Increase in numbers and proportions of review articles in Tropical Medicine, Infectious Diseases, and oncology

This article examines whether the absolute and relative numbers of reviews are increasing in the following three subfields of medical sciences: Tropical Medicine, Infectious Diseases, and Oncology. It further examines if reviews are cited more frequently than are “normal” articles. All research questions are answered affirmatively: The absolute as well as the relative numbers of reviews in these three subfields are indeed increasing. In addition, reviews in these fields are cited more frequently than are normal articles: about 70% more often than are “normal” articles in Infectious Diseases and Oncology and about 50% more often in Tropical Medicine. The article discusses possible reasons for this increase and concludes that medical journals should strive to achieve an optimal balance between review papers and original articles.

[1]  Ronald Rousseau,et al.  Journal Production and Journal Impact Factors , 1996, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci..

[2]  D J PRICE,et al.  NETWORKS OF SCIENTIFIC PAPERS. , 1965, Science.

[3]  D. Moher,et al.  Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. , 2009, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[4]  Dag W. Aksnes,et al.  Citation rates and perceptions of scientific contribution , 2006, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[5]  D. Aksnes.  CHARACTERISTICS OF HIGHLY CITED PAPERS , 2003 .

[6]  A. Oxman,et al.  Comprehensiveness and bias in reporting clinical trials. Study of reviews of pneumococcal vaccine effectiveness. , 1995, Canadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien.

[7]  E. Romagnoli,et al.  Compliance with QUOROM and quality of reporting of overlapping meta-analyses on the role of acetylcysteine in the prevention of contrast associated nephropathy: case study , 2006, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[8]  D. Moher,et al.  Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement , 2009, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[9]  J. E. Hirsch,et al.  An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output , 2005, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA.

[10]  John P. A. Ioannidis,et al.  Concentration of the Most-Cited Papers in the Scientific Literature: Analysis of Journal Ecosystems , 2006, PloS one.

[11]  Wolfgang Glänzel,et al.  What are highly cited publications? A method applied to German scientific papers, 1980–1989 , 1992 .

[12]  Maria J Grant,et al.  A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. , 2009, Health information and libraries journal.

[13]  Ming Li,et al.  Counting citations in texts rather than reference lists to improve the accuracy of assessing scientific contribution , 2011, BioEssays : news and reviews in molecular, cellular and developmental biology.

[14]  J. Ioannidis,et al.  Relative Citation Impact of Various Study Designs in the Health Sciences , 2005, JAMA.