Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Filter by Categories
Author’s Reply
Book Review
Case Report
Commentary
Current Issue
Editorial
Erratum
Guest Editor Profile
Letter to Editor
Letter to the Editor
Letters to Editor
Original Article
Protocol
Radiology Quiz
Review Article
Surgical Technique
Technical Note
Technical Notes
View/Download PDF

Translate this page into:

Original Article
6 (
2
); 111-116
doi:
10.25259/JMSR_15_2022

A bibliometric analysis of the Journal of Musculoskeletal Surgery and Research

Department of Clinical Research, Shifa Clinic, Pune, Maharashtra, India
Department of Surgery, Prince Mohammed Bin Abdulaziz Hospital, Ministry of National Guard-Health Affairs, Almadinah Almunawwarah, Saudi Arabia
Corresponding author: Yakub K Sayyad, Department of Clinical Research, Shifa Clinic, Pune, Maharashtra, India. dryakub@yahoo.com
Licence
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-Share Alike 4.0 License, which allows others to remix, transform, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as the author is credited and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms.

How to cite this article: Sayyad YK, Khoshhal KI. A bibliometric analysis of the Journal of Musculoskeletal Surgery and Research. J Musculoskelet Surg Res 2022;6:111-6.

Abstract

Objectives:

The Journal of Musculoskeletal Surgery and Research (JMSR) is a relatively new publication focusing on research related to musculoskeletal surgery and related research. We aimed to analyze its bibliometrics to help the concerned community and JMSR’s audience, authors, and editorial team get to know the journal more in-depth.

Methods:

We performed a manual search of the JMSR’s publications for assessing various bibliometric parameters, including the type of published documents and their citation frequencies, authors with most papers, authors affiliations (national vs. international), and frequency distribution of keywords from the Journal’s inception in the mid-2017 through 2021. We used the Google scholar database and analyzed the data using Microsoft Excel VOS viewer software.

Results:

Two hundred and twenty-nine documents have been published from mid-2017 through 2021 in JMSR by 540 authors (458 males and 82 females), having a trend of the annual increment (R2 0.3684). There were 97 original articles published to date with a mean of 5.14 ± 4.20 articles in each issue. By the end of 2021, JMSR has received 192 citations from 197 citable papers out of 229 published documents from 2017 through 2021, with an average of 38.40 cites/year and 0.97 cites/paper, and an h–index of 6. We found 2.4 ± 1.5 (Range 1–6) institutions per article, with 110 (55.7%) being local institutes, whereas 85 (44.3%) were international institutes. The number of authors per paper ratio was 4.3 ± 1.7.

Conclusion:

JMSR is providing quality scholarship publications in orthopedics and musculoskeletal research, which could provide global insight pertaining to the field, to its viewers, authors, and editorial team.

Keywords

Author
Bibliometrics
Citations
Orthopedics
Musculoskeletal

INTRODUCTION

Bibliometrics is a quantitative study of scientific publications.[1] It is considered one of the significant analytical components of information science.[2] Recently, this field has shown progressive evolution with the advent of emerging methodologies and scientific analytic software aiding in conducting such scientific evaluation. Hence, there is a boom of such studies in the healthcare field.[3]

Musculoskeletal surgery is one such field that has become increasingly important with the aging and working for population worldwide.[4] This specialty now has around 60 journals indexed in the Directory of Open Access Journals.[5] Bibliometric analysis of few noted journals in this field, namely, American Journal of Sports Medicine,[6] Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery,[7] Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma,[8] and Journal of Foot and Ankle Surgery[9] assessing trends in the authorship and research characteristics of their respective journals was documented in the literature.

The Journal of Musculoskeletal Surgery and Research (JMSR) is a relatively new journal having an open-access double-blind review process peer-reviewed policy for its publications and is owned by the Saudi Orthopaedic Association. It started in mid-2017. It publishes free of charge, which makes it more independent and not under any pressure. It is currently published quarterly by the Scientific Scholar. The journal focuses on theories, concepts, clinical cases, frameworks, and research related to the field of the musculoskeletal system, orthopedics, rheumatology, spine surgery applied basic sciences, rehabilitation and physiotherapy, and orthopedic nursing and education.[10] Recently, Khalifa et al. found gender diversity and affiliation trends of the authors in the regional Egyptian Orthopaedic journal which is the official publication of the Egyptian Orthopaedic Association, and found encouraging results.[11]

