1 Introduction

Scientific journals serve as a vital platform for disseminating research outcomes, recent discoveries, and advancements, as well as outlining future research opportunities to the broader public. These academic publications facilitate dialogue among researchers, provide a foundation for the evolution of new concepts, and monitor the progression of innovative scientific ideas. Moreover, getting published in reputable journals increases the visibility and credibility of the researchers and furthers career opportunities.¹

Various elements, such as the productivity of journals and the citation metrics of their published works, can serve as criteria for evaluating journals. In addition to the Journal Impact Factor (JIF), alternative ranking metrics, including the SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) and Source-Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP), have been proposed as indicators for assessing the quality of journals.²

By disseminating novel discoveries and breakthroughs in surgical techniques, implant designs, biologics, and rehabilitation strategies, orthopaedic journals facilitate the sharing of critical information within the community. It enables orthopaedic professionals to stay up-to-date with the latest advancements, promoting evidence-based decision-making and improving patient outcomes.³

Several orthopaedic journals are published in India and abroad. The journals in this field exhibit diversity in their research coverage, scope, and the mechanisms employed for peer review. There are only a handful of Indian Orthopaedic journals that are indexed in Scopus and PubMed and these include the Journal of Orthopaedics (JOO), Indian Journal of Orthopedics (IJO), and Journal of Clinical Orthopedics and Trauma (JCOT).^4–8

Despite the open accessibility of bibliographic data, little is known about global coverage and the bibliometric characteristics of orthopaedic articles from different countries published in the JOO. Therefore, we conducted this bibliographic analysis of articles of the JOO (from 2013 to 2024) on several bibliometric parameters to identify the trends of publications in this journal. We also evaluated the pattern of citations and research characteristics of the highly cited papers (HCPs) published in the JOO.

2 Material and methods

This study employed a bibliometric analysis utilizing the Scopus database, with data retrieval occurring on July 15, 2024. The analysis aimed to encompass all articles published in the Journal of Orthopedics from 2013 to 2024, resulting in the identification of 2074 documents. A search strategy was formulated that incorporated the phrase “Journal of Orthopedics” within the journal title tag, while restricting the search to the specified timeframe. Comprehensive data from the 2074 documents were systematically recorded and exported into M.S. Excel and CSV formats for subsequent statistical evaluation. The research types and demographic age groups were categorized within the publication data. An examination of the most prolific and frequently cited countries, institutions, authors, journals, and articles was conducted. Key contributors, including countries, institutions, and authors, were identified, and their collaborative relationships were analyzed using M.S. Excel and VOSviewer software. Furthermore, various analytical features available in Scopus were employed to explore the data from multiple perspectives. The authors adopted the complete count method to quantify the productivity of countries, institutions, and authors.

The most productive authors, institutions and countries were considered to have the maximum number of publications, and the most impactful are the higher citations per paper (CPP) and Relative Citation Index (RCI). The HCPs were assumed to be those which have received 30 or more citations.

We used the following search strategy:

SRCTITLE (journal AND of AND orthopedics) AND (LIMIT-TO (EXACTSRCTITLE, "Journal of Orthopaedics")) AND PUBYEAR >2012 AND PUBYEAR< 2025.

3 Results

3.4

3.4 Prolific countries and the impact of their output

The authors from the leading 30 countries made individual contributions ranging from nine to 722 papers, collectively producing a total of 2242 papers and accumulating 13,495 citations, with each country contributing over 100 shares in both global publications and citations. Within this group, (i) only six nations exceeded their average productivity of 74.73, while (ii) eleven countries achieved citation impacts (CPP and RCI) surpassing their average values of 6.02 and 0.95, respectively. The bibliometric profiles of the eight most productive and impactful countries are detailed in Table 3 and Supplementary Table 1.

Table 3 Bibliometric profile of top 8 most productive and top 8 most impactful countries.

