A bibliometric study of the movement disorder field by analyzing classic citation data on publication

  • Kaveh Shafiei Mail Neurology Research Centre, Kerman University of Medical Sciences, Kerman, Iran
  • Mahdiyeh Khazaneha Department of Knowledge and Information Sciences, School of Management and Information Science, Kerman University of Medical Sciences, Kerman, Iran
Bibliometric Analysis, Movement Disorders, Medical Journalism


Background: The extent to which a publication attracts scientific attention by virtue of its focus, provides clues about the trend and volume of scientific production in a particular field. Bibliometric analysis is a method to quantify aspects of a specific research area. This article focused on publication on the movement disorders.

Methods: The bibliometric data on movement disorder were retrieved in relation to set of keywords from the Thomson Reuters Web of Science (WOS) available by January 2017. As many bibliometric statistics, such as citation indexes change during time, it was decided to compare two successive
5-years periods, 2007-2011 and 2012-2016. In addition, the citation classics publications with more than 100 times cited were taken into consideration.

Results: In total, the number of movement disorder papers rose from 49,444 to 61,942. Clinical neurology was the most studied WOS subfield at 35.6%. About 12.0% of these studies were published by the Movement Disorders Journal. Original papers accounted for 63.7% of publications. The United States of America was the leading country as the source of these publications followed by China. University College London (UCL) was associated more than any other university regarding these publications whereas the National Institute of Health (NIH) was the major source of funding. The number of papers with more than 100 citations totaled 87, out of which only one paper had more than 400 citations.

Conclusion: This study demonstrates that the total number of publications in movement disorders has increased remarkably during the past decade.


1. Allen L, Jones C, Dolby K, Lynn D, Walport M. Looking for landmarks: The role of expert review and bibliometric analysis in evaluating scientific publication outputs. PLoS One 2009; 4(6): e5910.
2. Patterson MS. Are higher quality papers cited more often? Phys Med Biol 2009; 54(17): i.
3. Furlan JC, Fehlings MG. A Web-based systematic review on traumatic spinal cord injury comparing the "citation classics" with the consumers' perspectives. J Neurotrauma 2006; 23(2): 156-69.
4. Seglen PO. Use of citation analysis and other bibliometric methods in evaluation of the quality of research. Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen 1989; 109(31): 3229-4.
5. Taubes G. Measure for measure in science. Science 1993; 260(5110): 884-6.
6. van Eck NJ, Waltman L, van Raan AF, Klautz RJ, Peul WC. Citation analysis may severely underestimate the impact of clinical research as compared to basic research. PLoS One 2013; 8(4): e62395.
7. Benito-Leon J, Louis ED. The top 100 cited articles in essential tremor. TremorOther Hyperkinet Mov (NY) 2013; 3.
8. Mula M. New trends and hot topics in epileptology: An analysis of top articles published in Epilepsy & Behavior in 2015. Epilepsy Behav 2016; 63: 125-6.
9. Li T, Ho YS, Li CY. Bibliometric analysis on global Parkinsons disease research trends during 1991-2006. Neurosci Lett 2008; 441(3): 248-52.
10. Mariam N, Cavanna AE. The most cited works in Tourette syndrome. J Child Neurol 2012; 27(10): 1250-9.
How to Cite
Shafiei K, Khazaneha M. A bibliometric study of the movement disorder field by analyzing classic citation data on publication. Curr J Neurol. 17(1):53-55.
Short Communication(s)