Top

Published in:

01-10-2020 | Editorial

Useful and useless publications measured by bibliometrics and scientometrics in orthopaedic surgery. Are the relevance of a journal and publication metrics useful enough for the scientific promotion of surgeons?

Authors: Andreas F. Mavrogenis, Marco Pećina, Wei Chen, Marius M. Scarlat

Published in: International Orthopaedics | Issue 10/2020

Excerpt

Science is driven by the publication of novel ideas and experiments in peer-reviewed scientific journals and books [1]. To affect clinical practice, research findings need to be important and be presented properly; the data should be integral and transparent [2]. Universities are trusted to know best about research because it is assumed that academics strive for excellence in science. This is evidence, however huge differences in quality between individuals exist, especially in crowded universities. The end result could be average science and mediocrity [3‐7]. One method to guarantee excellence in science is to find, support and allow independent work of scientists in order to promote and validate new ideas. In this way, education and research has the opportunity to stay ahead in the rankings. Yet, in the game of end results citation metrics and notoriety could be biased. …

Rennie D (1998) The present state of medical journals. Lancet 352(Suppl II):18–22CrossRef

Rossner M, Van Epps H, Hill E (2007) Show me the data. J Cell Biol 179(6):1091–1092CrossRef

Binswanger M (2014) Excellence by nonsense: the competition for publications in modern science. In: Bartling S, Friesike S (eds) Opening science – the evolving guide on how the internet is changing research, collaboration and scholarly publishing. Springer Open, pp 49–72

Altbach PG, de Wit H (2018) Too much academic research is being published. 2018 September 7. Available at: https://www.universityworldnews.com/post.php?story=20180905095203579. Accessed 30 Aug 2020

Kolata G (2017) Many academics are eager to publish in worthless journals. 2017 October 30. Available at: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/30/science/predatory-journals-academics.html. Accessed 30 Aug 2020

Matthews D (2018) If you love research, academia may not be for you. 2018 November 8. Available at: https://www.timeshighereducation.com/blog/if-you-love-research-academia-may-not-be-you#survey-answer. Accessed 30 Aug 2020

Scarlat MM, Mauffrey C, Mavrogenis A (2019) Equal access to orthopaedic research funding, databases and scientific publications. Int Orthop 43(10):2205–2207. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-019-04413-yCrossRefPubMed

Garfield E (1955) Citation indexes to science: a new dimension in documentation through association of ideas. Science 1122:108–111CrossRef

Seglen PO (1997) Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research. Br Med J 314:498–502CrossRef

10.

The PLoS Medicine Editors (2006) The impact factor game. It is time to find a better way to assess the scientific literature. PLoS Med 3:e291CrossRef

11.

Mavrogenis AF, Ruggieri P, Papagelopoulos PJ (2010) Self-citation in publishing. Clin Orthop Relat Res 468(10):2803–2807. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-010-1480-8CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

12.

Siebelt M, Siebelt T, Pilot P, Bloem RM, Bhandari M, Poolman RW (2010) Citation analysis of orthopaedic literature; 18 major orthopaedic journals compared for impact factor and SCImago. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 11:4CrossRef

13.

Scarlat MM, Mavrogenis AF, Pećina M, Niculescu M (2015) Impact and alternative metrics for medical publishing: our experience with international Orthopaedics. Int Orthop 39(8):1459–1464. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-015-2766-yCrossRefPubMed

14.

Mavrogenis AF, Quaile A, Pećina M, Scarlat MM (2018) Citations, non-citations and visibility of international Orthopaedics in 2017. Int Orthop 42(11):2499–2505. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-018-4198-yCrossRefPubMed

15.

Hansson S (1995) Impact factor as a misleading tool in evaluation of medical journals. Lancet 346:906CrossRef

16.

Wells WA (2007) The returning tide: how China, the world’s most populous country, is building a competitive research base. J Cell Biol 176:376–401CrossRef

17.

Mavrogenis AF, Panagopoulos GN, Megaloikonomos PD, Panagopoulos VN, Mauffrey C, Quaile A, Scarlat MM (2018) Scientific misconduct (fraud) in medical writing. Orthopedics 41(2):e176–e183CrossRef

18.

