UNASSIGNED: To classify the bibliometric indicators of online scientific research on placentophagy.
UNASSIGNED: A bibliometric study was conducted to quantify the scientific production of authors and institutions with the aim of highlighting the growth and impact of these publications nationally and internationally. The Bradford Law, network maps, and textual statistics were used, with searches conducted in libraries and databases in October 2021.
UNASSIGNED: The sample consisted of 64 articles, whose primary authors were associated with 49 institutions, and mostly with degrees in anthropology. The United States of America was the country that published the most papers on the theme, and most studies were reviews with individual production. Through the term analysis, it was found that the predominant themes regarding placentophagy were the following: Alternative therapy for women\'s health, methodologies used for research in this area, period of placenta ingestion (postpartum period), and its benefits.
UNASSIGNED: The bibliometric indicators found are essential for the development of future research.

Different stakeholders, such as authors, research institutions, and healthcare professionals (HCPs) may determine the impact of peer-reviewed publications in different ways. Commonly-used measures of research impact, such as the Journal Impact Factor or the H-index, are not designed to evaluate the impact of individual articles. They are heavily dependent on citations, and therefore only measure impact of the overall journal or researcher respectively, taking months or years to accrue. The past decade has seen the development of article-level metrics (ALMs), that measure the online attention received by an individual publication in contexts including social media platforms, news media, citation activity, and policy and patent citations. These new tools can complement traditional bibliometric data and provide a more holistic evaluation of the impact of a publication. This commentary discusses the need for ALMs, and summarizes several examples - PlumX Metrics, Altmetric, the Better Article Metrics score, the EMPIRE Index, and scite. We also discuss how metrics may be used to evaluate the value of \"publication extenders\" - educational microcontent such as animations, videos and plain-language summaries that are often hosted on HCP education platforms. Publication extenders adapt a publication\'s key data to audience needs and thereby extend a publication\'s reach. These new approaches have the potential to address the limitations of traditional metrics, but the diversity of new metrics requires that users have a keen understanding of which forms of impact are relevant to a specific publication and select and monitor ALMs accordingly.
Different readers have different ways of deciding how important scientific articles are. The usual methods used to measure the impact of research, like the Journal Impact Factor or the H-index, are not meant to measure this for individual articles. These methods mainly look at how many times the articles are mentioned by others, and it can take a long time to see the impact.But in the past ten years, new tools called article-level metrics (ALMs) have been created. These tools measure how much attention an article gets online, like on social media, in the news, or when other researchers talk about it. ALMs are better at explaining how important a specific article is. They can work together with the usual methods to measure impact.This paper talks about why ALMs are important and gives examples of these tools, like PlumX Metrics, Altmetric, the Better Article Metrics score, the EMPIRE Index, and scite. It also explains how these tools can help us see the value of animations, videos, or summaries in simple language. These make it easier for more people to understand and learn from the articles.These new ways of measuring impact can help us see how important articles are in a more complete way. But because there are many different ways to measure this, it’s important for users to understand which methods are relevant for a specific article and keep track of them.

This bibliometric analysis aims to analyze the global scientific production of COVID-19 and vaccines. First, a search for scientific articles was performed using the advanced query in the Web of Science™ database, more precisely in its core collection, on 18 February 2023. Data from 7754 articles were analyzed using the Bibliometrix R package and the Biblioshiny application. The evaluated articles were published mainly in 2022 (60%). The scientific journals that published the most about COVID-19 and vaccines were \"Vaccines\", \"Vaccine\" and \"Human Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics\". The University of Oxford was the most productive institution, with the authors of the articles mainly originating from the United States, China and the United Kingdom. The United States, despite having carried out the most significant number of collaborations, published mainly with local researchers. The 15 most cited articles and the KeyWords Plus™ evidenced the focus of the published articles on the safety and efficacy of vaccines against COVID-19, as well as on the evaluation of vaccine acceptance, more specifically on vaccine hesitancy. Research funding came primarily from US government agencies.

