The Citation Index of Chemistry Education Research in the "Journal of Chemical Education" from 2008 to 2016: A Closer Look at the Impact Factor

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Rodriguez, Jon-Marc G.; Bain, Kinsey; Moon, Alena; Mack, Michael R.; DeKorver, Brittland K.; Towns, Marcy H.

2017-01-01

Journal impact factors are a metric often used to evaluate journals; they are calculated by considering a journal's citation and publication rates during a specified time period. In some cases, impact factors can be misleading because they do not take into account the publication of different types of papers. In the "Journal of Chemical…

Do review articles boost journal impact factors? A longitudinal analysis for five pharmacology journals.

PubMed

Amiri, Marjan; Michel, Martin C

2018-06-21

The impact factor is a frequently applied tool in research output analytics. Based on five consecutive publication years each of five pharmacology journals, we have analyzed to which extent review articles yield more impact factor-relevant citations than original articles. Our analysis shows that review articles are quoted about twice as often as original articles published in the same year in the same journal. We conclude that inclusion of review articles does not substantially affect the impact factor of a journal unless they account for considerably more than 10% of all published articles.

The more publication, the higher impact factor: citation analysis of top nine gastroenterology and hepatology journals.

PubMed

Karimi Elizee, Pegah; Karimzadeh Ghassab, Romina; Raoofi, Azam; Miri, Seyyed Mohammad

2012-12-01

The impact factor (IF), as the most important criterion for journal's quality measurement, is affected by the self-citation and number of publications in each journal. To find out the relationship between the number of publications and self-citations in a journal, and their correlations with IF. Self-citations and impact factors of nine top gastroenterology and hepatology journals were assessed during the seven recent years (2005-2011) through Journal Citation Reports (JCR, ISI Thomson Reuters). Although impact factors of all journals increased during the study, five out of nine journals increased the number of publications from 2005 to 2011. There was an increase in self-citation only in the journal of HEPATOLOGY (499 in 2005 vs. 707 in 2011). Impact factors of journals (6.5 ± 3.5) were positively correlated with total number of publications (248.6 ± 91.7) (R: 0.688, P < 0.001). Besides, the self-citation rate (238.73 ± 195.317) was highly correlated with total number of publications in each journal (248.6 ± 91.7) (R: 0.861, P < 0.001). On the other hand, impact factor without self-citation (6.08 ± 3.3) had a correlation (R: 0.672, P < 0.001) with the number of published items (248.6 ± 91.7). The number of articles and self-citation have definite effects on IF of a journal and because IF is the most prominent criterion for journal's quality measurement, it would be a good idea to consider factors affecting on IF such as self-citation.

AGU journals increase in importance according to 2010 Impact Factors

NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

Cook, Bill

2011-07-01

AGU journals continue to rank highly in many categories in the 2010 Journal Citation Report (JCR), which was released by Thomson Reuters on 28 June. JCR reports on several measures of journal usage, including a journal's Eigenfactor score, its Article Influence score, its Impact Factor, and its rank within a cohort of similar journals. According to the 2010 statistics, AGU again has outperformed its larger competitors. Four different AGU titles are ranked in the top three journals in six different cohorts. The Impact Factor of several AGU journals increased significantly over the previous year.

The Use of Twitter by the Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery Journals: Twitter Activity, Impact Factor, and Alternative Metrics.

PubMed

Hughes, Hannah; Hughes, Andrew; Murphy, Colin

2017-12-10

Aim Social media (SoMe) platforms have become leading methods of communication and dissemination of scientific information in the medical community. They allow for immediate discussion and widespread engagement around important topics. It has been hypothesized that the activity on Twitter positively correlates with highly cited articles. The purpose of this study was to analyze the prevalence and activity of Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery journals on Twitter, with the hypothesis that the impact factor is positively associated with the Twitter usage. Methods The top 50 Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery journals, ranked by 2016 Impact Factor were analyzed. The Twitter profiles of each journal or affiliated society were identified. Other SoMe platforms used were also recorded. The Twitonomy software (Digonomy Pty Ltd, New South Wales, Australia) was used to analyze the Twitter profiles over a one-year period. The Twitter Klout scores were recorded for each journal to approximate the SoMe influence. The Altmetric scores (the total number of mentions via alternative metrics) were also recorded. The statistical analysis was carried out to identify correlations between journal Impact Factors, SoMe activity, Twitter Klout scores and Altmetric scores.  Results Twenty-two journals (44%) were dedicated to the Twitter profiles. Fourteen journals (28%) were associated with societies that had profiles and 14 journals (28%) had no Twitter presence. The mean Impact Factor overall was 2.16 +/- 0.14 (range, 1.07-5.16). The journals with dedicated Twitter profiles had higher Impact Factors than those without (mean 2.41 vs. 1.61; P=0.005). A greater number of Twitter followers were associated with higher Impact Factors (R2 0.317, P=0.03). The journals with higher Twitter Klout scores had higher Impact Factors (R2 0.357, P=0.016). The Altmetric score was positively associated with an Impact Factor (R2 0.310, P=0.015). The journals with higher numbers of retweets (virtual citations in the Twittersphere) had higher Altmetric scores (R2 0.463, P=0.015). Conclusion The Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery journals with dedicated Twitter profiles have higher Impact Factors than those without. The Altmetrics is likely to play a significant role in the literature evaluation going forward along with the traditional metrics. The engagement with the Twitter by Trauma and Orthopaedic surgeons should be encouraged.

The Use of Twitter by Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery Journals: Twitter Activity, Impact Factor, and Alternative Metrics

PubMed Central

Hughes, Andrew; Murphy, Colin G

2017-01-01

Aim Social media (SoMe) platforms have become leading methods of communication and dissemination of scientific information in the medical community. They allow for immediate discussion and widespread engagement around important topics. It has been hypothesized that the activity on Twitter positively correlates with highly cited articles. The purpose of this study was to analyze the prevalence and activity of Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery journals on Twitter, with the hypothesis that impact factor is positively associated with Twitter usage. Methods The top 50 Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery journals, ranked by 2016 Impact Factor were analyzed. The Twitter profiles of each journal or affiliated society were identified. Other SoMe platforms used were also recorded. Twitonomy software (Digonomy Pty Ltd, New South Wales, Australia) was used to analyze the Twitter profiles over a one-year period. Twitter Klout Scores were recorded for each journal to approximate the SoMe influence. Altmetric Scores (the total number of mentions via alternative metrics) were also recorded. Statistical analysis was carried out to identify correlations between journal Impact Factors, SoMe activity, Twitter Klout Scores and Altmetric Scores.  Results Twenty-two journals (44%) had dedicated Twitter profiles. Fourteen journals (28%) were associated with societies that had profiles and 14 journals (28%) had no Twitter presence. The mean Impact Factor overall was 2.16 +/- 0.14 (range, 1.07-5.16). The journals with dedicated Twitter profiles had higher Impact Factors than those without (mean 2.41 vs. 1.61; P=0.005). A greater number of Twitter followers were associated with higher Impact Factors (R2 0.317, P=0.03). Journals with higher Twitter Klout Scores had higher Impact Factors (R2 0.357, P=0.016). Altmetric Score was positively associated with Impact Factor (R2 0.310, P=0.015). Journals with higher numbers of retweets (virtual citations in the Twittersphere) had higher Altmetric Scores (R2 0.463, P=0.015). Conclusion Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery journals with dedicated Twitter profiles have higher Impact Factors than those without. Altmetrics is likely to play a significant role in the literature evaluation going forward along with the traditional metrics. The engagement with Twitter by Trauma and Orthopaedic surgeons should be encouraged. PMID:29464138

Conflicts of Interest at Medical Journals: The Influence of Industry-Supported Randomised Trials on Journal Impact Factors and Revenue – Cohort Study

PubMed Central

Lundh, Andreas; Barbateskovic, Marija; Hróbjartsson, Asbjørn; Gøtzsche, Peter C.

2010-01-01

Background Transparency in reporting of conflict of interest is an increasingly important aspect of publication in medical journals. Publication of large industry-supported trials may generate many citations and journal income through reprint sales and thereby be a source of conflicts of interest for journals. We investigated industry-supported trials' influence on journal impact factors and revenue. Methods and Findings We sampled six major medical journals (Annals of Internal Medicine, Archives of Internal Medicine, BMJ, JAMA, The Lancet, and New England Journal of Medicine [NEJM]). For each journal, we identified randomised trials published in 1996–1997 and 2005–2006 using PubMed, and categorized the type of financial support. Using Web of Science, we investigated citations of industry-supported trials and the influence on journal impact factors over a ten-year period. We contacted journal editors and retrieved tax information on income from industry sources. The proportion of trials with sole industry support varied between journals, from 7% in BMJ to 32% in NEJM in 2005–2006. Industry-supported trials were more frequently cited than trials with other types of support, and omitting them from the impact factor calculation decreased journal impact factors. The decrease varied considerably between journals, with 1% for BMJ to 15% for NEJM in 2007. For the two journals disclosing data, income from the sales of reprints contributed to 3% and 41% of the total income for BMJ and The Lancet in 2005–2006. Conclusions Publication of industry-supported trials was associated with an increase in journal impact factors. Sales of reprints may provide a substantial income. We suggest that journals disclose financial information in the same way that they require them from their authors, so that readers can assess the potential effect of different types of papers on journals' revenue and impact. Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary PMID:21048986

Conflicts of interest at medical journals: the influence of industry-supported randomised trials on journal impact factors and revenue - cohort study.

PubMed

Lundh, Andreas; Barbateskovic, Marija; Hróbjartsson, Asbjørn; Gøtzsche, Peter C

2010-10-26

transparency in reporting of conflict of interest is an increasingly important aspect of publication in medical journals. Publication of large industry-supported trials may generate many citations and journal income through reprint sales and thereby be a source of conflicts of interest for journals. We investigated industry-supported trials' influence on journal impact factors and revenue. we sampled six major medical journals (Annals of Internal Medicine, Archives of Internal Medicine, BMJ, JAMA, The Lancet, and New England Journal of Medicine [NEJM]). For each journal, we identified randomised trials published in 1996-1997 and 2005-2006 using PubMed, and categorized the type of financial support. Using Web of Science, we investigated citations of industry-supported trials and the influence on journal impact factors over a ten-year period. We contacted journal editors and retrieved tax information on income from industry sources. The proportion of trials with sole industry support varied between journals, from 7% in BMJ to 32% in NEJM in 2005-2006. Industry-supported trials were more frequently cited than trials with other types of support, and omitting them from the impact factor calculation decreased journal impact factors. The decrease varied considerably between journals, with 1% for BMJ to 15% for NEJM in 2007. For the two journals disclosing data, income from the sales of reprints contributed to 3% and 41% of the total income for BMJ and The Lancet in 2005-2006. publication of industry-supported trials was associated with an increase in journal impact factors. Sales of reprints may provide a substantial income. We suggest that journals disclose financial information in the same way that they require them from their authors, so that readers can assess the potential effect of different types of papers on journals' revenue and impact.

An Analysis of Peer-Reviewed Scores and Impact Factors with Different Citation Time Windows: A Case Study of 28 Ophthalmologic Journals

PubMed Central

Liu, Xue-Li; Gai, Shuang-Shuang; Zhang, Shi-Le; Wang, Pu

2015-01-01

Background An important attribute of the traditional impact factor was the controversial 2-year citation window. So far, several scholars have proposed using different citation time windows for evaluating journals. However, there is no confirmation whether a longer citation time window would be better. How did the journal evaluation effects of 3IF, 4IF, and 6IF comparing with 2IF and 5IF? In order to understand these questions, we made a comparative study of impact factors with different citation time windows with the peer-reviewed scores of ophthalmologic journals indexed by Science Citation Index Expanded (SCIE) database. Methods The peer-reviewed scores of 28 ophthalmologic journals were obtained through a self-designed survey questionnaire. Impact factors with different citation time windows (including 2IF, 3IF, 4IF, 5IF, and 6IF) of 28 ophthalmologic journals were computed and compared in accordance with each impact factor’s definition and formula, using the citation analysis function of the Web of Science (WoS) database. An analysis of the correlation between impact factors with different citation time windows and peer-reviewed scores was carried out. Results Although impact factor values with different citation time windows were different, there was a high level of correlation between them when it came to evaluating journals. In the current study, for ophthalmologic journals’ impact factors with different time windows in 2013, 3IF and 4IF seemed the ideal ranges for comparison, when assessed in relation to peer-reviewed scores. In addition, the 3-year and 4-year windows were quite consistent with the cited peak age of documents published by ophthalmologic journals. Research Limitations Our study is based on ophthalmology journals and we only analyze the impact factors with different citation time window in 2013, so it has yet to be ascertained whether other disciplines (especially those with a later cited peak) or other years would follow the same or similar patterns. Originality/ Value We designed the survey questionnaire ourselves, specifically to assess the real influence of journals. We used peer-reviewed scores to judge the journal evaluation effect of impact factors with different citation time windows. The main purpose of this study was to help researchers better understand the role of impact factors with different citation time windows in journal evaluation. PMID:26295157

Evaluating Academic Journals without Impact Factors for Collection Management Decisions.

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Dilevko, Juris; Atkinson, Esther

2002-01-01

Discussion of evaluating academic journals for collection management decisions focuses on a methodological framework for evaluating journals not ranked by impact factors in Journal Citation Reports. Compares nonranked journals with ranked journals and then applies this framework to a case study in the field of medical science. (LRW)

[National and international impact factor of Revista Española de Cardiología].

PubMed

Aleixandre Benavent, Rafael; Valderrama Zurián, Juan C; Castellano Gómez, Miguel; Miguel-Dasit, Alberto; Simó Meléndez, Raquel; Navarro Molina, Carolina

2004-12-01

The aim of this paper is to present the bibliometric indicators for Revista Española de Cardiologíathat were obtained from the "Potential impact factor of Spanish medical journals in 2001" study financed by the Spanish Ministerio de Educacion, Cultura y Deporte. Citations to Revista Española de Cardiología, its national and international impact factor, and its immediacy index were calculated with methods similar to those used by the Institute for Scientific Information. National indicators were based only on citations from 87 Spanish journals considered source journals, whereas international indicators were calculated on the basis of citations from both national journals and foreign source journals in the Science Citation Index. Revista Española de Cardiologíaobtained a national impact factor of 0.719 and an international impact factor of 0.837, placing it at the head of the ranking of Spanish medical journals.

AGU journals continue to rank highly in Impact Factors

NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

Sears, Jon; Warner, Mary

2012-07-01

AGU journals continue to rank highly in the 2011 Journal Citation Reports (JCR), which was released by Thomson Reuters on 28 June. The impact factor of several AGU journals increased significantly, continuing their trend over the previous 5 years, while others remained consistent with the previous year's ranking. Paleoceanography is an outstanding performer in both the Paleontology and Oceanography categories. Since 1995, Paleoceanography has been the top-ranked journal in the Paleontology category (of 49 titles in 2011), with an Impact Factor of 3.357. In the Oceanography group (59 journals total), Paleoceanography ranks third in Impact Factor. Reviews of Geophysics, with an Impact Factor of 12.364 (an increase of 2.826 from the prior year's score of 9.538), ranks second in Geochemistry and Geophysics out of a total of 77 journals in this cohort. Water Resources Research comes in at second place in the Limnology group, with 19 titles, and third place in the Water Resources group, which has a cohort of 78 titles.

[Rating and ranking of medical journals: a randomised controlled evaluation of impact factor and number of listed journals].

PubMed

Göbel, U; Niem, V

2012-01-01

The impact factor is a purely bibliometric parameter built on a number of publications and their citations that occur within clearly defined periods. Appropriate interpretation of the impact factor is important as it is also used worldwide for the evaluation of research performance. It is assumed that the number of medical journals reflects the extent of diseases and patient populations involved and that the number is correlated with the level of the impact factor. 174 category lists (Subject Categories) are included in the area Health Sciences of the ISI Web of Knowledge of Thomson Reuters, 71 of which belong to the field of medicine and 50 of which have a clinical and/or application-oriented focus. These alphabetically arranged 50 category lists were consecutively numbered, randomized by odd and even numbers, respectively, into 2 equal-sized groups and then grouped according to organ specialities, sub-specialities and cross-disciplinary fields. By tossing up a coin it was decided which group should be evaluated first. Only then the category lists were downloaded and the number of journals, as well as the impact factors of journals ranking number 1 and 2, as well as the impact factors of journals at the end of the first third and at the end of the first half of each category list were compared. The number of journals per category list varies considerably between 5 and 252. The lists of organ specialties and cross-disciplinary fields include more than three times as many journals as those of the sub-specialities; the highest numbers of journals are listed for the cross-disciplinary fields. The level of impact factor of journals that rank number 1 in the lists varies considerably and ranges from 3,058 to 94,333; a similar variability exists for the journals at rank 2. On the other hand, the impact factor of journals at the end of the first third of the lists varies from 1,214 and 3,953, and for those journals at the end of the first half of a respective category list it varies from 0,609 and 2,872. The slope of the straight correlation line between the level of impact factors of journals at rank 1 and 2 with the number of listed journals varies from 0,0756 and 0,2651 (correlation coefficients between 0,49 and 0,96). For the journals ranking further down in the lists the straight correlation lines run almost horizontally or with inverse slope. This current analysis adds to the knowledge for an appropriate interpretation of the impact factor. Generally, greater importance should be given to the ranking of a journal within a corresponding category list. © Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.

The Status of Cognitive Psychology Journals: An Impact Factor Approach

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Togia, Aspasia

2013-01-01

The purpose of this study was to examine the impact factor of cognitive psychology journals indexed in the Science and Social Sciences edition of "Journal Citation Reports" ("JCR") database over a period of 10 consecutive years. Cognitive psychology journals were indexed in 11 different subject categories of the database. Their mean impact factor…

A small field for fertile science: the low visibility of reproductive science in high impact journals.

PubMed

Duncan, Francesca E; Derman, Benjamin; Woodruff, Teresa K

2014-05-01

Our success as a field and as individuals in reproductive science and medicine relies on our ability to produce high quality work that has broad visibility and impact. A common metric for assessing such success is the quantity of publications that are published in journals with high impact factors. It is unclear, however, how frequently work related to reproductive science and medicine actually appears in what are considered the highest impact journals. To address this gap in knowledge, we first determined how the field of reproductive biology in general compared to other research areas in terms of composite journal impact factor. Second, using a targeted search approach in the PubMed database, we examined the relationship between a journal's impact factor and the number of reproductive research articles published per journal issue. We found that compared to other major scientific disciplines, our field lacks journals with impact factors above 4. In addition, primary original research articles on reproduction-irrespective of male or female search terms-do not appear often in high impact journals. Instead, there is an increased percentage of secondary reproductive literature in high impact journals compared to topic-specific journals of lower impact. There are likely several explanations for why reproductive science and medicine has low visibility, including the field's small relative size, its lack of a specific disease and associated strong advocacy, and its surrounding social, ethical, and political unease. Nevertheless, there are concrete actions we can take to minimize the role of impact factor in our evaluation while simultaneously increasing influence through global awareness of the importance and need for reproductive research.

A proposal for a novel impact factor as an alternative to the JCR impact factor

PubMed Central

Yang, Zu-Guo; Zhang, Chun-Ting

2013-01-01

One disadvantage of the JCR impact factor, the most commonly used assessment tool for ranking and evaluating scientific journals, is its inability in distinguishing among different shapes of citation distribution curves, leading to unfair evaluation of journals in some cases. This paper aims to put forward an alternative impact factor (IF′) that can properly reflect citation distributions. The two impact factors are linearly and positively correlated, and have roughly the same order of magnitude. Because of the ability of IF′ in distinguishing among different shapes of citation distribution curves, IF′ may properly reflect the academic performance of a scientific journal in a way that is different from the JCR impact factor with some unique features that reward journals with highly cited papers. Therefore, it is suggested that IF′ could be used to complement the JCR impact factor. PMID:24296521

A proposal for a novel impact factor as an alternative to the JCR impact factor.

PubMed

Yang, Zu-Guo; Zhang, Chun-Ting

2013-12-03

One disadvantage of the JCR impact factor, the most commonly used assessment tool for ranking and evaluating scientific journals, is its inability in distinguishing among different shapes of citation distribution curves, leading to unfair evaluation of journals in some cases. This paper aims to put forward an alternative impact factor (IF') that can properly reflect citation distributions. The two impact factors are linearly and positively correlated, and have roughly the same order of magnitude. Because of the ability of IF' in distinguishing among different shapes of citation distribution curves, IF' may properly reflect the academic performance of a scientific journal in a way that is different from the JCR impact factor with some unique features that reward journals with highly cited papers. Therefore, it is suggested that IF' could be used to complement the JCR impact factor.

Building a List of Journals with Constructed Impact Factors.

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Stegmann, Johannes

1999-01-01

Describes the building of a list of constructed-impact factors (CIF) for biomedical journals not included in the 1996 editions of the "Journal Citation Reports." The online retrieval from the host DIMDI of the data needed for impact-factor calculation is described. The top 100 (of 338 titles, ranked according to their CIFs) are…

ASM Journals Eliminate Impact Factor Information from Journal Websites.

PubMed

Casadevall, Arturo; Bertuzzi, Stefano; Buchmeier, Michael J; Davis, Roger J; Drake, Harold; Fang, Ferric C; Gilbert, Jack; Goldman, Barbara M; Imperiale, Michael J; Matsumura, Philip; McAdam, Alexander J; Pasetti, Marcela F; Sandri-Goldin, Rozanne M; Silhavy, Thomas; Rice, Louis; Young, Jo-Anne H; Shenk, Thomas

2016-01-01

Many scientists attempt to publish their work in a journal with the highest possible journal impact factor (IF). Despite widespread condemnation of the use of journal IFs to assess the significance of published work, these numbers continue to be widely misused in publication, hiring, funding, and promotion decisions (1, 2).

A Large-Scale Analysis of Impact Factor Biased Journal Self-Citations.

PubMed

Chorus, Caspar; Waltman, Ludo

2016-01-01

Based on three decades of citation data from across scientific fields of science, we study trends in impact factor biased self-citations of scholarly journals, using a purpose-built and easy to use citation based measure. Our measure is given by the ratio between i) the relative share of journal self-citations to papers published in the last two years, and ii) the relative share of journal self-citations to papers published in preceding years. A ratio higher than one suggests that a journal's impact factor is disproportionally affected (inflated) by self-citations. Using recently reported survey data, we show that there is a relation between high values of our proposed measure and coercive journal self-citation malpractices. We use our measure to perform a large-scale analysis of impact factor biased journal self-citations. Our main empirical result is, that the share of journals for which our measure has a (very) high value has remained stable between the 1980s and the early 2000s, but has since risen strongly in all fields of science. This time span corresponds well with the growing obsession with the impact factor as a journal evaluation measure over the last decade. Taken together, this suggests a trend of increasingly pervasive journal self-citation malpractices, with all due unwanted consequences such as inflated perceived importance of journals and biased journal rankings.

[The invalidity of the impact factor as indicator of the impact of Latin American scientific journals].

PubMed

Monge-Nájera, Julián

2014-03-01

Use of the Impact Factor is currently being discarded in industrialized countries where, to name one case, up to 40% of the articles published in Nature are never cited, despite the high Impact Factor of that journal. However, it is still used in Latin America to evaluate journals and authors, potentially influencing who are given positions and who receives funding. To find out how valid the Impact Factor is for Latin American research, 1 used the database BINABITROP to see how much of the relevant literature was used to measure impact. I found that the Science Citation Index (SCI) excluded 96% of the relevant literature when measuring the impact of biological articles about Costa Rica for the studied year (2011). Therefore, the impact of Latin American science is unknown and the Impact Factor should not be used to assess how often a journal, institution or author are cited.

A Journal-Level Analysis of Progress in Transplantation.

PubMed

Feeley, Thomas; Lee, Seyoung; Moon, Shin-Il

2018-03-01

Citations to articles published in academic journals represent a proxy for influence in bibliometrics. To measure the journal impact factor for Progress in Transplantation over time and to also identify related journals indexed in transplantation and surgery. Data from Journal Citation Reports (ISI web of science) were used to rank Progress in Transplantation compared to peer journals using journal impact and journal relatedness measures. Social network analysis was used to measure relationships between pairs of journals in Progress in Transplantation's relatedness network. Journal impact factor and journal relatedness. Data from 2010 through 2015 indicate the average journal article in PIT was cited 0.87 times (standard deviation [SD] = 0.12) and this estimate was stable over time. Progress in Transplantation most often cited American Journal of Transplantation, Transplantation, American Journal of Kidney Diseases, and Liver Transplantation. In terms of cited data, the journal was most often referenced by Clinical Transplantation, Transplant International, and Current Opinion in Organ Transplantation. The journal is listed both in surgery and transplantation categories of Journal Citation Reports and its impact factors over time fare better with surgery journals than with transplant journals. Network data using betweenness centrality indicate Progress in Transplantation links transplantation-focused journals and journals indexed in health sciences categories.

The impact factor and journals in laboratory medicine.

PubMed

Lippi, Giuseppe; Favaloro, Emmanuel J; Guidi, Gian Cesare

2009-01-01

The impact factor, originally devised by Eugene Garfield, offsets the advantages of journal size and age, and is a tool often used for the evaluation of journals and scientists, and is considered to provide a reliable trend of basic and clinical research worldwide. Overall, the median impact factor of all medical laboratory journals increased by 23% from 2001 to 2007, but it was slightly decreased from that of the previous year (-4.1%). Moreover, the aggregate impact factor of all these journals, which takes into account the number of citations for all journals in this category and the number of articles from all journals in the same category, increased from 2.042 in 2003 to 2.153 in 2004, but decreased to 2.060 in 2005 and has remained fairly stable in subsequent years (2.054 in 2006 and 2.080 in 2007), reflecting remarkable increases and substantial reductions observed for individual journals. This trend mirrored that of biochemistry and molecular biology journals, whereas journals listed under the subject categories "pathology", "surgery" and "Medicine, general and internal" substantially increased their aggregate impact factor from 2003 to 2007. According to the impact factor trend of laboratory medicine journals, it appears that medical laboratory science has reached a steady state. This might be partially due to the radical changes that have occurred within medical laboratory science since the beginning of the last millennium and raises the question of whether laboratory professionals should consider embracing new areas of research, such as the role of laboratory diagnostics in surgery and internal medicine.

[Obtaining the Impact Factor by Ginekologia Polska].

PubMed

Spaczyński, Marek; Januszek-Michalecka, Lucyna; Nowak-Markwitz, Ewa; Kedzia, Witold; Spaczyński, Robert; Karowicz-Bilińska, Agata

2011-08-01

Scientific journals are ranked and evaluated to measure their relative importance and influence on science within a specific field. One of the tools most widely used to evaluate and compare journals is the Thomson Reuters Impact Factor In Poland a specific value of a scientist's Impact Factor is required for academic promotion. Ginekologia Polska was placed on the Master Journal List in 2008 in the result of changes introduced in 2007 by the new Chief Editor prof. Marek Spaczynski. In 2010, first time in its history the journal was listed in the Journal Citation Reports with the Impact Factor 0.367. The analysis of Ginekologia Polska contemporary value, as well as of prospects for its development was conducted on the basis of the Journal Citation Reports. In the light of the JCR data, Ginekologia Polska is a highly regarded title compared to other Polish journals. Its value and importance is gradually growing.

Publication times, impact factors, and advance online publication in ophthalmology journals.

PubMed

Chen, Haoyu; Chen, Chun Hui; Jhanji, Vishal

2013-08-01

Publication speed of peer-reviewed journals may play a major role in early dissemination of knowledge and may raise the citation index. In this study, we evaluated the publication speed of ophthalmology journals. Observational study. Observational study of bibliometric data in published ophthalmology journals. A list of ophthalmic journals featured in the 2010 Journal Citation Report was obtained on September 1, 2011. A total of 12 articles were chosen randomly from each of these journals published between January and December 2010. Median publication time and interquartile range (IQR) were obtained from the full texts of the published articles. Time lag between submission and revision, acceptance, and publication of the manuscripts was calculated. Correlation between publication time lag and journal impact factor as well as advance online publication was analyzed. A total of 51 ophthalmic journals were included. There was no statistically significant difference in the impact factors of journals based on their reporting of submission, revision, or acceptance times of the manuscripts (both P>0.05, Wilcoxon test). The median peer review and publication time of all ophthalmology journals was 133 days (IQR, 100.5-171.5) and 100 days (IQR, 62.9-166.3), respectively. There was no correlation between the journal impact factors and publication time lag (Spearman correlation). Approximately half of the ophthalmology journals (n = 26; 50.98%) published online in advance. Journals with advance online publication had higher impact factors compared with those without this feature (median, 1.692 [IQR, 1.05-2.80] vs. 1.02 [0.39-1.53]; P = 0.015, Mann-Whitney U test). For journals with advance online publication, the median time from acceptance to advance online publication (74.3 days [IQR, 48.3-115 days]) was significantly shorter than the median time between acceptance and print publication (170.75 days [IQR, 101.4-217 days]; P<0.001, Wilcoxon test). Publication time lag in ophthalmology journals was not correlated with journal impact factors. Advance online publication facility was provided by only half of the ophthalmology journals published in 2010. Journals with advance online publication had a higher impact factor compared with those without this feature. The author(s) have no proprietary or commercial interest in any materials discussed in this article. Copyright © 2013 American Academy of Ophthalmology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

From Excessive Journal Self-Cites to Citation Stacking: Analysis of Journal Self-Citation Kinetics in Search for Journals, Which Boost Their Scientometric Indicators.

PubMed

Heneberg, Petr

2016-01-01

Bibliometric indicators increasingly affect careers, funding, and reputation of individuals, their institutions and journals themselves. In contrast to author self-citations, little is known about kinetics of journal self-citations. Here we hypothesized that they may show a generalizable pattern within particular research fields or across multiple fields. We thus analyzed self-cites to 60 journals from three research fields (multidisciplinary sciences, parasitology, and information science). We also hypothesized that the kinetics of journal self-citations and citations received from other journals of the same publisher may differ from foreign citations. We analyzed the journals published the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Nature Publishing Group, and Editura Academiei Române. We found that although the kinetics of journal self-cites is generally faster compared to foreign cites, it shows some field-specific characteristics. Particularly in information science journals, the initial increase in a share of journal self-citations during post-publication year 0 was completely absent. Self-promoting journal self-citations of top-tier journals have rather indirect but negligible direct effects on bibliometric indicators, affecting just the immediacy index and marginally increasing the impact factor itself as long as the affected journals are well established in their fields. In contrast, other forms of journal self-citations and citation stacking may severely affect the impact factor, or other citation-based indices. We identified here a network consisting of three Romanian physics journals Proceedings of the Romanian Academy, Series A, Romanian Journal of Physics, and Romanian Reports in Physics, which displayed low to moderate ratio of journal self-citations, but which multiplied recently their impact factors, and were mutually responsible for 55.9%, 64.7% and 63.3% of citations within the impact factor calculation window to the three journals, respectively. They did not receive nearly any network self-cites prior impact factor calculation window, and their network self-cites decreased sharply after the impact factor calculation window. Journal self-citations and citation stacking requires increased attention and elimination from citation indices.

From Excessive Journal Self-Cites to Citation Stacking: Analysis of Journal Self-Citation Kinetics in Search for Journals, Which Boost Their Scientometric Indicators

PubMed Central

2016-01-01

Bibliometric indicators increasingly affect careers, funding, and reputation of individuals, their institutions and journals themselves. In contrast to author self-citations, little is known about kinetics of journal self-citations. Here we hypothesized that they may show a generalizable pattern within particular research fields or across multiple fields. We thus analyzed self-cites to 60 journals from three research fields (multidisciplinary sciences, parasitology, and information science). We also hypothesized that the kinetics of journal self-citations and citations received from other journals of the same publisher may differ from foreign citations. We analyzed the journals published the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Nature Publishing Group, and Editura Academiei Române. We found that although the kinetics of journal self-cites is generally faster compared to foreign cites, it shows some field-specific characteristics. Particularly in information science journals, the initial increase in a share of journal self-citations during post-publication year 0 was completely absent. Self-promoting journal self-citations of top-tier journals have rather indirect but negligible direct effects on bibliometric indicators, affecting just the immediacy index and marginally increasing the impact factor itself as long as the affected journals are well established in their fields. In contrast, other forms of journal self-citations and citation stacking may severely affect the impact factor, or other citation-based indices. We identified here a network consisting of three Romanian physics journals Proceedings of the Romanian Academy, Series A, Romanian Journal of Physics, and Romanian Reports in Physics, which displayed low to moderate ratio of journal self-citations, but which multiplied recently their impact factors, and were mutually responsible for 55.9%, 64.7% and 63.3% of citations within the impact factor calculation window to the three journals, respectively. They did not receive nearly any network self-cites prior impact factor calculation window, and their network self-cites decreased sharply after the impact factor calculation window. Journal self-citations and citation stacking requires increased attention and elimination from citation indices. PMID:27088862

Medical journals, impact and social media: an ecological study of the Twittersphere.

PubMed

Cosco, Theodore D

2015-12-08

Twitter is an increasingly popular means of research dissemination. I sought to examine the relation between scientific merit and mainstream popularity of general medical journals. I extracted impact factors and citations for 2014 for all general medical journals listed in the Thomson Reuters InCites Journal Citation Reports. I collected Twitter statistics (number of followers, number following, number of tweets) between July 25 and 27, 2015 from the Twitter profiles of journals that had Twitter accounts. I calculated the ratio of observed to expected Twitter followers according to citations via the Kardashian Index. I created the (Fifty Shades of) Grey Scale to calculate the analogous ratio according to impact factor. Only 28% (43/153) of journals had Twitter profiles. The scientific and social media impact of journals were correlated: in adjusted models, Twitter followers increased by 0.78% (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.38%-1.18%) for every 1% increase in impact factor and by 0.62% (95% CI 0.34%-0.90%) for every 1% increase in citations. Kardashian Index scores above the 99% CI were obsverved in 16% (7/43) of journals, including 6 of the 7 highest ranked journals by impact factor, whereas 58% (25/43) had scores below this interval. For the Grey Scale, 12% (5/43) of journals had scores above and 35% (15/43) had scores below the 99% CI. The size of a general medical journal's Twitter following is strongly linked to its impact factor and citations, suggesting that higher quality research received more mainstream attention. Many journals have not capitalized on this dissemination method, although others have used it to their advantage. © 2015 Canadian Medical Association or its licensors.

Correlation between Self-Citation and Impact Factor in Iranian English Medical Journals in WoS and ISC: A Comparative Approach.

PubMed

Ghazi Mirsaeid, Seyed Javad; Motamedi, Nadia; Ramezan Ghorbani, Nahid

2015-09-01

In this study, the impact of self-citation (Journal and Author) on impact factor of Iranian English Medical journals in two international citation databases, Web of Science (WoS) and Islamic world science citation center (ISC), were compared by citation analysis. Twelve journals in WoS and 26 journals in ISC databases indexed between the years (2006-2009) were selected and compared. For comparison of self-citation rate in two databases, we used Wilcoxon and Mann-whitney tests. We used Pearson test for correlation of self-citation and IF in WoS, and the Spearman's correlation coefficient for the ISC database. Covariance analysis was used for comparison of two correlation tests. P. value was 0.05 in all of tests. There was no significant difference between self-citation rates in two databases (P>0.05). Findings also showed no significant difference between the correlation of Journal self-citation and impact factor in two databases (P=0.526) however, there was significant difference between the author's self-citation and impact factor in these databases (P<0.001). The impact of Author's self-citation in the Impact Factor of WoS was higher than the ISC.

Medical journals, impact and social media: an ecological study of the Twittersphere

PubMed Central

Cosco, Theodore D.

2015-01-01

Background: Twitter is an increasingly popular means of research dissemination. I sought to examine the relation between scientific merit and mainstream popularity of general medical journals. Methods: I extracted impact factors and citations for 2014 for all general medical journals listed in the Thomson Reuters InCites Journal Citation Reports. I collected Twitter statistics (number of followers, number following, number of tweets) between July 25 and 27, 2015 from the Twitter profiles of journals that had Twitter accounts. I calculated the ratio of observed to expected Twitter followers according to citations via the Kardashian Index. I created the (Fifty Shades of) Grey Scale to calculate the analogous ratio according to impact factor. Results: Only 28% (43/153) of journals had Twitter profiles. The scientific and social media impact of journals were correlated: in adjusted models, Twitter followers increased by 0.78% (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.38%–1.18%) for every 1% increase in impact factor and by 0.62% (95% CI 0.34%–0.90%) for every 1% increase in citations. Kardashian Index scores above the 99% CI were obsverved in 16% (7/43) of journals, including 6 of the 7 highest ranked journals by impact factor, whereas 58% (25/43) had scores below this interval. For the Grey Scale, 12% (5/43) of journals had scores above and 35% (15/43) had scores below the 99% CI. Interpretation: The size of a general medical journal’s Twitter following is strongly linked to its impact factor and citations, suggesting that higher quality research received more mainstream attention. Many journals have not capitalized on this dissemination method, although others have used it to their advantage. PMID:26644544

[Analysis of citations and national and international impact factor of Farmacia Hospitalaria (2001-2005)].

PubMed

Aleixandre-Benavent, R; González Alcaide, G; Miguel-Dasit, A; González de Dios, J; de Granda Orive, J I; Valderrama Zurián, J C

2007-01-01

The objective of this study is to analyse the citation patterns and impact and immediacy indicators of the Farmacia Hospitalaria journal during the period 2001-2005. An analysis of citations chosen from 101 Spanish health science journals was carried out in order to determine the citing and cited journals and the national and international impact and immediacy indicators. A similar methodology used by Thomson ISI in Science Citation Index (SCI) and Journal Citation Reports (JRC) was applied. Farmacia Hospitalaria made 1,370 citations to 316 different journals. The percentage of self-citations was 9%. The national impact factor increased from 0.178 points in 2001 to 0.663 points in 2005 while the international impact factor increased from 0.178 to 0.806 for the same period. The analysis of citation patterns demonstrates the multidisciplinary nature of Farmacia Hospitalaria and a significant growth in the impact indicators over recent years. These indicators are higher than those of some other pharmacy journals included in Journal Citation Reports. Self-citation was not excessive and was similar to that of other journals.

Publication Metrics of Dental Journals - What is the Role of Self Citations in Determining the Impact Factor of Journals?

PubMed

Elangovan, Satheesh; Allareddy, Veerasathpurush

2015-09-01

The objectives of the present study are to examine the publication metrics of dental journals and to delineate the role of self citations in determining the impact factor of journals. The Journal Citation Reports database was used. All dental journals that had an impact factor assigned for year 2013 were selected. The outcomes were Impact Factor (IF), Eigenfactor™ (EF), article influence score (AIS), and proportion of self-citations to total citations. Independent variables were geographic region of journal and ranking of journal (based on IF). Non-parametric tests were used to examine the associations between outcomes and independent variables. During the year 2013, 82 journals in dentistry had an IF. Mean IF was 1.489 and mean IF without including self-citations was 1.231. Mean EF scores and AIS were .00458 and .5141 respectively. Mean percentage of self cites to total citations for all dental journals was 12.24%. Higher ranking journals were associated with significantly higher EF and AIS. Journals published in USA/Canada or Europe were associated with higher IF and EF compared to those published in other regions. There were no differences in percentages of self citations to total citations either across journal rankings or geographic region. Top ranking journals tend to have higher IFs due to higher EF and AIS rather than by self-citations. Self-citations increase the impact factors of dental journals by 21%. There was no geographic influence in the percentage of self-citations to total citations thus indicating a healthy dental scientific publishing environment. Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Impact Factors for the "Journal of Teaching in Physical Education"--What Are They and Are They Important?

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

McBride, Ron

2006-01-01

The notion of an impact factor was first posited by Eugene Garfield (1972) to study the use, prestige, and status of scientific journals. The Institute for Scientific Information created the impact factor as a means to measure the number of times an "average article" published in a journal was cited over a particular time period ("The impact…

Weighing the impact (factor) of publishing in veterinary journals.

PubMed

Christopher, Mary M

2015-06-01

The journal in which you publish your research can have a major influence on the perceived value of your work and on your ability to reach certain audiences. The impact factor, a widely used metric of journal quality and prestige, has evolved into a benchmark of quality for institutions and graduate programs and, inappropriately, as a proxy for the quality of individual authors and articles, affecting tenure, promotion, and funding decisions. As a result, despite its many limitations, publishing decisions by authors often are based solely on a journal's impact factor. This can disadvantage journals in small disciplines, such as veterinary medicine, and limit the ability of authors to reach key audiences. In this article, factors that can influence the impact factor of a journal and its applicability, including precision, citation practices, article type, editorial policies, and size of the research community will be reviewed. The value and importance of veterinary journals such as the Journal of Veterinary Cardiology for reaching relevant audiences and for helping shape disciplinary specialties and influence clinical practice will also be discussed. Lastly, the efforts underway to develop alternative measures to assess the scientific quality of individual authors and articles, such as article-level metrics, as well as institutional measures of the economic and social impact of biomedical research will be considered. Judicious use of the impact factor and the implementation of new metrics for assessing the quality and societal relevance of veterinary research articles will benefit both authors and journals. Copyright © 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Citation Analysis of the Korean Journal of Urology From Web of Science, Scopus, Korean Medical Citation Index, KoreaMed Synapse, and Google Scholar

PubMed Central

2013-01-01

The Korean Journal of Urology began to be published exclusively in English in 2010 and is indexed in PubMed Central/PubMed. This study analyzed a variety of citation indicators of the Korean Journal of Urology before and after 2010 to clarify the present position of the journal among the urology category journals. The impact factor, SCImago Journal Rank (SJR), impact index, Z-impact factor (ZIF, impact factor excluding self-citation), and Hirsch Index (H-index) were referenced or calculated from Web of Science, Scopus, SCImago Journal & Country Ranking, Korean Medical Citation Index (KoMCI), KoreaMed Synapse, and Google Scholar. Both the impact factor and the total citations rose rapidly beginning in 2011. The 2012 impact factor corresponded to the upper 84.9% in the nephrology-urology category, whereas the 2011 SJR was in the upper 58.5%. The ZIF in KoMCI was one fifth of the impact factor because there are only two other urology journals in KoMCI. Up to 2009, more than half of the citations in the Web of Science were from Korean researchers, but from 2010 to 2012, more than 85% of the citations were from international researchers. The H-indexes from Web of Science, Scopus, KoMCI, KoreaMed Synapse, and Google Scholar were 8, 10, 12, 9, and 18, respectively. The strategy of the language change in 2010 was successful from the perspective of citation indicators. The values of the citation indicators will continue to increase rapidly and consistently as the research achievement of authors of the Korean Journal of Urology increases. PMID:23614057

Citation Analysis of the Korean Journal of Urology From Web of Science, Scopus, Korean Medical Citation Index, KoreaMed Synapse, and Google Scholar.

PubMed

Huh, Sun

2013-04-01

The Korean Journal of Urology began to be published exclusively in English in 2010 and is indexed in PubMed Central/PubMed. This study analyzed a variety of citation indicators of the Korean Journal of Urology before and after 2010 to clarify the present position of the journal among the urology category journals. The impact factor, SCImago Journal Rank (SJR), impact index, Z-impact factor (ZIF, impact factor excluding self-citation), and Hirsch Index (H-index) were referenced or calculated from Web of Science, Scopus, SCImago Journal & Country Ranking, Korean Medical Citation Index (KoMCI), KoreaMed Synapse, and Google Scholar. Both the impact factor and the total citations rose rapidly beginning in 2011. The 2012 impact factor corresponded to the upper 84.9% in the nephrology-urology category, whereas the 2011 SJR was in the upper 58.5%. The ZIF in KoMCI was one fifth of the impact factor because there are only two other urology journals in KoMCI. Up to 2009, more than half of the citations in the Web of Science were from Korean researchers, but from 2010 to 2012, more than 85% of the citations were from international researchers. The H-indexes from Web of Science, Scopus, KoMCI, KoreaMed Synapse, and Google Scholar were 8, 10, 12, 9, and 18, respectively. The strategy of the language change in 2010 was successful from the perspective of citation indicators. The values of the citation indicators will continue to increase rapidly and consistently as the research achievement of authors of the Korean Journal of Urology increases.

Brief alcohol intervention trials conducted by higher prestige authors and published in higher impact factor journals are cited more frequently.

PubMed

Tanner-Smith, Emily E; Polanin, Joshua R

2016-07-01

To examine the relationships between study quality, author prestige, journal impact factors, and citation rates of trials and to examine whether journal impact factors mediated the relationships between study quality and author prestige on citation rates. We used bibliometric data from 128 controlled trials included in a recent meta-analysis on brief alcohol interventions for adolescents and young adults. We obtained the number of citations from ISI Web of Knowledge and Google Scholar; journal impact factors were obtained from ISI Web of Knowledge. Linear regression models were used to examine the direct and indirect effects of interest. The results indicated that studies were published in journals with higher impact factors when first authors had higher h-indices and studies were funded, but this was largely because those studies were of higher quality. Studies were cited more frequently when first authors had higher h-indices and studies were funded, even after adjusting for study quality proxies. The observed associations between study quality and author prestige on citation rates were also partly mediated through journal impact factors. We conclude that studies conducted by more established authors and reported in more prestigious journal outlets are more likely to be cited by other scholars, even after controlling for various proxies of study quality. Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Brief Alcohol Intervention Trials Conducted by Higher Prestige Authors and Published in Higher Impact Factor Journals are Cited More Frequently

PubMed Central

Tanner-Smith, Emily E.; Polanin, Joshua R.

2016-01-01

Objective To examine the relationships between study quality, author prestige, journal impact factors, and citation rates of trials; and to examine whether journal impact factors mediated the relationships between study quality and author prestige on citation rates. Study Design and Setting We used bibliometric data from 128 controlled trials included in a recent meta-analysis on brief alcohol interventions (BAIs) for adolescents and young adults. We obtained the number of citations from ISI Web of Knowledge and Google Scholar; journal impact factors were obtained from ISI Web of Knowledge. Linear regression models were used to examine the direct and indirect effects of interest. Results The results indicated that studies were published in journals with higher impact factors when first authors had higher h-indices and studies were funded, but this was largely because those studies were of higher quality. Studies were cited more frequently when first authors had higher h-indices and studies were funded, even after adjusting for study quality proxies. The observed associations between study quality and author prestige on citation rates were also partly mediated through journal impact factors. Conclusion We conclude that studies conducted by more established authors and reported in more prestigious journal outlets are more likely to be cited by other scholars, even after controlling for various proxies of study quality. PMID:26854420

Measuring Research Quality Using the Journal Impact Factor, Citations and "Ranked Journals": Blunt Instruments or Inspired Metrics?

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Jarwal, Som D.; Brion, Andrew M.; King, Maxwell L.

2009-01-01

This paper examines whether three bibliometric indicators--the journal impact factor, citations per paper and the Excellence in Research for Australia (ERA) initiative's list of "ranked journals"--can predict the quality of individual research articles as assessed by international experts, both overall and within broad disciplinary…

[Does impact factor influence the ethics of the instructions provided to journal authors?].

PubMed

Teixeira, Renan Kleber Costa; Yamaki, Vitor Nagai; Gonçalves, Thiago Barbosa; Botelho, Nara Macedo; Silva, José Antonio Cordero da

2013-01-01

Verify whether a journal's impact factor is a mechanism that modifies the ethical requirements described in the instructions provided to authors of articles published in Brazilian medical journals. 48 selected journals were divided into two groups: impact-factor (n=24), and no-impact-factor (n=24). The number of ethical requirements was compared between both groups based on a specific research protocol, ranging from zero to six points, analyzing the presence of an approval by a research ethics committee; reference to the fact that the research follows the precepts of the Declaration of Helsinki and the rules of Resolution 196/96; use of an informed consent; information about the authors' conflicts of interest; and a request for registration of clinical trials in the Brazilian Clinical Trials Registry. The average score of the impact-factor group was significantly higher than that of the no-impact-factor group (3.12 ± 1.03 vs. 2.08 ± 1.64, p=0.0121). When each ethical requirement was compared between the groups, there was significant difference only between the requirement of an informed consent and the disclosure of conflicts of interest (p < 0.05). The impact factor is a determinant factor on the ethics included in the instructions to authors of articles in scientific journals, showing that higher-quality journals seek better-designed articles that are conscientious at the beginning of the research. Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Editora Ltda. All rights reserved.

Rising Publication Delays Inflate Journal Impact Factors

PubMed Central

Tort, Adriano B. L.; Targino, Zé H.; Amaral, Olavo B.

2012-01-01

Journal impact factors have become an important criterion to judge the quality of scientific publications over the years, influencing the evaluation of institutions and individual researchers worldwide. However, they are also subject to a number of criticisms. Here we point out that the calculation of a journal’s impact factor is mainly based on the date of publication of its articles in print form, despite the fact that most journals now make their articles available online before that date. We analyze 61 neuroscience journals and show that delays between online and print publication of articles increased steadily over the last decade. Importantly, such a practice varies widely among journals, as some of them have no delays, while for others this period is longer than a year. Using a modified impact factor based on online rather than print publication dates, we demonstrate that online-to-print delays can artificially raise a journal’s impact factor, and that this inflation is greater for longer publication lags. We also show that correcting the effect of publication delay on impact factors changes journal rankings based on this metric. We thus suggest that indexing of articles in citation databases and calculation of citation metrics should be based on the date of an article’s online appearance, rather than on that of its publication in print. PMID:23300920

Are we allowing impact factor to have too much impact: The need to reassess the process of academic advancement in pediatric cardiology?

