Global productivity of dermatological research: a bibliometric analysis from 1985 to 2014

Chen, S.‐Y.; Wu, Junhong

doi:10.1111/bjd.14802

Cited by 12 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…As with our previous bibliometric studies ( 7 , 28 ), the whole counting method ( 29 ), in which each co-author and publication were counted once, were used in this study. For the counting of research field, there were a total of 236 subject fields in the 2018 JCR, and each article in the SCIE database would be assigned to at least one subject field.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Academic Publication of Anesthesiology From a Bibliographic Perspective From 1999 to 2018: Comparative Analysis Using Subject-Field Dataset and Department Dataset

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Publication activity in the field of anesthesiology informs decisions that enhance academic advancement. Most previous bibliometric studies on anesthesiology examined data limited to journals focused on anesthesiology rather than data answerable to authors in anesthesia departments. This study comprehensively explored publication trends in the field of anesthesiology and their impact. We hypothesized that anesthesiology's bibliometric scene would differ based on whether articles in the same study period were published in anesthesiology-focused journals or were produced by authors in anesthesia departments but published in non-specialty journals.Methods: This cross-sectional study used bibliometric data from the Science Citation Index Expanded database between 1999 and 2018. Two datasets were assembled. The first dataset was a subject-dataset (articles published in 31 journals in the anesthesiology category of InCites Journal Citation Reports in 2018); the second dataset was the department-dataset (articles published in the Science Citation Index Expanded by authors in anesthesia departments). We captured the bibliographical record of each article in both datasets and noted each article's Institute for Scientific Information code, publication year, title, abstract, author addresses, subject category, and references for further study.Results: A total of 69,593 articles were published—cited 1,497,932 times—in the subject-dataset; a total of 167,501 articles were published—cited 3,731,540 times—in the department-dataset. The results demonstrate differences between the two datasets. First, the number of articles was stagnant, with little growth (average annual growth rate = 0.31%) in the subject-dataset; whereas there was stable growth (average annual growth rate = 4.50%) in articles in the department-dataset. Second, only 30.4% of anesthesia department articles were published in anesthesiology journals. Third, journals related to “pain” had the lowest department-subject ratio, which was attributable to a large portion of non-anesthesia department researchers' participation in related research.Conclusions: This study showed that articles published in anesthesiology-focused and non-specialty journals demonstrate fundamentally different trends. Thus, it not only helps researchers develop a more comprehensive understanding of the current publication status and trends in anesthesiology, but also provides a basis for national academic organizations to frame relevant anesthesiology development policies and rationalize resource allocation.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Academic Publication of Anesthesiology From a Bibliographic Perspective From 1999 to 2018: Comparative Analysis Using Subject-Field Dataset and Department Dataset

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Dermatoloji alanında farklı ülkelerin bilimsel üretkenliğini değerlendiren yayınlar olmasına rağmen, ülkemizin dermatoloji alanında bilimsel üretkenliğine dair 1999-2008 yıllarını değerlendiren bir çalışma dışında bir veri bulunmamaktadır (10)(11)(12)(13)(14)(15).…”

Section: Introductionunclassified

A 5-year Evaluation of the Publications Made in the Field of Dermatology in Turkey

Salman¹

2018

tdd

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: Retrospective evaluation of scientific productivity is a guideline for the development of future studies in the planning and quality aspects. There is only one study evaluating the scientific productivity of our country in the field of dermatology. For this reason, in this study, it was aimed to evaluate from the point of quantity and quality of dermatology publications made in our country between 2012-2016 years. Methods: All publications, registered in Index Medicus between January 1, 2012 and December 31, 2016 were searched using the keywords "dermatology, Turkey" and evaluated accordingly years, topics and publication type. Web of Science database was used to evaluate citation numbers. Results: The total number of publications, research and other publication types made in the field of dermatology in our country increased every year during the dates covered by the study. However, it was observed that the rate of original research among all publications did not increase at the same rate, the number of citations per publication was low compared to other countries, and the number of publications in journals with high impact factor was very low. Conclusion: In addition to the quantitative improvement of publications in the field of dermatology in our country, plans should be made to improve them also in terms of quality.

show abstract

“…Only by addressing the wide range of skin health issues facing the global community of dermatologists can we have the greatest effect on global public health, and only by exposing dermatologists to the full range of international research can we expect to push the limits of knowledge in our field. 2 The rate of high-quality scientific output from across the world continues to increase at a frenetic pace, 3 and exploring new ways in which to rapidly provide access to this research is urgent. By creating a much-needed new avenue for publication for established and budding international researchers and clinicians while innovating in scientific content delivery, JAAD International hopes to have a major effect on both the content and context of international dermatology research, clinical observations, and trials.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The rate of high-quality scientific output from across the world continues to increase at a frenetic pace, 3 and exploring new ways in which to rapidly provide access to this research is urgent. By creating a much-needed new avenue for publication for established and budding international researchers and clinicians while innovating in scientific content delivery, JAAD International hopes to have a major effect on both the content and context of international dermatology research, clinical observations, and trials.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

International dermatology: Patient care, research, and advocacy

Kantor

2020

JAAD International

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Global productivity of dermatological research: a bibliometric analysis from 1985 to 2014

Cited by 12 publications

References 9 publications

Academic Publication of Anesthesiology From a Bibliographic Perspective From 1999 to 2018: Comparative Analysis Using Subject-Field Dataset and Department Dataset

Academic Publication of Anesthesiology From a Bibliographic Perspective From 1999 to 2018: Comparative Analysis Using Subject-Field Dataset and Department Dataset

A 5-year Evaluation of the Publications Made in the Field of Dermatology in Turkey

International dermatology: Patient care, research, and advocacy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About