One particular measure of the effects of a scientific concept is how generally it gets cited by other scientists. The top-cited paper of all time, according to a 2014 investigation by Nature, has now been cited by 344,007 other scientific article content due to the fact its publication in 1951. (The matter? You’d never guess, for factors we’ll get into beneath.) Researchers’ occupation prospective clients are affected by their h-index, a measure that benefits acquiring a high selection of closely cited papers (and probably, while no a person would truly confess it, by their Kardashian index, which compares their cumulative citations to the selection of Twitter followers they have).
You can also use very similar procedures to examine complete fields, which is what a new review led by Omeet Khatra of the College of British Columbia attempts for sporting activities and workout drugs. In the Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medication, Khatra and his colleagues set with each other a listing of the one hundred article content with the most citations in the discipline, giving a snapshot of the influence of the two specific papers and broader trends. There are a bunch of exciting results, but probably the most telling is this: only a person of the one hundred papers is a randomized managed trial, which is the gold-normal variety of experimental proof.
One particular vital caveat for this investigation is that the boundaries of sporting activities and workout drugs are pretty hazy. Khatra’s definition includes managing sporting activities accidents, improving athletic overall performance, and the use of workout to increase wellbeing. That is extremely broad, but the technique employed to establish top papers was a small far more idiosyncratic. They began by determining a listing of forty six journals centered on sporting activities and workout drugs, and then discovered the one hundred most-cited article content from in just these journals.
That indicates major papers published in non-expert journals really don’t clearly show up on the listing. A.V. Hill’s initial 1923 study on VO2 max was published in the Quarterly Journal of Medication Karlman Wasserman’s 1964 paper on the anaerobic threshold was published in the American Journal of Cardiology. In truth, you’d count on that the most ground-breaking results are the most most likely to make it into generalist journals like Nature and Science (in which, for case in point, a basic 1937 paper on the aerobic electricity of globe document-location runners was published).
So it is not a in depth listing, but it still addresses a large portion of the discipline. It’s dominated by Medication & Science in Sports & Exercise, the flagship journal of the American School of Sports Medication, which contributes no fewer than 49 of the papers. Future on the listing are the American Journal of Sports Medication, with 18, and Sports Medication, with 7. The oldest paper on the listing is from 1973, reflecting the field’s fairly current emergence as a distinctive discipline: MSSE, for case in point, was only launched in 1969.
Topping the listing with 7,228 citations was Gunnar Borg’s 1982 paper, “Psychophysical bases of perceived exertion.” Borg is the guy who innovative the thought of a subjective scale of perceived exertion, which initially ran from six to 20, whilst there is a far more sensible modified model that runs from zero to 10. He began producing this concept in the nineteen sixties, but the 1982 English-language paper is the a person that gets cited whenever persons talk about perceived exertion. (Another a person of Borg’s papers on the matter, from 1973, demonstrates up at 48th on the listing.)
You could not assume that inquiring persons to assign a selection to how tricky they’re operating is a main scientific breakthrough. But Borg’s function has experienced a enormous influence. He argued that his scale is “the solitary ideal indicator of the diploma of physical pressure,” integrating alerts from the muscle tissue, lungs, coronary heart, and brain. In the previous two decades, far more and far more scientists have taken that argument critically as they’ve tried to reveal the brain’s part in analyzing our physical limits, and also as a simple software for guiding instruction. Base line: I’d say Borg’s paper is a worthy winner.
The premier team of papers on the listing aim on methodological equipment: how to operate a VO2 max check, how to estimate body composition, how to calibrate your pedometers and accelerometers, what validated questionnaires to use to question your subjects about their workout behavior, and so on. That is also what is observed in other fields: the all-time most cited paper that I pointed out at the top is a approaches paper on “protein measurement with the folin phenol reagent.”
Solutions papers might not audio all that fascinating, but they can unquestionably be controversial. Various of the papers on the listing aim on data, which include the selection 9 paper, from 2008, by Will Hopkins and colleagues: “Progressive data for scientific studies in sporting activities drugs and workout science.” That approach to data is created to tease out delicate overall performance consequences in scientific studies with small sample dimensions. But it has arrive less than rigorous criticism, most notably pursuing a 2018 report in FiveThirtyEight by Christie Aschwanden arguing that it is far more most likely to produce untrue-positive results than standard statistical approaches.
Another big bucket is formal rules, mostly the types issued by the American School of Sports Medication on topics which include resistance instruction, working out with cancer, hydration, body weight decline, blood strain, and workouts for more mature adults. These are helpful overviews to cite in the introduction to an report when you want to back up general statements like “exercise is excellent for you” or whatsoever, but they’re not particularly ground-breaking.
Just after that, it is far more of a mixed bag. The most well-known aspect of the anatomy is the knee, which is the aim of 15 papers, mostly relating to ACL accidents. Future is the brain, which options in 3 papers on concussion in activity. Two other themes that rack up numerous mentions: the enduring mystery of delayed-onset muscle mass soreness, and the rising wellbeing scourge of as well much sitting.
There are 3 papers on the physiology of soccer, a person on the biomechanics of baseball pitching, and a person on Hakan Alfredson’s popular heel-fall protocol for Achilles tendinosis, which squeaks in at 98th area. (Funny backstory: Alfredson is an orthopedic surgeon who experienced Achilles troubles back in the nineteen nineties. When his manager refused to give him time off for surgical treatment simply because the condition was not severe plenty of, he made the decision to aggravate his Achilles with unpleasant heel drops—but unintentionally healed himself.)
I pointed out at the top that only a person of the scientific studies on the listing is a randomized managed trial, this means that subjects have been randomly assigned to both obtain both an intervention or a placebo. Instead, most of the experimental papers use lower ranges of proof this sort of as cohort scientific studies and situation series, neither of which use randomization or command groups. The most important solitary group, with 38 papers, is narrative evaluations, which survey the benefits of numerous scientific studies on a matter but really don’t pool them into a person big meta-investigation.
I assume most sporting activities scientists would agree that the discipline requires far more randomized trials, along with other methodological advancements like larger issue groups and far more refined statistical analyses. But the faults in the top-one hundred listing probably are not particular to sporting activities science. Watson and Crick’s discovery of the composition of DNA and Einstein’s idea of general relativity really don’t make their respective lists both: the most important breakthroughs come to be textbook substance that doesn’t even have to have a citation. “If citations are what you want,” Yale College chemist Peter Moore advised Nature, “devising a technique that would make it achievable for persons to do the experiments they want at all, or far more very easily, will get you a lot more than, say, getting the key of the Universe.”
For far more Sweat Science, be a part of me on Twitter and Fb, sign up for the electronic mail e-newsletter, and look at out my book Endure: Thoughts, Physique, and the Curiously Elastic Restrictions of Human Performance.
Guide Photo: Flamingo Photographs/Stocksy