See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/6750774

Orthodontic journals with impact factors in perspective: Trends in the types

of articles and authorship characteristics

Article  in  American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics: official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American
Board of Orthodontics · November 2006
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2005.06.020 · Source: PubMed

CITATIONS READS

43 1,057

6 authors, including:

Georgios Kanavakis Petros Spinos

University Center for Dental Medicine Basel / University of Basel 1 PUBLICATION   43 CITATIONS   
41 PUBLICATIONS   372 CITATIONS   
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE

Argy Polychronopoulou Theodore Eliades

National and Kapodistrian University of Athens University of Zurich
114 PUBLICATIONS   4,817 CITATIONS    407 PUBLICATIONS   8,639 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Occlusal characteristics and their associations with oral health-related quality of life and TMD in a Finnish adult population View project

Discolouration of clear thermoplastic retainers View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Athanasios E Athanasiou on 25 November 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Orthodontic journals with impact factors in

perspective: Trends in the types of articles
and authorship characteristics
George Kanavakis,a Petros Spinos,a Argy Polychronopoulou,b Theodore Eliades,c
Moschos A. Papadopoulos,c and Athanasios E. Athanasiouc
Thessaloniki and Athens, Greece

Introduction: The purposes of this study were to analyze the types of articles and their authorship
characteristics in the 3 orthodontic journals with impact factors—American Journal of Orthodontics and
Dentofacial Orthopedics (AJODO), Angle Orthodontist (AO), and European Journal of Orthodontics (EJO)—
during 2 intervals of 5 years each (1993-1997 and 1998-2002) and to assess the changes in their contents
during these periods. Methods: The results of 3004 article entries were analyzed with the Pearson chi-square
test, and the examination of the variability of the parameters studied among journals and across the 2 time
intervals was performed at the 0.05 level of significance. Results and Conclusions: Significant differences
were found between the journals with respect to the research component of articles (higher in the EJO) and
case reports (higher in the AJODO and the AO). For each journal, differences were also identified between
the 2 time intervals, with multi-authored papers and multiple affiliations appearing more frequently in the
second interval. The contributions of articles from the United States and Canada to the AJODO and the AO
were statistically higher than to the EJO. A similar trend was found for articles from Europe, which comprise
more than 70% of the content of the EJO. An increased contribution of articles from East Asia and Oceania
was noted in the second time interval, which reached almost 100% of the previous time frame. The potential
sources of variation in the studied parameters are discussed. (Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2006;130:
516-22)

