journal_of_neurological_surgery_part_b_skull_base [Neurosurgery Wiki]

This page is read only. You can view the source, but not change it. Ask your administrator if you think this is wrong.
Journal of Neurological Surgery. Part B, Skull Base
🏷️ General Overview
Title: Journal of Neurological Surgery Part B: Skull Base (often abbreviated as J Neurol Surg B)

Publisher: Thieme Medical Publishers

Official journal of: Several international societies (e.g. the North American Skull Base Society, the European Skull Base Society, etc.)

Scope: Focused on skull base surgery — neurosurgical, otolaryngological, and interdisciplinary approaches.

📊 Academic Impact and Reach
Impact factor: Modest. Typically below 2, indicating limited citation influence compared to top-tier journals in neurosurgery (e.g., Journal of Neurosurgery, Neurosurgery, Acta Neurochirurgica).

It is a niche specialty journal — excellent for focused exposure in skull base pathology, but it lacks broad academic penetration.

⛔ Critical Weakness: It suffers from low visibility outside its subfield. Articles often go unnoticed in the wider neurosurgical or oncological community. It does not set or shift clinical paradigms — it documents them post hoc.

🧪 Scientific Rigor and Quality Control
Accepts a large proportion of case reports, technical notes, and small retrospective series.

Peer review is present, but often too forgiving, especially for:

Underpowered studies

Lack of control groups

Uncritical use of outdated classification systems

Low methodological innovation

⛔ Issue: There is a tendency to publish incremental or confirmatory studies that bring little to no change to clinical practice. The journal appears more interested in technical documentation than in scientific disruption.

🔍 Editorial and Structural Concerns
Strong European and North American representation in editorial boards — which ensures prestige but limits global diversity.

Heavy presence of institutional clusters (multiple papers from same hospitals), raising concerns of publication inbreeding and limited cross-institutional collaboration.

⛔ Bias Risk: Occasional signs of editorial favoritism toward recurring authors or societies, potentially hampering impartiality.

📚 Content Typology
Highly visual and technical — rich in intraoperative photographs, 3D reconstructions, and anatomical dissections.

While useful for didactic and illustrative purposes, it leans heavily into being a surgical atlas rather than a rigorous scientific journal.

🔍 Some articles read more like:

“Look what we did and how,”
rather than:
“This changes how we should do things and why.”

🎯 Target Audience
Perfect for:

Skull base fellows

ENT-neurosurgery collaborative teams

Technical refinement and anatomy teaching

But irrelevant for:

General neurosurgeons

Neuro-oncologists

Translational researchers

Evidence-based policymakers

📉 Bottom Line
Journal of Neurological Surgery Part B: Skull Base is technically polished but scientifically timid.

✅ Strengths:

Great for technical demonstrations

Strong niche identity

Valuable society affiliations

⛔ Weaknesses:

Low impact and influence

Methodologically weak submissions often accepted

Redundant or descriptive papers with minimal novelty

Lack of prospective, high-level evidence

🧾 Verdict
Aesthetic showcase for skull base surgery — but not a journal for paradigm shifts or practice-changing trials. Ideal for documenting the how, but rarely the why or whether it works.

Neurosurgeons seeking critical evidence, innovative methodology, or transformative insight should look elsewhere.