With the ever-growing accessibility of case law online, it has become challenging to manually identify case law relevant to one\'s legal issue. In the Netherlands, the planned increase in the online publication of case law is expected to exacerbate this challenge. In this paper, we tried to predict whether court decisions are cited by other courts or not after being published, thus in a way distinguishing between more and less authoritative cases. This type of system may be used to process the large amounts of available data by filtering out large quantities of non-authoritative decisions, thus helping legal practitioners and scholars to find relevant decisions more easily, and drastically reducing the time spent on preparation and analysis. For the Dutch Supreme Court, the match between our prediction and the actual data was relatively strong (with a Matthews Correlation Coefficient of 0.60). Our results were less successful for the Council of State and the district courts (MCC scores of 0.26 and 0.17, relatively). We also attempted to identify the most informative characteristics of a decision. We found that a completely explainable model, consisting only of handcrafted metadata features, performs almost as well as a less well-explainable system based on all text of the decision.

UNASSIGNED: The rate of case report/series (CR/S) acceptance by the high impact journals is steadily declining mainly due to low citations. The aim of this study is primarily to investigate the bibliometric aspects of CR/S in the field of otorhinolaryngology (ORL) and secondarily to guide prospective authors as to which type of CR/S have better chances of acceptance and citation in the current publication climate.
UNASSIGNED: Bibliometric and citation analysis of CR/S published in Science Citation Index (SCI) journals of ORL covering the years of 2012-2016 was conducted.
UNASSIGNED: There were 1332 (8.9%) CR/S among 14900 publications in 11 SCI ORL journals published between January 1st, 2012 and December 31st, 2016. The most common published field and subject were the \'pediatric ORL\' (33.2%) and \'rare cases/conditions\' (47.1%) respectively. \'General ORL\' (5.13) and \'treatment\' (4.93) categories had the highest citations. Only 10% of CR/S had ≥10 citations. The mean citation counts were positively correlated with impact factors of journals (r=0.131, p<0.001), mean number of authors (r=0.151, p<0.001), mean number of cases (r=0.192, p<0.001), mean number of references (r=0.315, p<0.001) and mean number of Web of Science visits (r=0.291, p<0.001).
UNASSIGNED: Although CR/S provides low citation rates in ORL SCI journals, they may serve important topics in terms of diagnosis, treatment, or complications. The findings and the main discussions of this study may direct the rationale for the consistent publication of CR/S in the evidence-based medicine era.

In this article, we show the results of a quantitative and qualitative analysis of open citations on a popular and highly cited retracted paper: \"Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis and pervasive developmental disorder in children\" by Wakefield et al., published in 1998. The main purpose of our study is to understand the behavior of the publications citing one retracted article and the characteristics of the citations the retracted article accumulated over time. Our analysis is based on a methodology which illustrates how we gathered the data, extracted the topics of the citing articles and visualized the results. The data and services used are all open and free to foster the reproducibility of the analysis. The outcomes concerned the analysis of the entities citing Wakefield et al.\'s article and their related in-text citations. We observed a constant increasing number of citations in the last 20 years, accompanied with a constant increment in the percentage of those acknowledging its retraction. Citing articles have started either discussing or dealing with the retraction of Wakefield et al.\'s article even before its full retraction happened in 2010. Articles in the social sciences domain citing the Wakefield et al.\'s one were among those that have mostly discussed its retraction. In addition, when observing the in-text citations, we noticed that a large number of the citations received by Wakefield et al.\'s article has focused on general discussions without recalling strictly medical details, especially after the full retraction. Medical studies did not hesitate in acknowledging the retraction of the Wakefield et al.\'s article and often provided strong negative statements on it.

OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to identify the 100 most-cited research reports on craniopharyngiomas.
METHODS: The Thomson Reuters Web of Science service was queried for the years 1900 to 2017 without language restrictions. The articles were sorted in descending order of the number of times they had been cited by other studies, and all titles and abstracts were screened to identify the research areas of the top 100 reports. The number of citations per year was calculated.
RESULTS: We identified the 100 most-cited articles on craniopharyngioma, which, collectively, had been cited 20,994 times at the time of our report. The top cited report had been cited 718 times, with an average of 144 citations annually since publication. The oldest article had been published in 1969 and the most recent in 2013; the most prolific decade was the 2000s, with 38 of the included articles published during that period. Thirty-two unique journals contributed to the 100 articles, with the Journal of Neurosurgery contributing most of the articles (n = 31). The most common country of article origin was the United States (n = 49), followed by United Kingdom (n = 12), Germany (n = 10), and Italy (n = 6).
CONCLUSIONS: The present study identified the 100 most-cited research articles in craniopharyngioma. These results highlight the multidisciplinary and multimodal nature of craniopharyngioma management. Recognition of important historical contributions to this field could guide future investigations.

Scientometric data on the citation success of different publication types and publication genres in psychology publications are presented. Data refer to references that are cited in these scientific publications and that are documented in PSYNDEX, the exhaustive database of psychology publications from the German-speaking countries either published in German or in English language. Firstly, data analyses refer to the references that are cited in publications of 2009 versus 2010 versus 2011. With reference to all cited references, the portion of journal articles ranges from 57 to 61 %, of books from 22 to 24 %, and of book chapters from 14 to 15 %, with a rather high stability across the three publication years analysed. Secondly, data analyses refer to the numbers of cited references from the German-speaking countries, which are also documented in PSYNDEX. These compose about 11 % of all cited references indicating that nearly 90 % of the references cited are of international and/or interdisciplinary publications not stemming from the German-speaking countries. The subsample shows the proportion of journal articles, books, and chapters, and these are very similar to the percentages identified for all references that are cited. Thirdly, analyses refer to document type, scientific genre, and psychological sub-discipline of the most frequently cited references in the psychology publications. The frequency of top-cited references of books and book chapters is almost equal to that of journal articles; two-thirds of the top-cited references are non-empirical publications, only one-third are empirical publications. Top-cited references stem particularly from clinical psychology, experimental psychology, as well as tests, testing and psychometrics. In summary, the results point to the fact that citation analyses, which are limited to journal papers, tend to neglect very high portions of references that are cited in scientific publications.

In this brief paper we explore the Hirsch-index together with a couple of other bibliometric parameters for the assessment of the scientific output of 29 Dutch professors in clinical cardiology. It appears that even within such a homogeneous group there is large interindividual variability. Although the differences are quite remarkable, it remains undetermined what they mean; at least it is premature to interpret them as differences in scientific quality. It goes without saying that even more prudence is required when different fields of medicine and life sciences are compared (for example within University Medical Centres). Recent efforts to produce an amalgam of scientific \'productivity\', \'relevance\' and \'viability\' as a surrogate parameter for the assessment of scientific quality, as for example performed in the AMC in Amsterdam, should be discouraged in the absence of a firm scientific base. Unfortunately for politicians and \'managers of science\' only reading papers and studying are suitable for quality assessment of scientific output. Citations analyses can\'t substitute that. (Neth Heart J 2009;17:145-54.).