R
ecent advances in orthodontics and applica-
tions of techniques and procedures used in the
broader area of biomedical research have re-
sulted in a notable increase in orthodontic research.
This is reflected in the increasing number of interna-
tional and national journals with orthodontic-related
contents.1
Although the greater number of orthodontic jour-
nals worldwide implies the strong interest of specialty
organizations and publishers in this field, the availabil-
ity of many orthodontic periodicals raises a question
about the scientific value and importance of each
journal’s content. The issues emanating from this
source material relate to the parameters that character-
ize highly respected journals, including the reputations
of the editors and the editorial boards, the prestige of
a
Dentist, private practice.
b
Department of Community and Preventive Dentistry, School of Dentistry,
University of Athens, Athens, Greece.
c
Department of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Aristotle University of
Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece.
Reprint requests to: Dr Theodore Eliades, 57 Agnoston Hiroon St, Nea Ionia
14231, Greece; e-mail, teliades@ath.forthnet.gr.
Submitted, April 2005; revised and accepted, June 2005.
0889-5406/$32.00
Copyright © 2006 by the American Association of Orthodontists.
doi:10.1016/j.ajodo.2005.06.020
516
the referees, the international readership, and the size of
circulation.1-3
Establishing a body of criteria that will facilitate a
reliable assessment of each journal’s scientific merit
has provoked relevant discussions in the scientific
community. The influence of a scientific journal can be
defined in various ways, including its prestige, which
might be reflected in its citedness as measured by the
impact factor (IF) and its recognition as indicated by its
circulation.4-6 The contents of scientific journals have
been evaluated for soundness and appeal to readership
for almost 75 years through various, mostly nonstand-
ardized and highly subjective means, including indexes
and scales. The first published report concerning an
independent ranking was in 1963 by Garfield and
Sher,7 both with the Institute for Scientific Information.
The IF in its current form was introduced during the
1970s, and, since then, IF rankings have been released
yearly; current figures include almost 8000 journals
citing 12,000,000 references per year. These rankings
supposedly represent the impact of a journal in its field,
and thus they do not allow comparison of rankings
between scientific fields, ie, dentistry and engineering
or biological sciences. In general, most impact factor
scores range from 0.500 to 3.000, although values as
American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
Volume 130, Number 4
Table I. IF scores during entire observation period*
First interval
Journal 1993 1994 1995 1996
AJODO
AO
EJO 0.563
*Scores obtained from island publishers.
high as 40 can be found. The low values of some
journals have necessitated the addition of 3 significant
digits to the IF reports. Thus, it is not rare to find more
than 100 journals ranked at 0.050 interval.
The IF is an estimate of the frequency with which
an article in a specific journal is cited in a specific
period. It is calculated by dividing the number of
citations of a journal (including self-citations) in a 1- or
2-year period by the number of articles published in
that journal during the same period.
The scientific association between the journal’s IF
and circulation has attracted much interest in the
relevant informatics literature. The correlation between
IF and circulation was investigated in 21 disciplines in
the sciences and the social sciences. In most instances,
the correlation coefficients ranged between 0.25 and
0.50.6 Among the exceptions, there were cases in
which, apart from academics and researchers, practic-
ing professionals were also involved, with some jour-
nals geared mostly to the latter group of readers.
Journals focusing on interdisciplinary subjects, or com-
bining several loosely related subfields into 1 disci-
pline, also accounted for some exceptions. Perhaps
most clinical journals, with high circulations among
practicing clinicians, have low IF scores because re-
searchers do not desire to publish in these for prestige
reasons since these journals provide only clinically
related materials.
In this context, contemporary orthodontic research
is characterized by extensive collaboration between
orthodontic researchers and scientists from associated
biomedical and engineering sciences as indicated by
increasing rates of joint publications in the orthodontic
literature and funded research proposals. At the same
time, emphasis has been placed on research articles
rather than on case reports and other type of essays,
which were much more frequent 3 decades ago.
The purposes of this study were to analyze the types
of articles and their authorship characteristics in the 3
orthodontic journals with IFs during 2 time intervals
and to assess the changes in their contents during these
periods.
Kanavakis et al 517
Second interval
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
0.522 0.639 0.706 0.757 0.600 0.732
0.460 0.442 0.648 0.704 0.594 0.656
0.400 0.386 0.607 0.593 0.591 0.720
MATERIAL AND METHODS
The selection of journals was based on 2 inclusion
criteria: journal title and content relevant to orthodon-
tics, and an IF as reported by the Institute of Scientific
Information at the time of the study (2004). This
process resulted in these 3 journals, listed alphabeti-
cally: American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofa-
cial Orthopedics (AJODO), Angle Orthodontist (AO),
and European Journal of Orthodontics (EJO). Table I
presents the variations of IF scores for these journals
based on information from their publishers and the
island publishers.
Each journal’s content was accessed through printed
copies, and, if these were not available, a web edition was
used. The study included 2 consecutive 5-year periods:
1993-1997 and 1998-2002 (the first and second intervals,
respectively). Collection of articles from the 3 journals for
the entire observation period (10 years) yielded 3004
articles. From each article, the following parameters were
recorded:
1. Article type. For simplicity, 4 categories were used:
research (article that included measurements and
analysis of data), review (no actual experiment),
case report, and other (not classifiable under the
previous categories).
2. Number of authors. The articles were classified as
articles having 1 author or many authors.
3. Number of affiliations. Affiliations were classified
as the author(s) having 1 affiliation or more than 1
affiliation; this variable represents the total number
of affiliations in the article. This can be higher than
the sum of authors, because many authors have
more than 1 affiliation.
4. Source of article (referring to the first author’s
affiliation). The sources included orthodontic (re-
search performed in orthodontic departments), non-
orthodontic (research performed in other teaching
institutions), and nonacademic (research performed
in private-sector organizations or research centers).
5. Geographic origin of article. The origins are
grouped as shown in Table II.
518 Kanavakis et al American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
October 2006

