Analysis of 100 most cited articles on forensic odontology

Abstract

Objectives Bibliometric analysis of best-cited papers brings awareness about the influential publications and trends in the literature on a particular topic. This will help not only the researchers and academicians but also the students for selecting quality landmark articles. With this view in mind a bibliometric analysis was performed to identify the 100 top-cited papers on Forensic Odontology (FO) in the literature. Materials and methods A search was performed using Scopus database in August 2019. The articles were further reviewed and basic standard information related to bibliometric analysis was recorded. Results The 100 most cited articles were published from 1985 to 2014 (77% published after 2001). The most frequently cited article received 259 citations, whereas the least received 31 (mean citations 58.78 ± 33.14). There were 16 different journals with Forensic Science International having the most number of articles (n = 36). One author had 16 articles while 8 authors had 4 or more articles published in the top 100 list. Belgium was the country with most number of articles (n = 17) followed by United States (n = 16). In terms of document type, 87 were original research, 7 conference papers and 6 reviews. Five organizations funded 5 of the top 100 articles. Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Belgium affiliated the most documents (n = 16). Majority of the papers were related to age estimation (46) followed by victim identification (30), mass disaster (9), bite mark analysis (8), sex determination (5), race determination (4), dental DNA analysis (3), palatal rugae pattern (2) and lip prints (1). Conclusion This is first of its kind citation analysis of the 100 most cited articles in the field of FO. The results of this paper will help the researchers, academicians and students for appropriate article referrals.

Top 100 cited systematic reviews and meta-analyses in the major journals of oral and maxillofacial surgery: a bibliometric analysis

“…Although the eld of OMFS is very wide, with diverse conditions and treatments, the main nding of this citation analysis indicates that there were only 7 systematic reviews that reached to 100 citations in the eld of OMFS, among the included journals. This is in line with previous studies indicating that less 10% of the published articles reaches up to the status of classic articles [15][16][17].…”

“…One interesting factor is that the top ranked systematic reviews are all published after the year 2010, however not surprising since only 14 out of the 100 top cited were published in the decade 2000-2010. One common criticism on citation analysis reports is that the outcome is affected by the impact of time [15]. This was, however, not the case in this report on the eld of OMFS.…”

Top 100 cited systematic reviews and meta-analyses in the major journals of oral and maxillofacial surgery : a bibliometric analysis

“…Although the field of OMFS is very wide, with diverse conditions and treatments, the main finding of this citation analysis indicates that there were only 7 systematic reviews that reached to 100 citations in the field of OMFS, among the included journals. This is in line with previous studies indicating that less 10% of the published articles reaches up to the status of classic articles 14-16 .…”

“…One interesting factor is that the top ranked systematic reviews are all published after the year 2010, however not surprising since only 14 out of the 100 top cited were published in the decade 2000-2010. One common criticism on citation analysis reports is that the outcome is affected by the impact of time 14 . This was, however, not the case in this report on the field of OMFS.…”

Top 100 Cited Publications in the Field of Temporomandibular Disorders: A Bibliometric Analysis

“…It was not surprising that the majority of the top cited studies were published between the years of 2007 and 2011 since it has been shown that studies are cited just sparingly with few citations in the first years, followed by a peak of citations just before a study-age of 10 years [ 18 ]. Although the outcome of bibliometric analyses of this kind are criticized for being affected by the impact of time [ 19 ], this is not the case in this study since the bulk of most cited papers are from the years 2007 to 2018 and not from 2000 to 2006.…”