Fifty most cited Turkish Orthopedics and Traumatology articles in international literature: A bibliometric analysis

AbstractAim: The aim of this study is to identify the 50 most cited Turkish papers in international Orthopedic literature and analyze them to define the subconscious scientific behaviors of Turkish Orthopedic surgeons and the contributive characteristics of Turkish Orthopedic surgeons for the science at the last four decade.Material and Methods: WoS Core Collection was searched for the Turkish Orthopedic articles between 1980 and 2019 in all fields with pre-defined terms. Data including the number citations, age of the article, subcategories, number of authors, journals names, impact factors and publishers, institution names, numbers and categories, Level of Evidence (LoE) and article language were collected. A correlation analysis (Pearson for parametric and Spearman for nonparametric values) was performedbetween the impact factors and citation numbers (C), and also citation rates (C/R). A chi-square test was performed between citation numbers and levels of evidence. A value of p < 0.05 was considered to be statistically significant.Results: All of the 50 articles were original articles that were written in English. The citation counts were between 164 and 44. The article ages were between 27(C:60, C/R: 2.22/yr) and 2(C: 50, C/R: 25/yr). Tweenty-three different journals were found in the analysis. The mean level of evidence (LoE) was found 3. 84% of the papers were studied in a University hospital.Conclusion: This bibliometric study showed no statistically significant correlation between the data analyzed. On the other hand, this study also revealed once again that there was no correlation between citation numbers and journal impact factors as expected. Additionally, this study also showed that Turkish Orthopedic scientists are getting citations independent of journal impact factors.

PDF

___

1. Cheek J, Garnham B, Quan J. What’s in a number? Issues in providing evidence of impact and quality of research(ers). Qual Health Res 2006;16:423-35.
2. Garfield E. Citation analysis as a tool in journal evaluation. Science 1972;178:471-9.
3. Rupp M, Anastasopoulou L, Wintermeyer E, et al. Predatory journals: a major threat in Orthopedic research. Int Orthop 2019; 43:509-17.
4. Sun J, Guo Y, Scarlat MM, et al. Bibliometric study of the Orthopaedic publications from China. Int Orthop 2018; 42:461-8.
5. Aznar J, Guerrero E. Analysis of the h-index and proposal of a new bibliometric index: the global index. Rev Clin Esp 2011;211:251-6.
6. Dodson MV. Citation analysis: Maintenance of h-index and use of e-index. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 2009; 387:625-6.
7. Lefaivre KA, Shadgan B, O’Brian PJ. 100 most cited articles in Orthopaedic surgery. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2010;469:1487-97.
8. Berebichez-Fridman R, Berebichez-Fastlicht E. The 50 most cited articles in orthopaedics and traumatology by Mexican authors. Acta Ortop Mex 2018;32:214-24.
9. Piolanti N, Nesti A, Andreani L, et al. The fifty most cited Italian articles in the Orthoapedic literature. Musculoskelet Surg 2015; 99:105-11.
10. Erivan R, Villatte G, Ollivier M, et al. The top 100 most-cited Orthoapedics & Traumatology: Surgery & Research articles. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 2019.
11. Dokur M, Uysal E. Top 100 cited articles in traumatology: A bibliometric analysis. Ulus Travma Acil Cer 2018;24:294-302.
12. Abramo G, Cicero T, D’Angelo CA. Are the authors of highly cited articles also the most productive ones? J Informetr 2014;8:89-97.
13. Brookes BC. Bradford’s law and the bibliography of science. Nature 1969; 224:953-6.
14. Nielsen MB. Impact Factors and Prediction of Popular Topics in a Journal. Ultraschall Med 2016;37:341-3.