One of this journal’s previous editorials examined the countries of the physicians who read it by referring to the locations where their clicks were made. It concluded that our journal had international visibility based on the diversity of locations. Is this sufficient for a journal? No. It should not be sufficient for a journal that claims to publish scientific papers. As well as being read, a journal should make guiding contributions to the design and discussions of other studies by way of the scientific work it publishes. In other words, it must be cited.
I contacted the Web of Science to find out who is citing the papers in our journals and to create a citation map. As we know, there may also be citations that are not included in the Web of Science. This should be taken into consideration when evaluating this editorial. I examined the studies that have received the most citations in the past two years (2015–2016).
Of the ten studies that received the most citations, seven were published in 2015 and three were published in 2016. This is normal because citation numbers are associated with the length of time studies have been available. Of these ten studies, the study at the top of the list received ten citations, and the study at the bottom of the list received four citations. Categorizing the studies published in a journal is not an easy task. However, of the ten studies, five examined the relationship between blood cells and coronary artery diseases. So we can categorize the studies in two groups: those associated with blood cells and those that are not.
The studies associated with the blood cells ranked first, second, fourth, seventh and eighth on the list. The top study with ten citations studied the platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio and the prevalence of coronary artery disease. All ten citations were by other Turkish authors. Of the nine citations received by a study that examined the platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio and acute coronary syndromes, only two were by non-Turkish authors. Of the six citations received by a study that examined the neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio and coronary collateral circulation, five were by Turkish authors. A study that examined platelet volume and intima-media thickness received five citations, three of which were in studies conducted in Turkey. Another study examined the relationship between the platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio and the coronary slow flow phenomenon. It received five citations, only one of which was from abroad. In sum, studies that examined the relationship between blood cells and predominantly coronary artery diseases received the most citations. Of the 35 citations, 30 were made by Turkish authors. The fact that three of the remaining five citations were from China is another interesting point.
The other studies that received most citations, excluding those already mentioned, examined contrast-induced nephropathy, energy drinks and cardiac diseases, 3D echocardiography, and beta blockers and erectile dysfunction. These studies received a total of 21 citations. Of them, 15 were from Turkey, and six were from other countries.
Analyzing the citations yields an interesting picture. The studies of blood cells were cited more, and their ratio of citations that were not from Turkey was 14%. Although the number of citations was lower for the other studies, the ratio of citations from abroad more than doubled to 29%.
This finding can be interpreted in two ways from an editorial point of view. The first involves a pragmatic approach. It is not the location of the citations, but the number that matters. The higher the number, the higher the impact factor. The higher the impact factor, the more scientific the incoming studies become. The second approach involves the assumption that being cited by non-Turkey-based publications will increase the international visibility of the journal. This can be achieved by raising the threshold for the journal’s acceptance of submissions, or, in other words, by increasing the refusal rate. This solution will result in the non-acceptance of successive publications on trendy subjects in Turkey. The result of categorizing the studies into groups gives the impression that such an attitude will increase the rate of receiving citations from outside of Turkey.
None of the activities can be considered independently of the facts about the country. Therefore, it is difficult to decide which of the two approaches is appropriate. The requirement for publications for academic promotions is the salient fact for scientific studies in Turkey. As editors, we cannot ignore it. While we are gradually raising the threshold for acceptance, senior researchers who guide their juniors should probably urge them to emphasize originality rather than simplicity when selecting subjects for research.