ArticleNaunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology2026
Country-specific citation disparities in Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's Archives of Pharmacology from 2001 to 2024.
Article in Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Digital Marketing Strategies for Sustainable Food and Beverage Brands: A Bibliometric Systematic Literature Review.F1000Research · 2026Pooled it
- Hepatitis B Research in Peru, 1988-2023: Geographic Inequities, Thematic Gaps, and Misalignment with Disease Burden.Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Is any research ever truly bias-free? The myth of objectivity in science.Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This bibliometric study examined disparities in research output and citation impact in 4155 (including all types of documents) research documents published in Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's Archives of Pharmacology (NSAP) from 2001 to 2024. The objective was to assess how publication volume and citations vary across countries, i.e., high-income countries (HICs), upper-middle-income and lower-middle-income countries (UMICs and LMICs). Germany led in both number of publications (770 publications) and total citations (17,569), followed by China, India, the United States, and Egypt. Regression-based citation analysis by country group revealed pronounced disparities. In the low-output category (11-51 publications), HICs such as Norway, Switzerland, and Sweden demonstrated citation performance far above expectations, while several LMICs underperformed despite comparable output levels. In the moderate-output group (85-169 publications), citation correlation weakened overall. While the Netherlands and the UK maintained high impact, middle-income countries like South Korea and Saudi Arabia showed limited citation impact. Among high-output countries (240-769 publications), citation performance was more consistent (R
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.