Readability of the 100 Most-Cited Neuroimaging Papers Assessed by Common Readability Formulae

Frontiers in Human Neuroscience

Volumn 12, Issue , 2018, Pages

  Yeung, Andy W K ^a   Goto, Tazuko K ^b   Leung, W Keung ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF HONG KONG   (Hong Kong)

^b TOKYO DENTAL COLLEGE   (Japan)

Author keywords

Bibliometrics; Information science; Neuroimaging; Neurosciences; Readability

Indexed keywords

EID: 85054805635     PISSN: None     EISSN: 16625161     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3389/fnhum.2018.00308     Document Type: Article

References (58)

1. Angell M., Kassirer J. P., (1994). Clinical research–what should the public believe? N. E. J. Med. 331 189–190. 10.1056/NEJM199407213310309 8008033.
2. Ashburner J., Friston K. J., (2000). Voxel-based morphometry—the methods. Neuroimage 11 805–821. 10.1006/nimg.2000.0582 10860804.
3. Beck D. M., (2010). The appeal of the brain in the popular press. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 5 762–766. 10.1177/1745691610388779 26161889.
4. Biswal B., Zerrin Yetkin F., Haughton V. M., Hyde J. S., (1995). Functional connectivity in the motor cortex of resting human brain using echo-planar mri. Magn. Reson. Med. 34 537–541. 10.1002/mrm.1910340409.
5. Bland J. M., Altman D. G., (1997). Cronbach’s alpha. Br. Med. J. 314:572. 10.1136/bmj.314.7080.572.
6. Carp J., (2012). The secret lives of experiments: methods reporting in the fMRI literature. Neuroimage 63 289–300. 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.07.004 22796459.
7. Chall J. S., Dale E., (1995). Readability Revisited: The New Dale-Chall Readability Formula. Brookline, MA: Brookline Books.
8. de Vos F., Koini M., Schouten T. M., Seiler S., van der Grond J., Lechner A., (2018). A comprehensive analysis of resting state fMRI measures to classify individual patients with Alzheimer’s disease. Neuroimage 167 62–72. 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2017.11.025 29155080.
9. Didegah F., Thelwall M., (2013). Which factors help authors produce the highest impact research? Collaboration, journal and document properties. J. Informetr. 7 861–873. 10.1016/j.joi.2013.08.006.
10. Eggener S., (1998). The power of the pen: medical journalism and public awareness. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 279 1400–1400. 10.1001/jama.279.17.1400-JMS0506-4-0 9582053.
11. Flesch R., (1948). A new readability yardstick. J. Appl. Psychol. 32 221–233. 10.1037/h0057532 18867058.
12. Friedman D. B., Tanner A., Rose I. D., (2014). Health journalists’ perceptions of their communities and implications for the delivery of health information in the news. J. Commun. Health 39 378–385. 10.1007/s10900-013-9774-x 24101256.
13. Gao Y., Nie K., Huang B., Mei M., Guo M., Xie S., (2017). Changes of brain structure in Parkinson’s disease patients with mild cognitive impairment analyzed via VBM technology. Neurosci. Lett. 658 121–132. 10.1016/j.neulet.2017.08.028 28823894.
14. Gazni A., (2011). Are the abstracts of high impact articles more readable? Investigating the evidence from top research institutions in the world. J. Inf. Sci. 37 273–281. 10.1177/0165551511401658.
15. Gonon F., Bezard E., Boraud T., (2011). Misrepresentation of neuroscience data might give rise to misleading conclusions in the media: the case of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. PLoS One 6:e14618. 10.1371/journal.pone.0014618 21297951.
16. Gonon F., Konsman J.-P., Cohen D., Boraud T., (2012). Why most biomedical findings echoed by newspapers turn out to be false: the case of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. PLoS One 7:e44275. 10.1371/journal.pone.0044275 22984483.
17. Guo Q., Parlar M., Truong W., Hall G., Thabane L., McKinnon M., (2014). The reporting of observational clinical functional magnetic resonance imaging studies: a systematic review. PLoS One 9:e94412. 10.1371/journal.pone.0094412 24755843.
