Cited by 26scientometrics and bibliometrics researchAcademic Writing and PublishingPsychology Research and Bibliometrics

Scientific research output in orthopaedics from China and other top-ranking countries: a 10-year survey of the literature

Open access
Zou, Yuming, Li, Quan, Xu, Weidong·2016·BMJ Open

Abstract

Objectives: Orthopaedics-related diseases and conditions are a significant burden worldwide. In this study, we aimed to compare the quantity and quality of research output in the field of orthopaedics from Mainland China (MC), USA, UK, Japan and Germany. Setting: The USA, UK, Japan, Germany and MC. Participants: We selected orthopaedics journals from the subject category ‘orthopedics’ from the Science Citation Index Expanded (SCIE). Outcome measures: The number of publications, the number of publications in the surveyed publication types, impact factor (IF) and citations from the corresponding country from 2005 to 2014 were collected for quantity and quality comparisons. Results: A total of 128 895 articles were published worldwide in orthopaedics-related journals from 2005 to 2014. The USA contributed the largest proportion (31 190 (24.20%)), followed by the UK (6703 (5.20%)), Japan (5718 (4.41%)), Germany (4701 (3.66%)) and MC (3389 (2.63%)). Publications from MC represented the fewest, but this quantity is rapidly increasing. The quantity of annual publications from MC has exceeded that of Germany since 2012. The USA plays a predominant role in all kinds of publication types under investigation in the study, except in the category of meta-analysis. MC was in the last place for cumulative IFs, and the average IF actually decreased from the beginning of the study. For total and average citations, MC still lags behind the other countries in the study. Conclusions: The USA has occupied the dominant place in orthopaedics-related research for the last 10 years. Although MC has made great progress in the number of published works in the field of orthopaedics over the last 10 years, the quality of these publishing efforts needs further improvement.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-011605

Cites

12 of 12 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [8]Journal search: science citation index expanded subject categories. http://science.thomsonreuters.com/cgi-bin/jrnlst/jlresults.cgi?PC=D&SC=TC (accessed 30 Sep 2015).
  2. [9]Journal Citation Reports. http:// apps.webofknowledge.com (accessed 30 Sep 2015).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Zou, Y., Li, Q., & Xu, W.
Affiliations
Second Military Medical University (CN)
Corresponding author
Xu, Weidong
Venue
BMJ Open
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2016-09
Volume
6
Issue
9
Pages
e011605
ISSN
2044-6055 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2519823055
Cited by
26
References
12
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 1
FWCI
3.42
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc
Locations
  • BMJ Open (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › scientometrics and bibliometrics research
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Academic Writing and Publishing
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Psychology Research and Bibliometrics
Keywords
orthopedics, research output, publication quality, impact factor, citation analysis, cross-national comparison, China, orthopaedic journals, research productivity
MeSH terms
Clinical Studies as Topic, China, Germany, United Kingdom, Humans, Japan, Orthopedics, Publications, United States, Bibliometrics, Health Care Surveys, Orthopedic Procedures, Biomedical Research, Journal Impact Factor

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review