Citation versus disruption in the military: Analysis of the top disruptive military trauma research publications

Author:

Dilday Joshua,Gallagher Shea,Bram Ryan,Williams Elliot,Grigorian Areg,Matsushima Kazuhide,Schellenberg Morgan,Inaba Kenji,Martin Matthew

Abstract

BACKGROUND Bibliometric analysis of surgical research has become increasingly prevalent. Citation count (CC) is a commonly used marker of research quality, but may overlook impactful military research. The disruption score (DS) evaluates manuscripts on a spectrum from most innovative with more positive scores (disruptive [DR]) to most entrenched with more negative scores (developmental; DV). We sought to analyze the most DR and DV versus most cited research in military trauma. METHODS Top trauma articles by DS and by CC were identified via professional literature search. All publications in military journals were included. Military trauma-related keywords were used to query additional top surgical journals for military-focused publications. Publications were linked to the iCite NIH tool for CC and related metrics. The top 100 DR and DV publications by DS were analyzed and compared with the top 100 articles by CC. RESULTS Overall, 32,040 articles published between 1954 and 2014 were identified. The average DS and CC were 0.01 and 22, respectively. Most articles were published in Mil Med (68%). The top 100 DR articles were frequently published in Mil Med (51%) with a mean DS of 0.148. Of these, the most cited article was only the 40th most disruptive. The top 100 CC articles averaged a DS of 0.009 and were commonly found in J Trauma (53%). Only five publications were on both the top 100 DR and top 100 CC lists; 19 were on both the top DV and CC lists. Citation count was not correlated with DR (r = −0.134; p = 0.07) and only weakly correlated with DV (r = 0.215; p = 0.003). CONCLUSION DS identifies publications that changed military paradigms and future research directions previously overlooked by citation count alone. The DR and DV articles are distinct with little overlap between highly cited military articles. Multiple bibliometric measures should be employed to avoid overlooking impactful military trauma research. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE Diagnostic Test or Criteria; Level IV.

Publisher

Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)

Subject

Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine,Surgery

Reference21 articles.

1. Computer science. Future science;Science,2013

2. A new bibliometric index: the top 100 most disruptive and developmental publications in colorectal surgery journals;Dis Colon Rectum,2022

3. Publication productivity and academic rank in medicine: a systematic review and meta-analysis;Acad Med,2020

4. Methods for measuring the citations and productivity of scientists across time and discipline;Phys Rev E Stat Nonlinear Soft Matter Phys,2010

5. The slavery of the h-index—measuring the unmeasurable;Front Hum Neurosci,2016

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3