BACKGROUND: The arrival of the pandemic caused by coronavirus disease (COVID-19) exponentially increased scientific production.
OBJECTIVE: To analyze the influence of COVID-19-related scientific production on the impact factor values of Latin American medical journals.
METHODS: Journals related to the Medicine categories included in Journal Citation Reports (JCR) were used. Impact factor data from the 2020 and 2021 editions were used to compare the citations received by documents related to COVID-19.
RESULTS: A decrease in the impact factor values of the evaluated journals was observed when the citations received by works related to COVID-19 were eliminated.
CONCLUSIONS: The volume of information published on COVID-19 and the citations received influenced the impact increase in 2021 JCR.
UNASSIGNED: La llegada de la pandemia de la enfermedad por coronavirus (COVID-19) incrementó exponencialmente la producción científica.
OBJECTIVE: Analizar la influencia de la producción científica acerca de COVID-19 en los valores del factor de impacto de revistas médicas latinoamericanas.
UNASSIGNED: Se emplearon las revistas de categorías relacionadas con la medicina del Journal Citation Reports (JCR). Se utilizaron los datos del factor del impacto de las ediciones de 2020 y 2021 para establecer una comparación respecto a las citas recibidas por los documentos relativos a COVID-19.
RESULTS: Se observó un descenso en los valores del factor de impacto de las revistas evaluadas cuando se eliminan las citas recibidas por los documentos relativos a COVID-19.
CONCLUSIONS: El volumen de la información publicada sobre COVID-19 y las citas recibidas influyeron en el aumento del impacto en el JCR de 2021.

Bibliometric data are relatively simple and describe objective processes of publishing articles and citing others. It seems quite straightforward to define reasonable measures of a researcher\'s productivity, research quality, or overall performance based on these data. Why do we still have no acceptable bibliometric measures of scientific performance? Instead, there are hundreds of indicators with nobody knowing how to use them. At the same time, an increasing number of researchers and some research fields have been excluded from the standard bibliometric analysis to avoid manifestly contradictive conclusions. I argue that the current biggest problem is the inadequate rule of credit allocation for multiple authored articles in mainstream bibliometrics. Clinging to this historical choice excludes any systematic and logically consistent bibliometrics-based evaluation of researchers, research groups, and institutions. During the last 50 years, several authors have called for a change. Apparently, there are no serious methodologically justified or evidence-based arguments in the favor of the present system. However, there are intractable social, psychological, and economical issues that make adoption of a logically sound counting system almost impossible.

The evidence base in environmental sciences is increasing steadily. Environmental researchers have been challenged to handle massive volumes of data to support more comprehensive studies, assess the current status of science, and move research towards future progress. Bibliometrics can provide important insights into the research directions by providing summarized information for several end users. Here, we present an in-depth discussion on the use of bibliometric indicators to evaluate research outputs through four case studies comprising disciplines in environmental sciences. We discuss four big challenges researchers may face when conducting bibliometric reviews and how to deal with them. We also address some primary questions researchers may answer with bibliometric mapping, drawing lessons from the case studies. Lastly, we clarify some misuses of review concepts and suggest methodological principles of systematic reviews and maps to improve the overall quality of bibliometric studies.

Altmetrics measure the digital attention received by a research output. They allow us to gauge the immediate social impact of an article by taking real-time measurements of how it circulates in the Internet. While there are several companies offering attention scores, the most extensive are Altmetric.com (Altmetric Attention Score-AAS) and Plum X (Plum Print). As this is an emerging topic, many medical specialities have tried to establish if there is a relationship between an article\'s altmetric data and the citations it subsequently receives. The results have varied depending on the research field. In radiology, the social network most used is Twitter and the subspeciality with the highest AAS is neuroimaging. This article will review the process involved from the start when an article is published through to finally obtaining its altmetric score. It will also address the relationship between altmetrics and more traditional approaches focusing on citations in radiology and will discuss the advantages and limitations of these new impact indicators.