PubMed

Loomba, Rohit S; Anderson, Robert H

2018-03-01

Impact factor has been used as a metric by which to gauge scientific journals for several years. A metric meant to describe the performance of a journal overall, impact factor has also become a metric used to gauge individual performance as well. This has held true in the field of pediatric cardiology where many divisions utilize impact factor of journals that an individual has published in to help determine the individual's academic achievement. This subsequently can impact the individual's promotion through the academic ranks. We review the purpose of impact factor, its strengths and weaknesses, discuss why impact factor is not a fair metric to apply to individuals, and offer alternative means by which to gauge individual performance for academic promotion. © 2018 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Correlation between Self-Citation and Impact Factor in Iranian English Medical Journals in WoS and ISC: A Comparative Approach

PubMed Central

GHAZI MIRSAEID, Seyed Javad; MOTAMEDI, Nadia; RAMEZAN GHORBANI, Nahid

2015-01-01

Background: In this study, the impact of self-citation (Journal and Author) on impact factor of Iranian English Medical journals in two international citation databases, Web of Science (WoS) and Islamic world science citation center (ISC), were compared by citation analysis. Methods: Twelve journals in WoS and 26 journals in ISC databases indexed between the years (2006–2009) were selected and compared. For comparison of self-citation rate in two databases, we used Wilcoxon and Mann-whitney tests. We used Pearson test for correlation of self-citation and IF in WoS, and the Spearman’s correlation coefficient for the ISC database. Covariance analysis was used for comparison of two correlation tests. P. value was 0.05 in all of tests. Results: There was no significant difference between self-citation rates in two databases (P>0.05). Findings also showed no significant difference between the correlation of Journal self-citation and impact factor in two databases (P=0.526) however, there was significant difference between the author’s self-citation and impact factor in these databases (P<0.001). Conclusion: The impact of Author’s self-citation in the Impact Factor of WoS was higher than the ISC. PMID:26587498

Twitter Predicts Citation Rates of Ecological Research.

PubMed

Peoples, Brandon K; Midway, Stephen R; Sackett, Dana; Lynch, Abigail; Cooney, Patrick B

2016-01-01

The relationship between traditional metrics of research impact (e.g., number of citations) and alternative metrics (altmetrics) such as Twitter activity are of great interest, but remain imprecisely quantified. We used generalized linear mixed modeling to estimate the relative effects of Twitter activity, journal impact factor, and time since publication on Web of Science citation rates of 1,599 primary research articles from 20 ecology journals published from 2012-2014. We found a strong positive relationship between Twitter activity (i.e., the number of unique tweets about an article) and number of citations. Twitter activity was a more important predictor of citation rates than 5-year journal impact factor. Moreover, Twitter activity was not driven by journal impact factor; the 'highest-impact' journals were not necessarily the most discussed online. The effect of Twitter activity was only about a fifth as strong as time since publication; accounting for this confounding factor was critical for estimating the true effects of Twitter use. Articles in impactful journals can become heavily cited, but articles in journals with lower impact factors can generate considerable Twitter activity and also become heavily cited. Authors may benefit from establishing a strong social media presence, but should not expect research to become highly cited solely through social media promotion. Our research demonstrates that altmetrics and traditional metrics can be closely related, but not identical. We suggest that both altmetrics and traditional citation rates can be useful metrics of research impact.

Is open access sufficient? A review of the quality of open-access nursing journals.

PubMed

Crowe, Marie; Carlyle, Dave

2015-02-01

The present study aims to review the quality of open-access nursing journals listed in the Directory of Open Access Journals that published papers in 2013 with a nursing focus, written in English, and were freely accessible. Each journal was reviewed in relation to their publisher, year of commencement, number of papers published in 2013, fee for publication, indexing, impact factor, and evidence of requirements for ethics and disclosure statements. The quality of the journals was assessed by impact factors and the requirements for indexing in PubMed. A total of 552 were published in 2013 in the 19 open-access nursing journals that met the inclusion criteria. No journals had impact factors listed in Web of Knowledge, but three had low Scopus impact factors. Only five journals were indexed with PubMed. The quality of the 19 journals included in the review was evaluated as inferior to most subscription-fee journals. Mental health nursing has some responsibility to the general public, and in particular, consumers of mental health services and their families, for the quality of papers published in open-access journals. The way forward might involve dual-platform publication or a process that enables assessment of how research has improved clinical outcomes. © 2014 Australian College of Mental Health Nurses Inc.

The effect of social media (#SoMe) on journal impact factor and parental awareness in paediatric urology.

PubMed

O'Kelly, F; Nason, G J; Manecksha, R P; Cascio, S; Quinn, F J; Leonard, M; Koyle, M A; Farhat, W; Leveridge, M J

2017-10-01

Social media (SoMe) comprises a number of internet-based applications that have the capability to disseminate multimodal media and allow for unprecedented inter-user connectivity. The role of Twitter has been studied in conferences and education; moreover, there is increasing evidence that patients are more likely to use social media for their own health education. The aim of this study was to assess the impact of social media platforms on the impact factor of both urological and paediatric journals that publish on paediatric urology, and to assess parental awareness of social media in paediatric urology. A filtered Journal of Citation Reports (JCR) search was performed for the period 2012-16 for journals that published articles on paediatric urology. Journals were ranked according to impact factor, and each individual journal website was accessed to assess for the presence of social media. Parents in paediatric urology clinics and non-paediatric urology patients also filled out a questionnaire to assess for awareness and attitudes to social media. All statistical analysis was performed using Prism 6 software (Prism 6, GraphPad Software, California, USA). Overall, there were 50 urological journals and 39 paediatric journals with a mean impact factor of 2.303 and 1.766, respectively. There was an overall average increase in impact factor across all urological journals between 2012 and 16. The presence of a Twitter feed was statistically significant for a rise in impact factor over the 4 years (P = 0.017). The cohort of parents was statistically more likely to have completed post-secondary education, to have and access to a social media profile, use it for health education, and use it to access journal/physician/hospital social media accounts. This study examined, for the first time, the role of social media in paediatric urology, and demonstrated that SoMe use is associated with a positive influence in impact factor, but also a parental appetite for it. Limitations included a non-externally validated questionnaire. There may also have been bias in larger journals that generate and maintain social media platforms such as Twitter, which may then in turn have an influence on impact factor. Social media use within paediatric urology was associated with a higher impact factor, which remained significant after 4 years of analysis. Parents were more likely to use a wide variety of social media to search for conditions and physicians/healthcare providers; therefore, journals and institutions need to embrace and endorse SoMe as a potential source of important clinical information. Copyright © 2017. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Journal impact factors and the influence of age and number of citations

USDA-ARS?s Scientific Manuscript database

The impact factor (IF) of a scientific journal is considered a measure of how important a journal is within its discipline, and it is based on a simple relationship between the number of citations of the journal’s articles divided by the number of articles in the scientific journal (http://en.wikipe...

[Archivos de Bronconeumología: among the 3 Spanish medical journals with the highest national impact factors].

PubMed

Aleixandre Benavent, R; Valderrama Zurián, J C; Castellano Gómez, M; Simó Meléndez, R; Navarro Molina, C

2004-12-01

Citation analysis elucidates patterns of information consumption within professional communities. The aim of this study was to analyze the citations of 87 Spanish medical journals by calculating their impact factors and immediacy indices for 2001, and to estimate the importance of Archivos de Bronconeumología within the framework of Spanish medicine. Eighty-seven Spanish medical journals were included. All were listed in the Spanish Medical Index (Indice Medico Español) and in at least one of the following databases: MEDLINE, BIOSIS, EMBASE, or Science Citation Index. References to articles from 1999 through 2001 in citable articles from 2001 were analyzed. Using the method of the Institute for Scientific Information, we calculated the national impact factor and immediacy index for each journal. The journals with the highest national impact factors were Revista Española de Quimioterapia (0.894), Medicina Clínica (0.89), and Archivos de Bronconeumología (0.732). The self-citation percentage of Archivos de Bronconeumología was 18.3% and the immediacy index was 0.033. The impact factor obtained by Archivos de Bronconeumología confirms its importance in Spanish medicine and validates its inclusion as a source journal in Science Citation Index and Journal Citation Report.

Core journals that publish clinical trials of physical therapy interventions.

PubMed

Costa, Leonardo Oliveira Pena; Moseley, Anne M; Sherrington, Catherine; Maher, Christopher G; Herbert, Robert D; Elkins, Mark R

2010-11-01

The objective of this study was to identify core journals in physical therapy by identifying those that publish the most randomized controlled trials of physical therapy interventions, provide the highest-quality reports of randomized controlled trials, and have the highest journal impact factors. This study was an audit of a bibliographic database. All trials indexed in the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) were analyzed. Journals that had published at least 80 trials were selected. The journals were ranked in 4 ways: number of trials published; mean total PEDro score of the trials published in the journal, regardless of publication year; mean total PEDro score of the trials published in the journal from 2000 to 2009; and 2008 journal impact factor. The top 5 core journals in physical therapy, ranked by the total number of trials published, were Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Clinical Rehabilitation, Spine, British Medical Journal (BMJ), and Chest. When the mean total PEDro score was used as the ranking criterion, the top 5 journals were Journal of Physiotherapy, Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), Stroke, Spine, and Clinical Rehabilitation. When the mean total PEDro score of the trials published from 2000 to 2009 was used as the ranking criterion, the top 5 journals were Journal of Physiotherapy, JAMA, Lancet, BMJ, and Pain. The most highly ranked physical therapy-specific journals were Physical Therapy (ranked eighth on the basis of the number of trials published) and Journal of Physiotherapy (ranked first on the basis of the quality of trials). Finally, when the 2008 impact factor was used for ranking, the top 5 journals were JAMA, Lancet, BMJ, American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, and Thorax. There were no significant relationships among the rankings on the basis of trial quality, number of trials, or journal impact factor. Physical therapists who are trying to keep up-to-date by reading the best available evidence on the effects of physical therapy interventions have to read more broadly than just physical therapy-specific journals. Readers of articles on physical therapy trials should be aware that high-quality trials are not necessarily published in journals with high impact factors.

[SOME CONSIDERATIONS ABOUT THE INTRINSIC VALUE OF THE IMPACT FACTOR OF SCIENTIFIC JOURNALS].

PubMed

Franco-López, Ángeles; González-Gallego, Javier; Sanz-Valero, Javier; Tuñón, María Jesús; García-De-Lorenzo, Abelardo; Culebras, Jesús M

2015-12-01

The reason of higher number of citations of some articles is discussed. Some considerations about the journals' impact factor, its merits and its pitfalls are also made. Scientific journals' impact factor, popularized by the Institute for Scientific Information, has become an objective parameter for authors' evaluation and also for institutions and other related circumstances. There is no reason for the impact factor's gap between some English journals and those written in other languages. English journals probably benefit of the "Mathew's effect", according to which eminent scientists are more rewarded by similar contributions than others less known. It is paradoxical that most of the major achievements of our age do not appear among the 100 most cited articles. There is no homogeneity among all the articles appearing in each scientific journal: half of the articles are cited ten times more than the other half. However, those articles cited 0 times are credited like the better ones. Each article should be evaluated by its own citations, which would be its impact factor; the authors should be evaluated by their H index. Copyright AULA MEDICA EDICIONES 2014. Published by AULA MEDICA. All rights reserved.

Twitter predicts citation rates of ecological research

USGS Publications Warehouse

Peoples, Brandon K.; Midway, Stephen R.; Sackett, Dana K.; Lynch, Abigail; Cooney, Patrick B.

2016-01-01

The relationship between traditional metrics of research impact (e.g., number of citations) and alternative metrics (altmetrics) such as Twitter activity are of great interest, but remain imprecisely quantified. We used generalized linear mixed modeling to estimate the relative effects of Twitter activity, journal impact factor, and time since publication on Web of Science citation rates of 1,599 primary research articles from 20 ecology journals published from 2012–2014. We found a strong positive relationship between Twitter activity (i.e., the number of unique tweets about an article) and number of citations. Twitter activity was a more important predictor of citation rates than 5-year journal impact factor. Moreover, Twitter activity was not driven by journal impact factor; the ‘highest-impact’ journals were not necessarily the most discussed online. The effect of Twitter activity was only about a fifth as strong as time since publication; accounting for this confounding factor was critical for estimating the true effects of Twitter use. Articles in impactful journals can become heavily cited, but articles in journals with lower impact factors can generate considerable Twitter activity and also become heavily cited. Authors may benefit from establishing a strong social media presence, but should not expect research to become highly cited solely through social media promotion. Our research demonstrates that altmetrics and traditional metrics can be closely related, but not identical. We suggest that both altmetrics and traditional citation rates can be useful metrics of research impact.

The journals of importance to UK clinicians: a questionnaire survey of surgeons

PubMed Central

Jones, Teresa H; Hanney, Steve; Buxton, Martin J

2006-01-01

Background Peer-reviewed journals are seen as a major vehicle in the transmission of research findings to clinicians. Perspectives on the importance of individual journals vary and the use of impact factors to assess research is criticised. Other surveys of clinicians suggest a few key journals within a specialty, and sub-specialties, are widely read. Journals with high impact factors are not always widely read or perceived as important. In order to determine whether UK surgeons consider peer-reviewed journals to be important information sources and which journals they read and consider important to inform their clinical practice, we conducted a postal questionnaire survey and then compared the findings with those from a survey of US surgeons. Methods A questionnaire survey sent to 2,660 UK surgeons asked which information sources they considered to be important and which peer-reviewed journals they read, and perceived as important, to inform their clinical practice. Comparisons were made with numbers of UK NHS-funded surgery publications, journal impact factors and other similar surveys. Results Peer-reviewed journals were considered to be the second most important information source for UK surgeons. A mode of four journals read was found with academics reading more than non-academics. Two journals, the BMJ and the Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England, are prominent across all sub-specialties and others within sub-specialties. The British Journal of Surgery plays a key role within three sub-specialties. UK journals are generally preferred and readership patterns are influenced by membership journals. Some of the journals viewed by surgeons as being most important, for example the Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England, do not have high impact factors. Conclusion Combining the findings from this study with comparable studies highlights the importance of national journals and of membership journals. Our study also illustrates the complexity of the link between the impact factors of journals and the importance of the journals to clinicians. This analysis potentially provides an additional basis on which to assess the role of different journals, and the published output from research. PMID:16762051

Choosing the right journal for your systematic review.

PubMed

Betini, Marluci; Volpato, Enilze S N; Anastácio, Guilherme D J; de Faria, Renata T B G; El Dib, Regina

2014-12-01

The importance of systematic reviews (SRs) as an aid to decision making in health care has led to an increasing interest in the development of this type of study. When selecting a target journal for publication, authors generally seek out higher impact factor journals. This study aimed to determine the percentage of scientific medical journals that publish SRs according to their impact factors (>2.63) and to determine whether those journals require tools that aim to improve SR reporting and meta-analyses. In our cross-sectional study showing how to choose the right journal for a SR, we selected and analysed scientific journals available in a digital library with a minimum Institute for Scientific Information impact factor of 2.63. We analysed 622 scientific journals, 435 (69.94%) of which publish SRs. Of those 435 journals, 135 (21.60%) provide instructions for authors that mention SRs. Three hundred journals (48.34%) do not discuss criteria for article acceptance in the instructions for authors section, but do publish SRs. Only 118 (27.00%) scientific journals require items to be reported in accordance with the specific SR reporting forms. The majority of the journals do not mention the acceptance of SRs in the instructions for authors section. Only a few journals require that SRs meet specific reporting guidelines, making interpretation of their findings across studies challenging. There is no correlation between the impact factor of the journal and its acceptance of SRs for publication. © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

The Journal Impact Factor: Does It Devalue Applied Research in Physical Education, Recreation, and Dance?

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Alford, Elward K.

2012-01-01

A troubling trend in research is the reliance on the journal impact factor (IF) to establish a perceived "value" or importance of scholarly publications. Given that the IF of different scholarly journals may vary greatly, this phenomenon not only influences which journals receive submissions, but is beginning to influence the type of research that…

Conflict of interest in oncology publications: a survey of disclosure policies and statements.

PubMed

Kesselheim, Aaron S; Lee, Joy L; Avorn, Jerry; Servi, Amber; Shrank, William H; Choudhry, Niteesh K

2012-01-01

Disclosure of conflicts of interest in biomedical research is receiving increased attention. The authors sought to define current disclosure policies and how they relate to disclosure statements provided by authors in major oncology journals. The authors identified all oncology journals listed in the Thomson Institute for Scientific Information and sought their policies on conflict-of-interest disclosure. For a subset of journals with an Impact Factor >2.0, they catalogued the number and type of articles and the details of the published disclosures in all papers from the 2 most recent issues. Disclosure policies were provided by 112 of 131 journals (85%); 99 (88%) of these requested that authors disclose conflicts of interest (mean Impact Factor for these journals: 4.6), whereas the remaining 13 (12%) did not (mean Impact Factor: 2.9). Ninety-three journals (94%) required financial disclosure, and 42 (42%) also sought nonfinancial disclosures. For a subset of 52 higher-impact journals (Impact Factor >2.0), we reviewed 1734 articles and identified published disclosures in 51 journals (98%). Many of these journals (31 of 51, 61%) included some disclosure statement in >90% of their articles. Among 27 journals that published editorials/commentaries, only 14 (52%) included disclosures with such articles. There was no publication of any nonfinancial conflicts of interest in any article reviewed. Disclosure policies and the very definition of conflict of interest varied considerably among journals. Although most journals had some policy in this area, a substantial proportion did not publish disclosure statements consistently, with deficiencies particularly among editorials and commentaries. Copyright © 2011 American Cancer Society.

Ethics Requirement Score: new tool for evaluating ethics in publications.

PubMed

Santos, Lígia Gabrielle dos; Costa e Fonseca, Ana Carolina da; Bica, Claudia Giuliano

2014-01-01

To analyze ethical standards considered by health-related scientific journals, and to prepare the Ethics Requirement Score, a bibliometric index to be applied to scientific healthcare journals in order to evaluate criteria for ethics in scientific publication. Journals related to healthcare selected by the Journal of Citation Reports™ 2010 database were considered as experimental units. Parameters related to publication ethics were analyzed for each journal. These parameters were acquired by analyzing the author's guidelines or instructions in each journal website. The parameters considered were approval by an Internal Review Board, Declaration of Helsinki or Resolution 196/96, recommendations on plagiarism, need for application of Informed Consent Forms with the volunteers, declaration of confidentiality of patients, record in the database for clinical trials (if applicable), conflict of interest disclosure, and funding sources statement. Each item was analyzed considering their presence or absence. The foreign journals had a significantly higher Impact Factor than the Brazilian journals, however, no significant results were observed in relation to the Ethics Requirement Score. There was no correlation between the Ethics Requirement Score and the Impact Factor. Although the Impact Factor of foreigner journals was considerably higher than that of the Brazilian publications, the results showed that the Impact Factor has no correlation with the proposed score. This allows us to state that the ethical requirements for publication in biomedical journals are not related to the comprehensiveness or scope of the journal.

Scientific publications in public, environmental and occupational health journals by authors from China, Japan and Korea in East Asia: A 10-year literature survey from 2003 to 2012.

PubMed

Li, Meina; Liu, Xiaodong; Zhang, Lulu

2015-01-01

To compare the number and quality of public, environmental and occupational health articles published in international journals from the 3 major non-English speaking countries of East Asia: China, Japan and Korea. Public, environmental and occupational health articles from China, Japan and Korea that were published in 161 journals from 2003 to 2012 were retrieved from the Science Citation Index Expanded (SCIE) database. We recorded the numbers of total articles, impact factors (IF), citations, number of articles in top 10 journals, references as well as the article distribution from various regions in China. From 2003 to 2012, China, Japan and Korea published 5713, 3802 and 1967 papers respectively, with accumulated impact factor of 14 934.55, 8758.36 and 6189.25, the average impact factor of 2.61, 2.30 and 3.15 and the average citation numbers per document of 5.08, 6.49 and 5.25. In the top 10 high-impact public, environmental and occupational health journals, China, Japan and Korea accounted for 50.19%, 20.34% and 29.47% of all the papers published in those journals, respectively. Total impact factors of the most popular 10 papers for China, Japan and Korea were: 26.23, 27.08 and 26.91. Distribution of scientific papers among regions was unbalanced in China, for Hong Kong and Taiwan it accounted for 47.31% of the papers from China. From 2003 to 2012, both the quality and number of papers from China published in public, environmental and occupational health journals have greatly improved. China exceeded Japan and Korea in the number, accumulated impact factor, total citation times and the average number of references, while Korea had the highest average impact factor. Japan had the highest journal impact factor among the most popular journals, and the highest average citation number per document. This work is available in Open Access model and licensed under a CC BY-NC 3.0 PL license.

Positive Results Bias and Impact Factor in Ophthalmology.

PubMed

Mimouni, Michael; Krauthammer, Mark; Gershoni, Assaf; Mimouni, Francis; Nesher, Ronit

2015-01-01

Previous studies in several fields of medicine have reported an association between the result of a trial (positive versus negative) and the impact factor of the journal in which it is published. The purpose of this study was to test the hypotheses that in the field of ophthalmology: (1) studies with positive results have a greater chance of being published in journals with a higher impact factor; (2) likewise, studies with a larger number of participants are more likely to be published in journals with a higher impact factor. In this retrospective study, consecutive randomized, controlled trials conducted in the field of ophthalmology between 1 January 2010 and 1 January 2013 were retrieved from PubMed. Each study was classified as having either a positive or negative result. A positive result was defined as a study in which there was a statistically significant difference between groups (p < 0.05). The impact factor of the journal in which the study was published was retrieved. The number of patients enrolled and whether or not the trial was placebo controlled was documented as well. Out of 2524 studies identified, 892 met the inclusion criteria. Studies with positive results were published in journals with a significantly higher impact factor than that of the journals in which negative result studies were published (p < 0.001). Studies with positive results had a slightly larger number of participants than studies with negative results (p = 0.028). In multiple regression analysis, the ranked impact factor was significantly predicted by the primary outcome (positive versus negative results) and the number of participants in a study (total R(2 )= 2.95, p < 0.001). In the field of ophthalmology, articles with positive results are currently published in journals with a higher impact factor. This finding supports the ongoing occurrence of positive results bias in the field of ophthalmology.

The cock, the Academy, and the best scientific journal in the world.

PubMed

Romanovsky, Andrej A

2015-01-01

The reader is invited to travel to Ancient Greece, contemporary Brazil, and other places in a fantasy search for the best scientific journal. This whimsical search does not rely on the impact factor, the most popular tool used in real life for finding good journals. Instead, it takes advantage of the so-called authority factor, a recently proposed alternative to the impact factor. The authority factor of a particular journal is the mean h-index (Hirsch's index) of the most suitable group of this journal's editors. Having no connection to any major function of scientific journals, and also being arbitrary (which group of editors to select?), this factor is poorly suited for any technical analysis, but it seems to work well for "small-talk" editorials and self-promotion by complacent editors. Interestingly, the highest authority factor we could find belongs to the journal Temperature. This claim, however, should not be taken too seriously.

[The impact factor--a reliable sciento-metric parameter?].

PubMed

Meenen, N M

1997-08-01

With shortage of research funds and increasing competition for medical posts, performance indicators and control instruments are being looked for in order to be able to allot research funds and make professorial appointments in relation to scientific performance. Incomprehensibly for many, the impact factor has become the decisive scientometric indicator at German universities despite of substantial systematic limitations. The impact factor is derived from the journal citation reports. Its basis of calculation entails the following problems: the editorial board of the private Institute of Scientific Information (ISI) decides on whether a journal is to be classified as a source journal. The citation index of all journals is calculated from their citations alone. Crucial means of influencing the impact factor result from self-citations and citation groups in these source journals. Languages other than English and other than Latin alphabets are appreciably disadvantaged by the citation index, which is why for example despite its international significance the rapid development of the osteosynthesis technique in German speaking countries went unnoticed by British and American orthopedic surgeons and scientists. The articles on postgraduate training necessarily published by clinicians in the respective language of their country are not cited because the addresses of such publications do not engage in research. Clinical disciplines (especially highly specialized disciplines such as trauma and hand surgery) thus attain appreciably lower impact factors for their journals than basic disciplines and interdisciplinary clinical sectors which lead the ranking of journals. The period covered in calculating the impact factor is only 2 years. Very modern and widely disseminated organs of publication with a short information halflife are favored. From the 10 objectively most often cited and most important journals for the scientific society, only 2 are to be found amongst those with the highest impact factor. The impact front-runner from 1995 has a very low absolute number of citations. The impact factor provides limited statistical information on a journal in its special field. Using it for this purpose presupposes knowledge of rules, limitations and constraints. Its uncritical use as a general currency of science is fundamentally unscientific. In addition, this leads to the specialists in the field knowledge of the universities being disregarded in favor of a pseudo-objective parameter determined elsewhere. At all events, correction factors for the impact factor have to be applied in respect to the different disciplines. The faculties should reach agreement on relevant (also on German language) organs of publication. The impact factor is not suitable as an indicator of the research activity and the quality of a researcher or an institution. Besides careful human judgement and other classical methods of decision making, the Science Citation Index can contribute to the individual evaluation.

Impact Factor? Shmimpact Factor!

PubMed Central

2007-01-01

The journal impact factor is a measure of the citability of articles published in that journal—the more citations generated, the more important that article is considered to be, and as a consequence the prestige of the journal is enhanced. The impact factor is not without controversy, and it can be manipulated. It no longer dominates the choices of journals to search for information. Online search engines, such as PubMed, can locate articles of interest in seconds across journals regardless of high or low impact factors. Editors desiring to increase their influence will need to focus on a fast and friendly submission and review process, early online and speedy print publication, and encourage the rapid turnaround of high-quality peer reviews. Authors desiring to have their results known to the world have never had it so good—the internet permits anyone with computer access to find the author's work. PMID:20806031

The Evolution of Academic Performance in Nine Subspecialties of Internal Medicine: An Analysis of Journal Citation Reports from 1998 to 2010

PubMed Central

Zhang, Xue-Guang; Zhang, Li; Liu, Shu-Wen; Cao, Xue-Ying; Wang, Yuan-Da; Wei, Ri-Bao; Cai, Guang-Yan; Chen, Xiang-Mei

2012-01-01

Background Internal medicine includes several subspecialties. This study aimed to describe change trend of impact factors in different subspecialties of internal medicine during the past 12 years, as well as the developmental differences among each subspecialty, and the possible influencing factors behind these changes and differences. Methods Nine subspecialties of internal medicine were chosen for comparison. All data were collected from the Science Citation Index Expanded and Journal Citation Reports database. Results (1) Journal numbers in nine subspecialties increased significantly from 1998 to 2010, with an average increment of 80.23%, in which cardiac and cardiovascular system diseases increased 131.2% rank the first; hematology increased 45% rank the least. (2) Impact Factor in subspecialties of infectious disease, cardiac and cardiovascular system diseases, gastroenterology and hepatology, hematology, endocrinology and metabolism increased significantly (p<0.05), in which gastroenterology and hepatology had the largest increase of 65.4%. (3) Journal impact factor of 0–2 had the largest proportion in all subspecialties. Among the journals with high impact factor (IF>6), hematology had the maximum proportion of 10%, nephrology and respiratory system disease had the minimum of 4%. Among the journal with low impact factor (IF<2), journal in nephrology and allergy had the most (60%), while endocrinology and metabolism had the least (40%). There were differences in median number of IF among the different subspecialties (p<0.05), in which endocrinology and metabolism had the highest, nephrology had the lowest. (4) The highest IF had a correlation with journal numbers and total paper numbers in each field. Conclusion The IF of internal medicine journals showed an increasingly positive trend, in which gastroenterology and hepatology increase the most. Hematology had more high IF journals. Endocrinology and metabolism had higher average IF. Nephrology remained the lowest position. Numbers of journals and total papers were associated with the highest IF. PMID:23118973

[National and international impact factor of Actas Españolas de Psiquiatría].

PubMed

Aleixandre Benavent, R; Valderrama Zurián, J C; Castellano Gómez, M; Simó Meléndez, R; Navarro Molina, C

2004-01-01

The aim of this paper is to present the bibliometric indicators of Actas Españolas de Psiquiatría that were obtained from the study "Potential impact factor of the Spanish medical journals in 2001", financed by the Spanish Ministerio de Educación, Cultura y Deporte. The citations made in Actas Españolas de Psiquiatría and its national and international impact factor and immediacy index have been obtained by the use of a methodology similar to the one used by the Institute for Scientific Information. The national indicators only take into account the citations made in 87 Spanish journals considered as sources, while those from the foreign source journals of Science Citation Index have been added to the previously cited ones. Actas Españolas de Psiquiatría has obtained a national impact factor of 0.315 and an international impact factor of 0.395, which places it as a leader in the Spanish psychiatric journals.

Impact of "JOBM": ISI Impact Factor Places the "Journal of Organizational Behavior Management" Third in Applied Psychology

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Hantula, Donald A.

2006-01-01

The ISI Impact Factor for "JOBM" is 1.793, placing it third in the JCR rankings for journals in applied psychology with a sharply accelerating linear trend over the past 5 years. This article reviews the Impact Factor and raises questions regarding its reliability and validity and then considers a citation analysis of "JOBM" in light of the…

[An analysis of Spanish biomedical journals by the impact factor].

PubMed

Baños, J E; Casanovas, L; Guardiola, E; Bosch, F

1992-06-13

One of the most frequently used parameters for evaluating scientific publications is that of impact factor (IF) published in the Science Citation Index-Journal Citation Reports (SCI-JCR) which evaluates the number of citations a journal receives on behalf of other journals. The present study analyzed the Spanish biomedical journals included in the SCI-JCR by the IF. The IF were obtained from the SCI-JCR (1980-89). The journals were evaluated by the IF and the weighted impact factor (WIF) calculated according to WIF = (IF/MIF) x 100 in which MIF = maximum IF of the considered area. Nine Spanish biomedical journals were included in the SCI-JCR, four being basic sciences (Histology and Histopathology, Inmunología, Methods and Findings in Experimental and Clinical Pharmacology, Revista Española de Fisiología) and five clinical journals (Allergologia et Immunopathologia, Medicina Clínica, Nefrología, Revista Española de las Enfermedades del Aparato Digestivo, Revista Clínica Española). Their IF were much lower than the most important journals in each area with the mean (+/- standard deviation) being 0.21 +/- 0.22 (range 0.016-0.627). The mean WIF was 2.88 +/- 4.07 (0.16-12.82). The journals of basic sciences had higher IF and WIF than the clinical journals (p less than 0.05). Only the four journals of basic sciences were included in the SCI. Four journals, those of basic sciences, are preferentially or exclusively published in English and other five are published in Spanish. The differences in IF among these groups were not significant (p = 0.06) while those of WIF were significant (p less than 0.05). The number of Spanish biomedical journals in the SCI-JCR has risen from 1 in 1980 to 9 in 1989 with IF which have evolved variably. In mind of impact factor, the contribution of Spanish journals is low, with that of biomedical sciences being higher than that of clinical journals. Language and inclusion in the Science Citation Index may explain, at least in part, the low impact factors obtained.

Clinics in Orthopedic Surgery's Evolution into an International Journal Based on Journal Metrics.

PubMed

Huh, Sun

2016-06-01

This article is aimed at providing evidence of increased international recognition of Clinics in Orthopedic Surgery (CiOS) based on journal metrics. Since 7 years have passed since its launch in 2009, it is time to reflect on the journal's efforts to be recognized as a top-notch journal. The following journal metrics were analyzed from the journal's homepage and Web of Science Core Collection database: number of citable and noncitable articles; number of original articles supported by grants; editorial board members' countries; authors' countries; citing authors' countries; source titles of citing articles; impact factor; total citations; comparison of impact factor with 3 Science Citation Index Expanded journals; and Hirsch index (H-index). Of the total 392 articles, 378 were citable articles (96.4%). Of the total 282 original articles, 52 (18.4%) were supported by research grants. The editorial board members were from 13 countries. Authors were from 20 countries. The number of countries of citing authors was 66. The number of source titles of citing articles was more than 100. The total citations of CiOS have increased from 0 in 2009 to 374 in 2015. The impact factors without self-citations of CiOS were the greatest among 4 Asian journals in 2013 and 2014. The 2015 impact factor was calculated as 0.79 in January 2016. The H-index was 13. CiOS can be considered to have reached the level of top-notch journal in the orthopedic field based on journal metrics. The inclusion of the journal in PubMed Central appears to have increased international relevance of the journal.

Ethics Requirement Score: new tool for evaluating ethics in publications

PubMed Central

dos Santos, Lígia Gabrielle; Fonseca, Ana Carolina da Costa e; Bica, Claudia Giuliano

2014-01-01

Objective To analyze ethical standards considered by health-related scientific journals, and to prepare the Ethics Requirement Score, a bibliometric index to be applied to scientific healthcare journals in order to evaluate criteria for ethics in scientific publication. Methods Journals related to healthcare selected by the Journal of Citation Reports™ 2010 database were considered as experimental units. Parameters related to publication ethics were analyzed for each journal. These parameters were acquired by analyzing the author’s guidelines or instructions in each journal website. The parameters considered were approval by an Internal Review Board, Declaration of Helsinki or Resolution 196/96, recommendations on plagiarism, need for application of Informed Consent Forms with the volunteers, declaration of confidentiality of patients, record in the database for clinical trials (if applicable), conflict of interest disclosure, and funding sources statement. Each item was analyzed considering their presence or absence. Result The foreign journals had a significantly higher Impact Factor than the Brazilian journals, however, no significant results were observed in relation to the Ethics Requirement Score. There was no correlation between the Ethics Requirement Score and the Impact Factor. Conclusion Although the Impact Factor of foreigner journals was considerably higher than that of the Brazilian publications, the results showed that the Impact Factor has no correlation with the proposed score. This allows us to state that the ethical requirements for publication in biomedical journals are not related to the comprehensiveness or scope of the journal. PMID:25628189

Rankings and Trends in Citation Patterns of Communication Journals

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Levine, Timothy R.

2010-01-01

Journal citations are increasingly used as indicators of the impact of scholarly work. Because many communication journals are not included in the Social Science Citation Index (SSCI), SSCI impact factors are potentially misleading for communication journals. The current paper reports a citation analysis of 30 communication journals based on…

Impact of the Journal of Child Neurology: 2002 data.

PubMed

Brumback, Roger A

2003-11-01

The Journal of Child Neurology (JCN) began in 1986 as a quarterly publication focused on child neurology and the related clinical pediatric neuroscience areas of pediatric neurosurgery, child psychiatry, pediatric neuroradiology, and developmental and behavioral pediatrics. As submitted material increased, JCN expanded in publication frequency and now appears monthly. Article quality has always been high and many articles have been frequently cited. Over the years, the ratings produced for the ISI Journal Citation Reports have identified JCN as a high-ranking pediatric journal based upon the impact factor value. Currently (year 2002 figures), JCN (with its impact factor of 1.338) ranks 24th out of 68 pediatric journals.

Judicious Use of Journal Impact Factors and the Preservation of Our Fields of Study

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Cardinal, Bradley J.

2013-01-01

This article comments on the judicious use of journal impact factors. It aims to preserve our fields of study within the context of increased scholarly scrutiny and the hierarchical structures inherent in academia. It concludes by recommending actions for "JOPERD," other journals in the field, and the producers and evaluators of…

Percentile-Based Journal Impact Factors: A Neglected Collection Development Metric

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Wagner, A. Ben

2009-01-01

Various normalization techniques to transform journal impact factors (JIFs) into a standard scale or range of values have been reported a number of times in the literature, but have seldom been part of collection development librarians' tool kits. In this paper, JIFs as reported in the Journal Citation Reports (JCR) database are converted to…

Not So Fast: Inflation in Impact Factors Contributes to Apparent Improvements in Journal Quality

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Neff, Bryan D.; Olden, Julian D.

2010-01-01

The Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) impact factor has become an important standard for assessing journal quality. Here we propose that impact factors may be subject to inflation analogous to changes in monetary prices in economics. The possibility of inflation came to light as a result of the observation that papers published today tend…

Species distribution models and impact factor growth in environmental journals: methodological fashion or the attraction of global change science.

PubMed

Brotons, Lluís

2014-01-01

In this work, I evaluate the impact of species distribution models (SDMs) on the current status of environmental and ecological journals by asking the question to which degree development of SDMs in the literature is related to recent changes in the impact factors of ecological journals. The hypothesis evaluated states that research fronts are likely to attract research attention and potentially drive citation patterns, with journals concentrating papers related to the research front receiving more attention and benefiting from faster increases in their impact on the ecological literature. My results indicate a positive relationship between the number of SDM related articles published in a journal and its impact factor (IF) growth during the period 2000-09. However, the percentage of SDM related papers in a journal was strongly and positively associated with the percentage of papers on climate change and statistical issues. The results support the hypothesis that global change science has been critical in the development of SDMs and that interest in climate change research in particular, rather than the usage of SDM per se, appears as an important factor behind journal IF increases in ecology and environmental sciences. Finally, our results on SDM application in global change science support the view that scientific interest rather than methodological fashion appears to be the major driver of research attraction in the scientific literature.

Open Access Journal Policies: A Systematic Analysis of Radiology Journals.

PubMed

Narayan, Anand; Lobner, Katie; Fritz, Jan

2018-02-01

The open access movement has pushed for greater access to scientific knowledge by expanding access to scientific journal articles. There is limited information about the extent to which open access policies have been adopted by radiology journals. We performed a systematic analysis to ascertain the proportion of radiology journals with open access options. A search was performed with the assistance of a clinical informationist. Full and mixed English-language diagnostic and interventional radiology Web of Science journals (impact factors > 1.0) were included. Nuclear medicine, radiation oncology, physics, and solicitation-only journals were excluded. Primary outcome was open access option (yes or no) with additional outcomes including presence or absence of embargo, complete or partial copyright transfer, publication fees, and self-archiving policies. Secondary outcomes included journal citations, journal impact factors, immediacy, Eigenfactor, and article influence scores. Independent double readings were performed with differences resolved by consensus, supplemented by contacting editorial staff at each journal. In all, 125 journals were identified; review yielded 49 journals (39%, mean impact factor of 2.61). Thirty-six of the journals had open access options (73.4%), and four journals were exclusively open access (8.2%). Twelve-month embargoes were most commonly cited (90.6%) with 28.6% of journals stating that they did not require a complete transfer of copyright. Prices for open access options ranged from $750 to $4,000 (median $3,000). No statistically significant differences were found in journal impact measures comparing journals with open access options to journals without open access options. Diagnostic and interventional radiology journals have widely adopted open access options with a few radiology journals being exclusively open access. Copyright © 2017 American College of Radiology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

The Journal Impact Factor is under attack - use the CAPCI factor instead.

PubMed

Diamandis, Eleftherios P

2017-01-16

The uses and misuses of the Journal Impact Factor (JIF) have been thoroughly discussed in the literature. A few years ago, I predicted that JIF would soon be replaced, while another colleague argued the opposite. Over the past few months, attacks on JIF have intensified, with some publishing organizations gradually removing the indicator from their journals' websites. Here, I argue that most, if not all of the misuses of JIF are related to its name. The word "impact" should be removed, since it implies an influential attribute, either for the journals, their published papers, or their authors. I propose instead the use of a new name, the "CAPCI factor", standing for Citation Average Per Citable Item, which accurately describes what is represented by this measure.

A technique to identify core journals for neurosurgery using citation scatter analysis and the Bradford distribution across neurosurgery journals.

PubMed

Madhugiri, Venkatesh S; Ambekar, Sudheer; Strom, Shane F; Nanda, Anil

2013-11-01

The volume of scientific literature doubles approximately every 7 years. The coverage of this literature provided by online compendia is variable and incomplete. It would hence be useful to identify "core" journals in any field and validate whether the h index and impact factor truly identify the core journals in every subject. The core journals in every medical specialty would be those that provide a current and comprehensive coverage of the science in that specialty. Identifying these journals would make it possible for individual physicians to keep abreast of research and clinical progress. The top 10 neurosurgical journals (on the basis of impact factor and h index) were selected. A database of all articles cited in the reference lists of papers published in issues of these journals published in the first quarter of 2012 was generated. The journals were ranked based on the number of papers cited from each. This citation rank list was compared with the h index and impact factor rank lists. The rank list was also examined to see if the concept of core journals could be validated for neurosurgical literature using Bradford's law. A total of 22,850 papers spread across 2522 journals were cited in neurosurgical literature over 3 months. Although the top 10 journals were the same, irrespective of ranking criterion (h index, impact factor, citation ranking), the 3 rank lists were not congruent. The top 25% of cited articles obeyed the Bradford distribution; beyond this, there was a zone of increased scatter. Six core journals were identified for neurosurgery. The core journals for neurosurgery were identified to be Journal of Neurosurgery, Neurosurgery, Spine, Acta Neurochirurgica, Stroke, and Journal of Neurotrauma. A list of core journals could similarly be generated for every subject. This would facilitate a focused reading to keep abreast of current knowledge. Collated across specialties, these journals could depict the current status of medical science.

Retraction policies of top scientific journals ranked by impact factor.

PubMed

Resnik, David B; Wager, Elizabeth; Kissling, Grace E

2015-07-01

This study gathered information about the retraction policies of the top 200 scientific journals, ranked by impact factor. Editors of the top 200 science journals for the year 2012 were contacted by email. One hundred forty-seven journals (74%) responded to a request for information. Of these, 95 (65%) had a retraction policy. Of journals with a retraction policy, 94% had a policy that allows the editors to retract articles without authors' consent. The majority of journals in this sample had a retraction policy, and almost all of them would retract an article without the authors' permission.

Impact factor: Universalism and reliability of assessment.

PubMed

Grzybowski, Andrzej; Patryn, Rafał

In 1955, Eugene Garfield (1925-1917) published a paper in Science where for the first time he advocated the necessity of introducing parameters to assess the quality of scientific journals. Underlying this necessity was an observation of a trend where the whole area of influence in academic publishing was dominated by a narrow group of large interdisciplinary research journals. For this reason, along with Irving H. Sher, they created the impact factor (IF), also called the Garfield impact factor, journal citation rate, journal influence, and journal impact factor. The concept of IF concerns a research discipline called bibliometrics, which uses mathematical and statistical methods to analyze scientific publications. Established by Garfield in 1963, the Science Citation Index, a record of scientific publications and citations therein, contributed directly to the increased importance of this method. Since the 1960s, the register of scientific publications has expanded and their evaluation by the IF has become a fundamental and universal measure of the journal's value. Contrary to the authors' intentions in the creation of the index (IF), it is often used to assess the quality of contributions, simultaneously assessing the authors' achievements or academic career and academic institutions' funding possibilities. Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Causes for the persistence of impact factor mania.

PubMed

Casadevall, Arturo; Fang, Ferric C

2014-03-18

ABSTRACT Numerous essays have addressed the misuse of the journal impact factor for judging the value of science, but the practice continues, primarily as a result of the actions of scientists themselves. This seemingly irrational behavior is referred to as "impact factor mania." Although the literature on the impact factor is extensive, little has been written on the underlying causes of impact factor mania. In this perspective, we consider the reasons for the persistence of impact factor mania and its pernicious effects on science. We conclude that impact factor mania persists because it confers significant benefits to individual scientists and journals. Impact factor mania is a variation of the economic theory known as the "tragedy of the commons," in which scientists act rationally in their own self-interests despite the detrimental consequences of their actions on the overall scientific enterprise. Various measures to reduce the influence of the impact factor are considered. IMPORTANCE Science and scientists are currently afflicted by an epidemic of mania manifested by associating the value of research with the journal where the work is published rather than the content of the work itself. The mania is causing profound distortions in the way science is done that are deleterious to the overall scientific enterprise. In this essay, we consider the forces responsible for the persistence of the mania and conclude that it is maintained because it disproportionately benefits elements of the scientific enterprise, including certain well-established scientists, journals, and administrative interests. Our essay suggests steps that can be taken to deal with this debilitating and destructive epidemic.

For 481 biomedical open access journals, articles are not searchable in the Directory of Open Access Journals nor in conventional biomedical databases

PubMed Central

Andresen, Kristoffer; Pommergaard, Hans-Christian; Rosenberg, Jacob

2015-01-01

Background. Open access (OA) journals allows access to research papers free of charge to the reader. Traditionally, biomedical researchers use databases like MEDLINE and EMBASE to discover new advances. However, biomedical OA journals might not fulfill such databases’ criteria, hindering dissemination. The Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) is a database exclusively listing OA journals. The aim of this study was to investigate DOAJ’s coverage of biomedical OA journals compared with the conventional biomedical databases. Methods. Information on all journals listed in four conventional biomedical databases (MEDLINE, PubMed Central, EMBASE and SCOPUS) and DOAJ were gathered. Journals were included if they were (1) actively publishing, (2) full OA, (3) prospectively indexed in one or more database, and (4) of biomedical subject. Impact factor and journal language were also collected. DOAJ was compared with conventional databases regarding the proportion of journals covered, along with their impact factor and publishing language. The proportion of journals with articles indexed by DOAJ was determined. Results. In total, 3,236 biomedical OA journals were included in the study. Of the included journals, 86.7% were listed in DOAJ. Combined, the conventional biomedical databases listed 75.0% of the journals; 18.7% in MEDLINE; 36.5% in PubMed Central; 51.5% in SCOPUS and 50.6% in EMBASE. Of the journals in DOAJ, 88.7% published in English and 20.6% had received impact factor for 2012 compared with 93.5% and 26.0%, respectively, for journals in the conventional biomedical databases. A subset of 51.1% and 48.5% of the journals in DOAJ had articles indexed from 2012 and 2013, respectively. Of journals exclusively listed in DOAJ, one journal had received an impact factor for 2012, and 59.6% of the journals had no content from 2013 indexed in DOAJ. Conclusions. DOAJ is the most complete registry of biomedical OA journals compared with five conventional biomedical databases. However, DOAJ only indexes articles for half of the biomedical journals listed, making it an incomplete source for biomedical research papers in general. PMID:26038727

For 481 biomedical open access journals, articles are not searchable in the Directory of Open Access Journals nor in conventional biomedical databases.

PubMed

Liljekvist, Mads Svane; Andresen, Kristoffer; Pommergaard, Hans-Christian; Rosenberg, Jacob

2015-01-01

Background. Open access (OA) journals allows access to research papers free of charge to the reader. Traditionally, biomedical researchers use databases like MEDLINE and EMBASE to discover new advances. However, biomedical OA journals might not fulfill such databases' criteria, hindering dissemination. The Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) is a database exclusively listing OA journals. The aim of this study was to investigate DOAJ's coverage of biomedical OA journals compared with the conventional biomedical databases. Methods. Information on all journals listed in four conventional biomedical databases (MEDLINE, PubMed Central, EMBASE and SCOPUS) and DOAJ were gathered. Journals were included if they were (1) actively publishing, (2) full OA, (3) prospectively indexed in one or more database, and (4) of biomedical subject. Impact factor and journal language were also collected. DOAJ was compared with conventional databases regarding the proportion of journals covered, along with their impact factor and publishing language. The proportion of journals with articles indexed by DOAJ was determined. Results. In total, 3,236 biomedical OA journals were included in the study. Of the included journals, 86.7% were listed in DOAJ. Combined, the conventional biomedical databases listed 75.0% of the journals; 18.7% in MEDLINE; 36.5% in PubMed Central; 51.5% in SCOPUS and 50.6% in EMBASE. Of the journals in DOAJ, 88.7% published in English and 20.6% had received impact factor for 2012 compared with 93.5% and 26.0%, respectively, for journals in the conventional biomedical databases. A subset of 51.1% and 48.5% of the journals in DOAJ had articles indexed from 2012 and 2013, respectively. Of journals exclusively listed in DOAJ, one journal had received an impact factor for 2012, and 59.6% of the journals had no content from 2013 indexed in DOAJ. Conclusions. DOAJ is the most complete registry of biomedical OA journals compared with five conventional biomedical databases. However, DOAJ only indexes articles for half of the biomedical journals listed, making it an incomplete source for biomedical research papers in general.

The use and misuse of journal metrics and other citation indicators.

PubMed

Pendlebury, David A

2009-01-01

This article reviews the nature and use of the journal impact factor and other common bibliometric measures for assessing research in the sciences and social sciences based on data compiled by Thomson Reuters. Journal impact factors are frequently misused to assess the influence of individual papers and authors, but such uses were never intended. Thomson Reuters also employs other measures of journal influence, which are contrasted with the impact factor. Finally, the author comments on the proper use of citation data in general, often as a supplement to peer review. This review may help government policymakers, university administrators, and individual researchers become better acquainted with the potential benefits and limitations of bibliometrics in the evaluation of research.

Quality Australian Journals in the Humanities and Social Sciences

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Haddow, Gaby

2008-01-01

A pilot study was undertaken to test the journal diffusion factor (JDF) as an alternative to journal impact factors (JIFs) for ranking journals. Bibliometric research methods were applied to rank Australian architecture, communications and education journals by the JDF; this was with the total number of citations they attract in ISI indexed…

Causes for the Persistence of Impact Factor Mania

PubMed Central

Casadevall, Arturo; Fang, Ferric C.

2014-01-01

ABSTRACT Numerous essays have addressed the misuse of the journal impact factor for judging the value of science, but the practice continues, primarily as a result of the actions of scientists themselves. This seemingly irrational behavior is referred to as “impact factor mania.” Although the literature on the impact factor is extensive, little has been written on the underlying causes of impact factor mania. In this perspective, we consider the reasons for the persistence of impact factor mania and its pernicious effects on science. We conclude that impact factor mania persists because it confers significant benefits to individual scientists and journals. Impact factor mania is a variation of the economic theory known as the “tragedy of the commons,” in which scientists act rationally in their own self-interests despite the detrimental consequences of their actions on the overall scientific enterprise. Various measures to reduce the influence of the impact factor are considered. PMID:24643863

Further analysis of the impact factors and submission information for the Journal of Child Neurology.

