DOCSLIB.ORG

Examining the Relationship Between Altmetric Score and Traditional Bibliometrics in the Ophthalmology Literature for 2013 and 2016 Cohorts

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Examining the Relationship Between Altmetric Score and Traditional Bibliometrics in the Ophthalmology Literature for 2013 and 2016 Cohorts Published online: 2021-06-30 THIEME Research Article e95 Examining the Relationship between Altmetric Score and Traditional Bibliometrics in the Ophthalmology Literature for 2013 and 2016 Cohorts Zachary C. Wiley, BS1 Carter J. Boyd, BS2 Shivani Ananthasekar, BS2 Nita Bhat, MD3 Shruthi Harish Bindiganavile, MD3 Andrew G. Lee, MD1,3,4,5,6,7,8 1 School of Medicine, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas Address for correspondence Andrew G. Lee, MD, Department of 2 School of Medicine, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Ophthalmology, Blanton Eye Institute, Houston Methodist Hospital, Birmingham, Alabama 6550 Fannin St, Houston, TX, 77030 3 Department of Ophthalmology, Blanton Eye Institute, Houston (e-mail: [email protected]). Methodist Hospital, Houston, Texas 4 Department of Ophthalmology, Neurology, and Neurosurgery, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, New York 5 Department of Ophthalmology, University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, Texas 6 University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas 7 Texas A and M College of Medicine, Bryan, Texas 8 Department of Ophthalmology, The University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics, Iowa City, Iowa J Acad Ophthalmol 2021;13:e95–e101. Abstract Background In this study, we reviewed a select sample of ophthalmology literature to determine if there was a correlation between Altimetric and traditional citation-based and impact factor metrics. We hypothesized that Altmetric score would more closely correlate with impact factor and citations in 2016. Methods Journal Citation Reports for the year 2013 was used to find the 15 highest impact factor ophthalmology journals in 2013. Then Elsevier’s Scopus was used to identify the 10 most cited articles from each journal for the years 2013 and 2016. Metrics for all identified articles were collected using the Altmetric Bookmarklet, and date of Twitter account creation was noted for journals with such an account. Altmetric scores, impact factor, and citation counts were tabulated for each article. Pearson’s correlation coefficient (r) determined correlation of independent variables (number of citations or impact factor) with dependent variable (Altmetric score). For our Twitter Keywords analysis, account age was the independent variable and calculated correlation ► citations coefficients (r) were the dependent variable. Proportion of variance was determined ► Twitter with a coefficient of determination (R2). ► ophthalmology Results This study included 300 articles, evenly split between 2013 and 2016. Within ► Altmetric the 2013 cohort, three journals had significant positive correlations between citation ► social media received DOI https://doi.org/ © 2021. The Author(s). October 21, 2020 10.1055/s-0041-1728658. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the accepted after revision ISSN 2475-4757. Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial-License, February 22, 2021 permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/ licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc., 333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA Examining the Relationship between Altmetric Score and Traditional Bibliometrics in the Ophthalmology Literature e96 for 2013 and 2016 Cohorts Wiley et al. count and Altmetric score. For the 2016 cohort, both Altmetric score and citation count (r ¼ 0.583, p < 0.001) and Altmetric score and impact factor (r ¼ 0.183, p ¼ 0.025) revealed significant positive correlations. In 2016, two journals were found to have significant correlations between Altmetric score and citation number. Neither year revealed a significant correlation between the age of a journal’sTwitterprofile and the relationship between Altmetric score and citation count. In each year, Twitter accounted for the highest number of mentions. Conclusion The findings suggest that correlation between Altmetric score and traditional quality metric scores may be increasing. Altmetric score was correlated with impact factor and number of citations in 2016 but not 2013. At this time, Altmetrics are best used as an adjunct that is