S. No.	Name of the country	TP	TC	CPP	RCI
Top 8 Most Productive Countries
1	USA	722	3753	5.20	0.82
2	U.K.	272	2059	7.57	1.20
3	India	252	1363	5.41	0.86
4	Japan	147	1182	8.04	1.27
5	Germany	122	642	5.26	0.83
6	Italy	101	868	8.59	1.36
7	Australia	53	341	6.43	1.02
8	Canada	53	378	7.13	1.13
Top 8 Most Impactful Countries
1	Indonesia	10	102	10.20	1.61
2	Greece	27	260	9.63	1.52
3	Israel	15	135	9.00	1.42
4	South Korea	29	256	8.83	1.40
5	Italy	101	868	8.59	1.36
6	Switzerland	19	162	8.53	1.35
7	South Africa	15	122	8.13	1.29
8	Japan	147	1182	8.04	1.27

3.4.1

3.4.1 Countries’ collaboration

The top 30 most productive countries in global orthopaedic research actively collaborated (Fig. 1) with 142 collaborative links and, a Total Link Strength (TLS) of 842. The USA was the top among 30 countries depicted 132 collaborative linkages, followed by the U.K. (94 linkages), and India (89 linkages). The top 30 countries' collaborative network in Fig. 1, is presented in eight distant clusters (represented by different colors). The intensity and extent of research collaboration can be assessed by examining the thickness of connections and the spatial separation between nations on the collaboration map.

Close

Fig. 1 Collaborative network visualization map of the top 30 countries using VOSviewer software.

Export to PPT

The thirty most productive countries engaged in global orthopaedic research demonstrated a strong collaborative network, resulting in 2242 publications and 142 collaborative connections, which culminated in a Total Link Strength (TLS) of 842. The foremost contributors included the USA (132 connections), the U.K. (94 connections), and India (89 connections). Fig. 1 illustrates the collaborative network of these top 30 countries, which are organized into eight distinct clusters, each represented by unique colors. The intensity and extent of research collaboration can be assessed by examining the thickness of connections and the spatial separation between nations on the collaboration map is depicted in Fig. 1, where all countries are shown in eight distant clusters (represented by different colors). The degree and strength of research collaboration can be gauged through the extent of the thickness of links and distance between countries in the collaboration map.

3.5

3.5 Profile of publication output and impact of prolific institutions

The analysis of 2074 publications revealed participation from 2116 organizations. Among the top 30 organizations, (i) 14 surpassed their average productivity of 19.47, and (ii) 14 demonstrated citation impacts (CPP and RCI) exceeding their average citation impact of 6.8 and 1.04, respectively. Of these top 30 organizations, 20 were located in the United States, four in India, three in Italy, and one each in Germany, Singapore, and the United Kingdom (refer to Supplementary Table 2). Table 4 presents the profiles of the eight organizations that ranked highest in both productivity and impact.

Table 4 Bibliometric profile of top 8 most productive and top 8 most impactful organizations.

S. No.	Name of the Organization	TP	TC	CPP	RCI	%ICP	TLS
Top 8 Most Productive Organizations
1	Hospital for Special Surgery - New York, USA	34	316	9.29	1.42	26.47	114
2	Singapore General Hospital, Singapore	29	170	5.86	0.90	0.00	18
3	SUNY Downstate Health Sciences University, USA	28	261	9.32	1.43	10.71	64
4	Manipal Academy of Higher Education, India	23	106	4.61	0.70	8.70	40
5	NYU Langone Orthopedic Hospital, USA	22	180	8.18	1.25	18.18	44
6	Kasturba Medical College, Manipal, India	22	109	4.95	0.76	4.55	34
7	Indraprastha Apollo Hospitals, India	22	148	6.73	1.03	63.64	49
8	Sinai Hospital of Baltimore, USA	21	19	0.9	0.14	9.52	45
Top 8 Most Impactful Organizations
1	The University of Toledo Medical Center, USA	14	253	18.07	2.76	7.14	14
2	Università degli Studi di Messina, Italy	21	271	12.9	1.97	4.76	24
3	Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli IRCCS, Italy	14	165	11.79	1.80	50.00	46
4	Università Cattolica del Sacro, Italy	15	165	11	1.68	46.67	56
5	NYU Langone Health, USA	18	171	9.5	1.45	5.56	33
6	SUNY Downstate Health Sciences University, USA	28	261	9.32	1.43	10.71	64
7	Hospital for Special Surgery - New York, USA	34	316	9.29	1.42	26.47	114
8	Harvard Medical School, USA	15	123	8.2	1.25	46.67	52

3.5.1

3.5.1 Institutional collaboration

The leading 30 organizations recognized for their productivity in the 'Journal of Orthopaedics' engaged in collaborative efforts in global orthopaedic research, with their collaborative linkages ranging from 10 to 124. The organizations exhibiting the highest collaborative total link strength (TLS) included: Hospital for Special Surgery in New York, USA (n = 114), Massachusetts General Hospital, USA (n = 72), The George Washington University School of Medicine and Health Sciences, USA (n = 65), SUNY Downstate Health Sciences University, USA (n = 64), and Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, USA (n = 63) (see Fig. 2).

Close

Fig. 2 Top 30 institutions' collaboration network.

Export to PPT

3.6

3.6 Profile of prolific authors and the impact of their output

The leading 30 authors made individual contributions ranging from nine to 28 papers, collectively producing a total of 356 papers that garnered 2071 citations. This represents a share of 17.30 % in terms of publications and 15.40 % in citations. Among these top authors, 17 hailed from the United States, four from Germany, three each from India and Italy, two from the United Kingdom, and one from Japan (see Supplementary Table 3). Notably, of the top 30 authors, (i) 12 exceeded the average productivity of 11.87 papers, while (ii) 16 authors achieved citation impacts (CPP and RCI) surpassing the average citation impact of 5.82 and 0.89, respectively. The profiles of the eight authors with the highest productivity and impact are detailed in Table 5.

Table 5 Bibliometric profile of top 8 most productive and top 8 most impactful authors.

S. No.	Name of the author	Affiliation of the author	TP	TC	CPP	RCI	ICP	%ICP	TLS
Top 8 Most Productive Authors
1	R. Vaishya	Indraprastha Apollo Hospitals, India	23	171	7.43	1.14	14	60.87	77
2	A. Masse	Università degli Studi di Torino, Italy	9	68	7.56	1.16	5	55.56	48
3	V.K. Jain	Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital, New Delhi, India	10	71	7.10	1.09	5	50.00	34
4	P.K. Sculco	Hospital for Special Surgery - New York, USA	12	112	9.33	1.43	5	41.67	78
5	D. Ring	The University of Texas at Austin, USA	11	65	5.91	0.90	4	36.36	57
6	H. Graichen	Orthopedic Hospital, Lindenlohe, Germany	12	74	6.17	0.94	4	33.33	15
7	A. Pillai	Wythenstawe Hospital, U.K.	15	120	8.00	1.22	4	26.67	70
8	A. Aljawadi	Wythenstawe Hospital, U.K.	12	97	8.08	1.24	3	25.00	71
Top 8 Most Impactful Authors
1	V. Filardi	Università degli Studi di Messina, Italy	17	241	14.18	2.17	1	5.88	28
2	J.M. Newman	SUNY Downstate Health Sciences University, USA	9	121	13.44	2.06	2	22.22	101
3	R. Schwarzkopf	NYU Langone Health, USA	9	97	10.78	1.65	1	11.11	39
4	P.K. Sculco	Hospital for Special Surgery - New York, USA	12	112	9.33	1.43	5	41.67	78
5	A.W. James	University of California, Los Angeles, USA	13	120	9.23	1.41	2	15.38	66
6	G. Cacciola	Istituto Ortopedico del Mezzogiorno d'Italia “Franco Scalabrino”, Italy	9	83	9.22	1.41		0.00	57
7	Z.C. Lum	UC Davis Medical Center, USA	10	81	8.10	1.24	0	0.00	24
8	A. Aljawadi	Wythenstawe Hospital, U.K.	12	97	8.08	1.24	3	25.00	71

