IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v126y2021i10d10.1007_s11192-021-04129-0.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Hot topics in anaesthesia: a bibliometric analysis of five high-impact journals from 2010–2019

Author

Listed:
  • S. G. Grace

    (Royal Brisbane and Women’s Hospital, Brisbane and the University of Queensland)

  • F. S. S. Wiepking

    (Royal Brisbane and Women’s Hospital, Brisbane and the University of Queensland)

  • A. A. J. van Zundert

    (Royal Brisbane and Women’s Hospital, Brisbane and the University of Queensland)

Abstract

Publication of research in anaesthesia is increasingly competitive. Understanding what topics of research are more likely to be published and where, is clearly valuable for authors seeking to optimise reach and impact of their work. This study aimed to identify the relative proportion of anaesthesia articles by topic for five anaesthesia journals over a 10-year period from 2010 to 2019, including any differences between journals and regions. We chose five anaesthesia journals based on current impact factor. All journal issues published between 2010–2019 were checked for total number of articles with only original research articles being further categorised by topic, country of research, funding status and citation count. Of 5782 original research articles analysed, the most frequent article topics published were translational studies (16%) and clinical practice (16%). Obstetric anaesthesia was the least frequent published (4%). Translational studies were the most frequently funded (84%) while articles on paediatric anaesthesia were least frequently funded (29%). The average number of citations per funded article was 37 versus 28 for non-funded articles. Translational studies were the most frequently published topic of research conducted in North America (25%) and Asia (25%), but of only average frequency in Europe (9%). Studies in obstetric and paediatric anaesthesia are less well-represented in anaesthesia literature and researchers may experience greater difficulty publishing these topics and obtaining funding accordingly. Authors should be aware of the diverse publishing tendencies of the different journals in anaesthesia in order to save time and effort when submitting research for publication.

Suggested Citation

  • S. G. Grace & F. S. S. Wiepking & A. A. J. van Zundert, 2021. "Hot topics in anaesthesia: a bibliometric analysis of five high-impact journals from 2010–2019," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(10), pages 8749-8759, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:126:y:2021:i:10:d:10.1007_s11192-021-04129-0
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-021-04129-0
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-021-04129-0
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11192-021-04129-0?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Nicola Lacetera & Lorenzo Zirulia, 2011. "The Economics of Scientific Misconduct," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 27(3), pages 568-603.
    2. Brendan Maher & Miquel Sureda Anfres, 2016. "Young scientists under pressure: what the data show," Nature, Nature, vol. 538(7626), pages 444-444, October.
    3. Éric Archambault & Vincent Larivière, 2009. "History of the journal impact factor: Contingencies and consequences," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 79(3), pages 635-649, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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.
    1. Daniel Torres-Salinas & Nicolás Robinson-García & Álvaro Cabezas-Clavijo & Evaristo Jiménez-Contreras, 2014. "Analyzing the citation characteristics of books: edited books, book series and publisher types in the book citation index," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 98(3), pages 2113-2127, March.
    2. Hussinger, Katrin & Pellens, Maikel, 2019. "Guilt by association: How scientific misconduct harms prior collaborators," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(2), pages 516-530.
    3. Mueller-Langer, Frank & Andreoli-Versbach, Patrick, 2018. "Open access to research data: Strategic delay and the ambiguous welfare effects of mandatory data disclosure," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 20-34.
    4. Ying Guo & Xiantao Xiao, 2022. "Author-level altmetrics for the evaluation of Chinese scholars," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(2), pages 973-990, February.
    5. Yaxue Ma & Zhichao Ba & Yuxiang Zhao & Jin Mao & Gang Li, 2021. "Understanding and predicting the dissemination of scientific papers on social media: a two-step simultaneous equation modeling–artificial neural network approach," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(8), pages 7051-7085, August.
    6. Jerome K. Vanclay, 2012. "Impact factor: outdated artefact or stepping-stone to journal certification?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 92(2), pages 211-238, August.
    7. Hashem Dezhbakhsh & Paul Rubin, 2011. "From the 'econometrics of capital punishment' to the 'capital punishment' of econometrics: on the use and abuse of sensitivity analysis," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 43(25), pages 3655-3670.
    8. Giovanni Abramo & Ciriaco Andrea D’Angelo & Flavia Costa, 2023. "Correlating article citedness and journal impact: an empirical investigation by field on a large-scale dataset," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(3), pages 1877-1894, March.
    9. Nino Fonseca & Marcelino Sánchez-Rivero, 2020. "Significance bias in the tourism-led growth literature," Tourism Economics, , vol. 26(1), pages 137-154, February.
    10. Henry Sauermann & Michael Roach, 2011. "Not All Scientists pay to be Scientists:," DRUID Working Papers 11-03, DRUID, Copenhagen Business School, Department of Industrial Economics and Strategy/Aalborg University, Department of Business Studies.
    11. Tingcan Ma & Gui-Fang Wang & Ke Dong & Mukun Cao, 2012. "The Journal’s Integrated Impact Index: a new indicator for journal evaluation," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 90(2), pages 649-658, February.
    12. Andreoli-Versbach, Patrick & Mueller-Langer, Frank, 2014. "Open access to data: An ideal professed but not practised," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(9), pages 1621-1633.
    13. Benedikt Fecher & Mathis Fräßdorf & Gert G. Wagner, 2016. "Perceptions and Practices of Replication by Social and Behavioral Scientists: Making Replications a Mandatory Element of Curricula Would Be Useful," Discussion Papers of DIW Berlin 1572, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research.
    14. Haeussler, Carolin & Sauermann, Henry, 2013. "Credit where credit is due? The impact of project contributions and social factors on authorship and inventorship," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(3), pages 688-703.
    15. Zaggl, Michael A., 2017. "Manipulation of explicit reputation in innovation and knowledge exchange communities: The example of referencing in science," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(5), pages 970-983.
    16. Kiri, Bralind & Lacetera, Nicola & Zirulia, Lorenzo, 2018. "Above a swamp: A theory of high-quality scientific production," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(5), pages 827-839.
    17. Xindi Wang & Zeshui Xu & Xinxin Wang & Marinko Skare, 2022. "A review of inflation from 1906 to 2022: a comprehensive analysis of inflation studies from a global perspective," Oeconomia Copernicana, Institute of Economic Research, vol. 13(3), pages 595-631, September.
    18. Azoulay, Pierre & Bonatti, Alessandro & Krieger, Joshua L., 2017. "The career effects of scandal: Evidence from scientific retractions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(9), pages 1552-1569.
    19. Emma Bilbrey & Natalie O'Dell & Jonathan Creamer, 2014. "A Novel Rubric for Rating the Quality of Retraction Notices," Publications, MDPI, vol. 2(1), pages 1-13, January.
    20. Aderemi Oluyinka Adewumi & Peter Ayokunle Popoola, 2018. "A multi-objective particle swarm optimization for the submission decision process," International Journal of System Assurance Engineering and Management, Springer;The Society for Reliability, Engineering Quality and Operations Management (SREQOM),India, and Division of Operation and Maintenance, Lulea University of Technology, Sweden, vol. 9(1), pages 98-110, February.

    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:spr:scient:v:126:y:2021:i:10:d:10.1007_s11192-021-04129-0. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.