Citation classics in pediatrics: a bibliometric analysis
- 165 Downloads
Citation analysis provides insights into the history and developmental trajectory of scientific fields. Our objective was to perform an analysis of citation classics in the journals of pediatric specialty and to examine their characteristics.
Initially, all the journals listed under the category of pediatrics (n = 120) were identified using Journal Citation Reports. Web of science database was then searched (1950–2016) to select the top-100 cited articles in the above identified pediatric journals. The top-100 cited article were categorized according the study design, sub-specialty, country, institutional affiliation, and language.
The top-100 articles were published in 18 different journals, with Pediatrics having the highest numbers (n = 40), followed by The Journal of Pediatrics (n = 17). The majority (n = 62) of classics were published after 1990. The most cited article had citation count of 3516 and the least cited had a citation count of 593. The USA (n = 71) was the most commonly represented country, and 60 institutions contributed to 100 articles. Fifteen authors contributed to more than one classic as first or second author. Observational study (n = 55) was the commonest study design across all decades, followed by reviews (n = 12), scale development studies (n = 11), and guidelines (n = 11). Among the pediatric sub-specialties, growth and development articles were highly cited (n = 24), followed by pediatric psychiatry and behavior (n = 21), endocrinology (n = 15), and neonatology (n = 12).
The top-100 cited articles in pediatrics identify the impactful authors, journals, institutes, and countries. Observational study design was predominant—implying that inclusion among citation classics is not related to soundness of study design.
KeywordsBibliometrics Citation analysis Citation count Publishing/trends Scientometrics
VC contributed to the study conceptualization and design, acquisition, analysis and interpretation of data, and prepared the first draft of the manuscript. ST contributed to the study conceptualization and design, and acquisition, analysis and interpretation of data. BD contributed to the acquisition, analysis and interpretation of data. SKK contributed to the acquisition, analysis and interpretation of data. All authors approved the final version of the manuscript.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
No financial or nonfinancial benefits have been received or will be received from any party related directly or indirectly to the subject of this article.
- 3.Garfield E. What is a citation classic? http://garfield.library.upenn.edu/. Accessed Jan 5 2017.
- 4.Garfield E. Introducing citation classics: the human side of scientific reports. Curr Contents. 1977;1:5–7.Google Scholar
- 23.Definition of classic in English. https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/classic. Accessed 5 Jan 2017.
- 26.Merton RK. Social theory and social structure. New York: Free Press; 1968. p. 25–38.Google Scholar
- 29.Garfield E. Bradford’s law and related statistical patterns. Essays Inf Sci. 1980;4:476–83.Google Scholar
- 31.Garfield E. The significant scientific literature appears in a small core of journals. Scientist. 1996;10:14–6.Google Scholar
- 32.Garfield E. Do Nobel prize winners write citation classics? Essays Inf Sci. 1986;9:182–7.Google Scholar
- 37.Merton RK. On the shoulders of giants: a shandean postscript: the post-Italianate edition. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press; 1993.Google Scholar