Studying the intangible framework of a neoteric scientific journal in a domain-specific healthcare field can provide valuable insight to clinical practitioners and academicians in recognizing its scientific composition and subject assimilation.[12-14] Therefore, we conducted the bibliometric study on the JMSR publications to provide an outline of its scientific trends to the practitioners in the musculoskeletal field, JMSR’s viewers, authors, and its editorial team.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We performed a manual search of the JMSR journal to assess various scientific parameters, including the type of published documents and authors with most papers, authorship linkages (national and international), and frequency distribution of keywords. Citations of the published papers were analyzed manually in Google scholar Database from the inception of the journal in mid-2017 till the end of 2021.

The data were documented in the Microsoft Excel software for further analysis. The Scientific parameters, including frequency distribution, were calculated in the same software and depicted as tables and bar graphs, whereas the authorship linkages and keyword distribution were mapped in VOS viewer software.

RESULTS

Publications and their citations

Since its inception, the JMSR has been published quarterly. The content distribution of the JMSR is shown in [Table 1]. The number of all published documents (including technical notes, surgical techniques, book reviews, and radiology quizzes) increased from only 12 documents in 2017 to 62 in 2021, with a trend of the annual increment (R2 0.3684). The total number of original articles was 97, with a mean of 5.14 ± 4.20 in each issue [Figure 1].

Table 1:: The types of JMSR published documents (n=229).
Original Article 97
Case Report 41
Review Article 32
Editorial 18
Letter to Editor 14
Radiology Quiz 13
Commentary 5
Surgical Technique 3
Technical Note 2
Guest editor Profile 1
Protocol 1
Book review 1
Author’s Correspondence 1
Figure 1:: Year-wise publications in JMSR.

[Figure 2] shows the annual distribution of JMSR publications’ citations through the end of 2021. JMSR has received 192 citations. A paper that was published in 2018 received 12 citations, whereas, in the years 2017 and 2019, respectively, two papers received nine citations each. The trend of received citations is increasing (R2 0.2528), which is at par with the global trend of increased citations of older articles and fewer citations for the newer articles, which is the case in most of the JMSR publications.

Figure 2:: Year-wise citation distribution of JMSR.

Journal metrics

By the end of 2021, the JMSR has received 192 citations from 197 citable papers out of 229 published documents from 2017 to 2021, with an average of 38.40 cites/year and 0.97 cites/ paper. The author/paper ratio was 4.3 ± 1.7 with an h–index of 6. [Table 2] shows that Gallagher’s article was the highest cited paper published by the JMSR. It received 12 citations, with an average of four citations per year.

Table 2:: Year-wise documents showing their respective citations (included documents with three citations and more).
Cites Authors Title Year
12 Gallagher Proficiency-based progression simulation training for more than an interesting educational experience 2018
9 Alfayez et al. A review article of medial tibial stress syndrome 2017
9 Berezowsky et al. Usefulness of immersive virtual reality simulation during femoral nail application in an orthopedic fracture skills course 2019
8 Alsuhaymi et al. Flatfoot among school-age children in Almadinah Almunawwarah: Prevalence and risk factors 2019
7 Sonbol et al. Prevalence of femoral shaft fractures and associated injuries among adults after road traffic accidents in a Saudi Arabian trauma center 2018
7 Jawadi et al. Seat belt usage and distracted driving behaviors in Saudi Arabia: Health-care providers versus non-health-care providers 2017
6 Sheweita et al. Osteoporosis in children: Possible risk factors and role of antioxidants 2019
6 Guraya The changing landscape of surgical education and training 2018
6 Barberio et al. The effect of shoulder abduction and medial epicondylectomy on ulnar nerve strain: A preliminary study 2019
5 Younis et al. External fixation versus open reduction and internal fixation of pilon fractures: A systematic review and meta-analysis 2018
5 Alzahrani et al. Functional anatomy of the hand: prevalence of the Linburg–Comstock anomaly in a young Saudi population 2018
4 Alsultan et al. Comparison of musculoskeletal pain prevalence between medical and surgical specialty residents in a major hospital in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia 2018
4 Hasan et al. Early complications of anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: A case series 2018
4 Nassimizadeh et al. Managing the nerve gap: New tools in the peripheral nerve repair toolbox 2019
4 Almarshad et al. Orthopedic trainees’ perspective on coronavirus disease 2019. 2020
4 Challoner et al. Pathogenesis, clinical evaluation, and non-surgical management of symptomatic neuromas: A literature review 2019
4 Alzahrani et al. Postgraduate orthopedic training in Saudi Arabia: A need assessment for change 2018
4 Almalki et al. Prevalence of ankle injuries in physical education and sports classes among Saudi high school male students in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia 2018
3 Ahmad et al. A new radiological classification system for developmental dysplasia of the hip in pediatric patients aged 6-months and older 2017
3 Alsheikh et al. Burnout syndrome among orthopedic surgery residents in Saudi Arabia: A multicenter study 2019
3 Alhussainan Developmental dysplasia of HIP: A Saudi national concern 2018
3 Khalid Educating the educators: Perspectives on surgical education 2018
3 Van et al. Failed carpal tunnel surgery: A guide to management 2019
3 Ebeid et al. Long-term Outcome of Giant Cell Tumors around the Knee with Associated Pathological Fractures Treated By Curettage and Cementation 2019
3 Rai et al. Study of outcome of 300 cases of arthroscopic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with quadrupled hamstrings tendon graft using anterior cruciate … 2018

