PLoS Medicine

Top Research Topics at PLOS Medicine?

The journal mostly deals with topics like Internal medicine, Global health, Environmental health, Demography and Immunology. It focused on Internal medicine research but expanded to cover Oncology. It focuses on Global health but the discussions also offer insight into other areas such as Developing country and Health policy.

The concepts on Demography presented in the journal can also apply to other research fields, including Incidence (epidemiology) and Cohort. The majority of Immunology studies presented zero in on Malaria. Randomized controlled trial research featured in the journal incorporates concerns from various other topics such as Psychological intervention and Clinical trial.

Most of the works presented in PLOS Medicine deals with Cohort study but it intersects with the subject of Pediatrics.

• Internal medicine (15.11%)
• Global health (10.86%)
• Environmental health (10.63%)

What are the most cited papers published in the journal?

• Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement (51043 citations)
• The PRISMA Statement for Reporting Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Studies That Evaluate Health Care Interventions: Explanation and Elaboration (20484 citations)
• The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology [STROBE] statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies (11843 citations)

Research areas of the most cited articles at PLOS Medicine:

The published articles mainly tackle studies in Internal medicine, Immunology, Global health, Environmental health and Meta-analysis. The most cited publications explore issues in Environmental health which can be linked to other research areas like Developing country and Public health. The journal articles hold forums on Meta-analysis that merge themes from other disciplines such as Systematic review and MEDLINE.

What topics the last edition of the journal is best known for?

• Internal medicine
• Disease
• Law

The previous edition focused in particular on these issues:

PLOS Medicine investigates areas of study like Internal medicine, Demography, Cohort study, Randomized controlled trial and Odds ratio. While it focused on Demography, it was also able to explore topics like Cross-sectional study, Socioeconomic status, Logistic regression and Confidence interval. Cohort study research presented in it encompasses a variety of subjects, including Body mass index, Pregnancy, Hazard ratio, Obstetrics and Cohort.

In addition to Randomized controlled trial research, it aims to explore topics under Psychological intervention, Relative risk, Physical therapy and Meta-analysis. The Psychological intervention works featured in it incorporate elements from Psychosocial and Family medicine. It addresses concerns in Meta-analysis which are intertwined with other disciplines, such as Systematic review and MEDLINE.

The most cited articles from the last journal are:

• The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. (26 citations)
• Cardiometabolic risk factors for COVID-19 susceptibility and severity: A Mendelian randomization analysis. (21 citations)
• Early versus deferred anti-SARS-CoV-2 convalescent plasma in patients admitted for COVID-19: A randomized phase II clinical trial. (17 citations)

Papers citation over time

A key indicator for each journal is its effectiveness in reaching other researchers with the papers published at that venue.

The chart below presents the interquartile range (first quartile 25%, median 50% and third quartile 75%) of the number of citations of articles over time.

Top authors and change over time

The top authors publishing in PLOS Medicine (based on the number of publications) are:

• George Davey Smith (40 papers) published 4 papers at the last edition, 2 less than at the previous edition,
• Nicholas J. White (40 papers) published 3 papers at the last edition the same number as at the previous edition,
• Gavin Yamey (32 papers) published 1 paper at the last edition,
• Douglas G. Altman (28 papers) absent at the last edition,
• Vikram Patel (27 papers) published 2 papers at the last edition, 1 more than at the previous edition.

The overall trend for top authors publishing in this journal is outlined below. The chart shows the number of publications at each edition of the journal for top authors.

Top affiliations and change over time

Only papers with recognized affiliations are considered

The top affiliations publishing in PLOS Medicine (based on the number of publications) are:

• Harvard University (419 papers) published 29 papers at the last edition the same number as at the previous edition,
• University of London (368 papers) published 29 papers at the last edition, 1 more than at the previous edition,
• University of Oxford (263 papers) published 29 papers at the last edition, 2 more than at the previous edition,
• Johns Hopkins University (228 papers) published 16 papers at the last edition, 3 more than at the previous edition,
• University of California, San Francisco (213 papers) published 21 papers at the last edition, 7 more than at the previous edition.

