Premium
Bibliometrics Study on Authorship Trends in Periodontal Literature From 1995 to 2010
Author(s) -
Geminiani Alessandro,
Ercoli Carlo,
Feng Changyong,
Caton Jack G.
Publication year - 2014
Publication title -
journal of periodontology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 2.036
H-Index - 156
eISSN - 1943-3670
pISSN - 0022-3492
DOI - 10.1902/jop.2013.130354
Subject(s) - bibliometrics , medline , dentistry , medicine , library science , computer science , political science , law
Background: Biomedical research has grown considerably in the last few decades, and the authorship characteristics of the dental literature as a whole and of its specialty fields has changed significantly. Unfortunately, the bibliometrics of the periodontal literature have not been thoroughly investigated. The aim of this study is to investigate the bibliometrics of periodontal literature, assessing the geographic origin, study design, and topics investigated in periodontal research published from 1995 to 2010. Methods: Articles published in periodontal journals during 1995 to 2010 were retrieved through hand search. Inclusion/exclusion criteria were applied. The following variables were extrapolated from each article: number of authors, study design, topic investigated, financial support, and geographic origin. The general linear model assessed the influence of independent variables on number of authors per article, and χ 2 test assessed the statistical difference of the variables over years 1995 to 2010. Results: A total of 2,260 articles were reviewed; 2,076 met the inclusion criteria. The number of authors per article increased ( P <0.001) from 4.0 (1995) to 5.1 (2010). The proportion of articles published from North America and Europe decreased ( P <0.001) from 84.3% (1995) to 58.6% (2010), whereas for Asia and South America the article proportion increased ( P <0.001) from 13.8% (1995) to 40% (2010). Research targeting prevention and treatment of periodontal disease is decreasing ( P <0.001) in favor of implant‐related research. Governmental research funding is increasing ( P <0.001). Conclusion: Periodontal research significantly changed during the last 15 years.