Glynn, RW; Chin, JZ; Kerin, MJ; Sweeney, KJ. 2010. Representation of Cancer in the Medical Literature - A Bibliometric Analysis. PLOS ONE 5 (11): art. no.-e13902

[Eugene Garfield]

Glynn, RW; Chin, JZ; Kerin, MJ; Sweeney, KJ. 2010. Representation of Cancer in 
the Medical Literature - A Bibliometric Analysis. PLOS ONE 5 (11): art. no.-
e13902.

Author Full Name(s): Glynn, Ronan W.; Chin, Ji Z.; Kerin, Michael J.; Sweeney, 
Karl J.
Language: English
Document Type: Article
KeyWords Plus: WEB-OF-SCIENCE; IMPACT FACTOR; WEAKNESSES; 
STRENGTHS; SCOPUS

Abstract: 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 (TM)(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.

Addresses: [Glynn, Ronan W.; Chin, Ji Z.; Kerin, Michael J.; Sweeney, Karl J.] 
Natl Univ Ireland Galway, Inst Clin Sci, Dept Surg, Galway, Ireland

Reprint Address: Glynn, RW, Natl Univ Ireland Galway, Inst Clin Sci, Dept Surg, 
Galway, Ireland.

E-mail Address: ronanglynn at doctors.org.uk
ISSN: 1932-6203
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0013902
fulltext: http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0013902