Search results

The use of citation analysis to identify the first 100 articles on malaria offers unique insights into understanding the disease and subsequent follow-up treatment innovations over time. In this study, the 100 most-cited articles on malaria were analyzed, and key studies were highlighted.

The data of the most-cited articles for the period of four decades were extracted from the Web of Science database. The search terms malaria, plasmodium infection and remittent fever were used to identify the related articles for the study.

The preliminary data of the 100 most-cited articles were recorded and analyzed. The total number of retrieved articles was 55,517. Dondrop and colleagues wrote the most-cited articles focusing on a new treatment for falciparum malaria resistant to existing medications. The author, with the most publications, was N. J. White. The most-cited articles on malaria were published in 35 journals. The USA had published most of the influential articles, while the Mahidol Oxford Tropical Medicine Research Unit was the leading institute active in malaria research. The experimental method was the most frequent method used by the most-cited articles. There was a significant relationship between the number of authors, the presence of the corresponding author on Research Gate, the availability of the full text of the article on Research Gate, the impact factor of the journal in which the article was published and the international collaboration of authors and the number of citations on malaria. The most influential authors, countries, institutes, journals and articles were specified. Most of the notable articles on malaria were published in journals with high impact factors. A group of journals was introduced as the core journals.

It was found that having co-authors, the presence of the corresponding author on Research Gate, the availability of the full text of the article on Research Gate, the impact factor of the journal in which the article was published and international collaboration contributed to the publication of high-quality scientific products. Updated information on malaria is needed to present and expand the screening strategies to improve health and reduce burden of malaria.

By distorting the peer review process, predatory journals lure researchers and collect article processing charges (APCs) to earn income, thereby threatening clinical decisions. This study aims to identifying the characteristics of predatory publishing in the dermatology literature.

The authors used Kscien's list to detect dermatology-related predatory journals. Bibliometric parameters were analyzed at the level of journals, publishers, documents and authors.

Sixty-one potential predatory dermatology publishers published 4,164 articles in 57 journals from 2000 to 2020, with most publishers claiming to be located in the United States. Most journals were 1–5 years old. Six journals were indexed in PubMed, two in Scopus and 43 in Google Scholar (GS). The average APC was 1,049 USD. Skin, patient, cutaneous, psoriasis, dermatitis and acne were the most frequently used keywords in the article's title. A total of 1,146 articles in GS received 4,725 citations. More than half of the journals had <10 citations. Also, 318 articles in Web of Science were contaminated by the most cited articles and 4.49% of the articles had reported their funding source. The average number of authors per article was 3.7. India, the United States and Japan had the most articles from 119 involved countries. Asia, Europe and North America had the most contributed authors; 5.2% of articles were written through international collaboration. A majority of authors were from high- and low-middle-income countries. Women contributed 43.57% and 39.66% as the first and corresponding authors, respectively.

The study had limitations, including heavy reliance on Kscien's list, potential for human error in manual data extraction and nonseparation of types of articles. Journals that only published dermatology articles were reviewed, so those occasionally publishing dermatology articles were missed. Predatory journals covering multiple subjects (Petrisor, 2016) may have resulted in overlooking some dermatology papers. This study did not claim to have covered all articles in predatory dermatology journals (PDJs) but evaluated many of them. The authors accept the claim that Kscien's list may have made a mistake in including journals.

The wide dispersion of authors involved in PDJs highlights the need to increase awareness among these authors.