Brazilian Articles in Top-Tier Dental Journals and Influence of International Collaboration on Citation Rates

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

Abstract This study investigated the presence of co-authorship from Brazil in articles published in top-tier dental journals and analyzed the influence of international collaboration, article type (original research or review), and funding on citation rates. Articles published between 2015 and 2017 in 38 selected journals from 14 dental subareas were screened in Scopus. Bibliographic information, citation counts, and funding details were recorded for all articles (N=15619). Collaboration with other top-10 publishing countries in dentistry was registered. Annual citations averages (ACA) were calculated. A linear regression model assessed differences in ACA between subareas. Multilevel linear regression models evaluated the influence of article type, funding, and presence of international collaboration in ACA. Brazil was a frequent co-author of articles published in the period (top 3: USA=25.5%; Brazil=13.8%; Germany=9.2%) and the country with most publications in two subareas. The subjects with the biggest share of Brazil are Operative Dentistry/Cariology, Dental Materials, and Endodontics. Brazil was second in total citations, but fifth in citation averages per article. From the total of 2155 articles co-authored by Brazil, 74.8% had no co-authorship from other top-10 publishing countries. USA (17.8%), Italy (4.2%), and UK (3.2%) were the main co-author countries, but the main collaboration country varied between subjects. Implantology and Dental Materials were the subjects with most international co-authorship. Review articles and articles with international collaboration were associated with increased citation rates, whereas the presence of study funding did not influence the citations.

Translated abstract

Resumo Este estudo investigou a presença de coautoria do Brasil em artigos publicados nos principais periódicos odontológicos e analisou a influência da colaboração internacional, tipo de artigo (artigo original ou revisão) e financiamento nas taxas de citação. Artigos publicados entre 2015 e 2017 em 38 periódicos selecionados de 14 subáreas foram pesquisados no Scopus. Informações bibliográficas, número de citações e detalhes de financiamento foram registrados para todos os artigos (N=15619). Colaboração com outros países no top-10 de publicações em odontologia foi coletada. Médias anuais de citação (MAC) foram calculadas. Um modelo de regressão linear avaliou as diferenças de MAC entre as subáreas. Modelos multinível de regressão linear avaliaram a influência do tipo de artigo, financiamento e presença de colaboração internacional nas MAC. O Brasil foi coautor frequente de artigos publicados no período (top 3: EUA=25,5%; Brasil=13,8%; Alemanha=9,2%) e o país com mais publicações em duas subáreas. As subáreas com maior participação do Brasil foram Dentística/Cariologia, Materiais Dentários e Endodontia. O Brasil foi o segundo no total de citações, porém quinto em citações médias por artigo. Do total de 2155 artigos de coautoria do Brasil, 74,8% não tiveram coautoria de outros países do top-10 de publicação. EUA (17,8%), Itália (4,2%) e Reino Unido (3,2%) foram os principais países coautores, porém o principal país de colaboração variou entre as subáreas. Implantodontia e Materiais Dentários foram as subáreas com mais coautoria internacional. Artigos de revisão e artigos com colaboração internacional foram associados a maiores taxas de citação, enquanto a presença de financiamento do estudo não influenciou as citações.

Related collections

Most cited references 18

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Association between funding and quality of published medical education research.

Darcy Reed, David A. Cook, Thomas Beckman … (2007)

Methodological shortcomings in medical education research are often attributed to insufficient funding, yet an association between funding and study quality has not been established. To develop and evaluate an instrument for measuring the quality of education research studies and to assess the relationship between funding and study quality. Internal consistency, interrater and intrarater reliability, and criterion validity were determined for a 10-item medical education research study quality instrument (MERSQI). This was applied to 210 medical education research studies published in 13 peer-reviewed journals between September 1, 2002, and December 31, 2003. The amount of funding obtained per study and the publication record of the first author were determined by survey. Study quality as measured by the MERSQI (potential maximum total score, 18; maximum domain score, 3), amount of funding per study, and previous publications by the first author. The mean MERSQI score was 9.95 (SD, 2.34; range, 5-16). Mean domain scores were highest for data analysis (2.58) and lowest for validity (0.69). Intraclass correlation coefficient ranges for interrater and intrarater reliability were 0.72 to 0.98 and 0.78 to 0.998, respectively. Total MERSQI scores were associated with expert quality ratings (Spearman rho, 0.73; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.56-0.84; P < .001), 3-year citation rate (0.8 increase in score per 10 citations; 95% CI, 0.03-1.30; P = .003), and journal impact factor (1.0 increase in score per 6-unit increase in impact factor; 95% CI, 0.34-1.56; P = .003). In multivariate analysis, MERSQI scores were independently associated with study funding of $20 000 or more (0.95 increase in score; 95% CI, 0.22-1.86; P = .045) and previous medical education publications by the first author (1.07 increase in score per 20 publications; 95% CI, 0.15-2.23; P = .047). The quality of published medical education research is associated with study funding.