PubMed

Brumback, Roger A

2004-04-01

Now in its nineteenth volume year, the Journal of Child Neurology continues its preeminence among child neurology journals. The Institute of Scientific Information impact factor value for the year 2002 of 1.338 places the Journal of Child Neurology seventy-first in rank among the 138 clinical neurology journals. Since 1998, the rejection rate for manuscripts has been nearly 25%, with more than half of the accepted manuscripts originating in North America. In its first 18 volumes, the journal published 2144 items as listed in the PubMed database of the National Library of Medicine, and for 2003, the PubMed database indexed 176 published items from the Journal of Child Neurology.

Milestones and impact factors.

PubMed

Ozonoff, David M; Grandjean, Philippe

2010-07-08

Environmental Health has just received its first Impact Factor by Thomson ISI. At a level of 2.48, this achievement is quite satisfactory and places Environmental Health in the top 25% of environmental science journals. When the journal was launched in 2002, it was still unclear whether the Open Access publishing model could be made into a viable commercial enterprise within the biomedical field. During the past eight years, Open Access journals have become widely available, although still covering only about 15% of journal titles. Major funding agencies and institutions, including prominent US universities, now require that researchers publish in Open Access journals. Because of the profound role of scientific journals for the sharing of results and communication between researchers, the advent of Open Access may be of as much significance as the transition from handwriting to printing via moveable type. As Environmental Health is an electronic Open Access journal, the numbers of downloads at the journal website can be retrieved. The top-20 list of articles most frequently accessed shows that all of them have been downloaded over 10,000 times. Back in 2002, the first article published was accessed only 49 times during the following month. A year later, the server had over 1,000 downloads per month, and now the total number of monthly downloads approaches 50,000. These statistics complement the Impact Factor and confirm the viability of Open Access in our field of research. The advent of digital media and its decentralized mode of distribution - the internet - have dramatically changed the control and financing of scientific information dissemination, while facilitating peer review, accelerating editorial handling, and supporting much needed transparency. Both the meaning and means of "having an impact" are therefore changing, as will the degree and way in which scientific journals remain "factors" in that impact.

Milestones and Impact Factors

PubMed Central

2010-01-01

Environmental Health has just received its first Impact Factor by Thomson ISI. At a level of 2.48, this achievement is quite satisfactory and places Environmental Health in the top 25% of environmental science journals. When the journal was launched in 2002, it was still unclear whether the Open Access publishing model could be made into a viable commercial enterprise within the biomedical field. During the past eight years, Open Access journals have become widely available, although still covering only about 15% of journal titles. Major funding agencies and institutions, including prominent US universities, now require that researchers publish in Open Access journals. Because of the profound role of scientific journals for the sharing of results and communication between researchers, the advent of Open Access may be of as much significance as the transition from handwriting to printing via moveable type. As Environmental Health is an electronic Open Access journal, the numbers of downloads at the journal website can be retrieved. The top-20 list of articles most frequently accessed shows that all of them have been downloaded over 10,000 times. Back in 2002, the first article published was accessed only 49 times during the following month. A year later, the server had over 1,000 downloads per month, and now the total number of monthly downloads approaches 50,000. These statistics complement the Impact Factor and confirm the viability of Open Access in our field of research. The advent of digital media and its decentralized mode of distribution - the internet - have dramatically changed the control and financing of scientific information dissemination, while facilitating peer review, accelerating editorial handling, and supporting much needed transparency. Both the meaning and means of "having an impact" are therefore changing, as will the degree and way in which scientific journals remain "factors" in that impact. PMID:20615249

Impact Factors Show Increased Use of AGU Journals in 2008

NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

Ford, Barbara Meyers

2009-07-01

The latest numbers released from Journal Citation Reports (JCR), published annually by Thomson Reuters, show large increases in the impact factor (IF) for several AGU journals. IFs are one way for publishers to know that readers have found their journals useful and of value in research. A journal's IF is calculated by taking the total number of citations to articles published by a given journal in the past 2 years and dividing it by the total number of papers published by the journal in the same time period. More generally, it can be seen as the frequency with which articles in a journal have been cited over the past year. The numbers speak for themselves (see Table 1).

Are Shorter Article Titles More Attractive for Citations? Cross-sectional Study of 22 Scientific Journals

PubMed Central

Habibzadeh, Farrokh; Yadollahie, Mahboobeh

2010-01-01

Aim To investigate the correlation between the length of the title of a scientific article and the number of citations it receives, in view of the common editorial call for shorter titles. Methods Title and the number of citations to all articles published in 2005 in 22 arbitrarily chosen English-language journals (n = 9031) were retrieved from citation database Scopus. The 2008 journal impact factors of these 22 journals were also retrieved from Thomson Reuters’ Journal Citation Report (JCR). Assuming the article title length as the independent variable, and the number of citations to the article as the dependent variable, a linear regression model was applied. Results The slope of the regression line for some journals (n = 6, when titles were measured in characters but 7 when titles were measured in words) was negative – none was significantly different from 0. The overall slope for all journals was 0.140 (when titles were measured in characters) and 0.778 (when titles were measured in words), significantly different from 0 (P < 0.001). Overall, articles with longer titles received more citations – Spearman ρ = 0.266 – when titles were measured in characters, and ρ = 0.244 when titles were measured in words (P < 0.001). This association was found for 7 of 8 journals with impact factor >10 and for 2 out of 14 journals with impact factor <10 (P < 0.001, Fisher exact test). Conclusion Longer titles seem to be associated with higher citation rates. This association is more pronounced for journals with high impact factors. Editors who insist on brief and concise titles should perhaps update the guidelines for authors of their journals and have more flexibility regarding the length of the title. PMID:20401960

[Impact factor of the Spanish medical journals].

PubMed

Aleixandre Benavent, Rafael; Valderrama Zurián, Juan Carlos; Castellano Gómez, Miguel; Simó Meléndez, Raquel; Navarro Molina, Carolina

2004-11-20

The 2001 edition of the Journal Citation Reports (JCR) includes only 13 Spanish medical journals. The impact factor (IF) of the rest of Spanish medical journals is unknown. The aim of this study is to determine the IF of the main Spanish medical journals, taking also into account the references from journals not covered by the SCI. A set of 87 Spanish medical journals was selected from the national database IME and other international databases. All citable articles published in these journals in 2001 were analyzed, extracting their bibliographic references to articles published in 1999, 2000 and 2001. The indicators obtained for each journal were the number of cites, the IF and the immediacy index. Among the 87 source journals, 74 were not included in the JCR. From them, 5,388 bibliographic references were examined, identifying the journals cited. Final indicators were obtained adding these results to the ones obtained by using the Science Citation Index. The most cited journal was Medicina Clinica (768 cites), and the highest IF were attained by Histology and Histopathology (IF = 1.866), International Journal of Developmental Biology (IF = 1.654) and Medicina Clinica (IF = 1.125). This work has permitted to obtain the IF of 87 Spanish medical journals. Already detected in previous works, the leadership of the journal Medicina Clinica in Spanish medicine is confirmed. Spanish medical journals published in English have received a small number of cites from the ones published in Spanish. A low impact factor is not necessarily related to lack of quality, merit or relevance.

RESEARCH MISCONDUCT POLICIES OF SCIENTIFIC JOURNALS

PubMed Central

RESNIK, DAVID B.; PEDDADA, SHYAMAL; BRUNSON, WINNON

2014-01-01

The purpose of this study was to gather information on the misconduct policies of scientific journals. We contacted editors from a random sample of 399 journals drawn from the ISI Web of Knowledge database. We received 197 responses (49.4% response rate): 54.8% had a policy, and 47.7% had a formal (written) policy; 28.9% had a policy that only outlined procedures for handling misconduct, 15.7% had a policy that only defined misconduct, 10.2% had a policy that included both a definition and procedures; 26.9% of journals had a policy that was generated by the publisher, 13.2% had a policy that was generated by the journal, and 14.7% had a policy that was generated by another source, such as a professional association. We analyzed the relationship between having a policy and impact factor, field of science, publishing house, and nationality. Impact factor was the only variable with a statistically significant association with having a policy. Impact factor was slightly positively associated with whether or not the publisher had a policy, with an odds ratio of 1.49 (P < .0004) per 10 units increase in the impact factor, with a 95% confidence interval (1.20, 1.88). Our research indicates that more than half of scientific journals have developed misconduct policies, but that most of these policies do not define research misconduct and most of these policies were not generated by the journal. PMID:19757231

Guidance in author instructions of hematology and oncology journals: A cross sectional and longitudinal study.

PubMed

Toews, Ingrid; Binder, Nadine; Wolff, Robert F; Toprak, Guenes; von Elm, Erik; Meerpohl, Joerg J

2017-01-01

The debate about the value of biomedical publications led to recommendations for improving reporting quality. It is unclear to what extent these recommendations have been endorsed by journals. We analyzed whether specific recommendations were included in author instructions, which journal characteristics were associated with their endorsement, how endorsement of the domains changed and whether endorsement was associated with change of impact factor between 2010 and 2015. We considered two study samples consisting of "Hematology" and "Oncology" journals of the Journal Citation Report 2008 and 2014, respectively. We extracted information regarding endorsement of the (1) recommendations of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, of (2) reporting guidelines, (3) requirement for trial registration and (4) disclosure of conflicts of interest. Data extraction was done by reading the author instructions before conducting a text search with keywords. We calculated a global generalized linear mixed effects model for endorsement of each of the four domains followed by separate multivariable logistic regression models and a longitudinal analysis. We defined endorsement as the author instructions saying that they approve the use of the recommendations. In 2015, the ICMJE recommendations were mentioned in author instructions of 156 journals (67.5%). CONSORT was referred to by 77 journals (33.3%); MOOSE, PRISMA, STARD and STROBE were referred to by less than 15% of journals. There were 99 journals (42.9%) that recommended or required trial registration, 211 (91.3%) required authors to disclose conflicts of interest. Journal impact factor, journal start year and geographical region were positively associated with endorsement of any of the four domains. The overall endorsement of all domains increased between 2010 and 2015. The endorsement of any domain in 2010 seemed to be associated with an increased impact factor in 2014. Hematology and oncology journals endorse major recommendations to various degrees. Endorsement is increasing slowly over time and might be positively associated with the journals' impact factor.

Introducing the Twitter Impact Factor: An Objective Measure of Urology's Academic Impact on Twitter.

PubMed

Cardona-Grau, Diana; Sorokin, Igor; Leinwand, Gabriel; Welliver, Charles

2016-10-01

Social media use in academia and urology is rising. Specifically, individual journals now have Twitter accounts (Twitter Inc, San Francisco, CA, USA) and regularly tweet academic content. To present and evaluate the Twitter impact factor (TIF), a novel means of measuring a journal's academic influence in the realm of social media. Journal Citation Reports (JCR; Thomson Reuters, New York, NY, USA) for 2014 was queried for urologic academic journals. English-language journals with active Twitter accounts since 2013 were included. The total number of followers, tweets, and retweets over a 2-yr period were collected. Each journal's TIF was calculated based on the number of retweets per original relevant tweet. Comparisons between the TIF and the journal impact factor (JIF) as well as the Klout score were made using the Pearson correlation. Of 33 journals listed in the JCR for 2014, 7 (21%) had a Twitter presence as of 2013. The number of JCR-listed journals with a Twitter handle increased by 29% in 2014. There was an increase in the mean number of relevant tweets per journal during the study period and a 130% increase in the number of retweets over 1 yr. European Urology (1.80) and BJU International (1.46) had the highest TIFs. The journals with the highest number of Twitter followers were European Urology (5807) and the Journal of Urology (4402). The journals with the highest numbers of relevant tweets were European Urology (1159) and BJU International (1090). There was a positive but statistically insignificant association between the TIF and the JIF (r=0.64, p=0.12). There was a strongly positive linear correlation between the TIF and the Klout score (r=0.84, p=0.0086). With the increasing use of social media by individuals and academic journals, the TIF can be a useful tool to measure the academic reach and impact of a journal on Twitter. Social media is an increasing part of the way in which practitioners and academicians communicate. The TIF can be used to analyze the impact of journal Twitter feeds and their social media content. Published by Elsevier B.V.

Are studies reporting significant results more likely to be published?

PubMed

Koletsi, Despina; Karagianni, Anthi; Pandis, Nikolaos; Makou, Margarita; Polychronopoulou, Argy; Eliades, Theodore

2009-11-01

Our objective was to assess the hypothesis that there are variations of the proportion of articles reporting a significant effect, with a higher percentage of those articles published in journals with impact factors. The contents of 5 orthodontic journals (American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, Angle Orthodontist, European Journal of Orthodontics, Journal of Orthodontics, and Orthodontics and Craniofacial Research), published between 2004 and 2008, were hand-searched. Articles with statistical analysis of data were included in the study and classified into 4 categories: behavior and psychology, biomaterials and biomechanics, diagnostic procedures and treatment, and craniofacial growth, morphology, and genetics. In total, 2622 articles were examined, with 1785 included in the analysis. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were applied with statistical significance as the dependent variable, and whether the journal had an impact factor, the subject, and the year were the independent predictors. A higher percentage of articles showed significant results relative to those without significant associations (on average, 88% vs 12%) for those journals. Overall, these journals published significantly more studies with significant results, ranging from 75% to 90% (P = 0.02). Multivariate modeling showed that journals with impact factors had a 100% increased probability of publishing a statistically significant result compared with journals with no impact factor (odds ratio [OR], 1.99; 95% CI, 1.19-3.31). Compared with articles on biomaterials and biomechanics, all other subject categories showed lower probabilities of significant results. Nonsignificant findings in behavior and psychology and diagnosis and treatment were 1.8 (OR, 1.75; 95% CI, 1.51-2.67) and 3.5 (OR, 3.50; 95% CI, 2.27-5.37) times more likely to be published, respectively. Journals seem to prefer reporting significant results; this might be because of authors' perceptions of the importance of their findings and editors' and reviewers' preferences for significant results. The implication of this factor in the reliability of systematic reviews is discussed.

Fate of abstracts presented at the 2002 IFCC meeting.

PubMed

Uysal, Sezer; Tuglu, Birsen; Ozalp, Ylmaz; Onvural, Banu

2008-01-01

Poster presentations at major meetings serve to rapidly present and share study results with the scientific community. On the other hand, full-text publication of abstracts in peer-reviewed journals provides dissemination of knowledge. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the publication rate of abstracts presented at the International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (IFCC) Meeting, to assess the factors influencing publication and determine the impact factor of these journals. All poster abstracts presented at the 2002 IFCC Meeting were included in the study. A Medline search was performed to identify a matching journal article. Topics, country of origin, study type, study center and publication year were tabulated. Journals and impact factors of publication were noted. Out of 900 presented abstracts, 125 (13.9%) were published as full-text articles. Publication rates according to topics of the meeting, country of origin and university affiliation demonstrated significant differences. Abstracts from multi-centered studies had higher publication rates, and the journals they were published in had higher impact factors than single center studies. The median impact factor of the journals was 2.093. According to regression analysis, the major predictors for publication were interventional research and university affiliation (odds ratios 2.916 and 1.782, respectively; p < 0.05). The publication rate for abstracts of this clinical chemistry meeting was lower than rates from other fields of medicine. Factors leading to failure require elucidation. Encouraging authors to submit their presentations for full-text publication might improve the rate of publication.

The Journal Impact Factor: Moving Toward an Alternative and Combined Scientometric Approach

PubMed Central

Nurmashev, Bekaidar

2017-01-01

The Journal Impact Factor (JIF) is a single citation metric, which is widely employed for ranking journals and choosing target journals, but is also misused as the proxy of the quality of individual articles and academic achievements of authors. This article analyzes Scopus-based publication activity on the JIF and overviews some of the numerous misuses of the JIF, global initiatives to overcome the ‘obsession’ with impact factors, and emerging strategies to revise the concept of the scholarly impact. The growing number of articles on the JIF, most of which are in English, reflects interest of experts in journal editing and scientometrics toward its uses, misuses, and options to overcome related problems. Solely displaying values of the JIFs on the journal websites is criticized by experts as these average metrics do not reflect skewness of citation distribution of individual articles. Emerging strategies suggest to complement the JIFs with citation plots and alternative metrics, reflecting uses of individual articles in terms of downloads and distribution of related information through social media and networking platforms. It is also proposed to revise the original formula of the JIF calculation and embrace the concept of the impact and importance of individual articles. The latter is largely dependent on ethical soundness of the journal instructions, proper editing and structuring of articles, efforts to promote related information through social media, and endorsements of professional societies. PMID:28049225

The Journal Impact Factor: Moving Toward an Alternative and Combined Scientometric Approach.

PubMed

Gasparyan, Armen Yuri; Nurmashev, Bekaidar; Yessirkepov, Marlen; Udovik, Elena E; Baryshnikov, Aleksandr A; Kitas, George D

2017-02-01

The Journal Impact Factor (JIF) is a single citation metric, which is widely employed for ranking journals and choosing target journals, but is also misused as the proxy of the quality of individual articles and academic achievements of authors. This article analyzes Scopus-based publication activity on the JIF and overviews some of the numerous misuses of the JIF, global initiatives to overcome the 'obsession' with impact factors, and emerging strategies to revise the concept of the scholarly impact. The growing number of articles on the JIF, most of which are in English, reflects interest of experts in journal editing and scientometrics toward its uses, misuses, and options to overcome related problems. Solely displaying values of the JIFs on the journal websites is criticized by experts as these average metrics do not reflect skewness of citation distribution of individual articles. Emerging strategies suggest to complement the JIFs with citation plots and alternative metrics, reflecting uses of individual articles in terms of downloads and distribution of related information through social media and networking platforms. It is also proposed to revise the original formula of the JIF calculation and embrace the concept of the impact and importance of individual articles. The latter is largely dependent on ethical soundness of the journal instructions, proper editing and structuring of articles, efforts to promote related information through social media, and endorsements of professional societies.

An assessment system for rating scientific journals in the field of ergonomics and human factors.

PubMed

Dul, Jan; Karwowski, Waldemar

2004-05-01

A method for selecting and rating scientific and professional journals representing the discipline of ergonomics and human factors is proposed. The method is based upon the journal list, impact factors and citations provided by the Institute of Scientific Information (ISI), and the journal list published in the Ergonomics Abstracts. Three groups of journals were distinguished. The 'ergonomics journals' focus exclusively on ergonomics and human factors. The 'related journals' focus on other disciplines than ergonomics and human factors, but regularly publish ergonomics/human factors papers. The 'basic journals' focus on other technical, medical or social sciences than ergonomics, but are important for the development of ergonomics/human factors. Journal quality was rated using a maximum of four categories: top quality (A-level), high quality (B-level), good quality (C-level)) and professional (P-level). The above methods were applied to develop the Ergonomics Journal List 2004. A total of 25 'ergonomics journals', 58 'related journals' and 142 'basic journals' were classified.

Guidance in author instructions of hematology and oncology journals: A cross sectional and longitudinal study

PubMed Central

Toews, Ingrid; Binder, Nadine; Wolff, Robert F.; Toprak, Guenes; von Elm, Erik; Meerpohl, Joerg J.

2017-01-01

Background The debate about the value of biomedical publications led to recommendations for improving reporting quality. It is unclear to what extent these recommendations have been endorsed by journals. We analyzed whether specific recommendations were included in author instructions, which journal characteristics were associated with their endorsement, how endorsement of the domains changed and whether endorsement was associated with change of impact factor between 2010 and 2015. Methods We considered two study samples consisting of “Hematology” and “Oncology” journals of the Journal Citation Report 2008 and 2014, respectively. We extracted information regarding endorsement of the (1) recommendations of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, of (2) reporting guidelines, (3) requirement for trial registration and (4) disclosure of conflicts of interest. Data extraction was done by reading the author instructions before conducting a text search with keywords. We calculated a global generalized linear mixed effects model for endorsement of each of the four domains followed by separate multivariable logistic regression models and a longitudinal analysis. We defined endorsement as the author instructions saying that they approve the use of the recommendations. Results In 2015, the ICMJE recommendations were mentioned in author instructions of 156 journals (67.5%). CONSORT was referred to by 77 journals (33.3%); MOOSE, PRISMA, STARD and STROBE were referred to by less than 15% of journals. There were 99 journals (42.9%) that recommended or required trial registration, 211 (91.3%) required authors to disclose conflicts of interest. Journal impact factor, journal start year and geographical region were positively associated with endorsement of any of the four domains. The overall endorsement of all domains increased between 2010 and 2015. The endorsement of any domain in 2010 seemed to be associated with an increased impact factor in 2014. Conclusion Hematology and oncology journals endorse major recommendations to various degrees. Endorsement is increasing slowly over time and might be positively associated with the journals’ impact factor. PMID:28453528

[Independence in Plastic Surgery - Benefit or Barrier? Analysis of the Publication Performance in Academic Plastic Surgery Depending on Varying Organisational Structures].

PubMed

Schubert, C D; Leitsch, S; Haertnagl, F; Haas, E M; Giunta, R E

2015-08-01

Despite its recognition as an independent specialty, at German university hospitals the field of plastic surgery is still underrepresented in terms of independent departments with a dedicated research focus. The aim of this study was to analyse the publication performance within the German academic plastic surgery environment and to compare independent departments and dependent, subordinate organisational structures regarding their publication performance. Organisational structures and number of attending doctors in German university hospitals were examined via a website analysis. A pubmed analysis was applied to assess the publication performance (number of publications, cumulative impact factor, impact factor/publication, number of publications/MD, number of publications/unit) between 2009 and 2013. In a journal analysis the distribution of the cumulative impact factor and number of publications in different journals as well as the development of the impact factor in the top journals were analysed. Out of all 35 university hospitals there exist 12 independent departments for plastic surgery and 8 subordinate organisational structures. In 15 university hospitals there were no designated plastic surgery units. The number of attending doctors differed considerably between independent departments (3.6 attending doctors/unit) and subordinate organisational structures (1.1 attending doctors/unit). The majority of publications (89.0%) and of the cumulative impact factor (91.2%) as well as most of the publications/MD (54 publications/year) and publications/unit (61 publications/year) were created within the independent departments. Only in departments top publications with an impact factor > 5 were published. In general a negative trend regarding the number of publications (- 13.4%) and cumulative impact factor (- 28.9%) was observed. 58.4% of all publications were distributed over the top 10 journals. Within the latter the majority of articles were published in English journals (60% of publications, 79.9% of the cumulative impact factor). The average impact factor of the top 10 journals increased by 13.5% from 2009 to 2013. In contrast to subordinate and dependent organisational structures, independent departments of plastic surgery are the key performers within German academic plastic surgery which, however, suffers from a general declining publication performance. Hence, the type of organisational structure has a crucial influence on the research performance. © Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.

Where is smoking research published?

PubMed Central

Liguori, A.; Hughes, J. R.

1996-01-01

OBJECTIVE: To identify journals that have a focus on human nicotine/smoking research and to investigate the coverage of smoking in "high-impact" journals. DESIGN: The MEDLINE computer database was searched for English-language articles on human studies published in 1988-1992 using "nicotine", "smoking", "smoking cessation", "tobacco", or "tobacco use disorder" as focus descriptors. This search was supplemented with a similar search of the PSYCLIT computer database. Fifty-eight journals containing at least 20 nicotine/smoking articles over the five years were analysed for impact factor (IF; citations per article). RESULTS: Among the journals with the highest percentage of nicotine- or smoking-focused articles (that is, 9-39% of their articles were on nicotine/smoking), Addiction, American Journal of Public Health, Cancer Causes and Control, Health Psychology, and Preventive Medicine had the greatest IF (range = 1.3-2.6). Among the journals highest in impact factor (IF > 3), only American Journal of Epidemiology, American Review of Respiratory Disease, Journal of the National Cancer Institute, and Journal of the American Medical Association published more than 10 nicotine/smoking articles per year (3-5% of all articles). Of these, only Journal of the American Medical Association published a large number of nicotine/smoking articles (32 per year). CONCLUSIONS: Although smoking causes 20% of all mortality in developed countries, the topic is not adequately covered in high-impact journals. Most smoking research is published in low-impact journals. 




 PMID:8795857

[Impact factors and publication time spans of child and adolescent psychiatry journals].

PubMed

Haberhausen, Michael; Bachmann, Christian

2009-01-01

The impact factor (IF) of a scientific journal plays a central role in a scientist's decision where to publish his or her research results. Authors also show interest in the publication time span (time span between the submission and the online or print publication of a article). This paper presents an overview of the IF and editorial time spans of German and international child and adolescent psychiatric journals and compares them to those of journals of adult psychiatry. The authors first conducted a data bank search at the Journal Citation Reports, concerning IF and IF-development for key journals of child and adolescent psychiatry from 2002-2007. They then manually analyzed pertinent child and adolescent journals regarding the time span for publications in the year 2007. To date, nine child and adolescent psychiatric journals exist, whereof eight present with an impact factor. The IF ranges from 0.419 (praxis der Kinderpsychologie und Kinderpsychiatrie) to 4.655 (Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry). The editorial handling time ranges between 5.4 and 13.2 months. Even though this academic discipline is "small", child and adolescent psychiatry disposes of international journals presenting with competitive IFs. Both German journals show a low IF. The editorial handling times were reasonable, but could be further reduced by offering prior online publication.

FUTURE OF DERMATOVENEREOLOGICAL JOURNALS1.

PubMed

Marinović, Branka

2016-04-01

Each year, during the Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology, there is a meeting of the Council of Dermatology Editors organized by Professor Larry Parish from Philadelphia. It is so nice to meet old friends there and make some new ones, but above all it is a very good platform to discuss the problems journals and their editors are facing today. Some of the topics we discussed during this year's meeting were the increasing number of case reports submitted to all dermatological journals, problems of plagiarism, the rising number of online journals, and the predatory policies quite often connected with them. There was also discussion on print vs online publication versions and on open access journals. It is always useful to discuss common problems, to realize that all journals have similar problems, and to exchange experiences in solving these problems. One of the problems all journals are facing is the increasing number of case reports being submitted, and their high rejection rate due to different reasons. Acta Dermatovenerologica Croatica is overloaded with case reports from many different countries around the world. Most of them are interesting, well prepared cases and could be a good way of exchanging experience between dermatologists. From my personal point of view, case reports are a very useful form of medical communication. For many years they were usually the first articles written by residents under the supervision of their mentors, and I think that all of us should insist on that in the future as well. But the problem is that it has become very difficult to find a journal willing to publish many case reports. Authors are trying to find a journal to publish their case reports in, sometimes sending them to many journals. Unfortunately, the rate of rejection of case reports is rising. And why? There are a few reasons for that, but probably one of the most important is that a high number of published case reports per issue of any journal decreases the impact factor of journal. And for each editor and editorial board, impact factor is one of the main criterions used every year to measure the quality of the journal and their efforts to improve it. Impact factor is also an important criterion when applying for academic positions. This has resulted in some high-impact journals starting to publish separate editions of their journals with case reports only, but also with no or with very low impact factor. This is probably one of the reasons why we receive offers to publish all types of articles in different online open access journals on a daily basis. But of course, if you pay for it… Acta Dermatovenerologica Croatica is proud to be the official journal of the Croatian Dermatovenereological Society of the Croatian Medical Association and also be supported by the Croatian Ministry of Science. This gives us the freedom to make balanced content with some case reports per issue, all for free. But we of course also have to take care and try to increase our impact factor, so we try to encourage authors to publish their interesting case reports in the form of letters to the editor, which do not influence the impact factor so strongly but give us the opportunity to communicate our experiences. During this year we hope to make some improvements in the quality and visibility of our Journal, and to start the 25th anniversary of the journal with new impetus.

[Comparative analysis of impact factor and h-index for pharmacology journals].

PubMed

Bador, Pascal; Lafouge, Thierry

2010-01-01

Using the strictly same parameters (identical two publication years (2004-2005) and identical one-year citation window (2006)), impact factor (IF) 2006 was compared with h-index 2006 for one sample of "pharmacology and pharmacy" journals computed from the ISI Web of Science. For this sample, the IF and the h-index rankings of the journals are very different. The correlation coefficient between the IF and the h-index is low for "pharmacology and pharmacy" journals. The IF and h-index can be completely complementary when evaluating journals of the same scientific discipline. 2010 Société Française de Pharmacologie et de Thérapeutique.

Effect of bibliographical classification on the impact factor of science- and engineering-based journals.

PubMed

Foo, Jong Yong Abdiel

2009-01-01

The simplest and widely used assessment of academic research and researchers is the journal impact factor (JIF). However, the JIF may exhibit patterns that are skewed towards journals that publish high number of non-research items and short turnover research. Moreover, there are concerns as the JIF is often used as a comparison for journals from different disciplines. In this study, the JIF computation of eight top ranked journals from four different subject categories was analyzed. The analysis reveals that most of the published items (>65%) in the science disciplines were nonresearch items while fewer such items (<22%) were observed in engineering-based journals. The single regression analysis confirmed that there is correlation (R(2) > or = .99) in the number of published items or citations received over the two-year period used in the JIF calculation amongst the eight selected journals. A weighted factor computation is introduced to compensate for the smaller journals and journals that publish longer turnover research. It is hoped that the approach can provide a comprehensive assessment of the quality of a journal regardless of the disciplinary field.

Representation of Nursing Scientists from German-speaking countries in High Impact Journals. A bibliometric publication analysis

PubMed

Hirt, Julian; Buhtz, Christian; Mersdorf, Benedikt; Meyer, Gabriele

2018-02-01

Background: The frequency of publications by nursing scientists from the German-speaking area in journals with a high impact factor is an indicator for participation of the discipline in the international discourse. Previous publication analyses focused on nursing science journals only and regularly found an underrepresentation of experimental studies and clinical topics. Aim: To identify and analyse the number of publications by nursing scientists from Germany, Austria and German-speaking Switzerland in international high impact journals. Method: The Journal Citation Reports were used to identify nursing relevant categories of journals in which the highest 10 % of the years 2010 to 2014 were selected according to the 5-year Impact Factor. Inclusion of publications and data extraction were carried out by two independent persons. Results: 106939 publications from 126 journals were screened; 100 publications were identified with 229 contributions by 114 nursing scientists. 42 % of studies are observational and 11 % are experimental. The majority of studies are clinically oriented (55 %). More than 50 % have been published in the past two years. Conclusions: The number of publications by nursing scientists from the German-speaking countries in High Impact Journals is low. There is an increase throughout the observation period. In opposite to former analyses a higher proportion of clinical research has been found.

Comparison of the time-to-indexing in PubMed between biomedical journals according to impact factor, discipline, and focus.

PubMed

Irwin, Adriane N; Rackham, Daniel

Practicing evidence-based medicine requires health care professionals to efficiently retrieve relevant and current literature. The purpose of this study was to compare the time interval between PubMed entry and indexing with Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) between biomedical journals with varying impact factors, focus areas, and health care discipline representation. This was a cross-sectional study of articles entered into PubMed database between January 1 and December 31, 2012. The primary endpoint was the number of days between PubMed entry and indexing with MeSH terms. A total of 7906 articles were reviewed across 18 journals. In the first comparison, the time-to-indexing was 177 ± 100 days, 111 ± 69 days, and 23 ± 40 days for articles published in journals with impact factors of 2.0-2.5, 4.5-6.5, and >25, respectively (P ≤ 0.001). In the second comparison, the time-to-indexing was 111 ± 69 days for general medicine versus 170 ± 74 days for specialty journals (P ≤ 0.001). In the third comparison, the overall time-to-indexing was 177 ± 100 days, 234 ± 107 days, and 163 ± 58 days for medicine, nursing, and pharmacy journals, respectively (P ≤ 0.001). Study results identified a significant delay between entry of articles into the PubMed database and time-to-indexing with MeSH terms across journals of varying impact factor, discipline, and focus. Results suggest that there may be factors that influence the priority by which articles are indexed with MeSH terms. Future research should focus on determining those journal characteristics and any impact of this delay on clinical practice. Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Auto-correlation of journal impact factor for consensus research reporting statements: a cohort study.

PubMed

Shanahan, Daniel R

2016-01-01

Background. The Journal Citation Reports journal impact factors (JIFs) are widely used to rank and evaluate journals, standing as a proxy for the relative importance of a journal within its field. However, numerous criticisms have been made of use of a JIF to evaluate importance. This problem is exacerbated when the use of JIFs is extended to evaluate not only the journals, but the papers therein. The purpose of this study was therefore to investigate the relationship between the number of citations and journal IF for identical articles published simultaneously in multiple journals. Methods. Eligible articles were consensus research reporting statements listed on the EQUATOR Network website that were published simultaneously in three or more journals. The correlation between the citation count for each article and the median journal JIF over the published period, and between the citation count and number of article accesses was calculated for each reporting statement. Results. Nine research reporting statements were included in this analysis, representing 85 articles published across 58 journals in biomedicine. The number of citations was strongly correlated to the JIF for six of the nine reporting guidelines, with moderate correlation shown for the remaining three guidelines (median r = 0.66, 95% CI [0.45-0.90]). There was also a strong positive correlation between the number of citations and the number of article accesses (median r = 0.71, 95% CI [0.5-0.8]), although the number of data points for this analysis were limited. When adjusted for the individual reporting guidelines, each logarithm unit of JIF predicted a median increase of 0.8 logarithm units of citation counts (95% CI [-0.4-5.2]), and each logarithm unit of article accesses predicted a median increase of 0.1 logarithm units of citation counts (95% CI [-0.9-1.4]). This model explained 26% of the variance in citations (median adjusted r (2) = 0.26, range 0.18-1.0). Conclusion. The impact factor of the journal in which a reporting statement was published was shown to influence the number of citations that statement will gather over time. Similarly, the number of article accesses also influenced the number of citations, although to a lesser extent than the impact factor. This demonstrates that citation counts are not purely a reflection of scientific merit and the impact factor is, in fact, auto-correlated.

The distribution of outcomes research papers across clinical journals.

PubMed

Goldsack, Jennifer; McLaughlin, Chris; Bristol, Mirar N; Loeb, Alex; Bergey, Meredith; Sonnad, Seema S

2011-06-01

This study examines the distribution of health outcomes research (HOR) studies in the clinical literature by clinical areas and journal impact factor. The authors reviewed 535 journals and divided the sample into higher and lower impact journals across four clinical area. Mann-Whitney and Kruskal-Wallis tests were used to examine differences across four categories of outcomes research articles published, specifically the incidence of articles in higher versus lower impact journals and differences across clinical areas. All high-impact journals published more safety and quality articles than process assessment, quality of life, or cost analysis studies. The number of each type of outcomes research study published was highly variable across all clinical areas. Only arthritis and outcomes research journals showed statistically significant differences between higher versus lower impact journals. Authors may benefit from considering these differences in their clinical specialty area when deciding where to submit HOR studies.

A Core Journal Decision Model Based on Weighted Page Rank

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Wang, Hei-Chia; Chou, Ya-lin; Guo, Jiunn-Liang

2011-01-01

Purpose: The paper's aim is to propose a core journal decision method, called the local impact factor (LIF), which can evaluate the requirements of the local user community by combining both the access rate and the weighted impact factor, and by tracking citation information on the local users' articles. Design/methodology/approach: Many…

References that anyone can edit: review of Wikipedia citations in peer reviewed health science literature.

PubMed

Bould, M Dylan; Hladkowicz, Emily S; Pigford, Ashlee-Ann E; Ufholz, Lee-Anne; Postonogova, Tatyana; Shin, Eunkyung; Boet, Sylvain

2014-03-06

To examine indexed health science journals to evaluate the prevalence of Wikipedia citations, identify the journals that publish articles with Wikipedia citations, and determine how Wikipedia is being cited. Bibliometric analysis. Publications in the English language that included citations to Wikipedia were retrieved using the online databases Scopus and Web of Science. To identify health science journals, results were refined using Ulrich's database, selecting for citations from journals indexed in Medline, PubMed, or Embase. Using Thomson Reuters Journal Citation Reports, 2011 impact factors were collected for all journals included in the search. Resulting citations were thematically coded, and descriptive statistics were calculated. 1433 full text articles from 1008 journals indexed in Medline, PubMed, or Embase with 2049 Wikipedia citations were accessed. The frequency of Wikipedia citations has increased over time; most citations occurred after December 2010. More than half of the citations were coded as definitions (n = 648; 31.6%) or descriptions (n=482; 23.5%). Citations were not limited to journals with a low or no impact factor; the search found Wikipedia citations in many journals with high impact factors. Many publications are citing information from a tertiary source that can be edited by anyone, although permanent, evidence based sources are available. We encourage journal editors and reviewers to use caution when publishing articles that cite Wikipedia.

Predicting long-term citation impact of articles in social and personality psychology.

PubMed

Haslam, Nick; Koval, Peter

2010-06-01

The citation impact of a comprehensive sample of articles published in social and personality psychology journals in 1998 was evaluated. Potential predictors of the 10-yr. citation impact of 1580 articles from 37 journals were investigated, including number of authors, number of references, journal impact factor, author nationality, and article length, using linear regression. The impact factor of the journal in which articles appeared was the primary predictor of the citations that they accrued, accounting for 30% of the total variance. Articles with greater length, more references, and more authors were cited relatively often, although the citation advantage of longer articles was not proportionate to their length. A citation advantage was also enjoyed by authors from the United States of America, Canada, and the United Kingdom. 37% of the variance in the total number of citations was accounted for by the study variables.

Ethics and the psychiatry journal editor: responsibilities and dilemmas.

PubMed

Greenberg, David; D Strous, Rael

2014-01-01

An array of potential ethical stumbling blocks awaits the editors of scientific journals. There are issues of particular relevance to mental health journals, and others unique to local journals with a relatively small circulation and low impact factor. The blind review system, conflict of interests, redundant publication, fraud and plagiarism, guest and ghost authorship and ghost writing, advertising, language and stigma, patient consent, and "rigging" the Impact Factor are all issues of importance. It is critical that editors are aware and informed of these important issues, and have an accessible forum for evaluating problems as they arise.

Alternatives to the impact factor.

PubMed

Oosthuizen, J C; Fenton, J E

2014-10-01

To explore alternative bibliometric markers to the well-established journal impact factor. The bibliometric evolution of a leading ENT journal over a six year period is discussed with critical analysis of a predetermined set of bibliometric alternatives to the journal impact factor. Retrospective review of the bibliometric performance of Clinical Otolaryngology over a six year period. The results of the study reveal that Clinical Otolaryngology has made steady bibliometric progress when the impact factor (IF) is considered with a gradual increase in impact factor from 1.098 in 2006 to a peak of 2.393 in 2011. Self-citation rates reported by the Journal Citation Report (JCR) demonstrated a significant decline during 2007 with a reported self-citation rate of 0%. The SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) database however recorded a self-citation rate of 67. Independent evaluation demonstrated a 56 self-citations during this period. The percentage of review articles published remained stable during the period in question. A lagged association between the number of review manuscripts and the IF failed to demonstrate any significant correlation (r = -0.19). Comparison between the IF and the Eigen factor (EF) as well as the SJR yielded negative correlation (r = -0.46) and (r = -0.35) respectively. The Article Influence score (AIS) and Source Normalised Impact per Paper (SNIP) were the only bibliometric alternatives to demonstrate a positive correlation when compared to the IF (r = 0.94) and (r = 0.66) respectively. The necessity of bibliometric markers cannot be called into question however the most widely employed of these, the journal impact factor has come under increased scrutiny of late. Despite some of the advantages offered by novel bibliometric markers, these do not necessarily compare favourably to the IF with regards to bibliometric performance. The only two markers to demonstrate a positive correlation when compared to the IF were the AI score and SNIP which would suggest that these are potential alternatives to the IF and have the added advantage that they are open access. Copyright © 2013 Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh (Scottish charity number SC005317) and Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Outcome of Pediatric Critical Care Medicine Abstracts Presented at North American Academic National Meetings.

PubMed

Basu, Sonali; Pollack, Murray M

2017-05-05

Pediatric critical care medicine abstracts presented at North American national academic meetings have not been followed up to determine their publication outcomes. Our objective was to determine the following: 1) the proportion of these presentations that are published in peer-reviewed journals within 5 years; 2) the impact of trainee status on time to and success of publication; and 3) the quality of the research as reflected in the publishing journal's impact factor. Four years of abstracts (2007-2011) were reviewed from the American Academy of Pediatrics, Pediatric Academic Societies, and Society of Critical Care Medicine national meetings. Pediatric critical care medicine abstracts were delineated by the meeting or identified by keyword search. Data included mode of presentation, trainee status of first author, publication status within 5 years based on a PubMed search, trainee position in the journal of publication authorship list, and the impact factor of journal of publication. We evaluated 267 pediatric critical care medicine abstracts, 85-94 from each meeting. Overall, 41% were published, with the highest rate in Pediatric Academic Societies abstracts (54% Pediatric Academic Societies, 38% Society of Critical Care Medicine, and 33% American Academy of Pediatrics; p = 0.011). Mean time to publication was 22 (± 3) months and did not differ by conference or presentation mode. Journal first authorship was retained in 84%. Journal impact factor was highest in Society of Critical Care Medicine abstracts (3.38 Society of Critical Care Medicine, 2.64 Pediatric Academic Societies, and 1.92 American Academy of Pediatrics; p = 0.006). First author trainee status was not associated with publication rate, time to publication, and impact factor. A total of 100% of trainees but only 79% of nontrainees who published retained first authorship. Less than half of pediatric critical care medicine research abstracts presented at North American national academic meetings culminate in articles. Pediatric Academic Societies had the highest publication success rate, and Society of Critical Care Medicine abstracts were published in journals with the highest impact factors. All trainees who were first authors retained that status in the journal publications.

Strong Showing for AGU Journals in 2009 Impact Factors

NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

Cook, Bill

2010-06-01

AGU publishes great science, which is recognized in several ways. One of the most widely recognized is from Thomson Reuters, which provides the Journal Citation Report (JCR) each year as a component of the Web of Science®. JCR reports on several measures of journal usage, including a journal's Eigenfactor score, its Article Influence score, its Impact Factor, and its rank within a cohort of similar journals. According to the 2009 statistics released last week, AGU again has outperformed its larger competitors. For the twelfth time, two different AGU titles hold the top rank in their categories, and AGU titles hold the second spot in two other categories and third in two more.

[Spanish versus English as a language of publication and impact factor of Neurologia].

PubMed

Aleixandre-Benavent, R; Valderrama Zurián, J C; Alonso-Arroyo, A; Miguel-Dasit, A; González de Dios, J; de Granda Orive, Ji

2007-01-01

Although the English language is considered nowadays as the international language of medical publications, some important Spanish journals with impact factor in the Journal Citation Reports as Neurologia, they bet for the publication in Spanish. Neurologia is the official publication of the Sociedad Española de Neurología and there is the conviction that you can have a Spanish language journal with a high quality and a strong impact. Its presence in the most important international data bases and the possibility of free access to its contents through Internet guarantees its proper diffusion around the world. From the point of view of citation, the repercussion of the language for Neurologia, is reflected in the fact that the 46,8 % of the citations that receive are from journals that are published in Spanish. The main factor to improve the impact of the journal is the quality of their papers, as well as the fulfillment of the international rules about periodical publications, the punctuality in its edition and distribution, the presence in national and international bibliographical data bases, its free diffusion in Internet, the training of its researchers and their sensitivity to consult and cite articles that have been published in quality Spanish journals, when necessary.

Australian Education Journals: Quantitative and Qualitative Indicators

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Haddow, Gaby; Genoni, Paul

2009-01-01

This paper reports on a study that applied citation-based measurements to Australian education journals. Citations data were drawn from two sources, Web of Science and Scopus, and these data were used to calculate each journal's impact factor, "h"-index, and diffusion factor. The rankings resulting from these analyses were compared with…

Evaluating Academic Journals Using Impact Factor and Local Citation Score

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Chung, Hye-Kyung

2007-01-01

This study presents a method for journal collection evaluation using citation analysis. Cost-per-use (CPU) for each title is used to measure cost-effectiveness with higher CPU scores indicating cost-effective titles. Use data are based on the impact factor and locally collected citation score of each title and is compared to the cost of managing…

Estimating research productivity and quality in assistive technology: a bibliometric analysis spanning four decades.

PubMed

Ryan, Cindy; Tewey, Betsy; Newman, Shelia; Turner, Tracy; Jaeger, Robert J

2004-12-01

Conduct a quantitative assessment of the number of papers contained in MEDLINE related to selected types of assistive technology (AT), and to identify journals publishing significant numbers of papers related to AT, and evaluate them with quantitative productivity and quality measures. Consecutive sample of all papers in MEDLINE identified by standard medical subject headings for selected types of AT from 1963-2003. Number of journals carrying AT papers, papers per journal (both total number and those specific to AT), journal impact factor, circulation, and number of AT citations per year over time for each area of AT. We present search terms, estimates of the numbers of AT citations in MEDLINE, the journals most likely to contain articles related to AT, journal impact factors, and journal circulations (when available). We also present the number of citations in various areas of AT over time from 1963-2003. Suggestions are presented for possible future modifications of the MEDLINE controlled vocabulary, based on terminology used in existing AT classifications schemes, such as ISO 9999. Research papers in the areas of AT examined showed publication across a wide variety of journals. There are a number of journals publishing articles in AT that have impact factors above the median. Some areas of AT have shown an increase in publications per year over time, while others have shown a more constant level of productivity.

References that anyone can edit: review of Wikipedia citations in peer reviewed health science literature

PubMed Central

Hladkowicz, Emily S; Pigford, Ashlee-Ann E; Ufholz, Lee-Anne; Postonogova, Tatyana; Shin, Eunkyung; Boet, Sylvain

2014-01-01

Objectives To examine indexed health science journals to evaluate the prevalence of Wikipedia citations, identify the journals that publish articles with Wikipedia citations, and determine how Wikipedia is being cited. Design Bibliometric analysis. Study selection Publications in the English language that included citations to Wikipedia were retrieved using the online databases Scopus and Web of Science. Data sources To identify health science journals, results were refined using Ulrich’s database, selecting for citations from journals indexed in Medline, PubMed, or Embase. Using Thomson Reuters Journal Citation Reports, 2011 impact factors were collected for all journals included in the search. Data extraction Resulting citations were thematically coded, and descriptive statistics were calculated. Results 1433 full text articles from 1008 journals indexed in Medline, PubMed, or Embase with 2049 Wikipedia citations were accessed. The frequency of Wikipedia citations has increased over time; most citations occurred after December 2010. More than half of the citations were coded as definitions (n=648; 31.6%) or descriptions (n=482; 23.5%). Citations were not limited to journals with a low or no impact factor; the search found Wikipedia citations in many journals with high impact factors. Conclusions Many publications are citing information from a tertiary source that can be edited by anyone, although permanent, evidence based sources are available. We encourage journal editors and reviewers to use caution when publishing articles that cite Wikipedia. PMID:24603564

Research statistics in Atopic Eczema: what disease is this?

PubMed Central

2012-01-01

Background Atopic eczema is a common and distressing disease. This study aims to review PubMed indexed research statistics on atopic eczema over a-10 year period to investigate the clinical relevance and research interest about this disease. Methods PubMed (a service of the U.S. National Library of Medicine) was searched for the terms “atopic dermatitis” and “eczema”, with limits activated (Humans, Clinical Trial, Meta-Analysis, Randomized Controlled Trial, English, published in the last 10 years), and editorials, letters, practice guidelines, reviews, and animal studies excluded. Journal impact factor (IF) is in accordance with Journal Citation Report (JCR) 2009, a product of Thomson ISI (Institute for Scientific Information). Results A total of 890 articles were retrieved. Taking out publications that were irrelevant and those without an impact factor, 729 articles were obtained. These articles were grouped into dermatology (n = 337, mean IF: 3.01), allergy/immunology (n = 215, mean IF: 4.89), pediatrics (n = 118, mean IF: 2.53) and miscellaneous subject categories (n = 142, mean IF: 5.10). The impact factors were highest in the miscellaneous category (p = 0.0001), which includes such prestigious journals as the New England journal of Medicine (n = 1, IF: 47.05), the Lancet (n = 4, IF: 30.76) and BMJ (n = 6, IF: 13.66). There was no publication in any family medicine or general practice journal. The British Journal of Dermatology (n = 78), Pediatric Allergy and Immunology (n = 49) and Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (n = 46) had the highest number of publications on the subject. Atopic eczema ranked higher in impact factors in allergy/immunology although more publications appeared in the dermatology category. Conclusions Atopic eczema is a multidisciplinary disease. Its clinical relevance and research interests are definitely beyond that of a mere cutaneous disease. Investigators may consider allergy/immunology and miscellaneous journal categories for higher impact of their research. PMID:22682479

Normalized impact factor (NIF): an adjusted method for calculating the citation rate of biomedical journals.

PubMed

Owlia, P; Vasei, M; Goliaei, B; Nassiri, I

2011-04-01

The interests in journal impact factor (JIF) in scientific communities have grown over the last decades. The JIFs are used to evaluate journals quality and the papers published therein. JIF is a discipline specific measure and the comparison between the JIF dedicated to different disciplines is inadequate, unless a normalization process is performed. In this study, normalized impact factor (NIF) was introduced as a relatively simple method enabling the JIFs to be used when evaluating the quality of journals and research works in different disciplines. The NIF index was established based on the multiplication of JIF by a constant factor. The constants were calculated for all 54 disciplines of biomedical field during 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009 years. Also, ranking of 393 journals in different biomedical disciplines according to the NIF and JIF were compared to illustrate how the NIF index can be used for the evaluation of publications in different disciplines. The findings prove that the use of the NIF enhances the equality in assessing the quality of research works produced by researchers who work in different disciplines. Copyright © 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Evaluating Journal Quality: Is the H-Index a Better Measure than Impact Factors?

