ArticleNaunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology2025
Authorship analysis of publications in Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's Archives of Pharmacology (1969-2024).
Article in Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- A bibliometric study of the most-cited research articles and reviews in Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's Archives of Pharmacology (1969-2024).Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology · 2026Article
- Country-specific citation disparities in Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's Archives of Pharmacology from 2001 to 2024.Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's Archives of Pharmacology (NSAP) is the world's oldest journal in the field of pharmacology. Approximately fourteen bibliometric studies published by NSAP have examined its scholarly trajectory and role in pharmacology. However, no study has yet thoroughly analyzed author contributions throughout the journal's recent history. This study addresses the gap by analyzing all publications in NSAP from 1969-onward using data retrieved from the Scopus database. The dataset included bibliographic information such as titles, author names, affiliations, years of publication, and document types. During this period, NSAP published 13,422 documents-comprising 12,687 original articles and 735 reviews-with an annual publication growth rate of 2.74% and an average document age of 31.2 years. These publications received 252,490 citations, yielding an average of 18.81 citations per document. The top three most productive authors (based on number of publications) were Starke, K. (143 publications), Göthert, M. (106), and Seifert, R. (101). This ranking was consistent across three independent tools-VOSviewer, R Studio, and Scopus-reinforcing the accuracy of manual verification. A total of 14 authors were identified with at least 50 publications each. For this select group, detailed performance indicators were calculated. These indicators allowed for a multi-dimensional evaluation of author performance beyond simple publication counts. Precisely, we provided number of publications, total citations, citations per publication, h-index, g-index, m-index, HG composite index, Q2 index, and year of first publication for the 50 authors. In fact, the publication data for 23,476 authors are presented in supplementary Table 1 along with the stated indicators. This study highlights the extent of author involvement with NSAP and emphasizes the importance of using various tools and measures to gain a fuller understanding of academic productivity.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40387930What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.