complementary but not an alternative to traditional bibliometrics for assessing academic productivity and impact. Introduction impact, include mentions of articles on various social media Bibliometrics is a method of quantifying and analyzing the sites, as well as Wikipedia, patent applications, and news impact of academic publications and ultimately is used for outlets.7 The term “Altmetric” is sometimes used to refer determining academic productivity, scholarly effort, journal generally to all alternative metrics of article reach, but here prestige and impact, and individual promotion and tenure. we use the term to refer to the article score provided by Traditionally, bibliometrics include quantity indicators, per- Altmetric.com. Rather than supplanting bibliometrics and formance indicators, and structural indicators of an article.1 peer review as markers of research quality, alternative Citations give credit for an idea or fact to an earlier article, and metrics are intended to be used along with these traditional the number of times an article is cited is generally understood means as part of a “basket of metrics” for quantifying impact as a marker of impact within an academic field.1 Citation in a particular field.5 The objective of this study is to examine analysis, then, involves the ranking of an article based on the correlation between bibliometric and Altmetric scores for a number of citations it receives to identify published work with subset of articles in ophthalmology literature, to answer the the greatest intellectual influence.2 Impact factor is a marker of questions of whether Altmetric data correlates with biblio- impact for journals that compares the number of citations for a metrics, and in what ways it may be weaker, stronger, or given year to the number of articles published. More citations complementary. It was hypothesized that there would be a per article equate to a higher impact factor.1 These metrics are stronger correlation between Altmetric scores and tradition- considered quality indicators and can have tremendous im- al bibliometrics in the later cohort as a reflection of social pact in funding decisions for individual researchers and entire media’s expanded influence across time compared with departments.3 articles published previously.8 In this study, we reviewed a Traditional bibliometrics allow the application of a stan- select sample of ophthalmology literature to determine if dardized, scientifically rigorous methodology to the determi- there was a correlation between Altimetric and traditional nation of the quality of individual publications, researchers, citation based and impact factor metrics. To our knowledge, and journals in aggregate, as well as to assess the productivity this is the first such study in the English language ophthalmic of departments, research teams, universities, and even entire literature. countries.4 The recent advent of newer information technolo- gies and platforms, however, has created opportunities for Methods dissemination of information among different audiences and across multiple platforms and formats.5 Traditional bibliomet- Using Journal Citation Reports for the year 2013, the 15 rics fail to capture the reach of this interconnected information ophthalmology journals with the highest impact factors web and the larger impact that publications may have for a were selected (►Table 1). Then, using Elsevier’s Scopus,9 the broader audience. Furthermore, citation time window has 10 most cited articles from each journal were identified for the been shown to have a large role in determination of elite, years 2013 and 2016. These particular years were selected to highly cited articles. The list of highly cited articles at 5 years ensure article metrics had sufficient time to mature after from publication is quite different from the list of highly cited publication, as well as to allow comparison of two distinct articles at 30 years.4 It is obvious there is much that traditional snapshots of a changing social media landscape. The Altmetric bibliometrics leaves out. Bookmarklet was used to collect metrics for all identified Recently, researchers have begun to question why articles, and journals with an active Twitter account were markers for research impact should not include broader identified and date of creation of the account was noted. impact among the general public.3,5,6 Altmetrics, so named Altmetric scores are calculated by an automated algo- with the intention of being alternative metrics of