Kawasaki disease is a systemic vascular disease with an unclear pathophysiology that primarily affects children under the age of five. Research on immune control in Kawasaki disease has been gaining attention. This study aims to apply a bibliometric analysis to examine the present and future directions of immune control in Kawasaki disease.

By utilizing the themes “Kawasaki disease,” “Kawasaki syndrome,” and “immune control,” the Web of Science Core Collection database was searched for publications on immune control in Kawasaki disease. This bibliometric analysis was carried out using VOSviewers, CiteSpace, and the R package “bibliometrix.”

In total, 294 studies on immune control in Kawasaki disease were published in Web of Science Core Collection. The three most significant institutions were Chang Gung University, the University of California San Diego, and Kaohsiung Chang Gung Memorial Hospital. China, the United States, and Japan were the three most important countries. In this research field, Clinical and Experimental Immunology was the top-referred journal, while the New England Journal of Medicine was the most co-cited journal. The Web of Science Core Collection document by McCrindle BW et al. published in 2017 was the most cited reference. Additionally, the author keywords concentrated on “COVID-19,” “SARS-CoV-2,” and “multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children” in recent years.

The research trends and advancements in immune control in Kawasaki disease are thoroughly summarised in this bibliometric analysis, which is the first to do so. The data indicate recent research frontiers and hot directions, making it easier for researchers to study the immune control of Kawasaki disease.

Bibliometrics methods have allowed researchers to assess the popularity of brain research through the ever-growing number of brain-related research papers. While many topics of brain research have been covered by previous studies, there is no comprehensive overview of the evolution of brain research and its various specialties and funding practices over a long period of time.

This paper aims to (1) determine how brain research has evolved over time in terms of number of papers, (2) countries' relative and absolute positioning in terms of papers and impact, and (3) how those various trends vary by area.

Using a list of validated keywords, we extracted brain-related articles and journals indexed in the Web of Science over the 1991–2020 period, for a total of 2,467,708 papers. We used three indicators to perform: number of papers, specialization, and research impact.

Our results show that over the past 30 years, the number of brain-related papers has grown at a faster pace than science in general, with China being at the forefront of this growth. Different patterns of specialization among countries and funders were also underlined. Finally, the NIH, the European Commission, the National Natural Science Foundation of China, the UK Medical Research Council, and the German Research Foundation were found to be among the top funders.

Despite data-related limitations, our findings provide a large-scope snapshot of the evolution of brain research and its funding, which may be used as a baseline for future studies on these topics.

For decades, quantitative psychologists have recommended that authors report effect sizes to convey the magnitude and potential clinical relevance of statistical associations. However, fewer than one-third of neuropsychology articles published in the early 2000s reported effect sizes. This study re-examines the frequency and extent of effect size reporting in neuropsychology journal articles by manuscript section and over time.

A sample of 326 empirical articles were drawn from 36 randomly selected issues of six neuropsychology journals at 5-year intervals between 1995 and 2020. Four raters used a novel, reliable coding system to quantify the extent to which effect sizes were included in the major sections of all 326 articles.

Findings showed medium-to-large increases in effect size reporting in the Methods and Results sections of neuropsychology journal articles that plateaued in recent years; however, there were only very small and nonsignificant changes in effect size reporting in the Abstract, Introduction, and Discussion sections.

Authors in neuropsychology journals have markedly improved their effect size reporting in the core Methods and Results sections, but are still unlikely to consider these valuable metrics when motivating their study hypotheses and interpreting the conceptual and clinical implications of their findings. Recommendations are provided to encourage more widespread integration of effect sizes in neuropsychological research.

We evaluate a CTSA program hub by applying bibliometrics, social network analysis (SNA), and altmetrics and examine the changes in research productivity, citation impact, research collaboration, and CTSA-supported research topics since our pilot study in 2017.

The sampled data included North Carolina Translational and Clinical Science Institute (NC TraCS)-supported publications produced between September 2008 and March 2021. We applied measures and metrics from bibliometrics, SNA, and altmetrics to the dataset. In addition, we analyzed research topics and correlations between different metrics.