Table II. Geographic origins of articles Table III. Classifications of all articles per time interval
Code Country Code Country Share per time
interval (%)
4 Australia 5 Kenya Share of Statistical
2 Austria 4 Korea total (%) First Second significance
2 Belgium 5 Kuwait
Article type
5 Brazil 5 Lebanon
Research 72.34 69.33 74.92
1 Canada 5 Mexico
Review 2.83 2.74 2.91
4 China 2 Netherlands
Case report 8.89 9.50 8.36
5 Colombia 4 New Zealand
Other 15.75 18.43 13.81 *
5 Costa Rica 5 Nigeria
Number of authors
3 Croatia 2 Norway
One 20.36 20.93 18.87
3 Cyprus 4 Philippines
More 79.64 79.07 80.13
2 Denmark 3 Poland
Number of affiliations
5 Egypt 2 Portugal
One 29.87 37.05 23.83
2 United Kingdom 5 Puerto Rico
More 70.13 62.95 76.17 *
2 Finland 5 South Africa
Main affiliation
2 France 3 Russia
Orthodontic 60.45 61.11 59.90
3 FYROM 5 Saudi Arabia
Nonorthodontic 15.36 14.51 16.08
2 Germany 4 Singapore
Nonacademic 24.19 24.38 24.02 NS
2 Greece 2 Spain
3 Iceland 2 Sweden Significance denotation does not apply to row comparisons; it
5 India 2 Switzerland indicates presence or absence of statistical significance in distribution
4 Indonesia 5 Syria of each parameter (article type, number of authors, number of
5 Iran 4 Thailand affiliations, and main affiliation) by time interval.
2 Ireland 3 Turkey *P ⬍.05; NS, not significant.
5 Israel 1 United States
2 Italy 3 Yugoslavia
4 Japan 5 Zambia Table IV. Geographic origins of articles published in 3
5 Jordan journals for total study period
Codes: 1, US/Canada; 2, European Union countries plus Norway and Contribution per
Switzerland*; 3, non-European Union European countries*; 4, East interval (%)
Asia/Oceania; 5, other. Share of Statistical
*European Union membership according to 2003 status. Geographic origin total (%) First Second significance
FYROM, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.
US/Canada 44.83 49.16 41.15
EUa 32.52 33.90 31.35
EUb 4.06 2.91 5.03
The initial analysis relied on descriptive statistics and East Asia/Oceania 12.52 9.36 15.22
frequency distributions. The examination of the variability Other 6.07 4.68 7.25 *
of the parameters studied between journals and across the
Significance denotation does not apply to row comparisons; it
2 time intervals was performed with the Pearson chi- indicates presence or absence of statistical significance in distribution
square test for independence because of the qualitative of geographical origin of articles by time interval.
nature of all variables at the .05 level of significance. The *P ⬍.01.
results were analyzed by using the STATA 8.0 statistical EUa, European Union countries; EUb, non-European Union Euro-
pean countries.
package (StataCorp LP, Houston, Tex).
RESULTS States and Canada contributed more than 40% of the
Table III shows the analysis of the parameters per articles to these journals. An increasing trend for
interval for all articles in the 3 journals. Overall, European countries that are not members of the Euro-
research articles increased during the second interval, pean Union was shown in the second interval, and a
and other articles showed a decline in the same period. statistically significant increase of articles from East
Although the numbers of authors were similar between Asia and Oceania was noted in the same time period.
the 2 intervals, affiliations increased. No difference was Table V provides the analysis of type of the total
found in the sources of the articles, with orthodontic number of articles in each journal for the entire 10
departments contributing 60% of the articles as indi- years. The EJO publishes more research articles than
cated by the first author’s affiliation. the other 2 journals, which showed no difference in this
The geographic origins of the articles in the 2 variable. Case reports can be also used as a discrimi-
intervals are shown in Table IV. Overall, the United nating variable among the 3 journals; the EJO rarely
American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics Kanavakis et al 519
Volume 130, Number 4

Table V. Classification of type of article for total study period

Journal

Share per journal (%) Statistical significance

Classification of
article type Share of total (%) AJODO AO EJO All AO v AJODO EJO v AJODO

Article type
Research 72.34 67.74 65.69 93.71
Review 2.83 2.88 2.24 3.40
Case report 8.89 11.05 9.52 1.87
† †
Other 15.75 18.33 22.55 1.02 NS
Number of authors
One 20.36 22.66 25.00 8.50
† †
More 79.64 77.34 75.00 91.50 NS
Number of affiliations
One 29.87 34.66 37.34 8.84
†
More 70.13 65.34 62.66 91.16 NS NS
Main affiliation
Orthodontic 60.45 56.78 61.88 69.22
Nonorthodontic 15.36 13.68 15.18 20.24
† †
Nonacademic 24.19 29.55 22.94 10.54 *

Significance denotation does not apply to row comparisons; it indicates presence or absence of statistical significance in distribution of each
parameter (article type, number of authors, number of affiliations, and main affiliation) per journal by time interval.
*P ⬍.05; †P ⬍.01; NS, not significant.

Table VI. Geographic origin of articles for total study period

Share per journal (%) Statistical significance

Geographic origin Share of total (%) AJODO AO EJO All AO v AJODO EJO v AJODO

US/Canada 44.83 57.10 51.32 3.91

EUa 32.52 21.69 21.45 74.15
EUb 4.06 3.23 3.96 6.46
East Asia/Oceania 12.52 11.15 17.49 11.22
† †
Other 6.07 6.83 5.78 4.25 *

Significance denotation does not apply to row comparisons; it indicates presence or absence of statistical significance in distribution of
geographical origin of articles per journal by time interval.
*P ⬍.05; †P ⬍.01.
EUa, European Union countries; EUb, non-European Union European countries.

publishes case reports and other articles. Also, the AO
and the EJO accepted significantly more articles from
orthodontic departments during the 2 intervals than did the
AJODO. Because of the case reports, which are usually
written by 1 author, the AJODO and the AO had higher
percentages of single-authored papers than the EJO. In
addition, nonacademic origins of articles in the EJO were
significantly lower than in the other 2 journals.
The geographic origins of the articles for the entire
period stratified by journal are given in Table VI. This
information indicates the different sources of the arti-
cles in each journal. More than half of the articles in the
AJODO and the AO came from the United States and
Canada; the corresponding figure for the EJO was less
than 4%. Articles from European countries comprised
80% of all articles in the EJO and only 25% of those
published in the AJODO and the AO. The “other”
geographic region, which included South America and
Africa, contributed significantly more articles to the
AJODO than the AO or the EJO.
In Table VII, the changes in article classification
per journal during the 2 intervals are described. A
significant reduction was seen in the other category for
the AO and the EJO but not for the AJODO, whereas
the percentages of multi-authored articles increased
in the second interval for the AO and the EJO. The
number of affiliations also increased in the second
interval in the AJODO and the EJO, and nonacademic
sources significantly decreased in the AO.
Table VIII summarizes the changes by geographic
origin of articles per journal in the 2 intervals. In the
second interval, the contributions of East Asia and
520 Kanavakis et al American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
October 2006

Table VII. Types of articles per time interval

AJODO AO EJO

Share, Share, Share, Share, Share, Share,

first second first second first second
Classification of interval interval Statistical interval interval Statistical interval interval Statistical
article type (%) (%) significancea (%) (%) significanceb (%) (%) significancec

Article type
Research 65.56 69.73 60.71 69.46 90.41 96.53
Review 2.72 3.03 1.30 2.96 4.43 2.52
Case report 11.36 10.76 10.39 8.87 2.95 0.95
Other 20.37 16.48 NS 27.60 18.72 * 2.21 0.00 *
Number of authors
One 20.54 24.49 29.35 21.67 12.92 4.73
†
More 79.46 75.51 70.65 78.33 * 87.08 95.27
Number of affiliations
One 44.25 26.53 40.96 34.42 13.28 5.05
† †
More 55.75 73.47 59.04 65.58 NS 86.72 94.95
Main affiliation
Orthodontic 58.33 55.44 58.74 64.39 71.22 67.51
Nonorthodontic 12.96 14.29 12.27 17.51 21.03 19.56
Nonacademic 28.70 30.27 NS 29.00 18.10 * 7.75 12.93 NS

Significance denotation does not apply to row comparisons; it indicates presence or absence of statistical significance in distribution of each
parameter (article type, number of authors, number of affiliations, and main affiliation) per journal by time interval.
a
Analysis of characteristics of articles by time interval for AJODO; banalysis of characteristics of articles by time interval for AO; canalysis of
characteristics of articles by time interval for EJO.
*P ⬍.05; †P ⬍.01; NS, not significant.

Table VIII. Geographic origin of articles per journal per interval

AJODO AO EJO

Share, Share, Share, Share, Share, Share,

first second first second first second
interval interval Statistical interval interval Statistical interval interval Statistical
Geographic origin (%) (%) significancea (%) (%) significanceb (%) (%) significancec

US/Canada 58.77 55.64 66.91 38.87 4.43 3.47

EUa 24.08 19.61 15.24 26.41 80.07 69.09
EUb 2.49 3.88 1.12 6.23 5.90 6.94
East Asia/Oceania 8.77 13.23 12.64 21.36 7.75 14.20
†
Other 5.89 7.64 * 4.09 7.12 1.85 6.31 *

Significance denotation does not apply to row comparisons; it indicates presence or absence of statistical significance in distribution of each
parameter (article type, number of authors, number of affiliations, and main affiliation) per journal by time interval.
a
Analysis of characteristics of articles by time interval for AJODO; banalysis of characteristics of articles by time interval for AO; canalysis of
characteristics of articles by time interval for EJO.
*P ⬍.05; †P ⬍.01.
EUa, European Union countries; EUb, non-European Union European countries.

Oceania and the “other” category increased for all
journals. A trend for more articles from EU countries
was seen during the second interval for the AO as well
as a reduction of the same group for articles in the EJO.
Fewer articles from the United States and Canada
appeared in the AO during the second interval.
DISCUSSION
The past 2 decades have witnessed a delirious
pace of technological advancements with phenome-
nal impact on the proliferation of available informa-
tion on various scientific subjects; this, in turn, has
given rise to the emergence of new scientific disci-
plines. It has thus become apparent that specialty
educational programs must enhance their research
constituent not only because of the obvious new
knowledge this will furnish to the field, but also for
the financial support of academic programs. An
advanced orthodontic curricula weak in research
deprives the graduate of the abilities to think criti-
American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
Volume 130, Number 4
cally and to define the limitations of research meth-
odologies; thus, the graduate might accept the results
of studies indiscriminately and endorse unsubstanti-
ated claims uncritically.8 At the same time, research
funds might be directed to education and training of
researchers.
On the other hand, financial constraints in the
global economy have imposed budget cuts on state-
funded research, forming a competitive environment in
which research proposals are subjected to rigorous
review. Because promotion and tenure criteria have
also become strenuously demanding, researchers prefer
to publish in a periodical with a high IF, adopting the
paradigm of broader biomedical disciplines. Hence, a
recent survey9 showed that many articles with direct
relevance to orthodontics were published in nonorth-
odontic journals, including Dental Materials, Journal
of Prosthetic Dentistry, and Journal of Dental Re-
search, and in nondental periodicals such as Journal of
Biomechanics, Journal of Biomedical Materials Re-
search, Journal of Anatomy, Bone, Biomaterials, and
Journal of Biological Chemistry, among others. Al-
though this tactic establishes a prestigious profile for
researchers, it might eventually be detrimental to our
specialty because it dissociates the major communicat-
ing tools in the orthodontic community—the journals—
from important information. Because some research
articles are published in other biomedical periodicals
with IFs, the production of new orthodontic knowledge
in research articles is underestimated in this study;
therefore, the interpretation of findings should be lim-
ited to the periodicals included.
Caution should be exercised in interpreting the data
relevant to the analysis of articles by type. Classifica-
tion of journals’ contents as research and review
articles should not be considered to have a qualitative
character. The literature often lists research papers,
which can examine trivial issues or have fundamental
inconsistencies in their designs. On the other hand,
some reviews have been important to the specialty,
presenting currently available knowledge on certain
issues in a scientifically sound and clinically relevant
manner.
Readers should not conclude, from the journals
selected for this study, that the many other orthodontic
journals have less scientific value. Nonetheless, the
necessity for an objective selection process, along with
the fact that all other potential discriminating properties
of journals are subjective, resulted in the use of IF
numbers as the inclusion criterion.
The increased number of author affiliations over
time might be related to cross-appointed faculty, who
serve in associated disciplines (biology, sciences, engi-
Kanavakis et al 521
neering), or researchers with multi-country affiliations.
Both cases indicate increased collaboration among
orthodontic departments or between orthodontics and
other sciences in the current demanding research envi-
ronment; this necessitates the interaction of various
disciplines to effectively respond to research chal-
lenges. Because public funding is awarded on a com-
petitive basis, collaboration of scientists with different
backgrounds is a prerequisite for the fruition of re-
search efforts.
In general, our understandings of craniofacial growth
and adaptation, tooth movement, and intraoral material
performance have substantially improved during the past
2 decades. This can be credited to the advanced orthodon-
tic research by collaborative efforts of scientists from