publication rithm. This algorithm is designed to take into account two Journal of Academic Ophthalmology Vol. 13 No. 1/2021 © 2021. The Author(s). Examining the Relationship between Altmetric Score and Traditional Bibliometrics in the Ophthalmology Literature for 2013 and 2016 Cohorts Wiley et al. e97 Table 1 Journal breakdown by citations, Altmetric score, impact factor, and age of Twitter account Journal Citations Altmetric Citations Altmetric Journal Journal Age of (median score (median score impact impact Twitter [range]) (median [range]) (median factor factor account (y) (2013) [range]) (2016) [range]) (2013) (2016) (2013) (2016) Progress in Retinal 112 [87–304] 4 [0–64] 88.5 [64–183] 2 [1–26] 9.897 11.587 N/A and Eye Research Ophthalmology 260.5 [188–441] 4 [0–124] 141 [99–432]
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Online Journals List for Moorfields Eye Hospital Staff
    Online Journals List for Moorfields Eye Hospital Staff Joint Library of Ophthalmology, Moorfields Eye Hospital & UCL Institute of Ophthalmology, 11-43 Bath Street, London EC1V 9EL Tel.: +44 (0)20 7608 6814 (MEH internal extension: 2084) E-mail: [email protected] Web: https://www.ucl.ac.uk/library/libraries-and-study-spaces/ophthalmology Moorfields Eye Hospital staff members have access to a number of ejournals via NHS Athens. To register for NHS Athens, please go to www.evidence.nhs.uk, select Journals and Databases, and then select Access journals. A complete list of ejournals available to Moorfields Eye Hospital staff members can be found at www.evidence.nhs.uk. Please select Journals and Databases and then Journals. Remember to log into Athens before accessing the ejournals, or you will not see the full list of titles available to you. Ejournals available cover most aspects of biomedicine and health. A list of eye and vision titles is provided below as a guide. Sometimes there are multiple entries for the same journal. Where this occurs the list aims to guide you to the best provider to use and provides instruction on how to reach the page successfully. Should you experience any problems please do not hesitate to contact a member of library staff who will take you through step by step. Title Holdings and (provider) Acta Ophthalmologica 1997- one year ago (Wiley Online Library free content)- look for open padlock for free access American Journal of Ophthalmology 2007- (ClinicalKey Wayfless) (earlier volumes from 1997- Hospital Premium Collection) American Journal of Ophthalmology Case Reports 2016- American Journal of Optometry August 1925-1940 (LWW Legacy Archive) click on OpenAthens Login American Journal of Optometry and Archives of American Academy of 1941- 1973 (LWW Definitive Archive) click on OpenAthens Optometry Login American Journal of Optometry and Physiological Optics 1974-1988 (LWW Definitive Archive) click on OpenAthens Login Archives of Ophthalmology 1998 - 2012 (from vol.
    [Show full text]
  • Trends and Topics in Eye Disease Research in Pubmed from 2010 to 2014 Christophe Boudry, Eric Denion, Bruno Mortemousque, Frédéric Mouriaux
    Trends and topics in eye disease research in PubMed from 2010 to 2014 Christophe Boudry, Eric Denion, Bruno Mortemousque, Frédéric Mouriaux To cite this version: Christophe Boudry, Eric Denion, Bruno Mortemousque, Frédéric Mouriaux. Trends and topics in eye disease research in PubMed from 2010 to 2014. PeerJ, PeerJ, 2016, 4, pp.e1557. 10.7717/peerj.1557. hal-01254661 HAL Id: hal-01254661 https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01254661 Submitted on 14 Jan 2016 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution| 4.0 International License Trends and topics in eye disease research in PubMed from 2010 to 2014 Christophe Boudry1,2,3, Eric Denion4, Bruno Mortemousque5,6 and Fre´deric Mouriaux5,6 1 Me´dia normandie, Normandie Universite´, Universite´ de Caen Normandie, Caen, France 2 URFIST/Ecole Nationale des Chartes, Paris, France 3 Laboratoire “Dispositifs d’Information et de Communication a` l’E` re Nume´rique,” Conservatoire National des Arts et Me´tiers, Paris, France 4 Service d’Ophtalmologie, CHU Coˆte de Nacre, Caen, France 5 Service d’Ophtalmologie, CHU Rennes, Universite´ Rennes 1, Rennes, France 6 Faculte´ de Me´decine, Rennes, France ABSTRACT Background: The purpose of this study is to provide a report on scientific production during the period 2010–2014 in order to identify the major topics as well as the predominant actors (journals, countries, continents) involved in the field of eye disease.