3.6.1

3.6.1 Collaboration among top 50 authors

The collaborative linkages of the top 30 most productive JOO authors varied from 14 to 119. The maximum collaborative linkages (n = 119) were depicted by D. Hameed (USA), followed by S.S. Bains (USA)(n = 107), J.M. Newman (USA)(n = 101), J.A. Dubin (USA)(n = 98), and A. Gu (USA)(n = 88). The author collaboration map, as displayed in Fig. 3, offers an analysis of author contributions and impact within the JOO, revealing unique characteristics across different clusters, with the most prominent author depicted in a bigger node.

Close

Fig. 3 The top 30 authors' collaboration network.

Export to PPT

3.7

3.7 Subject-wise distribution of research

3.7.1

3.7.1 Significant keywords

From the 2074 papers analyzed, a total of 11,010 keywords were identified. A total of 60 key terms, ranging from 9 to 273 appearances, were discovered in these papers. Among the top 40 keywords associated with anatomical site-specific research, the largest focus was on Total Knee Arthroplasty (n = 304), followed by Hip Surgery (n = 262), Total Hip Arthroplasty (n = 247), Hip Arthroplasty (n = 120), Knee Osteoarthritis (n = 104), and Knee Arthroplastry (n = 94). The co-occurrence network of these significant keywords was visually represented and clustered into four categories in Fig. 4a to unveil thematic connections. Additionally, Fig. 4b illustrates the top 100 selected author keywords in a cloud map format.

Close

Fig. 4a Co-occurrence networks based on top 60 selected keywords.

Export to PPT

Close

Fig. 4b Word Cloud portrayal of co-occurrence of significant author keywords.

Export to PPT

3.7.2

3.7.2 Research distribution by anatomical sites

Among the various keywords associated with anatomical sites, Knee registered the most papers (n = 543), followed by Hip (n = 443), Shoulder (n = 181), Spine (n = 146), and Leg (n = 62). (Supplementary Table 4), with the most significant research focus on Total Knee Arthroplasty (Supplementary Table 5).

3.10

3.10 Journal metrics of the JOO

Amongst the three indexed Indian Orthopaedic journals, the JOO is the youngest with an inclusion period of 12 years in the Scopus. The JOO has received the highest CPP of 6.32 and has the highest JIF of 1.5 and SJR of 0.684, amongst them. However, the total number of HCPs (>30, 50, and 100) is comparatively lesser than the JOO (Table 6).

Table 6 Comparative bibliometric analysis of the three Indian Orthopaedic journals.

Journal Metrics	Indian Journal of Orthopedics (IJO)	Journal of Clinical Orthopedics and Trauma (JCOT)	Journal of Orthopaedics (JOO)
Publication period	1974–2024 (51 years)	2010–2024 (15 years)	2013–2024 (12 years)
Total publications	2953	2049	2074
Total citations	12001	5760	13107
Citations per publication	4.06	2.81	6.32
H-Index	47	35	39
Percentage of publications cited	0.69	0.80	0.77
Journal Impact Factor (JIF)	1.1	Not Available	1.5
Cite Score	1.8	4.3	3.5
SCImago Journal Ranking (SJR)	0.44 (Q3)	0.508 (Q2)	0.684 (Q2)
Number of articles with 100 or more citations	05	11	02
Number of articles with 50 or more citations	45	37	20
Number of articles with 30 or more citations	121	88	67

The majority of articles published in the Indian Orthopaedic journals are from Asia (including India), Europe and North America, and comparatively much lesser from Oceania, Africa and South America. However, it is to be noted that the contributions from Europe (34.6 %) and North America (37 %) are maximum with the JOO (Fig. 5).

Close

Fig. 5 Publishing continents' trend in the Top Indian Orthopaedic Journals (in percentage value) (IJO: Indian Journal of Orthopaedics; JCOT: Journal of Clinical Orthopaedics and Trauma; JOO: Journal of Orthopaedics).

Export to PPT

4 Discussion

The present bibliometric study highlights the trends of publications in the JOO, between 2013 and 2024. There has been substantial growth in its publication from 41 (in 2013) to 278 (in 2024), with an average annual growth of 36.2 %. The JOO has been publishing articles related to Orthopaedics and Sports Medicine in all of its subspecialties, with the maximum contribution focused on knee and hip joint problems and arthroplasty. And, the maximum of its publications are original research and reviews. The JOO has become a popular global destination for Orthopaedic researchers globally ^4–6 with 7698 authors from 80, countries, and 2116 organizations contributing to it. The majority of its publications are from North America, followed by Europe and Asia. Its top contributing organizations are from the USA and India, and the most impactful organizations are from the USA and Italy. There were 68 HCPs (>30 citations), with an average CPP of 51.1, from 17 countries, with the maximum being from the USA, followed by the U.K., India, Japan and Germany. Amongst three Scopus and PubMed-indexed Orthopaedic journals from India ^4–8, the JOO has the highest CPP, JIF and SJR. However, it lags in the HCPs to JCOT and IJO and this area needs special attention by publishing more higher-level evidence publications. The high CPP and SJR of the JOO could be due to more representation from the top publishing authors and countries from the developed world of North America and Europe.

Bibliometric methods and indicators serve as effective tools for quantifying academic productivity and evaluating research impact, while also providing insights into significant research domains, thereby offering a comprehensive overview of the published literature. Additionally, these methods are instrumental in determining the scientific rigor of articles published in academic journals.⁹ Bibliometric analyses, such as the one presented here, contribute to orthopaedic research by keeping abreast of current trends.¹⁰ These studies facilitate the examination of research evolution, the evaluation of publication venues, the analysis of author contributions, the assessment of research outcomes, the identification of leading researchers and institutions, the exploration of knowledge areas and their timelines, the investigation of specific research topics within disciplines, and the understanding of the developmental status of these topics.¹¹

Some bibliometric analyses of Orthopaedic journals and related fields have been done before to uncover their scholarly framework and critical knowledge areas. Among them Ho et al. analyzed papers concerning JIF published in the Injury journal, between 1997 and 2022, providing psignificant perspectives on the publication outcomes and contributors to the Journal Impact Factor (JIF), including articles, authors, institutions, and nations.¹² Vaishya et al. examined the research trends in the International Orthopedics journal from 1977 to 2022.¹³ Stratos et al. analyzed bibliometric characteristics of orthopaedic articles originating from Gramophone countries indexed in International Orthopaedics from 2017 to 18, and comparisons were made between Germanophone countries vs. all other countries.¹⁴ Ho surveyed papers in the Journal of Orthopedic Research from 1991 to 2018, an analysis was conducted to evaluate the performance of countries, institutions, and authors, encompassing various types of publications such as total, individual, collaborative, first-author, and corresponding author contributions.¹⁵ Yalcinkaya M and Bagatur AE (2014) examined publications in Acta Orthopaedica et Traumatologica Turcica (AOTT) between 2003 and 2012 to describe publication trends, characteristics and patterns of orthopaedic publications in Turkey.¹⁶ Sheridan et al. examined the publication and authorship characteristics of 413 papers published in The Knee to explore publication and authorship characteristics over 20 years.¹⁷ Russell et al. investigated changes in bibliometric variables, authorship, and collaboration trends in 444 and 1105 published papers in both journals, namely the Journal of Orthopedic Trauma (JOT) and Injury over 30 years (1987–2015), and reported female authorship in JOT is climbing more than Injury.¹⁸ Similarly, some other authors have presented bibliometric analyses of the other Orthopaedic journals on various parameters.^19–23