18. Hayden J. D., (2008). Readability in the British journal of surgery. Br. J. Surg. 95 119–124. 10.1002/bjs.5994 18076017.
19. Hemminger B. M., Lu D., Vaughan K., Adams S. J., (2007). Information seeking behavior of academic scientists. J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 58 2205–2225. 10.1002/asi.20686.
20. Herculano-Houzel S., (2002). Do you know your brain? A survey on public neuroscience literacy at the closing of the decade of the brain. Neuroscientist 8 98–110. 10.1177/107385840200800206 11954564.
21. Herndon J. B., Chaney M., Carden D., (2011). Health literacy and emergency department outcomes: a systematic review. Ann. Emerg. Med. 57 334–345. 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2010.08.035 21035902.
22. Howard-Jones P. A., (2014). Neuroscience and education: myths and messages. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 15 817–824. 10.1038/nrn3817 25315391.
23. Illes J., Moser M. A., McCormick J. B., Racine E., Blakeslee S., Caplan A., (2010). NeuroTalk: improving the communication of Neuroscience. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 11 61–69. 10.1038/nrn2773 19953102.
24. Jayaratne Y. S., Anderson N. K., Zwahlen R. A., (2014). Readability of websites containing information on dental implants. Clin. Oral Implants Res. 25 1319–1324. 10.1111/clr.12285 24148074.
25. Joyce C., Kelly J., Sugrue C., (2014). A bibliometric analysis of the 100 most influential papers in burns. Burns 40 30–37. 10.1016/j.burns.2013.10.025 24309203.
26. Kim H. J., Yoon D. Y., Kim E. S., Lee K., Bae J. S., Lee J.-H., (2016). The 100 most-cited articles in neuroimaging: a bibliometric analysis. Neuroimage 139 149–156. 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2016.06.029 27327516.
27. Larsson A., Oxman A. D., Carling C., Herrin J., (2003). Medical messages in the media–barriers and solutions to improving medical journalism. Health Expect. 6 323–331. 10.1046/j.1369-7625.2003.00228.x 15040794.
28. McCray A. T., (2005). Promoting health literacy. J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 12 152–163. 10.1197/jamia.M1687 15561782.
29. Mcinnes N., Haglund B. J., (2011). Readability of online health information: implications for health literacy. Inform. Health Soc. Care 36 173–189. 10.3109/17538157.2010.542529 21332302.
30. O’Connor C., Rees G., Joffe H., (2012). Neuroscience in the public sphere. Neuron 74 220–226. 10.1016/j.neuron.2012.04.004 22542177.
31. Plavén-Sigray P., Matheson G. J., Schiffler B. C., Thompson W. H., (2017). The readability of scientific texts is decreasing over time. eLife 6:e27725. 10.7554/eLife.27725 28873054.
32. Poldrack R. A., Farah M. J., (2015). Progress and challenges in probing the human brain. Nature 526 371–379. 10.1038/nature15692 26469048.
33. Powell A. G., Hughes D. L., Wheat J. R., Lewis W. G., (2016). The 100 most influential manuscripts in gastric cancer: a bibliometric analysis. Int. J. Surg. 28 83–90. 10.1016/j.ijsu.2016.02.028 26873521.
34. Racine E., Bar-Ilan O., Illes J., (2005). fMRI in the public eye. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 6 159–164. 10.1038/nrn1609 15685221.
35. Racine E., Waldman S., Rosenberg J., Illes J., (2010). Contemporary neuroscience in the media. Soc. Sci. Med. 71 725–733. 10.1016/j.socscimed.2010.05.017 20609506.
36. Remus W., (1980). Why academic journals are unreadable: the referees’ crucial role. Interfaces 10 87–90. 10.1287/inte.10.2.87.
37. Roberts J. C., Fletcher R. H., Fletcher S. W., (1994). Effects of peer review and editing on the readability of articles published in Annals of Internal Medicine. JAMA 272 119–121. 10.1001/jama.1994.03520020045012 8015120.
38. Rochon P. A., Bero L. A., Bay A. M., Gold J. L., Dergal J. M., Binns M. A., (2002). Comparison of review articles published in peer-reviewed and throwaway journals. JAMA 287 2853–2856. 10.1001/jama.287.21.2853 12038932.
39. Sawyer A. G., Laran J., Xu J., (2008). The readability of marketing journals: are award-winning articles better written? J. Mark. 72 108–117. 10.1509/jmkg.72.1.108.