diverse educational backgrounds, which range from ma-
terials science and engineering to molecular biology,
anatomy, and embryology. The results of the interactive
efforts in our specialty have been pivotal in clarifying key
issues that had long been matters of dispute in the
orthodontic literature.
The significantly higher frequency of articles with
the first author’s nonorthodontic affiliation in the
AJODO and the AO compared with the EJO might be
associated with the availability of collaboration of
orthodontic faculty with other scientists at research
centers, which are more common in North America
than in Europe. Likewise, the larger research-article
content of the EJO is associated with the overall rare
appearance of case reports and review articles of this
journal relative to the AJODO and the AO. Part of this
difference can be attributed to the short history of the
European Board of Orthodontics and the associated
decreased emphasis on case presentations. On the
contrary, the AJODO and the AO frequently publish
case reports; they include nearly 1 article of this type in
every issue.
Although the use of frequency percentages rather than
the absolute number of articles might normalize the
weight of studied parameters among the 3 journals, it does
not elucidate the true impact of the variables—article type,
authorship characteristics, and geographic representa-
tion— on each journal’s status. This is because percent-
ages represent different numbers of articles because of the
varying sizes and numbers of issues per year of each
journal. For example, a 2% increase of research articles in
a monthly journal would be different from the same
increase in a bimonthly journal. However, using absolute
numbers to compare article sources or origins is inappro-
priate from a statistical point of view and does not provide
insight into the overall content classification of each
journal per time interval.
Notably, authors from East Asia and Oceania al-
 522 Kanavakis et al
most doubled their contributions to orthodontic period-
icals during the second interval. The number of articles
from this region increased from 67 to 116 in the
AJODO, from 34 to 72 in the AO, and from 21 to 45
in the EJO. Similarly, there is an interesting trend,
without statistical significance, for fewer European
Union articles in the EJO and more European Union
articles in the AO.
CONCLUSIONS
The results of this study suggest the following.
● The 3 journals accept articles from different geo-
graphic origins: 80.6% of the articles in the EJO are
from European countries, and articles from North
America constitute 3.9%. Articles from North Amer-
ica correspond to 57.1% and 51.3% of those in the
AJODO and the AO, respectively.
The following statements were derived from the
analysis of article type and origin per time interval.
● Articles from East Asia and Oceania increased in
the 3 journals, and the numbers of articles from
these countries significantly increased in the sec-
ond interval.
● In the AJODO and the AO, proportional decreases in
articles from North America were observed.
● Although the numbers of authors were similar during
the 2 intervals, affiliations significantly increased
in the second interval.
● The type of affiliation of the first author did not
differentiate the intervals, with 60% of the articles
from orthodontic departments.
Classification of articles per type of publication
yielded the following.
● The 3 journals accept different types of articles:
93.7% of articles published in the EJO are research
studies, whereas these articles constitute the 67.7% in
the AJODO and 65.69% in the AO.
View publication stats
American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
October 2006
● Compared with the AJODO, the EJO publishes
articles with more authors and affiliations, whereas
no such differences were observed when comparing
the AO with the AJODO.
Analysis of the contents by time interval by journal
gave these findings.
● Changes over time in article types were mainly in the
AO and the EJO. Both journals accepted significantly
more research articles, whereas this was not observed
in the AJODO.
● The numbers of authors increased between the 2
intervals in the AO and the EJO.
● The numbers of affiliations increased with time
for the AJODO and the EJO, but not for the AO.
● The AJODO and the EJO accept articles with similar
affiliations, whereas the AO had a significant in-
crease in articles from first authors affiliated with
orthodontic departments.
REFERENCES
1. Eliades T, Athanasiou AE. Impact factor: a review with specific
relevance to orthodontic journals. J Orofac Orthop 2001;62:74-83.
2. Luther F. Current products and practice. A review of some
orthodontic journals. J Orthod 2000;27:79-82.
3. Garfield E. The impact factor and its proper application. Un-
fallchirung 1998;101:413-4.
4. Garfield E. Dispelling a few common myths about journal citation
impacts. Scientist 1997;11:11.
5. Seng LB, Willett P. The citedness of publications by U.K. library
schools. J Informat Sci 1995;21:68-71.
6. Glanzel W. A bibliometric study on aging and reception processes
of scientific literature. J Informat Sci 1995;21:37-53.
7. Garfield E, Sher IH. New factors in the evaluation of scientific
literature through citation index. Amer Docum 1963;4:195-201.
8. Eliades T, Athanasiou AE. Advanced orthodontic education:
evolution of assessment criteria and methods to meet future
challenges. Angle Orthod 2005;75:143-50.
9. Mavropoulos A, Kiliaridis S. Orthodontic literature: an overview
of the last two decades. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop
2003;124:30-40.