The role of case studies in recent paleopathological literature: An argument for continuing relevance

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To critically examine the role that case studies play in recent paleopathological literature, by evaluating their frequency of publication, academic impact, and the public engagement they generate. MATERIALS: Articles published in International Journal of Paleopathology between 2011 and 2018 (N = 377). METHODS: Articles were coded as case studies, population studies, methodological studies, or reviews. Case studies were coded as cultural practices, differential diagnosis, historical, or methodological/theoretical. We utilized bibliometric analysis to assess academic impact and altmetric analysis to evaluate public engagement. RESULTS: Case studies continue to be the most frequently published, but least frequently cited, article type. There are no significant differences in public engagement data between article types. Methodological/theoretical case studies have the most academic impact. Differential diagnosis case studies have the least academic impact and generate the least public engagement. CONCLUSIONS: The case study genre includes a variety of approaches, some of which hold significant potential for contributing to the discipline of paleopathology and beyond. SIGNIFICANCE: This study updates Mays' (2012b) citation analysis, pioneers the use of altmetric data to analyze public engagement with paleopathological publications, and identifies less productive approaches and areas of heightened relevance in the case study genre. LIMITATIONS: Publications in only one journal were analyzed. Only one source was utilized for citation data (Google Scholar) and one source for altmetric data (PlumX). SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH: Expanding the granular analysis of case studies piloted here to additional journals and/or citation indexes to enlarge the sample size and provide keener insights.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 6 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.