ArticleOrthodontics & craniofacial research2026
Authorial Influence in Orthodontic Scholarship: A Comparative Analysis of Authors Impact Across Three Leading Orthodontic Journals.
Article in Orthodontics & craniofacial research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo perform an authorship-focused bibliometric analysis of highly cited authors who published in the American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopaedics (AJODO), Angle Orthodontist (AO), and European Journal of Orthodontics (EJO). Furthermore, to evaluate the effect of journal type on bibliometric indices, and identify predictors of total citations.
methodsA bibliometric analysis using Dimensions Analytics and Scopus (inception-April 2025) identified authors with > 100 citations who published in the AJODO, AO, and the EJO. Extracted data included author-level metrics (total citations, citations per document, publication count, h-index, field-weighted citation impact (FWCI), collaboration, number of coauthors) and regional and institutional information. Descriptive statistics, regression analysis, and variable importance analysis were performed.
resultsAuthors with > 100 citations were common in AO (n = 230), followed by AJODO (n = 133) and EJO (n = 68). Compared with AJODO, authors publishing in AO and EJO had significantly lower total citations (incidence rate ratio (IRR) 0.52 and 0.57, p < 0.001), citations per document (0.52 and 0.54, p < 0.001), number of publications (0.47 and 0.51, p < 0.001), h-index (coefficients -15 and -18, p < 0.001), and number of coauthors (IRR 0.38 and 0.46, p < 0.001). No significant differences were observed between journals for collaboration or FWCI. Citations by documents and h-index were the strongest predictors of citation counts.
conclusionsAlthough most highly cited authors were from AO, AJODO authors had higher citations, publications, and h-index. Authorial influence is multidimensional, and robust evaluation requires a combination of citation metrics, productivity measures, and context-specific assessments.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.