Bibliometric Analysis of the Top 100 Most Cited Papers in Aesthetic Plastic Surgery

To conduct a comprehensive bibliometric analysis of the top 100 most cited papers in aesthetic plastic surgery. The analysis utilized VOSviewer, bibliometrix and biblioshiny packages in R. A keyword analysis was performed on all publications. Annual publication trends, mean total citations per article (MeanTCperArt), mean citation rate per year (MeanTCperYear), authors, institutions and countries contributions were examined. From 1976 to October 2024, a total of 5460 papers (5010 articles and 450 reviews) were published in the journal, reflecting a modest annual growth rate of 1.79%. Among these, the top 100 most cited papers averaged 159.7 citations per article. These highly cited works had an average document age of 22.7 years, emphasizing their long-lasting impact. Authorship analysis revealed contributions from 327 authors, with notable contributors such as Spear SL and Farkas LG, each authoring three of the top 100 papers. The Second University of Naples emerged as a leading institution with 13 contributions, while the USA stood out as the most prolific country, publishing 29 papers in this dataset. Citation trends demonstrated variability across decades. From 1981 to 1989, citation averages per article ranged between 92 and 165, with mean citation rates per year (MeanTCperYear) from 2.09 to 4.32. Publications from 2015 achieved a MeanTCperYear of 16.80, while 2018 papers recorded annual citation rate of 30.0. The analysis of research themes within the top 100 cited papers revealed influential topics and trends that have shaped the literature in aesthetic plastic surgery. These findings highlight the journal's critical role in advancing the field. This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each submission to which Evidence-Based Medicine rankings are applicable. This excludes Review Articles, Book Reviews, and manuscripts that concern Basic Science, Animal Studies, Cadaver Studies, and Experimental Studies. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .