Top Performers in a Decade of Otolaryngology Research: A Bibliometric Analysis (2015–2024)

Data source and search strategy

This cross sectional bibliometric analysis utilized Clarivate Analytics’ InCites platform to gather publication data from the Web of Science (WoS) Core Collection. The dataset was accessed on April 2025, and was based on the InCites dataset last updated on March 28, 2025.

All bibliographic records were filtered by the Research Area of “Otorhinolaryngology” within the WoS classification schema, restricting the scope to literature in the otorhinolaryngology domain. The time period was set to 2015–2024 (inclusive), capturing a decade of research output. All publication types indexed in WoS were included to encompass the full range of scholarly output. Importantly, records from the Emerging Sources Citation Index (ESCI) were retained in the dataset to ensure comprehensive coverage of the field. The primary objective was to quantify research productivity and impact within otorhinolaryngology and to identify leading contributors. In addition to InCites, we utilized the latest version of Journal Citation Reports (JCR), JCR 2023 for journal-specific metrics.

Analytical methods

Five key analytical dimensions were examined to characterize the otorhinolaryngology research landscape: countries, publication sources (journals), funding agencies, organizations (institutional affiliations), and individual researchers. For each of these dimensions, relevant bibliometric indicators were extracted from InCites or derived from the data to evaluate research productivity, impact, and collaboration. InCites’ standard metrics were used as the basis for analysis. Detailed information on dataset composition, baseline calculations, and indicator definitions is available from Clarivate’s InCites Knowledge Base.⁹

All data retrieved from InCites were downloaded in spreadsheet format (CSV and Excel), and basic processing was performed to enable these analyses. The InCites platform directly provided many of the indicators, which we used as reported. Additional computations were carried out using spreadsheet functions to ensure consistent comparisons across the five dimensions.

Tools and software

Data processing and analysis were conducted using a combination of Python scripting and manual cross-verification with spreadsheet software, ensuring both efficiency and precision. Datasets exported from InCites and JCR in CSV and Excel formats were loaded into Python. This step addressed minor inconsistencies, such as encoding errors or truncated text fields, to ensure uniformity across all records.

For data validation and analysis, Python scripting was employed. Datasets obtained from InCites and JCR were first loaded into Python using pandas, where they were cleaned and cross-checked for inconsistencies, such as encoding issues or truncated text. Aggregated metrics were computed for each entity, and the results were verified against the Excel outputs from InCites. This dual approach of programmatic and manual verification ensured accuracy in the final dataset, preventing errors and discrepancies.

Countries

The United States contributed the largest share (~31,600, about one-third of global output) and the most total citations (~342,700). Germany (~7,000 publications, 7.6%), China (~6,450, 6.9%), and the United Kingdom (~5,550, 6.0%) were the next most prolific, collectively accounting for over half of output (Note: In Web of Science, the UK’s constituent countries are listed separately, but combined they total about 11,000 papers, placing the UK as #2 overall, though we report them individually as provided.) These four countries alone accounted for over half of the world’s otorhinolaryngology papers. The United States’ volume was nearly four times that of the second-ranked country. Notably, the UK published fewer papers than Germany but garnered more citations (~73,000 vs 63,500), reflecting higher average impact ( Figures 1 and 2, Table 1).

Figure 1.

Figure 2. Citation and Publication Metrics by Country in Otorhinolaryngology (2015–2024).

(A) Horizontal bar graph illustrating the total number of citations received by the top 25 countries. (B) Horizontal bar graph depicting the number of Web of Science documents published by the top 25 countries. Data were sourced from the InCites Dataset, updated March 28, 2025. Countries are color-coded as indicated in the legends below each graph.

The United States achieved a Category Normalized Citation Impact (CNCI) of 1.15 (i.e. 15% above the world baseline of 1.0), with 12.7% of its papers ranked in the top 10% globally by citations and 1.57% in the top 1% most-cited. The United Kingdom’s output had even higher influence (CNCI ~1.50). Several smaller European countries achieved the highest citation indices (e.g., Italy CNCI ~1.8, Netherlands ~2.0). In contrast, some major producers had below-average impact: China’s CNCI ~0.96, and Turkey and India ~0.7–0.8. International collaboration rates ranged from over 40% of papers with cross-country coauthors (in the UK, Netherlands) to only ~16–18% in China and the US, mirroring these impact differences ( Figure 2, Table 1).

