The Anais Brasileiros de Dermatologia (ABD) is the authoritative scientific publication endorsed by the Brazilian Society of Dermatology. ABD stands out as one of the leading specialized journals in the field of dermatology, garnering recognition not only within Brazil but also on an international scale.1 Established in 1925, the journal has remained steadfast in its commitment to disseminating scientific knowledge and fostering the progress of dermatology. Covering a diverse array of topics concerning skin, hair, and nail health, ABD continues to be a pivotal resource in advancing the understanding of dermatological sciences. Reaching the milestone of a century of contributions prompts reflection on the past and recognition of the researchers who have helped write this success story. Moreover, with 99 volumes published, the journal chronicles the evolution of dermatology in Brazil.

Analyzing the history of a journal through significant milestones is a common practice in the literature. The Journal of Dental Research underwent a bibliometric analysis covering its 100-year history. The study identified the 100 most cited articles from this period. The findings highlight the journal’s extensive impact and reveal shifts in citation patterns and research priorities over the past century.2 Similarly, the Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry was subjected to a comprehensive bibliometric analysis to examine its characteristics over a 50-year period, from 1970 to 2019. Of the 11,989 records retrieved, 10,638 (92.9%) were included in the analysis.3 Likewise, during its 20-year history, the Centro de Ciências da Economia e Informática (CCEI) Journal was analyzed, which includes all 420 published articles. The study identified the most influential authors and their associated research communities.4 Analogously, the Arquivos Catarinenses de Medicina Journal was analyzed, covering all 1,173 articles published since its inception 65 years ago. The study identified the most prominent authors and their primary research communities.5 To assess the current status and research trends in caries diagnosis, 816 documents published between 2013 and 2021 were analyzed from the Web of Science Core Collection database. The study aimed to perform a bibliometric analysis to identify contributing researchers, organizations, countries or regions, and journals, as well as to examine keyword co-occurrence and co-authorship networks.6

In parallel, other studies use Social Network Analysis (SNA) to obtain a deeper insight into the structure of collaboration among the authors. In medical education, it is acknowledged that SNA is underutilized. However, the method is argued to have significant potential, offering valuable insights that could enhance the experiences and outcomes of medical trainees and educators, ultimately benefiting patients.7 SNA was also employed to visualize the co-authorship networks and scientific map of research outputs in clinical teaching and medical education. The research examined 1,229 publications on clinical teaching spanning a 40-year period, from 1980 to 2018.8

The ABD itself has been the subject of studies involving importance metrics, but the studies focused on journal impact indicators, without addressing aspects related to author metrics. An analysis of the trajectory of the ABD over a decade was done, from 2013 to 2022, and compared key bibliometric indices with those of Brazilian medical and international dermatological journals.9 Previously, trends in the main bibliometric indicators of the ABD from 2010 to 2019 were investigated.10

In this context, the aim of this research is to analyze the century-long history of the ABD, identifying its most prominent contributors and mapping the largest co-authorship communities.

This study is an applied research with a descriptive objective and a quantitative nature. It involved a documentary procedure conducted on the websites of the ABD. This section delineates the methods employed in the study, encompassing the data collection process, the creation of the database, the generation of the co-authorship network, and the calculation of author metrics.

Table 1 displays the authors who had at least thirty-one publications in the ABD. This threshold enabled the selection of the top 50 authors with the highest number of publications, representing 0.46% of the journal’s 10,829 authors. The total number of publications by the top 50 authors is 2,550, out of a total of 6,299 publications by ABD up to its 99th edition. These numbers highlight the importance of the top 50 authors.

Table 1 is sorted in descending order of Publications, Degree, Betweenness Centrality, and Pagerank, indicating the respective co-authorship communities. In the Deg, BC, and PR columns, the values in parentheses indicate the author’s potential ranking position if the respective column were used as the primary sorting criterion. In addition to these authors presented in the ranking, 57 authors were identified who had twenty or more articles published, 169 authors with ten to nineteen articles, 397 authors with five to nine articles; 2,182 authors with two to four articles, and 7,974 authors who participated in a single article, indicating that 73.64% of the authors published only once in the journal.