Krell FT (2010) Should editors influence journal impact factors? Learned Publishing 23(1):59–62CrossRef

19.

Krell FT (2002) Why impact factors don’t work for taxonomy. Its long-term relevance, few specialists and lack of core journals put it outside ISI criteria. Nature 415:957CrossRef

20.

Steele C, Butler L, Kingsley D (2006) The publishing imperative: the pervasive influence of publication metrics. Learned Publishing 19:277–290CrossRef

21.

Singh KNM, Shetty YC (2017) Data sharing: a viable resource for future. Perspect Clin Res 8(2):63–67. https://doi.org/10.4103/2229-3485.203036CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

22.

Scarlat MM (2017) Bone and joint infection, from prevention to complications. Int Orthop 41(7):1289–1290. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-017-3534-yCrossRefPubMed

23.

Scarlat MM (2019) About Orthopaedic awards, drains, patients’ safety and outcomes. Int Orthop 43(9):2001–2002. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-019-04388-wCrossRefPubMed

24.

Mavrogenis AF, Quaile A, Scarlat MM (2020) The virus crisis affects Orthopaedic surgery and scientific activities worldwide. Int Orthop 44(5):813–817. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-020-04557-2CrossRefPubMed

25.

Scarlat MM, Mavrogenis AF (2020) Orthopaedic surgery during COVID pandemic and consequent changes in our professional environment. Int Orthop 44(9):1607–1609. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-020-04781-wCrossRefPubMed

26.

Romanò CL, Drago L, Del Sel H, Johari A, Lob G, Mavrogenis AF, Benzakour T, World Association against Infection in Orthopedics and Trauma (WAIOT) Study Group On Bone And Joint Infection Definitions (2020) Loud and silent epidemics in the third millennium: tuning-up the volume. Int Orthop 44(6):1019–1022. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-020-04608-8CrossRefPubMed

27.

Scarlat MM, Pećina M, Quaile A (2018) High-volume surgeons and high-volume journals in a multivariate orthopedic environment. Int Orthop 42(9):2011–2014. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-018-4073-xCrossRefPubMed

28.

Scarlat MM, Pećina M (2018) Six thousand papers already: “the outcome of a matter is better than its beginning…”. Int Orthop 42(5):979–981. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-018-3929-4CrossRefPubMed

29.

Sun J, Guo Y, Scarlat MM, Lv G, Yang XG, Hu YC (2018) Bibliometric study of the orthopaedic publications from China. Int Orthop 42(3):461–468. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-018-3828-8CrossRefPubMed

30.

Mavrogenis AF, Megaloikonomos PD, Panagopoulos GN, Mauffrey C, Quaile A, Scarlat MM (2017) Best one hundred papers of international Orthopaedics: a bibliometric analysis. Int Orthop 41(4):689–697. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-016-3376-zCrossRefPubMed

31.

Mavrogenis AF, Megaloikonomos PD, Mauffrey C, Scarlat MM, Simon P, Hasegawa K, Fokter SK, Kehr P (2018) The best cited articles of the European journal of Orthopaedic surgery and traumatology (EJOST): a bibliometric analysis. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 28(4):533–544. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00590-018-2147-5CrossRefPubMed

32.

Flexner A (1939) The usefulness of useless knowledge. Harpers 179:544–552

33.

Collier R (2016) Is most clinical research useless? CMAJ 188(11):790–791CrossRef

34.

Scarlat MM (2018) Quality of publications in “international Orthopaedics” and projects for the near future. Int Orthop 42(12):2735–2736. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-018-4244-9CrossRefPubMed

35.

Mavrogenis AF, Quaile A, Scarlat MM (2016) Attractive papers and accurate English. Int Orthop 40(4):649–651. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-016-3172-9CrossRefPubMed

36.

Waddell JP, Pečina M, Scarlat MM (2017) Imperfection leads to progress. Int Orthop 41(4):669–670. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-017-3440-3CrossRefPubMed

37.

Quaile A, Scarlat MM, Mavrogenis AF, Mauffrey C (2019) International Orthopaedics - instructions for authors, English expression, style and rules. Int Orthop 43(11):2425–2427. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-019-04438-3CrossRefPubMed

38.

