Skip to main content
Top
Published in: European Radiology 11/2018

01-11-2018 | Radiological Education

The most downloaded and most cited articles in radiology journals: a comparative bibliometric analysis

Authors: Sora Baek, Dae Young Yoon, Kyoung Ja Lim, Young Kwon Cho, Young Lan Seo, Eun Joo Yun

Published in: European Radiology | Issue 11/2018

Login to get access

Abstract

Objectives

To evaluate and compare the characteristics of the most downloaded and most cited articles in radiology journals.

Methods

We selected 41 radiology journals that provided lists of both the most downloaded and most cited articles on their websites, and identified the 596 most downloaded articles and 596 most cited articles. We compared the following characteristics of the most downloaded and most cited articles: year of publication, journal title, department of the first author, country of origin, publication type, radiologic subspecialty, radiologic technique and accessibility.

Results

Compared to the most cited articles, the most downloaded articles were more frequently review articles (36.1% vs 17.1%, p < 0.05), case reports (5.9% vs 3.2%, p < 0.05), guidelines/consensus statements (5.4% vs 2.7%, p < 0.05), editorials/commentaries (3.7% vs 0.7%, p < 0.05) and pictorial essays (2.0% vs 0.2%, p < 0.05). Compared to the most cited articles, the most downloaded articles more frequently originated from the UK (8.7% vs 5.0%, p < 0.05) and were more frequently free-access articles (46.0% vs 39.4%, p < 0.05).

Conclusion

Educational and free-access articles are more frequent among the most downloaded articles.

Key Points

• There was only small overlap between the most downloaded and most cited articles.
• Educational articles were more frequent among the most downloaded articles.
• Free-access articles are more frequent among the most downloaded articles.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference Lawrence S (2001) Free online availability substantially increases a paper's impact. Nature 411:521CrossRef Lawrence S (2001) Free online availability substantially increases a paper's impact. Nature 411:521CrossRef
2.
go back to reference Choudhri AF, Siddiqui A, Khan NR, Cohen HL (2015) Understanding bibliometric parameters and analysis. Radiographics 35:736–746CrossRef Choudhri AF, Siddiqui A, Khan NR, Cohen HL (2015) Understanding bibliometric parameters and analysis. Radiographics 35:736–746CrossRef
3.
go back to reference Garfield E (1972) Citation analysis as a tool in journal evaluation. Science 471–479CrossRef Garfield E (1972) Citation analysis as a tool in journal evaluation. Science 471–479CrossRef
4.
go back to reference Yoon DY, Yun EJ, Ku YJ et al (2013) Citation classics in radiology journals: the 100 top-cited articles, 1945-2012. AJR Am J Roentgenol 201:471–481CrossRef Yoon DY, Yun EJ, Ku YJ et al (2013) Citation classics in radiology journals: the 100 top-cited articles, 1945-2012. AJR Am J Roentgenol 201:471–481CrossRef
5.
go back to reference Brinjikji W, Klunder A, Kallmes DF (2013) The 100 most-cited articles in the imaging literature. Radiology 269:272–276CrossRef Brinjikji W, Klunder A, Kallmes DF (2013) The 100 most-cited articles in the imaging literature. Radiology 269:272–276CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Pagni M, Khan NR, Cohen HL, Choudhri AF (2014) Highly cited works in radiology: the top 100 cited articles in radiologic journals. Acad Radiol 21:1056–1066CrossRef Pagni M, Khan NR, Cohen HL, Choudhri AF (2014) Highly cited works in radiology: the top 100 cited articles in radiologic journals. Acad Radiol 21:1056–1066CrossRef
7.
go back to reference Brennan PA, Habib A (2011) What are we reading? A study of downloaded and cited articles from the British Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery in 2010. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 49:527–531CrossRef Brennan PA, Habib A (2011) What are we reading? A study of downloaded and cited articles from the British Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery in 2010. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 49:527–531CrossRef
8.
go back to reference Eyre-Walker A, Stoletzki N (2013) The assessment of science: the relative merits of post-publication review, the impact factor, and the number of citations. PLoS Biol 11:e1001675CrossRef Eyre-Walker A, Stoletzki N (2013) The assessment of science: the relative merits of post-publication review, the impact factor, and the number of citations. PLoS Biol 11:e1001675CrossRef
9.
go back to reference Campbell FM (1990) National bias: a comparison of citation practices by health professionals. Bull Med Libr Assoc 78:376–382PubMedPubMedCentral Campbell FM (1990) National bias: a comparison of citation practices by health professionals. Bull Med Libr Assoc 78:376–382PubMedPubMedCentral
10.
go back to reference Lim KJ, Yoon DY, Yun EJ et al (2012) Characteristics and trends of radiology research: a survey of original articles published in AJR and Radiology between 2001 and 2010. Radiology 264:796–802CrossRef Lim KJ, Yoon DY, Yun EJ et al (2012) Characteristics and trends of radiology research: a survey of original articles published in AJR and Radiology between 2001 and 2010. Radiology 264:796–802CrossRef
11.
go back to reference Eysenbach G (2006) Citation advantage of open access articles. PLoS Biol 4:e157CrossRef Eysenbach G (2006) Citation advantage of open access articles. PLoS Biol 4:e157CrossRef
12.
go back to reference Hua F, Sun H, Walsh T, Glenny AM, Worthington H (2017) Open access to journal articles in oncology: current situation and citation impact. Ann Oncol 28:2612–2617CrossRef Hua F, Sun H, Walsh T, Glenny AM, Worthington H (2017) Open access to journal articles in oncology: current situation and citation impact. Ann Oncol 28:2612–2617CrossRef
13.
go back to reference Werner Marx HS, Wanitschek M (2001) Citation analysis using online databases: Feasibilities and shortcomings. Scientometrics 52:59–82CrossRef Werner Marx HS, Wanitschek M (2001) Citation analysis using online databases: Feasibilities and shortcomings. Scientometrics 52:59–82CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Callaham M, Wears RL, Weber E (2002) Journal prestige, publication bias, and other characteristics associated with citation of published studies in peer-reviewed journals. JAMA 287:2847–2850CrossRef Callaham M, Wears RL, Weber E (2002) Journal prestige, publication bias, and other characteristics associated with citation of published studies in peer-reviewed journals. JAMA 287:2847–2850CrossRef
Metadata
Title
The most downloaded and most cited articles in radiology journals: a comparative bibliometric analysis
Authors
Sora Baek
Dae Young Yoon
Kyoung Ja Lim
Young Kwon Cho
Young Lan Seo
Eun Joo Yun
Publication date
01-11-2018
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
European Radiology / Issue 11/2018
Print ISSN: 0938-7994
Electronic ISSN: 1432-1084
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-018-5423-1

Other articles of this Issue 11/2018

European Radiology 11/2018 Go to the issue