Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31858259›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie2020

Publication integrity in orthopaedic journals: the self-citation in orthopaedic research (SCOR) threshold.

Kavin Sundaram, Jared Warren, Hiba K Anis, Alison K Klika, Nicolas S Piuzzi

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Kavin SundaramDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Cleveland Clinic, 9500 Euclid Ave/A41, Cleveland, OH, 44195, USA.
Jared WarrenDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Cleveland Clinic, 9500 Euclid Ave/A41, Cleveland, OH, 44195, USA.
Hiba K AnisDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Cleveland Clinic, 9500 Euclid Ave/A41, Cleveland, OH, 44195, USA.
Alison K KlikaDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Cleveland Clinic, 9500 Euclid Ave/A41, Cleveland, OH, 44195, USA.
Nicolas S PiuzziDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Cleveland Clinic, 9500 Euclid Ave/A41, Cleveland, OH, 44195, USA. piuzzin@ccf.org.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3007-7538

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe impact factor (IF) is the most commonly used bibliometric method for rating academic journals. However, the practice of journals' self-citation may artificially elevate the IF. Additional bibliometric methods including Eigenfactor scale, SCImago Journal Ranking (SJR), and corrected IF (cIF) have been created. Comparing general-interest and specialized orthopaedic journals, the aims of this study were to assess: (1) the effect of journal´s self-citation on IF; (2) differences in bibliometric analysis; and (3) to determine thresholds for monitoring self-citation practices by defining the self-citation in orthopaedic research (SCOR) Threshold.

methodsThe journal citation reports and SCImago Journal and Country Rank databases were queried for orthopaedic journals from 1997 to 2017. The following bibliometrics were compared between general-interest and specialized journals: IF, cIF, Eigenfactor, self-citation rates, and SJR. A novel metric, the cIF ratio, was proposed to represent the relationship between a journal's IF and cIF. Thresholds for cIF were based on statistical outliers of cIF ratio within general-interest and specialized journals were calculated. Outliers were defined as data points that were greater than the third quartile by 1.5 times the interquartile range using the last 10 years studied (2007-2017).

resultsSpecialized orthopaedic journals had a higher median self-citation rates compared to general-interest journals (11.85% vs. 6.36%, p < 0.001). Overall, cIF ratio declined over study period, and general-interest journals had a lower cIF ratio than specialized journals (8.77% vs. 19.54%, p < 0.001). Overall, general-interest journals had more favourable values for the bibliometric indices studied compared to specialized journals The SCOR threshold for cIF ratio was determined as 25.4% for general-interest journals and 53.3% for specialized journals.

conclusionOverall, self-citation occurs at a higher rate in specialized versus general-interest orthopaedic journals. We propose the use of a cIF ratio along with the SCOR threshold as a tool to evaluate and monitor journal self-citation practices in orthopaedic research.

Indexed as

Biomedical ResearchJournal Impact FactorOrthopedicsPeriodicals as TopicPublishingBibliometricsEthics, ProfessionalHumansBibliometricsEthicsJournal Impact factorOrthopedicsPublishingSelf-citation

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.