European Orthopaedics and Traumatology

, Volume 4, Issue 3, pp 125–130 | Cite as

Association of scientific and nonscientific factors to citation rates of articles of renowned orthopedic journals

Original Article

Abstract

Purpose

The physician often relies on the prestige of a journal to identify the most relevant articles to be read in his field. This investigation studied associations of scientific and nonscientific criteria with the citation frequency of articles in two top-ranked international orthopedic journals.

Methods

The 100 most (mean, 88 citations/5 years for cases) and 100 least (mean, two citations/5 years for controls) cited articles published between 2000 and 2004 in the Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery and the Bone & Joint Journal (formerly known as JBJS (Br)), two of the most distributed general orthopedic journals, were identified. The association of scientific and nonscientific factors on their citation rate was quantified.

Results

Randomized controlled trials, as well as multicenter studies with large sample sizes, were significantly more frequent in the high citation rate group. The unadjusted odds of a highly cited article to be supported by industry were 2.8 (95 % confidence interval 1.5, 5.6; p < 0.05) if compared with a lowly cited article.

Conclusion

Beside scientific factors, nonscientific factors such as industrial support seem associated to the citation rate of published articles. This, together with publication bias, questions whether scientific facts reach the readers in a balanced fashion.

Level of Evidence 3

Keywords

Nonscientific factors Citation rates Orthopedic journals Industry 

References

  1. 1.
    Neuberger J, Counsell C (2002) Impact factors: uses and abuses. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 14(3):209–211PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Rieder S, Bruse CS, Michalski CW, Kleeff J, Friess H The impact factor ranking—a challenge for scientists and publishers. Langenbecks Arch Surg 395 Suppl 1:69–73. doi:10.1007/s00423-010-0623-4Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bhandari M, Busse J, Devereaux PJ, Montori VM, Swiontkowski M, Tornetta Iii P, Einhorn TA, Khera V, Schemitsch EH (2007) Factors associated with citation rates in the orthopedic literature. Can J Surg 50(2):119–123PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kurmis AP (2003) Understanding the limitations of the journal impact factor. J Bone Joint Surg Am 85-A(12):2449–2454PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Garfield E (1999) Journal impact factor: a brief review. CMAJ 161(8):979–980PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Garfield E (1996) How can impact factors be improved? BMJ 313(7054):411–413PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Walsh EF, Weinstein JN (1998) Spine: scientific citation index and its impact factor. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 23(10):1087–1090CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Leimu R, Koricheva J (2005) What determines the citation frequency of ecological papers. Trends Ecol Evol 20(1):28–32PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Saper CB (1999) What's in a citation impact factor? A journal by any other measure. J Comp Neurol 411(1):1–2PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Nieminen P, Carpenter J, Rucker G, Schumacher M (2006) The relationship between quality of research and citation frequency. BMC Med Res Methodol 6:42PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Figg WD, Dunn L, Liewehr DJ, Steinberg SM, Thurman PW, Barrett JC, Birkinshaw J (2006) Scientific collaboration results in higher citation rates of published articles. Pharmacotherapy 26(6):759–767. doi:10.1592/phco.26.6.759 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Filion KB, Pless IB (2008) Factors related to the frequency of citation of epidemiologic publications. Epidemiol Perspect Innov 5:3PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kulkarni AV, Busse JW, Shams I (2007) Characteristics associated with citation rate of the medical literature. PLoS One 2(5):e403. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0000403 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    MacCallum CJ, Parthasarathy H (2006) Open access increases citation rate. PLoS Biol 4 (5):e176. Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Piwowar HA, Day RS, Fridsma DB (2007) Sharing detailed research data is associated with increased citation rate. PLoS One 2(3):e308PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Habibzadeh F, Yadollahie M Are shorter article titles more attractive for citations? Cross-sectional study of 22 scientific journals. Croat Med J 51 (2):165–170 Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    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(21):2847–2850PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Patsopoulos NA, Analatos AA, Ioannidis JP (2005) Relative citation impact of various study designs in the health sciences. JAMA 293(19):2362–2366PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Elsevier (2013) Scopus. www.scopus.com/home. Accessed 31 Aug 2010
  20. 20.
    Kulkarni AV, Aziz B, Shams I, Busse JW (2009) Comparisons of citations in web of science, scopus, and google scholar for articles published in general medical journals. JAMA 302(10):1092–1096PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Garrett WE Jr, Swiontkowski MF, Weinstein JN, Callaghan J, Rosier RN, Berry DJ, Harrast J, Derosa GP (2006) American board of orthopaedic surgery practice of the orthopaedic surgeon: part-ii, certification examination case mix. J Bone Joint Surg Am 88(3):660–667PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Angell M (2008) Industry-sponsored clinical research: a broken system. JAMA 300(9):1069–1071PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hopewell S, Clarke M (2003) How important is the size of a reprint order? Int J Technol Assess Health Care 19(4):711–714PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lundh A, Barbateskovic M, Hrobjartsson A, Gotzsche PC (2010) Conflicts of interest at medical journals: the influence of industry-supported randomised trials on journal impact factors and revenue—cohort study. PLoS Med 7(10):e1000354PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Leopold SS, Warme WJ, Fritz Braunlich E, Shott S (2003) Association between funding source and study outcome in orthopaedic research. Clin Orthop Relat Res 415:293–301PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Okike K, Kocher MS, Mehlman CT, Bhandari M (2008) Industry-sponsored research. Injury 39(6):666–680PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Sarmiento A (2003) The relationship between orthopaedics and industry must be reformed. Clin Orthop Relat Res 412:38–44PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Shah RV, Albert TJ, Bruegel-Sanchez V, Vaccaro AR, Hilibrand AS, Grauer JN (2005) Industry support and correlation to study outcome for papers published in spine. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 30(9):1099–1104, discussion 1105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Als-Nielsen B, Chen W, Gluud C, Kjaergard LL (2003) Association of funding and conclusions in randomized drug trials: a reflection of treatment effect or adverse events? JAMA 290(7):921–928. doi:10.1001/jama.290.7.921 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© EFORT 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mazda Farshad
    • 1
  • Claudia Sidler
    • 1
  • Christian Gerber
    • 1
  1. 1.Balgrist University Hospital, University of ZürichZürichSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations