Radiologic Clinics of North America; Bibliometric Spectrum of Publications from 2000 to 2019.
2021
- 577Usage
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Usage577
- Downloads382
- Abstract Views195
Article Description
Aim: The aim of this study is to present the bibliometric analysis of papers published in Radiologic Clinic of North America (RCNA) from 2000 to 2019.Design/Methodology: The Elsevier’s Scopus database was used as a source to retrieve the bibliographic records published from 2000 to 2019. The data was evaluated on the following parameters, growth of publications and their citation impact by year, most contributing institutions and countries, productive authors, authorship patterns, most-cited papers, frequently used keywords and flow of knowledge. Only original and review articles were used for analysis, other types of documents were excluded. Microsoft Excel, SPSS and VOSviewer software were used for data analysis.Results: A fluctuation was detected in the number of publications. A total of 1,401 papers were selected, of whom 1,241 (88.57%) were review articles and 160 (11.42%) were research articles. The mean and standard deviation (SD) scores of papers were 70 and 6.15 respectively. All selected papers received 34,145 citations with a mean score of 24.37 citations per paper (SD 1019.55). The study found that all top-10 contributing institutions belonged to the USA and the USA was also found most productive country. Out of the ten-most productive authors, nine were affiliated with USA and two-author pattern found a most preferred pattern.Conclusion: The finding of this study exposed that the USA is the most productive country in terms of authors, institutions and even in citing the literature of RCNA.
Bibliographic Details
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know