Skip to main content
main-content
Top

Tip

Swipe om te navigeren naar een ander artikel

Gepubliceerd in: Journal of Foot and Ankle Research 1/2015

Open Access 01-12-2015 | Research

Worldwide productivity in the field of foot and ankle research from 2009–2013: a bibliometric analysis of highly cited journals

Auteurs: Xuyao Luo, Zhimin Liang, Feng Gong, Hongwei Bao, Li Huang, Zhiwei Jia

Gepubliceerd in: Journal of Foot and Ankle Research | Uitgave 1/2015

share
DELEN

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

  • Optie A:
    Klik op de rechtermuisknop op de link en selecteer de optie “linkadres kopiëren”
  • Optie B:
    Deel de link per e-mail
insite
ZOEKEN

Abstract

Background

Significant growth has been observed in the field of foot and ankle research in recent years. However, bibliometric studies concerning the quantity and quality of articles published in foot and ankle journals are scarce. This study aimed to reveal the characteristics of national productivity in the field of foot and ankle research and to provide a general picture of foot and ankle research for surgeons and researchers.

Methods

Web of Science was searched for foot and ankle articles in 4 highly cited journals from 2009 to 2013. The number of total articles and citations were collected to evaluate the contribution of different countries. Publication activity was adjusted for the countries by population size and gross domestic product (GDP).

Results

A total number of 2083 articles were published worldwide. North America, West Europe, Australia and East Asia were the most productive world regions. High income countries published 90.35% of articles, middle-income 9.60%, and low-income just 0.05%. The United States published the largest number of articles (1025/2083, 49.2%), followed by the United Kingdom (221/2083, 10.6%), Australia (92/2083, 4.4%), and had the highest total citations (3631). However, Canada had the highest average citations per article (5.0), followed by Australia (4.6) and Switzerland (4.2). There were positive correlations between the total number of publications and population/GDP (p < 0.01). When normalized to population size, Switzerland ranked the highest, followed by Australia, and the United Kingdom. When adjusted for GDP, Switzerland ranked the highest, followed by United Kingdom, and South Korea.

Conclusions

The United States is the most productive country in the field of foot and ankle research. However, Australia, some smaller European and Asian countries may be more productive relative to their size.
Opmerkingen

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Authors’ contributions

ZWJ designed the study and critically reviewed the paper. XYL, ZML, and FG drafted the manuscript and participated in data collection. HWB and LH performed the statistical analysis and interpreted the data. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Afkortingen
GDP
Gross domestic product
JCR
Journal Citation Reports
WoS
Web of Science
FAI
Foot & Ankle International
JFAR
Journal of Foot and Ankle Research
JFAS
Journal of Foot & Ankle Surgery
FAC
Foot and Ankle Clinics

Background

In recent years, significant progress has been seen in the field of foot and ankle research. Worldwide contributions are responsible for this dramatic growth. However, the scientific contribution to the field of foot and ankle research is unlikely to be equal for each country, since different countries have different healthcare systems, financial research sources and scientific research programs [1,2].
Publication, as a central part of the scientific research process, is important for the advancement of the field of foot and ankle research. The number of articles published by a country is an indicator of its contributions to the creation of new knowledge, and bibliometric analysis is often used to investigate trends in scholarly publications and the relative importance of articles in a specific topic. Recently, bibliometric analysis for assessing the worldwide research productivity has been increasingly performed in various medical fields, such as surgical oncology [2], emergency medicine [3], anaesthesia [4], critical care medicine [5], rheumatology [6], and plastic and reconstructive surgery [7].
However, to the best of our knowledge, bibliometric studies concerning the quantity and quality of articles published in the field of foot and ankle research have never been reported before. Therefore the objective of the present study was to investigate the characteristics of national productivity in the field of foot and ankle research and to provide an insight into the status of the world foot and ankle research for surgeons and researchers.