Due to space limitations, the authors chose to restrict the analysis to the top 5 highest values of each metric. Thus, according to number of publications, the importance over the 99-years of ABD is evident for the following five authors: Rubem David Azulay (Pos = 1) with 161 publications, Helio Amante Miot (Pos = 2) with 143 publications, Silvio Alencar Marques (Pos = 3) with 105 publications, Hiram Larangeira de Almeida Junior (Pos = 4), with 99 publications, and Renan Rangel Bonamigo (Pos = 5), with 87 publications. Just these authors contributed 595 publications, accounting for over 9.44% of the journal’s total publications throughout its history. The median number of articles published by the top 50 ranked authors was 41.5 (p25–p75: 34–56), indicating a highly productive subgroup. In contrast, the overall average number of publications per author was much lower, 2.05 ± 4.59, with a median of 1 (p25–p75: 1–2). This substantial disparity suggests an exponential distribution, where a small number of highly productive authors contributed substantially to the total publication output.

In terms of degree, which represents the number of different co-authors collaborated with, the following authors stand out: Helio Amante Miot (Pos = 2) with 266 co-authors, Rubem David Azulay (Pos = 1) with 184 co-authors, Renan Rangel Bonamigo (Pos = 5) with 179 co-authors, Luna Azulay Abulafia (Pos = 21) with 162 co-authors, and Hiram Larangeira de Almeida Junior (Pos = 4) with 160 collaborations. The median number of coauthors among the top 50 ranked authors was 82 (p25–p75: 56–101). In comparison, the average number of coauthors across all authors was 6.2 ± 9.29, with a median of 4 (p25–p75: 3–6). This disparity highlights the more extensive collaborative networks of the top authors compared to the broader author pool.

The highest Betweenness Centrality values indicate authors who played a significantly relevant role in communication between different research communities, thereby integrating various communities within the context of ABD. In this metric, the following authors are highlighted: Helio Amante Miot (Pos = 2), Rubem David Azulay (Pos = 1), Luna Azulay Abulafia (Pos = 21), Bernardo Gontijo (Pos = 6), and Cesare Massone (Pos = 283). Despite a lower number of publications (Pub = 9), Cesare Massone, from Galliera Hospital in Genoa, Italy, achieves a high BC score due to his co-authorships with researchers from Brazil, Italy, and Austria. The median BC among the top 50 ranked authors was 0.008219 (p25–p75: 0.005179–0.017461). In contrast, the average BC across all authors was 0.000187 ± 0.001354 (p25–p75: 0–0). This significant difference underscores the central role of the top authors in connecting various segments of the research network.

The highest Pagerank values show the authors who have a leadership role in the ABD, likely resulting from their activities as mentors of new researchers in this area. In this metric, the most relevant authors are: Helio Amante Miot (Pos = 2), Hiram Larangeira de Almeida Junior (Pos = 4), Rubem David Azulay (Pos = 1), Renan Rangel Bonamigo (Pos = 5), and Silvio Alencar Marques (Pos = 3). The median PageRank (PR) among the top 50 ranked authors was 0.001049 (p25–p75: 0.000864–0.001482). In contrast, the mean PageRank across all authors was 9.23 × 10-5 ± 1.18 × 10-4.

Relationships between these metrics provide insights into the profile of top-ranked authors. A weak positive correlation (p = 0.474) is observed between the number of Publications (Pub) and the number of unique coauthors (Deg). The Deg/Pub ratio among the top 50 authors varies widely, ranging from 0.18 to 3.89, with a median of 1.77 (p25‒p75: 1.29‒2.32). On one hand, Antar Padilha Gonçalves (Pos = 15) has a Deg/Pub ratio of 0.18 (9 coauthors/50 publications), reflecting his tendency to publish primarily without coauthors. A similar pattern is observed with Demetrio Peryassu (Pos = 39), whose ratio is 0.32. This profile is characteristic of authors who were more productive during the earlier decades of ABD and are often regarded as influential figures in the history of Brazilian dermatology.23,24 On the other hand, Tania Ferreira Cestari (Pos = 30) has a Deg/Pub ratio of 3.89, indicating collaboration with a diverse range of coauthors in her publications. As another example, Luna Azulay Abulafia (Pos = 21) has a ratio of 3.68. Higher ratios are more characteristic of authors with recent productivity, highlighting an increasing trend in interconnection and collaboration among researchers over time.

