The most 100 cited papers in addiction research on cannabis, heroin, cocaine and psychostimulants. A bibliometric cross-sectional analysis

Valderrama‐Zurián, Juan Carlos; Cañigral, Francisco J. Bueno; Castelló‐Cogollos, Lourdes; Aleixandre-Benavent, Rafaél

doi:10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2021.108616

Cited by 8 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 38 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In a recent analysis of the 100 most cited publications focused on drug use and addiction, Zurián et al (2021) note that only a few publications provide most of the citations. They note that an ongoing challenge is the concentration of publications from the U.S. and the intersection of institutions, funding agencies, and individual authors.…”

Section: Ethics and Variances In Cannabis Research Pre/post Legalizationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…They note that an ongoing challenge is the concentration of publications from the U.S. and the intersection of institutions, funding agencies, and individual authors. In their analysis, the most cited articles were associated with funding institutions including the National Institute on Drug Abuse, the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, and the National Institute of Mental Health (Zurián et al, 2021). Other funding agencies, including the Medical Research Council and the Wellcome Trust, both from the UK, were also referenced.…”

Section: Ethics and Variances In Cannabis Research Pre/post Legalizationmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Cannabis, research ethics, and a duty of care

Wheeldon

Heidt

2023

Research Ethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite growing evidence to the contrary, researchers continue to posit causal links between cannabis, crime, psychosis, and violence. These spurious connections are rooted in history and fueled decades of structural limitations that shaped how researchers studied cannabis. Until recently, research in this area was explicitly funded to link cannabis use and harm and ignore any potential benefits. Post-prohibition cannabis research has failed to replicate the dire findings of the past. This article outlines how the history of controlling cannabis research has led to various harms, injustices, and ethical complications. We compare commonly cited research from both the prohibition and post-prohibition eras and argue that many popular claims about the dangers of cannabis are the result of ethical lapses by researchers, journals, and funders. We propose researchers in this area adopt a duty of care in cannabis research going forward. This would oblige individual researchers to establish robust research designs, employ careful analytic strategies, and acknowledge limitations in more detail. This duty involves the institutional recognition by funders, journals, and others that cannabis research has been deliberately misconstrued to criminalize, stigmatize, and pathologize.

show abstract

Section: Ethics and Variances In Cannabis Research Pre/post Legalizationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Ethics and Variances In Cannabis Research Pre/post Legalizationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cannabis, research ethics, and a duty of care

Wheeldon

Heidt

2023

Research Ethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Web of Science (WoS), PubMed and Google Scholar are popular choices for this goal, as researchers can easily perform keyword searches, sort by the number of citations and then further characterize the most influential papers (defined as the highest citation). Citation counting as a means to track influential hypotheses has been used in the neurosciences to examine the TBI, 17–19 neurorehabilitation, 20 neurosurgery, 21 and addiction 22 literatures. Citation counting is quite useful for efficiently highlighting influential papers, researchers, journals, and institutions, identifying common research practices, and differentiating popular research topics from areas that require further investigation.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Establishing ground truth in the traumatic brain injury literature: if replication is the answer, then what are the questions?

Priestley

Staph

Koneru

et al. 2022

Brain Communications

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The replication crisis poses important challenges to modern science. Central to this challenge is re-establishing ground truths, or the most fundamental theories that serve as the bedrock to a scientific community. However, the goal to identify hypotheses with the greatest support is non-trivial given the unprecedented rate of scientific publishing. In this era of high-volume science, the goal of this study is to sample from one research community within clinical neuroscience (traumatic brain injury) and track major trends that have shaped this literature over the past 50 years. To do so, we first conduct decade-wise (1980-2019) network analysis to examine the scientific communities that shape this literature. To establish the robustness of our findings, we utilized searches from separate search engines (Web of Science; Semantic Scholar). As a second goal, we sought to determine the most highly cited hypotheses influencing the literature in each decade. In a third goal, we then searched for any papers referring to “replication” or efforts to reproduce findings within our >50,000 paper dataset. From this search, 550 papers were analyzed to determine the frequency and nature of formal replication studies over time. Finally, to maximize transparency, we provide a detailed procedure for the creation and analysis of our dataset, including a discussion of each of our major decision points, to facilitate similar efforts in other areas of neuroscience. We found that the unparalleled rate of scientific publishing within the brain injury literature combined with the scarcity of clear hypotheses in individual publications are a challenge to both evaluating accepted findings and determining paths forward to accelerate science. Additionally, while the conversation about reproducibility has increased over the past decade, the rate of published replication studies continues to be a negligible proportion of the research. Meta-science and computational methods offer the critical opportunity to assess the state of the science and illuminate pathways forward, but ultimately there is structural change needed in the brain injury literature and perhaps others.

show abstract

“…Web of Science, PubMed, and Google Scholar are popular choices for this goal, as researchers can easily perform keyword searches, sort by number of citations, and then further characterize the most influential papers (defined as highest citation). Citation counting as a means to track influential hypotheses has been used in the neurosciences to examine the TBI, [16][17][18] neurorehabilitation, 19 neurosurgery, 20 and addiction 21 literatures. Citation counting is quite useful for efficiently highlighting influential papers, researchers, journals, and institutions, identifying common research practices, and differentiating popular research topics from areas that require further investigation.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Establishing ground truth in the clinical neurosciences: if replication is the answer, then what are the questions?

Priestley¹,

Staph²,

Koneru³

et al. 2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The replication crisis poses important challenges to modern science. Central to this challenge is re-establishing ground truths, or the most fundamental theories that serve as the bedrock to a scientific community. However, the goal to identify hypotheses with the greatest support is nontrivial given the current unprecedented rate of scientific publishing. In this era of high-volume science, the goal of this study is to sample from one research community within clinical neuroscience (traumatic brain injury; TBI) and track major trends that have shaped this literature over the past 50 years. To do so, we first conduct decade-wise (1980-2019) network analysis to examine the scientific communities that shape this literature. To establish the robustness of our network findings, we utilized searches from separate search engines (Web of Science; Semantic Scholar). As a second goal, we sought to determine the most highly cited hypotheses influencing the literature in each decade. In a third goal, we then searched for any papers referring to “replication” or efforts to reproduce findings within our >50,000 paper dataset. From this search, 550 papers were analyzed to determine the frequency and nature of formal replication studies over time. Finally, to maximize transparency, we provide a detailed procedure for the creation and analysis of our dataset, including a discussion of each of our major decision points, to facilitate similar efforts in other areas of neuroscience. We found that the unparalleled rate of scientific publishing within the TBI literature combined with the scarcity of clear hypotheses in individual publications are a challenge to both evaluating accepted findings and determining future directions. Additionally, while the conversation about reproducibility has increased over the past decade, the rate of published replication studies continues to be a negligible proportion of the research. Meta-science and computational methods offer the critical opportunity to assess the state of the science and illuminate pathways forward, but ultimately there is structural change needed in the TBI literature and perhapsothers.

show abstract

The most 100 cited papers in addiction research on cannabis, heroin, cocaine and psychostimulants. A bibliometric cross-sectional analysis

Cited by 8 publications

References 38 publications

Cannabis, research ethics, and a duty of care

Cannabis, research ethics, and a duty of care

Establishing ground truth in the traumatic brain injury literature: if replication is the answer, then what are the questions?

Establishing ground truth in the clinical neurosciences: if replication is the answer, then what are the questions?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About