Journals

The otorhinolaryngology publications were dispersed across 441 journals ( Table 2), and output was moderately concentrated in a core set of specialty titles. The top 10 journals accounted for ~43% of all papers (top 5 for ~27%). The Laryngoscope was the most prolific journal (~6,757 papers). Next were European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology (~6,122) and International J. of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology (~4,253), followed by Head & Neck (~4,145) and Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery (~3,944) ( Figure 3, Table 2).

Figure 3. Citation and Publication Metrics by Journal in Otorhinolaryngology (2015–2024).

(A) Horizontal bar graph illustrating the total number of citations received by the top 25 journals. (B) Horizontal bar graph depicting the number of Web of Science documents published by the top 25 journals. Data were sourced from the InCites Dataset, updated March 28, 2025. Journals are color-coded as indicated in the legends below each graph.

Integration of InCites and JCR 2023 metrics highlights the influence of journal quality on citation performance. Notably, journal impact did not strictly align with volume. Several high-output journals had only modest impact metrics (IF ~1–2, CNCI well below 1), while a few had outstanding impact. For example, International Forum of Allergy & Rhinology and JAMA Otolaryngology—both top-tier outlets—each achieved CNCI ~1.9. Also, 24.6% of JAMA Otolaryngology papers and 20.3% of Int. Forum Allergy Rhinology papers fell in the top 10% most-cited globally – far above the 10% expected baseline. By contrast, some popular venues with IF ~1 had CNCI ~0.5–0.7. Thus, although a substantial portion of the field’s work appears in high-impact journals, a significant share is published in lower-tier outlets ( Figure 3, Table 2).

Funding agencies

Out of 694 funding agencies ( Table 3), a few major sponsors dominated. The U.S. NIH was by far the top funder, acknowledged in ~5,063 publications (~5.4% of all papers). The largest non-U.S. funder was China’s NSFC (1,761 papers), followed by Japan’s MEXT (~1,320) and JSPS (~1,257). Combined, the NIH (including its institute NIDCD) supported about twice as many papers as the top Chinese and Japanese agencies combined. Leading European funders like UKRI and DFG each supported only ~435 papers (~0.5%) ( Figure 4, Table 3).

Figure 4. Citation and Publication Metrics by Funding Agencies in Otorhinolaryngology (2015–2024).

(A) Horizontal bar graph illustrating the total number of citations received by the top 25 funding agencies. (B) Horizontal bar graph depicting the number of Web of Science documents published by the top 25 funding agencies. Data were sourced from the InCites Dataset, updated March 28, 2025. Funding agencies are color-coded as indicated in the legends below each graph.

Funding source also correlated with citation impact ( Table 3). Papers funded by major U.S. or U.K. agencies generally had above-average citation rates (aggregate CNCI often ~1.5 or higher), whereas those funded by China’s NSFC were around the world average (CNCI ~1.0). Moreover, targeted programs in certain areas produced especially high-impact work: for example, research supported by NIH’s National Cancer Institute or the UK’s NIHR achieved CNCI ~1.8–1.9 (roughly 80–90% above average). Overall, a few U.S. agencies (notably NIH) and some Asian agencies led funding in the field, and the highest-impact outputs were often linked to these specialized funding streams ( Figure 4, Table 3).

Organizations

Large U.S. academic centers dominated output: the University of California system (2,634 publications) and Harvard University (2,606, plus ~2,300 from affiliated hospitals) ranked highest, followed by the Ohio State University system (~2,133). Other major U.S. contributors included the University of Texas system (~1,610), Pennsylvania’s state system (~1,578), Johns Hopkins (~1,516), and Massachusetts Eye & Ear (~1,561). Outside the U.S., the Egyptian Knowledge Bank (1,496) and University of Toronto (1,090) were the top producers. No single European university surpassed 1,000 papers, though the combined University of London network had ~1,014 ( Figure 5, Table 4).

Figure 5. Citation and Publication Metrics by Organization in Otorhinolaryngology (2015–2024).

(A) Horizontal bar graph illustrating the total number of citations received by the top 25 organizations. (B) Horizontal bar graph depicting the number of Web of Science documents published by the top 25 organizations. Data were sourced from the InCites Dataset, updated March 28, 2025. Organizations are color-coded as indicated in the legends below each graph.