    [Show full text]
  • Representation of Women in Authorship and Dissemination of Analyses of Physician Compensation
    Research Letter | Medical Journals and Publishing Representation of Women in Authorship and Dissemination of Analyses of Physician Compensation Allison R. Larson, MD, MS; Kelly A. Cawcutt, MD, MS; Meridith J. Englander, MD; Susan C. Pitt, MD, MPHS; Eman Ansari, MD, MPH; Howard Y. Liu, MD, MBA; Julie K. Silver, MD Introduction Physician gender pay gaps persist in the US despite an impressive body of research spanning more + Supplemental content than 25 years and adjusting for potentially confounding factors, including rank, years in practice, Author affiliations and article information are 1-5 practice type, specialty, parental status, and hours worked. We hypothesized that women listed at the end of this article. physicians were disproportionately represented as producers and disseminators of pay equity research and were largely unfunded for this work. Men have great power to drive change, given their larger representation within academic medical leadership. If compensation studies are unfunded and if women are more engaged than men in the pay equity issue, these factors may contribute to slow progress in addressing compensation disparities. Methods This cross-sectional study was performed on US-based physician compensation studies published from January 1, 2013, to February 22, 2019, in refereed medical journals indexed by PubMed. Because this study did not involve human participants and data were publicly available, the Boston University Table 1. Included Physician Compensation Studies Source Journal Setting Participants Type of compensation
    [Show full text]
  • 2018 Journal Citation Reports Journals in the 2018 Release of JCR 2 Journals in the 2018 Release of JCR
    2018 Journal Citation Reports Journals in the 2018 release of JCR 2 Journals in the 2018 release of JCR Abbreviated Title Full Title Country/Region SCIE SSCI 2D MATER 2D MATERIALS England ✓ 3 BIOTECH 3 BIOTECH Germany ✓ 3D PRINT ADDIT MANUF 3D PRINTING AND ADDITIVE MANUFACTURING United States ✓ 4OR-A QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF 4OR-Q J OPER RES OPERATIONS RESEARCH Germany ✓ AAPG BULL AAPG BULLETIN United States ✓ AAPS J AAPS JOURNAL United States ✓ AAPS PHARMSCITECH AAPS PHARMSCITECH United States ✓ AATCC J RES AATCC JOURNAL OF RESEARCH United States ✓ AATCC REV AATCC REVIEW United States ✓ ABACUS-A JOURNAL OF ACCOUNTING ABACUS FINANCE AND BUSINESS STUDIES Australia ✓ ABDOM IMAGING ABDOMINAL IMAGING United States ✓ ABDOM RADIOL ABDOMINAL RADIOLOGY United States ✓ ABHANDLUNGEN AUS DEM MATHEMATISCHEN ABH MATH SEM HAMBURG SEMINAR DER UNIVERSITAT HAMBURG Germany ✓ ACADEMIA-REVISTA LATINOAMERICANA ACAD-REV LATINOAM AD DE ADMINISTRACION Colombia ✓ ACAD EMERG MED ACADEMIC EMERGENCY MEDICINE United States ✓ ACAD MED ACADEMIC MEDICINE United States ✓ ACAD PEDIATR ACADEMIC PEDIATRICS United States ✓ ACAD PSYCHIATR ACADEMIC PSYCHIATRY United States ✓ ACAD RADIOL ACADEMIC RADIOLOGY United States ✓ ACAD MANAG ANN ACADEMY OF MANAGEMENT ANNALS United States ✓ ACAD MANAGE J ACADEMY OF MANAGEMENT JOURNAL United States ✓ ACAD MANAG LEARN EDU ACADEMY OF MANAGEMENT LEARNING & EDUCATION United States ✓ ACAD MANAGE PERSPECT ACADEMY OF MANAGEMENT PERSPECTIVES United States ✓ ACAD MANAGE REV ACADEMY OF MANAGEMENT REVIEW United States ✓ ACAROLOGIA ACAROLOGIA France ✓
    [Show full text]
  • Top 100 Cited Articles in Ophthalmic Epidemiology Between 2006 and 2016
    Top 100 cited articles in ophthalmic epidemiology ·Bibliometric Research· Top 100 cited articles in ophthalmic epidemiology between 2006 and 2016 Lei Liu1,2,3, Yan Li4, Gui-Sen Zhang5, Jing-Yang Wu1, Shivani Majithia3, Yih-Chung Tham3, Han Zhang1, Lei Chen1,6 1Department of Ophthalmology, First Affiliated Hospital epidemiology in the past decade and can help recognizing of China Medical University, Shenyang 110001, Liaoning the quality of the researches, discoveries, and trends Province, China steering ophthalmic epidemiology. 