare8040492
APA StyleHong, J. H., Yoon, D. Y., Lim, K. J., Moon, J. Y., Baek, S., Seo, Y. L., & Yun, E. J. (2020). Characteristics of the Most Cited, Most Downloaded, and Most Mentioned Articles in General Medical Journals: A Comparative Bibliometric Analysis. Healthcare, 8(4), 492. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare8040492