The spark
The story begins with a question that quietly emerged in the hallways of Indian orthopaedic research: as the volume of publications from India grew, what was the actual shape of that growth? What topics dominated? Which institutions led? And—perhaps most importantly—how was the impact evolving? For the flagship national forum, the Indian Journal of Orthopaedics (IJO), published under the aegis of the Indian Orthopaedic Association and Springer Nature, these questions mattered. The authors — led by Raju Vaishya and his co-investigators — felt that although IJO had grown in volume and visibility, no comprehensive and up-to-date bibliometric map existed of how Indian-authored work in IJO had fared over nearly two decades (2007–2024). And so, the idea of a large-scale bibliometric and scientometric analysis took shape.
The climb
Once the idea was settled, the team embarked on the hard work of data collection and cleaning. They chose the Scopus database because of its broad coverage across disciplines and its analytical capabilities. (trebuchet.public.springernature.app) The cut-off period, 2007–2024, was chosen because IJO had been indexed in Scopus during that period, providing a consistent baseline. (trebuchet.public.springernature.app) The search strategy pulled in globally indexed documents in IJO, and then filtered to Indian-author affiliated papers to give a dataset of 1,614 Indian-authored articles. (trebuchet.public.springernature.app) The total global papers in the journal over the period were 2,763 with 23,188 citations; the Indian portion accounted for 1,614 items and 13,821 citations (average citations ≈ 8.56 per Indian paper).
In parallel, the team conducted descriptive statistical and correlation analyses (for example: the inverse correlation between total publications and citations per publication). Along the way, they inspected document types (research articles vs reviews vs conference papers), external funding, international collaborations (which countries, which institutions), geography (which Indian states, cities), subject/tissue–bone classifications, keywords, institutional productivity, and the “highly cited papers” subset.
The key findings – what surprised them
Some results were expected: IJO had shown substantial growth in output (from 80 papers in 2007 to a peak of 280 in 2023) for all authors, and Indian authors contributed 58.4 % of the output over the 2007–24 period. (trebuchet.public.springernature.app) But other results were more telling, perhaps raising new questions for the community.
-
The average citations per publication (CPP) declined over time: for the early period (2007–12) the CPP was ~15.19, dropping to ~10.9 in 2013–18, and further to ~3.87 in 2019–24. (trebuchet.public.springernature.app)
-
A significant inverse correlation (r = -0.870, p < 0.001) was found between publication volume and citations per publication.
-
Only 2.79 % of the Indian-authored papers received external funding, yet those funded papers had higher impact (CPP ~14.15) compared with the unfunded set.
-
International collaborations were present but limited: while the UK (45 papers, CPP 16.51) and USA (36 papers, CPP 8.17) were top collaborators, many Indian papers had no international partner.
-
Subject-wise: “Trauma, Fracture & Dislocation” dominated with 22.06 % of papers (356 TP) and CPP ~10.99; “Spine/Spinal Surgery” though fewer (99 TP) had highest CPP ~14.37. Areas like “Regenerative Medicine” were under-represented (6 TP, CPP ~2.83) even though they are increasingly relevant.
-
Geographically: Delhi and Maharashtra led in raw outputs (25.6 % and 20.6 % respectively), but states with smaller volume such as Assam had the highest average impact (CPP ~16.83) despite only 18 publications.
-
Only 31 Indian publications (≈1.9 % of the 1,614) qualified as “highly cited papers” (≥50 citations); these accounted for an average ~89.6 citations each.
The reflections – what it means
What this analysis brought into focus is that while Indian orthopaedic research (through IJO) has made great strides in volume, there are real challenges in impact, diversity and equity. The decline in citations per paper suggests that publishing more is not the automatic pathway to being more influential. “Citation lag” (newer papers needing time to accumulate citations) explains part, but the trend raises questions about research quality, novelty, collaboration, and visibility. (trebuchet.public.springernature.app)
The low external funding percentage is also notable: funding often correlates with larger, multi-centre, higher-visibility work. So the fact that only ~3 % of papers had external support indicates a large untapped potential. The results around international collaborations suggest that partnerships with higher-impact institutions/countries may help boost visibility and influence.
Geographic insights matter: several major states dominate the output, but some lesser-known regions punch above their weight in per-paper impact. This suggests potential for more equitable spread of research hubs across India. The thematic gaps (for example, regenerative medicine or rare bone disease research) suggest future opportunity areas.
The journey behind the scenes
From initial brainstorming to final acceptance the project involved multiple authors across institutions: Raju Vaishya, Brij Mohan Gupta, Abhishek Vaish, Srinivas S. B. Kambhampati, Murali Poduval, Sudhir Shekhawat, and Madhu Bansal.The data-intensive nature of bibliometrics meant hours of dataset cleaning in Excel, ensuring affiliations were correctly captured, categorisations aligned, and the graphs and correlation tests were viable. The fact that some authors were also on the editorial board of IJO required transparent disclosures (and the authors ensured they did not participate in the editorial decision for this paper).
The team also faced decisions: how to define “Indian-author” (they restricted to affiliation country = India), how far back to go (they chose 2007 because of consistent indexing), which variables to include (document types, funding, collaborations, geography, subject areas). They also deliberated on how to make the results meaningful to a broad audience: clinicians, researchers, policy-makers, funding bodies. In other words: this isn’t just about numbers—it’s about telling a narrative of where Indian orthopaedic research has been, and where it needs to go.
The value-add
What makes this paper valuable is not only the data but the actionable insights: the authors propose a roadmap for strengthening Indian orthopaedic research. These include:
-
Prioritising research quality by focusing on methodological rigour, multi-centred studies, reporting standards.
-
Increasing external funding, and diversifying funding sources beyond a few agencies.
-
Encouraging more international collaborations to increase visibility and citation potential.
-
Promoting under-represented thematic areas (e.g., regenerative medicine, rare bone diseases) and geographic regions to broaden the research ecosystem.
-
Being mindful of the “citation lag” effect and tracking impact over time, not only volume.
What comes next
For IJO and for Indian orthopaedic research more broadly, this paper acts as a mirror held up to the community. The rising volume is encouraging—it shows that more clinicians and academics are contributing to the discourse. But it also gently warns: more papers do not automatically mean more influence. The challenge now is to convert quantity into quality and visibility.
For the authors, the next step may involve drilling deeper: focusing on sub-specialties, exploring what drives the highly cited papers (what distinguishes them), perhaps studying institutional networks or the role of open access, social media visibility, and non-traditional metrics (altmetrics). For funding agencies and research policy makers, this paper sends a message: invest strategically, build collaborations, support under-represented areas and regions.
Final word
Behind the paper lies a story of aspiration, of growing Indian research capability, of shifting dynamics in orthopaedics, and of the journey from numbers to meaning. The authors of this study have woven together nearly two decades of publication data into a narrative that honours progress and invites reflection. As IJO continues its role as a national flagship, this work will hopefully act as a beacon—encouraging more impactful, diverse, and globally connected orthopaedic research from India.