Producción Científica

Introduction: There is a need to examine the use of artificial intelligence in the branch of nursing and to investigate the characteristics of the research conducted in this field. Aim: The aimed was to examine the characteristics of the current knowledge structure and development process in the field of the use of artificial intelligence in nursing. Method: In the descriptive and evaluative bibliometric analysis study, data were obtained from Web of Science database. All relevant studies conducted between 2004 and 2023 were included in the study. Data analysis was performed using R Biblioshniy software. Two hundred seventy-three studies were included in the study. Results: The most publications (n = 86, 31.50%) were made in this field in 2022. The most productive author in the field of nursing and artificial intelligence was Topaz, Maxim. The prominent topics in the studies were “virtual reality, artificial intelligence, nursing, machine learning, simulation, nursing education, education, pain, nursing students, natural language processing, nurses, robotics, deep learning and mental health”. Conclusion: There has been a significant increase in the number of studies on the use of artificial intelligence in nursing and this area offers an active field of study for nursing researchers

Background: As an important platform for researchers to present their academic findings, medical journals have a close relationship between their evaluation orientation and the value orientation of their published research results. However, the differences between the academic impact and level of disruptive innovation of medical journals have not been examined by any study yet. Objective: This study aims to compare the relationships and differences between the academic impact, disruptive innovation levels, and peer review results of medical journals and published research papers. We also analyzed the similarities and differences in the impact evaluations, disruptive innovations, and peer reviews for different types of medical research papers and the underlying reasons. Methods: The general and internal medicine Science Citation Index Expanded (SCIE) journals in 2018 were chosen as the study object to explore the differences in the academic impact and level of disruptive innovation of medical journals based on the OpenCitations Index of PubMed open PMID-to-PMID citations (POCI) and H1Connect databases, respectively, and we compared them with the results of peer review. Results: First, the correlation coefficients of the Journal Disruption Index (JDI) with the Journal Cumulative Citation for 5 years (JCC5), Journal Impact Factor (JIF), and Journal Citation Indicator (JCI) were 0.677, 0.585, and 0.621, respectively. The correlation coefficient of the absolute disruption index (Dz) with the Cumulative Citation for 5 years (CC5) was 0.635. However, the average difference in the disruptive innovation and academic influence rankings of journals reached 20 places (about 17.5%). The average difference in the disruptive innovation and influence rankings of research papers reached about 2700 places (about 17.7%). The differences reflect the essential difference between the two evaluation systems. Second, the top 7 journals selected based on JDI, JCC5, JIF, and JCI were the same, and all of them were H-journals. Although 8 (8/15, 53%), 96 (96/150, 64%), and 880 (880/1500, 58.67%) of the top 0.1%, top 1%, and top 10% papers selected based on Dz and CC5, respectively, were the same. Third, research papers with the “changes clinical practice” tag showed only moderate innovation (4.96) and impact (241.67) levels but had high levels of peer-reviewed recognition (6.00) and attention (2.83).

Background and Aims: After conducting a comprehensive literature search of two medical electronic databases, PubMed and Embase, as well as two citation databases, Web of Science Core Collections (WoS) and Scopus, we aimed to conduct an Altmetric and Scientometric analysis of the History of Medicine literature in medical research. Methods: The following software tools were used for analyzing the retrieved records from PubMed and Embase databases and conducting a collaboration analysis to identify the countries involved in scientific medical papers, as well as clustering keywords to reveal the trend of History of Medicine research for the future. These software tools (VOSviewer 1.6.18 and Spss 16) allowed the researchers to visualize bibliometric networks, perform statistical analysis, and identify patterns and trends in the data. Results: Our analysis revealed 53,771 records from PubMed and 54,405 records from EMBASE databases retrieved in the field of History of Medicine by 105,286 contributed authors in WoS. We identified 157 countries that collaborated on scientific medical papers. By clustering 59,995 keywords, we were able to reveal the trend of History of Medicine research for the future. Our findings showed a positive association between traditional bibliometrics and social media metrics such as the Altmetric Attention Score in the History of Medicine literature (p < 0.05). Conclusion: Sharing research findings of articles in social scientific networks will increase the visibility of scientific works in History of Medicine research, which is one of the most important factors influencing the citation of articles. Additionally, our overview of the literature in the medical field allowed us to identify and examine gaps in the History of Medicine research.