Skip to main content
Erschienen in:

07.05.2018 | Radiological Education

The most downloaded and most cited articles in radiology journals: a comparative bibliometric analysis

verfasst von: Sora Baek, Dae Young Yoon, Kyoung Ja Lim, Young Kwon Cho, Young Lan Seo, Eun Joo Yun

Erschienen in: European Radiology | Ausgabe 11/2018

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Objectives

To evaluate and compare the characteristics of the most downloaded and most cited articles in radiology journals.

Methods

We selected 41 radiology journals that provided lists of both the most downloaded and most cited articles on their websites, and identified the 596 most downloaded articles and 596 most cited articles. We compared the following characteristics of the most downloaded and most cited articles: year of publication, journal title, department of the first author, country of origin, publication type, radiologic subspecialty, radiologic technique and accessibility.

Results

Compared to the most cited articles, the most downloaded articles were more frequently review articles (36.1% vs 17.1%, p < 0.05), case reports (5.9% vs 3.2%, p < 0.05), guidelines/consensus statements (5.4% vs 2.7%, p < 0.05), editorials/commentaries (3.7% vs 0.7%, p < 0.05) and pictorial essays (2.0% vs 0.2%, p < 0.05). Compared to the most cited articles, the most downloaded articles more frequently originated from the UK (8.7% vs 5.0%, p < 0.05) and were more frequently free-access articles (46.0% vs 39.4%, p < 0.05).

Conclusion

Educational and free-access articles are more frequent among the most downloaded articles.

Key Points

• There was only small overlap between the most downloaded and most cited articles.
• Educational articles were more frequent among the most downloaded articles.
• Free-access articles are more frequent among the most downloaded articles.
Anhänge
Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich
Literatur
1.
Zurück zum Zitat Lawrence S (2001) Free online availability substantially increases a paper's impact. Nature 411:521CrossRef Lawrence S (2001) Free online availability substantially increases a paper's impact. Nature 411:521CrossRef
2.
Zurück zum Zitat Choudhri AF, Siddiqui A, Khan NR, Cohen HL (2015) Understanding bibliometric parameters and analysis. Radiographics 35:736–746CrossRef Choudhri AF, Siddiqui A, Khan NR, Cohen HL (2015) Understanding bibliometric parameters and analysis. Radiographics 35:736–746CrossRef
3.
Zurück zum Zitat Garfield E (1972) Citation analysis as a tool in journal evaluation. Science 471–479CrossRef Garfield E (1972) Citation analysis as a tool in journal evaluation. Science 471–479CrossRef
4.
Zurück zum Zitat Yoon DY, Yun EJ, Ku YJ et al (2013) Citation classics in radiology journals: the 100 top-cited articles, 1945-2012. AJR Am J Roentgenol 201:471–481CrossRef Yoon DY, Yun EJ, Ku YJ et al (2013) Citation classics in radiology journals: the 100 top-cited articles, 1945-2012. AJR Am J Roentgenol 201:471–481CrossRef
5.
Zurück zum Zitat Brinjikji W, Klunder A, Kallmes DF (2013) The 100 most-cited articles in the imaging literature. Radiology 269:272–276CrossRef Brinjikji W, Klunder A, Kallmes DF (2013) The 100 most-cited articles in the imaging literature. Radiology 269:272–276CrossRef
6.
Zurück zum Zitat Pagni M, Khan NR, Cohen HL, Choudhri AF (2014) Highly cited works in radiology: the top 100 cited articles in radiologic journals. Acad Radiol 21:1056–1066CrossRef Pagni M, Khan NR, Cohen HL, Choudhri AF (2014) Highly cited works in radiology: the top 100 cited articles in radiologic journals. Acad Radiol 21:1056–1066CrossRef
7.
Zurück zum Zitat Brennan PA, Habib A (2011) What are we reading? A study of downloaded and cited articles from the British Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery in 2010. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 49:527–531CrossRef Brennan PA, Habib A (2011) What are we reading? A study of downloaded and cited articles from the British Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery in 2010. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 49:527–531CrossRef
8.
Zurück zum Zitat Eyre-Walker A, Stoletzki N (2013) The assessment of science: the relative merits of post-publication review, the impact factor, and the number of citations. PLoS Biol 11:e1001675CrossRef Eyre-Walker A, Stoletzki N (2013) The assessment of science: the relative merits of post-publication review, the impact factor, and the number of citations. PLoS Biol 11:e1001675CrossRef
9.
Zurück zum Zitat Campbell FM (1990) National bias: a comparison of citation practices by health professionals. Bull Med Libr Assoc 78:376–382PubMedPubMedCentral Campbell FM (1990) National bias: a comparison of citation practices by health professionals. Bull Med Libr Assoc 78:376–382PubMedPubMedCentral
10.
Zurück zum Zitat Lim KJ, Yoon DY, Yun EJ et al (2012) Characteristics and trends of radiology research: a survey of original articles published in AJR and Radiology between 2001 and 2010. Radiology 264:796–802CrossRef Lim KJ, Yoon DY, Yun EJ et al (2012) Characteristics and trends of radiology research: a survey of original articles published in AJR and Radiology between 2001 and 2010. Radiology 264:796–802CrossRef
11.
Zurück zum Zitat Eysenbach G (2006) Citation advantage of open access articles. PLoS Biol 4:e157CrossRef Eysenbach G (2006) Citation advantage of open access articles. PLoS Biol 4:e157CrossRef
12.
Zurück zum Zitat Hua F, Sun H, Walsh T, Glenny AM, Worthington H (2017) Open access to journal articles in oncology: current situation and citation impact. Ann Oncol 28:2612–2617CrossRef Hua F, Sun H, Walsh T, Glenny AM, Worthington H (2017) Open access to journal articles in oncology: current situation and citation impact. Ann Oncol 28:2612–2617CrossRef
13.
Zurück zum Zitat Werner Marx HS, Wanitschek M (2001) Citation analysis using online databases: Feasibilities and shortcomings. Scientometrics 52:59–82CrossRef Werner Marx HS, Wanitschek M (2001) Citation analysis using online databases: Feasibilities and shortcomings. Scientometrics 52:59–82CrossRef
14.
Zurück zum Zitat 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 287:2847–2850CrossRef 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 287:2847–2850CrossRef
Metadaten
Titel
The most downloaded and most cited articles in radiology journals: a comparative bibliometric analysis
verfasst von
Sora Baek
Dae Young Yoon
Kyoung Ja Lim
Young Kwon Cho
Young Lan Seo
Eun Joo Yun
Publikationsdatum
07.05.2018
Verlag
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Erschienen in
European Radiology / Ausgabe 11/2018
Print ISSN: 0938-7994
Elektronische ISSN: 1432-1084
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-018-5423-1