Authors and their affiliations

Power D. was the most prolific author with 23 articles followed by Khoshhal K. with seven papers. Other frequent authors were Alshammari A., Alhandi A. and Aljuhani W. Each of these authors had six publications.

Authors with maximum citations were Gallagher at 12 followed by Berezowsky and Alfayez at nine each. Alsuhaymi followed with eight citations.

Authorship linkages and collaboration

Among the 540 JMSR authors 458 (84.81%) were males and 82 (15.19%) were females, 57 of them collaborated in at least two papers. [Figure 3] depicts the co-authorship network, with 12 clusters and 2.19 links with a total link strength of 59 with at least two authors in each cluster. Two foundation authors in the co-authorship clusters were Power DM and Alfayaz SM.

Figure 3:: Co-citation network of Authors. Source: Visualization in VOS viewer from Google Scholar Profile. 57 items and 12 clusters and 2.19 links.

Power DM had nine articles and total link strength of 5, Alfayaz SM had three documents with total link strength of 5 and Guerero DN had three documents with total link strength of 5.

Authors’ affiliations trends and Inter-institution linkage

We found 2.4 ± 1.5 (Range 1–6) institutions per article, with 110 (55.7%) being local institutes, whereas 85 (44.3%) were international institutes. Thirty-seven (19%) authors were found to be affiliated with the same national institution, 53 (27%) were affiliated with the different national institutions, 46 (23.5%) were affiliated with the same international institution, 43 (21.9%) were affiliated with the different international institutions, and 17 (8.6%) were affiliated with national and international institutions.

Research Trend

The numbers of repeated keywords used in the documents were used to describe the research trends in JMSR publications. Keywords network is visualized in [Figure 4].

Figure 4:: Keyword Cluster density visualization map showing 134 keywords each occurring 3 times or more in the title and abstract list (produced by VOS viewer). The distances between each of the keywords indicate the relatedness of these research topics. The top keywords, their times of occurrence, and their TLS are shown in different colors.

We observed 134 keywords out of 1370, which occurred at least to 3 times in the title or abstract of the published documents in JMSR. These keywords were included in five clusters, with 38 keywords; all of them have appeared at least in five papers. Some keywords are invisible on the map due to their much overlap. The keywords with at least five frequencies were included on the map.

The first cluster had ten keywords, namely cervical spinal cord injury, elbow dislocation, knee, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, surgeon, total knee replacement, and total knee arthroplasty. All these keywords have a relevancy strength of more than 2.26. In the second cluster, there were four keywords such as reinjury, reconstruction, osteoporosis, and surgical management.

All these keywords had relevancy strength between 2 and 2.26. There were five keywords in the third cluster: Burnout, cross-sectional study, Oman, prevalence, and resident. These keywords had relevancy strength between 1.94 and 2.00. In the fourth cluster, there were five keywords, COVID-19, impact, orthopedic surgery, pandemic, and systematic review. These keywords had relevancy strength between 1.81 and 1.93. Finally, there were four keywords in the fifth cluster: Developmental dysplasia, hip, knowledge, and practice. These keywords had relevancy strength between 1.71 and 1.80.

