Leading 20 at 20: Top Cited Articles and Authors in the Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma, 1987-2007
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the 20 most cited articles and authors in the Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma during the first 20 years of publication, 1987 to 2007. DESIGN: Review. METHODS: We used Web of Science "cited reference search" to determine the most cited articles originating in the Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma from 1987 to 2007, the first 20 years of publication. The characteristics of each article were recorded. Next, we manually searched each author's citations for works in the same time period to determine the most cited authors. The number of first authorships for each author was then determined using Medline, and a relative citation impact ratio was calculated. Finally, citation reports for the journal overall were created to evaluate the citation impact of the journal over the last 10 years. RESULTS: The top cited articles ranged from 64 to 566 citations with two articles over 100. Fifteen were clinical articles with the most common topic being tibia fractures (shaft, plateau, and pilon). The top cited authors ranged for 111 to 566 citations, whereas the citations per lead authorship ratio for the authors on that list ranged from 9.5 to 566 citations per lead authorship. The number of citations to the Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma overall over the last 20 years has increased from 181 in 1997 to 3050 in 2007. CONCLUSIONS: The influence of the Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma, its articles, and its authors is readily apparent in this review of the most cited articles and authors in the journal over its first 20 years of publication. This journal is a source of highly cited original articles and the work of many highly cited leaders in the field of orthopaedic trauma.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.059 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.039 | 0.062 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".