Representation of Cancer in the Medical Literature - A Bibliometric Analysis

Background There exists a lack of knowledge regarding the quantity and quality of scientific yield in relation to individual cancer types. We aimed to measure the proportion, quality and relevance of oncology-related articles, and to relate this output to their associated disease burden. By incorporating the impact factor(IF) and Eigenfactor™(EF) into our analysis we also assessed the relationship between these indices and the output under study. Methods All publications in 2007 were retrieved for the 26 most common cancers. The top 20 journals ranked by IF and EF in general medicine and oncology, and the presence of each malignancy within these titles was analysed. Journals publishing most prolifically on each cancer were identified and their impact assessed. Principal Findings 63260 (PubMed) and 126845 (WoS) entries were generated, respectively. 26 neoplasms accounted for 25% of total output from the top medical publications. 5 cancers dominated the first quartile of output in the top oncology journals; breast, prostate, lung, and intestinal cancer, and leukaemia. Journals associated with these cancers were associated with much higher IFs and EFs than those journals associated with the other cancer types under study, although these measures were not equivalent across all sub-specialties. In addition, yield on each cancer was related to its disease burden as measured by its incidence and prevalence. Conclusions Oncology enjoys disproportionate representation in the more prestigious medical journals. 5 cancers dominate yield, although this attention is justified given their associated disease burden. The commonly used IF and the recently introduced EF do not correlate in the assessment of the preeminent oncology journals, nor at the level of individual malignancies; there is a need to delineate between proxy measures of quality and the relevance of output when assessing its merit. These results raise significant questions regarding the best method of assessment of research and scientific output in the field of oncology.

[1]  Henk F. Moed,et al.  Coverage and citation impact of oncological journals in the Web of Science and Scopus , 2008, J. Informetrics.

[2]  E. Garfield The history and meaning of the journal impact factor. , 2006, JAMA.

[3]  O. Belvedere,et al.  Geography of clinical cancer research publications from 1995 to 1999. , 2003, European journal of cancer.

[4]  Amount of research interest in rare and common neurological conditions: bibliometric study , 2001, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[5]  Paul A Schulte,et al.  A bibliometric analysis of scientific production in cancer molecular epidemiology. , 2007, Carcinogenesis.

[6]  Sergey Brin,et al.  The Anatomy of a Large-Scale Hypertextual Web Search Engine , 1998, Comput. Networks.

[7]  Dave Singh,et al.  Impact factor and its role in academic promotion , 2009, International Journal of COPD.

[8]  Frederic Michon,et al.  The Dynamic Interest in Topics within the Biomedical Scientific Community , 2009, PloS one.

[9]  N. McNally,et al.  Reforming clinical research and development in England , 2003, British medical journal.

[10]  Carl T. Bergstrom,et al.  The Eigenfactor™ Metrics , 2008, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[11]  Tadao Oda,et al.  Misused Impact Factor , 2009 .

[12]  Pablo Fernández,et al.  Google’s pagerank and beyond: The science of search engine rankings , 2008 .

[13]  Carl D. Meyer,et al.  Google's PageRank and Beyond , 2007 .

[14]  G. Lewison,et al.  Mapping the emergence and development of translational cancer research. , 2006, European journal of cancer.

[15]  P. Kamath,et al.  Impact factor: Misused and overhyped? , 2009, Hepatology.

[16]  Mike Rossner,et al.  Show me the data , 2007, The Journal of cell biology.

[17]  Matthew E Falagas,et al.  Comparison of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar: strengths and weaknesses , 2007, FASEB journal : official publication of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology.

[18]  James Hendler,et al.  Google’s PageRank and Beyond: The Science of Search Engine Rankings , 2007 .

[19]  C. Gross,et al.  Evaluating the Surgery Literature: Can Standardizing Peer-Review Today Predict Manuscript Impact Tomorrow? , 2009, Annals of surgery.