2Department of Public Service, First Affiliated Hospital ● KEYWORDS: epidemiology; ophthalmology; article; of China Medical University, Shenyang 110001, Liaoning citation; bibliometric analysis Province, China DOI:10.18240/ijo.2018.12.19 3Singapore Eye Research Institute, Singapore National Eye Centre, 168751, Singapore Citation: Liu L, Li Y, Zhang GS, Wu JY, Majithia S, Tham YC, 4Department of English, School of Fundamental Sciences, Zhang H, Chen L. Top 100 cited articles in ophthalmic epidemiology China Medical University, Shenyang 110122, Liaoning between 2006 and 2016. Int J Ophthalmol 2018;11(12):1994-1998 Province, China 5Department of Ophthalmology, Hohhot Chao Ju Eye Hospital, INTRODUCTION Hohhot 010052, Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region, China ibliometric study is the quantitative analysis of written 6Liaoning Diabetic Eye Center, Shenyang 110001, Liaoning B publications such as journal articles using statistical and Province, China mathematical methods[1-2]. This approach is useful in evaluating Co-first authors: Lei Liu, Yan Li and Gui-Sen Zhang trends in research over time. Currently, bibliometric analysis is Correspondence to: Lei Liu. Department of Ophthalmology, widely used in the determination and evaluation of influential First Affiliated Hospital of China Medical University, No.155 literature[3-4].
    [Show full text]
  • Clarivate Analytics | Journal Citation Reports | Thomson Reuters)
    See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/325999252 2018 latest Impact Factors (Clarivate Analytics | Journal Citation Reports | Thomson Reuters) Technical Report · June 2018 CITATIONS 0 2 authors, including: Muhammad Umair Quaid-i-Azam University 44 PUBLICATIONS 31 CITATIONS SEE PROFILE Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects: Muscular Dystrophies View project Computational and Genetic analysis of Human inherited diseases View project All content following this page was uploaded by Muhammad Umair on 26 June 2018. The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. Journal Data Filtered By: Selected JCR Year: 2017 Selected Editions: SCIE,SSCI Selected Category Scheme: WoS Rank Full Journal Title Total Cites Journal Impact Factor Eigenfactor Score 1 CA-A CANCER JOURNAL FOR CLINICIANS 28,839 244.585 0.066030 2 NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE 332,830 79.258 0.702000 3 LANCET 233,269 53.254 0.435740 4 CHEMICAL REVIEWS 174,920 52.613 0.265650 5 Nature Reviews Materials 3,218 51.941 0.015060 6 NATURE REVIEWS DRUG DISCOVERY 31,312 50.167 0.054410 JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL 7 148,774 47.661 0.299960 ASSOCIATION 8 Nature Energy 5,072 46.859 0.020430 9 NATURE REVIEWS CANCER 50,407 42.784 0.079730 10 NATURE REVIEWS IMMUNOLOGY 39,215 41.982 0.085360 11 NATURE 710,766 41.577 1.355810 12 NATURE REVIEWS GENETICS 35,680 41.465 0.094300 13 SCIENCE 645,132 41.058 1.127160 14 CHEMICAL SOCIETY REVIEWS 125,900 40.182 0.275690 15 NATURE
    [Show full text]
  • 81 Discrepancies Among Scopus, Web of Science, and Pubmed Coverage of Funding Information in Medical Journal Articles
    81 SURVEYS AND STUDIES DOI: dx.doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2018.181 Discrepancies among Scopus, Web of Science, and PubMed coverage of funding information in medical journal articles Peter Kokol, PhD; Helena Blažun Vošner, PhD, PhD See end of article for authors’ affiliations. Objective: The overall aim of the present study was to compare the coverage of existing research funding information for articles indexed in Scopus, Web of Science, and PubMed databases. Methods: The numbers of articles with funding information published in 2015 were identified in the three selected databases and compared using bibliometric analysis of a sample of twenty-eight prestigious medical journals. Results: Frequency analysis of the number of articles with funding information showed statistically significant differences between Scopus, Web of Science, and PubMed databases. The largest proportion of articles with funding information was found in Web of Science (29.0%), followed by PubMed (14.6%) and Scopus (7.7%). Conclusion: The results show that coverage of funding information differs significantly among Scopus, Web of Science, and PubMed databases in a sample of the same medical journals. Moreover, we found that, currently, funding data in PubMed is more difficult to obtain and analyze compared with that in the other two databases. This article has been approved for the Medical Library Association’s Independent Reading Program <http://www.mlanet.org/page/independent-reading-program>. INTRODUCTION In previous studies, Boyack showed that articles As funding is a significant factor enabling research resulting from large grants were cited more than projects [1], research institutions compete for grants those from small grants [5], and Wang and Shapira on a routine basis [2].