1154 NC TraCS-supported publications generated over 53,560 citation counts by April 2021. The average cites per year and the relative citation ratio (RCR) mean of these publications improved from 33 and 2.26 in 2017 to 48 and 2.58 in 2021. The number of involved UNC units in the most published authors’ collaboration network increased from 7 (2017) to 10 (2021). NC TraCS-supported co-authorship involved 61 NC organizations. PlumX metrics identified articles with the highest altmetrics scores. About 96% NC TraCS-supported publications have above the average SciVal Topic Prominence Percentile; the average approximate potential to translate of the included publication was 54.2%; and 177 publications addressed health disparity issues. Bibliometric measures (e.g., citation counts, RCR) and PlumX metrics (i.e., Citations, Captures, and Social-Media) are positively correlated (p < .05).

Bibliometrics, SNA, and altmetrics offer distinctive but related perspectives to examine CTSA research performance and longitudinal growth, especially at the individual program hub level. These perspectives can help CTSAs build program foci.

The COVID-19 pandemic has captured the mental health discussion worldwide. Examining countries' representation in this discussion could prove instrumental in identifying potential gaps in terms of ensuring a truly global conversation in times of global crisis.

We collected mental health and COVID-19-related journal articles published in PubMed in 2020. We focused on the corresponding authors' countries of affiliation to explore countries' representation. We also examined these articles' academic impact and correlations with their corresponding authors' countries of affiliation. Additional journals and countries' indicators were collected from the Web of Science and World Bank websites, respectively. Data were analyzed using the IBM SPSS Statistics and the VOSviewer software.

In total, 3492 publications were analyzed. Based on the corresponding author, high-income countries produced 61.9% of these publications. Corresponding authors from Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean, and the Middle East combined accounted for 11.8% of the publications. Europe hosted corresponding authors with the most publications and citations, and corresponding authors from North America had the largest mean journal impact factor.

The global scientific discussion during the COVID-19 pandemic saw an increased contribution of academics from developing countries. However, authors from high-income countries have continued to shape this discussion. It is imperative to ensure the active participation of low- and middle-income countries in setting up the global mental health research agenda, particularly in situations of global crisis, such as the ongoing pandemic.

The COVID-19 pandemic exacerbated gender disparities in some academic disciplines. This study examined the association of the pandemic with gender authorship disparities in clinical neuropsychology (CN) journals.

Author bylines of 1,018 initial manuscript submissions to four major CN journals from March 15 through September 15 of both 2019 and 2020 were coded for binary gender. Additionally, authorship of 40 articles published on pandemic-related topics (COVID-19, teleneuropsychology) across nine CN journals were coded for binary gender.

Initial submissions to these four CN journals increased during the pandemic (+27.2%), with comparable increases in total number of authors coded as either women (+23.0%) or men (+25.4%). Neither the average percentage of women on manuscript bylines nor the proportion of women who were lead and/or corresponding authors differed significantly across time. Moreover, the representation of women as authors of pandemic-related articles did not differ from expected frequencies in the field.

Findings suggest that representation of women as authors of peer-reviewed manuscript submissions to some CN journals did not change during the initial months of the COVID-19 pandemic. Future studies might examine how risk and protective factors may have influenced individual differences in scientific productivity during the pandemic.

Federal grant funding to support infrastructure development of translational biomedical research centers is a form of public health intervention. Establishing rigorous methods for measuring center success and outcomes is essential to justify continued funding.

Bibliometric data compiled from a 5-year funding cycle of neurodegeneration and translational neuroscience research center were analyzed using the package bibliometrix for open-source software R and the NIH-developed research tool iCite.

The research team and their collaborators (n = 485) produced 157 grant-citing publications from 2015–2020. The science was produced by small research teams clustered around three main communities of topics: Alzheimer’s Disease, brain imaging, and neuropsychological testing in the elderly. Using the relative citation ratio, the publications produced by the research team were found to be influential when compared to other R01-funded publications.