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Hodge, David R.; Lacasse, Jeffrey R.

2011-01-01

Objectives: This study evaluates the utility of a new measure--the h-index--that may provide a more valid approach to evaluating journal quality in the social work profession. Method: H-index values are compared with Thomson ISI 5-year impact factors and expert opinion. Results: As hypothesized, the h-index correlates highly with ISI 5-year impact…

Prestige versus citation volume as journal indices in cognitive neuroscience.

PubMed

Ward, Jamie

2014-01-01

In recent years, alternative measures of a journal's influence have been developed to those based on citation metrics (such as Impact Factor). This includes the Scimago Journal Rank (SJR) which is adapted from algorithms used to prioritize webpages in search engines. It is considered a measure of "prestige" insofar as it takes into account the importance of links/citations and not just their total number. Taking a sample of 38 journals from within the field of cognitive neuroscience, it is shown that SJR and Impact Factor correlate highly (r = .83) but with a few large discrepancies in rankings. This journal, Cognitive Neuroscience, fares better on the prestige-based measure than might otherwise be expected from its citation-based rank.

ARS turns fifteen: la quinceañera bonita.

PubMed

Sen, Chandan K

2013-01-01

ARS was aimed at advancing the erstwhile niche field of redox biology to a more central position in research. Currently, ARS ranks first (impact factor: 8.456) in the field of redox biology. Of 8336 journals listed in Journal Citation Reports, ARS ranks 205th. The next journal in redox biology ranks 449th. ARS ranks 169th of 8336 in immediacy index. The next journal in redox biology ranks 923rd. Thus, ARS is the primary source of hot papers in redox sciences and healthcare. To grow footprint and overall impact, ARS has nearly doubled the annual publication volume from roughly 200 to 400 in one year. Because the manuscript volume represents the denominator of the impact factor calculation, such a sharp increase in volume would be predicted to a proportionally lower impact factor. Because of the robust current upward momentum, ARS will be affected less than that predicted by simple arithmetic and will maintain its top position even after such aggressive volume expansion. As another year passes, the additional manuscripts will get more time to be cited, and therefore the impact factor is expected to bounce back resulting in a much stronger journal with a substantially enhanced overall presence. ARS currently publishes 36 issues annually as two series: ARS-Discoveries, and ARS-Therapeutics. Redox biology does have the potential of major health impact. ARS-Therapeutics is the first and only forum dedicated to highlight that strength. I am grateful to the global redox village for their unreserved support to raise ARS and this fascinating field of redox research and healthcare. Antioxid. Redox Signal. 18, 1-4.

Analysis of References on the Plastic Surgery In-Service Training Exam.

PubMed

Silvestre, Jason; Zhang, Alicia; Lin, Samuel J

2016-06-01

The Plastic Surgery In-Service Training Exam is a knowledge assessment tool widely used during plastic surgery training in the United States. This study analyzed literature supporting correct answer choices to determine highest yield sources, journal publication lag, and journal impact factors. Digital syllabi of 10 consecutive Plastic Surgery In-Service Training Exam administrations (2006 to 2015) were reviewed. The most-referenced articles, journals, and textbooks were determined. Mean journal impact factor and publication lag were calculated and differences were elucidated by section. Two thousand questions and 5386 references were analyzed. From 2006 to 2015, the percentage of journal citations increased, whereas textbook references decreased (p < 0.001). Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery was cited with greatest frequency (38.5 percent), followed by Clinics in Plastic Surgery (5.6 percent), Journal of Hand Surgery (American volume) (5.1 percent), and Annals of Plastic Surgery (3.8 percent). There was a trend toward less publication lag over the study period (p = 0.05), with a mean publication lag of 9.1 ± 9.0 years for all journal articles. Mean journal impact factor was 2.3 ± 4.3 and lowest for the hand and lower extremity section (1.7 ± 2.8; p < 0.001). The highest yield textbooks were elucidated by section. Plastic surgery faculty and residents may use these data to facilitate knowledge acquisition during residency.

Associating co-authorship patterns with publications in high-impact journals.

PubMed

Bales, Michael E; Dine, Daniel C; Merrill, Jacqueline A; Johnson, Stephen B; Bakken, Suzanne; Weng, Chunhua

2014-12-01

To develop a method for investigating co-authorship patterns and author team characteristics associated with the publications in high-impact journals through the integration of public MEDLINE data and institutional scientific profile data. For all current researchers at Columbia University Medical Center, we extracted their publications from MEDLINE authored between years 2007 and 2011 and associated journal impact factors, along with author academic ranks and departmental affiliations obtained from Columbia University Scientific Profiles (CUSP). Chi-square tests were performed on co-authorship patterns, with Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons, to identify team composition characteristics associated with publication impact factors. We also developed co-authorship networks for the 25 most prolific departments between years 2002 and 2011 and counted the internal and external authors, inter-connectivity, and centrality of each department. Papers with at least one author from a basic science department are significantly more likely to appear in high-impact journals than papers authored by those from clinical departments alone. Inclusion of at least one professor on the author list is strongly associated with publication in high-impact journals, as is inclusion of at least one research scientist. Departmental and disciplinary differences in the ratios of within- to outside-department collaboration and overall network cohesion are also observed. Enrichment of co-authorship patterns with author scientific profiles helps uncover associations between author team characteristics and appearance in high-impact journals. These results may offer implications for mentoring junior biomedical researchers to publish on high-impact journals, as well as for evaluating academic progress across disciplines in modern academic medical centers. Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Academic Sell-Out: How an Obsession with Metrics and Rankings Is Damaging Academia

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Gruber, Thorsten

2014-01-01

Increasingly, academics have to demonstrate that their research has academic impact. Universities normally use journal rankings and journal impact factors to assess the research impact of individual academics. More recently, citation counts for individual articles and the h-index have also been used to measure the academic impact of academics.…

Inaccurate Citations in Biomedical Journalism: Effect on the Impact Factor of the American Journal of Roentgenology.

PubMed

Karabulut, Nevzat

2017-03-01

The aim of this study is to investigate the frequency of incorrect citations and its effects on the impact factor of a specific biomedical journal: the American Journal of Roentgenology. The Cited Reference Search function of Thomson Reuters' Web of Science database (formerly the Institute for Scientific Information's Web of Knowledge database) was used to identify erroneous citations. This was done by entering the journal name into the Cited Work field and entering "2011-2012" into the Cited Year(s) field. The errors in any part of the inaccurately cited references (e.g., author names, title, year, volume, issue, and page numbers) were recorded, and the types of errors (i.e., absent, deficient, or mistyped) were analyzed. Erroneous citations were corrected using the Suggest a Correction function of the Web of Science database. The effect of inaccurate citations on the impact factor of the AJR was calculated. Overall, 183 of 1055 citable articles published in 2011-2012 were inaccurately cited 423 times (mean [± SD], 2.31 ± 4.67 times; range, 1-44 times). Of these 183 articles, 110 (60.1%) were web-only articles and 44 (24.0%) were print articles. The most commonly identified errors were page number errors (44.8%) and misspelling of an author's name (20.2%). Incorrect citations adversely affected the impact factor of the AJR by 0.065 in 2012 and by 0.123 in 2013. Inaccurate citations are not infrequent in biomedical journals, yet they can be detected and corrected using the Web of Science database. Although the accuracy of references is primarily the responsibility of authors, the journal editorial office should also define a periodic inaccurate citation check task and correct erroneous citations to reclaim unnecessarily lost credit.

[Bibliometric study of Actas Dermo-sifiliográficas (1984-2003) III. Analysis of bibliographic impact factors].

PubMed

Miralles, Julia; Ramos, José M; Ballester, Rosa; Belinchón, Isabel; Sevila, Amparo; Moragón, Manuel

2005-11-01

To quantify the impact factor of the journal Actas Dermo-Sifiliográficas (AD) from 1986 to 1990 and from 1999 to 2003 and to identify the journal's citation pattern in those years. Citations obtained by AD in the periods from 1985-1990 and 1998-2003 for articles published from 1984 to 1989 and from 1997 to 2002 were collected using Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI). The number of times AD was cited doubled during the second period, increasing from 38 (period from 1985-1990) to 76 (period from 1998-2003). Considering the number of citations, AD's impact factor increased from 0.016 in 1986 to 0.040 in 2003. In both periods, citations corresponding to AD articles were included in a wide range of source journals, mainly dermatological publications abroad. The most referred journals in the second period were the Dutch publication Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (13 citations) and the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology (12 citations). Unlike the period from 1985 to 1990 when no Spanish journal cited AD, four Spanish publications mentioned AD in the second period: Revista clínica española (6 citations), Archivos de bronconeumología (4 citations), Medicina clínica (3 citations) and the journal Enfermedades infecciosas y microbiología clínica (1 citation). Citations mainly corresponded to articles published by Spanish authors (63.2 % in the 1985-1990 period and 81.6 % in the period from 1998 to 2003). Self-citation increased from 10.5 % (first period) to 31.6 % (second period). The impact factor of AD is low and not comparable to other publications included in the Dermatology and Venereal Diseases field from SCI. Our results confirm the low citation rate of AD by source journals in this repertory. However, the increase of this rate in recent years seems to indicate a higher Spanish presence in SCI due to an increasing number of publications corresponding to Spanish authors in international journals and the inclusion of some Spanish journals in this database.

Scientific publications in pharmacology and pharmacy journals from Chinese authors in various parts of North Asia: a 10-year survey of the literature.

PubMed

Li, G; Hu, L-H; Liao, Z; Cui, H-C; Li, Z-S

2010-01-01

The amount and quality of pharmacology and pharmacy research by authors from China was investigated by comparing published articles from 136 international journals (1998 - 2007) by authors from mainland China, Hong Kong and Taiwan. The number of articles, clinical trials, randomized controlled trials, case reports, impact factors, number of citations and number of articles published in top general medicine journals were compared. The total number of articles increased significantly between 1998 and 2007 (from 324 to 2536 per year). In total, there were 12 021 articles: 7576 from mainland China, 3267 from Taiwan and 1178 from Hong Kong. The accumulated impact factor of the articles from mainland China (16 688.94) was much higher than for those from Taiwan (8726.92) and Hong Kong (3161.22) but, among the three regions, Hong Kong had the highest mean impact factor and the most articles published in top general medicine journals.

[Beyond the impact factor. Reflections on the book of Stefanie Haustein].

PubMed

Schubert, András

2015-09-20

The excellent book on multidimensional journal evaluation by Stefanie Haustein helps to find the place of the impact factor in the complex system of journal evaluation indicators. By delimiting the dimensions of evaluation and the user groups, the author of the book creates a framework that serves as a novel and useful guidance both for the lay reader and the expert.

Scoring of medical publications with SIGAPS software: Application to orthopedics.

PubMed

Rouvillain, J-L; Derancourt, C; Moore, N; Devos, P

2014-11-01

SIGAPS is a bibliometric software tool developed in France to identify and analyze Medline-indexed publications that are produced by a researcher or research group. This measurement takes into account the author's ranking on the paper along with the journal's prestige according to its impact factor within the research field. However, use of this impact factor is the primary limitation of SIGAPS. SIGAPS analysis results are used to assign a financial value to hospital facilities. The impact of the journal Revue de Chirurgie Orthopédique and its successor-Orthopaedics & Traumatology: Surgery & Research-was compared using the Medline-based ISI (SIGAPS) and SCOPUS-based SCImago journal rankings. Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.

Marketing data: has the rise of impact factor led to the fall of objective language in the scientific article?

PubMed

Fraser, Véronique J; Martin, James G

2009-05-11

The language of science should be objective and detached and should place data in the appropriate context. The aim of this commentary was to explore the notion that recent trends in the use of language have led to a loss of objectivity in the presentation of scientific data. The relationship between the value-laden vocabulary and impact factor among fundamental biomedical research and clinical journals has been explored. It appears that fundamental research journals of high impact factors have experienced a rise in value-laden terms in the past 25 years.

Examining the Impact of Chemistry Education Research Articles from 2007 through 2013 by Citation Counts

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Ye, Li; Lewis, Scott E.; Raker, Jeffrey R.; Oueini, Razanne

2015-01-01

Evaluating the impact of Chemistry Education Research articles has historically centered on the impact factor of the publishing journal. With the advent of electronic journal indices, it is possible to determine the impact of individual research articles by the number of citations it has received. However, in a relatively new discipline, such as…

Food for thought: comparison of citations received from articles appearing in specialized eating disorder journals versus general psychiatry journals.

PubMed

Soh, Nerissa; Walter, Garry; Touyz, Stephen; Russell, Janice; Malhi, Gin S; Hunt, Glenn E

2012-12-01

To conduct a bibliometric analysis of eating disorder journals to guide journal readers and researchers when submitting their manuscripts. Several indices were used to compare journal impact and citations of articles appearing between 1996 and 2010 in six eating disorders journals and six leading general psychiatry journals. The International Journal of Eating Disorders (IJED) had the highest journal impact factor (JIF, 2.278) of the six eating disorders' journals. The general psychiatry journals had higher JIFs and received more citations per eating disorder article than the specialized journals. However, IJED published the highest number of eating disorder articles between 1996 and 2010, and 35 of these articles received at least 100 citations. Using the JIF alone to decide where to submit a manuscript is a poor strategy, as this does not take into consideration the impact an article can have within the eating disorder's field over time. Copyright © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Examination of the impact of animal and dairy science journals based on traditional and newly developed bibliometric indices.

PubMed

Malesios, C; Abas, Z

2012-12-01

Using traditional bibliometric indices such as the well-known journal impact factor (IFAC), as well as other more recently developed measures like the (journal) h-index and modifications, we assessed the impact of most prolific scientific journals in the field of animal and dairy science. To achieve this end, we performed a detailed investigation on the evaluation of journals quality, using a total of 50 journals selected from the category of "Agriculture, Dairy & Animal Science" included in the Thomson Reuters' (formerly Institute of Scientific Information, ISI) Web of Science. Our analysis showed that among the top journals in the field are the Journal of Dairy Research, the Journal of Dairy Science, and the Journal of Animal Science. In particular, the Journal of Animal Science, the most productive and frequently cited journal, has shown rapid development, especially in recent years. The majority of the top-tier, highly cited articles are those associated with the description of statistical methodology and the standard chemical analytical methodologies.

Impact factor evolution of nursing research journals: 2009 to 2014.

PubMed

Cáceres, Macarena C; Guerrero-Martín, Jorge; González-Morales, Borja; Pérez-Civantos, Demetrio V; Carreto-Lemus, Maria A; Durán-Gómez, Noelia

The use of bibliometric indicators (impact factor [IF], impact index, h-index, etc.) is now believed to be a fundamental measure of the quality of scientific research output. In this context, the presence of scientific nursing journals in international databases and the factors influencing their impact ratings is being widely analyzed. The aim of this study was to analyze the presence of scientific nursing journals in international databases and track the changes in their IF. A secondary analysis was carried out on data for the years 2009 to 2014 held in the JCR database (subject category: nursing). Additionally, the presence of scientific nursing journals in Medline, CINAHL, Scopus, and SJR was analyzed. During the period studied, the number of journals indexed in the JCR under the nursing subject category increased from 70 in 2009 (mean IF: 0.99, standard deviation: 0.53) to 115 in 2014 (mean IF: 1.04, standard deviation: 0.42), of which only 70 were listed for the full six years. Although mean IF showed an upward trend throughout this time, no statistically significant differences were found in the variations to this figure. Although IF and other bibliometric indicators have their limitations, it is nonetheless true that bibliometry is now the most widely used tool for evaluating scientific output in all disciplines, including nursing, highlighting the importance of being familiar with how they are calculated and their significance when deciding the journal or journals in which to publish the results of our research. That said, it is also necessary to consider other possible alternative ways of assessing the quality and impact of scientific contributions. Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Characteristics of Open Access Journals in Six Subject Areas

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Walters, William H.; Linvill, Anne C.

2011-01-01

We examine the characteristics of 663 Open Access (OA) journals in biology, computer science, economics, history, medicine, and psychology, then compare the OA journals with impact factors to comparable subscription journals. There is great variation in the size of OA journals; the largest publishes more than 2,700 articles per year, but half…

Impact factor, eigenfactor, article influence, scopus SNIP, and SCImage journal rank of occupational therapy journals.

PubMed

Brown, Ted; Gutman, Sharon A

2018-05-18

Journals are currently assessed and ranked using a number of different quantitative performance metrics. To compare and correlate the publication metrics of English-language occupational therapy journals published in 2015. Bibliometric data was sourced for 14 English-language occupational therapy journals including the Journal Citations Report (JCR) 2-year impact factor (IF), Eigenfactor Score (EFS), Article Influence Score (AIS), Scopus Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP), Scopus Citescore, and SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) score. The JCR, Scopus, and SJR 2015 bibliometric data were correlated. The top six English-language occupational therapy journals in relation to JCR IF, EFS, AIS, SNIP, Citescore, SJR score, and SJR IIF were AJOT, AOTJ, POPT, CJOT, SJOT, and BJOT. JCR IF, EFS, JCR AIS, SNIP, Citescore, SJR score and SJR IIF were all significantly correlated with coefficients ranging from 0.751 to 0.961 (p < 0.05; p < 0.01). The calculated SJR IIF was on average 0.335 larger than the JCR IFs reported. The findings indicate that the range of available bibliometric measures should be used collectively to yield a more comprehensive assessment of journal and article rankings rather than the singular use of IF scores that currently and frequently occurs in many jurisdictions.

Is Qualitative Research Second Class Science? A Quantitative Longitudinal Examination of Qualitative Research in Medical Journals

PubMed Central

Shuval, Kerem; Harker, Karen; Roudsari, Bahman; Groce, Nora E.; Mills, Britain; Siddiqi, Zoveen; Shachak, Aviv

2011-01-01

Background Qualitative research appears to be gaining acceptability in medical journals. Yet, little is actually known about the proportion of qualitative research and factors affecting its publication. This study describes the proportion of qualitative research over a 10 year period and correlates associated with its publication. Design A quantitative longitudinal examination of the proportion of original qualitative research in 67 journals of general medicine during a 10 year period (1998–2007). The proportion of qualitative research was determined by dividing original qualitative studies published (numerator) by all original research articles published (denominator). We used a generalized estimating equations approach to assess the longitudinal association between the proportion of qualitative studies and independent variables (i.e. journals' country of publication and impact factor; editorial/methodological papers discussing qualitative research; and specific journal guidelines pertaining to qualitative research). Findings A 2.9% absolute increase and 3.4-fold relative increase in qualitative research publications occurred over a 10 year period (1.2% in 1998 vs. 4.1% in 2007). The proportion of original qualitative research was independently and significantly associated with the publication of editorial/methodological papers in the journal (b = 3.688, P = 0.012); and with qualitative research specifically mentioned in guidelines for authors (b = 6.847, P<0.001). Additionally, a higher proportion of qualitative research was associated only with journals published in the UK in comparison to other countries, yet with borderline statistical significance (b = 1.776, P = 0.075). The journals' impact factor was not associated with the publication of qualitative research. Conclusions Despite an increase in the proportion of qualitative research in medical journals over a 10 year period, the proportion remains low. Journals' policies pertaining to qualitative research, as expressed by the appearance of specific guidelines and editorials/methodological papers on the subject, are independently associated with the publication of original qualitative research; irrespective of the journals' impact factor. PMID:21383987

Eigenfactor score and alternative bibliometrics surpass the impact factor in a 2-years ahead annual-citation calculation: a linear mixed design model analysis of Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Medical Imaging journals.

PubMed

Roldan-Valadez, Ernesto; Orbe-Arteaga, Ulises; Rios, Camilo

2018-03-05

Because we believe the journal selection before a manuscript submission deserves further investigation in each medical specialty, we aimed to evaluate the predictive ability of seven bibliometrics in the Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Medical Imaging category of the Web of Knowledge to calculate total citations over a 7-year period. A linear mixed effects design using random slopes and intercepts were performed on bibliometrics corresponding to 124 journals from 2007 to 2011, with their corresponding citations from 2009 to 2013, which appeared in the Journal Citations Report Science Edition. The Eigenfactor Score, Article Influence Score, Cited Half-life, 5-years impact factor and Number of Articles are significant predictors of 2-year-ahead total citations (p ≤ 0.010 for all variables). The impact factor and Immediacy Index are not significant predictors. There was a significant global effect size (R 2  = 0.934; p < 0.001), which yielded a total variance of 93.4%. Our findings support researchers' decision to stop the misuse of IF alone to evaluate journals. Radiologists and other researchers should review journal's bibliometrics for their decision-making during the manuscript submission phase. A re-ranking of journals using Eigenfactor Score, Article Influence Score, and Cited Half-life provides a better assessment of their significance and importance in particular disciplines.

An overview and analysis of journal operations, journal publication patterns, and journal impact in school psychology and related fields.

PubMed

Floyd, Randy G; Cooley, Kathryn M; Arnett, James E; Fagan, Thomas K; Mercer, Sterett H; Hingle, Christine

2011-12-01

This article describes the results of three studies designed to understand better the journal operations, publishing practices, and impact of school psychology journals in recent years. The first study presents the results of a survey focusing on journal operations and peer-review practices that was completed by 61 journal editors of school psychology and aligned journals. The second study presents the results of review and classification of all articles appearing in one volume year for nine school psychology journals (i.e., The California School Psychologist, Canadian Journal of School Psychology, Journal of Applied School Psychology, Journal of School Psychology, Psychology in the Schools, School Psychology Forum, School Psychology International, School Psychology Quarterly, and School Psychology Review). The third study employed multilevel modeling to investigate differences in the longitudinal trends of impact factor data for five school psychology journals listed in the Web of Science (i.e., Journal of School Psychology, Psychology in the Schools, School Psychology International, School Psychology Quarterly, and School Psychology Review). The article addresses implications for authors, editors, and journal editorial teams as well as the status and impact of school psychology journals. Copyright © 2011 Society for the Study of School Psychology. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Trends in authorship based on gender and nationality in published neuroscience literature.

PubMed

Dubey, Divyanshu; Sawhney, Anshudha; Atluru, Aparna; Amritphale, Amod; Dubey, Archana; Trivedi, Jaya

2016-01-01

To evaluate the disparity in authorship based on gender and nationality of institutional affiliation among journals from developed and developing countries. Original articles from two neuroscience journals, with a 5 year impact factor >15 (Neuron and Nature Neuroscience) and from two neurology journals from a developing country (Neurology India and Annals of Indian Academy of Neurology) were categorized by gender and institutional affiliation of first and senior authors. Articles were further divided by the type of research (basic/translational/clinical), study/target population (adult/pediatrics/both) and field of neurology. Data was collected for the years 2002 and 2012. There are large disparities in authorship by women and from developing countries in high impact factor neuroscience journals. However, there was a non-statistical rise in female first and senior authorship over a 10 year period. Additionally there was a significant increase in first authorship from institutions based in developing countries in the two neuroscience journals examined (P < 0.05). In the two neurology journals based in India there was a significant increase in the number of articles published by international investigators between 2002 and 2012 (P < 0.05). Over the last decade, there has been a non-statistical increase in proportion of female first and senior authors, and a significant increase in authors from developing countries in high impact factor neuroscience journals. However they continue to constitute a minority. The disparity in authorship based on gender also exists in neurology journals based in a developing country (India).

The rapid internationalization of Annals of Pediatric Endocrinology & Metabolism as evidenced by journal metrics.

PubMed

Huh, Sun

2017-06-01

Using journal metrics, this paper explores whether Annals of Pediatric Endocrinology & Metabolism has internationalized 4 years after changing its language to English only. From the journal's website and the Web of Science Core Collection, the following metrics were counted or calculated: Number of citable articles, countries of authors and editorial board members, total citations, impact factor, countries of citing authors, citing journal titles, and Hirsch index. From 2012 to 2017, 208 articles were citable. The authors had affiliations in 7 countries and the editorial board members in 14 countries. From 2014 to 2017, the total citations each year were 8, 81, 141, and 61; and the impact factors from 2014 to 2016 were calculated as 0.05, 0.987, and 1.165. The citing authors were from 60 countries, among which the United States, China, South Korea, Italy, and Germany were most common. The journal was cited by 215 journal titles. The Hirsch index was 7. These journal metrics showed that the journal achieved international status 4 years after changing the journals' language into English only. The journal's language policy successfully enabled the journal to rebrand as an international journal.

The rapid internationalization of Annals of Pediatric Endocrinology & Metabolism as evidenced by journal metrics

PubMed Central

2017-01-01

Purpose Using journal metrics, this paper explores whether Annals of Pediatric Endocrinology & Metabolism has internationalized 4 years after changing its language to English only. Methods From the journal's website and the Web of Science Core Collection, the following metrics were counted or calculated: Number of citable articles, countries of authors and editorial board members, total citations, impact factor, countries of citing authors, citing journal titles, and Hirsch index. Results From 2012 to 2017, 208 articles were citable. The authors had affiliations in 7 countries and the editorial board members in 14 countries. From 2014 to 2017, the total citations each year were 8, 81, 141, and 61; and the impact factors from 2014 to 2016 were calculated as 0.05, 0.987, and 1.165. The citing authors were from 60 countries, among which the United States, China, South Korea, Italy, and Germany were most common. The journal was cited by 215 journal titles. The Hirsch index was 7. Conclusion These journal metrics showed that the journal achieved international status 4 years after changing the journals' language into English only. The journal's language policy successfully enabled the journal to rebrand as an international journal. PMID:28690984

[Bibliometric analysis of publications by the Mexican Social Security Institute staff].

PubMed

Valdez-Martínez, E; Garduño-Espinosa, J; Gómez-Delgado, A; Dante Amato-Martínez, J; Morales-Mori, L; Blanco-Favela, F; Muñoz-Hernández, O

2000-01-01

To describe and analyze the general characteristics and methodology of indexed publications by the health staff of the Mexican Social Security Institute in 1997. Original articles were evaluated. The primary sources included Index Medicus, Current Contents and the Mexican National Council of Science and Technology (CONACYT) index. The following information was gathered for each article: affiliation and chief activity of the first author; impact factor of the journal; research type; field of study; topic of study, and methodological conduction. This latter point included congruence between design and objective, reproducibility of methods, applicability of the analysis, and pertinence of the conclusions. A total of 300 original articles was published of which 212 (71%) were available for the present study: full-time investigators (FTI) generated 109 articles and investigators with clinical activities (CAI) wrote 103 articles. The median impact factor of the journals in which FTI published was 1.337 (0.341 to 37.297) and for CAI publications, 0.707 (0.400 to 4.237). Biomedical research predominated in the first group (41%) and clinical investigation in the second (66%). Statistically significant differences were identified for the methodological conduction between groups of investigators. Descriptive studies and publications in journals without impact factor predominated. The FTI group had the highest bibliographic production of original articles in indexed journals with an impact factor.

A longitudinal analysis of bibliometric and impact factor trends among the core international journals of nursing, 1977-2008.

PubMed

Smith, Derek R

2010-12-01

Although bibliometric analysis affords significant insight into the progression and distribution of information within a particular research field, detailed longitudinal studies of this type are rare within the field of nursing. This study aimed to investigate, from a bibliometric perspective, the progression and trends of core international nursing journals over the longest possible time period. A detailed bibliometric analysis was undertaken among 7 core international nursing periodicals using custom historical data sourced from the Thomson Reuters Journal Citation Reports®. In the 32 years between 1977 and 2008, the number of citations received by these 7 journals increased over 700%. A sustained and statistically significant (p<0.001) 3-fold increase was also observed in the average impact factor score during this period. Statistical analysis revealed that all periodicals experienced significant (p<0.001) improvements in their impact factors over time, with gains ranging from approximately 2- to 78-fold. Overall, this study provides one of the most comprehensive, longitudinal bibliometric analyses ever conducted in the field of nursing. Impressive and continual impact factor gains suggest that published nursing research is being increasingly seen, heard and cited in the international academic community. Copyright © 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Analysis of self-citation and impact factor in dermatology journals.

PubMed

Reiter, Ofer; Mimouni, Michael; Mimouni, Daniel

2016-09-01

Concerns have been raised regarding the impact factor's (IF) accuracy and credibility, which may be affected by different factors, including self-citations. To investigate the self-citation rate (SCR) of dermatology journals and its relationship to the IF. Data on all dermatology journals listed in the Journal Citation Reports (JCR) were retrieved, and the following parameters were analyzed: IF, total publications used to calculate the IF, total citations used to calculate the IF, self-citations used to calculate the IF, SCR, and IF without self-citations (corrected IF). The median SCR was 10.53% (0-50%), and the median IF and corrected IF, 1.54 (0.05-6.37) and 1.35 (0.03-5.84), respectively. There was an inverse correlation between the IF and the SCR. A statistically significant difference was noted in the SCR between general and subspecialty journals and between journals that offered a full English text and those that did not. In general, the IF of dermatology journals is not influenced by the SCR. However, journals with a lower IF tend to have a higher SCR. Subspecialty journals and foreign language journals have a higher SCR than general dermatology and English language journals, respectively, probably owing to their limited distribution and the difficulty experienced by international authors in accessing references in specific languages. © 2015 The International Society of Dermatology.

I Publish in I Edit? - Do Editorial Board Members of Urologic Journals Preferentially Publish Their Own Scientific Work?

PubMed Central

Mani, Jens; Makarević, Jasmina; Juengel, Eva; Ackermann, Hanns; Nelson, Karen; Bartsch, Georg

2013-01-01

Scientists who are members of an editorial board have been accused of preferentially publishing their scientific work in the journal where they serve as editor. Reputation and academic standing do depend on an uninterrupted flow of published scientific work and the question does arise as to whether publication mainly occurs in the self-edited journal. This investigation was designed to determine whether editorial board members of five urological journals were more likely to publish their research reports in their own rather than in other journals. A retrospective analysis was conducted for all original reports published from 2001–2010 by 65 editorial board members nominated to the boards of five impact leading urologic journals in 2006. Publications before editorial board membership, 2001–2005, and publications within the period of time as an editorial board member, 2006–2010, were identified. The impact factors of the journals were also recorded over the time period 2001–2010 to see whether a change in impact factor correlated with publication locality. In the five journals as a whole, scientific work was not preferentially published in the journal in which the scientists served as editor. However, significant heterogeneity among the journals was evident. One journal showed a significant increase in the amount of published papers in the ‘own’ journal after assumption of editorship, three journals showed no change and one journal showed a highly significant decrease in publishing in the ‘own’ journal after assumption of editorship. PMID:24386258

Orthopedics research output from China, USA, UK, Japan, Germany and France: A 10-year survey of the literature.

PubMed

Xin, Z; Jin, C; Zhengrong, G; Liehu, C; Weizong, W; Quan, L; Xiao, C; Jiacan, S

2016-11-01

In the past decade, researchers have made great progress in the field of Orthopedics. However, the research status of different countries is unclear. To summarize the number of published articles, we assessed the cumulative impact factors in top orthopedic journals. The aims of the study were to measure: 1) the quality and quantity of publications in orthopedics-related journals from China and other five counties, 2) the trend of the number of publications in orthopedics-related journals. The related journals were selected based on the 2014 scientific citation index (SCI) and articles were searched based on the PubMed database. To assess the quantity and quality of research output, the number of publications including clinical trials, randomized controlled trials, meta-analyses, case reports, reviews, citations, impact factors, number of articles in the top 10 journals and most popular journals were recorded. A total of 143,138 orthopedics articles were published from 2005 to 2014. The USA accounts for 24.9% (35,763/143,138) of the publications, followed by UK (7878/143,138 (5.5%)), Japan (7133/143,138 (5.0%)), Germany (5942/143,138 (4.2%)), China (4143/143,138 (2.9%)) and France (2748/143,138 (1.9%)). The ranking for accumulated impact factors as follows: USA, UK, Japan, Germany, France and China. The mean impact factor's order is USA, China, Germany, Japan, France, UK, and interestingly the mean impact factors in Japan is similar to the Germany in 2005-2014. The USA had the highest percentage of articles in the top 10 journals, while China owns the least. The USA had the highest number of average citations, while Japan had lowest number of average citations. According to this study, we can conclude that the USA has had been leading the orthopedics research in the past 10 years. Although China still falls behind, it has made considerable progress in the orthopedics research, not only in quantity but also quality. IV. Copyright © 2016. Published by Elsevier Masson SAS.

Peer assessment of journal quality in clinical neurology

PubMed Central

Yue, Weiping; Wilson, Concepción S.; Boller, Francois

2007-01-01

Objective: To explore journal quality as perceived by clinicians and researchers in clinical neurology. Methods: A survey was conducted from August 2003 to January 2004. Ratings for 41 selected clinical neurology journals were obtained from 254 members of the World Federation of Neurology (1,500 solicited; response rate 17%). Participants provided demographic information and rated each journal on a 5-point Likert scale. Average ratings for all journals were compared with the ISI's journal impact factors. Ratings for each journal were also compared across geographic regions and respondent publication productivity. Results: The top 5 journals were rated much more highly than the others, with mean ratings greater than 4. Mean journal ratings were highly correlated with journal impact factors (r = 0.67). Most of the top 10 journal ratings were consistent across the subgroups of geographic regions and journal paper productivity. However, significant differences among the different geographical regions and respondent productivity groups were also found for a few journals. Conclusions: The results provide valuable insight on how neurological experts perceive journals in clinical neurology. These results will likely aid researchers and clinicians in identifying potentially desirable research outlets and indicate journal status for editors. Likewise, biomedical librarians may use these results for serials collection development. PMID:17252069

Some Determinants of Journal Holding Patterns in Academic Libraries.

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

McCain, Katherine W.

1992-01-01

Reports results of a study that examined academic library holdings for core journals in genetics and economics to identify quantitative and qualitative journal characteristics that are predictors of the number of libraries subscribing to the journal. Variables investigated include subject area, publisher, price, longevity, impact factor, prestige…

Citation analysis of mental health nursing journals: how should we rank thee?

PubMed

Hunt, Glenn E; Happell, Brenda; Chan, Sally W-C; Cleary, Michelle

2012-12-01

The journal impact factor (JIF), and how best to rate the performance of a journal and the articles they contain, are areas of great debate. The aim of this paper was to assess various ranking methods of journal quality for mental health nursing journals, and to list the top 10 articles that have received the most number of citations to date. Seven mental health nursing journals were chosen for the analysis of citations they received in 2010, as well as their current impact factors from two sources, and other data for ranking purposes. There was very little difference in the top four mental health nursing journals and their overall rankings when combining various bibliometric indicators. That said, the International Journal of Mental Health Nursing is currently the highest ranked mental health nursing journal based on JIF, but publishes fewer articles per year compared to other journals. Overall, very few articles received 50 or more citations. This study shows that researchers need to consider more than one ranking method when deciding where to send or publish their research. © 2012 The Authors. International Journal of Mental Health Nursing © 2012 Australian College of Mental Health Nurses Inc.

Methodological reporting of randomized clinical trials in respiratory research in 2010.

PubMed

Lu, Yi; Yao, Qiuju; Gu, Jie; Shen, Ce

2013-09-01

Although randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are considered the highest level of evidence, they are also subject to bias, due to a lack of adequately reported randomization, and therefore the reporting should be as explicit as possible for readers to determine the significance of the contents. We evaluated the methodological quality of RCTs in respiratory research in high ranking clinical journals, published in 2010. We assessed the methodological quality, including generation of the allocation sequence, allocation concealment, double-blinding, sample-size calculation, intention-to-treat analysis, flow diagrams, number of medical centers involved, diseases, funding sources, types of interventions, trial registration, number of times the papers have been cited, journal impact factor, journal type, and journal endorsement of the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) rules, in RCTs published in 12 top ranking clinical respiratory journals and 5 top ranking general medical journals. We included 176 trials, of which 93 (53%) reported adequate generation of the allocation sequence, 66 (38%) reported adequate allocation concealment, 79 (45%) were double-blind, 123 (70%) reported adequate sample-size calculation, 88 (50%) reported intention-to-treat analysis, and 122 (69%) included a flow diagram. Multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that journal impact factor ≥ 5 was the only variable that significantly influenced adequate allocation sequence generation. Trial registration and journal impact factor ≥ 5 significantly influenced adequate allocation concealment. Medical interventions, trial registration, and journal endorsement of the CONSORT statement influenced adequate double-blinding. Publication in one of the general medical journal influenced adequate sample-size calculation. The methodological quality of RCTs in respiratory research needs improvement. Stricter enforcement of the CONSORT statement should enhance the quality of RCTs.

Marketing data: Has the rise of impact factor led to the fall of objective language in the scientific article?

PubMed Central

Fraser, Véronique J; Martin, James G

2009-01-01

The language of science should be objective and detached and should place data in the appropriate context. The aim of this commentary was to explore the notion that recent trends in the use of language have led to a loss of objectivity in the presentation of scientific data. The relationship between the value-laden vocabulary and impact factor among fundamental biomedical research and clinical journals has been explored. It appears that fundamental research journals of high impact factors have experienced a rise in value-laden terms in the past 25 years. PMID:19432970

[Analysis of the academic level and impact of ophthalmological periodicals in China].

PubMed

Xu, Xiao-quan; Mao, Wen-ming; Zheng, Jun-hai; Qu, Jia

2009-04-01

To analyse the whole level and impact of ophthalmological periodicals in China. It was studied by using bibliometrics analysis method. According to the data of CAJCCR in 2002 to 2007 and Chinese Citation Database in 2001 to 2007. The impact factor (IF), non-self-citing impact factor, total cited frequency, cited articles, immediacy index, rate of fund papers, web immediacy download rate, average value of h index were analysed and the non-self-citing rate, h(2)/n, high cited articles were calculated. In addition, the results of cited by cole databases at home and abroad. The average value of IF and cited frequency of 13 kinds of ophthalmological periodicals were 0.3940 and 657 respectively in 2001 to 2006, which were higher than that of D part of CAJCCR. The periodicals which the five indexes of IF, non-self-citing impact factor, total cited frequency, the non-self-citing rate, immediacy index, rate of fund papers, web immediacy download rate, average value of h index and h(2)/n, high cited articles were Top 5 and cited by five or more than five kinds of the cole databases at home and abroad were Chinese Journal of Ophthalmology, Chinese Journal of Ocular Fundus Diseases, Practical Chinese Journal of Ophthalmology and Chinese Journal of Optometry & Ophthalmology. Most of indexes of Chinese Journal of Ophthalmology were the first. There are big difference between the 13 kinds of ophthalmological periodicals. The qualities of some ophthalmological periodicals should be improved.

Is there publication bias towards brazilian articles on cancer?

PubMed Central

Loureiro, Luiz Victor Maia; Callegaro, Donato; Rocha, Altieres de Arruda; Prado, Bernard Lobato; Mutão, Taciana Sousa; Donnarumma, Carlos del Cistia; del Giglio, Auro

2013-01-01

ABSTRACT Objective: To investigate whether Brazilian articles on cancer are published in journals with an impact factor and/or repercussion (measured by the number of citations) inferior to those that come from foreign organizations. Methods: A search was carried out in PubMed for the MeSH term “neoplasm” with the limits clinical trial, affiliation of the Brazilian author(s), and interval from July 1st, 2009 to June 30, 2010. Selected for matching were non-Brazilian related articles published from three months prior to three months after the date of publication of the Brazilian study. The numbers of citations were obtained from two databases, as well as the impact factor for the journals in which the articles were published. Results: Fortythree national and 876 related international articles were identified. The Brazilian publications had a mean impact factor of 3.000 versus 3.430 of the international ones (p=0.041). There was no statistically significant difference as to the number of citations between the two groups. The affiliation of the first author with a Brazilian or foreign organization did not significantly influence the number of citations or the impact factor. Conclusion: Brazilian articles are significantly less accepted in journals with higher impact factors, although it does not compromise its repercussion on the scientific community. PMID:23579739

Journal Impact Factor: Do the Numerator and Denominator Need Correction?

PubMed Central

Liu, Xue-Li; Gai, Shuang-Shuang; Zhou, Jing

2016-01-01

To correct the incongruence of document types between the numerator and denominator in the traditional impact factor (IF), we make a corresponding adjustment to its formula and present five corrective IFs: IFTotal/Total, IFTotal/AREL, IFAR/AR, IFAREL/AR, and IFAREL/AREL. Based on a survey of researchers in the fields of ophthalmology and mathematics, we obtained the real impact ranking of sample journals in the minds of peer experts. The correlations between various IFs and questionnaire score were analyzed to verify their journal evaluation effects. The results show that it is scientific and reasonable to use five corrective IFs for journal evaluation for both ophthalmology and mathematics. For ophthalmology, the journal evaluation effects of the five corrective IFs are superior than those of traditional IF: the corrective effect of IFAR/AR is the best, IFAREL/AR is better than IFTotal/Total, followed by IFTotal/AREL, and IFAREL/AREL. For mathematics, the journal evaluation effect of traditional IF is superior than those of the five corrective IFs: the corrective effect of IFTotal/Total is best, IFAREL/AR is better than IFTotal/AREL and IFAREL/AREL, and the corrective effect of IFAR/AR is the worst. In conclusion, not all disciplinary journal IF need correction. The results in the current paper show that to correct the IF of ophthalmologic journals may be valuable, but it seems to be meaningless for mathematic journals. PMID:26977697

Relationship between Journal-Ranking Metrics for a Multidisciplinary Set of Journals

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Perera, Upeksha; Wijewickrema, Manjula

2018-01-01

Ranking of scholarly journals is important to many parties. Studying the relationships among various ranking metrics is key to understanding the significance of one metric based on another. This research investigates the relationship among four major journal-ranking indicators: the impact factor (IF), the Eigenfactor score (ES), the "h."…

Assessing Journal Quality in Mathematics Education

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Nivens, Ryan Andrew; Otten, Samuel

2017-01-01

In this Research Commentary, we describe 3 journal metrics--the Web of Science's Impact Factor, Scopus's SCImago Journal Rank, and Google Scholar Metrics' h5-index--and compile the rankings (if they exist) for 69 mathematics education journals. We then discuss 2 paths that the mathematics education community should consider with regard to these…

AGU Publications Continue to Rank High in 2012 Journal Citation Reports

NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

Warner, Mary

2013-07-01

AGU journals continue to rank high in the 2012 Journal Citation Reports® (JCR), which was released by Thomson Reuters on 19 June. The impact factor of several AGU journals increased significantly, continuing their trend of the previous 5 years, while others remained consistent with the previous year's ranking.

Comparison Between Impact Factor, Eigenfactor Metrics, and SCimago Journal Rank Indicator of Pediatric Neurology Journals.

PubMed

Kianifar, Hamidreza; Sadeghi, Ramin; Zarifmahmoudi, Leili

2014-04-01

Impact Factor (IF) as a major journal quality indicator has a series of shortcomings including effect of self-citation, review articles, total number of articles, etc. In this study, we compared 4 journals quality indices ((IF), Eigenfactor Score (ES), Article Influence Score (AIS) and SCImago Journal Rank indicator (SJR)) in the specific Pediatric Neurology journals. All ISI and Scopus indexed specific Pediatric Neurology journals were compared regarding their 2011 IF, ES, AIS and SJR. Fourteen pediatric Neurology journals were identified, 3 of which were only Scopus indexed and the others were both ISI and Scopus indexed. High correlation was found between IF and AIS (0.850). Correlations between IF and other indices were not that high. Self-citation, total article number and review articles were related to the IF and other indices as well as their ranks. English language and citation to non citable item didn't have any effect on pediatric neurology journals ranks. Although all the above mentioned indicators can be used interchangeably, using all considered indices is a more appropriate way than using only IF for quality assessment of pediatric neurology journals.

Comparison Between Impact Factor, Eigenfactor Metrics, and SCimago Journal Rank Indicator of Pediatric Neurology Journals

PubMed Central

Kianifar, Hamidreza; Sadeghi, Ramin; Zarifmahmoudi, Leili

2014-01-01

Background: Impact Factor (IF) as a major journal quality indicator has a series of shortcomings including effect of self-citation, review articles, total number of articles, etc. In this study, we compared 4 journals quality indices ((IF), Eigenfactor Score (ES), Article Influence Score (AIS) and SCImago Journal Rank indicator (SJR)) in the specific Pediatric Neurology journals. Methods: All ISI and Scopus indexed specific Pediatric Neurology journals were compared regarding their 2011 IF, ES, AIS and SJR. Results: Fourteen pediatric Neurology journals were identified, 3 of which were only Scopus indexed and the others were both ISI and Scopus indexed. High correlation was found between IF and AIS (0.850). Correlations between IF and other indices were not that high. Self-citation, total article number and review articles were related to the IF and other indices as well as their ranks. English language and citation to non citable item didn’t have any effect on pediatric neurology journals ranks. Conclusion: Although all the above mentioned indicators can be used interchangeably, using all considered indices is a more appropriate way than using only IF for quality assessment of pediatric neurology journals. PMID:24825934

Community pharmacy based research activity in India: A bibliometric study of the past ten years.

PubMed

Basak, Subal Chandra; Sathyanarayana, Dondeti

2010-02-01

The objective of this study was to analyze and record the published evidence regarding community pharmacy practice in India during the past decade (1998-2008). A bibliometric review analysis of the original papers was undertaken to assess the different aspects of community pharmacy practice in India. The MEDLINE, Index Copernicus, IndMed, DOAJ databases and the journals such as Indian Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences and Indian Journal of Hospital Pharmacy were used as data sources. Type of papers, type of journals, category of papers, production indicators and impact factor of the journals were analyzed. Thirty papers were included in the study. The papers were published in 13 different journals, 33.3% of them being in the Indian Journal of Hospital Pharmacy. The average number of authors per paper was 2.73 (SD=1.41). Impact factor was available for only three journals. There are limited studies being published in India which cover the community pharmacy related activities in India. The key indicators which emerge from the literature review present some fundamental challenges to the development of the role of the community pharmacist in India.

Comparison of Journal Self-Citation Rates between Some Chinese and Non-Chinese International Journals

PubMed Central

Yang, Zu-Guo; Gao, Feng; Zhang, Chun-Ting

2012-01-01

Background The past 3 decades have witnessed a boost in science development in China; in parallel, more and more Chinese scientific journals are indexed by the Journal Citation Reports issued by Thomson Reuters (SCI). Evaluation of the performance of these Chinese SCI journals is necessary and helpful to improve their quality. This study aimed to evaluate these journals by calculating various journal self-citation rates, which are important parameters influencing a journal impact factor. Methodology/Principal Findings We defined three journal self-citation rates, and studied these rates for 99 Chinese scientific journals, almost exhausting all Chinese SCI journals currently available. Likewise, we selected 99 non-Chinese international (abbreviated as ‘world’) journals, with each being in the same JCR subject category and having similar impact factors as their Chinese counterparts. Generally, Chinese journals tended to be higher in all the three self-citation rates than world journal counterparts. Particularly, a few Chinese scientific journals had much higher self-citation rates. Conclusions/Significance Our results show that generally Chinese scientific journals have higher self-citation rates than those of world journals. Consequently, Chinese scientific journals tend to have lower visibility and are more isolated in the relevant fields. Considering the fact that sciences are rapidly developing in China and so are Chinese scientific journals, we expect that the differences of journal self-citation rates between Chinese and world scientific journals will gradually disappear in the future. Some suggestions to solve the problems are presented. PMID:23173041

Update on the endorsement of CONSORT by high impact factor journals: a survey of journal "Instructions to Authors" in 2014.

PubMed

Shamseer, Larissa; Hopewell, Sally; Altman, Douglas G; Moher, David; Schulz, Kenneth F

2016-06-24

The CONsolidated Standards Of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) Statement provides a minimum standard set of items to be reported in published clinical trials; it has received widespread recognition within the biomedical publishing community. This research aims to provide an update on the endorsement of CONSORT by high impact medical journals. We performed a cross-sectional examination of the online "Instructions to Authors" of 168 high impact factor (2012) biomedical journals between July and December 2014. We assessed whether the text of the "Instructions to Authors" mentioned the CONSORT Statement and any CONSORT extensions, and we quantified the extent and nature of the journals' endorsements of these. These data were described by frequencies. We also determined whether journals mentioned trial registration and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE; other than in regards to trial registration) and whether either of these was associated with CONSORT endorsement (relative risk and 95 % confidence interval). We compared our findings to the two previous iterations of this survey (in 2003 and 2007). We also identified the publishers of the included journals. Sixty-three percent (106/168) of the included journals mentioned CONSORT in their "Instructions to Authors." Forty-four endorsers (42 %) explicitly stated that authors "must" use CONSORT to prepare their trial manuscript, 38 % required an accompanying completed CONSORT checklist as a condition of submission, and 39 % explicitly requested the inclusion of a flow diagram with the submission. CONSORT extensions were endorsed by very few journals. One hundred and thirty journals (77 %) mentioned ICMJE, and 106 (63 %) mentioned trial registration. The endorsement of CONSORT by high impact journals has increased over time; however, specific instructions on how CONSORT should be used by authors are inconsistent across journals and publishers. Publishers and journals should encourage authors to use CONSORT and set clear expectations for authors about compliance with CONSORT.

Support Science by Publishing in Scientific Society Journals.

PubMed

Schloss, Patrick D; Johnston, Mark; Casadevall, Arturo

2017-09-26

Scientific societies provide numerous services to the scientific enterprise, including convening meetings, publishing journals, developing scientific programs, advocating for science, promoting education, providing cohesion and direction for the discipline, and more. For most scientific societies, publishing provides revenues that support these important activities. In recent decades, the proportion of papers on microbiology published in scientific society journals has declined. This is largely due to two competing pressures: authors' drive to publish in "glam journals"-those with high journal impact factors-and the availability of "mega journals," which offer speedy publication of articles regardless of their potential impact. The decline in submissions to scientific society journals and the lack of enthusiasm on the part of many scientists to publish in them should be matters of serious concern to all scientists because they impact the service that scientific societies can provide to their members and to science. Copyright © 2017 Schloss et al.