DISCUSSION

This bibliometric study of the JMSR publications was conducted from its inception in mid-2017 through 2021. The analysis was based on the Journal’s indexation on the Google Scholar database, one of the largest scientific bibliographic databases and comparable to the other two large multidisciplinary citation databases, Web of Science, and Scopus.[15]

The published papers’ number and their citations are an indicator of the Journal’s popularity among the disciplinary authors, who contributed to the enhancement of the domain-specific research. We noted an annual increase in publishing trends and citations of papers by the JMSR.

Similar to other medical disciplines, the orthopedic literature has also experienced an increase in the number of authors per article, which is an indication of increased collaboration among researchers and institutions in addressing the increased multidisciplinary approach in medical research.[7,8,16] In JMSR, the average number of authors per article was 4.3 ± 1.7, which was found to be greater than the Egyptian Orthopaedic Journal (EOJ) (2.0 ± 1.0 authors per article), a relatively older journal incepted in the year 2012 and covering the Orthopaedic specialty in the same region (Middle East). Furthermore, the percentage of female authorship in JMSR publications (15.19%) is considerably larger than what is reported in EOJ (0.3%).[11]

From another angle, the results of JMSR are encouraging as they are relatively comparable to global reports on the gender gap in the orthopedic literature, observing a higher rate of male (93.5%) authorship compared to 6.5% female authorship in orthopedics.[17] This low number was considered to be associated with the so-called “pipeline theory,” which quotes that “the lower raw number of women authors and leaders is due to the lower raw number of women in the field of practice.”[18]

The increase in the number of authors per article in the JMSR was comparable to that reported by previous studies of Schrock et al. [6] in the American Journal of Sports Medicine (AJSM) in 2014. They reported an average number of 5.8 authors per article for that journal, whereas Vora et al. reported 3.6 ± 1.9 authors per article in three-foot and ankle journals for 24 years.[9] Seetharam et al. analyzed the publications from the Journal of Orthopaedic Research for 30 years and found a significant decline in the single authorship from 3.7 ± 1.9 authors per article in 1983 to 6.9 ± 2.7 in 2015.[19] In scientific publications, there is an increasing trend of multinational co-operation among authors from varying affiliations in different institutions. This increase was attributed in part to the recent advancement in communication technology, which has eased the connection between research groups and authors in different locations. JMSR has a mean of 2.4 ± 1.5 (Range 1–6) number of institutions contributing to the articles, which were comparable to those in Dynako et al., who evaluated the bibliometric characteristics of the AJSM and the Arthroscopy journal and reported that the average numbers of contributing institutions per article were 2.5 ± 1.8 and 2.4± 1.4, respectively.[16]

Wininger et al. reported an increase in the number of institutions contributing to the articles, with the average number of institutions collaborating on a manuscript being 3.4 ± 3.1.[20] Russell et al. analyzed the bibliometric characteristics of the Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma and Injury over 30 years. They found that their average numbers of institutions per article were 1.8 ± 1.3 and 2.0 ± 1.4, respectively.[8] In a study by Dynako et al., 68% of institutions contributing to the AJSM were nationals while 32% were international; in the Arthroscopy journal, 60% and 40% of the publications were from national and international institutions, respectively. JMSR has 55.7% documents with local institution affiliations in contrast to 96% in the EOJ.[16]

JMSR has 44.3% contributions from international institutions across the globe, including Argentina, Brazil, Canada, India, Italy, Korea, Mexico, Nigeria, Switzerland, the UK, the USA, and the different other countries of the Middle East. The increased incidence in the number of contributions from international institutions reported in the current study for the JMSR was also reported by the World Health Organization, demonstrating an increase in Intra-regional collaboration between 1992 and 2001 by more than 10%, and extra-regional collaboration increased by 9% within the same period. This increase is attributed to the increase in international collaboration and linkages among the national institutes.[20]

The inter-regional co-operation among the authors allows knowledge and technology exchange, which leads to the resolution of complex problems resulting in the overall improvement in the qualitative and quantitative scientific research in the domain field.[21]

The most influential and highly cited authors of JMSR a agree with worldwide research interest in the orthopedic field and related subspecialties, including information behavior, information retrieval, and scientific studies.

Research trends showed that the main orthopedic topics had been considered in the journal, ranging from case reports, novel surgical techniques to newly engaging topics such as simulation training. These topics reflect the evolution trend of orthopedic surgery[22] and are embedded in all subspecialties of musculoskeletal surgery.[23]

The present analysis was based on the manual observation of the journal and its Google scholar-based data, limiting the study’s present scope as there could be an under or overestimate of its actual impact on the global journals related to the orthopedic field.