A weak positive correlation (p = 0.397) was observed between a number of publications and Betweenness Centrality (BC). The median BC/Pub ratio is 0.18 × 10-3 (p25‒p75: 0.12 × 10-3 – 0.33 × 10-3). Francisco Eduardo Rabello (Pos = 38) has the lowest BC/Pub ratio at 0.011 × 10-3, while Luna Azulay Abulafia (Pos = 21) exhibits the highest ratio at 0.869 × 10-3. This comparison further highlights the discrepancy between older and more recent authors. In contrast, a very strong positive correlation (p = 0.814) is observed between Deg and BC, reflecting the strong interdependence between a researcher’s collaborative reach and their role as a connector within the network.

When analyzing the relationship between the number of Publications (Pub) and Page Rank (PR), a moderate positive correlation (p = 0.636) is identified. The median PR/Pub ratio is 0.26 × 10-3 (p25‒p75: 0.20 × 10-3 – 0.29 × 10-3). Antar Padilha Gonçalves (Pos = 15) has the lowest PR/Pub ratio at 0.049 × 10-3, while Tania Ferreira Cestari (Pos = 30) exhibits the highest ratio at 0.40 × 10-3. In contrast, a very strong positive correlation (p = 0.919) is observed between Deg and PR. This indicates that researchers with a broader collaborative network tend to have higher PageRank values, reflecting their centrality and influence within the co-authorship network. The strong relationship underscores the importance of collaborative reach in determining a researcher’s prominence and visibility in the network.

Fig. 1 represents authors in the top 50 ranking and their co-authorships. This figure represents the core of ABD. Nodes in the graph represent authors, with their size proportional to the number of publications. Edges represent co-authorship collaborations, and their thickness indicates the frequency of these collaborations. Higher-weight edges often highlight frequent partnerships, suggesting long-term collaborations, joint projects, or shared research interests. A total of 33,596 co-authorship partnerships were identified, with the most frequent collaborations depicted in Fig. 1. The most frequent co-authorship was observed between Bernardo Gontijo (Pos = 6) and Everton Carlos Siviero do Vale (Pos = 11), with 37 joint publications. Additionally, Silvio Alencar Marques (Pos = 3) exhibited strong collaborative ties with both Bernardo Gontijo and Everton Carlos Siviero do Vale, co-authoring 36 and 35 publications, respectively. In summary, 43 co-authorships were recorded more than 10 times, while 3,655 co-authorships occurred more than once. Notably, nearly 89% of the collaborations, totaling 29,898, took place only once.

Figure 1.

Top 50 authors and their co-authorship networks.

(0.76MB).

The colors of the nodes denote the primary coauthorship communities, with unique colors assigned to the eight largest communities. Communities ranked ninth and smaller are uniformly represented in gray.5 These communities typically reflect specialized research areas or institutional affiliations. Notably, communities 1, 5, 10, and 2 together account for nearly half of the top 50 ranked authors, with 11, 5, 4, and 4 members, respectively.

Regarding the communities, the authors who are most relevant within the largest communities stand out. Aiming to focus the attention just on the main authors of each community, Figs. 2 to 10 present just authors who have 20 or more publications. Even the major networks have core members, demonstrating a pattern of close collaboration that has developed over time. The largest community, presented in Fig. 2, with 831 members, is led by the author Rubem David Azulay (Pos = 1), an emeritus professor at the Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro. This community contains 7.7% of the Journal authors and 22% of the authors in the ranking. The second largest community, shown in Fig. 3, comprises 549 authors and is led by Luna Azulay Abulafia (Pos = 21) from Universidade Estadual do Rio de Janeiro. The third largest community, displayed in Fig. 4, with 534 members, is led by Hiram Larangeira de Almeida Junior (Pos = 4), from Universidade Federal de Pelotas and Universidade Católica de Pelotas, and Renan Rangel Bonamigo (Pos = 5) from Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul in Porto Alegre. The fourth largest community, displayed in Fig. 5, with 422 members, is led by Tania Ferreira Cestari (Pos = 30) from Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul. Helio Amante Miot (Pos = 2) and Silvio Alencar Marques, both from Universidade Estadual Paulista, lead the fifth-largest community, which is composed of 349 authors, as presented in Fig. 6.

Figure 2.

Top authors of the largest community, which contains 831 authors, are predominantly associated with the Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro.

(0.32MB).

Figure 3.

Top authors of the second largest community, which contains 549 authors, are mainly filiated with Universidade Estadual do Rio de Janeiro.

(0.28MB).

Figure 4.

Top authors of the third largest community, which contains 534 authors, are mainly filiated with Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Universidade Federal de Ciências da Saúde de Porto Alegre, and Universidade Federal de Pelotas.