OBJECTIVE: To explore the relevance of scientific production on glaucoma using bibliometric tools.
METHODS: Bibliographic study.
METHODS: Original articles published from 1900 through 2019.
METHODS: We performed a search in Web of Science for documents published between 1900 and 2019. We used bibliometric indicators to explore documents production, dispersion, distribution, time of duplication, and annual growth, as characterized by Price\'s law of scientific literature growth, Lotka\'s law, the transient index, and the Bradford model. We also calculated the participation index of different countries and institutions. Finally, we explored with bibliometric mapping the co-occurrence networks for the most frequently used terms in glaucoma research.
METHODS: Bibliometric indicators for individuals, institutions, and countries.
RESULTS: A total of 33 631 original articles were collected from the timeframe 1900 through 2019. Price\'s law showed an exponential growth. Scientific production was adjusted better to exponential growth (r = 0.967) than linear growth (r = 0.755). Literature on glaucoma research increased its growth in the last 30 years at a rate of 5.1% per year with a production that doubled its size every 13.9 years. The transience index was 60.08%; this indicates that most of the scientific production is the output of very few authors. Bradford\'s law showed a high concentration of articles published in a small core of specialized journals. Lotka\'s law indicated that the distribution of authors is concentrated heavily in small producers. The United States and University of London demonstrated the highest production of original articles. Map network visualization showed the generated term map detailing clusters of closely related terms.
CONCLUSIONS: Glaucoma literature has grown exponentially. A very high rate of transience was found that indicates the presence of numerous authors who sporadically publish on this topic. No evidence of a saturation point in the glaucoma literature was observed.

The impact and the universality of the pandemic by SARS-CoV-2 has caused the need to have information quickly and accessible for the benefit of decision-making among healthcare professionals. In 10 months the scientific production on this new coronavirus has exceeded the number of 66 thousand articles, according to the LitCovid database, created by the National Library of Medicine, doubling and tripling every few weeks. This same urgency has characterized some of the main features of this voluminous production, in addition to its continuous and exponential growth, such as greater dissemination in open access and preprint repositories, a certain acceleration in the manuscript review process by editorials and an abundance of opinion articles, recommendations or comments compared to a smaller number of original articles with clinical data from large groups of patients.
El impacto y la universalidad de la pandemia de SARS-CoV-2 han provocado en el mundo entero la necesidad de disponer de información científica de una forma rápida y accesible para la correcta toma de decisiones entre los profesionales sanitarios. Por ello, en 10 meses la producción científica sobre este nuevo coronavirus ha superado la cifra de los 66.000 artículos, según la base de datos LitCovid creada por la National Library of Medicine, duplicándose y triplicándose la cantidad cada pocas semanas. Esta misma urgencia ha caracterizado algunos de los rasgos principales que han definido esta voluminosa producción, además de su continuo y exponencial crecimiento, como son una mayor difusión en acceso abierto y en repositorios de preprints, una cierta aceleración en el proceso de revisión de manuscritos por parte de las editoriales y una abundancia de artículos de opinión, recomendaciones o comentarios frente a un menor número de artículos originales con datos clínicos de grandes grupos de pacientes.

This paper analyzes the scientific map of technostress and the scientific production on this topic between 1982 and 2017, highlighting its structure, evolution, and trends in this field. A literature review based on bibliometric analysis of 246 records indexed in Scopus database was conducted. These publications were analyzed according to bibliometric indicators and through science maps with SciMAT. Co-occurrence of terms by grouping techniques was implemented. In addition, elaboration of maps of science and performance analysis for periods was executed. The main contribution of this work is to provide the first scientific map of technostress and a detailed understanding of the scientific production that predicts the directions of future research. The bibliometric analyses permit an overview of the growth, extent and distribution of the scientific literature related to the technostress and the study of the scientific production of an institution, country, author or research group.