Julia Belluz J, Hoffman S (2015) Let’s stop pretending peer review works. 2015 December 7. Available at: https://www.vox.com/2015/12/7/9865086/peer-review-science-problems. Accessed 30 Aug 2020

39.

Blocken B (2017) 10 tips for writing a truly terrible journal article. 2017 January 11. Available at: https://www.elsevier.com/authors-update/story/publishing-tips/10-tips-for-writing-a-truly-terrible-journal-article. Accessed 30 Aug 2020

40.

Shaw C (2013) Hundreds of open access journals accept fake science paper. 2013 October 4. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/higher-education-network/2013/oct/04/open-access-journals-fake-paper. Accessed 30 Aug 2020

41.

Mauffrey C, Scarlat MM, Pećina M (2014) Setting standards for medical writing in orthopaedics. Int Orthop 38(1):1–5. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-013-2189-6CrossRefPubMed

42.

Zazgyva A, Kon E, Mauffrey C, Mavrogenis AF, Scarlat MM (2017) Reviews, reviewers and reviewing. Int Orthop 41(1):1–2CrossRef

43.

Mavrogenis AF, Sun J, Quaile A, Scarlat MM (2019) How to evaluate reviewers – the international orthopedics reviewers score (INOR-RS). Int Orthop 43(8):1773–1777CrossRef

44.

Mavrogenis AF, Quaile A, Scarlat MM (2020) The good, the bad and the rude peer-review. Int Orthop 44(3):413–415. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-020-04504-1CrossRefPubMed

45.

Fröhlich G (2007) Peer Review und Abweisungsraten: Prestigeschmuck wissenschaftlicher Journale. Forschung und Lehre:338–339

46.

Lawrence PA (2003) The politics of publication. Nature 422(6929):259–261. https://doi.org/10.1038/422259aCrossRefPubMed

47.

Scarlat MM (2015) Shoulder surgery. Int Orthop 39(2):213–214. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-014-2645-yCrossRefPubMed

48.

Scarlat MM (2016) Complications and rare cases in orthopaedics. Int Orthop 40(7):1345–1346. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-016-3243-yCrossRefPubMed

49.

Scarlat MM, Hinsenkamp M, Quaile A, Pećina M (2016) International Orthopaedics is 40 years old! Int Orthop 40(8):1563–1569. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-016-3250-zCrossRefPubMed

50.

Fucs PMMB, Scarlat MM (2017) Pediatric Orthopaedics - from Kirschner wires to titanium. Int Orthop 41(12):2429–2431. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-017-3677-xCrossRefPubMed

51.

Goldberg BA, Scarlat MM (2017) No free lunch in orthopedics. Int Orthop 41(10):1963–1964. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-017-3642-8CrossRefPubMed

52.

Scarlat MM (2019) General and specialized Orthopaedics. Int Orthop 43(5):1037–1039. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-019-04333-xCrossRefPubMed

53.

Mavrogenis AF, Scarlat MM (2019) Surgeons and robots. Int Orthop 43(6):1279–1281. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-019-04345-7CrossRefPubMed

Title: Useful and useless publications measured by bibliometrics and scientometrics in orthopaedic surgery. Are the relevance of a journal and publication metrics useful enough for the scientific promotion of surgeons?
Authors: Andreas F. Mavrogenis
Marco Pećina
Wei Chen
Marius M. Scarlat
Publication date: 01-10-2020
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in: International Orthopaedics / Issue 10/2020
Print ISSN: 0341-2695
Electronic ISSN: 1432-5195
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-020-04803-7

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Useful and useless publications measured by bibliometrics and scientometrics in orthopaedic surgery. Are the relevance of a journal and publication metrics useful enough for the scientific promotion of surgeons?

Excerpt

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Excerpt

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 10/2020

Flexor tendon repair with amniotic membrane

Risk factors of venous thromboembolism in patients with benign and malignant musculoskeletal tumors: a dual database analysis

Does cognitive behavioral education reduce pain and improve joint function in patients after total knee arthroplasty? A randomized controlled trial

The Asclepian art of medicine and surgery

Coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic: should we delay cartilage regenerative procedures and accept the consequences, or can we find a new normality?

A modified all-inside arthroscopic remnant-preserving technique of lateral ankle ligament reconstruction: medium-term clinical and radiologic results comparable with open reconstruction