(0.16MB).

Figure 5.

Top authors of the fourth largest community, comprising 350 authors, are associated with different institutions: Universidade Federal de São Paulo, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Universidade Federal do Mato Grosso do Sul, Universidade Federal de Ciências da Saúde de Porto Alegre, Hospital Sı́rio Libanês, and Hospital do Servidor Público Estadual de São Paulo.

(0.29MB).

Figure 6.

Top authors of the fifth largest community, holding 349 authors, are associated with Universidade Estadual Paulista.

(0.35MB).

The sixth largest community, presented in Fig. 7, contains 334 authors, is led by Neusa Yuriko Sakai Valente (Pos = 7), from Universidade de São Paulo. Fig. 8 presents the seventh-largest community, which contains 320 authors, and is led by Rosana Lazzarini (Pos = 28), from Santa Casa de São Paulo. Bernardo Gontijo (Pos = 6), from Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, leads the eighth largest community, which contains 315 authors and is presented in Fig. 9. The ninth largest community, which has 297 authors, is depicted in Fig. 10 and is headed by Fabiane Andrade Mulinari Brenner, from Universidade Federal do Paraná. These nine main communities encompass 3,897 authors, representing 36% of the ABD’s authors.

Figure 7.

Top authors of the sixth largest community, consisting of 334 authors, are predominantly affiliated with the Universidade de São Paulo.

(0.3MB).

Figure 8.

Top authors of the seventh largest community, which contains 320 authors, are primary affiliated with the Santa Casa de São Paulo.

(0.17MB).

Figure 9.

Top authors belonging to the eighth most extensive community, encompassing 315 authors, are mainly affiliated with the Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais.

(0.16MB).

Figure 10.

Top authors of the nineth largest community, which contains 297 authors, are primary affiliated with the Universidade Federal do Paraná.

(0.07MB).

Although there is an international author, Cesare Massone (Pos = 283), among the top five in betweenness centrality, international authors are notably absent from the top 50 in the 100-year ranking. Despite its leadership in Latin America, the journal has historically been focused on Brazilian research, with limited interactions between Brazilian dermatologists and international collaborators. Additionally, publications by foreign authors gained prominence in earlier periods. This can be attributed to a relatively recent shift in editorial policy, implemented 20 years ago, aimed at broadening the base of national and international authors and reviewers. This effort was further supported by the journal’s indexing in LILACS since 1981, SciELO since 2003, and PubMed/Medline since 2009, which enhanced its visibility and accessibility to a wider audience.1

To evaluate the impact of editorial policy changes and initiatives aimed at enhancing the international visibility of ABD, the authors conducted a separate analysis focusing on the last 20 years (Table 2). This analysis identified one international researcher among the top 50 ranked authors: Toshiyuki Yamamoto (Pos = 29) from Japan, recognized as a notable foreign contributor. Despite this inclusion, the ABD ranking remains predominantly composed of Brazilian researchers, who continue to regard the journal as a key platform for disseminating their scientific work.

The limitations of this study include the lack of consideration for authorship order (e.g., first or last author), article type (e.g., case report, review, editorial, or full article), and article impact, as measured by citation rate. These limitations highlight gaps that should be addressed in future research by examining the influence of these factors on authors, research communities, and their respective topics of study.

Finally, following open science practices, the data generated in this work, along with high-resolution images of both the complete network and the main co-authorship communities, are available at https://github.com/sandrocamargo/publications/tree/main/abd25.

This study analyzed the century-long history of the ABD journal (1925–2024), encompassing 99 volumes and 6,299 articles authored by 10,829 distinct contributors. A ranking of the top 50 authors was constructed based on metrics including publication count, collaboration degree, betweenness centrality, and PageRank. Among the findings, Rubem David Azulay was recognized as the author with the highest number of publications, while Helio Amante Miot emerged as the most influential contributor across the other metrics. Moreover, 73.64% of all authors published only once in the journal. The study also mapped the main co-authorship communities, detailing their size, key members, and institutional affiliations.

These results provide a detailed overview of the journal’s historical contributions, recognizing individuals and communities that have significantly shaped its legacy over nearly a century.

None declared.

Helena Cargnelutti Grimaldi: Critical review of important intellectual content; interpretation of data; effective participation in the research guidance; final approval of the final version of the manuscript.

Sandro da Silva Camargo: The study concept and design; data collection and analysis; writing of the manuscript; final approval of the final version of the manuscript.