Determinants of impact factor and <scp>E</scp>igenfactor score in otolaryngology journals

Ali, Ayad; Phillips, Katie; Sedaghat, Ahmad R.

doi:10.1002/lio2.1018

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 40 publications

(133 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…That being said, the journals studied were selected to be representative of the Otolaryngology literature at large, being inclusive of all subspecialties and general Otolaryngology practice. Moreover, emphasis was placed on selecting journals with high impact factors and national Otolaryngology association sponsored journals to ensure that a the breath of specialty publications were studied (23,24). This allowed the publications of authors across nations to be studied.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Published randomized controlled trials in Otolaryngology: 2016-2020

McNeely,

Heffernan,

Lee

et al. 2024

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Importance: To provide a current evaluation of bibliometric trends in the Otolaryngology literature focused on randomized controlled trials (RCTs). RCTs hold an important role in research as bias controlled assessments of clinical interventions. Objective: The purpose of this study is to evaluate the proportion of published RCTs in the Otolaryngology literature. Design: Quality Improvement scoping bibliometric review. Setting: Published articles in eight Otolaryngology journals from January 1, 2016 - December 31, 2020. Main Outcomes and Measures: Included articles were categorized as a RCT, secondary research, other clinical research, case report, primary basic science, or other study type. Additionally, studies were categorized as American, Canadian, British, or other international origin according to the corresponding author’s institutional address. The proportion of published RCTs were compared by national origin and to an earlier bibliometric analysis investigating Otolaryngology journal publications from 2008-2012 using Pearson’s Chi-Squared testing with Bonferroni correction. Results: A total of 6797 articles were reviewed and included for analysis. There was a significant difference in the proportion of RCTs published by national origin, 1.3% USA, 2.2% Canada, 2.7% UK, 3.4% other (p < 0.01). There was a significant decrease in the proportion of RCTs published from 2008-12 to 2016-2020 (3.1% vs. 2.3% respectively, p < 0.01). Conclusions: Although the current study analyzed only a select sample of all Otolaryngology research output, this study suggests that North American researchers are publishing less RCTs than researchers in other countries. Moreover, RCTs are declining as a proportion of the published Otolaryngology literature over time, which is a threat to the evidence base for current and future Otolaryngological practice.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%