Methods

The structure of this study was modeled on previous similar publications [3-7]. A total of 4 highly cited journals related to foot and ankle research were selected from the “Orthopedics” category of the 2013 Journal Citation Reports (JCR) (Thomson Reuters, New York, USA) [8]. The 4 journals were listed in Table 1. A computerized literature search was conducted in the database of Web of Science (WoS) (Thomson Reuters, New York, USA) in November 10, 2014. This platform was chosen because it was the world’s leading database collecting citation and other academic impact information, and had been widely used in similar studies [3,5,7]. Only original articles and reviews were included. Letters, editorial material and correction were excluded. Where there was more than one institutional affiliation listed, the source nation was taken as the country of the corresponding author.
Table 1
Journals included in the search
Journal
Abbreviation
Impact factor
Journal of Foot and Ankle Research
JFAR
1.831
Foot & Ankle International
FAI
1.626
Journal of Foot & Ankle Surgery
JFAS
0.979
Foot and Ankle Clinics
FAC
0.844
The number of published articles was considered as an index of quantity of research productivity. The number of citations was considered as a quality indicator. The primary outcome was the number of articles attributed to each country. To reveal the contribution of different countries, the countries were ranked according to their productivity. Based on the categories of World Bank, we also calculated the proportion of articles that was attributed to high income, upper middle income, lower middle income, and low income countries [9]. This categorization in terms of gross national income (GNI) per capita includes high income, $12746 or more; upper middle income, $4126 to $12745; lower middle income, $1046 to $4125; and low income, $1045 or less [9]. Moreover, the research productivity of different countries was evaluated in relation to population size and gross domestic product (GDP). These data for each country were gathered from the Central Intelligence Agency and Word Bank for the most recent report [9,10].
We further comprehensively analyzed the publications of the main productive countries (producing at least 1% of the total publications), including the total numbers, the per capita numbers adjusted for population and GDP, total citations, and mean citations. Publications in the 4 journals from the top 5 countries were generated, and the top 3 countries in the journals were listed.
Because our goal was to describe trends and not to test hypotheses about the relative contribution of different countries, only simple descriptive statistics (e.g., sum or average) were used. The statistical significance of the correlation was determined by Spearman’s test [6]. All the statistical tests were performed using SPSS software version 19.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA), and p < 0.05 was considered to be statistically significant.