40. Shailes S., (2017). Plain-language summaries of research: something for everyone. eLife 6:e25411. 10.7554/eLife.25411 28294940.
41. Shelley I. I. M., Schuh J., (2001). Are the best higher education journals really the best? A meta-analysis of writing quality and readability. J. Sch. Publ. 33 11–22. 10.3138/jsp.33.1.11.
42. Tavakol M., Dennick R., (2011). Making sense of Cronbach’s alpha. Int. J. Med. Educ. 2 53–55. 10.5116/ijme.4dfb.8dfd 28029643.
43. van Atteveldt N. M., van Aalderen-Smeets S. I., Jacobi C., Ruigrok N., (2014). Media reporting of neuroscience depends on timing, topic and newspaper type. PLoS One 9:e104780. 10.1371/journal.pone.0104780 25117741.
44. Viswanath K., Blake K. D., Meissner H. I., Saiontz N. G., Mull C., Freeman C. S., (2008). Occupational practices and the making of health news: a national survey of US health and medical science journalists. J. Health Commun. 13 759–777. 10.1080/10810730802487430 19051112.
45. Weeks W. B., Wallace A. E., (2002). Readability of British and American medical prose at the start of the 21st century. Br. Med. J. 325 1451–1452. 10.1136/bmj.325.7378.1451 12493663.
46. Wrafter P. F., Connelly T. M., Khan J., Devane L., Kelly J., Joyce W. P., (2016). The 100 most influential manuscripts in colorectal cancer: a bibliometric analysis. Surgeon 14 327–336. 10.1016/j.surge.2016.03.001 27091391.
47. Yavchitz A., Boutron I., Bafeta A., Marroun I., Charles P., Mantz J., (2012). Misrepresentation of randomized controlled trials in press releases and news coverage: a cohort study. PLoS Med. 9:e1001308. 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001308 22984354.
48. Yeung A. W. K., (2017a). Do neuroscience journals accept replications? a survey of literature. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 11:468. 10.3389/fnhum.2017.00468 28979201.
49. Yeung A. W. K., (2017b). Identification of seminal works that built the foundation for functional magnetic resonance imaging studies of taste and food. Curr. Sci. 113 1225–1227.
50. Yeung A. W. K., (2018a). An updated survey on statistical thresholding and sample size of fMRI studies. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 12:16. 10.3389/fnhum.2018.00016 29434545.
51. Yeung A. W. K., (2018b). Bibliometric study on functional magnetic resonance imaging literature (1995–2017) concerning chemosensory perception. Chemosens. Percept. 11 42–50. 10.1007/s12078-018-9243-0 27327516.
52. Yeung A. W. K., Goto T. K., Leung W. K., (2017a). A bibliometric review of research trends in neuroimaging. Curr. Sci. 112 725–734. 10.18520/cs/v112/i04/725-734.
53. Yeung A. W. K., Goto T. K., Leung W. K., (2017b). At the leading front of neuroscience: a bibliometric study of the 100 most-cited articles. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 11:363. 10.3389/fnhum.2017.00363 28785211.
54. Yeung A. W. K., Goto T. K., Leung W. K., (2017c). Basic taste processing recruits bilateral anteroventral and middle dorsal insulae: an activation likelihood estimation meta-analysis of fMRI studies. Brain Behav. 7:e00655. 10.1002/brb3.655 28413706.
55. Yeung A. W. K., Goto T. K., Leung W. K., (2017d). Brain responses to stimuli mimicking dental treatment among non-phobic individuals: a meta-analysis. Oral Dis. 10.1111/odi.12819 [Epub ahead of print]. 29250913.
56. Yeung A. W. K., Goto T. K., Leung W. K., (2017e). The changing landscape of neuroscience research, 2006–2015: a bibliometric study. Front. Neurosci. 11:120. 10.3389/fnins.2017.00120.
57. Yeung A. W. K., Goto T. K., Leung W. K., (2018a). Affective value, intensity and quality of liquid tastants/food discernment in the human brain: an activation likelihood estimation meta-analysis. Neuroimage 169 189–199. 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2017.12.034 29247808.
58. Yeung A. W. K., Heinrich M., Atanasov A. G., (2018b). Ethnopharmacology—a bibliometric analysis of a field of research meandering between medicine and food science? Front. Pharmacol. 9:215. 10.3389/fphar.2018.00215.