The overall trend for top affiliations publishing in this journal is outlined below. The chart shows the number of publications at each edition of the journal for top affiliations.

Publication chance based on affiliation

The publication chance index shows the ratio of articles published by the best research institutions in the journal edition to all articles published within that journal. The best research institutions were selected based on the largest number of articles published during all editions of the journal.

The chart below presents the percentage ratio of articles from top institutions (based on their ranking of total papers).Top affiliations were grouped by their rank into the following tiers: top 1-10, top 11-20, top 21-50, and top 51+. Only articles with a recognized affiliation are considered.

During the most recent 2021 edition, 3.56% of publications had an unrecognized affiliation. Out of the publications with recognized affiliations, 50.55% were posted by at least one author from the top 10 institutions publishing in the journal. Another 15.13% included authors affiliated with research institutions from the top 11-20 affiliations. Institutions from the 21-50 range included 14.02% of all publications and 20.30% were from other institutions.

Returning Authors Index

A very common phenomenon observed among researchers publishing scientific articles is the intentional selection of journals they have already attended in the past. In particular, it is worth analyzing the case when the authors participate in the same journal from year to year.

The Returning Authors Index presented below illustrates the ratio of authors who participated in both a given as well as the previous edition of the journal in relation to all participants in a given year.

Returning Institution Index

The graph below shows the Returning Institution Index, illustrating the ratio of institutions that participated in both a given and the previous edition of the conference in relation to all affiliations present in a given year.

The experience to innovation index

Our experience to innovation index was created to show a cross-section of the experience level of authors publishing in a journal. The index includes the authors publishing at the last edition of a journal, grouped by total number of publications throughout their academic career (P) and the total number of citations of these publications ever received (C).

The group intervals were selected empirically to best show the diversity of the authors' experiences, their labels were selected as a convenience, not as judgment. The authors were divided into the following groups:

• Novice - P < 5 or C < 25 (the number of publications less than 5 or the number of citations less than 25),
• Competent - P < 10 or C < 100 (the number of publications less than 10 or the number of citations less than 100),
• Experienced - P < 25 or C < 625 (the number of publications less than 25 or the number of citations less than 625),
• Master - P < 50 or C < 2500 (the number of publications less than 50 or the number of citations less than 2500),
• Star - P ≥ 50 and C ≥ 2500 (both the number of publications greater than 50 and the number of citations greater than 2500).

The chart below illustrates experience levels of first authors in cases of publications with multiple authors.

Relevance to Practical Fields

This article currently lacks a section tying the research to its practical implications and relevance to existing and emerging fields. Adding this section would further enhance the depth of the article according to Google Search Quality Guidelines. The drafted section might look something like this: **Practical Implications of Research** While PLOS Medicine contains high-quality scholarly content, it's also vital to acknowledge its potential contributions to real-world scenarios and applied research. For instance, the studies featured in the journal on immunology, especially those focusing on Malaria, offer insights that can be utilized in the medical field, particularly in regions where Malaria is a persistent health issue. In relation to global health studies, the insights offered by the journal serve as critical resources for policy makers, especially those from developing countries who are aspiring to improve their healthcare systems. The focus on environmental health and its intersection with public health underscores the importance of a multidisciplinary approach to health and wellness, signaling potential areas for policy intervention and public advocacy. Moreover, the journal serves as an excellent tool for practical learning for students and professionals aiming to specialize in these areas. For example, students of nursing, more specifically those enrolled in programs like the online lpn programs wyoming will find the PLOS Medicine journal extremely informative and timely for their studies. It is essential to therefore, not just review the themes and citations of the publications but also analyze their implications on practical fields and their potential to steer future policies and professional practices.