Neu im Fachgebiet Radiologie

KI-gestütztes Mammografiescreening überzeugt im Praxistest

Mit dem Einsatz künstlicher Intelligenz lässt sich die Detektionsrate im Mammografiescreening offenbar deutlich steigern. Mehr unnötige Zusatzuntersuchungen sind laut der Studie aus Deutschland nicht zu befürchten.

Stumme Schlaganfälle − ein häufiger Nebenbefund im Kopf-CT?

In 4% der in der Notfallambulanz initiierten zerebralen Bildgebung sind „alte“ Schlaganfälle zu erkennen. Gar nicht so selten handelt es sich laut einer aktuellen Studie dabei um unbemerkte Insulte. Bietet sich hier womöglich die Chance auf ein effektives opportunistisches Screening?

Die elektronische Patientenakte kommt: Das sollten Sie jetzt wissen

Am 15. Januar geht die „ePA für alle“ zunächst in den Modellregionen an den Start. Doch schon bald soll sie in allen Praxen zum Einsatz kommen. Was ist jetzt zu tun? Was müssen Sie wissen? Wir geben in einem FAQ Antworten auf 21 Fragen.

Stören weiße Wände und viel Licht die Bildqualitätskontrolle?

Wenn es darum geht, die technische Qualität eines Mammogramms zu beurteilen, könnten graue Wandfarbe und reduzierte Beleuchtung im Bildgebungsraum von Vorteil sein. Darauf deuten zumindest Ergebnisse einer kleinen Studie hin. 

Update Radiologie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.