CONCLUSION

The bibliometric analysis of the JMSR showed relatively progressive outcomes in terms of the nascent Journal’s growth and development, standard of publications, research trends, and international collaboration among its authors. This analysis provides insight into its present status and informs its contributors and viewers of the Journal’s progress. The JMSR bibliometric analysis? also benefits its editorial team for decision-making on its continued development. It is also helpful for researchers and practitioners interested in topics in the orthopedic field.

AUTHORS’ CONTRIBUTIONS

Both authors have contributed to the conception and design of the work, critically reviewed and approved the final draft and are responsible for the manuscript’s content and similarity index.

ETHICAL APPROVAL

The authors confirm that this study had been prepared in accordance with COPE roles and regulations. Given the nature of the study, the IRB review was not required.

DECLARATION OF PATIENT CONSENT

Patient’s consent not required as there are no patients in this study.

FINANCIAL SUPPORT AND SPONSORSHIP

This study did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

KIK is the Editor in Chief of JMSR.

References

  1. . Toward a definition of “bibliometrics”. Scientometrics. 1987;12:373-9.
    [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  2. . Domain analysis in information science: Eleven approaches-traditional as well as innovative. J Doc. 2002;8:422-62.
    [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  3. , . Kindle Edition. Visualizing the Structure of Science Berlin: Springer; . p. 7-27.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. . Epidemiology of musculoskeletal disorders and workplace factors In: Handbook of Musculoskeletal Pain and Disability Disorders in the Workplace. New York: Springer; . p. 175-204.
    [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  5. . Available from: https://doaj.org [Last accessed on 2022 Jan 20]
  6. , , . Trends in authorship characteristics in the American journal of sports medicine, 1994 to 2014. Am J Sports Med. 2016;44:1857-60.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. , . Authorship proliferation in the orthopaedic literature. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2013;95:e44.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. , , , , , , et al. Comparative analysis of bibliometric, authorship, and collaboration trends over the past 30-year publication history of the journal of orthopaedic trauma and injury. J Orthop Trauma. 2018;32:e327-33.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. , , , . Gender trends in authorship of foot and ankle academic literature over 24 years. J Foot Ankle Surg. 2019;58:898-903.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Journal of Musculoskeletal Surgery and Research Home. https://www.journalmsr.com [Last accessed on 2022 Jan 05]
    [Google Scholar]
  11. , , , , , . Comparing the gender diversity and affiliation trends of the authors for two orthopaedics journals from the Arab world. J Taibah Univ Med Sci. 2021;16:1-8.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. , , , . Topic modeling the research practice gap in public administration. Public Adm Rev. 2019;79:931.
    [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  13. , . Evolution of the intellectual structure of family business literature: A bibliometric study of FBR. Fam Bus Rev. 2007;20:141-62.
    [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  14. , . The intellectual structure of international accounting in the early 1990s. Int J Acc. 2001;36:223-49.
    [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  15. . Is Google scholar useful for bibliometrics? A webometric analysis. Scientometrics. 2012;91:343-51.
    [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  16. , , , , , , et al. Bibliometric and authorship trends over a 30 year publication history in two representative US sports medicine journals. Heliyon. 2020;6:e03698.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. , , , , , , et al. The orthopedic gender gap: Trends in authorship and editorial board representation over the past 4 decades. In: Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ). Vol 41. . p. :304-10.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. , , , , . Health and public policy committee of the American college of physicians. Achieving gender equality in physician compensation and career advancement: A position paper of the American college of physicians. Ann Intern Med. 2018;168:721-23.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. , , , , , , et al. Authorship trends in the journal of orthopaedic research: A bibliometric analysis. J Orthop Res. 2018;36:3071-80.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. , , , , , , et al. Bibliometric analysis of female authorship trends and collaboration dynamics over JBMR's 30-year history. J Bone Miner Res. 2017;32:2405-14.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. . Scientific Production in Health-Related Disciplines in WHO's Western Pacific Region in 1992-2006 Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; .
    [Google Scholar]
  22. , , . Trends in trauma surgery: Analysis of the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma program 1939-2012. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2014;76:672-81.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. , , . Curricular requirements for musculoskeletal medicine in American medical schools. J Bone Joint Surg. 2003;85:565-7.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Show Sections