A Citation Analysis of Western Journals Cited in Taiwan's Library and Information Science and History Research Journals: From a Research Evaluation Perspective

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Huang, Mu-Hsuan; Lin, Chi-Shiou

2011-01-01

This article examines citations of Western journals in eight LIS journals and six history journals published in Taiwan. The findings show that both the Western journals' impact factor values and whether they are included in JCR may not necessarily indicate their real use in Taiwan's LIS and history research--especially in history research.…

Scientific publications in nursing journals from Mainland China, Taiwan, and Hong Kong: a 10-year survey of the literature.

PubMed

Zhang, Di; Wang, Xiaming; Yuan, Xueru; Yang, Li; Xue, Yu; Xie, Qian

2016-01-01

China has witnessed remarkable progress in scientific performance in recent years. However, the quantity and quality of nursing publications from three major regions (Mainland China, Taiwan, and Hong Kong) have not been reported. This study aimed to investigate the characteristics of scientific research productivity from Mainland China, Taiwan, and Hong Kong in the field of nursing. Articles published in the 110 nursing journals originating from Mainland China, Taiwan, and Hong Kong between 2005 and 2014 were retrieved from the Web of Science. The total number of articles published, the impact factor, and the citation count were analyzed. There were 2,439 publications between 2005 and 2014 from China, including 438 from Mainland China, 1,506 from Taiwan, and 495 from Hong Kong. There was a significant increase in publications for these three regions (p < 0.05), especially for Mainland China, with a 59.50-fold increase experienced. From 2011, the number of publications from Mainland China exceeded that from Hong Kong. Taiwan had the highest total journal impact factor (2,142.81), followed by Hong Kong (720.39) and Mainland China (583.94). The mean journal impact factor from Hong Kong (1.46) was higher than that from Taiwan (1.42) and Mainland China (1.33). Taiwan had the highest total citation count (8,392), followed by Hong Kong (3,785) and Mainland China (1,493). The mean citation count from Hong Kong (7.65) was higher than that from Taiwan (5.57) and Mainland China (3.41). The Journal of Clinical Nursing was the most popular journal in the three regions. Chinese contributions to the field of nursing have significantly increased in the past ten years, particularly from Mainland China. Taiwan is the most productive region in China. Hong Kong had the highest-quality research output, according to mean journal impact factor and mean citation count.

Inappropriate use of standard error of the mean when reporting variability of study samples: a critical evaluation of four selected journals of obstetrics and gynecology.

PubMed

Ko, Wen-Ru; Hung, Wei-Te; Chang, Hui-Chin; Lin, Long-Yau

2014-03-01

The study was designed to investigate the frequency of misusing standard error of the mean (SEM) in place of standard deviation (SD) to describe study samples in four selected journals published in 2011. Citation counts of articles and the relationship between the misuse rate and impact factor, immediacy index, or cited half-life were also evaluated. All original articles in the four selected journals published in 2011 were searched for descriptive statistics reporting with either mean ± SD or mean ± SEM. The impact factor, immediacy index, and cited half-life of the journals were gathered from Journal Citation Reports Science edition 2011. Scopus was used to search for citations of individual articles. The difference in citation counts between the SD group and SEM group was tested by the Mann-Whitney U test. The relationship between the misuse rate and impact factor, immediacy index, or cited half-life was also evaluated. The frequency of inappropriate reporting of SEM was 13.60% for all four journals. For individual journals, the misuse rate was from 2.9% in Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica to 22.68% in American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology. Articles using SEM were cited more frequently than those using SD (p = 0.025). An approximate positive correlation between the misuse rate and cited half-life was observed. Inappropriate reporting of SEM is common in medical journals. Authors of biomedical papers should be responsible for maintaining an integrated statistical presentation because valuable articles are in danger of being wasted through the misuse of statistics. Copyright © 2014. Published by Elsevier B.V.

[The impact of the annual scientific meetings of the Israel Society of Rheumatology as measured by publication rates of the abstracts in peer-reviewed journals].

PubMed

Perez, Shira; Hashkes, Philip J; Uziel, Yosef

2004-04-01

We aimed to examine the impact and quality of the research presented in the Israel Society of Rheumatology (ISR) annual scientific meetings by measuring publication rates of the abstracts in peer-reviewed journals and investigating the factors that influenced publication. We examined the outcome of all 79 abstracts submitted to the ISR for the 1998-2000 annual meetings. A MEDLINE search of all abstracts, by authors, topics and keywords was performed. Senior authors of abstracts not found to be published in this search were interviewed regarding publication and factors influencing submission. We described the effect of variable factors on the rate of publication. As of September 2002, 63 (80%) abstracts were published in peer-reviewed journals or are currently in-press. Most abstracts were published in prominent journals (with a high impact factor). The majority of the abstracts (61%) were published in rheumatologic journals, 65% of the studies originated from tertiary centers and 19% of the studies were multicenter. The most common diseases studied were antiphospholipid syndrome (20%), systemic lupus erythematosus (19%) and inflammatory arthritis (18%). Most of the studies were of disease pathogenesis (35%) and clinical manifestations (33%). The most common study designs were basic science (34%). An overall 57% of the studies reported "positive" results and 9% reported "negative" results. None of the factors studied were associated with publication or non-publication. The main cause cited by authors for not publishing their abstract was lack of time to prepare a full paper or a desire to further expand the study. Within this group of 16 authors of abstracts, 11 authors still plan to submit a paper. The ISR annual meetings have an important clinical scientific impact as measured by the high rate of abstracts published as full length articles in leading peer-reviewed journals.

Results from a Web Impact Factor Crawler.

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Thelwall, Mike

2001-01-01

Discusses Web impact factors (WIFs), Web versions of the impact factors for journals, and how they can be calculated by using search engines. Highlights include HTML and document indexing; Web page links; a Web crawler designed for calculating WIFs; and WIFs for United Kingdom universities that measured research profiles or capability. (Author/LRW)

The bibliometrics of atmospheric environment

NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

Brimblecombe, Peter; Grossi, Carlota M.

Bibliometric analysis is an important tool in the management of a journal. SCOPUS output is used to assess the increase in the quantity of material in Atmospheric Environment and stylistic changes in the way authors choose words and punctuation in titles and assemble their reference lists. Citation analysis is used to consider the impact factor of the journal, but perhaps more importantly the way in which it reflects the importance authors give to papers published in Atmospheric Environment. The impact factor of Atmospheric Environment (2.549 for 2007) from the Journal Citation Reports suggests it performs well within the atmospheric sciences, but it conceals the long term value authors place on papers appearing in the journal. Reference lists show that a fifth come through citing papers more than a decade old.

Tide or Tsunami? The Impact of Metrics on Scholarly Research

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Bonnell, Andrew G.

2016-01-01

Australian universities are increasingly resorting to the use of journal metrics such as impact factors and ranking lists in appraisal and promotion processes, and are starting to set quantitative "performance expectations" which make use of such journal-based metrics. The widespread use and misuse of research metrics is leading to…

Journal Impact Factors and Self-Citations: Implications for Psychology Journals

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Anseel, Frederik; Duyck, Wouter; De Baene, Wouter; Brysbaert, Marc

2004-01-01

Comments on the study by J. G. Adair and N. Vohra (see record 2003-02034-002) of changes in the number of references and citations in psychology journals as a consequence of the current knowledge explosion. They made a striking observation of the sometimes excessive number of self-citations in psychology journals. However, after this illustration,…

Trends in impact factors of ophthalmology journals.

PubMed

Vainer, Igor; Mimouni, Francis; Blumenthal, Eytan Z; Mimouni, Michael

2016-09-01

To test whether there is an association between the growth in the number of ophthalmic journals in the past years and their mean and maximum impact factor (IF) as a common sign of scientific proliferation. Using data from the 2013 Journal Citation Report database a study of the major clinical medical fields was conducted to assess the correlation between the number of journals and maximum IF in a given field in the year 2013. In the field of ophthalmology, we examined the correlation between year, number of journals, mean IF and maximum IF in the field of ophthalmology throughout the years 2000-2013. In the major medical fields, a positive correlation was found between the number of journals and the maximum IF (quadratic R2 = 0.71, P< 0.001). When studying the field of ophthalmology a positive correlation between the number of journals and mean IF (R2 = 0.84, P< 0.001) and between number of journals and maximum IF (R2 = 0.71, P< 0.001) was detected. Our findings suggest that the variation in the IF can be explained by the number of journals in the field of ophthalmology. In the future, the formation of additional ophthalmology journals is likely to further increase the IFs of existing journals.

Trends in impact factors of ophthalmology journals

PubMed Central

Vainer, Igor; Mimouni, Francis; Blumenthal, Eytan Z; Mimouni, Michael

2016-01-01

Purpose: To test whether there is an association between the growth in the number of ophthalmic journals in the past years and their mean and maximum impact factor (IF) as a common sign of scientific proliferation. Methods: Using data from the 2013 Journal Citation Report database a study of the major clinical medical fields was conducted to assess the correlation between the number of journals and maximum IF in a given field in the year 2013. In the field of ophthalmology, we examined the correlation between year, number of journals, mean IF and maximum IF in the field of ophthalmology throughout the years 2000–2013. Results: In the major medical fields, a positive correlation was found between the number of journals and the maximum IF (quadratic R2 = 0.71, P < 0.001). When studying the field of ophthalmology a positive correlation between the number of journals and mean IF (R2 = 0.84, P < 0.001) and between number of journals and maximum IF (R2 = 0.71, P < 0.001) was detected. Conclusions: Our findings suggest that the variation in the IF can be explained by the number of journals in the field of ophthalmology. In the future, the formation of additional ophthalmology journals is likely to further increase the IFs of existing journals. PMID:27853016

Self-citation rate and impact factor in the field of plastic and reconstructive surgery.

PubMed

Miyamoto, Shimpei

2018-02-01

Journal ranking based on the impact factor (IF) can be distorted by self-citation. The aim of this study is to investigate the present status of self-citation in the plastic surgery journals and its effect on the journals' IFs. IF, IF without self-citations (corrected IF), self-cited rate, and self-citing rate for 11 plastic surgery journals were investigated from 2009-2015, by reviewing the Journal Citation Report ® . The correlations of the IF with the self-cited rate and the self-citing rate were statistically assessed. In addition, Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery was compared with 15 top journals from other surgical specialties in 2015. IF was significantly correlated with the self-cited rate (R: 0.594, p = 0.001) and the self-citing rate (R: 0.824, p < 0.001). The self-cited rate of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery in 2015 was higher than that of top journals from other surgical specialties. The IFs of Microsurgery and Journal of Cranio-Maxillo-Facial Surgery increased greatly in recent years, but they were inflated by high self-cited and self-citing rates. The self-citation rate positively affects the IF in plastic surgery journals. A high concentration of self-citation of some journals could distort the ranking among plastic surgery journals in general.

Author Impact Factor: tracking the dynamics of individual scientific impact

NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

Pan, Raj Kumar; Fortunato, Santo

2014-05-01

The impact factor (IF) of scientific journals has acquired a major role in the evaluations of the output of scholars, departments and whole institutions. Typically papers appearing in journals with large values of the IF receive a high weight in such evaluations. However, at the end of the day one is interested in assessing the impact of individuals, rather than papers. Here we introduce Author Impact Factor (AIF), which is the extension of the IF to authors. The AIF of an author A in year t is the average number of citations given by papers published in year t to papers published by A in a period of Δt years before year t. Due to its intrinsic dynamic character, AIF is capable to capture trends and variations of the impact of the scientific output of scholars in time, unlike the h-index, which is a growing measure taking into account the whole career path.

A General Review of Factors Related to the Health Care Delivery Process: A Working Bibliography.

DTIC Science & Technology

1979-08-01

Brice, J. A., & Gonda, H. H. The impact of utilization on long- term patients. Hospital and Community Psychiatry, 1971, 22, 341-344. Galvin, M. E...incongruence: Consequences for health. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 1975, 16, 198-212. Coburn, D., & Pope, C. R. Socioeconomic status and...American Journal of Public Health, 1977, 67, 946-953. Phillips, L. Socioeconomic factors and mental health. American Journal ot Orthopsychiatry, 1967

The impact of article length on the number of future citations: a bibliometric analysis of general medicine journals.

PubMed

Falagas, Matthew E; Zarkali, Angeliki; Karageorgopoulos, Drosos E; Bardakas, Vangelis; Mavros, Michael N

2013-01-01

The number of citations received is considered an index of study quality and impact. We aimed to examine the factors associated with the number of citations of published articles, focusing on the article length. Original human studies published in the first trimester of 2006 in 5 major General Medicine journals were analyzed with regard to the number of authors and of author-affiliated institutions, title and abstract word count, article length (number of print pages), number of bibliographic references, study design, and 2006 journal impact factor (JIF). A multiple linear regression model was employed to identify the variables independently associated with the number of article citations received through January 2012. On univariate analysis the JIF, number of authors, article length, study design (interventional/observational and prospective/retrospective), title and abstract word count, number of author-affiliated institutions, and number of references were all associated with the number of citations received. On multivariate analysis with the logarithm of citations as the dependent variable, only article length [regression coefficient: 14.64 (95% confidence intervals: (5.76-23.50)] and JIF [3.37 (1.80-4.948)] independently predicted the number of citations. The variance of citations explained by these parameters was 51.2%. In a sample of articles published in major General Medicine journals, in addition to journal impact factors, article length and number of authors independently predicted the number of citations. This may reflect a higher complexity level and quality of longer and multi-authored studies.

Who cares about impact factor?

NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

Mariethoz, Gregoire; Karssenberg, Derek; Grana, Dario

2018-06-01

The Impact Factor of Computers & Geosciences has again increased this year. This is generally seen as a positive result - but should we be happy about it? Many people are involved in the life of a journal, and not all have the same interests or incentives. A metric like the Impact Factor is unlikely to mean the same thing for everyone.

Reproducible and reusable research: are journal data sharing policies meeting the mark?

PubMed

Vasilevsky, Nicole A; Minnier, Jessica; Haendel, Melissa A; Champieux, Robin E

2017-01-01

There is wide agreement in the biomedical research community that research data sharing is a primary ingredient for ensuring that science is more transparent and reproducible. Publishers could play an important role in facilitating and enforcing data sharing; however, many journals have not yet implemented data sharing policies and the requirements vary widely across journals. This study set out to analyze the pervasiveness and quality of data sharing policies in the biomedical literature. The online author's instructions and editorial policies for 318 biomedical journals were manually reviewed to analyze the journal's data sharing requirements and characteristics. The data sharing policies were ranked using a rubric to determine if data sharing was required, recommended, required only for omics data, or not addressed at all. The data sharing method and licensing recommendations were examined, as well any mention of reproducibility or similar concepts. The data was analyzed for patterns relating to publishing volume, Journal Impact Factor, and the publishing model (open access or subscription) of each journal. A total of 11.9% of journals analyzed explicitly stated that data sharing was required as a condition of publication. A total of 9.1% of journals required data sharing, but did not state that it would affect publication decisions. 23.3% of journals had a statement encouraging authors to share their data but did not require it. A total of 9.1% of journals mentioned data sharing indirectly, and only 14.8% addressed protein, proteomic, and/or genomic data sharing. There was no mention of data sharing in 31.8% of journals. Impact factors were significantly higher for journals with the strongest data sharing policies compared to all other data sharing criteria. Open access journals were not more likely to require data sharing than subscription journals. Our study confirmed earlier investigations which observed that only a minority of biomedical journals require data sharing, and a significant association between higher Impact Factors and journals with a data sharing requirement. Moreover, while 65.7% of the journals in our study that required data sharing addressed the concept of reproducibility, as with earlier investigations, we found that most data sharing policies did not provide specific guidance on the practices that ensure data is maximally available and reusable.

Journal impact factor and methodological quality of surgical randomized controlled trials: an empirical study.

PubMed

Ahmed Ali, Usama; Reiber, Beata M M; Ten Hove, Joren R; van der Sluis, Pieter C; Gooszen, Hein G; Boermeester, Marja A; Besselink, Marc G

2017-11-01

The journal impact factor (IF) is often used as a surrogate marker for methodological quality. The objective of this study is to evaluate the relation between the journal IF and methodological quality of surgical randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Surgical RCTs published in PubMed in 1999 and 2009 were identified. According to IF, RCTs were divided into groups of low (<2), median (2-3) and high IF (>3), as well as into top-10 vs all other journals. Methodological quality characteristics and factors concerning funding, ethical approval and statistical significance of outcomes were extracted and compared between the IF groups. Additionally, a multivariate regression was performed. The median IF was 2.2 (IQR 2.37). The percentage of 'low-risk of bias' RCTs was 13% for top-10 journals vs 4% for other journals in 1999 (P < 0.02), and 30 vs 12% in 2009 (P < 0.02). Similar results were observed for high vs low IF groups. The presence of sample-size calculation, adequate generation of allocation and intention-to-treat analysis were independently associated with publication in higher IF journals; as were multicentre trials and multiple authors. Publication of RCTs in high IF journals is associated with moderate improvement in methodological quality compared to RCTs published in lower IF journals. RCTs with adequate sample-size calculation, generation of allocation or intention-to-treat analysis were associated with publication in a high IF journal. On the other hand, reporting a statistically significant outcome and being industry funded were not independently associated with publication in a higher IF journal.

Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication (81st, Baltimore, Maryland, August 5-8, 1998). Scholastic Journalism; Civic Journalism.

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication.

The Scholastic Journalism--Civic Journalism section of the Proceedings contains the following 14 papers: "Look Who's Reading Newspapers: The Impact of a Citywide High School Newspaper" (Elinor Kelly Grusin and M. David Arant); "Factors Affecting the Degree to Which the Student Press of Michigan is Subject to Prior Review and/or…

Reasons for Journal Impact Factor Changes: Influence of Changing Source Items.

PubMed

Kiesslich, Tobias; Weineck, Silke B; Koelblinger, Dorothea

2016-01-01

Both the concept and the application of the impact factor (IF) have been subject to widespread critique, including concerns over its potential manipulation. This study provides a systematic analysis of significant journal Impact Factor changes, based on the relative contribution of either one or both variables of the IF equation (i.e. citations / articles as the numerator / denominator of the quotient). A cohort of JCR-listed journals which faced the most dramatic absolute IF changes between 2013 and 2014 (ΔIF ≥ 3.0, n = 49) was analyzed for the causes resulting in IF changes that theses journals have experienced in the last five years. Along with the variation by number of articles and citations, this analysis includes the relative change of both variables compared to each other and offers a classification of `valid`and `invalid`scenarios of IF variation in terms of the intended goal of the IF to measure journal quality. The sample cohort features a considerable incidence of IF increases (18%) which are qualified as `invalid`according to this classification because the IF increase is merely based on a favorably changing number of articles (denominator). The results of this analysis point out the potentially delusive effect of IF increases gained through effective shrinkage of publication output. Therefore, careful consideration of the details of the IF equation and possible implementation of control mechanisms versus the volatile factor of number of articles may help to improve the expressiveness of this metric.

The impact factor of a journal is a poor measure of the clinical relevance of its papers.

PubMed

Kodumuri, P; Ollivere, B; Holley, J; Moran, C G

2014-03-01

We evaluated the top 13 journals in trauma and orthopaedics by impact factor and looked at the longer-term effect regarding citations of their papers. All 4951 papers published in these journals during 2007 and 2008 were reviewed and categorised by their type, subspecialty and super-specialty. All citations indexed through Google Scholar were reviewed to establish the rate of citation per paper at two, four and five years post-publication. The top five journals published a total of 1986 papers. Only three (0.15%) were on operative orthopaedic surgery and none were on trauma. Most (n = 1084, 54.5%) were about experimental basic science. Surgical papers had a lower rate of citation (2.18) at two years than basic science or clinical medical papers (4.68). However, by four years the rates were similar (26.57 for surgery, 30.35 for basic science/medical), which suggests that there is a considerable time lag before clinical surgical research has an impact. We conclude that high impact journals do not address clinical research in surgery and when they do, there is a delay before such papers are cited. We suggest that a rate of citation at five years post-publication might be a more appropriate indicator of importance for papers in our specialty.

Ranking Disciplinary Journals with the Google Scholar H-Index: A New Tool for Constructing Cases for Tenure, Promotion, and Other Professional Decisions

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Hodge, David R.; Lacasse, Jeffrey R.

2011-01-01

Given the importance of journal rankings to tenure, promotion, and other professional decisions, this study examines a new method for ranking social work journals. The Google Scholar h-index correlated highly with the current gold standard for measuring journal quality, Thomson Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) impact factors, but…

A Comparative Study of Scientific Publications in Health Care Sciences and Services from Mainland China, Taiwan, Japan, and India (2007–2014)

PubMed Central

Lv, Yipeng; Tang, Bihan; Liu, Xu; Xue, Chen; Liu, Yuan; Kang, Peng; Zhang, Lulu

2015-01-01

In this study, we aimed to compare the quantity and quality of publications in health care sciences and services journals from the Chinese mainland, Taiwan, Japan, and India. Journals in this category of the Science Citation Index Expanded were included in the study. Scientific papers were retrieved from the Web of Science online database. Quality was measured according to impact factor, citation of articles, number of articles published in top 10 journals, and the 10 most popular journals by country (area). In the field of health care sciences and services, the annual incremental rates of scientific articles published from 2007 to 2014 were higher than rates of published scientific articles in all fields. Researchers from the Chinese mainland published the most original articles and reviews and had the highest accumulated impact factors, highest total article citations, and highest average citation. Publications from India had the highest average impact factor. In the field of health care sciences and services, China has made remarkable progress during the past eight years in the annual number and percentage of scientific publications. Yet, there is room for improvement in the quantity and quality of such articles. PMID:26712774

A Comparative Study of Scientific Publications in Health Care Sciences and Services from Mainland China, Taiwan, Japan, and India (2007-2014).

PubMed

Lv, Yipeng; Tang, Bihan; Liu, Xu; Xue, Chen; Liu, Yuan; Kang, Peng; Zhang, Lulu

2015-12-24

In this study, we aimed to compare the quantity and quality of publications in health care sciences and services journals from the Chinese mainland, Taiwan, Japan, and India. Journals in this category of the Science Citation Index Expanded were included in the study. Scientific papers were retrieved from the Web of Science online database. Quality was measured according to impact factor, citation of articles, number of articles published in top 10 journals, and the 10 most popular journals by country (area). In the field of health care sciences and services, the annual incremental rates of scientific articles published from 2007 to 2014 were higher than rates of published scientific articles in all fields. Researchers from the Chinese mainland published the most original articles and reviews and had the highest accumulated impact factors, highest total article citations, and highest average citation. Publications from India had the highest average impact factor. In the field of health care sciences and services, China has made remarkable progress during the past eight years in the annual number and percentage of scientific publications. Yet, there is room for improvement in the quantity and quality of such articles.

Community pharmacy based research activity in India: A bibliometric study of the past ten years

PubMed Central

Basak, Subal Chandra; Sathyanarayana, Dondeti

2010-01-01

Objectives: The objective of this study was to analyze and record the published evidence regarding community pharmacy practice in India during the past decade (1998-2008). Methods: A bibliometric review analysis of the original papers was undertaken to assess the different aspects of community pharmacy practice in India. The MEDLINE, Index Copernicus, IndMed, DOAJ databases and the journals such as Indian Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences and Indian Journal of Hospital Pharmacy were used as data sources. Type of papers, type of journals, category of papers, production indicators and impact factor of the journals were analyzed. Results: Thirty papers were included in the study. The papers were published in 13 different journals, 33.3% of them being in the Indian Journal of Hospital Pharmacy. The average number of authors per paper was 2.73 (SD=1.41). Impact factor was available for only three journals. Conclusions: There are limited studies being published in India which cover the community pharmacy related activities in India. The key indicators which emerge from the literature review present some fundamental challenges to the development of the role of the community pharmacist in India. PMID:23093877

The top-ten in journal impact factor manipulation.

PubMed

Falagas, Matthew E; Alexiou, Vangelis G

2008-01-01

A considerable part of the scientific community is, at least to some degree, involved in the "impact factor game". Editors strive to increase their journals' impact factor (IF) in order to gain influence in the fields of basic and applied research and scientists seek to profit from the "added value" of publishing in top IF journals. In this article we point out the most common "tricks" of engineering and manipulating the IF undertaken by a portion of professionals of the scientific publishing industry. They attempt to increase the nominator or decrease the denominator of the IF equation by taking advantage of certain design flaws and disadvantages of the IF that permit a degree of artificial and arbitrary inflation. Some of these practices, if not scientifically unethical, are at least questionable and should be abandoned. Editors and publishers should strive for quality through fair and thoughtful selection of papers forwarded for peer review and editorial comments that enhance the quality and scientific accuracy of a manuscript.

The trend of quality of publications in endodontic surgery: a 10-year systematic survey of the literature.

PubMed

Del Fabbro, Massimo; Corbella, Stefano; Tsesis, Igor; Taschieri, Silvio

2015-03-01

The aims of the present systematic literature analysis were to evaluate, over a 10-year period, the trend of the proportion of RCT, SR, MA published on endodontic surgery, and to investigate if the impact factor (IF) of the main endodontic Journals correlates with the proportion of RCT, SR, MA they publish. An electronic search of the RCT, SR and MA published on the topic "endodontic surgery" from 2001 to 2010 was performed on Medline and Cochrane CENTRAL database using specific search terms combined with Boolean operators. Endodontic Journals impact factor was retrieved by the Thomson Scientific database. The proportion of each study type over the total number of articles on endodontic surgery published per year was estimated. The correlation between the number of high-evidence level studies published on the main endodontic Journals and the IF of such Journals per year was estimated. From a total of 900 articles published in 2001-2010 on endodontic surgery, there were 114 studies of high evidence level. A significant increase of the proportion of either RCT, SR and MA over the years was found. A modest to unclear correlation was found between the Journal IF and the number of high-evidence articles published. There is a positive trend over the years among researchers in performing studies of good quality in endodontic surgery. The impact factor of endodontic Journals is not consistently influenced by publication of high-evidence level articles. Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Publication trends in the medical informatics literature: 20 years of "Medical Informatics" in MeSH

PubMed Central

2009-01-01

Background The purpose of this study is to identify publication output, and research areas, as well as descriptively and quantitatively characterize the field of medical informatics through publication trend analysis over a twenty year period (1987–2006). Methods A bibliometric analysis of medical informatics citations indexed in Medline was performed using publication trends, journal frequency, impact factors, MeSH term frequencies and characteristics of citations. Results There were 77,023 medical informatics articles published during this 20 year period in 4,644 unique journals. The average annual article publication growth rate was 12%. The 50 identified medical informatics MeSH terms are rarely assigned together to the same document and are almost exclusively paired with a non-medical informatics MeSH term, suggesting a strong interdisciplinary trend. Trends in citations, journals, and MeSH categories of medical informatics output for the 20-year period are summarized. Average impact factor scores and weighted average impact factor scores increased over the 20-year period with two notable growth periods. Conclusion There is a steadily growing presence and increasing visibility of medical informatics literature over the years. Patterns in research output that seem to characterize the historic trends and current components of the field of medical informatics suggest it may be a maturing discipline, and highlight specific journals in which the medical informatics literature appears most frequently, including general medical journals as well as informatics-specific journals. PMID:19159472

The Impact Factor of Radiological Journals: Associations with Journal Content and Other Characteristics Over a Recent 12-Year Period.

PubMed

Rosenkrantz, Andrew B; Ayoola, Abimbola

2016-06-01

The aim of this study was to evaluate the trends in the impact factor (IF) of radiological journals over a recent 12-year period, including associations between IF and journal topic. Journal Citation Reports (JCR) was used to identify all biomedical journals and all radiological journals (assigned a JCR category of "Radiology, Nuclear Medicine, & Medical Imaging"), along with journal IF, in 2003 and 2014. Radiological journals were manually classified by topic. Trends in median IF (mIF) were assessed. The number of radiological journals increased from 83 (2003) to 125 (2014) (all biomedical journals: 5907 to 8718, respectively). mIF of radiological journals increased from 1.42 (2003) to 1.75 (2014) (all biomedical journals: 0.93 to 1.46, respectively). The most common topic among new radiological journals was general (nonspecialized) radiology (8). Five new radiological journals in 2014 were in topics (cancer imaging and molecular imaging) having no journals in 2003. mIF of general radiological journals was 1.49. Topics having highest mIF were cardiac imaging (2.94), optics (2.86), molecular imaging (2.77), radiation oncology (2.60), and neuroradiology (2.25). Topics with lowest mIF were ultrasound (1.19) and interventional radiology (1.44). Topics with the largest increase in mIF were cardiac imaging (from 1.17 to 2.94) and neuroradiology (from 1.07 to 2.25). Radiological journals exhibited higher mIF than biomedical journals overall. Among radiological journals, subspecialty journals had highest mIF. While a considerable number of new radiological journals since 2003 were general radiology journals having relatively low IF, there were also new journal topics representing emerging areas of subspecialized radiological research. Copyright © 2016 The Association of University Radiologists. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

[Bibliographic survey of the Orvosi Hetilap of Hungary: looking back and moving forward].

PubMed

Berhidi, Anna; Margittai, Zsuzsa; Vasas, Lívia

2012-12-02

The first step in the process of acquisition of impact factor for a scientific journal is to get registered at Thomson Reuters Web of Science database. The aim of this article is to evaluate the content and structure of Orvosi Hetilap with regards to selection criteria of Thomson Reuters, in particular to objectives of citation analysis. Authors evaluated issues of Orvosi Hetilap published in 2011 and calculated the unofficial impact factor of the journal based on systematic search in various citation index databases. Number of citations, quality of citing journals and scientific output of the editorial board members were evaluated. Adherence to guidelines of international publishers was assessed, as well. Unofficial impact factor of Orvosi Hetilap has been continuously rising every year in the past decade (except for 2004 and 2010). The articles of Orvosi Hetilap are widely cited by international authors and high impact factor journals, too. Further, more than half the articles cited are open access. The most frequently cited categories are original and review articles as well as clinical studies. Orvosi Hetilap is a weekly published journal, which is covered by many international databases such as PubMed/Medline, Scopus, Embase, and BIOSIS Previews. As regards to the scientific output of the editorial board members, the truncated mean of the number of their publications was 497, citations 2446, independent citations 2014 and h-index 21. While Orvosi Hetilap fulfils many criteria for getting covered by Thomson Reuters, it is worthwhile to implement a method of online citation system in order to increase the number of citations. In addition, scientific publications of all editorial board members should be made easily accessible. Finally, publications of comparative studies by multiple authors are encouraged as well as papers containing epidemiological data analyses.

The story of fake impact factor companies and how we detected them.

PubMed

Jalalian, Mehrdad

2015-01-01

Beginning about three years ago, the world of academic publishing has become infected by fake impact factors and misleading metrics that are launched by bogus companies. The misleading metrics and fake impact factors have damaged the prestige and reliability of scientific research and scholarly journals. This article presents the in-depth story of some of the main bogus impact factors, how they approached the academic world, and how the author identified them. Some names that they use are Universal Impact Factor (UIF), Global Impact Factor (GIF), and Citefactor, and there even is a fake Thomson Reuters Company.

Efficient bibliographic searches on allergy using ISI databases.

PubMed

Sáez Gómez, J M; Annan, J W; Negro Alvarez, J M; Guillen-Grima, F; Bozzola, C M; Ivancevich, J C; Aguinaga Ontoso, E

2008-01-01

The aim of this article is to provide an introduction to using databases from the Thomson ISI Web of Knowledge, with special reference to Citation Indexes as an analysis tool for publications, and also to explain the meaning of the well-known Impact Factor. We present the partially modified new Consultation Interface to enhance information search routines of these databases. It introduces distinctive methods in search bibliography, including the correct application of analysis tools, paying particular attention to Journal Citation Reports and Impact Factor. We finish this article with comment on the consequences of using the Impact Factor as a quality indicator for the assessment of journals and publications, and how to ensure measures for indexing in the Thomson ISI Databases.

Factors associated with the Journal Impact Factor (JIF) for Urology and Nephrology Journals

PubMed Central

Sewell, Joseph M.; Adejoro, Oluwakayode O.; Fleck, Joseph R.; Wolfson, Julian A.; Konety, Badrinath R.

2015-01-01

ABSTRACT Purpose: The Journal Impact Factor (JIF) is an index used to compare a journal's quality among academic journals and it is commonly used as a proxy for journal quality. We sought to examine the JIF in order to elucidate the main predictors of the index while generating awareness among scientific community regarding need to modify the index calculation in the attempt to turn it more accurate. Materials and Methods: Under the Urology and Nephrology category in the Journal Citations Report Website, the top 17 Journals by JIF in 2011 were chosen for the study. All manuscripts’ abstracts published from 2009-2010 were reviewed; each article was categorized based on its research design (Retrospective, Review, etc). T and correlation tests were performed for categorical and continuous variables respectively. The JIF was the dependent variable. All variables were then included in a multivariate model. Results: 23,012 articles from seventeen journals were evaluated with a median of 1,048 (range=78-6,342) articles per journal. Journals with a society affiliation were associated with a higher JIF (p=0.05). Self-citations (rho=0.57, p=0.02), citations for citable articles (rho=0.73, p=0.001), citations to non-citable articles (rho=0.65, p=0.0046), and retrospective studies (rho=-0.51, p=0.03) showed a strong correlation. Slight modifications to include the non-citable articles in the denominator yield drastic changes in the JIF and the ranking of the journals. Conclusion: The JIF appears to be closely associated with the number of citable articles published. A change in the formula for calculating JIF to include all types of published articles in the denominator would result in a more accurate representation. PMID:26742962

A survey of authors publishing in four megajournals.

PubMed

Solomon, David J

2014-01-01

Aim. To determine the characteristics of megajournal authors, the nature of the manuscripts they are submitting to these journals, factors influencing their decision to publish in a megajournal, sources of funding for article processing charges (APCs) or other fees and their likelihood of submitting to a megajournal in the future. Methods. Web-based survey of 2,128 authors who recently published in BMJ Open, PeerJ, PLOS ONE or SAGE Open. Results. The response rate ranged from 26% for BMJ Open to 47% for SAGE Open. The authors were international, largely academics who had recently published in both subscription and Open Access (OA) journals. Across journals about 25% of the articles were preliminary findings and just under half were resubmissions of manuscripts rejected by other journals. Editors from other BMJ journals and perhaps to a lesser extent SAGE and PLOS journals appear to be encouraging authors to submit manuscripts that were rejected by the editor's journals to a megajournal published by the same publisher. Quality of the journal and speed of the review process were important factors across all four journals. Impact factor was important for PLOS ONE authors but less so for BMJ Open authors, which also has an impact factor. The review criteria and the fact the journal was OA were other significant factors particularly important for PeerJ authors. The reputation of the publisher was an important factor for SAGE Open and BMJ Open. About half of PLOS ONE and around a third of BMJ Open and PeerJ authors used grant funding for publishing charges while only about 10% of SAGE Open used grant funding for publication charges. Around 60% of SAGE Open and 32% of PeerJ authors self-funded their publication fees however the fees are modest for these journals. The majority of authors from all 4 journals were pleased with their experience and indicated they were likely to submit to the same or similar journal in the future. Conclusions. Megajournals are drawing an international group of authors who tend to be experienced academics. They are choosing to publish in megajournals for a variety of reasons but most seem to value the quality of the journal and the speed of the review/publication process. Having a broad scope was not a key factor for most authors though being OA was important for PeerJ and SAGE Open authors. Most authors appeared pleased with the experience and indicated they are likely to submit future manuscripts to the same or similar megajournal which seems to suggest these journals will continue to grow in popularity.

WE-E-204-02: Journal of Medical Physics and JACMP

DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

Williamson, J.

Research papers authored by Medical Physicists address a large spectrum of oncologic, imaging, or basic research problems; exploit a wide range of physical and engineering methodologies; and often describe the efforts of a multidisciplinary research team. Given dozens of competing journals accepting medical physics articles, it may not be clear to an individual author which journal is the best venue for disseminating their work to the scientific community. Relevant factors usually include the Journal’s audience and scientific impact, but also such factors as perceived acceptance rate, interest in their topic, and quality of service. The purpose of this symposium ismore » to provide the medical physics community with an overview of scope, review processes, and article guidelines for the following journals: Radiology, Medical Physics, International Journal of Radiation Biology and Physics, Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics, and Practical Radiation Oncology. Senior members of the editorial board for each journal will provide details as to the journals review process, for example: single blind versus double blind reviews; open access policies, the hierarchy of the review process in terms of editorial board structure; the reality of acceptance, in terms of acceptance rate; and the types of research the journal prefers to publish. Other journals will be discussed as well. The goal is to provide for authors guidance before they begin to write their papers, not only for proper formatting, but also that the readership is appropriate for the particular paper, hopefully increasing the quality and impact of the paper and the likelihood of publication. Learning Objectives: To review each Journal’s submission and review process Guidance as to how to increase quality, impact and chances of acceptance To help decipher which journal is appropriate for a given work A. Karellas, Research collaboration with Koning, Corporation.« less

WE-E-204-01: ASTRO Based Journals

DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

Klein, E.

Research papers authored by Medical Physicists address a large spectrum of oncologic, imaging, or basic research problems; exploit a wide range of physical and engineering methodologies; and often describe the efforts of a multidisciplinary research team. Given dozens of competing journals accepting medical physics articles, it may not be clear to an individual author which journal is the best venue for disseminating their work to the scientific community. Relevant factors usually include the Journal’s audience and scientific impact, but also such factors as perceived acceptance rate, interest in their topic, and quality of service. The purpose of this symposium ismore » to provide the medical physics community with an overview of scope, review processes, and article guidelines for the following journals: Radiology, Medical Physics, International Journal of Radiation Biology and Physics, Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics, and Practical Radiation Oncology. Senior members of the editorial board for each journal will provide details as to the journals review process, for example: single blind versus double blind reviews; open access policies, the hierarchy of the review process in terms of editorial board structure; the reality of acceptance, in terms of acceptance rate; and the types of research the journal prefers to publish. Other journals will be discussed as well. The goal is to provide for authors guidance before they begin to write their papers, not only for proper formatting, but also that the readership is appropriate for the particular paper, hopefully increasing the quality and impact of the paper and the likelihood of publication. Learning Objectives: To review each Journal’s submission and review process Guidance as to how to increase quality, impact and chances of acceptance To help decipher which journal is appropriate for a given work A. Karellas, Research collaboration with Koning, Corporation.« less

WE-E-204-03: Radiology and Other Imaging Journals

DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

Karellas, A.

Research papers authored by Medical Physicists address a large spectrum of oncologic, imaging, or basic research problems; exploit a wide range of physical and engineering methodologies; and often describe the efforts of a multidisciplinary research team. Given dozens of competing journals accepting medical physics articles, it may not be clear to an individual author which journal is the best venue for disseminating their work to the scientific community. Relevant factors usually include the Journal’s audience and scientific impact, but also such factors as perceived acceptance rate, interest in their topic, and quality of service. The purpose of this symposium ismore » to provide the medical physics community with an overview of scope, review processes, and article guidelines for the following journals: Radiology, Medical Physics, International Journal of Radiation Biology and Physics, Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics, and Practical Radiation Oncology. Senior members of the editorial board for each journal will provide details as to the journals review process, for example: single blind versus double blind reviews; open access policies, the hierarchy of the review process in terms of editorial board structure; the reality of acceptance, in terms of acceptance rate; and the types of research the journal prefers to publish. Other journals will be discussed as well. The goal is to provide for authors guidance before they begin to write their papers, not only for proper formatting, but also that the readership is appropriate for the particular paper, hopefully increasing the quality and impact of the paper and the likelihood of publication. Learning Objectives: To review each Journal’s submission and review process Guidance as to how to increase quality, impact and chances of acceptance To help decipher which journal is appropriate for a given work A. Karellas, Research collaboration with Koning, Corporation.« less

JOURNAL ANALYSIS ON OPHTHALMOLOGY AND OTHERS.

PubMed

Freitas, Denise de

2015-01-01

To update knowledge and methods to access and view the journals included in Qualis of CAPES Medicine III, and how to measure the impact factor. Document review on the attempt to verify the way Qualis uses for ranking journals cited by the post-graduate programs of Medicine III in their evaluation periods, and the impact factors obtained by journals indexing base. The classification is annual and are ranking in strata ranging from A1, the highest, and A2; B1; B2; B3; B4; B5; C. The latter has zero evaluation weight. These strata take as reference the impact factor of the journals listed by the programs. The same journal can be classified into different Qualis in other areas, and this is no inconsistency, but expressed the assigned value, in each area, at that particular journal. The Impact Factor is measured using the Journal of Citation Report in Web of Knowledge website. Using the criteria established by WebQualis for stratification of journals there is a quality guidance of what is produced by the program and, based on it, can be made scientific comparison of program performance. Consulting the JCR is recommended because it defines exactly what is the journal's impact factor; Qualis stratifies numerical intervals and not individual journal specificity. Atualização do conhecimento dos meios e métodos de acessar e visualizar os periódicos do Qualis da Medicina III da CAPES e a mensuração do Fator de Impacto. Buscou-se verificar a forma utilizada pelo Qualis para classificar os periódicos referidos pelos programas de pós-graduação da Medicina III em seus períodos de avaliação e os fatores de impacto obtidos pelas revistas em base indexadora. A classificação é anual e são enquadrados em estratos que variam de A1, o mais elevado, a A2; B1; B2; B3; B4; B5; C. Este último tem peso zero. Esses estratos levam como referência o Fator de Impacto dos periódicos referidos pelos programas. Um mesmo periódico pode ter classificação em Qualis diferentes em outras áreas, e isto não constitui inconsistência, mas expressa o valor atribuído, em cada área, àquela determinada revista científica. O Fator de Impacto é mensurado navegando-se no site do Journal of Citation Report da Web of Knowledge. A utilização dos critérios estabelecidos pelo WebQualis para estratificação dos periódicos é norteadora da qualidade do que se produz nos programas e, com base nela, pode-se fazer comparações de desempenho científico. Já a consulta ao JCR é complementarmente adequada de ser feita porque define com exatidão qual é o fator de impacto da revista, em função de que o Qualis estratifica faixas numéricas e não especificidade individual do periódico.

How far has The Korean Journal of Internal Medicine advanced in terms of journal metrics?

PubMed

Huh, Sun

2013-11-01

The Korean Journal of Internal Medicine has already been valued as an international journal, according to a citation analysis in 2011. Now, 2 years later, I would like to confirm how much the Journal has advanced from the point of view of journal metrics by looking at the impact factor, cites per document (2 years), SCImago Journal Rank (SJR), and the Hirsch index. These were obtained from a variety of databases, such as the Korean Medical Citation Index, KoreaMed Synapse, Web of Science, JCR Web, and SCImago Journal & Country Rank. The manually calculated 2012 impact factor was 1.252 in the Web of Science, with a ranking of 70/151 (46.4%) in the category of general and internal medicine. Cites per documents (2 years) for 2012 was 1.619, with a ranking of 267/1,588 (16.8%) in the category of medicine (miscellaneous). The 2012 SJR was 0.464, with a ranking of 348/1,588 (21.9%) in the category of medicine (miscellaneous). The Hirsch index from KoreaMed Synapse, Web of Science, and SCImago Journal & Country Rank were 12, 15, and 19, respectively. In comparison with data from 2010, the values of all the journal metrics increased consistently. These results reflect favorably on the increased competency of editors and authors of The Korean Journal of Internal Medicine.

How far has The Korean Journal of Internal Medicine advanced in terms of journal metrics?

PubMed Central

2013-01-01

The Korean Journal of Internal Medicine has already been valued as an international journal, according to a citation analysis in 2011. Now, 2 years later, I would like to confirm how much the Journal has advanced from the point of view of journal metrics by looking at the impact factor, cites per document (2 years), SCImago Journal Rank (SJR), and the Hirsch index. These were obtained from a variety of databases, such as the Korean Medical Citation Index, KoreaMed Synapse, Web of Science, JCR Web, and SCImago Journal & Country Rank. The manually calculated 2012 impact factor was 1.252 in the Web of Science, with a ranking of 70/151 (46.4%) in the category of general and internal medicine. Cites per documents (2 years) for 2012 was 1.619, with a ranking of 267/1,588 (16.8%) in the category of medicine (miscellaneous). The 2012 SJR was 0.464, with a ranking of 348/1,588 (21.9%) in the category of medicine (miscellaneous). The Hirsch index from KoreaMed Synapse, Web of Science, and SCImago Journal & Country Rank were 12, 15, and 19, respectively. In comparison with data from 2010, the values of all the journal metrics increased consistently. These results reflect favorably on the increased competency of editors and authors of The Korean Journal of Internal Medicine. PMID:24307835

How well are journal and clinical article characteristics associated with the journal impact factor? a retrospective cohort study

PubMed Central

Lokker, Cynthia; Haynes, R. Brian; Chu, Rong; McKibbon, K. Ann; Wilczynski, Nancy L; Walter, Stephen D

2012-01-01

Objective: Journal impact factor (JIF) is often used as a measure of journal quality. A retrospective cohort study determined the ability of clinical article and journal characteristics, including appraisal measures collected at the time of publication, to predict subsequent JIFs. Methods: Clinical research articles that passed methods quality criteria were included. Each article was rated for relevance and newsworthiness by 3 to 24 physicians from a panel of more than 4,000 practicing clinicians. The 1,267 articles (from 103 journals) were divided 60∶40 into derivation (760 articles) and validation sets (507 articles), representing 99 and 88 journals, respectively. A multiple regression model was produced determining the association of 10 journal and article measures with the 2007 JIF. Results: Four of the 10 measures were significant in the regression model: number of authors, number of databases indexing the journal, proportion of articles passing methods criteria, and mean clinical newsworthiness scores. With the number of disciplines rating the article, the 5 variables accounted for 61% of the variation in JIF (R2 = 0.607, 95% CI 0.444 to 0.706, P<0.001). Conclusion: For the clinical literature, measures of scientific quality and clinical newsworthiness available at the time of publication can predict JIFs with 60% accuracy. PMID:22272156

The 2010 Rankings of Chemical Education and Science Education Journals by Faculty Engaged in Chemical Education Research

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Towns, Marcy H.; Kraft, Adam

2012-01-01

Faculty active in chemical education research from around the world ranked 22 journals publishing research in chemical education and science education. The results of this survey can be used to supplement impact factors that are often used to compare the quality of journals in a field. Knowing which journals those in the field rank as top tier is…

Open Access Publishing Trend Analysis: Statistics beyond the Perception

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Poltronieri, Elisabetta; Bravo, Elena; Curti, Moreno; Maurizio Ferri,; Mancini, Cristina

2016-01-01

Introduction: The purpose of this analysis was twofold: to track the number of open access journals acquiring impact factor, and to investigate the distribution of subject categories pertaining to these journals. As a case study, journals in which the researchers of the National Institute of Health (Istituto Superiore di Sanità) in Italy have…

Citation Analysis of The Korean Journal of Internal Medicine from KoMCI, Web of Science, and Scopus

PubMed Central

2011-01-01

The Korean Journal of Internal Medicine (KJIM) is the international journal published in English by the Korean Association of Internal Medicine. To understand the position of the journal in three different databases, the citation indicators were elucidated. From databases such as Korean Medical Citation Index (KoMCI), Web of Science, and Scopus, citation indicators such as the impact factor, SCImago journal rank (SJR), or Hirsch Index were calculated according to the year and the results were drawn. The KJIM 2010 impact factor increased to 0.623 in Web of Science. That of year 2009 in KoMCI was a 0.149. The 2009 SJR in Scopus was 0.073, with a ranking of 27/72 (37.5%) in the category of internal medicine and 414/1,618 (25.6%) in the category of medicine, miscellaneous. The Hirsch Index from KoMCI, Web of Science and Scopus were 5, 14, and 16, respectively. The KJIM is now cited more by international researchers than Korean researchers, indicating that the content of the journal is now valued at the international level. PMID:21437155

Citation analysis of The Korean Journal of Internal Medicine from KoMCI, Web of Science, and Scopus.

PubMed

Huh, Sun

2011-03-01

The Korean Journal of Internal Medicine (KJIM) is the international journal published in English by the Korean Association of Internal Medicine. To understand the position of the journal in three different databases, the citation indicators were elucidated. From databases such as Korean Medical Citation Index (KoMCI), Web of Science, and Scopus, citation indicators such as the impact factor, SCImago journal rank (SJR), or Hirsch Index were calculated according to the year and the results were drawn. The KJIM 2010 impact factor increased to 0.623 in Web of Science. That of year 2009 in KoMCI was a 0.149. The 2009 SJR in Scopus was 0.073, with a ranking of 27/72 (37.5%) in the category of internal medicine and 414/1,618 (25.6%) in the category of medicine, miscellaneous. The Hirsch Index from KoMCI, Web of Science and Scopus were 5, 14, and 16, respectively. The KJIM is now cited more by international researchers than Korean researchers, indicating that the content of the journal is now valued at the international level.