The JOO has gained prominence as a global Orthopaedic journal in just over a decade and has become the leading journal in orthopaedics in India and Asia. In 2023, the JOO received its first JIF of 1.5⁴ and was the 9th-ranked journal among Asian countries, according to SCImago Journal ranking for 2023 (for orthopaedics and sports medicine). Its Cite Score had risen from 2.5 to 3.5 as of May 5, 2024 (Source: Cite Score Tracker;https://www.scopus.com/sourceid/21100256976). In addition, most of its journal metrics have risen (Table 6). The Journal of Orthopaedics and Orthopaedic Surgery (JOO) has established a significant research platform that enables international authors to disseminate high-quality research in various fields, encompassing all primary and sub-specialties within Orthopaedics, Traumatology, and Spine.

The influence of a journal on scientific literature and its significance within the scientific community is evidenced by its citation metrics.^4,24 In a bibliometric analysis of the 50 most cited articles published in the Journal of Clinical Orthopaedics and Trauma (JCOT), Vishwanathan et al.²⁵ identified China, Germany, France, the United States, the United Kingdom, Japan, and Italy as the leading nations in research output, which aligns with the results of the current investigation. Similarly, Mavrogenis et al.²⁶ reported that the highest contributing healthcare professionals (HCPs) in International Orthopaedics predominantly hailed from the United States, Japan, and Germany. Their analysis revealed that the most cited research focused on adult reconstruction, sports medicine, and trauma, reflecting trends observed in the present study. Lum et al.²⁷ posited that specific sub-disciplines within Orthopaedics garner greater interest, potentially leading to increased citation rates. Citations serve as a critical metric for assessing the impact of both publications and journals, with HCPs acting as valuable indicators of quality. Various elements, including the number of authors, institutional affiliations, funding sources, and subspecialty areas, may significantly affect citation frequency.

The analysis of HCPs has been reported by some orthopaedic journals and authors^26,28–30 to gauge the impact and quality of the published research. It has been noticed that most of the HCPs come from the High-Income Countries (HIC) than the lower-middle-income countries (LMIC).^24,25,31 The possible reasons for fewer HICs from LMIC could be due to their inadequate resources (academic, financial, collaborative, etc.), research impact,³² and look at the prominent research areas to obtain an overview of the landscape of the published literature Furthermore, it is valuable in assessing the scientific validity of published articles in a journal.

5 Conclusion

The Journal of Orthopedics (JOO) has experienced substantial growth in orthopaedic research publications since 2013. With a rising number of submissions and a significant increase in citations, the journal has solidified its position as a global platform for orthopaedic research. Contributions from North America, Europe, and Asia have been pivotal in shaping the journal's content. The JOO effectively covers a broad spectrum of orthopaedic topics, positioning it as a valuable resource for researchers and clinicians worldwide. This growth trajectory has positively impacted the journal's ranking, impact factor, and overall reputation within the field.

Ethical statement

All the authors confirm that we followed all the ethical guidelines of ICJME and Cope in relation to the manuscript titled ‘Scholarly Trends in Global Orthopedics Research Published through the Journal of Orthopaedics: A Bibliometric Analysis from 2013 to 2024’.

Funding statement

All the authors of this manuscript titled ‘Scholarly Trends in Global Orthopedics Research Published through the Journal of Orthopaedics: A Bibliometric Analysis from 2013 to 2024’ confirm that no funding in any form was received for this research.

Consent

No guardian or patient consent was needed for this study, being a review of the published data and no involvement of the patient was there.

CRediT authorship contribution statement

Raju Vaishya: Conceptualization, Literature Search, Formal analysis, Manuscript writing/editing and final approval. Patinharayil Gopinathan: Conceptualization, Manuscript writing/editing and final approval. Brij Mohan Gupta: Conceptualization, Literature Search, Formal analysis, Manuscript writing/editing and final approval. Ghouse Modin N. Mamdapur: Literature Search, Formal analysis, Manuscript writing/editing and final approval. Abhishek Vaish: Literature Search, Manuscript writing/editing and final approval.