Journal of General Internal Medicine

, Volume 34, Issue 12, pp 2695–2696 | Cite as

Uncitedness in the Top General Medical Journals

  • M. Hossein Nowroozzadeh
  • Mohammad Salehi-MarzijaraniEmail author
Concise Research Reports

Uncited research has received much attention due to its extent and impact on scholarship.1 It has been claimed that articles without a single citation do not have any constructive effect on future research and might be a waste of resources.1 Thus, the percent of uncited articles in any given journal could be considered as a measure of abundance of low-impact articles within that journal, very much like the impact factor (IF) that serves as an index of average impact of all published papers in a given journal.


We investigated rate of uncitedness in five high-impact journals: the Annals of Internal Medicine (AIM), the British Medical Journal (BMJ), the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), the Lancet, and the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM). Using Web of Science (WOS),2 we calculated the rate of uncitedness in the aforementioned journals in 1990, 2000, 2010, and 2015. To compare, we also assessed the uncitedness for all general medical journals.





The authors wish to thank Mr. H. Argasi at the Research Consultation Center (RCC) of Shiraz University of Medical Sciences for his invaluable assistance in editing this manuscript.

Authors’ Contribution

The authors contributed equally according to the ICMJE authorship criteria.

Data Availability

The datasets of the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they do not have a conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

Not applicable

Informed Consent

Not applicable


  1. 1.
    Van Noorden R. The science that’s never been cited. Nature. 2017;552(7684):162–4. doi: CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    2017 Journal Impact Factor, Journal Citation Reports (Clarivate Analytics, 2018).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Nowroozzadeh MH. Bibliometrics: Database differences not citation errors. Nature. 2013;503(7476):342. doi: CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Plana NM, Massie JP, Bekisz JM, Spore S, Diaz-Siso JR, Flores RL. Variations in databases used to assess academic output and citation impact. N. Engl. J. Med. 2017;376(25):2489–91. doi: CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of General Internal Medicine 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. Hossein Nowroozzadeh
    • 1
  • Mohammad Salehi-Marzijarani
    • 2
    Email author
  1. 1.Poostchi Ophthalmology Research CenterShiraz University of Medical SciencesShirazIran
  2. 2.Department of Biostatistics Shiraz University of Medical SciencesShirazIran

Personalised recommendations