Bibliometric analysis of scientific publications in transplantation journals from Mainland China, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan between 2006 and 2015

PubMed Central

Lyu, Qiu-Ju; Su, Huai-Yu

2016-01-01

Objectives The aim of this study is to compare the quantity and quality of scientific publications in transplantation fields that were written by researchers from Mainland China, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan in the East Asia region. Settings East Asia. Participants and outcome measures Articles except editorials, conference abstracts, letters, news and corrections published in 25 transplantation journals from 2006 to 2015 were screened with the Web of Science database. The number of total and annual articles, article types (study design and transplantation site), impact factor, citations and articles in the high-impact journals was determined to assess the quantity and quality of transplantation research from East Asia. The correlation of socioeconomic factors and annual publications was also analysed. Results From 2006 to 2015, there were 47 141 articles published in transplantation journals, of which researchers from Japan published 3694 articles, followed by Mainland China, South Korea and Taiwan with 2778, 1643 and 951 articles, respectively. Similar trends were observed in accumulated impact factor, accumulated citations, articles in the high-impact journals and articles on transplantation site. Publications from Japan had the highest average impact factor and citation, while those from Mainland China had the lowest. Additionally, in terms of study design, authors from Mainland China contributed to most clinical trials and randomised controlled trials, but authors from Japan contributed to most case reports. The annual numbers of articles from Mainland China and South Korea increased linearly (p<0.05), but those from Japan and Taiwan remained stable for the period studied. The annual numbers of articles from Mainland China and South Korea were positively correlated with gross domestic product (p<0.05). Conclusions Transplantation research productivity in East Asia is highly skewed, with gross domestic product having a significant positive correlation. Mainland China still lags far behind Japan in most bibliometric indicators; thus, there is vast room for improvement. PMID:27489154

Relationship between category size and journals' impact factor: implications for emergency medicine journals and researchers.

PubMed

Miró, Òscar; Brown, Anthony F T; Graham, Colin A; Ducharme, James; Martin-Sanchez, Francisco J; Cone, David C

2015-10-01

We assessed the relationship between the size of the 39 Journal Citation Reports (JCR) medical categories and impact factor (IF) of journals in these categories, and the implications that it might have for emergency medicine (EM) journals. Using the 2010 JCR database, we calculated the mean IF, 5-year IF (5y-IF), Eigenfactor (EF), and Article Influence (AI) scores including all journals for each category. We also calculated a 'weighted IF' for all journals by dividing each journal IF by the mean IF of its category. We ranked EM journals according to IF and 'weighted IF' into all the journals included in the 39 categories. We assessed the relationship between category size and bibliometric scores by linear regression. Category size varied from 252 journals (Pharmacology and Pharmacy) to 14 (Primary Healthcare), EM category occupying the 36th position (23 journals). The mean IF of EM category ranked in 34th position, 5-yIF in 32nd, EF in 34th, and AI in 34th position. Category size had a direct and significant association with mean IF, 5y-IF, and AI but not with mean EF. When the EM journals were ranked among all the journals according to their IF, only two (9%) were placed into the first quartile and raised up to eight (35%) when 'weighted IF' was considered. There is a negative relationship between JCR size category and IF achieved by the journals. This places EM journals at a clear disadvantage because they represent one of the smallest clinical medical research disciplines.

[German general and visceral surgery: positioning within the international scientific community].

PubMed

Welsch, T; Wente, M N; Dralle, H; Neuhaus, P; Schumpelick, V; Siewert, J R; Büchler, M W

2010-04-01

Assessment of scientific performance is critical for selection committees and research funding. The present work evaluated the standing of German surgical research within the international community. A database analysis was performed in December 2009 using the ISI Web of Science. The highest impact factor of surgical journals is currently 8.460 with a median impact of all journals of 1.369. Leading academic surgeons have an h-index of more than 60. German surgeons are within the top five leading researchers in the fields of surgery for esophageal and pancreatic cancer, thyroid, hernia, and liver/kidney transplantation. Among the 50 institutions with most publications on a particular topic, 4-5 German centers are mostly represented. The top positions are in total decisively occupied by leading universities in the USA. On the basis of scientific parameters German surgical research can compete with leading international centers in certain fields, but should aim to increase the overall impact of research by publishing more in journals with above average impact factors.

Open access versus subscription journals: a comparison of scientific impact

PubMed Central

2012-01-01

Background In the past few years there has been an ongoing debate as to whether the proliferation of open access (OA) publishing would damage the peer review system and put the quality of scientific journal publishing at risk. Our aim was to inform this debate by comparing the scientific impact of OA journals with subscription journals, controlling for journal age, the country of the publisher, discipline and (for OA publishers) their business model. Methods The 2-year impact factors (the average number of citations to the articles in a journal) were used as a proxy for scientific impact. The Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) was used to identify OA journals as well as their business model. Journal age and discipline were obtained from the Ulrich's periodicals directory. Comparisons were performed on the journal level as well as on the article level where the results were weighted by the number of articles published in a journal. A total of 610 OA journals were compared with 7,609 subscription journals using Web of Science citation data while an overlapping set of 1,327 OA journals were compared with 11,124 subscription journals using Scopus data. Results Overall, average citation rates, both unweighted and weighted for the number of articles per journal, were about 30% higher for subscription journals. However, after controlling for discipline (medicine and health versus other), age of the journal (three time periods) and the location of the publisher (four largest publishing countries versus other countries) the differences largely disappeared in most subcategories except for journals that had been launched prior to 1996. OA journals that fund publishing with article processing charges (APCs) are on average cited more than other OA journals. In medicine and health, OA journals founded in the last 10 years are receiving about as many citations as subscription journals launched during the same period. Conclusions Our results indicate that OA journals indexed in Web of Science and/or Scopus are approaching the same scientific impact and quality as subscription journals, particularly in biomedicine and for journals funded by article processing charges. PMID:22805105

Open access versus subscription journals: a comparison of scientific impact.

PubMed

Björk, Bo-Christer; Solomon, David

2012-07-17

In the past few years there has been an ongoing debate as to whether the proliferation of open access (OA) publishing would damage the peer review system and put the quality of scientific journal publishing at risk. Our aim was to inform this debate by comparing the scientific impact of OA journals with subscription journals, controlling for journal age, the country of the publisher, discipline and (for OA publishers) their business model. The 2-year impact factors (the average number of citations to the articles in a journal) were used as a proxy for scientific impact. The Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) was used to identify OA journals as well as their business model. Journal age and discipline were obtained from the Ulrich's periodicals directory. Comparisons were performed on the journal level as well as on the article level where the results were weighted by the number of articles published in a journal. A total of 610 OA journals were compared with 7,609 subscription journals using Web of Science citation data while an overlapping set of 1,327 OA journals were compared with 11,124 subscription journals using Scopus data. Overall, average citation rates, both unweighted and weighted for the number of articles per journal, were about 30% higher for subscription journals. However, after controlling for discipline (medicine and health versus other), age of the journal (three time periods) and the location of the publisher (four largest publishing countries versus other countries) the differences largely disappeared in most subcategories except for journals that had been launched prior to 1996. OA journals that fund publishing with article processing charges (APCs) are on average cited more than other OA journals. In medicine and health, OA journals founded in the last 10 years are receiving about as many citations as subscription journals launched during the same period. Our results indicate that OA journals indexed in Web of Science and/or Scopus are approaching the same scientific impact and quality as subscription journals, particularly in biomedicine and for journals funded by article processing charges.

Integrative Approach to Quality Assessment of Medical Journals Using Impact Factor, Eigenfactor, and Article Influence Scores

PubMed Central

Rizkallah, Jacques; Sin, Don D.

2010-01-01

Background Impact factor (IF) is a commonly used surrogate for assessing the scientific quality of journals and articles. There is growing discontent in the medical community with the use of this quality assessment tool because of its many inherent limitations. To help address such concerns, Eigenfactor (ES) and Article Influence scores (AIS) have been devised to assess scientific impact of journals. The principal aim was to compare the temporal trends in IF, ES, and AIS on the rank order of leading medical journals over time. Methods The 2001 to 2008 IF, ES, AIS, and number of citable items (CI) of 35 leading medical journals were collected from the Institute of Scientific Information (ISI) and the http://www.eigenfactor.org databases. The journals were ranked based on the published 2008 ES, AIS, and IF scores. Temporal score trends and variations were analyzed. Results In general, the AIS and IF values provided similar rank orders. Using ES values resulted in large changes in the rank orders with higher ranking being assigned to journals that publish a large volume of articles. Since 2001, the IF and AIS of most journals increased significantly; however the ES increased in only 51% of the journals in the analysis. Conversely, 26% of journals experienced a downward trend in their ES, while the rest experienced no significant changes (23%). This discordance between temporal trends in IF and ES was largely driven by temporal changes in the number of CI published by the journals. Conclusion The rank order of medical journals changes depending on whether IF, AIS or ES is used. All of these metrics are sensitive to the number of citable items published by journals. Consumers should thus consider all of these metrics rather than just IF alone in assessing the influence and importance of medical journals in their respective disciplines. PMID:20419115

A Bibliometric History of the Journal of Psychology Between 1936 and 2015.

PubMed

Tur-Porcar, Ana; Mas-Tur, Alicia; Merigó, José M; Roig-Tierno, Norat; Watt, John

2018-05-19

The Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied is a leading international journal in psychology dating back to 1935. This study examines its publications since its creation utilizing a bibliometric analysis. The primary objective is to provide a complete overview of the key factors affecting the journal. This analysis includes such key issues as the publication and citation structure of the journal, its most cited articles, and the leading authors, institutions, and countries referenced in the journal. The work uses the Scopus database to classify the bibliographic material. Additionally, the analysis provides a graphical mapping of the bibliographic data by using visualization of similarities viewer software. This software uses several bibliometric techniques including co-citation, bibliographic coupling and co-occurrence of keywords. The Journal of Psychology is strongly connected to most of the current leading journals in psychology, and currently has a 5-year impact factor of 1.77 (Thomson Reuters, 2015 Journal Citation Reports).

Association of journal quality indicators with methodological quality of clinical research articles.

PubMed

Lee, Kirby P; Schotland, Marieka; Bacchetti, Peter; Bero, Lisa A

2002-06-05

The ability to identify scientific journals that publish high-quality research would help clinicians, scientists, and health-policy analysts to select the most up-to-date medical literature to review. To assess whether journal characteristics of (1) peer-review status, (2) citation rate, (3) impact factor, (4) circulation, (5) manuscript acceptance rate, (6) MEDLINE indexing, and (7) Brandon/Hill Library List indexing are predictors of methodological quality of research articles, we conducted a cross-sectional study of 243 original research articles involving human subjects published in general internal medical journals. The mean (SD) quality score of the 243 articles was 1.37 (0.22). All journals reported a peer-review process and were indexed on MEDLINE. In models that controlled for article type (randomized controlled trial [RCT] or non-RCT), journal citation rate was the most statistically significant predictor (0.051 increase per doubling; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.037-0.065; P<.001). In separate analyses by article type, acceptance rate was the strongest predictor for RCT quality (-0.113 per doubling; 95% CI, -0.148 to -0.078; P<.001), while journal citation rate was the most predictive factor for non-RCT quality (0.051 per doubling; 95% CI, 0.044-0.059; P<.001). High citation rates, impact factors, and circulation rates, and low manuscript acceptance rates and indexing on Brandon/Hill Library List appear to be predictive of higher methodological quality scores for journal articles.

Evidence of the Internationalization of Clinical Endoscopy Based on Journal Metrics.

PubMed

Huh, Sun

2015-07-01

This study aims to verify the internationalization of Clinical Endoscopy based on journal metrics after the change to English-only in 2011. The results of this study serve as a starting point for developing strategies to develop Clinical Endoscopy into a top-tier international journal. The following journal metrics were analyzed from the journal's homepage or the Web of Science: the number of citable articles, number of countries of affiliation of the contributors, the number of articles supported by research grants, total citations, impact factor, citing journals, countries of citing authors, and the Hirsch index. The number of citable articles in 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014 was 22, 81, 120, and 95, respectively. The authors were from 11 countries. Twenty-one out of 55 original articles were supported by research grants. The total citations in 2012, 2013, and 2014 were 2, 85, and 213, respectively. The impact factor was 0.670 in 2013 and 0.940 in 2014. The number of countries citing authors were from was 61. The Hirsch index was 6. The above results demonstrate that Clinical Endoscopy became an international journal, contributing to the propagation of valuable research results through an open access publishing model.

Retracted Publications in the Biomedical Literature from Open Access Journals.

PubMed

Wang, Tao; Xing, Qin-Rui; Wang, Hui; Chen, Wei

2018-03-07

The number of articles published in open access journals (OAJs) has increased dramatically in recent years. Simultaneously, the quality of publications in these journals has been called into question. Few studies have explored the retraction rate from OAJs. The purpose of the current study was to determine the reasons for retractions of articles from OAJs in biomedical research. The Medline database was searched through PubMed to identify retracted publications in OAJs. The journals were identified by the Directory of Open Access Journals. Data were extracted from each retracted article, including the time from publication to retraction, causes, journal impact factor, and country of origin. Trends in the characteristics related to retraction were determined. Data from 621 retracted studies were included in the analysis. The number and rate of retractions have increased since 2010. The most common reasons for retraction are errors (148), plagiarism (142), duplicate publication (101), fraud/suspected fraud (98) and invalid peer review (93). The number of retracted articles from OAJs has been steadily increasing. Misconduct was the primary reason for retraction. The majority of retracted articles were from journals with low impact factors and authored by researchers from China, India, Iran, and the USA.

Geophysical Research Letters: New policies improve top-cited geosciences journal

USGS Publications Warehouse

Calais, Eric; Diffenbaugh, Noah; D'Odorico, Paolo; Harris, Ruth; Knorr, Wolfgang; Lavraud, Benoit; Mueller, Anne; Peterson, William; Rignot, Eric; Srokosz, Meric; Strutton, Peter; Tyndall, Geoff; Wysession, Michael; Williams, Paul

2010-01-01

Geophysical Research Letters (GRL) is the American Geophysical Union's premier journal of fast, groundbreaking communication. It rapidly publishes high- impact,letter-length articles, and it is the top-cited multidisciplinary geosciences journal over the past 10 years, with an impact factor that increased again in 2009, to 3.204. For manuscripts submitted to GRL, the median time to first and final decision is 23 and 27 days, respectively—a 35% improvement since 2007—and the median time from submission to publication is 13 weeks for 90% of GRL papers—a 25% improvement since 2007. Among high-impact publications in the geosciences, GRL has the fastest turnaround.

Identification of biomedical journals in Spain and Latin America.

PubMed

Bonfill, Xavier; Osorio, Dimelza; Posso, Margarita; Solà, Ivan; Rada, Gabriel; Torres, Ania; García Dieguez, Marcelo; Piña-Pozas, Maricela; Díaz-García, Luisa; Tristán, Mario; Gandarilla, Omar; Rincón-Valenzuela, David A; Martí, Arturo; Hidalgo, Ricardo; Simancas-Racines, Daniel; López, Luis; Correa, Ricardo; Rojas-De-Arias, Antonieta; Loza, César; Gianneo, Óscar; Pardo, Hector

2015-12-01

Journals in languages other than English that publish original clinical research are often not well covered in the main biomedical databases and therefore often not included in systematic reviews. This study aimed to identify Spanish language biomedical journals from Spain and Latin America and to describe their main features. Journals were identified in electronic databases, publishers' catalogues and local registries. Eligibility was determined by assessing data from these sources or the journals' websites, when available. A total of 2457 journals were initially identified; 1498 met inclusion criteria. Spain (27.3%), Mexico (16.0%), Argentina (15.1%) and Chile (11.9%) had the highest number of journals. Most (85.8%) are currently active; 87.8% have an ISSN. The median and mean length of publication were 22 and 29 years, respectively. A total of 66.0% were indexed in at least one database; 3.0% had an impact factor in 2012. A total of 845 journals had websites (56.4%), of which 700 (82.8%) were searchable and 681 (80.6%) free of charge. Most of the identified journals have no impact factor or are not indexed in any of the major databases. The list of identified biomedical journals can be a useful resource when conducting hand searching activities and identifying clinical trials that otherwise would not be retrieved. © 2015 Health Libraries Group.

WE-E-204-00: Where to Send My Manuscript

DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

NONE

Research papers authored by Medical Physicists address a large spectrum of oncologic, imaging, or basic research problems; exploit a wide range of physical and engineering methodologies; and often describe the efforts of a multidisciplinary research team. Given dozens of competing journals accepting medical physics articles, it may not be clear to an individual author which journal is the best venue for disseminating their work to the scientific community. Relevant factors usually include the Journal’s audience and scientific impact, but also such factors as perceived acceptance rate, interest in their topic, and quality of service. The purpose of this symposium ismore » to provide the medical physics community with an overview of scope, review processes, and article guidelines for the following journals: Radiology, Medical Physics, International Journal of Radiation Biology and Physics, Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics, and Practical Radiation Oncology. Senior members of the editorial board for each journal will provide details as to the journals review process, for example: single blind versus double blind reviews; open access policies, the hierarchy of the review process in terms of editorial board structure; the reality of acceptance, in terms of acceptance rate; and the types of research the journal prefers to publish. Other journals will be discussed as well. The goal is to provide for authors guidance before they begin to write their papers, not only for proper formatting, but also that the readership is appropriate for the particular paper, hopefully increasing the quality and impact of the paper and the likelihood of publication. Learning Objectives: To review each Journal’s submission and review process Guidance as to how to increase quality, impact and chances of acceptance To help decipher which journal is appropriate for a given work A. Karellas, Research collaboration with Koning, Corporation.« less

Scaling behavior in the dynamics of citations to scientific journals

NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

Picoli, S., Jr.; Mendes, R. S.; Malacarne, L. C.; Lenzi, E. K.

2006-08-01

We analyze a database comprising the impact factor (citations per recent items published) of scientific journals for a 13-year period (1992 2004). We find that i) the distribution of impact factors follows asymptotic power law behavior, ii) the distribution of annual logarithmic growth rates has an exponential form, and iii) the width of this distribution decays with the impact factor as a power law with exponent β simeq 0.22. The results ii) and iii) are surprising similar to those observed in the growth dynamics of organizations with complex internal structure suggesting the existence of common mechanisms underlying the dynamics of these systems. We propose a general model for such systems, an extension of the simplest model for firm growth, and compare their predictions with our empirical results.

Biobankers: Treat the Poison of Invisibility with CoBRA, a Systematic Way of Citing Bioresources in Journal Articles

PubMed Central

Calzolari, Alessia; Cambon-Thomsen, Anne; Mabile, Laurence; Rossi, Anna Maria; De Castro, Paola; Bravo, Elena

2016-01-01

Even though an increasing portion of biomedical research today relies on the use of bioresources, at present biobankers are not able to trace this use in scientific literature and measure its impact with a variety of citation metrics. The “BRIF (Bioresource Research Impact Factor) and journal editors” subgroup was created precisely with the aim to study this issue and to build a standardized system to cite bioresources in journal articles. This report aims at presenting a guideline for Citation of BioResources in journal Articles (CoBRA). The guideline offers for the first time a standard for citing bioresources (including biobanks) within journal articles. It will increase their visibility and promote their sharing. PMID:27314833

Bridging knowledge translation gap in health in developing countries: visibility, impact and publishing standards in journals from the Eastern Mediterranean

PubMed Central

2012-01-01

Background Local and regional scientific journals are important factors in bridging gaps in health knowledge translation in low-and middle-income countries. We assessed indexing, citations and publishing standards of journals from the Eastern Mediterranean region. Methods For journals from 22 countries in the collection of the Index Medicus for the Eastern Mediterranean Region (IMEMR), we analyzed indexing in bibliographical databases and citations during 2006–2009 to published items in 2006 in Web of Science (WoS) and SCOPUS. Adherence to editorial and publishing standards was assessed using a special checklist. Results Out of 419 journals in IMEMR, 19 were indexed in MEDLINE, 23 in WoS and 46 in SCOPUS. Their impact factors ranged from 0.016 to 1.417. For a subset of 175 journals with available tables of contents from 2006, articles published in 2006 from 93 journals received 2068 citations in SCOPUS (23.5% self-citations) and articles in 86 journals received 1579 citations in WoS (24.3% self-citations) during 2006–2009. Citations to articles came mostly from outside of the Eastern Mediterranean region (76.8% in WoS and 75.4% in SCOPUS). Articles receiving highest number of citations presented topics specific for the region. Many journals did not follow editorial and publishing standards, such addressing requirements about the patient’s privacy rights (68.0% out of 244 analyzed), policy on managing conflicts of interest (66.4%), and ethical conduct in clinical and animal research (66.4%). Conclusion Journals from the Eastern Mediterranean are visible in and have impact on global scientific community. Coordinated effort of all stakeholders in journal publishing, including researchers, journal editors and owners, policy makers and citation databases, is needed to further promote local journals as windows to the research in the developing world and the doors for valuable regional research to the global scientific community. PMID:22577965

Bridging knowledge translation gap in health in developing countries: visibility, impact and publishing standards in journals from the Eastern Mediterranean.

PubMed

Utrobičić, Ana; Chaudhry, Nauman; Ghaffar, Abdul; Marušić, Ana

2012-05-11

Local and regional scientific journals are important factors in bridging gaps in health knowledge translation in low-and middle-income countries. We assessed indexing, citations and publishing standards of journals from the Eastern Mediterranean region. For journals from 22 countries in the collection of the Index Medicus for the Eastern Mediterranean Region (IMEMR), we analyzed indexing in bibliographical databases and citations during 2006-2009 to published items in 2006 in Web of Science (WoS) and SCOPUS. Adherence to editorial and publishing standards was assessed using a special checklist. Out of 419 journals in IMEMR, 19 were indexed in MEDLINE, 23 in WoS and 46 in SCOPUS. Their impact factors ranged from 0.016 to 1.417. For a subset of 175 journals with available tables of contents from 2006, articles published in 2006 from 93 journals received 2068 citations in SCOPUS (23.5% self-citations) and articles in 86 journals received 1579 citations in WoS (24.3% self-citations) during 2006-2009. Citations to articles came mostly from outside of the Eastern Mediterranean region (76.8% in WoS and 75.4% in SCOPUS). Articles receiving highest number of citations presented topics specific for the region. Many journals did not follow editorial and publishing standards, such addressing requirements about the patient's privacy rights (68.0% out of 244 analyzed), policy on managing conflicts of interest (66.4%), and ethical conduct in clinical and animal research (66.4%). Journals from the Eastern Mediterranean are visible in and have impact on global scientific community. Coordinated effort of all stakeholders in journal publishing, including researchers, journal editors and owners, policy makers and citation databases, is needed to further promote local journals as windows to the research in the developing world and the doors for valuable regional research to the global scientific community.

Beyond rankings: using cognitive mapping to understand what health care journals represent.

PubMed

Shewchuk, Richard M; O'connor, Stephen J; Williams, Eric S; Savage, Grant T

2006-03-01

Studies of journal ratings are often controversial. Indices, including impact factors, acceptance rates, expert opinions, and ratings of knowledge, relevance, and quality have been used to organize journals hierarchically. While there may be some validity in consensus rankings, it is unclear what purpose is actually achieved by these endeavors. Impact factors probably help researchers identify authoritative journals, but other rankings likely indicate little more than institutionalized perceptions of prestige. Ranking schema used to derive evaluative judgments do not provide information about the organization of journals from the perspective of substantive content, emphasis, or targeted audience. A cognitive mapping approach that examines how health care management faculty members represent their perceptions of North American health care-oriented journals is presented as an alternative. A card-sort task and importance rating scale was mailed to faculty of North American health management programs who participated in a previous journal ranking study conducted by the authors. Completed assessments were returned from 147 respondents for a response rate of 39%. Multidimensional scaling and hierarchical cluster analyses of data provided a three-dimensional, seven cluster map that illustrates the perceived similarities of journals. Dimension I contrasts Applied Management Practice with Health Policy journals. Dimension II contrasts specific domain with broad-based research journals. Dimension III contrasts finance-oriented with delivery-oriented journals. The seven clusters of perceptually similar journals were weighted in terms of respondent defined importance ascribed to each journal within a cluster. This framework supplements ratings by providing insight about how journals are cognitively organized by scholars.

[Confusing the confused: thoughts on impact factor, h(irsch) index, Q value, and other cofactors that influence the researcher's happiness].

PubMed

Quindós, Guillermo

2009-06-30

The need to evaluate curricula for sponsorship for research projects or professional promotion, has led to the search for tools that allow an objective valuation. However, the total number papers published, or citations of articles of a particular author, or the impact factor of the Journal where they are published are inadequate indicators for the evaluation of the quality and productivity of researchers. The h index, proposed by Hirsch, categorises the papers according to the number of citations per article. This tool appears to lack the limitations of other bibliometric tools but is less useful for non English-speaking authors. To propose and debate the usefulness of the existing bibliometric indicators and tools for the evaluation and categorization of researchers and scientific journals. Search for papers on bibliometric tools. There are some hot spots in the debate on the national and international evaluation of researchers' productivity and quality of scientific journals. Opinions on impact factors and h index have been discussed. The positive discrimination, using the Q value, is proposed as an alternative for the evaluation of Spanish and Iberoamerican researchers. It is very important de-mystify the importance of bibliometric indicators. The impact factor is useful for evaluating journals from the same scientific area but not for the evaluation of researchers' curricula. For the comparison of curricula from two or more researchers, we must use the h index or the proposed Q value. the latter allows positive discrimination of the task for Spanish and Iberoamerican researchers.

Prevalence and Citation Advantage of Gold Open Access in the Subject Areas of the Scopus Database

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Dorta-González, Pablo; Santana-Jiménez, Yolanda

2018-01-01

The potential benefit of open access (OA) in relation to citation impact has been discussed in the literature in depth. The methodology used to test the OA citation advantage includes comparing OA vs. non-OA journal impact factors and citations of OA vs. non-OA articles published in the same non-OA journals. However, one problem with many studies…

Impacted science: impact is not importance.

PubMed

Casadevall, Arturo; Fang, Ferric C

2015-10-13

The journal impact factor (IF) exerts a tremendous influence on the conduct of scientists. The obsession with IF has been compared to a medical condition, sometimes referred to as "IF mania" or "impactitis." Here, we analyze the difference between impact and importance, using examples from the history of science to show that these are not equivalent. If impact does not necessarily equal importance, but scientists are focused on high-impact work, there is a danger that misuse of the IF may adversely affect scientific progress. We suggest five measures to fight this malady: (i) diversify journal club selections, (ii) do not judge science on the publication venue, (iii) reduce the reliance on journal citation metrics for employment and advancement, (iv) discuss the misuse of the IF in ethics courses, and (v) cite the most appropriate sources. If IF mania is indeed a medical condition, the most appropriate course of action may be disimpaction. Copyright © 2015 Casadevall and Fang.

Impacted Science: Impact Is Not Importance

PubMed Central

Fang, Ferric C.

2015-01-01

ABSTRACT The journal impact factor (IF) exerts a tremendous influence on the conduct of scientists. The obsession with IF has been compared to a medical condition, sometimes referred to as “IF mania” or “impactitis.” Here, we analyze the difference between impact and importance, using examples from the history of science to show that these are not equivalent. If impact does not necessarily equal importance, but scientists are focused on high-impact work, there is a danger that misuse of the IF may adversely affect scientific progress. We suggest five measures to fight this malady: (i) diversify journal club selections, (ii) do not judge science on the publication venue, (iii) reduce the reliance on journal citation metrics for employment and advancement, (iv) discuss the misuse of the IF in ethics courses, and (v) cite the most appropriate sources. If IF mania is indeed a medical condition, the most appropriate course of action may be disimpaction. PMID:26463169

Publication trends of shared decision making in 15 high impact medical journals: a full-text review with bibliometric analysis

PubMed Central

2014-01-01

Background Shared Decision Making (SDM) is increasingly advocated as a model for medical decision making. However, there is still low use of SDM in clinical practice. High impact factor journals might represent an efficient way for its dissemination. We aimed to identify and characterize publication trends of SDM in 15 high impact medical journals. Methods We selected the 15 general and internal medicine journals with the highest impact factor publishing original articles, letters and editorials. We retrieved publications from 1996 to 2011 through the full-text search function on each journal website and abstracted bibliometric data. We included publications of any type containing the phrase “shared decision making” or five other variants in their abstract or full text. These were referred to as SDM publications. A polynomial Poisson regression model with logarithmic link function was used to assess the evolution across the period of the number of SDM publications according to publication characteristics. Results We identified 1285 SDM publications out of 229,179 publications in 15 journals from 1996 to 2011. The absolute number of SDM publications by journal ranged from 2 to 273 over 16 years. SDM publications increased both in absolute and relative numbers per year, from 46 (0.32% relative to all publications from the 15 journals) in 1996 to 165 (1.17%) in 2011. This growth was exponential (P < 0.01). We found fewer research publications (465, 36.2% of all SDM publications) than non-research publications, which included non-systematic reviews, letters, and editorials. The increase of research publications across time was linear. Full-text search retrieved ten times more SDM publications than a similar PubMed search (1285 vs. 119 respectively). Conclusion This review in full-text showed that SDM publications increased exponentially in major medical journals from 1996 to 2011. This growth might reflect an increased dissemination of the SDM concept to the medical community. PMID:25106844

Promotion of the Journal of Exercise Rehabilitation to the international level based on journal metrics.

PubMed

Huh, Sun

2016-12-01

The aim of this study was to use journal metrics to confirm that the Journal of Exercise Rehabilitation has been promoted to the international level after changing its language to English-only in April 2013. Journal metrics, including the number of articles per year, countries of authors, countries of the editorial board members, impact factor, total citations, and the Hirsch index, were counted or calculated based on the journal homepage and the Web of Science Core Collection in December 2016. The number of citable articles was 52, 62, 59, and 74 in 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016, respectively. All authors were from Korea in 2013 and 2014, but the authors were from 11 countries in 2015 and from 16 countries in 2016. The editorial board members are currently from 11 countries. The impact factor without self-citations for 2015 was 0.912, corresponding to a Journal Citation Reports ranking of 32.9% out of 82 journals in the category of sport sciences. The total citations increased from 1 in 2013 to 130 in 2016. This journal was cited in 208 other source journals in the Web of Science. The citing authors were from 47 countries. The Hirsch index was 7, and review articles were the most frequently cited articles. The above results show a rapid development to the international level over 4 years. The introduction of digital technology to journals to improve their accessibility across multiple platforms is recommended.

Impact of Article Language in Multi-Language Medical Journals - a Bibliometric Analysis of Self-Citations and Impact Factor

PubMed Central

Diekhoff, Torsten; Schlattmann, Peter; Dewey, Marc

2013-01-01

Background In times of globalization there is an increasing use of English in the medical literature. The aim of this study was to analyze the influence of English-language articles in multi-language medical journals on their international recognition – as measured by a lower rate of self-citations and higher impact factor (IF). Methods and Findings We analyzed publications in multi-language journals in 2008 and 2009 using the Web of Science (WoS) of Thomson Reuters (former Institute of Scientific Information) and PubMed as sources of information. The proportion of English-language articles during the period was compared with both the share of self-citations in the year 2010 and the IF with and without self-citations. Multivariable linear regression analysis was performed to analyze these factors as well as the influence of the journals‘ countries of origin and of the other language(s) used in publications besides English. We identified 168 multi-language journals that were listed in WoS as well as in PubMed and met our criteria. We found a significant positive correlation of the share of English articles in 2008 and 2009 with the IF calculated without self-citations (Pearson r=0.56, p = <0.0001), a correlation with the overall IF (Pearson r = 0.47, p = <0.0001) and with the cites to years of IF calculation (Pearson r = 0.34, p = <0.0001), and a weak negative correlation with the share of self-citations (Pearson r = -0.2, p = 0.009). The IF without self-citations also correlated with the journal‘s country of origin – North American journals had a higher IF compared to Middle and South American or European journals. Conclusion Our findings suggest that a larger share of English articles in multi-language medical journals is associated with greater international recognition. Fewer self-citations were found in multi-language journals with a greater share of original articles in English. PMID:24146929

Part II: Should the h-index be modified? An analysis of the m-quotient, contemporary h-index, authorship value, and impact factor.

PubMed

Khan, Nickalus R; Thompson, Clinton J; Taylor, Douglas R; Gabrick, Kyle S; Choudhri, Asim F; Boop, Frederick R; Klimo, Paul

2013-12-01

The widely accepted h-index depends on the citation analysis source and does not consider the authorship position, the journal's impact factor (IF), or the age of the paper or author. We investigated these factors in citation statistics of academic neurosurgeons. An uncorrected h-index and the m-quotient, which corrects for career length, were calculated by the use of Scopus and Google Scholar. In a subset of neurosurgeons, we computed the contemporary h-index (hc), which accounts for the age of the publications; the authorship value (AV), weighted by author position; and the journal IF. An "overall' average for AV and IF including most of an author's publications and an average for publications comprising the h-index ("h-index core") were calculated. When we used Google Scholar, the mean h-index was significantly greater than that calculated when we used Scopus (P = 0.0030). m-quotient and hc-index increased with academic rank, with an m-quotient >1 achieved by 69% of chairmen and 48% of professors. The effect of AV was greatest on the greater h-indices. The average IF for the h-index core was greater than the overall IF, which did not correlate with academic rank. Few neurosurgeons consistently publish in high-impact journals. Google Scholar tends to inflate the h-index. The m-quotient and hc-index allow comparisons of researchers across time. Although average journal IF did not differ significantly among neurosurgeons academic ranks, it should be noted for individuals who consistently publish in high-impact journals. We recommend the creation of individual bibliometric profiles to better compare the academic productivity of neurosurgeons. Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Reviewer acknowledgement

PubMed Central

2014-01-01

Contributing reviewers The World Journal of Emergency Surgery—which received its first Impact Factor in 2013—is extremely grateful for the time, hard work and support of its highly-qualified peer reviewers. The editors of World Journal of Emergency Surgery and BioMed Central would like to show our appreciation by thanking the following people for their assistance reviewing manuscripts for the journal in 2013.

Promotion of Neurointervention to International Journal Based on Journal Metrics

PubMed Central

2016-01-01

Purpose The aim is to provide evidence of the internationalization of Neurointervention based on journal metrics for articles published from 2011 to 2015. Materials and Methods The following metrics and data were collected and analyzed with descriptive statistics: number of citable and non-citable articles; number of research articles (original papers) supported by grants; editorial board members' countries; authors' countries; citing authors' countries; source title of citing articles; two-year impact factor; total citations; and Hirsch index (h-index). Data were retrieved and analyzed from the journal homepage and Web of Science Core Collection in January 24, 2016. Results There were 80 citable and eight non-citable articles from 2011 to 2015. Out of 31 original articles, nine had research funds (29.0%). Editorial board members are from five countries. The authors are from six countries. The top-ranking countries of citing authors were USA, Korea, and China. The two-year impact factors were 1.125, 0.923, and 0.931 from 2013 to 2015. H-index was 7. Conclusion It was possible to confirm the internationalization of Neurointervention based on journal metrics. New digital standards should be adopted for more rapid dissemination of journal content. PMID:26958406

Publishing HIV/AIDS behavioural science reports: An author’s guide

PubMed Central

Ingersoll, K. S.; Van Zyl, C.; Cropsey, K. L.

2010-01-01

The purpose of this paper is to report on characteristics of journals that publish manuscripts in the HIV/AIDS behavioural science realm, with the goal of providing assistance to authors seeking to disseminate their work in the most appropriate outlet. Fifty journals who publish behavioural research on HIV/AIDS in English were identified through library and electronic searches. Although ten of the journals focused specifically on HIV/AIDS, the majority of journals are in related fields, including health psychology/behavioural medicine, sexual behaviour, substance abuse, public health/prevention or general medicine. Acceptance rates ranged from 8– 89% with a mean acceptance rate of 39%. Reported review times ranged from 1–12 months with three months the mode, while publication lag following acceptance averages six months. Acceptance rates were related to impact factors, with more selective journals evidencing higher impact factors. The variety of publication outlets available to authors of HIV/AIDS behavioural science studies creates ample opportunity for dissemination, as well as challenge for readers in discerning the quality of published work. PMID:16971274

Tweeting birds: online mentions predict future citations in ornithology

PubMed Central

O'Hanlon, Nina; Dudley, Steve P.

2017-01-01

The rapid growth of online tools to communicate scientific research raises the important question of whether online attention is associated with citations in the scholarly literature. The Altmetric Attention Score (AAS) quantifies the attention received by a scientific publication on various online platforms including news, blogs and social media. It has been advanced as a rapid way of gauging the impact of a piece of research, both in terms of potential future scholarly citations and wider online engagement. Here, we explore variation in the AAS of 2677 research articles published in 10 ornithological journals between 2012 and 2016. On average, AAS increased sevenfold in just five years, primarily due to increased activity on Twitter which contributed 75% of the total score. For a subset of 878 articles published in 2014, including an additional 323 ornithology articles from non-specialist journals, an increase in AAS from 1 to 20 resulted in a predicted 112% increase in citation count from 2.6 to 5.5 citations per article. This effect interacted with journal impact factor, with weaker effects of AAS in higher impact factor journals. Our results suggest that altmetrics (or the online activity they measure), as well as complementing traditional measures of scholarly impact in ornithology such as citations, may also anticipate or even drive them. PMID:29291121

[Citation rates of medical German-language journals in English-language papers - do they correlate with the Impact Factor, and who cites?].

PubMed

Winkmann, G; Schlutius, S; Schweim, H G

2002-01-25

Several publications are warning that the German language is no longer needed for transmission of scientific data. One of the causes may be the Impact Factor (IF), which appears to be derived predominantly from Anglo-American journals. The aim of this study was to check actual international attention paid to German-language journals, i. e. their citation frequencies in English-language papers. Are these citing rates in English-language articles correlated to the IF, and from where do citing articles originate? Of 25 arbitrarily selected >85 % German-language medical journals, IF as well as language distributions of citing articles were determined by searching publication years 1995 - 2000 in Science Citation Index (SCI). MEDLINE and EMBASE were used as supplementary retrieval systems. (i) The sample journals displayed an average IF = 0.357. A 99 % correlation (Pearson factor r = 0.987; n = 25) was observed between our > constructed< IF 2000 and IF published in Journal Citation Report 2000. This proves Stegmann's IF determination method to be valid. On the average, 53 % German-language and 45 % English-language articles between 1995 - 2000 cited the 1995 - 1999' contributions of the studied journals. No correlation was observed between IF vs. rates of citing articles in English (r <0.1). 64 % of citing English-language articles showed corporate sources in Germany/ Austria/ Switzerland, and 13.5 % authors' institutions in USA. (i) An IF >/=1 is, obviously, very hard to attain by German-language journals. ISI's differentiation between Citing vs. Cited-only Journals (the latter often serving as MEDLINE/ EMBASE sources) during derivation of IF appears unjustified. (ii) English now serves as the predominant communication language in sciences in German-speaking countries, but has not supplanted the German language. Our study reveals remarkable international attention rates remaining.

Evidence of the Internationalization of Clinical Endoscopy Based on Journal Metrics

PubMed Central

2015-01-01

Background/Aims This study aims to verify the internationalization of Clinical Endoscopy based on journal metrics after the change to English-only in 2011. The results of this study serve as a starting point for developing strategies to develop Clinical Endoscopy into a top-tier international journal. Methods The following journal metrics were analyzed from the journal's homepage or the Web of Science: the number of citable articles, number of countries of affiliation of the contributors, the number of articles supported by research grants, total citations, impact factor, citing journals, countries of citing authors, and the Hirsch index. Results The number of citable articles in 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014 was 22, 81, 120, and 95, respectively. The authors were from 11 countries. Twenty-one out of 55 original articles were supported by research grants. The total citations in 2012, 2013, and 2014 were 2, 85, and 213, respectively. The impact factor was 0.670 in 2013 and 0.940 in 2014. The number of countries citing authors were from was 61. The Hirsch index was 6. Conclusions The above results demonstrate that Clinical Endoscopy became an international journal, contributing to the propagation of valuable research results through an open access publishing model. PMID:26240806

Representation of less-developed countries in Pharmacology journals: an online survey of corresponding authors.

PubMed

Rohra, Dileep K

2011-05-05

Scientists from less-developed countries (LDC) perceive that it is difficult to publish in international journals from their countries. This online survey was conducted with the primary aim of determining the opinion of corresponding authors of published papers in international Pharmacology journals regarding the difficulties in publications and their possible solutions. The titles of all Pharmacology journals were retrieved from Pubmed. 131 journals were included in study. The latest issue of all journals was reviewed thoroughly. An online survey was conducted from the corresponding authors of the published papers who belonged to LDC. 584 out 1919 papers (30.4%) originated from the LDC. 332 responses (response rate; 64.5%) were received from the authors. Approximately 50% the papers from LDC were published in journals with impact factor of less than 2. A weak negative correlation (r = -0.236) was observed between journal impact factor and the percentage of publications emanating from LDC. A significant majority of the corresponding authors (n = 254; 76.5%) perceived that it is difficult to publish in good quality journals from their countries. According to their opinion, biased attitude of editors and reviewers (64.8%) is the most important reason followed by the poor writing skills of the scientists from LDC (52.8%). The authors thought that well-written manuscript (76.1%), improvement in the quality of research (69.9%) and multidisciplinary research (42.9%) are important determinants that may improve the chances of publications. The LDC are underrepresented in publications in Pharmacology journals. The corresponding authors of the published articles think that biased attitude of the editors as well as the reviewers of international journals and the poor writing skills of scientists are the major factors underlying the non-acceptance of their results. They also think that the improvement in the writing skills and quality of research will increase the chances of acceptance of their works in international journals.

Representation of less-developed countries in Pharmacology journals: an online survey of corresponding authors

PubMed Central

2011-01-01

Background Scientists from less-developed countries (LDC) perceive that it is difficult to publish in international journals from their countries. This online survey was conducted with the primary aim of determining the opinion of corresponding authors of published papers in international Pharmacology journals regarding the difficulties in publications and their possible solutions. Methods The titles of all Pharmacology journals were retrieved from Pubmed. 131 journals were included in study. The latest issue of all journals was reviewed thoroughly. An online survey was conducted from the corresponding authors of the published papers who belonged to LDC. Results 584 out 1919 papers (30.4%) originated from the LDC. 332 responses (response rate; 64.5%) were received from the authors. Approximately 50% the papers from LDC were published in journals with impact factor of less than 2. A weak negative correlation (r = -0.236) was observed between journal impact factor and the percentage of publications emanating from LDC. A significant majority of the corresponding authors (n = 254; 76.5%) perceived that it is difficult to publish in good quality journals from their countries. According to their opinion, biased attitude of editors and reviewers (64.8%) is the most important reason followed by the poor writing skills of the scientists from LDC (52.8%). The authors thought that well-written manuscript (76.1%), improvement in the quality of research (69.9%) and multidisciplinary research (42.9%) are important determinants that may improve the chances of publications. Conclusions The LDC are underrepresented in publications in Pharmacology journals. The corresponding authors of the published articles think that biased attitude of the editors as well as the reviewers of international journals and the poor writing skills of scientists are the major factors underlying the non-acceptance of their results. They also think that the improvement in the writing skills and quality of research will increase the chances of acceptance of their works in international journals. PMID:21545706

The quality of the reported sample size calculations in randomized controlled trials indexed in PubMed.

PubMed

Lee, Paul H; Tse, Andy C Y

2017-05-01

There are limited data on the quality of reporting of information essential for replication of the calculation as well as the accuracy of the sample size calculation. We examine the current quality of reporting of the sample size calculation in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in PubMed and to examine the variation in reporting across study design, study characteristics, and journal impact factor. We also reviewed the targeted sample size reported in trial registries. We reviewed and analyzed all RCTs published in December 2014 with journals indexed in PubMed. The 2014 Impact Factors for the journals were used as proxies for their quality. Of the 451 analyzed papers, 58.1% reported an a priori sample size calculation. Nearly all papers provided the level of significance (97.7%) and desired power (96.6%), and most of the papers reported the minimum clinically important effect size (73.3%). The median (inter-quartile range) of the percentage difference of the reported and calculated sample size calculation was 0.0% (IQR -4.6%;3.0%). The accuracy of the reported sample size was better for studies published in journals that endorsed the CONSORT statement and journals with an impact factor. A total of 98 papers had provided targeted sample size on trial registries and about two-third of these papers (n=62) reported sample size calculation, but only 25 (40.3%) had no discrepancy with the reported number in the trial registries. The reporting of the sample size calculation in RCTs published in PubMed-indexed journals and trial registries were poor. The CONSORT statement should be more widely endorsed. Copyright © 2016 European Federation of Internal Medicine. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Scientific publications: now a marketing decision?

USDA-ARS?s Scientific Manuscript database

Scientists have been publishing in journals related to their disciplines. Now with the advent of the internet, many more options are now available and scientific publication has become a marketing decision. Scientific journals are rated by "impact factor" which is based on the average number of cita...

Clinical relevance in anesthesia journals.

PubMed

Lauritsen, Jakob; Møller, Ann M

2006-04-01

The purpose of this review is to present the latest knowledge and research on the definition and distribution of clinically relevant articles in anesthesia journals. It will also discuss the importance of the chosen methodology and outcome of articles. In the last few years, more attention has been paid to evidence-based medicine in anesthesia. Several articles on the subject have focused on the need to base clinical decisions on sound research employing both methodological rigor and clinically relevant outcomes. The number of systematic reviews in anesthesia literature is increasing as well as the focus on diminishing the number of surrogate outcomes. It has been shown that the impact factor is not a valid measure of establishing the level of clinical relevance to a journal. This review presents definitions of clinically relevant anesthesia articles. A clinically relevant article employs both methodological rigor and a clinically relevant outcome. The terms methodological rigor and clinical outcomes are fully discussed in the review as well as problems with journal impact factors.

Top-100 Highest-Cited Original Articles in Ischemic Stroke: A Bibliometric Analysis.

PubMed

Malhotra, Konark; Saeed, Omar; Goyal, Nitin; Katsanos, Aristeidis H; Tsivgoulis, Georgios

2018-03-01

The total number of citations of a research article can be used to determine its impact on the scientific community. We aimed to identify the top-100 articles published on ischemic stroke and evaluate their characteristics. Based on the database of Journal Citation Reports, 934 journals were selected that published original ischemic stroke articles. We used Web of Science citation search tool to identify top-100 citation classics, i.e., articles with more than 400 citations, in the field of ischemic stroke. All original articles were evaluated for publication year, journal category, journal and its impact factor, number of total and annual citations, research topic, publishing country, and institutional affiliation. The top-100 citation classics in ischemic stroke were published from 1970 to 2015, with the decade of 1990-1999 contributing 47 articles of historical significance. Median of total citations and annual citations in our analysis were 625.0 (interquartile range [IQR] 851.3-494.5) and 35.7 (IQR 79.9-25.9), respectively. The majority of the articles originated from the United States (n = 57), focused over the medical management (n = 26), and were published in the New England Journal of Medicine or Stroke (n = 25 each) journals. The median impact factor for the journals that published top-100 ischemic stroke citation classics was 9.11 (IQR 21.49-6.11). Our list of top-100 citation classics specific to ischemic stroke provide a detailed insight into academic achievements, historical perspective and serves as a guide for the scientific progress in stroke. Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Impact factor of medical education journals and recently developed indices: Can any of them support academic promotion criteria?

PubMed Central

Azer, SA; Holen, A; Wilson, I; Skokauskas, N

2016-01-01

Journal Impact Factor (JIF) has been used in assessing scientific journals. Other indices, h- and g-indices and Article Influence Score (AIS), have been developed to overcome some limitations of JIF. The aims of this study were, first, to critically assess the use of JIF and other parameters related to medical education research, and second, to discuss the capacity of these indices in assessing research productivity as well as their utility in academic promotion. The JIF of 16 medical education journals from 2000 to 2011 was examined together with the research evidence about JIF in assessing research outcomes of medical educators. The findings were discussed in light of the nonnumerical criteria often used in academic promotion. In conclusion, JIF was not designed for assessing individual or group research performance, and it seems unsuitable for such purposes. Although the g- and h-indices have demonstrated promising outcomes, further developments are needed for their use as academic promotion criteria. For top academic positions, additional criteria could include leadership, evidence of international impact, and contributions to the advancement of knowledge with regard to medical education. PMID:26732194

Impact factor of medical education journals and recently developed indices: Can any of them support academic promotion criteria?

PubMed

Azer, S A; Holen, A; Wilson, I; Skokauskas, N

2016-01-01

Journal Impact Factor (JIF) has been used in assessing scientific journals. Other indices, h- and g-indices and Article Influence Score (AIS), have been developed to overcome some limitations of JIF. The aims of this study were, first, to critically assess the use of JIF and other parameters related to medical education research, and second, to discuss the capacity of these indices in assessing research productivity as well as their utility in academic promotion. The JIF of 16 medical education journals from 2000 to 2011 was examined together with the research evidence about JIF in assessing research outcomes of medical educators. The findings were discussed in light of the nonnumerical criteria often used in academic promotion. In conclusion, JIF was not designed for assessing individual or group research performance, and it seems unsuitable for such purposes. Although the g- and h-indices have demonstrated promising outcomes, further developments are needed for their use as academic promotion criteria. For top academic positions, additional criteria could include leadership, evidence of international impact, and contributions to the advancement of knowledge with regard to medical education.

Bibliometric analysis of scientific publications in transplantation journals from Mainland China, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan between 2006 and 2015.