Results

A total of 2083 articles on foot and ankle research were identified in the database of Web of Science from 2009 to 2013. A total of 59 countries contributed to the development of the field of foot and ankle research. The United States published the most number of articles (1025/2083, 49.2%), followed by the United Kingdom (221/2083, 10.6%), and Australia (92/2083, 4.4%). North America was the most productive continent (51.4%), followed by Europe (25.6%), Asia (15.2%), Oceania (5.1%), South America (1.7%), and Africa (0.9%). The world map of worldwide research productivity is shown in Figure 1, indicating that North America, West Europe, Australia and East Asia were the most productive regions from 2009 to 2013. Moreover, high-income countries published 1882 articles (90.35%), and middle-income countries (sum of upper middle-income and lower middle-income countries) published 200 articles (9.60%). However, low-income countries published only 1 article (0.05%) (Figure 2). The numbers of publications showed significant correlations (p < 0.01) with population size and GDP (r = 0.380 and r = 0.646, respectively) (Figure 3).
A total of 14 main productive countries (producing at least 1% of total articles) published 89.8% (1870/2083) of the total articles (Table 2). Most of them were high-income countries (11). The 6th, 8th and 14th ranked nations (China, Turkey and India respectively) were classified as middle income countries. Among the 14 countries, the United States had the highest total citations (3631), followed by the United Kingdom (651), and Australia (420). Canada had the highest mean citations (5.0), followed by Australia (4.6), and Switzerland (4.2).
Table 2
Articles from the most productive countries, 2009-2013
Country
N
%
N per 10 million population
N per 100 billion US $ GDP
Total citation
Mean citation
United States
1025
49.2
32.1
6.1
3631
3.5
United Kingdom
221
10.6
34.7
8.8
651
2.9
Australia
92
4.4
40.9
5.9
420
4.6
South Korea
84
4.0
17.1
6.4
162
1.9
Switzerland
72
3.5
89.3
11.1
300
4.2
China
64
2.4
0.5
0.7
119
1.9
Netherlands
49
2.4
29.0
6.1
147
3.0
Turkey
48
2.3
5.9
5.9
113
2.4
Germany
45
2.2
5.6
1.2
124
2.8
Japan
45
2.2
3.5
0.9
76
1.7
Canada
44
2.1
12.6
2.4
221
5.0
Italy
29
1.4
4.7
1.4
95
3.3
Spain
28
1.3
5.9
2.1
62
2.2
India
24
1.2
0.2
1.3
17
0.7
Abbreviations: N number, GDP Gross Domestic Product.
Regarding the production per capita, Switzerland had the highest number of articles (89.3), followed by Australia (40.9), and the United Kingdom (34.7). When number of articles adjusted for GDP, Switzerland ranked the highest in the top list (11.1), followed by the United Kingdom (8.8), and South Korea (6.4). Countries with large economies, such as the United States, China and Japan, tended to rank relatively low after adjustment for GDP.
The publications from the top 5 countries are shown in Table 3. Among the top 5 countries, Foot & Ankle International (FAI) was the most popular journal in 4 countries, including United States, United Kingdom, South Korea and Switzerland; Journal of Foot and Ankle Research (JFAR) was the most popular in Australia.
Table 3
Publications from the top countries
Rank
United States
United Kingdom
Australia
South Korea
Switzerland
1
FAI (455)
FAI (76)
JFAR (65)
FAI (57)
FAI (40)
2
JFAS (430)
JFAS (59)
FAI (17)
JFAS (21)
FAC (24)
3
FAC (126)
JFAR (58)
JFAS (8)
FAC (5)
JFAS (7)
4
JFAR (14)
FAC (28)
FAC (2)
JFAR (1)
JFAR (1)
Abbreviations: JFAR Journal of Foot and Ankle Research, FAI Foot & Ankle International, JFAS Journal of Foot & Ankle Surgery, FAC Foot and Ankle Clinics.
FAI published the largest number of foot and ankle articles (936/2083, or 44.9%), followed by Journal of Foot & Ankle Surgery (JFAS) (748/2083, or 35.9%), Foot and Ankle Clinics (FAC) (228/2083, or 10.9%), and JFAR (171/2083, or 8.2%). The 3 most productive countries in the 4 journals are listed in Table 4. The United States was the most productive country in 3 journals including FAI, JFAS and FAC, while Australia was the most productive country in JFAR. In addition, the United States and United Kingdom appeared in the top 3 countries in all the 4 journals.
Table 4
Top ranked countries by journal
Rank
FAI
JFAS
FAC
JFAR
1
United States (455)
United States (430)
United States (126)
Australia (65)
2
United Kingdom (76)
United Kingdom (59)
United Kingdom (28)
United Kingdom (58)
3
South Korea (57)
Turkey (30)
Switzerland (24)
United States (14)
Abbreviations: JFAR Journal of Foot and Ankle Research, FAI Foot & Ankle International, JFAS Journal of Foot & Ankle Surgery, FAC Foot and Ankle Clinics.