Many top institutions also achieved high citation impact ( Figure 5, Table 4). For instance, Johns Hopkins University (1,516 papers) achieved a CNCI of 2.04, with 16.2% of its output in the top 10% most-cited and 3.0% in the top 1%. The University of London–affiliated medical colleges (1,014 papers combined) had one of the highest citation performances, with a CNCI of approximately 2.47. Specialized centers like the Medical University of South Carolina (CNCI ~2.2) and Mayo Clinic (~1.8) similarly combined moderate volume with exceptional impact. In contrast, some high-volume contributors had only average impact (e.g., Egyptian Knowledge Bank, CNCI ~0.9). Overall, the leading institutions tended to be both prolific and highly cited.

Researchers

Authorship followed a long-tail distribution: a few authors were extremely prolific, while most contributed relatively few papers. The most prolific was Jerome R. Lechien (387 publications). The next were Daniel J. Eloy (236) and Shaun A. Nguyen (230), and several others exceeded 200 publications ( Figure 6, Table 5).

Figure 6. Citation and Publication Metrics by Researcher in Otorhinolaryngology (2015–2024).

(A) Horizontal bar graph illustrating the total number of citations received by the top 25 researchers. (B) Horizontal bar graph depicting the number of Web of Science documents published by the top 25 researchers. Data were sourced from the InCites Dataset, updated March 28, 2025. Researchers are color-coded as indicated in the legends below each graph.

Citation impact varied among prolific authors ( Table 5). Lechien’s work had an exceptionally high influence (CNCI ~3.6), with nearly 10% of his papers in the top 1% by citations, likely bolstered by extensive international collaboration (~86% of his papers). Eloy and Nguyen, by contrast, showed more modest impact (CNCI ~1.3–1.7, under 3% of their papers in the top 1%) with mostly domestic collaborators. A few individuals combined high volume with remarkable impact. For instance, Claire Hopkins (UK) achieved the highest CNCI (~7.1) among authors with over 100 publications, and Thomas Hummel (Germany) reached CNCI ~3.0. Both had over two-thirds of their papers with international coauthors ( Figure 6, Table 5).

Integrated analysis of research productivity and impact

When combining these perspectives, clear relationships emerge between collaboration, venue quality, and citation impact. Across the 30 most productive countries, the percentage of internationally co-authored papers showed a strong positive correlation with citation impact metrics. For instance, countries with the highest international collaboration rates – the Netherlands and Switzerland (≈45% of papers with international co-authors) – also had among the highest CNCI values (1.99 and 1.82, respectively) and top 10% paper shares (19.7% and 16.4%). By contrast, countries with more domestic-focused research profiles such as China (16.2% international) and India (12.5%) had below-average CNCI (0.96 and 0.65) and smaller top 10% shares. The Pearson correlation between international collaboration percentage and CNCI across these top countries was approximately r = 0.82, with a similarly strong correlation for collaboration vs. top 10% share (r ~0.78; see Table 1). A parallel trend was observed at the institutional level: many of the organizations with the highest citation impact (CNCI >2) were those engaged in extensive cross-national collaboration and publishing in top-tier journals. Individual researchers followed suit – for example, the contrast between Lechien (86% international, CNCI 3.6) and Nguyen (3% international, CNCI 1.3) exemplifies this pattern – though individual-level correlations were not computed, the qualitative trend is evident. These findings reinforce the link between collaborative breadth and research influence in global otorhinolaryngology.

Publishing in higher-impact journals also correlated with greater citation success. Countries that published a greater share of their work in first-quartile (Q1) journals tended to attain higher CNCI than those publishing heavily in lower-tier venues. Overall, roughly one-third of the field’s papers appeared in Q1 journals (vs ~9% in Q4; see Table 2). Many of the most-cited studies were published in top-quartile or high-impact general medical journals, highlighting the visibility conferred by quality venues.

Only four papers (~0.004% of the dataset) qualified as ESI-designated “Hot Papers” (in the top 0.1% of citations for their year of publication).^10–13 All were large international collaborations on timely topics.^10–13 These rare outliers demonstrate the potential of global teamwork but also underscore that the field’s impact is driven mostly by the cumulative contribution of many moderately cited studies rather than a few breakthroughs.