Recent developments in bibliometric analysis expand beyond traditional measurement capabilities to better understand the characteristics, outcomes, and influences of research teams. These findings can be used to inform researchers and institutions about research team composition, productivity, and success. Measures of research influence may be used to justify return on investment to funders.

The top biomedical research institutions have traditionally been assumed to provide better medical treatment for their patients. However, this may not necessarily be the case. Low-to-moderate negative associations between research activity and the quality-of-care provided by clinical departments have been described. We aimed to examine this relationship in the psychiatric units of the largest hospitals in Spain.

Scientific publications for 50 hospitals were retrieved from the Web of Science (2006–2015), and quality of mental healthcare data were gathered from Spanish National Health System records (2008–2014). Spearman-rank correlation analyses (adjusting for number of beds and population) were used to examine the associations between research data and quality-of-care outcomes in psychiatry. Stepwise regression models were built in order to determine the predictive value of research productivity for healthcare outcomes.

We found a positive association between research activity indicators (i.e., number of publications, number of citations, cumulative impact factor, and institutional H-index) and better quality-of-care outcomes in psychiatry (i.e., number of readmissions, transfers, and discharges from hospital). In particular, a higher research activity predicted a lower level of readmissions for individuals with psychoses (p = 0.025; R = 0.317), explaining 8.2% of the variance when other factors were accounted for.

Higher research activity is associated with better quality of mental healthcare in psychiatry. Our results can inform decision-making in clinical and research management settings in order to determine the most appropriate quality measures of the impact of research on the prognosis of individuals with psychiatric conditions.

In late December 2019, a cluster of patients with pneumonia caused by an unknown pathogen was reported from Wuhan, Hubei Province, China. The pathogen has been identified as a novel coronavirus, severe acute respiratory syndrome 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and the disease has been named as coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The objective of this study was to perform the first holistic scientometric evaluation of coronavirus publications.

Our main source for this study was Web of Science Collection database. All items published between 1980 and 2019 were included. A distribution map of global production in coronavirus literature and scientometric networks were generated.

The United States, China, Germany, the United Kingdom, and Netherlands were the most productive countries. Publications in coronavirus literature have been produced from almost every country in the world, except for some countries in Asia and Africa.

While in the 1980s, the United States and developed countries from Europe were major source countries and the virus was identified only as an animal disease in the literature and its biological and genetic structure was investigated, in the 2000s, China became a major contributor of coronavirus literature because the SARS outbreak originated from southern China. Almost all most-cited publications in this period are related to SARS and the ACE2 protein.

Evaluating clinical and translational research (CTR) mentored training programs is challenging because no two programs are alike. Careful selection of appropriate metrics is required to make valid comparisons between individuals and between programs. The KL2 program provides mentored-training for early-stage CTR investigators. Clinical and Translational Awards across the country have unique KL2 programs. The evaluation of KL2 programs has begun to incorporate bibliometrics to measure KL2 scholar and program impact.

This study investigated demographic differences in bibliometric performance and post-K award funding of KL2 scholars and compared the bibliometric performance and post-K award federal funding of KL2 scholars and other mentored-K awardees at the same institution. Data for this study included SciVal and iCite bibliometrics and National Institutions of Health RePORTER grant information for mentored-K awardees (K08, K23, and KL2) at Case Western Reserve University between 2005 and 2013.

Results showed no demographics differences within the KL2 program scholars. Bibliometric differences between KL2 and other mentored-K awardee indicated an initial KL2 advantage for the number of publications at 5 years’ post-matriculation (i.e., the start of the K award). Regression analyses indicated the number of initial publications was a significant predictor of federal grant funding at the same time point. Analysis beyond the 5-year post-matriculation point did not result in a sustained, significant KL2 advantage.

Factors that contributed to the grant funding advantage need to be determined. Additionally, differences between translational and clinical bibliometrics must be interpreted with caution, and appropriate metrics for translational science must be established.