Discussion

Foot and ankle research has recently experienced a considerable evolution, which can be attributed to the contributions by researchers and surgeons from all over the world. To assess the research contributions around the world, biomedical research publication has been used as an index for scientific research productivity [2-7]. Recently, many studies using bibliometric methods have evaluated worldwide research productivity in several biomedical fields [2-7]. However, as far as we know, this study is the first bibliometric evaluation on worldwide productivity in the field of foot and ankle research.
The present study found that the authors originating from the United States published far more articles than any other country. It is no surprise that the United States leads the rankings, which also had been found in many fields of medicine [2-7]. Therefore this result confirms the major influence of the United States in the field of foot and ankle research.
Besides the most number of articles, the United States also had the highest total citation. Most importantly, the United States also had high mean citations, which suggested that publications originating from the United States had not only large quantity but also high quality. Based on these large number of high-quality studies, policy makers and healthcare practitioners could inform successful interventions and may further improve clinical practice [11]. Although the United States has a large population, the per capita numbers of articles from the United States remained one of the most numbers per capita. These results suggest that the United States is the most productive country in the field of foot and ankle research in the world.
Regarding the contributions of different countries, a “10/90” divide was used to described the proportion between non-high and high income countries [12], which had been demonstrated in some medical fields [3-5,7]. It also holds true for the field of foot and ankle research. Only three non-high income countries, including China, Turkey and India, are listed in the main productive countries. The increasing importance of these countries has been shown in previous studies [3,4,13,14]. Moreover, our results demonstrate that GDP is also a positive factor related to research productivity besides population size [6]. The high research productivity can be a suggestive reflection of the rapid development of society and economy in these middle income countries [3,4]. It may be forecasted that these countries with rapid economic development could further improve their foot and ankle research and promote their ranks in the future. The lack of research productivity in low income countries was observed in this study for only three articles identified. This may be affected by a combination of factors, such as government policy, medical infrastructures, research fund and researchers [4,12]. This result indicates the underrepresentation of non-high income countries in publications of foot and ankle research, despite these countries have the largest burden of musculoskeletal disease [11]. In these countries, establishing strategies to increase the number of high-quality researches may improve the evidence-based health policies and patient care [11].
When the total number of articles adjusted by population and GDP, Australia, some European countries such as the United Kingdom and Switzerland, and Asian countries such as South Korea are more productive. Although it may make more sense to normalize by the number of researchers and GDP invested in foot and ankle research in each country, not the population size and total GDP, it is rather difficult to obtain these data in the field of foot and ankle research in each country. Nonetheless, this result demonstrates the high scientific research output of these smaller countries.
The United States was the most productive country in 3 journals, including FAI, JFAS and FAC. It should be recognized that these journals are all published in the United States. More submissions might therefore be from the United States than from other countries. In addition, the United States and the United Kingdom appears in the top 3 countries in all the 4 journals, indicating the important influence of these two countries in the field of foot and ankle research.
Besides the most number of articles in 4 of the top 5 countries, FAI published the largest number of foot and ankle research worldwide, which indicated the importance of FAI in the body of foot and ankle publications [15].
There are some limitations in this study. Although the journals were selected from the orthopedics category of the JCR, some general orthopedics and basic research journals, which also published some articles related to foot and ankle research, were not included in this study. In addition, citations are only one measure of research impact, and may not reflect the influence of each article. Finally, 3 of the 4 journals included in our study (FAI, JFAS and FAC) have a strong surgical focus, so our findings may not translate to research into conservative interventions for foot and ankle disorders.

Conclusion

This is the first bibliometric study assessing the worldwide productivity in the field of foot and ankle research. This study demonstrates that the United States is the most productive country in the field of foot and ankle research. However, Australia, some smaller European and Asian countries might be more productive relative to their population size and GDP.

Funding

We have no funding or support to report.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made.
The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.
The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (https://​creativecommons.​org/​publicdomain/​zero/​1.​0/​) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Authors’ contributions

ZWJ designed the study and critically reviewed the paper. XYL, ZML, and FG drafted the manuscript and participated in data collection. HWB and LH performed the statistical analysis and interpreted the data. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
share
DELEN

