Both citations and Altmetrics are indexes of influence of a publication, potentially useful, but to what extent that the professional-academic citation and media-dominated Altmetrics are consistent with each other is a topic worthy of being investigated. The objective is to show their correlation.

DOI and citation information of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) researches were obtained from the Web of Science, its Altmetric indicators were collected from the Altmetrics. Correlation between the immediacy of citation and Altmetrics of COVID-19 research was studied by artificial neural networks.

Pearson coefficients are 0.962, 0.254, 0.222, 0.239, 0.363, 0.218, 0.136, 0.134, and 0.505 (P < 0.01) for dimensions citation, attention score, journal impact factor, news, blogs, Twitter, Facebook, video, and Mendeley correlated with the SCI citation, respectively. The citations from the Web of Science and that from the Altmetrics have deviance large enough in the current. Altmetric score is not precise to describe the immediacy of citations of academic publication in COVID-19 research.

The effects of news, blogs, Twitter, Facebook, video, and Mendeley on SCI citations are similar to that of the journal impact factor. This paper performs a pioneer study for investigating the role of academic topics across Altmetric sources on the dissemination of scholarly publications.

To analyse publication and citations trends of case reports within otolaryngology – head and neck surgery literature, with specific attention to the most-cited reports.

Database query.

Web of Science was searched for article type ‘case reports’ published in the leading otolaryngology – head and neck surgery journals since 1945. Variables including publication dates, citation dates and numbers, author, author number, and others were recorded and analysed for trends. The reports with the most citations (classics) were further studied.

Of nearly 67 000 published articles in leading otolaryngology – head and neck surgery journals, the overall number of case reports as a percentage of the total has substantially decreased over time. A total of 110 case report classics were identified for which citations have increased.

Although the case report may not be worthy of its tarnished record, declining trends in publication suggest a limited future for this valuable research and educational resource.

High-quality trials have the potential to influence clinical practice.

Ten otolaryngology journals with the highest 2011 impact factors were selected and publications from 2010 were extracted. From all medical journals, the 20 highest impact factor journals were selected, and publications related to otolaryngology for 2010 and 2011 were extracted. For all publications, the reporting quality and risk of bias were assessed.

The impact factor was 1.8–2.8 for otolaryngology journals and 6.0–101.8 for medical journals. Of 1500 otolaryngology journal articles, 262 were therapeutic studies; 94 had a high reporting quality and 5 a low risk of bias. Of 10 967 medical journal articles, 76 were therapeutic studies; 57 had a high reporting quality and 8 a low risk of bias.

Reporting quality was high for 45 per cent of otolaryngology-related publications and 9 per cent met quality standards. General journals had higher impact factors than otolaryngology journals. Reporting quality was higher and risk of bias lower in general journals than in otolaryngology journals. Nevertheless, 76 per cent of articles in high impact factor journals carried a high risk of bias. Better reported and designed studies are the goal, with less risk of bias, especially in otolaryngology journals.

The frequency with which a scientific article is cited by other studies is one way to measure its academic influence.

A comprehensive search was performed to identify journal articles in the otorhinolaryngology subject category of the 2013 Journal Citation Report Science Edition over the last 30 years (1985–2014). The 100 most cited articles were reviewed and basic information including the publication year, country of origin, source journal, article type and research field was collected.

The 100 most cited articles were published in 15 of the 44 otorhinolaryngology journals. The number of citations per article ranged between 208 and 1559. The leading research field was otology and neurotology (n = 50), followed by rhinology (n = 23) and head and neck surgery (n = 11). Most papers originated in the USA (n = 64).

The possibility of an article being cited is influenced by the publication language, country of origin and source journal.

This study aimed to evaluate the changes in impact factors of otorhinolaryngology journals over the past 15 years.

Using the online edition of Journal Citation Reports, standard (2-year) and 5-year impact factors were calculated for the leading 15 journals.

The results were compared with the impact factors for 1998. The average standard impact factor and 5-year impact factor increased by 2.72 and 2.05 fold respectively when compared with 1998. The average 2012 standard impact factor and 5-year impact factor were 1.82 and 1.99 respectively, reflecting a 9.3 per cent difference. The average 1998 standard impact factor and 5-year impact factor were 0.67 and 0.97 respectively, reflecting a 44.8 per cent difference. The Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology had the highest standard and five-year impact factors.

These data may indicate changing clinical and research interests within our field, as well as increased speed and ease with which the internet has allowed citation. As a result, five-year intervals may no longer be necessary to adequately gauge journal impact.

In the general surgical and anaesthetic literature, there has been a decline in research output originating from the UK. This study analysed the 10 globally leading and 2 UK leading otorhinolaryngology journals to determine whether this trend was also reflected within otorhinolaryngology.

Citable research output was analysed from 4 individual years, over a 10-year period (2000–2010), to determine absolute output, geographical mix and article type.

The proportion of research output from the UK and Ireland grew 22.8 per cent among the leading global otorhinolaryngology journals, but fell 28.6 per cent among the leading two UK otorhinolaryngology journals. The converse trend was true for the USA and Canada. Output from European and the rest of the world grew among both sets of journals, while Japanese output fell. ‘Research’ articles remained the most prevalent type.

These results are encouraging as they refute the fall in UK research output observed by other authors. In the face of growing challenges, it is important to maintain published output so that the fate that has befallen other specialties is not mirrored within UK otorhinolaryngology.