    [Show full text]
  • Eye Neoplasm Research: a Bibliometric Analysis from 1966 to 2012 Christophe Boudry, Frédéric Mouriaux
    Eye Neoplasm Research: A Bibliometric Analysis from 1966 to 2012 Christophe Boudry, Frédéric Mouriaux To cite this version: Christophe Boudry, Frédéric Mouriaux. Eye Neoplasm Research: A Bibliometric Analysis from 1966 to 2012. European Journal of Ophthalmology, Wichtig Editore, 2015, 25 (4), pp.357-365. 10.5301/ejo.5000556. hal-01160475 HAL Id: hal-01160475 https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01160475 Submitted on 7 Dec 2017 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. TITLE PAGE Title of the article Eye Neoplasm Research: A Bibliometric Analysis from 1966 to 2012 Short Title Eye Neoplasm Research: A Bibliometric Analysis Authors Christophe Boudry PhD1, Fréderic Mouriaux, MD, PhD2 Author affiliations 1,2 Normandy University, Université de Caen Basse-Normandie, Caen, France 1URFIST/Ecole nationale des Chartes, Paris, France and Laboratoire « Dispositifs d'Information et de Communication à l'Ère Numérique » Conservatoire National des Arts et Métiers, Paris, France 2Service d'Ophtalmologie, Caen CHU Côte de Nacre F-14000, France Corresponding author:
    [Show full text]
  • Crossing the Death Valley of Publication Process in Cornea And
    A RQUIVOS B RASILEIROS DE ORIGINAL ARTICLE Crossing the Death Valley of publication process in cornea and ocular surface diseases: from abstracts presented at the Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology annual meeting to full-text manuscripts Atravessando o Vale da Morte do processo de publicação sobre doenças da córnea e da superfície ocular: de resumos apresentados no Encontro Anual da Associação de Pesquisa em Visão e Oftalmologia até artigos completos Giuseppe Giannaccare1,2, Marco Pellegrini1, Matilde Roda1 , Leonardo Taroni1, Stefano Sebastiani1, Federico Bernabei1, Adriana Ferreira de Araujo Litvin3, Fabiana Moscardelli1, Emilio C. Campos1 1. Ophthalmology Unit, S.Orsola-Malpighi University Hospital, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy. 2. Department of Ophthalmology, University Magna Graecia of Catanzaro, Italy. 3. Secretaria de Serviços Integrados de Saude Procudaria General de Republica, Italy. ABSTRACT | Purpose: This study was conducted to analyze research scope (OR=1.388, p=0.020). The journal’s impact factor the profile and publication rate of abstracts in indexed journals was higher in funded studies (β=0.163, p=0.002) but lower in presented in the cornea section at the Association for Research multicenter studies (β=-0.170, p=0.001). The Kaplan-Meier in Vision and Ophthalmology Annual Meeting and to further analyses revealed significant differences in the publication time identify potential predictive factors for better outcomes. distribution for basic science vs clinical abstracts (χ2=7.636), Methods: Abstracts accepted for presentation at the 2013 controlled vs uncontrolled studies (χ2=6.921), and funded vs Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology Annual unfunded research (χ2=13.892) (p<0.05).
    [Show full text]