PubMed

Pu, Qiang-Hong; Lyu, Qiu-Ju; Su, Huai-Yu

2016-08-03

The aim of this study is to compare the quantity and quality of scientific publications in transplantation fields that were written by researchers from Mainland China, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan in the East Asia region. East Asia. Articles except editorials, conference abstracts, letters, news and corrections published in 25 transplantation journals from 2006 to 2015 were screened with the Web of Science database. The number of total and annual articles, article types (study design and transplantation site), impact factor, citations and articles in the high-impact journals was determined to assess the quantity and quality of transplantation research from East Asia. The correlation of socioeconomic factors and annual publications was also analysed. From 2006 to 2015, there were 47 141 articles published in transplantation journals, of which researchers from Japan published 3694 articles, followed by Mainland China, South Korea and Taiwan with 2778, 1643 and 951 articles, respectively. Similar trends were observed in accumulated impact factor, accumulated citations, articles in the high-impact journals and articles on transplantation site. Publications from Japan had the highest average impact factor and citation, while those from Mainland China had the lowest. Additionally, in terms of study design, authors from Mainland China contributed to most clinical trials and randomised controlled trials, but authors from Japan contributed to most case reports. The annual numbers of articles from Mainland China and South Korea increased linearly (p<0.05), but those from Japan and Taiwan remained stable for the period studied. The annual numbers of articles from Mainland China and South Korea were positively correlated with gross domestic product (p<0.05). Transplantation research productivity in East Asia is highly skewed, with gross domestic product having a significant positive correlation. Mainland China still lags far behind Japan in most bibliometric indicators; thus, there is vast room for improvement. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/

Reporting of various methodological and statistical parameters in negative studies published in prominent Indian Medical Journals: a systematic review.

PubMed

Charan, J; Saxena, D

2014-01-01

Biased negative studies not only reflect poor research effort but also have an impact on 'patient care' as they prevent further research with similar objectives, leading to potential research areas remaining unexplored. Hence, published 'negative studies' should be methodologically strong. All parameters that may help a reader to judge validity of results and conclusions should be reported in published negative studies. There is a paucity of data on reporting of statistical and methodological parameters in negative studies published in Indian Medical Journals. The present systematic review was designed with an aim to critically evaluate negative studies published in prominent Indian Medical Journals for reporting of statistical and methodological parameters. Systematic review. All negative studies published in 15 Science Citation Indexed (SCI) medical journals published from India were included in present study. Investigators involved in the study evaluated all negative studies for the reporting of various parameters. Primary endpoints were reporting of "power" and "confidence interval." Power was reported in 11.8% studies. Confidence interval was reported in 15.7% studies. Majority of parameters like sample size calculation (13.2%), type of sampling method (50.8%), name of statistical tests (49.1%), adjustment of multiple endpoints (1%), post hoc power calculation (2.1%) were reported poorly. Frequency of reporting was more in clinical trials as compared to other study designs and in journals having impact factor more than 1 as compared to journals having impact factor less than 1. Negative studies published in prominent Indian medical journals do not report statistical and methodological parameters adequately and this may create problems in the critical appraisal of findings reported in these journals by its readers.

Assessing the Scientific Research Productivity of a Brazilian Healthcare Institution: A Case Study at the Heart Institute of São Paulo, Brazil

PubMed Central

Tess, Beatriz Helena; Furuie, Sérgio Shiguemi; Castro, Regina Célia Figueiredo; do Carmo Cavarette Barreto, Maria; Nobre, Moacyr Roberto Cuce

2009-01-01

INTRODUCTION: The present study was motivated by the need to systematically assess the research productivity of the Heart Institute (InCor), Medical School of the University of São Paulo, Brazil. OBJECTIVE: To explore methodology for the assessment of institutional scientific research productivity. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Bibliometric indicators based on searches for author affiliation of original scientific articles or reviews published in journals indexed in the databases Web of Science, MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS and SciELO from January 2000 to December 2003 were used in this study. The retrieved records were analyzed according to the index parameters of the journals and modes of access. The number of citations was used to calculate the institutional impact factor. RESULTS: Out of 1253 records retrieved from the five databases, 604 original articles and reviews were analyzed; of these, 246 (41%) articles were published in national journals and 221 (90%) of those were in journals with free online access through SciELO or their own websites. Of the 358 articles published in international journals, 333 (93%) had controlled online access and 223 (67%) were available through the Capes Portal of Journals. The average impact of each article for InCor was 2.224 in the period studied. CONCLUSION: A simple and practical methodology to evaluate the scientific production of health research institutions includes searches in the LILACS database for national journals and in MEDLINE and the Web of Science for international journals. The institutional impact factor of articles indexed in the Web of Science may serve as a measure by which to assess and review the scientific productivity of a research institution. PMID:19578662

Life and times of the impact factor: retrospective analysis of trends for seven medical journals (1994-2005) and their Editors' views

PubMed Central

Chew, Mabel; Villanueva, Elmer V; Van Der Weyden, Martin B

2007-01-01

Objective (1) To analyse trends in the journal impact factor (IF) of seven general medical journals (Ann Intern Med, BMJ, CMAJ, JAMA, Lancet, Med J Aust and N Engl J Med) over 12 years; and (2) to ascertain the views of these journals' past and present Editors on factors that had affected their journals' IFs during their tenure, including direct editorial policies. Design Retrospective analysis of IF data from ISI Web of Knowledge Journal Citation Reports—Science Edition, 1994 to 2005, and interviews with Editors-in-Chief. Setting Medical journal publishing. Participants Ten Editors-in-Chief of the journals, except Med J Aust, who served between 1999 and 2004. Main outcome measures IFs and component numerator and denominator data for the seven general medical journals (1994 to 2005) were collected. IFs are calculated using the formula: (Citations in year z to articles published in years x and y)/(Number of citable articles published in years x and y), where z is the current year and x and y are the previous two years. Editors' views on factors that had affected their journals' IFs were also obtained. Results IFs generally rose over the 12-year period, with the N Engl J Med having the highest IF throughout. However, percentage rises in IF relative to the baseline year of 1994 were greatest for CMAJ (about 500%) and JAMA (260%). Numerators for most journals tended to rise over this period, while denominators tended to be stable or to fall, although not always in a linear fashion. Nine of ten eligible editors were interviewed. Possible reasons given for rises in citation counts included: active recruitment of high-impact articles by courting researchers; offering authors better services; boosting the journal's media profile; more careful article selection; and increases in article citations. Most felt that going online had not affected citations. Most had no deliberate policy to publish fewer articles (lowering the IF denominator), which was sometimes the unintended result of other editorial policies. The two Editors who deliberately published fewer articles did so as they realized IFs were important to authors. Concerns about the accuracy of ISI counting for the IF denominator prompted some to routinely check their IF data with ISI. All Editors had mixed feelings about using IFs to evaluate journals and academics, and mentioned the tension between aiming to improve IFs and ‘keeping their constituents [clinicians] happy.’ Conclusions IFs of the journals studied rose in the 12-year period due to rising numerators and/or falling denominators, to varying extents. Journal Editors perceived that this occurred for various reasons, including deliberate editorial practices. The vulnerability of the IF to editorial manipulation and Editors' dissatisfaction with it as the sole measure of journal quality lend weight to the need for complementary measures. PMID:17339310

Medical literature searches: a comparison of PubMed and Google Scholar.

PubMed

Nourbakhsh, Eva; Nugent, Rebecca; Wang, Helen; Cevik, Cihan; Nugent, Kenneth

2012-09-01

Medical literature searches provide critical information for clinicians. However, the best strategy for identifying relevant high-quality literature is unknown. We compared search results using PubMed and Google Scholar on four clinical questions and analysed these results with respect to article relevance and quality. Abstracts from the first 20 citations for each search were classified into three relevance categories. We used the weighted kappa statistic to analyse reviewer agreement and nonparametric rank tests to compare the number of citations for each article and the corresponding journals' impact factors. Reviewers ranked 67.6% of PubMed articles and 80% of Google Scholar articles as at least possibly relevant (P = 0.116) with high agreement (all kappa P-values < 0.01). Google Scholar articles had a higher median number of citations (34 vs. 1.5, P < 0.0001) and came from higher impact factor journals (5.17 vs. 3.55, P = 0.036). PubMed searches and Google Scholar searches often identify different articles. In this study, Google Scholar articles were more likely to be classified as relevant, had higher numbers of citations and were published in higher impact factor journals. The identification of frequently cited articles using Google Scholar for searches probably has value for initial literature searches. © 2012 The authors. Health Information and Libraries Journal © 2012 Health Libraries Group.

The year 2014 in the European Heart Journal--Cardiovascular Imaging: part II.

PubMed

Gerber, Bernhard L; Edvardsen, Thor; Pierard, Luc A; Saraste, Antti; Knuuti, Juhani; Maurer, Gerald; Habib, Gilbert; Lancellotti, Patrizio

2015-11-01

The European Heart Journal-Cardiovascular Imaging, created in 2012, has become a reference for publishing multimodality cardiovascular imaging scientific and review papers. The impressive 2014 impact factor of 4.105 confirms the important position of our journal. In this part, we summarize the most important studies from the journal's third year, with specific emphasis on cardiomyopathies, congenital heart diseases, valvular heart diseases, and heart failure. Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved. © The Author 2015. For permissions please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.

An Analysis of the Impact of AHLTA Implementation on Provider Productivity at Naval Hospital Jacksonville, FL

DTIC Science & Technology

2007-08-29

International Journal of Production Economics (Anonymous, 2007), organizations feel pressure from stakeholders to...curves may lead to decreased output. During implementation AHLTA utilization may decrease, an article published by the International Journal of Production Economics (2007...and other military-unique factors as the most significant differences between the groups. Limitations According to the International Journal of

Retraction of publications in nursing and midwifery research: A systematic review.

PubMed

Al-Ghareeb, Amal; Hillel, Stav; McKenna, Lisa; Cleary, Michelle; Visentin, Denis; Jones, Martin; Bressington, Daniel; Gray, Richard

2018-05-01

Rates of manuscript retraction in academic journals are increasing. Papers are retracted because of scientific misconduct or serious error. To date there have been no studies that have examined rates of retraction in nursing and midwifery journals. A systematic review of Journal Citation Report listed nursing science journals. The Medline database was searched systematically from January 1980 through July 2017, and www.retractionwatch.com was manually searched for relevant studies that met the inclusion criteria. Two researchers undertook title and abstract and full text screening. Data were extracted on the country of the corresponding author, journal title, impact factor, study design, year of retraction, number of citations after retraction, and reason for retraction. Journals retraction index was also calculated. Twenty-nine retracted papers published in nursing science journals were identified, the first in 2007. This represents 0.029% of all papers published in these journals since 2007. We observed a significant increase in the retraction rate of 0.44 per 10,000 publications per year (95% CI; 0.03-0.84, p = .037). There was a negative association between a journal's retraction index and impact factor with a significant reduction in retraction index of -0.57 for a one-point increase in impact factor (95% CI; -1.05 to -0.09, p = .022). Duplicate publication was the most common reason for retraction (n = 18, 58%). The mean number of citations manuscripts received after retraction was seven, the highest was 52. Most (n = 27, 93.1%) of the retracted papers are still available online (with a watermark indicating they are retracted). Compared to more established academic disciplines, rates of retraction in nursing and midwifery are low. Findings suggest that unsound research is not being identified and that the checks and balances incumbent in the scientific method are not working. In a clinical discipline, this is concerning and may indicate that research that should have been removed from the evidence base continues to influence nursing and midwifery care. Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Thirty years of disclosure of conflict of interest in surgery journals.

PubMed

Probst, Pascal; Hüttner, Felix J; Klaiber, Ulla; Diener, Markus K; Büchler, Markus W; Knebel, Phillip

2015-04-01

A conflict of interest (COI) creates the risk that a professional judgment will be unduly influenced by a secondary interest. In practice, the leading concern is the creation of bias by industry sponsorship. Several organizations for ethics in scientific publishing exist, and standardized disclosure forms have been developed. The aim of this study was to investigate the present status of the definition, management, and disclosure of COI in journals devoted to general and abdominal surgery. Information on publisher, definition of COI, whether COI disclosure was mandatory, publication of the disclosure statement with the article, and when publication of disclosure statements was introduced were gathered from instructions for authors and from journal editors and presented descriptively. The hypothesis that journals with a disclosure policy have greater impact factors was tested with a Wilcoxon rank-sum test. A sample of 64 journals was investigated. In 8 journals (13%) disclosure was deemed unnecessary. In the remaining 56 journals (88%) disclosure of COI was mandatory and in 39 of these journals (61%) the COI statement was published with the article. Journals declaring COI disclosure as mandatory had a greater impact factor (0.626 vs 1.732; P = .006). Transparency is critical to the reliability of evidence-based medicine. All efforts should be made to give the reader the maximum amount of information. We recommend that every surgeon maintain a standardized, up-to-date disclosure form. Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Publication rates of podium and poster abstract presentations at the 2010 and 2011 society of gynecologic oncology conferences.

PubMed

Imani, Saba; Moore, Gretchan; Nelson, Nathan; Scott, Jared; Vassar, Matt

2018-05-01

This study aimed to determine the publication rate of oral and poster abstracts presented at the 2010 and 2011 Society of Gynecologic Oncology (SGO) conferences as well as the journals that most commonly published these studies, their 5-year impact factor, the time to publication, and the reasons for nonpublication. Abstracts presented at the 2010-2011 SGO conferences were included in this study. We searched Google, Google Scholar, and PubMed to locate published reports of these abstracts. If an abstract's full-text manuscript could not be located, an author of the conference abstract was contacted via email to inquire whether the research was published. If the research was unpublished, the authors were asked to provide the reason for nonpublication. The time to publication, journal, and journal impact factor were noted for abstracts that reached full-text publication. A total of 725 abstracts were identified, of which 386 (53%) reached publication in a peer-reviewed journal. Oral presentations were published at a higher rate than poster presentations. Most (70%) reached publication within 2 years of abstract presentation. Abstracts were published in 89 journals, but most (39%) were published in Gynecologic Oncology. The mean time to publication was 15.7 months, with a mean 5-year impact factor of 4.956. A 53% publication rate indicates that the SGO conference selection process favors research likely to be published and, thus, presumably of high quality. The overall publication rate is higher than that reported for many other biomedical conferences.

Fate of Manuscripts Rejected From the Red Journal

DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

Holliday, Emma B., E-mail: emmaholliday@gmail.com; Yang, George; Jagsi, Reshma

Purpose: To evaluate characteristics associated with higher rates of acceptance for original manuscripts submitted for publication to the International Journal of Radiation Oncology • Biology • Physics (IJROBP) and describe the fate of rejected manuscripts. Methods and Materials: Manuscripts submitted to the IJROBP from May 1, 2010, to August 31, 2010, and May 1, 2012, to August 31, 2012, were evaluated for author demographics and acceptance status. A PubMed search was performed for each IJROBP-rejected manuscript to ascertain whether the manuscript was ultimately published elsewhere. The Impact Factor of the accepting journal and the number of citations of the publishedmore » manuscript were also collected. Results: Of the 500 included manuscripts, 172 (34.4%) were accepted and 328 (65.6%) were rejected. There was no significant difference in acceptance rates according to gender or degree of the submitting author, but there were significant differences seen based on the submitting author's country, rank, and h-index. On multivariate analysis, earlier year submitted (P<.0001) and higher author h-index (P=.006) remained significantly associated with acceptance into the IJROBP. Two hundred thirty-five IJROBP-rejected manuscripts (71.7%) were ultimately published in a PubMed-listed journal as of July 2014. There were no significant differences in any submitting author characteristics. Journals accepting IJROBP-rejected manuscripts had a lower median [interquartile range] 2013 impact factor compared with the IJROBP (2.45 [1.53-3.71] vs 4.176). The IJROBP-rejected manuscripts ultimately published elsewhere had a lower median [interquartile range] number of citations (1 [0-4] vs 6 [2-11]; P<.001), which persisted on multivariate analysis. Conclusions: The acceptance rate for manuscripts submitted to the IJROBP is approximately one-third, and approximately 70% of rejected manuscripts are ultimately published in other PubMed-listed journals, but these ultimate-destination journals usually have a lower impact factor, leading to fewer citations and overall visibility.« less

An appraisal of the quality of published qualitative dental research.

PubMed

Masood, Mohd; Thaliath, Ebin T; Bower, Elizabeth J; Newton, J Timothy

2011-06-01

To appraise the quality of published qualitative research in dentistry and identify aspects of quality, which require attention in future research. Qualitative research studies on dental topics were appraised using the critical appraisal skills programme (CASP) appraisal framework for qualitative research. The percentage of CASP criteria fully met during the assessment was used as an indication of the quality of each paper. Individual criteria were not weighted. Forty-three qualitative studies were identified for appraisal of which 48% had a dental public health focus. Deficiencies in detail of reporting, research design, methodological rigour, presentation of findings, reflexivity, credibility of findings and relevance of study were identified. Problems with quality were apparent irrespective of journal impact factor, although papers from low impact factor journals exhibited the most deficiencies. Journals with the highest impact factors published the least qualitative research. The quality of much of the qualitative research published on dental topics is mediocre. Qualitative methods are underutilized in oral health research. If quality guidelines such as the CASP framework are used in the context of a thorough understanding of qualitative research design and data analysis, they can promote good practice and the systematic assessment of qualitative research. © 2010 John Wiley & Sons A/S.

Evaluating the MEDLINE Core Clinical Journals filter: data-driven evidence assessing clinical utility.

PubMed

Klein-Fedyshin, Michele; Ketchum, Andrea M; Arnold, Robert M; Fedyshin, Peter J

2014-12-01

MEDLINE offers the Core Clinical Journals filter to limit to clinically useful journals. To determine its effectiveness for searching and patient-centric decision making, this study compared literature used for Morning Report in Internal Medicine with journals in the filter. An EndNote library with references answering 327 patient-related questions during Morning Report from 2007 to 2012 was exported to a file listing variables including designated Core Clinical Journal, Impact Factor, date used and medical subject. Bradford's law of scattering was applied ranking the journals and reflecting their clinical utility. Recall (sensitivity) and precision of the Core Morning Report journals and non-Core set was calculated. This study applied bibliometrics to compare the 628 articles used against these criteria to determine journals impacting decision making. Analysis shows 30% of clinically used articles are from the Core Clinical Journals filter and 16% of the journals represented are Core titles. When Bradford-ranked, 55% of the top 20 journals are Core. Articles <5 years old furnish 63% of sources used. Among the 63 Morning Report subjects, 55 have <50% precision and 41 have <50% recall including 37 subjects with 0% precision and 0% recall. Low usage of publications within the Core Clinical Journals filter indicates less relevance for hospital-based care. The divergence from high-impact medicine titles suggests clinically valuable journals differ from academically important titles. With few subjects demonstrating high recall or precision, the MEDLINE Core Clinical Journals filter may require a review and update to better align with current clinical needs. © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

The emerging use of Twitter by urological journals.

PubMed

Nason, Gregory J; O'Kelly, Fardod; Kelly, Michael E; Phelan, Nigel; Manecksha, Rustom P; Lawrentschuk, Nathan; Murphy, Declan G

2015-03-01

To assess the emerging use of Twitter by urological journals. A search of the Journal of Citation Reports 2012 was performed to identify urological journals. These journals were then searched on Twitter.com. Each journal website was accessed for links to social media (SoMe). The number of 'tweets', followers and age of profile was determined. To evaluate the content, over a 6-month period (November 2013 to April 2014), all tweets were scrutinised on the journals Twitter profiles. To assess SoMe influence, the Klout score of each journal was also calculated. In all, 33 urological journals were identified. Eight (24.2%) had Twitter profiles. The mean (range) number of tweets and followers was 557 (19-1809) and 1845 (82-3692), respectively. The mean (range) age of the twitter profiles was 952 (314-1758) days with an average 0.88 tweets/day. A Twitter profile was associated with a higher mean impact factor of the journal (mean [sd] 3.588 [3.05] vs 1.78 [0.99], P = 0.013). Over a 6-month period, November 2013 to April 2014, the median (range) number of tweets per profile was 82 (2-415) and the median (range) number of articles linked to tweets was 73 (0-336). Of these 710 articles, 152 were Level 1 evidence-based articles, 101 Level 2, 278 Level 3 and 179 Level 4. The median (range) Klout score was 47 (19-58). The Klout scores of major journals did not exactly mirror their impact factors. SoMe is increasingly becoming an adjunct to traditional teaching methods, due to its convenient and user-friendly platform. Recently, many of the leading urological journals have used Twitter to highlight significant articles of interest to readers. © 2014 The Authors. BJU International © 2014 BJU International.

Metadiscourse markers in biological research articles and journal impact factor: Non-native writers vs. native writers.

PubMed

Gholami, Javad; Ilghami, Roghayeh

2016-07-08

Metadiscourse markers (MDMs) are lexical resources that writers employ to organize their discourse and state their stance towards the content or the reader. This study investigated the frequency with which interactive and interactional MDMs were employed in biological research articles (RAs). It also explored the possible relationship between the frequency of these markers and Impact Factor (IF) of journals as an index of quality. Moreover, it aimed at finding out the difference(s) between two groups of authors (Iranian and American) in their use of these markers. Forty biological RAs published in years 2008-2011 written by Iranian non-native authors and published in four ISI journals with different IFs and 40 articles with the same characteristics published by American native authors were selected and examined for the use of the markers. The results showed that there was a strong positive correlation between the frequency of MDMs and IF of the journals. Regarding the frequency of MDMs, it was observed that Iranian authors employed interactive and interactional markers slightly more than their American counterparts. These results may provisionally confirm the considerable role of MDMs in enhancing the coherence and organization of articles for possible publication in high-impact journals. © 2016 by The International Union of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, 44(4):349-360, 2016. © 2016 The International Union of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology.

[Limiting a Medline/PubMed query to the "best" articles using the JCR relative impact factor].

PubMed

Avillach, P; Kerdelhué, G; Devos, P; Maisonneuve, H; Darmoni, S J

2014-12-01

Medline/PubMed is the most frequently used medical bibliographic research database. The aim of this study was to propose a new generic method to limit any Medline/PubMed query based on the relative impact factor and the A & B categories of the SIGAPS score. The entire PubMed corpus was used for the feasibility study, then ten frequent diseases in terms of PubMed indexing and the citations of four Nobel prize winners. The relative impact factor (RIF) was calculated by medical specialty defined in Journal Citation Reports. The two queries, which included all the journals in category A (or A OR B), were added to any Medline/PubMed query as a central point of the feasibility study. Limitation using the SIGAPS category A was larger than the when using the Core Clinical Journals (CCJ): 15.65% of PubMed corpus vs 8.64% for CCJ. The response time of this limit applied to the entire PubMed corpus was less than two seconds. For five diseases out of ten, limiting the citations with the RIF was more effective than with the CCJ. For the four Nobel prize winners, limiting the citations with the RIF was more effective than the CCJ. The feasibility study to apply a new filter based on the relative impact factor on any Medline/PubMed query was positive. Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.

Publication bias is underreported in systematic reviews published in high-impact-factor journals: metaepidemiologic study.

PubMed

Onishi, Akira; Furukawa, Toshi A

2014-12-01

To examine how often a significant publication bias (PB) existed when the assessment of PB was not reported in systematic reviews. All systematic reviews with meta-analyses of interventions and risk/prognostic factors published in the general medical journals with the top 10 impact factors in 2011 and 2012 were included. The results regarding PB were extracted. When the assessment of PB was not reported, we examined the presence of PB using the Egger test and contour-enhanced funnel plot and the impact of unreported PB by regression-based method. Among all the identified 116 reviews, the assessment of PB was not reported in 36 reviews (31.0%), particularly in reviews without a comprehensive literature search. Of these 36 reviews, seven (19.4%) were found to have a significant PB. The original pooled results may have been overestimated by a median of 50.9% if corrected for PB. Among the 28 reviews with PB including both reviews that did or did not report the assessment of PB, seven reviews (25.0%) did not report the presence of PB. Significant PB was underreported in systematic reviews published in high-impact-factor journals (eg, 19.4% of those that did not report assessment of PB had significant PB). Readers of systematic reviews should not assume that PB does not exist when not reported whereas researchers should report the results of assessments for PB. Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

[Reliability of a bibliometric tool used in France for hospital founding].

PubMed

Darmoni, Stefan J; Ladner, Joël; Devos, Patrick; Gehanno, Jean-François

2009-01-01

SIGAPS is a bibliometric score that aims at making an inventory, evaluating and promoting scientific publications of hospitals that perform research. It has become a major stake in France since it is one of the most important components of the MERRI (Mission Training, Research, Reference and Innovation) founding of hospitals. This score is based on the points attributed to the authors of articles published in journals indexed in Medline, according to the rank of the authors and the Impact Factor of the journal. to compare the reliability of the score when applying different way of computing it, and different weights for the rank or the Impact Factor. we computed the scores of all the physicians of a University Hospital, using the rules that are actually applied at the national level. We then used 4 different scenarios, with different weight given to the rank of authors or the Impact Factor. We compared the scores obtained by each author according to the different scenarios with the Spearman's rank and Pearson's correlation coefficients. The score is not significantly affected when no points are given to the fourth authors and above, when the last author get more points or to change the points according to the Impact Factor of the journal. The different scenarios do not lead to significant changes for the physicians' scores, and therefore for the cumulated score of the hospital. Despite the well known limits of bibliometric indicators, the SIGAPS score appears reliable to compare the hospitals for founding decisions.

Publications by doctoral candidates at Charité University Hospital, Berlin, from 1998-2008.

PubMed

Ziemann, Esther; Oestmann, Jörg-Wilhelm

2012-05-01

One quality parameter of medical theses is the number of articles published by the doctoral candidates. Over the course of the past decade the Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin has taken steps to improve the quality of the theses completed by its doctoral students in medicine and increase their publication activity. This study was designed to verify the efficacy of these measures and to detect general trends. Medical theses completed in 1998, 2004 and 2008 (sample size >250 for each year) were retrospectively analyzed with regard to associated publications within a 7-year period (from 5 years before completion to 2 years thereafter). Quality and quantity were recorded. Publications found in the PubMed database were evaluated; the impact factor of the publishing journal was used as quality parameter. The sample sizes were 264 for 1998, 316 for 2004, and 316 for 2008. The number of publications per doctoral student increased from 0.78 to 1.39 over the course of the study period, and the average impact factor rose from 2.42 to 3.62. Analysis using the current impact factors of the publishing journals showed an increase from 3.13 to 3.85. The proportion of case reports fell from 12.7% to 8%. The proportion of first authorships remained about the same. The past decade has seen an increase in the number of publications by doctoral students at the Charité and a rise in the average impact factor of the journals concerned.

The effect of journal impact factor, reporting conflicts, and reporting funding sources, on standardized effect sizes in back pain trials: a systematic review and meta-regression.

PubMed

Froud, Robert; Bjørkli, Tom; Bright, Philip; Rajendran, Dévan; Buchbinder, Rachelle; Underwood, Martin; Evans, David; Eldridge, Sandra

2015-11-30

Low back pain is a common and costly health complaint for which there are several moderately effective treatments. In some fields there is evidence that funder and financial conflicts are associated with trial outcomes. It is not clear whether effect sizes in back pain trials relate to journal impact factor, reporting conflicts of interest, or reporting funding. We performed a systematic review of English-language papers reporting randomised controlled trials of treatments for non-specific low back pain, published between 2006-2012. We modelled the relationship using 5-year journal impact factor, and categories of reported of conflicts of interest, and categories of reported funding (reported none and reported some, compared to not reporting these) using meta-regression, adjusting for sample size, and publication year. We also considered whether impact factor could be predicted by the direction of outcome, or trial sample size. We could abstract data to calculate effect size in 99 of 146 trials that met our inclusion criteria. Effect size is not associated with impact factor, reporting of funding source, or reporting of conflicts of interest. However, explicitly reporting 'no trial funding' is strongly associated with larger absolute values of effect size (adjusted β=1.02 (95 % CI 0.44 to 1.59), P=0.001). Impact factor increases by 0.008 (0.004 to 0.012) per unit increase in trial sample size (P<0.001), but does not differ by reported direction of the LBP trial outcome (P=0.270). The absence of associations between effect size and impact factor, reporting sources of funding, and conflicts of interest reflects positively on research and publisher conduct in the field. Strong evidence of a large association between absolute magnitude of effect size and explicit reporting of 'no funding' suggests authors of unfunded trials are likely to report larger effect sizes, notwithstanding direction. This could relate in part to quality, resources, and/or how pragmatic a trial is.

Medical journals--in the news and for the wrong reasons.

PubMed

Pai, Sanjay A

2014-01-01

2013 has been a landmark year, in fact, a bad year for biomedical journals. Medical journals and their editors have been respected for long, as they are the harbingers of change and of progress in scientific thought. Science expects transparency from the agents through which scientists publish their latest research findings and this expectation is usually fulfilled. Recent developments have, however, thrown into doubt the integrity of some science journals, their editors, and by extension, the entire field of biomedical and science publishing. These developments involve wide-ranging issues--the impact factor, the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), and the birth, existence and rise of predatory journals.

Implications of Web of Science journal impact factor for scientific output evaluation in 16 institutions and investigators' opinion.

PubMed

Wáng, Yì-Xiáng J; Arora, Richa; Choi, Yongdoo; Chung, Hsiao-Wen; Egorov, Vyacheslav I; Frahm, Jens; Kudo, Hiroyuki; Kuyumcu, Suleyman; Laurent, Sophie; Loffroy, Romaric; Maurea, Simone; Morcos, Sameh K; Ni, Yicheng; Oei, Edwin H G; Sabarudin, Akmal; Yu, Xin

2014-12-01

Journal based metrics is known not to be ideal for the measurement of the quality of individual researcher's scientific output. In the current report 16 contributors from Hong Kong SAR, India, Korea, Taiwan, Russia, Germany, Japan, Turkey, Belgium, France, Italy, UK, The Netherlands, Malaysia, and USA are invited. The following six questions were asked: (I) is Web of Sciences journal impact factor (IF) and Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) citation the main academic output performance evaluation tool in your institution? and your country? (II) How does Google citation count in your institution? and your country? (III) If paper is published in a non-SCI journal but it is included in PubMed and searchable by Google scholar, how it is valued when compared with a paper published in a journal with an IF? (IV) Do you value to publish a piece of your work in a non-SCI journal as much as a paper published in a journal with an IF? (V) What is your personal view on the metric measurement of scientific output? (VI) Overall, do you think Web of Sciences journal IF is beneficial, or actually it is doing more harm? The results show that IF and ISI citation is heavily affecting the academic life in most of the institutions. Google citation and evaluation, while is being used and convenient and speedy, has not gain wide 'official' recognition as a tool for scientific output evaluation.

Trend and impact of international collaboration in clinical medicine papers published in Malaysia.

PubMed

Low, Wah Yun; Ng, Kwan Hoong; Kabir, M A; Koh, Ai Peng; Sinnasamy, Janaki

2014-01-01

Research collaboration is the way forward in order to improve quality and impact of its research findings. International research collaboration has resulted in international co-authorship in scientific communications and publications. This study highlights the collaborating research and authorship trend in clinical medicine in Malaysia from 2001 to 2010. Malaysian-based author affiliation in the Web of Science (Science Citation Index Expanded) and clinical medicine journals ( n  = 999) and articles ( n  = 3951) as of 30th Oct 2011 were downloaded. Types of document analyzed were articles and reviews, and impact factors (IF) in the 2010 Journal Citation Report Science Edition were taken to access the quality of the articles. The number of publications in clinical medicine increased from 4.5 % ( n  = 178) in 2001 to 23.9 % ( n  = 944) in 2010. The top three contributors in the subject categories are Pharmacology and Pharmacy (13.9 %), General and Internal Medicine (13.6 %) and Tropical Medicine (7.3 %). By journal tier system: Tier 1 (18.7 %, n  = 738), Tier 2 (22.5 %, n  = 888), Tier 3 (29.6 %, n  = 1170), Tier 4 (27.2 %, n  = 1074), and journals without IF (2.1 %, n  = 81). University of Malaya was the most productive. Local collaborators accounted for 60.3 % and international collaborations 39.7 %. Articles with international collaborations appeared in journals with higher journal IFs than those without international collaboration. They were also cited more significantly than articles without international collaborations. Citations, impact factor and journal tiers were significantly associated with international collaboration in Malaysia's clinical medicine publications. Malaysia has achieved a significant number of ISI publications in clinical medicine participation in international collaboration.

Association of h-index of Editorial Board Members and Impact Factor among Radiology Journals.

PubMed

Asnafi, Solmaz; Gunderson, Tina; McDonald, Robert J; Kallmes, David F

2017-02-01

h-Index has been proposed as a useful bibliometric measure for quantifying research productivity. In this current study, we analyzed h-indices of editorial board members of Radiology journals and tested the hypothesis that editorial board members of Radiology journals with higher impact factors (IF) have higher h-indices. Sixty-two Radiology journals with IF >1 were included. Editorial board members were identified using the journals' websites. Editors' affiliations and research fields of interest were used to distinguish investigators with similar names. Bibliometric indices including number of publications, total citations, citations per publication, and h-index for each editorial board member were obtained using the Web of Science database. Chi-square or Wilcoxon rank-sum tests were used to test for differences in bibliographic measures or demographics between groups. Among the editorial boards of 62 journals, the median [interquartile range] board h-index was 26 [18, 31] and had 36 [17, 56] members. The median journal IF was 2.27 [1.74, 3.31]. We identified a total of 2204 distinct editors; they had a median [interquartile range] h-index of 23 [13, 35], 120 [58, 215] total publications, 1938 [682, 4634] total citations, and an average of 15.7 [9.96, 24.8] citations per publication. The boards of journals with IF above the median had significantly higher h-indices (P = .002), total publications (P = .01), and total and average citations (both any [P = .003, .009] and nonself-citations [P = .001, .002]) than journals below the median. Our data indicate that board members of Radiology journals with higher IF have greater h-indices compared to lower IF journals. Copyright © 2017 The Association of University Radiologists. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

A Fine Balance: How Authors Strategize Around Journal Submission.

PubMed

Ginsburg, Shiphra; Lynch, Meghan; Walsh, Catharine M

2018-04-24

Publishing in peer-reviewed journals is essential for medical education researchers. Competition remains fierce for top journals and authors are advised to consider impact factor (IF), audience, and alignment of focus. However, little is known about how authors balance these factors when making submission decisions. The authors aimed to explore decision-making around journal choice. Using constructivist grounded theory, the authors conducted and analyzed 27 semi-structured phone interviews (August-November 2016) with medical education researchers. Participants were recruited from a larger study and all had presented abstracts at medical education meetings in 2005 or 2006. When deciding where to submit an article, participants weighed a journal's IF and prestige against other factors, such as a journal's vision and mission, finding the right audience, study-specific factors including perceived quality of the work, and the peer-review process. The opportunity cost of aiming high and risking rejection was influenced by career stage and external pressures. Despite much higher IFs, clinical journals were viewed as less desirable for establishing legitimacy in the medical education field and were often the target for less novel or rigorous work. Participants expressed dissatisfaction with peer review in general, citing overly critical and poorly informed reviewers. Authors strategize around a particular article's submission by attempting to balance many inter-related factors. Their perceptions that high IF clinical journals are viewed as less prestigious in this field can lead to publication strategies that run counter to advice given to junior faculty. This has implications for mentorship and institutional leadership.

ANALYSIS OF OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY, ORTHOPEDICS AND THORACIC SURGERY JOURNALS.

PubMed

Lima, Wilma Terezinha Anselmo

2015-01-01

To perform an extensive analysis of journals in Medicine III - CAPES, and specifically those in the areas of Otorhinolaryngology, Orthopedics and Traumatology and Chest Surgery. An active search for the impact factors in the Journal Citation Reports, Scimago, their indexation in Scielo, Lilacs, Scopus and Google Scholar, and their stratification in WebQualis was done. Forty-four journals with measured impact factors ranging from 3.006 to 0.128 were detected in the area of Otorhinolaryngology; however, only 26 of them (60%) had a Qualis measured by CAPES; in the stratification, no journal was detected in A1, three were A2 and nine B1. Three journals were located for Chest Surgery, with only one of them having a measured Qualis (A2) with a mean of 3.61. Sixty-seven journals were detected for Orthopedics and Traumatology, with an impact factor ranging from 4.699 to 0.156; Qualis was measured in only 38 of them (60%); there were three journal stratified as A1, seven as A2 and 25 as B1. The search for journals of higher impact induces authors to not publish in journals related to their area and facing more difficulties than investigators from other areas. Realizar análise ampla dos periódicos da Medicina III - CAPES e, especificamente, os pertencentes à Otorrinolaringologia, Ortopedia e Traumatologia, e Cirurgia Torácica. Busca ativa do fator de impacto dos periódicos das áreas citadas no Journal Citation Report e Scimago, sua indexação no Scielo, Lilacs, Scopus, Google Scholar e sua estratificação no WebQualis. Para a Otorrinolaringologia foram encontrados 44 periódicos, cujo fator de impacto variou de 3.006 a 0.128; entretanto, apenas 26 deles (60%) tinham Qualis medido pela CAPES; nas estratificações encontrou-se nenhuma revista em A1, três em A2 e nove em B1. Para a Cirurgia Torácica foram localizados três periódicos, sendo que apenas um tinha Qualis medido (A2) com média de 3.61. Os resultados da busca para a Ortopedia e Traumatologia permitiu encontrar 67 periódicos, cuja variação do fator de impacto foi de 4.699 a 0.156; apenas 38 deles (60%) tinham Qualis medido; três periódicos tinham estratificação A1, sete A2 e 25 em B1. A busca por revistas de maior impacto faz com que muitos especialistas deixem de publicar em revistas de sua área enfrentando mais dificuldades que pesquisadores das outras áreas.

Editorial

NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

Puers, R.

2007-01-01

As we enter the 2007 volume of Journal of Micromechanics and Microengineering, the journal's seventeenth, I would like to take the opportunity to reflect on the achievements of the past year. The considerable increase in submissions to the journal, as you all may have noticed by the steadily increasing volume, is the most visible change. A total of 3272 pages were published in 2006, an increase of 12% on 2005. More exciting, and maybe less noticeable, is that the journal's ISI® impact factor saw a significant increase to 2.499. This is an achievement we can all be proud of. If the journal and its impact factor are growing, it is only because more of you are choosing to submit your high-quality work to the journal, and because more of you are choosing to refer to recent papers published within the journal! I would like to take this opportunity to thank each of you, readers, authors and referees alike. The large amount of submitted articles has naturally had a considerable impact on the number of referees. In 2006 around 750 experts agreed to our requests to review. We have requested, and received, reports from at least 36 different countries. We would like to express our thanks to all of our referees for their careful and well constructed reports which are of great assistance in maintaining the rigorous quality standards of Journal of Micromechanics and Microengineering. All this would not of course be possible without the constant influx of magnificent papers dealing with the many fascinating aspects of microengineering and micromachining. I believe we have achieved a clear and distinct profile in the broad spectrum of journals in this field, and it is my sincerest hope that we can even enhance this profile. This is of course unthinkable without the efforts of each individual researcher in our community. I therefore wish each of you a prosperous and adventurous 2007 in your quest to expand the frontiers in micromachining. Let's continue the path we have chosen.

Authorship characteristics of orthodontic randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses in non-orthodontic journals with impact factor.

PubMed

Alqaydi, Ahlam R; Kanavakis, Georgios; Naser-Ud-Din, Shazia; Athanasiou, Athanasios E

2017-12-08

This study was conducted to explore authorship characteristics and publication trends of all orthodontic randomized controlled trials (RCTs), systematic reviews (SRs), and meta-analyses (MAs) published in non-orthodontic journals with impact factor (IF). Appropriate research strategies were developed to search for all articles published until December 2015, without restrictions regarding language or publication status. The initial search generated 4524 results, but after application of the inclusion criteria, the final number of articles was reduced to 274 (SRs: 152; MAs: 36; and RCTs: 86). Various authorship characteristics were recorded for each article. Frequency distributions for all parameters were explored with Pearson chi-square for independence at the 0.05 level of significance. More than half of the included publications were SRs (55.5 per cent), followed by RCTs (31.4 per cent) and MAs (13.1 per cent); one hundred seventy-eight (65 per cent) appeared in dental journals and 96 (35 per cent) were published in non-dental journals. The last decade was significantly more productive than the period before 2006, with 236 (86.1 per cent) articles published between 2006 and 2015. European countries produced 51.5 per cent of the total number of publications, followed by Asia (18.6 per cent) and North America (USA and Canada; 16.8 per cent). Studies published in journals without IF were not included. Level-1 evidence orthodontic literature published in non-orthodontic journals has significantly increased during 2006-15. This indicates a larger interest of other specialty journals in orthodontic related studies and a trend for orthodontic authors to publish their work in journals with impact in broader fields of dentistry and medicine. © The Author(s) 2017. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Orthodontic Society. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com

Reviewer acknowledgement

PubMed Central

2014-01-01

Contributing reviewers The Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine—which received its first Impact Factor in 2013—is extremely grateful for the time, hard work and support of its highly-qualified peer reviewers. The editors of the Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine, the Norwegian Air Ambulance Foundation and BioMed Central would like to show our appreciation by thanking the following people for their assistance reviewing manuscripts for the journal in 2013.

What are the personal and professional characteristics that distinguish the researchers who publish in high- and low-impact journals? A multi-national web-based survey

PubMed Central

Paiva, Carlos Eduardo; Araujo, Raphael L C; Paiva, Bianca Sakamoto Ribeiro; de Pádua Souza, Cristiano; Cárcano, Flavio Mavignier; Costa, Marina Moreira; Serrano, Sérgio Vicente; Lima, João Paulo Nogueira

2017-01-01

Purpose This study identifies the personal and professional profiles of researchers with a greater potential to publish high-impact academic articles. Method The study involved conducting an international survey of journal authors using a web-based questionnaire. The survey examined personal characteristics, funding, and the perceived barriers of research quality, work-life balance, and satisfaction and motivation in relation to career. The processes of manuscript writing and journal publication were measured using an online questionnaire that was developed for this study. The responses were compared between the two groups of researchers using logistic regression models. Results A total of 269 questionnaires were analysed. The researchers shared some common perceptions; both groups reported that they were seeking recognition (or to be leaders in their areas) rather than financial remuneration. Furthermore, both groups identified time and funding constraints as the main obstacles to their scientific activities. The amount of time that was spent on research activities, having >5 graduate students under supervision, never using text editing services prior to the publication of articles, and living in a developed and English-speaking country were the independent variables that were associated with their article getting a greater chance of publishing in a high-impact journal. In contrast, using one’s own resources to perform studies decreased the chance of publishing in high-impact journals. Conclusions The researchers who publish in high-impact journals have distinct profiles compared with the researchers who publish in low-impact journals. English language abilities and the actual amount of time that is dedicated to research and scientific writing, as well as aspects that relate to the availability of financial resources are the factors that are associated with a successful researcher’s profile. PMID:28194230

What are the personal and professional characteristics that distinguish the researchers who publish in high- and low-impact journals? A multi-national web-based survey.

PubMed

Paiva, Carlos Eduardo; Araujo, Raphael L C; Paiva, Bianca Sakamoto Ribeiro; de Pádua Souza, Cristiano; Cárcano, Flavio Mavignier; Costa, Marina Moreira; Serrano, Sérgio Vicente; Lima, João Paulo Nogueira

2017-01-01

This study identifies the personal and professional profiles of researchers with a greater potential to publish high-impact academic articles. The study involved conducting an international survey of journal authors using a web-based questionnaire. The survey examined personal characteristics, funding, and the perceived barriers of research quality, work-life balance, and satisfaction and motivation in relation to career. The processes of manuscript writing and journal publication were measured using an online questionnaire that was developed for this study. The responses were compared between the two groups of researchers using logistic regression models. A total of 269 questionnaires were analysed. The researchers shared some common perceptions; both groups reported that they were seeking recognition (or to be leaders in their areas) rather than financial remuneration. Furthermore, both groups identified time and funding constraints as the main obstacles to their scientific activities. The amount of time that was spent on research activities, having >5 graduate students under supervision, never using text editing services prior to the publication of articles, and living in a developed and English-speaking country were the independent variables that were associated with their article getting a greater chance of publishing in a high-impact journal. In contrast, using one's own resources to perform studies decreased the chance of publishing in high-impact journals. The researchers who publish in high-impact journals have distinct profiles compared with the researchers who publish in low-impact journals. English language abilities and the actual amount of time that is dedicated to research and scientific writing, as well as aspects that relate to the availability of financial resources are the factors that are associated with a successful researcher's profile.

Publications in anesthesia journals: quality and clinical relevance.

PubMed

Lauritsen, Jakob; Moller, Ann M

2004-11-01

Clinicians performing evidence-based anesthesia rely on anesthesia journals for clinically relevant information. The objective of this study was to analyze the proportion of clinically relevant articles in five high impact anesthesia journals. We evaluated all articles published in Anesthesiology, Anesthesia & Analgesia, British Journal of Anesthesia, Anesthesia, and Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica from January to June, 2000. Articles were assessed and classified according to type, outcome, and design; 1379 articles consisting of 5468 pages were evaluated and categorized. The most common types of article were animal and laboratory research (31.2%) and randomized clinical trial (20.4%). A clinically relevant article was defined as an article that used a statistically valid method and had a clinically relevant end-point. Altogether 18.6% of the pages had as their subject matter clinically relevant trials. We compared the Journal Impact Factor (a measure of the number of citations per article in a journal) and the proportion of clinically relevant pages and found that they were inversely proportional to each other.

[The impact factor of Nutrición Hospitalaria is 1.096].

PubMed

Culebras, J M; García de Lorenzo, A

2009-01-01

The editors of Nutrición Hospitalaria (Nutr Hosp) analyze the journal from its foundation in 1979 to the present time, on occasion of the first publication of its impact factorby Journal Citation Reports (JCR). The actions taken along this thirty year period are described, including its incorporation to multiple web databases, the Open Access policy of the journal, its progressive internationality, and the bibliometric analysis made in 1999. A figure with the journal citation trends is included. Nutr Hosp, included in the "Nutrition & Dietetics" group of JCR, is in the position 42/59, i.e. in the third quartile. Among the Spanish journals included in JCR,Nutr Hosp is located in the 14/37 position. A few considerations are made related to the economical aspects of the journal, the number of articles received so far, the articles expected in the future, the rejection rate and the language (Spanish or English) in which Nutr Hosp should be published.

[Analysis on acupuncture literature in Science Citation Index (SCI) periodicals in 2007].

PubMed

Gao, Liang; Tian, Li-xin; Guo, Yi

2009-06-01

To grasp the international developing tendency of acupuncture research and provide some references for promoting acupuncture and moxibustion internationalization process, the articles about acupuncture in Science Citation Index (SCI) periodicals in 2007 were retrieved by adopting the retrieval tactics on line in combination with database searching. Results indicate that 257 articles about acupuncture had been retrived from the SCI Web databases. These articles were published in 125 journals respectively, most of which were Euramerican journals. Among these journals, the impact factor of the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), 25. 547, is the highest one. It is shown that the impact factors of the SCI periodicals, in which acupuncture articles embodied are increased, the quality of these articles are improved obviously and the types of the articles are various in 2007, but there is obvious difference in the results of these studies due to the difference of experimental methods, the subjects of these experiments and acupuncture manipulations. Therefore, standardization of many problems arising from the researches on acupuncture is extremely imminent.

Open Access Meets Discoverability: Citations to Articles Posted to Academia.edu

PubMed Central

Niyazov, Yuri; Vogel, Carl; Price, Richard; Lund, Ben; Judd, David; Akil, Adnan; Mortonson, Michael; Schwartzman, Josh; Shron, Max

2016-01-01

Using matching and regression analyses, we measure the difference in citations between articles posted to Academia.edu and other articles from similar journals, controlling for field, impact factor, and other variables. Based on a sample size of 31,216 papers, we find that a paper in a median impact factor journal uploaded to Academia.edu receives 16% more citations after one year than a similar article not available online, 51% more citations after three years, and 69% after five years. We also found that articles also posted to Academia.edu had 58% more citations than articles only posted to other online venues, such as personal and departmental home pages, after five years. PMID:26886730

[Citation rates of medical German-language journals in English-language papers--do they correlate with the impact factor, and who cites? (reprint)].

PubMed

Winkmann, G; Schlutius, S; Schweim, H G

2002-01-01

Several publications are warning that the German language is no longer needed for transmission of scientific data. One of the causes may be the Impact Factor (IF), which appears to be derived predominantly from Anglo-American journals. The aim of this study was to check actual international attention paid to German-language journals, i. e. their citation frequencies in English-language papers. Are these citing rates in English-language articles correlated to the IF, and from where do citing articles originate? Of 25 arbitrarily selected > 85 % German-language medical journals, IF as well as language distributions of citing articles were determined by searching publication years 1995 - 2000 in Science Citation Index (SCI). MEDLINE and EMBASE were used as supplementary retrieval systems. (i) The sample journals displayed an average IF = 0.357. A 99 % correlation (Pearson factor r = 0.987; n = 25) was observed between our "constructed" IF 2000 and IF published in Journal Citation Report 2000. This proves Stegmann's IF determination method to be valid. On the average, 53 % German-language and 45 % English-language articles between 1995 - 2000 cited the 1995 - 1999' contributions of the studied journals. No correlation was observed between IF vs. rates of citing articles in English (r < 0.1). 64 % of citing English-language articles showed corporate sources in Germany/Austria/Switzerland, and 13.5 % authors' institutions in USA. (i) An IF >/= 1 is, obviously, very hard to attain by German-language journals. ISI's differentiation between Citing vs. Cited-only Journals (the latter often serving as MEDLINE/EMBASE sources) during derivation of IF appears unjustified. (ii) English now serves as the predominant communication language in sciences in German-speaking countries, but has not supplanted the German language. Our study reveals remarkable international attention rates remaining.

[Co-author and keyword networks and their clustering appearance in preventive medicine fields in Korea: analysis of papers in the Journal of Preventive Medicine and Public Health, 1991~2006].

