Impact-Factor Concentration and Citation Disparities: GLP-1 Literature Outperforms Bariatric Surgery Through Preferential Placement in High-Impact Journals
This bibliometric study compared the 100 most-cited articles on GLP-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RA) with the 100 most-cited articles on metabolic bariatric surgery (MBS), using the Bibliometrix software to analyze citation patterns, journal distribution, and journal impact factors (IF). The study found that GLP-1RA articles accumulated more total citations (91,660 vs. 72,243) and had a higher median citation count (718 vs. 551) than MBS articles. GLP-1RA research was also more internationally collaborative (57% vs. 26%) and appeared more frequently in journals with IF above 40 (41% vs. 25%). The weighted 5-year mean IF was substantially higher for GLP-1RA journals (35.4 vs. 21.6). The authors argue that these differences may reflect a "prestige-journal effect," whereby GLP-1RA trials' placement in flagship journals such as the NEJM and Lancet inflates citation counts relative to MBS research, which is more dispersed across surgical specialty journals. A key limitation is that this study analyzes publication patterns rather than clinical outcomes, and cannot establish whether citation differences reflect true differences in scientific merit. The authors conclude that journal-impact inequalities should be considered when making citation-based comparisons between therapeutic fields.
Why this grade: This is a bibliometric analysis comparing publication and citation metrics between two literatures; it does not evaluate clinical outcomes in human patients, making it insufficient for grading evidence of therapeutic efficacy.
Abstract Introduction: Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RA) and metabolic bariatric surgery (MBS) are the two dominant therapies reshaping obesity and metabolic care. Although both have produced highly cited evidence, it remains unclear whether differences in bibliometric influence reflect scientific merit or systematic publication in higher-impact journals. Methods Two independent bibliometric exports were analyzed using Bibliometrix . We compared the 100 most-cited GLP-1RA articles with the 100 most-cited MBS articles, focusing on citation density, journal distribution, and weighted 5-year impact-factor (IF) profiles to test whether GLP-1RA research benefits from a “prestige-journal effect.” Journals were identified for all 200 original articles (abstracts, review and other types of articles were excluded), and publicly available data were retrieved for every journal. A weighted mean IF was calculated by multiplying each journal’s IF by its number of included articles and dividing by 100. Comparative analyses examined citation density, temporal trends, and journal prestige differences across both corpora. Results Both corpora contained 100 articles. GLP-1 papers accumulated 91,660 citations versus 72,243 for MBS. Median citations were higher for GLP-1 (718 vs 551). International collaboration was more common in GLP-1RA articles (57% vs 26%). Weighted 5-year IF analysis across all journals in both corpora showed higher IF for GLP-1RA (35.4) than for MBS (21.6). 41% of GLP-1RA articles were published in journals with IF > 40, compared with 25% in MBS. GLP-1RA’s most-cited trials appeared in NEJM or Lancet , whereas MBS’s high-impact studies were diluted by a larger fraction of publications in surgical journals. Conclusion GLP-1RA literature demonstrates markedly higher citation density and greater representation in high-impact journals. This reinforces the need to interpret citation-based comparisons considering journal-impact inequalities between therapeutic domains.
Educational summary of published research — not medical advice. Full text is shown only where licensing permits.