RESUMEN

To evaluate the impact of copublication on hypertension-related clinical practice guidelines' citation, we searched the Web of Science Core Collection and guide.medlive.cn until 31 December 2017 using the terms "hypertension" and "guideline". The copublished group was matched with the noncopublished group at a 1:2 ratio. Primary outcomes were total citations and citations within the first five years after publication. Secondary outcomes included the adjusted impact factor ratio (excluding copublished guidelines) to the actual impact factor of the journal. Altmetric scores were compared using Altmetric explorer data. 21 copublished and 42 noncopublished guidelines were included. The copublished group had higher median current total citations [387.0 (90.0, 1806.0) vs 70.5 (23.25, 158.25)], and higher median citations at one, two, three, four, and five years [7.0 (0.5, 58.5) vs 1.0 (0.0, 5.5), 33.0 (14.0, 142.0) vs 5.5 (1.75, 26.25), 46.0 (24.5, 216.0) vs 10.5 (3, 25.75), 50.0 (19.0, 229.0) vs 9.0 (3.0, 19.0), 52.0 (13.5, 147.0) vs 7.0 (2.0, 20.0), all p < 0.05]. The adjusted IF analysis showed that if they had not copublished the guidelines, 10 of 24 and 11 of 24 journals would have had a lower IF in the first and second years. Median altmetric scores were significantly higher for copublished guidelines [38.5 (9.5, 90.5) vs 3.5 (1.0, 9.0)] (p < 0.05). Copublication is associated with a higher citation frequency of hypertension guidelines and may increase the journal IF. Positive impacts extend beyond academia, benefiting society through broader guideline application and dissemination. This facilitates broader application of guidelines and promotes their dissemination. We conducted a retrospective cohort study to demonstrate how copublication promotes the dissemination of hypertension guidelines.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: To evaluate the number of citations for Cochrane Methodology Reviews after they have been updated or co-published in another journal, and the effect of co-publishing the review on the co-publishing journal's impact factor (IF). METHODS: We identified all Cochrane Methodology Reviews published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) before 2018 and searched for co-published versions in the Web of Science Core Collection database up to 16 August 2022. The included reviews were in two cohorts: those that had been published and updated in CDSR and those that had been published in CDSR and co-published in another journal. The primary outcome measured the citation number to updated and original reviews in the first five years after publication of the updated review, and assessed the citation number of co-published and non-co-published reviews in the first five years after publication of the co-published version. The secondary outcome was the ratio of an adjusted IF and the actual IF of the co-publishing journal. RESULTS: Eight updated and six original reviews were identified for the updated cohort of reviews, and four co-published reviews were included in the co-published cohort. The original reviews continued to be cited after the update was published but the median for the total number of citations was non-significantly higher for the updated reviews than for their original version[161 (Interquartile range (IQR) 85, 198) versus 113 (IQR 15, 433)]. The median number of total citations [362 (IQR 179, 840) versus 145 (IQR 75, 445)] and the median number of citations to the review in the first five years after co-publication combined and in each of those years was higher in the co-published group than in the non-co-published group. One of the three journals that co-published Reviews in the first year and two journals in the second year had a lower IF after co-publication. CONCLUSIONS: Earlier versions of Cochrane Methodology Reviews continue to be cited after an update is published, which raises doubts about whether those citing are using the most recent evidence or are aware of the update. Co-publication facilitates broader application and dissemination of Cochrane methodology evidence.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the impact of copublication on the citation of Cochrane evidence. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: This was a retrospective cohort study including Cochrane reviews published up to 31 December 2015 and their citing up to 11 July 2021, identified from the Web of Science Core Collection database. RESULTS: A total of 101 copublished and 202 noncopublished Cochrane reviews were included. The median for the total number of citations and the medians for the numbers of citations to the Cochrane review in the first, second, third, and fifth years after publication in the copublished group were higher than those in the noncopublished group [71 (interquartile range {IQR}: 37.5, 118.5) vs. 32.5 (13, 67); 1 (0, 3) vs. 0 (0, 1); 6 (3, 11.5) vs. 2 (1, 5); 8 (4, 15) vs. 3.5 (1, 8); 8 (4, 15) vs. 3 (1, 9), respectively, all P < 0.001]. Copublication of Cochrane reviews meant that 4 of 21 journals and 6 of 22 journals had a higher impact factor in the first and the second year after the copublication than they would have had without the copublication. CONCLUSION: Copublication is associated with a higher citation frequency of Cochrane reviews and may increase the impact factor of the journal in which it is copublished. This facilitates broader application of Cochrane evidence and promotes its dissemination.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Scientific collaboration within a science team (unit, group, etc.) has been under scrutiny. Recently, science of team science has emerged to use science for deep understanding of the ways researchers jointly perform science to increase their team's performance. This article analyses internal scientific outputs with respect to the size of university's science team. The objective is to examine the science policy motive that is, if the team size increases, by encouraging academics to gather in larger teams, then their outputs increase. The method of the contrapositive of this conditional statement is adopted. Thus, 120 accredited teams, composed of about 1500 academics in four universities in Morocco, were analyzed using a cross-matrix of members' co-publications, an intra-collaboration index, Lorenz curve of both internal co-publications and sole-publications, with respect to team's size. Our findings show that internal co-publications and sole ones are higher for small size teams and that the Lorenz distributions of these two indicators are unequal in favor of small size teams. We discuss the implications of our findings for science policy, beyond size, such as the output- instead of input-based perspective to form a team, time requirement to build a collaborative team, inter- and intra-disciplinarity oriented research, team directorship, etc.

RESUMEN

Identifying the genes and proteins associated with a biological process or disease is a central goal of the biomedical research enterprise. However, relatively few systematic approaches are available that provide objective evaluation of the genes or proteins known to be important to a research topic, and hence researchers often rely on subjective evaluation of domain experts and laborious manual literature review. Computational bibliometric analysis, in conjunction with text mining and data curation, attempts to automate this process and return prioritized proteins in any given research topic. We describe here a method to identify and rank protein-topic relationships by calculating the semantic similarity between a protein and a query term in the biomerical literature while adjusting for the impact and immediacy of associated research articles. We term the calculated metric the weighted copublication distance (WCD) and show that it compares well to related approaches in predicting benchmark protein lists in multiple biological processes. We used WCD to extract prioritized "popular proteins" across multiple cell types, subanatomical regions, and standardized vocabularies containing over 20 000 human disease terms. The collection of protein-disease associations across the resulting human "diseasome" supports data analytical workflows to perform reverse protein-to-disease queries and functional annotation of experimental protein lists. We envision that the described improvement to the popular proteins strategy will be useful for annotating protein lists and guiding method development efforts as well as generating new hypotheses on understudied disease proteins using bibliometric information.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Networks that represent connections between individuals can be valuable analytic tools. The Social Network Cytoscape app is capable of creating a visual summary of connected individuals automatically. It does this by representing relationships as networks where each node denotes an individual and an edge linking two individuals represents a connection. The app focuses on creating visual summaries of individuals connected by co-authorship links in academia, created from bibliographic databases like PubMed, Scopus and InCites. The resulting co-authorship networks can be visualized and analyzed to better understand collaborative research networks or to communicate the extent of collaboration and publication productivity among a group of researchers, like in a grant application or departmental review report. It can also be useful as a research tool to identify important research topics, researchers and papers in a subject area.