IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0013902.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Representation of Cancer in the Medical Literature - A Bibliometric Analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Ronan W Glynn
  • Ji Z Chin
  • Michael J Kerin
  • Karl J Sweeney

Abstract

Background: There exists a lack of knowledge regarding the quantity and quality of scientific yield in relation to individual cancer types. We aimed to measure the proportion, quality and relevance of oncology-related articles, and to relate this output to their associated disease burden. By incorporating the impact factor(IF) and Eigenfactor™(EF) into our analysis we also assessed the relationship between these indices and the output under study. Methods: All publications in 2007 were retrieved for the 26 most common cancers. The top 20 journals ranked by IF and EF in general medicine and oncology, and the presence of each malignancy within these titles was analysed. Journals publishing most prolifically on each cancer were identified and their impact assessed. Principal Findings: 63260 (PubMed) and 126845 (WoS) entries were generated, respectively. 26 neoplasms accounted for 25% of total output from the top medical publications. 5 cancers dominated the first quartile of output in the top oncology journals; breast, prostate, lung, and intestinal cancer, and leukaemia. Journals associated with these cancers were associated with much higher IFs and EFs than those journals associated with the other cancer types under study, although these measures were not equivalent across all sub-specialties. In addition, yield on each cancer was related to its disease burden as measured by its incidence and prevalence. Conclusions: Oncology enjoys disproportionate representation in the more prestigious medical journals. 5 cancers dominate yield, although this attention is justified given their associated disease burden. The commonly used IF and the recently introduced EF do not correlate in the assessment of the preeminent oncology journals, nor at the level of individual malignancies; there is a need to delineate between proxy measures of quality and the relevance of output when assessing its merit. These results raise significant questions regarding the best method of assessment of research and scientific output in the field of oncology.

Suggested Citation

  • Ronan W Glynn & Ji Z Chin & Michael J Kerin & Karl J Sweeney, 2010. "Representation of Cancer in the Medical Literature - A Bibliometric Analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 5(11), pages 1-8, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0013902
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0013902
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0013902
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0013902&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0013902?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Frederic Michon & Mark Tummers, 2009. "The Dynamic Interest in Topics within the Biomedical Scientific Community," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 4(8), pages 1-11, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Ze-jun Jia & Bo Hong & Da-ming Chen & Qing-hai Huang & Zhi-gang Yang & Cha Yin & Xiao-qun Deng & Jian-min Liu, 2014. "China's Growing Contribution to Global Intracranial Aneurysm Research (1991–2012): A Bibliometric Study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(3), pages 1-10, March.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.

      More about this item

      Statistics

      Access and download statistics

      Corrections

      All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0013902. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

      If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

      If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

      If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

      For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

      Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

      IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.