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

  • Optie A:
    Klik op de rechtermuisknop op de link en selecteer de optie “linkadres kopiëren”
  • Optie B:
    Deel de link per e-mail
Literatuur
1.
go back to reference Langer A, Diaz-Olavarrieta C, Berdichevsky K, Villar J. Why is research from developing countries underrepresented in international health literature, and what can be done about it? Bull World Health Organ. 2004;82:802–3. PubMedPubMedCentral Langer A, Diaz-Olavarrieta C, Berdichevsky K, Villar J. Why is research from developing countries underrepresented in international health literature, and what can be done about it? Bull World Health Organ. 2004;82:802–3. PubMedPubMedCentral
2.
go back to reference Bakker IS, Wevers KP, Hoekstra HJ. Geographical distribution of publications in the scientific field of surgical oncology. J Surg Oncol. 2013;108:505–7. CrossRefPubMed Bakker IS, Wevers KP, Hoekstra HJ. Geographical distribution of publications in the scientific field of surgical oncology. J Surg Oncol. 2013;108:505–7. CrossRefPubMed
3.
go back to reference Li Q, Jiang Y, Zhang M. National representation in the emergency medicine literature: a bibliometric analysis of highly cited journals. Am J Emerg Med. 2012;30:1530–4. CrossRefPubMed Li Q, Jiang Y, Zhang M. National representation in the emergency medicine literature: a bibliometric analysis of highly cited journals. Am J Emerg Med. 2012;30:1530–4. CrossRefPubMed
4.
go back to reference Bould MD, Boet S, Riem N, Kasanda C, Sossou A, Bruppacher HR. National representation in the anaesthesia literature: a bibliometric analysis of highly cited anaesthesia journals. Anaesthesia. 2010;65:799–804. CrossRefPubMed Bould MD, Boet S, Riem N, Kasanda C, Sossou A, Bruppacher HR. National representation in the anaesthesia literature: a bibliometric analysis of highly cited anaesthesia journals. Anaesthesia. 2010;65:799–804. CrossRefPubMed
5.
go back to reference Li Z, Qiu LX, Wu FX, Yang LQ, Sun YM, Lu ZJ, et al. Assessing the national productivity in subspecialty critical care medicine journals: a bibliometric analysis. J Crit Care. 2012;27:747. e741-745. CrossRefPubMed Li Z, Qiu LX, Wu FX, Yang LQ, Sun YM, Lu ZJ, et al. Assessing the national productivity in subspecialty critical care medicine journals: a bibliometric analysis. J Crit Care. 2012;27:747. e741-745. CrossRefPubMed
6.
go back to reference Cheng T, Zhang G. Worldwide research productivity in the field of rheumatology from 1996 to 2010: a bibliometric analysis. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2013;52:1630–4. CrossRef Cheng T, Zhang G. Worldwide research productivity in the field of rheumatology from 1996 to 2010: a bibliometric analysis. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2013;52:1630–4. CrossRef
7.
go back to reference Zhang WJ, Ding W, Jiang H, Zhang YF, Zhang JL. National representation in the plastic and reconstructive surgery literature: a bibliometric analysis of highly cited journals. Ann Plast Surg. 2013;70:231–4. CrossRefPubMed Zhang WJ, Ding W, Jiang H, Zhang YF, Zhang JL. National representation in the plastic and reconstructive surgery literature: a bibliometric analysis of highly cited journals. Ann Plast Surg. 2013;70:231–4. CrossRefPubMed
11.
go back to reference Aluede EE, Phillips J, Bleyer J, Jergesen HE, Coughlin R. Representation of developing countries in orthopaedic journals: a survery of four influential orthopaedic journals. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2012;470:2313. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Aluede EE, Phillips J, Bleyer J, Jergesen HE, Coughlin R. Representation of developing countries in orthopaedic journals: a survery of four influential orthopaedic journals. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2012;470:2313. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
12.
go back to reference Saxena S, Paraje G, Sharan P, Karam G, Sadana R. The 10/90 divide in mental health research: trends over a 10-year period. Br J Psychiatry. 2006;188:81–2. CrossRefPubMed Saxena S, Paraje G, Sharan P, Karam G, Sadana R. The 10/90 divide in mental health research: trends over a 10-year period. Br J Psychiatry. 2006;188:81–2. CrossRefPubMed
13.
go back to reference Tong D, Wang L, Jiang J. Publications from China in The Lancet, NEJM, and JAMA. Lancet. 2013;381:1983. CrossRefPubMed Tong D, Wang L, Jiang J. Publications from China in The Lancet, NEJM, and JAMA. Lancet. 2013;381:1983. CrossRefPubMed
14.
go back to reference Sreekar H, Dawre S, Lamba S, Gupta AK. Trend of India's contribution to the field of plastic and reconstructive surgery. Ann Plast Surg. 2012;69:223. CrossRefPubMed Sreekar H, Dawre S, Lamba S, Gupta AK. Trend of India's contribution to the field of plastic and reconstructive surgery. Ann Plast Surg. 2012;69:223. CrossRefPubMed
15.
go back to reference Thordarson DB. Foot & Ankle International: the preeminent foot and ankle journal in the world. Foot Ankle Int. 2013;34:1189. CrossRefPubMed Thordarson DB. Foot & Ankle International: the preeminent foot and ankle journal in the world. Foot Ankle Int. 2013;34:1189. CrossRefPubMed
Metagegevens
Titel
Worldwide productivity in the field of foot and ankle research from 2009–2013: a bibliometric analysis of highly cited journals
Auteurs
Xuyao Luo
Zhimin Liang
Feng Gong
Hongwei Bao
Li Huang
Zhiwei Jia
Publicatiedatum
01-12-2015
Uitgeverij
BioMed Central
Gepubliceerd in
Journal of Foot and Ankle Research / Uitgave 1/2015
Elektronisch ISSN: 1757-1146
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13047-015-0070-0