PubMed

Jung, Minsoo; Chung, Dongjun

2008-01-01

This study evaluated knowledge structure and its effect factor by analysis of co-author and keyword networks in Korea's preventive medicine sector. The data was extracted from 873 papers listed in the Journal of Preventive Medicine and Public Health, and was transformed into a co-author and keyword matrix where the existence of a 'link' was judged by impact factors calculated by the weight value of the role and rate of author participation. Research achievement was dependent upon the author's status and networking index, as analyzed by neighborhood degree, multidimensional scaling, correspondence analysis, and multiple regression. Co-author networks developed as randomness network in the center of a few high-productivity researchers. In particular, closeness centrality was more developed than degree centrality. Also, power law distribution was discovered in impact factor and research productivity by college affiliation. In multiple regression, the effect of the author's role was significant in both the impact factor calculated by the participatory rate and the number of listed articles. However, the number of listed articles varied by sex. This study shows that the small world phenomenon exists in co-author and keyword networks in a journal, as in citation networks. However, the differentiation of knowledge structure in the field of preventive medicine was relatively restricted by specialization.

The assessment of science: the relative merits of post-publication review, the impact factor, and the number of citations.

PubMed

Eyre-Walker, Adam; Stoletzki, Nina

2013-10-01

The assessment of scientific publications is an integral part of the scientific process. Here we investigate three methods of assessing the merit of a scientific paper: subjective post-publication peer review, the number of citations gained by a paper, and the impact factor of the journal in which the article was published. We investigate these methods using two datasets in which subjective post-publication assessments of scientific publications have been made by experts. We find that there are moderate, but statistically significant, correlations between assessor scores, when two assessors have rated the same paper, and between assessor score and the number of citations a paper accrues. However, we show that assessor score depends strongly on the journal in which the paper is published, and that assessors tend to over-rate papers published in journals with high impact factors. If we control for this bias, we find that the correlation between assessor scores and between assessor score and the number of citations is weak, suggesting that scientists have little ability to judge either the intrinsic merit of a paper or its likely impact. We also show that the number of citations a paper receives is an extremely error-prone measure of scientific merit. Finally, we argue that the impact factor is likely to be a poor measure of merit, since it depends on subjective assessment. We conclude that the three measures of scientific merit considered here are poor; in particular subjective assessments are an error-prone, biased, and expensive method by which to assess merit. We argue that the impact factor may be the most satisfactory of the methods we have considered, since it is a form of pre-publication review. However, we emphasise that it is likely to be a very error-prone measure of merit that is qualitative, not quantitative.

The Assessment of Science: The Relative Merits of Post-Publication Review, the Impact Factor, and the Number of Citations

PubMed Central

Eyre-Walker, Adam; Stoletzki, Nina

2013-01-01

The assessment of scientific publications is an integral part of the scientific process. Here we investigate three methods of assessing the merit of a scientific paper: subjective post-publication peer review, the number of citations gained by a paper, and the impact factor of the journal in which the article was published. We investigate these methods using two datasets in which subjective post-publication assessments of scientific publications have been made by experts. We find that there are moderate, but statistically significant, correlations between assessor scores, when two assessors have rated the same paper, and between assessor score and the number of citations a paper accrues. However, we show that assessor score depends strongly on the journal in which the paper is published, and that assessors tend to over-rate papers published in journals with high impact factors. If we control for this bias, we find that the correlation between assessor scores and between assessor score and the number of citations is weak, suggesting that scientists have little ability to judge either the intrinsic merit of a paper or its likely impact. We also show that the number of citations a paper receives is an extremely error-prone measure of scientific merit. Finally, we argue that the impact factor is likely to be a poor measure of merit, since it depends on subjective assessment. We conclude that the three measures of scientific merit considered here are poor; in particular subjective assessments are an error-prone, biased, and expensive method by which to assess merit. We argue that the impact factor may be the most satisfactory of the methods we have considered, since it is a form of pre-publication review. However, we emphasise that it is likely to be a very error-prone measure of merit that is qualitative, not quantitative. PMID:24115908

How Far Has the International Neurourology Journal Progressed Since Its Transformation Into an English Language Journal?

PubMed Central

2014-01-01

Purpose The publisher of the International Neurourology Journal changed the text to English in 2010 to promote the journal as an international publication. Four years later, what has happened to this journal? This paper will use citation indicators to describe the degree of internationalization. Methods Citation indicators such as impact factors, total citations from Web of Science, Science Journal Rankings (SJR), cites per documents (2 years), and Hirsch indexes (h-indexes) from Web of Science, digital object identifier (DOI)/CrossRef, ScimagoJR, or Scopus were calculated. In addition, the native countries of the authors and researchers citing the journal in Web of Science were analyzed. Results Impact factors in 2012 and 2013 were 0.645 and 0.857, respectively. Total citations in 2011, 2012, and 2013 from Web of Science were 15, 51, and 99, respectively, and the SJRs in 2011 and 2012 were 0.220 and 0.390, respectively. The h-indexes from DOI/CrossRef, Scopus, and Web of Science were 7, 8, and 6, respectively. Out of 153 unsolicited published papers, 27 (17.6%) were from outside of Korea. The researchers citing the journal in Web of Science and Scopus were primarily from the United States, Korea, China, the United Kingdom, and France. Funding agencies supported 39 of 101 original articles (38.6%). Conclusions After changing the text to the English language, the citation indicators show that the International Neurourology Journal has been elevated to an international journal. Although the nationality of authors varies from year to year, the increase in the number of manuscripts from international authors is obvious. PMID:24729921

Review of Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance 2014.

PubMed

Pennell, D J; Baksi, A J; Prasad, S K; Raphael, C E; Kilner, P J; Mohiaddin, R H; Alpendurada, F; Babu-Narayan, S V; Schneider, J; Firmin, D N

2015-11-20

There were 102 articles published in the Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance (JCMR) in 2014, which is a 6% decrease on the 109 articles published in 2013. The quality of the submissions continues to increase. The 2013 JCMR Impact Factor (which is published in June 2014) fell to 4.72 from 5.11 for 2012 (as published in June 2013). The 2013 impact factor means that the JCMR papers that were published in 2011 and 2012 were cited on average 4.72 times in 2013. The impact factor undergoes natural variation according to citation rates of papers in the 2 years following publication, and is significantly influenced by highly cited papers such as official reports. However, the progress of the journal's impact over the last 5 years has been impressive. Our acceptance rate is <25% and has been falling because the number of articles being submitted has been increasing. In accordance with Open-Access publishing, the JCMR articles go on-line as they are accepted with no collating of the articles into sections or special thematic issues. For this reason, the Editors have felt that it is useful once per calendar year to summarize the papers for the readership into broad areas of interest or theme, so that areas of interest can be reviewed in a single article in relation to each other and other recent JCMR articles. The papers are presented in broad themes and set in context with related literature and previously published JCMR papers to guide continuity of thought in the journal. We hope that you find the open-access system increases wider reading and citation of your papers, and that you will continue to send your quality papers to JCMR for publication.

Review of Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance 2012

PubMed Central

2013-01-01

There were 90 articles published in the Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance (JCMR) in 2012, which is an 8% increase in the number of articles since 2011. The quality of the submissions continues to increase. The editors are delighted to report that the 2011 JCMR Impact Factor (which is published in June 2012) has risen to 4.44, up from 3.72 for 2010 (as published in June 2011), a 20% increase. The 2011 impact factor means that the JCMR papers that were published in 2009 and 2010 were cited on average 4.44 times in 2011. The impact factor undergoes natural variation according to citation rates of papers in the 2 years following publication, and is significantly influenced by highly cited papers such as official reports. However, the progress of the journal's impact over the last 5 years has been impressive. Our acceptance rate is approximately 25%, and has been falling as the number of articles being submitted has been increasing. In accordance with Open-Access publishing, the JCMR articles go on-line as they are accepted with no collating of the articles into sections or special thematic issues. For this reason, the Editors have felt that it is useful once per calendar year to summarize the papers for the readership into broad areas of interest or theme, so that areas of interest can be reviewed in a single article in relation to each other and other recent JCMR articles. The papers are presented in broad themes and set in context with related literature and previously published JCMR papers to guide continuity of thought in the journal. We hope that you find the open-access system increases wider reading and citation of your papers, and that you will continue to send your quality manuscripts to JCMR for publication. PMID:24006874

Bias and other limitations affect measures of journals in integrative and complementary medicine

PubMed Central

Fan, Ka-wai

2015-01-01

Publishing articles in a prestigious journal is a golden rule for university professors and researchers nowadays. Impact factor, journal rank, and citation count, included in Science Citation Index managed by Thomson Reuters Web of Science, are the most important indicators for evaluating the quality of academic journals. By listing the journals encompassed in the “Integrative and Complementary Medicine” category of Science Citation Index from 2003 to 2013, this paper examines the publication trends of journals in the category. The examination includes number, country of origin, ranking, and languages of journals. Moreover, newly listed or removed journals in the category, journal publishers, and open access strategies are examined. It is concluded that the role of journal publisher should not be undermined in the “Integrative and Complementary Medicine” category. PMID:26213508

Bias and other limitations affect measures of journals in integrative and complementary medicineKa-wai Fan, PhD.

PubMed

Fan, Ka-wai

2015-07-01

Publishing articles in a prestigious journal is a golden rule for university professors and researchers nowadays. Impact factor, journal rank, and citation count, included in Science Citation Index managed by Thomson Reuters Web of Science, are the most important indicators for evaluating the quality of academic journals. By listing the journals encompassed in the "Integrative and Complementary Medicine" category of Science Citation Index from 2003 to 2013, this paper examines the publication trends of journals in the category. The examination includes number, country of origin, ranking, and languages of journals. Moreover, newly listed or removed journals in the category, journal publishers, and open access strategies are examined. It is concluded that the role of journal publisher should not be undermined in the "Integrative and Complementary Medicine" category.

Biomedical journal speed and efficiency: a cross-sectional pilot survey of author experiences.

PubMed

Wallach, Joshua D; Egilman, Alexander C; Gopal, Anand D; Swami, Nishwant; Krumholz, Harlan M; Ross, Joseph S

2018-01-01

Although the peer review process is believed to ensure scientific rigor, enhance research quality, and improve manuscript clarity, many investigators are concerned that the process is too slow, too expensive, too unreliable, and too static. In this feasibility study, we sought to survey corresponding authors of recently published clinical research studies on the speed and efficiency of the publication process. Web-based survey of corresponding authors of a 20% random sample of clinical research studies in MEDLINE-indexed journals with Ovid MEDLINE entry dates between December 1 and 15, 2016. Survey addressed perceived manuscript importance before first submission, approximate first submission and final acceptance dates, and total number of journal submissions, external peer reviews, external peer reviewers, and revisions requested, as well as whether authors would have considered publicly sharing their manuscript on an online platform instead of submitting to a peer-reviewed journal. Of 1780 surveys distributed, 27 corresponding authors opted out or requested that we stop emailing them and 149 emails failed (e.g., emails that bounced n  = 64, returned with an away from office message n  = 70, or were changed/incorrect n  = 15), leaving 1604 respondents, of which 337 completed the survey (21.0%). Respondents and non-respondents were similar with respect to study type and publication journals' impact factor, although non-respondent authors had more publications ( p  = 0.03). Among respondents, the median impact factor of the publications' journal was 2.7 (interquartile range (IQR), 2.0-3.6) and corresponding authors' median h-index and number of publications was 9 (IQR, 3-20) and 27 (IQR, 10-77), respectively. The median time from first submission to journal acceptance and publication was 5 months (IQR, 3-8) and 7 months (IQR, 5-12), respectively. Most respondents (62.0%, n  = 209) rated the importance of their research as a 4 or 5 (5-point scale) prior to submission. Median number of journal submissions was 1 (IQR, 1-2), external peer reviews was 1 (IQR, 1-2), external peer reviewers was 3 (IQR, 2-4), and revisions requested was 1 (IQR, 1-1). Sharing manuscripts to a public online platform, instead of submitting to a peer-reviewed journal, would have been considered by 55.2% ( n  = 186) of respondents. Corresponding authors have high perceptions of their research and reported requiring few manuscript submissions prior to journal acceptance, most commonly by lower impact factor journals.

Are reports of randomized controlled trials improving over time? A systematic review of 284 articles published in high-impact general and specialized medical journals.

PubMed

To, Matthew J; Jones, Jennifer; Emara, Mohamed; Jadad, Alejandro R

2013-01-01

Inadequate reporting undermines findings of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). This study assessed and compared articles published in high-impact general medical and specialized journals. Reports of RCTs published in high-impact general and specialized medical journals were identified through a search of MEDLINE from January to March of 1995, 2000, 2005, and 2010. Articles that provided original data on adult patients diagnosed with chronic conditions were included in the study. Data on trial characteristics, reporting of allocation concealment, quality score, and the presence of a trial flow diagram were extracted independently by two reviewers, and discrepancies were resolved by consensus or independent adjudication. Descriptive statistics were used for quantitative variables. Comparisons between general medical and specialized journals, and trends over time were performed using Chi-square tests. Reports of 284 trials were analyzed. There was a significantly higher proportion of RCTs published with adequate reporting of allocation concealment (p = 0.003), presentation of a trial flow diagram (p<0.0001) and high quality scores (p = 0.038) over time. Trials published in general medical journals had higher quality scores than those in specialized journals (p = 0.001), reported adequate allocation concealment more often (p = 0.013), and presented a trial flow diagram more often (p<0.001). We found significant improvements in reporting quality of RCTs published in high-impact factor journals over the last fifteen years. These improvements are likely attributed to concerted international efforts to improve reporting quality such as CONSORT. There is still much room for improvement, especially among specialized journals.

Is there a relationship between research sponsorship and publication impact? An analysis of funding acknowledgments in nanotechnology papers.

PubMed

Wang, Jue; Shapira, Philip

2015-01-01

This study analyzes funding acknowledgments in scientific papers to investigate relationships between research sponsorship and publication impacts. We identify acknowledgments to research sponsors for nanotechnology papers published in the Web of Science during a one-year sample period. We examine the citations accrued by these papers and the journal impact factors of their publication titles. The results show that publications from grant sponsored research exhibit higher impacts in terms of both journal ranking and citation counts than research that is not grant sponsored. We discuss the method and models used, and the insights provided by this approach as well as it limitations.

Is There a Relationship between Research Sponsorship and Publication Impact? An Analysis of Funding Acknowledgments in Nanotechnology Papers

PubMed Central

Wang, Jue; Shapira, Philip

2015-01-01

This study analyzes funding acknowledgments in scientific papers to investigate relationships between research sponsorship and publication impacts. We identify acknowledgments to research sponsors for nanotechnology papers published in the Web of Science during a one-year sample period. We examine the citations accrued by these papers and the journal impact factors of their publication titles. The results show that publications from grant sponsored research exhibit higher impacts in terms of both journal ranking and citation counts than research that is not grant sponsored. We discuss the method and models used, and the insights provided by this approach as well as it limitations. PMID:25695739

Intracranial imaging of uncommon diseases is more frequently reported in clinical publications than in radiology publications.

PubMed

Lehman, V T; Doolittle, D A; Hunt, C H; Eckel, L J; Black, D F; Schwartz, K M; Diehn, F E

2014-01-01

Descriptions of uncommon diseases with intracranial imaging abnormalities are often difficult to find in the radiology literature. We hypothesized that reported imaging findings of such conditions in the recent literature were more frequent in clinical compared with radiology journals. PubMed searches from December 1, 2007 to December 1, 2012 were performed for 5 uncommon CNS diseases with intracranial imaging manifestations: 1) Susac syndrome; 2) amyloid β-related angiitis; 3) Parry-Romberg syndrome/en coup de sabre; 4) transient lesion of the splenium of the corpus callosum; and 5) reversible cerebral vasoconstriction syndrome. Articles were classified as a case report, case series, or original research. Journals were categorized as radiology or clinical. The 1- and 5-year Impact Factors of the journals were recorded. Two hundred two articles were identified for the 5 diseases, including 151 (74%) case reports, 26 case series (13%), and 25 original research articles (13%); 179 (89%) were published in nonradiology journals, compared with 23 (11%) in radiology journals. There was no significant difference between the mean 1- and 5-year Impact Factors of the radiology and clinical journals. Recent reports of the selected uncommon diseases with intracranial manifestations are more frequent in clinical journals when compared with dedicated radiology publications. Most publications are case reports. Radiologists should review both radiology and clinical journals when reviewing imaging features of uncommon diseases affecting the brain. Lack of reporting on such disease in the radiology literature may have significant practice, educational, and research implications for the radiology community.

Incidence of Data Duplications in a Randomly Selected Pool of Life Science Publications.

PubMed

Oksvold, Morten P

2016-04-01

Since the solution to many public health problems depends on research, it is critical for the progress and well-being for the patients that we can trust the scientific literature. Misconduct and poor laboratory practice in science threatens the scientific progress, leads to loss of productivity and increased healthcare costs, and endangers lives of patients. Data duplication may represent one of challenges related to these problems. In order to estimate the frequency of data duplication in life science literature, a systematic screen through 120 original scientific articles published in three different cancer related journals [journal impact factor (IF) <5, 5-10 and >20] was completed. The study revealed a surprisingly high proportion of articles containing data duplication. For the IF < 5 and IF > 20 journals, 25% of the articles were found to contain data duplications. The IF 5-10 journal showed a comparable proportion (22.5%). The proportion of articles containing duplicated data was comparable between the three journals and no significant correlation to journal IF was found. The editorial offices representing the journals included in this study and the individual authors of the detected articles were contacted to clarify the individual cases. The editorial offices did not reply and only 1 out of 29 cases were apparently clarified by the authors, although no supporting data was supplied. This study questions the reliability of life science literature, it illustrates that data duplications are widespread and independent of journal impact factor and call for a reform of the current peer review and retraction process of scientific publishing.

Influence of Article Type on the Impact Factor of Dermatology Journals.

PubMed

Rodríguez-Lago, L; Molina-Leyva, A; Pereiro-Ferreirós, M; García-Doval, I

2018-06-01

For scientific journals, achieving a high impact factor (IF) has become a goal in its own right. Our aim was to describe the influence of article type on the IF of dermatology journals. We used the Scopus database to calculate an IF for Actas Dermo-Sifiliográficas and the major dermatology journals, excluding articles without abstracts, letters to the editor, and conference proceedings. Included articles were classified into 4 categories: case reports, original articles, narrative reviews, and other. We also calculated the mean IF for each article type. We then compared our results with IFs published by the Institute for Scientific Information. The proportion of each type of article differed between journals. Original articles carried the greatest weight in the major journals (BJD, 76.8%; Contact, 81.1%; JAAD, 63.4%; JAMA Dermatol, 63.7%.) but not in Actas Dermo-Sifiliográficas, where only 31.7% were original research articles. A higher IF was associated with the publication of reviews and original articles; a lower IF was associated with the publication of case reports and other article types. Publishing case reports, which have lower citation rates, leads to a lower IF. Publishing reviews and original articles will lead to a higher IF. Journals that seek a higher IF should probably publish more reviews and original articles and fewer case reports. Editorial boards should seek a balance between the interests of their clinician readers and the journal's need for a higher IF. Copyright © 2018 AEDV. Publicado por Elsevier España, S.L.U. All rights reserved.

The year 2014 in the European Heart Journal – Cardiovascular Imaging. Part I.

PubMed

Edvardsen, Thor; Bucciarelli-Ducci, Chiara; Saraste, Antti; Pierard, Luc A; Knuuti, Juhani; Maurer, Gerald; Habib, Gilbert; Lancellotti, Patrizio

2015-07-01

The new multimodality cardiovascular imaging journal, European Heart Journal - Cardiovascular Imaging, was created in 2012. It has already gained an impressive impact factor of 3.669 during its first 2 years. In two articles, we will summarize the most important studies from the journal's third year. Part I of the review will focus on studies in myocardial function, myocardial ischaemia, and emerging techniques in cardiovascular imaging, and Part II will focus on valvular heart diseases, heart failure, cardiomyopathies, and congenital heart diseases. Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved. © The Author 2015. For permissions please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.

Performance of Malaysian Medical Journals

PubMed Central

Abrizah, Abdullah

2016-01-01

Indexation status matters for scholarly journal prestige and trust. The performance of Malaysian medical journals at the international level is gauged through the global citation databases, and at the national level through MyCite, a national citation indexing system. The performance indicators include journals publication productivity, the citations they garner, and their scores on other bibliometric indices such as journal impact factor (IF), and h-index. There is a growing consciousness amongst journal editorials to improve quality and increase chances of getting indexed in MyCite. Although it is now possible to gauge journal performance within Malaysia, through MyCite, the government and public are concerned about journal performance in international databases. Knowing the performance of journals in MyCite will help the editors and publishers to improve the quality and visibility of Malaysian journals and strategise to bring their journal to the international level of indexation. PMID:27547108

Publish Yet Perish: On the Pitfalls of Philosophy of Education in an Age of Impact Factors

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Smeyers, Paul; de Ruyter, Doret J.; Waghid, Yusef; Strand, Torill

2014-01-01

In many countries publications in Web of Knowledge journals are dominant in the evaluation of educational research. For various purposes comparisons are made between the output of philosophers of education in these journals and the publications of their colleagues in educational research generally, sometimes also including psychologists and/or…

[Gone with the wind or... Fate of scientific articles presented at large anesthesia congresses--an update].

PubMed

Meininger, D; Bück, M; Bohlmann, S; Weber, C F; Strouhal, U; Ihlow, K; Zacharowski, K; Byhahn, C

2011-02-01

The goal of the present study was to evaluate the publication rate of abstracts presented during the German Anesthesia Congress (Deutscher Anästhesiecongress, DAC) and the meeting of the European Society of Anesthesiologists (ESA) in the years 2000 and 2005 in Medline listed journals (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed). In addition, the respective impact factors of the journals in which the articles were published were evaluated (http://www.isiknowledge.com). All abstracts of free papers and posters presented at the DAC and ESA from the years 2000 and 2005 were included into the study. The presence of authors and the topics of abstracts in the literature were analyzed by a Medline based inquiry over a time period of 5 years. The search was based on the last name and initials of authors and when these could not be identified in Medline the search was extended by keywords of relevant topics of the abstract. Umlauts "ä/ö/ü" were replaced by "ae/oe/ue" and "ß" was replaced by "ss". Only original papers were included in this analysis. Once an original paper was found the impact factor of the journal in that year was identified. A total of 465 abstracts from the DAC 2000, 378 abstracts from the DAC 2005, 644 abstracts from the ESA 2000 and 720 abstracts from the ESA 2005 were included. Of the abstracts from the DAC 2000, 183 (39%) were published in Medline listed journals, 179 (47%) from DAC 2005, 218 (34%) from ESA 2000 and 233 (32%) from ESA 2005. The ESA abstracts were published in English more often than the DAC abstracts (ESA 2000: 95%; ESA 2005: 95%; DAC 2000: 78%; DAC 2005: 86%). While the publication rate after the ESA remained nearly unchanged between 2000 and 2005, the publication rate after the DAC increased by about 7%. The average impact factors of the publications were 1.777 (DAC 2000), 2.836 (DAC 2005), 1.825 (ESA 2000) and 2.36 (ESA 2005). Independent of the congress (DAC or ESA) where the abstract was presented, most articles were published in the journal Anesthesia & Analgesia. In the year 2005 more abstracts of the DAC were published in Medline listed papers than in 2000. When comparing the number of abstracts published in Medline listed journals, more abstracts of the DAC were published compared to abstracts of the ESA. The increase in papers written in English after abstract presentation on the DAC is mostly due to the wider readership which can be reached with manuscripts in the English language. Besides a larger readership, English journals often also have a higher ranked impact factor. This analysis does not claim to be a complete registration of all published abstracts due to the limitation on Medline listed journals and publications in other journals were not rated. Medline was selected because of the widespread and international use of this database.

Public availability of research data in dentistry journals indexed in Journal Citation Reports.

PubMed

Vidal-Infer, Antonio; Tarazona, Beatriz; Alonso-Arroyo, Adolfo; Aleixandre-Benavent, Rafael

2018-01-01

Dentistry is a medical discipline with an increasing scientific production in the last years. Due to the importance of data sharing in science, this study aims at analyzing the availability of raw data in articles from scientific journals indexed in the Dentistry category of the 2014 edition of the Journal Citation Reports. A review of the 88 websites of journals from the Dentistry category was conducted to determine the data-sharing editorial policies. Furthermore, a search in the PubMed Central repository to collect information about the characteristics of the supplementary material of articles from those journals was carried out. The possibility of publishing a supplementary material was higher in the first quartile journals. A percentage of 7.6% of the articles registered in PubMed Central contained a supplementary material, especially text documents, but the presence of spreadsheets was scarce. There is a relationship between openness policies and the impact of the journals according to their quartile or position ranking by the impact factor in the JCR, but the willingness of sharing raw data in spreadsheets format is still limited. This study will reveal the resources of raw data which will improve quality of research and clinical practice.

Clinical trials in Brazilian journals of ophthalmology: where we are.

PubMed

Lira, Rodrigo Pessoa Cavalcanti; Leal, Franz Schubert; Gonçalves, Fauze Abdulmassih; Amorim, Fernando Henrique Ramos; Felix, João Paulo Fernandes; Arieta, Carlos Eduardo Leite

2013-01-01

To compare clinical trials published in Brazilian journals of ophthalmology and in foreign journals of ophthalmology with respect to the number of citations and the quality of reporting [by applying the Consolidated Standards for Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement writing standards]. The sample of this systematic review comprised the two Brazilian journals of ophthalmology indexed at Science Citation Index Expanded and six of the foreign journals of ophthalmology with highest Impact Factor® according ISI. All clinical trials (CTs) published from January 2009 to December 2010 at the Brazilians journals and a 1:1 randomized sample of the foreign journals were included. The primary outcome was the number of citations through the end of 2011. Subgroup analysis included language. The secondary outcome included likelihood of citation (cited at least once versus no citation), and presence or absence of CONSORT statement indicators. The citation counts were statistically significantly higher (P<0.001) in the Foreign Group (10.50) compared with the Brazilian Group (0.45). The likelihood citation was statistically significantly higher (P<0.001) in the Foreign Group (20/20 - 100%) compared with the Brazilian Group (8/20 - 40%). The subgroup analysis of the language influence in Brazilian articles showed that the citation counts were statistically significantly higher in the papers published in English (P<0.04). Of 37 possible CONSORT items, the mean for the Foreign Group was 20.55 and for the Brazilian Group was 13.65 (P<0.003). The number of citations and the quality of reporting of clinical trials in Brazilian journals of ophthalmology still are low when compared with the foreign journals of ophthalmology with highest Impact Factor®.

Characteristics of retractions related to faked peer reviews: an overview.

PubMed

Qi, Xingshun; Deng, Han; Guo, Xiaozhong

2017-08-01

A faked peer review is a novel cause for retraction. We reviewed the characteristics of papers retracted due to a faked peer review. All papers retracted due to faked peer reviews were identified by searching the Retraction Watch website and by conducting a manual search. All identified papers were confirmed in published journals. The information of retracted papers was collected, which primarily included publisher, journal, journal impact factor, country, as well as publication and retraction year. Overall, 250 retracted papers were identified. They were published in 48 journals by six publishers. The top 5 journals included the Journal of Vibration and Control (24.8%), Molecular Biology Reports (11.6%), Immunopharmacology and Immunotoxicology (8.0%), Tumour Biology (6.8%) and European Journal of Medical Research (6.4%). The publishers included SAGE (31%), Springer (26%), BioMed Central (18%), Elsevier (13%), Informa (11%) and LWW (1%). A minority (4%) of retracted papers were published in Science Citation Index (SCI) journals with an impact factor of >5. A majority (74.8%) of retracted papers were written by Chinese researchers. In terms of the publication year, the retracted papers were published since 2010, and the number of retracted papers peaked in 2014 (40.8%). In terms of the retraction year, the retractions started in 2012, and the number of retractions peaked in 2015 (59.6%). The number of papers retracted due to faked peer reviews differs largely among journals and countries. With the improvement of the peer review mechanism and increased education about publishing ethics, such academic misconduct may gradually disappear in future. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/.

A quantitative analysis of qualitative studies in clinical journals for the 2000 publishing year

PubMed Central

McKibbon, Kathleen Ann; Gadd, Cynthia S

2004-01-01

Background Quantitative studies are becoming more recognized as important to understanding health care with all of its richness and complexities. The purpose of this descriptive survey was to provide a quantitative evaluation of the qualitative studies published in 170 core clinical journals for 2000. Methods All identified studies that used qualitative methods were reviewed to ascertain which clinical journals publish qualitative studies and to extract research methods, content (persons and health care issues studied), and whether mixed methods (quantitative and qualitative methods) were used. Results 60 330 articles were reviewed. 355 reports of original qualitative studies and 12 systematic review articles were identified in 48 journals. Most of the journals were in the discipline of nursing. Only 4 of the most highly cited health care journals, based on ISI Science Citation Index (SCI) Impact Factors, published qualitative studies. 37 of the 355 original reports used both qualitative and quantitative (mixed) methods. Patients and non-health care settings were the most common groups of people studied. Diseases and conditions were cancer, mental health, pregnancy and childbirth, and cerebrovascular disease with many other diseases and conditions represented. Phenomenology and grounded theory were commonly used; substantial ethnography was also present. No substantial differences were noted for content or methods when articles published in all disciplines were compared with articles published in nursing titles or when studies with mixed methods were compared with studies that included only qualitative methods. Conclusions The clinical literature includes many qualitative studies although they are often published in nursing journals or journals with low SCI Impact Factor journals. Many qualitative studies incorporate both qualitative and quantitative methods. PMID:15271221

The European Journal of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine in 2008: a year in a paper.

PubMed

Negrini, S

2009-05-01

In 2007, the European Society of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine (ESPRM) established the European Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine Journal Network (EPRMJN) with a view to increase scientific knowledge among physical and rehabilitation medicine (PRM) specialists and to foster collaboration among the national, regional (multinational) and European PRM journals. In this connection, this paper gives the readers of national and regional, and European PRM journals a complete overview of the European Journal of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine (EJPRM), the official ESPRM journal, and a review of the papers published in 2008. The evolution of the EJPRM in the last five years was analyzed, and the papers published in 2008 were systematically reviewed and classified by content and discussed. The EJPRM is listed in PubMed and Current Contents; at now the unofficial 2008 Impact Factor is 1.14, like the Impact Factor, also the independent SCImago Journal Rate and Cites per Doc (two years) have increased steadily since 2005. The EJPRM published 72 papers in 2008, with a well balanced coverage of different rehabilitation topics. The rejection rate is around 40%; the review and publication times are 1.2 and 10.0 months, respectively. The published papers are presented here by topic, highlighting multi-journal initiatives (such as the EPRMJN and the Euro-American Focus with the American Journal of PRM), monographic Special Sections, systematic Cochrane PRM reviews, original papers and case reports, and other contents including the Internet Bookshelf. This paper represents the start of the EPRMJN collaborative efforts to increase scientific knowledge among PRM specialists in Europe, independently of the language in which papers are published.

Use of number needed to treat in cost-effectiveness analyses.

PubMed

Garg, Vishvas; Shen, Xian; Cheng, Yan; Nawarskas, James J; Raisch, Dennis W

2013-03-01

To review the use of number needed to treat (NNT) and/or number needed to harm (NNH) values to determine their relevance in helping clinicians evaluate cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs). PubMed and EconLit were searched from 1966 to September 2012. Reviews, editorials, non-English-language articles, and articles that did not report NNT/NNH or cost-effectiveness ratios were excluded. CEA studies reporting cost per life-year gained, per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), or other cost per effectiveness measure were included. Full texts of all included articles were reviewed for study information, including type of journal, impact factor of the journal, focus of study, data source, publication year, how NNT/NNH values were reported, and outcome measures. A total of 188 studies were initially identified, with 69 meeting our inclusion criteria. Most were published in clinician-practice-focused journals (78.3%) while 5.8% were in policy-focused journals, and 15.9% in health-economics-focused journals. The majority (72.4%) of the articles were published in high-impact journals (impact factor >3.0). Many articles focused on either disease treatment (40.5%) or disease prevention (40.5%). Forty-eight percent reported NNT as a part of the CEA ratio per event. Most (53.6%) articles used data from literature reviews, while 24.6% used data from randomized clinical trials, and 20.3% used data from observational studies. In addition, 10% of the studies implemented modeling to perform CEA. CEA studies sometimes include NNT ratios. Although it has several limitations, clinicians often use NNT for decision-making, so including NNT information alongside CEA findings may help clinicians better understand and apply CEA results. Further research is needed to assess how NNT/NNH might meaningfully be incorporated into CEA publications.

The methodological quality of systematic reviews published in high-impact nursing journals: a review of the literature.

PubMed

Pölkki, Tarja; Kanste, Outi; Kääriäinen, Maria; Elo, Satu; Kyngäs, Helvi

2014-02-01

To analyse systematic review articles published in the top 10 nursing journals to determine the quality of the methods employed within them. Systematic review is defined as a scientific research method that synthesises high-quality scientific knowledge on a given topic. The number of such reviews in nursing science has increased dramatically during recent years, but their methodological quality has not previously been assessed. A review of the literature using a narrative approach. Ranked impact factor scores for nursing journals were obtained from the Journal Citation Report database of the Institute of Scientific Information (ISI Web of Knowledge). All issues from the years 2009 and 2010 of the top 10 ranked journals were included. CINAHL and MEDLINE databases were searched to locate studies using the search terms 'systematic review' and 'systematic literature review'. A total of 39 eligible studies were identified. Their methodological quality was evaluated through the specific criteria of quality assessment, description of synthesis and strengths and weaknesses reported in the included studies. Most of the eligible systematic reviews included several different designs or types of quantitative study. The majority included a quality assessment, and a total of 17 different criteria were identified. The method of synthesis was mentioned in about half of the reviews, the most common being narrative synthesis. The weaknesses of reviews were discussed, while strengths were rarely highlighted. The methodological quality of the systematic reviews examined varied considerably, although they were all published in nursing journals with a high-impact factor. Despite the fact that systematic reviews are considered the most robust source of research evidence, they vary in methodological quality. This point is important to consider in clinical practice when applying the results to patient care. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

ResearchGate is no longer reliable: leniency towards ghost journals may decrease its impact on the scientific community.

PubMed

Memon, Aamir Raoof

2016-12-01

ResearchGate has been regarded as one of the most attractive academic social networking site for scientific community. It has been trying to improve user-centered interfaces to gain more attractiveness to scientists around the world. Display of journal related scietometric measures (such as impact factor, 5-year impact, cited half-life, eigenfactor) is an important feature in ResearchGate. Open access publishing has added more to increased visibility of research work and easy access to information related to research. Moreover, scientific community has been much interested in promoting their work and exhibiting its impact to others through reliable scientometric measures. However, with the growing market of publications and improvements in the field of research, this community has been victimized by the cybercrime in the form of ghost journals, fake publishers and magical impact measures. Particularly, ResearchGate more recently, has been lenient in its policies against this dark side of academic writing. Therefore, this communication aims to discuss concerns associated with leniency in ResearchGate policies and its impact of scientific community.

A bibliometric analysis of diets and breast cancer research.

PubMed

Kotepui, Manas; Wannaiampikul, Sivaporn; Chupeerach, Chaowanee; Duangmano, Suwit

2014-01-01

Breast cancer is the most common cancer among women worldwide. The primary aim of this work was to provide an in-depth evaluation of research publications in the field of diets and breast cancer. The impact of economic outcome on national academic productivity was also investigated. Data were retrieved using Pubmed for English-language publications. The search included all research for which articles included words relating to "diets and breast cancer". Population and national income data were obtained from publicly available databases. Impact factors for journals were obtained from Journal Citation Reports® (Thomson Scientific). There were 2,396 publications from 60 countries in 384 journals with an impact factor. Among them, 1,652 (68.94%) publications were Original articles. The United States had the highest quantity (51% of total) and highest of mean impact factor (8.852) for publication. Sweden had the highest productivity of publication when adjusted for number of population (6 publications per million population). Publications from the Asian nation increased from 5.3% in 2006 to 14.6% in 2012. The Original article type was also associated with geography (p<0.001; OR=2.183; 95%CI=1.526-3.123), Asian countries produced more proportion of Original articles (82%) than those of rest of the world (67.6%). Diets and breast cancer-associated research output continues to increase annually worldwide including publications from Asian countries. Although the United States produced the most publications, European nations per capita were higher in publication output.

Is it Suitable for a Journal to Bid for Publishing a Review That is Likely to be Highly Cited?

PubMed

Liu, Weishu; Zhu, Junwen; Zuo, Chao; Wang, Haiyan

2018-01-20

By following a recently published paper entitled "The effect of publishing a highly cited paper on a journal's impact factor: a case study of the Review of Particle Physics" in Learned Publishing, we argue that it is not suitable for journals to bid for the right to publish a review that is likely to be highly cited. A few suggestions are also provided to deal with the special case of the Review of Particle Physics phenomenon.

Globalization in Urology: A Bibliographical Analysis of Cross-Continent Publication between 2002 and 2012.

PubMed

Mani, Jens; Juengel, Eva; Bartsch, Georg; Filmann, Natalie; Ackermann, Hanns; Nelson, Karen; Haferkamp, Axel; Engl, Tobias; Blaheta, Roman A

2015-01-01

Asian scientists have now increasingly begun to contribute to globalization; yet it is not clear whether publishing in the field of urology is paralleled by elevated cross-continental scientific publishing. An exemplary bibliometric analysis of urologic journals from 3 different continents was conducted between 2002 and 2012. Based on the ISI Web of Knowledge Journal Citation Reports, 2 urologic journals with similar impact factors (IFs) in 2013 were selected from Europe ('British Journal of Urology International', 'World Journal of Urology'), Asia ('International Journal of Urology', 'Asian Journal of Andrology') and North America ('Urologic Oncology-Seminars and Original Investigations', 'Urology'). The home continent of the journal, the workplace continental affiliation of the last author, article type (clinical, experimental or review) as well as the IF were documented. Most authors published their manuscripts in journals from the same continent in which they worked. However, a significant increase in cross-continental publishing was apparent from 2002 to 2012. Asians publishing in North America increased from 17% in 2002 to 35% in 2012. Europeans also increased the number of articles they published in North American journals, while publications from North American authors were shifted towards both European and Asian journals. Experimental and clinical articles showed significant increases in cross-continental publishing, while review publishing showed no significant change. The average IF for authors from all 3 continents increased from 2002 to 2012 (p < 0.001). The largest increase in the IF was found for Asian authors (0.11 per year). Cross-continental publication significantly increased during the period from 2002 to 2012. The impact that the Asian authors have experienced was found to be gradually impacting the North American and European colleagues. © 2015 S. Karger AG, Basel.

Measuring the social impact of dental research: An insight into the most influential articles on the Web.

PubMed

Delli, K; Livas, C; Spijkervet, F K L; Vissink, A

2017-11-01

To identify the most discussed dental articles on the Web and to assess the association between the intensity of online attention, publication characteristics, and citations. An Altmetric Explorer search was conducted for articles published in the 91 dental journals included in 2015 InCites ™ Journal Citation Report ® and mentioned online at all times. The 100 articles with the highest online attention, as measured by the "Altmetric Attention Score" (AAS), were screened for journal title, quartile of impact factor distribution (Q1-Q4), publication date, origin and affiliation of first author, article topic, type, and access. Citation counts were harvested from Scopus. The top 100 articles presented a median AAS of 119 and were mostly discussed on news outlets, Twitter, and Mendeley. Forty-one articles were published in Q1 journals, 24 in Q2 journals, 32 in Q3 journals, and three in Q4 journals. AAS was significantly higher in articles of Q2 journals (median AAS = 398, range = 70-513) than in articles of Q1. A weak reverse correlation existed between AAS and time since publication (r = -.25, p < .05). No correlation was detected between AAS and other publication characteristics or number of citations. Increased social impact of dental articles is not significantly associated with high citation rates. © 2017 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. All rights reserved.

Development of obstetrical and gynecological journals, 2007 to 2013: a trend analysis.

PubMed

Domröse, Christian M; Keyver-Paik, Mignon-Denise; Lorenzen, Henning; Kuhn, Walther C; Mallmann, Michael R

2016-02-01

To analyze the trends and developments among journals in the specialty of obstetrics and gynecology. Using the Journal Citation Reports from 2007 to 2013, we analyzed the impact factor (IF), Eigenfactor® Score (ES), and Article Influence® Score (AIS) of 43 journals in the field of obstetrics and gynecology published in this time period. From 78 journals of the Journal Citation Report 2013, 43 were selected for this study. The mean IF grew from 1.68 ± 0.97 in 2007 to 2.12 ± 1.05 in 2013, the ES from 0.0113 ± 0.0169 to 0.0114 ± 0.0140, and the AIS from 0.513 ± 0.302 to 0.663 ± 0.359. Differences in the IF, ES, and AIS between journals from the United States versus Europe could be observed. In most cases, the IF, ES, and AIS increased between 2007 and 2013. Strong correlations could be found between IF, AIS, and ES. The overall mean IF for obstetrical and gynecological journals increased over the analyzed time period. The IF remains the standard measure to compare scientific journals. It correlates well with two major alternative measures of scientific impact, the ES and especially the AIS. Other measures are evolving and might show superior usage in the future.

The retrospective analysis of bibliographical trends for nine biomedical engineering journals from 1999 to 2007.

PubMed

Foo, Jong Yong Abdiel

2009-07-01

For academic research outcomes, there is an increasing emphasis on the bibliometric scorings like the journal impact factor (JIF) when assessment of the quality of research is required. Currently, no known study has been conducted to explore the bibliographical trends of the biomedical engineering journals indexed by the annual Journal Citation Reports of the Thomson Scientific. In this study, the trends of nine reputable journals were selected and analyzed over a 9-year period (year 1999 to year 2007). The results show that the JIF rose exponentially for some journals (up to 597.0%) while for others, it shrank (down to -19.5%). A similar trend is observed for the citations trend over the same period and there was a significant increase in the number of citable articles published (> or =23.6%) in all the selected journals using year 1999 as the base year. However, journals which published significant more non-research articles (> or =10%) saw favorable subsequent effects on their citations. It is postulated that the changes in bibliographical trends can be classified as editorial and non-editorial influences. The retrospective impacts of these influences on the nine selected journals over the 9-year period were also discussed in this study.

Citation classics in nursing journals: the top 50 most frequently cited articles from 1956 to 2011.

PubMed

Wong, Eliza L Y; Tam, Wilson W S; Wong, Faye C Y; Cheung, Annie W L

2013-01-01

Assessing the impact of individual journal articles provides information for understanding trends in science and translation of findings on practice. Citation analysis is an important way to highlight the contributions of individual author/investigator and journals on nursing practice. The purpose of this study was to identify the most frequently cited articles published in nursing journals from 1956 to 2011. The Science Citation Index Expanded and Social Sciences Citation Index were searched for citations through 2011 to articles published in the 89 nursing journals listed on the Journal Citation Reports (2010 edition). The number of citations, topic, countries, and institutions of origin based on the first author affiliation, year of publication, study design, publishing journal, journal country, and journal impact factor were noted. The most frequently cited articles published in the 89 nursing journals from 1956 to 2011 were identified. The top 50 most frequently cited articles were published in 10 nursing journals between 1970 and 2005. The top cited article received 784 citations. The most common topics were methodology for qualitative studies, validation procedures for tool development, and nursing care and practices in cancer and mental health. The most common study designs were reviews including meta-analysis and instrument validation. Most of the top 50 cited articles were published from 1986 to 1995. The findings provide insights into priorities and trends in nursing research and translational science.

Review of adult attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in South Africa.

PubMed

Munasur-Naidoo, A P; Truter, I

2017-08-01

Recently, there has been a greater focus on adults with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) given that the symptoms persist in two-thirds of patients into adulthood. Areas covered: A systematic review of articles reporting on adult ADHD in SA was undertaken. From the database search, 1209 articles were identified, with 29 articles included in this analysis. Expert commentary: Fourteen of the 29 studies reviewed were exploratory, 10 were reviews/commentaries, four were developmental studies and one was a phenomenological study. More than half (58.62%) of the articles were published in local South African journals, 13.79% were published in African journals (excluding South Africa), and 27.59% of the articles were published in international journals. The impact factor for nine of the journals were not stated and the remaining 11 have impact factors ranging from 0.207 to 6.78. In 2004, only one article on adult ADHD was published in SA and by 2015, the number of publications increased to six. Adult ADHD is gaining interest in South Africa, however, there have been a limited number of studies conducted thus far. It is recommended that further studies are conducted in this new and developing field.

Scientific publications in anesthesiology journals from East Asia: a 10-year survey of the literature.

PubMed

Li, Zhi; Qiu, Li-Xin; Wu, Fei-Xiang; Yang, Li-Qun; Sun, Yu-Ming; Yu, Wei-Feng

2011-04-01

The scientific publications in anesthesiology research from East Asian authors have not been reported yet. The present study was designed to analyze the contribution of articles from East Asia to anesthesiology research. Articles published in 17 journals in anesthesiology originating from Japan, China, and South Korea from 2000 to 2009 were retrieved from the PubMed database and Web of Science. From 2000 to 2009, there were 3,076 articles published from East Asia. During this period, there were a notable decrease in publications from Japan and modest increases in publications from both China and South Korea. The average 5-year impact factor of the published articles was similar among the three regions, and China had the highest average number of citations to each article. Anesthesia & Analgesia published more articles than any other journal from all three regions. Our analysis showed that Japan was the most productive region in East Asia, but there was a notable decrease in publications from Japan in 2000-2009. The impact factor of the articles suggests similar levels of scholarship. Anesthesia & Analgesia was the most popular journal in East Asia.

European and US publications in the 50 highest ranking pathology journals from 2000 to 2006.

PubMed

Fritzsche, F R; Oelrich, B; Dietel, M; Jung, K; Kristiansen, G

2008-04-01

To analyse the contributions of the 15 primary member states of the European Union and selected non-European countries to pathological research between 2000 and 2006. Pathological journals were screened using ISI Web of Knowledge database. The number of publications and related impact factors were determined for each country. Relevant socioeconomic indicators were related to the scientific output. Subsequently, results were compared to publications in 10 of the leading biomedical journals. The research output remained generally stable. In Europe, the UK, Germany, France, Italy and Spain ranked top concerning contributions to publications and impact factors in the pathological and leading general biomedical journals. With regard to socioeconomic data, smaller, mainly northern European countries showed a relatively higher efficiency. Of the lager countries, the UK is the most efficient in that respect. The rising economic powers of China and India were consistently in the rear. Results mirror the leading role of the USA in pathology research but also show the relevance of European scientists. The scientometric approach in this study provides a new fundamental and comparative overview of pathology research in the European Union and the USA which could help to benchmark scientific output among countries.

The impact of National Institutes of Health funding on U.S. cardiovascular disease research.

PubMed

Lyubarova, Radmila; Itagaki, Brandon K; Itagaki, Michael W

2009-07-29

Intense interest surrounds the recent expansion of US National Institutes of Health (NIH) budgets as part of economic stimulus legislation. However, the relationship between NIH funding and cardiovascular disease research is poorly understood, making the likely impact of this policy change unclear. The National Library of Medicine's PubMed database was searched for articles published from 1996 to 2006, originating from U.S. institutions, and containing the phrases "cardiolog," "cardiovascular," or "cardiac," in the first author's department. Research methodology, journal of publication, journal impact factor, and receipt of NIH funding were recorded. Differences in means and trends were tested with t-tests and linear regression, respectively, with P < or = 0.05 for significance. Of 117,643 world cardiovascular articles, 36,684 (31.2%) originated from the U.S., of which 10,293 (28.1%) received NIH funding. The NIH funded 40.1% of U.S. basic science articles, 20.3% of overall clinical trials, 18.1% of randomized-controlled, and 12.2% of multicenter clinical trials. NIH-funded and total articles grew significantly (65 articles/year, P < 0.001 and 218 articles/year, P < 0.001, respectively). The proportion of articles receiving NIH funding was stable, but grew significantly for basic science and clinical trials (0.87%/year, P < 0.001 and 0.67%/year, P = 0.029, respectively). NIH-funded articles had greater journal impact factors than non NIH-funded articles (5.76 vs. 3.71, P < 0.001). NIH influence on U.S. cardiovascular research expanded in the past decade, during the period of NIH budget doubling. A substantial fraction of research is now directly funded and thus likely sensitive to budget fluctuations, particularly in basic science research. NIH funding predicts greater journal impact.

The 100 most-cited articles on non-tuberculous mycobacterial infection from 1995 to 2015.

PubMed

Jhun, B W; Kim, S-Y; Kong, J H; Park, J R; Park, S Y; Shim, M A; Jeon, K; Park, H Y; Shin, S J; Koh, W-J

2017-01-01

Citation analyses aid in assessing quality, trends and future directions of research fields. To identify the most influential articles on infections caused by non-tuberculous mycobacteria (NTM) in the last 20 years. We performed a cited reference search of the Web of Science database from 1995 to 2015. The 100 most cited articles on NTM infections were analysed. The top 100 articles were cited 114-1471 times, and were published from 1995 to 2013. Sixty-five were laboratory-based, basic science articles, with the major topics being pathophysiology (n = 20) and molecular methods for NTM identification (n = 15). Among the 35 non-laboratory studies, major topics were clinical management (n = 15) and epidemiology (n = 14). The top article was a clinical treatise on the management of NTM disease, published in 2007. Although there was a correlation between article rank and journal impact factor (P = 0.043, ρ = -0.202), the five articles from the journals with highest impact factors did not rank among the top 10 articles. A large proportion of influential articles on NTM infection are basic scientific studies, and the most influential articles are not always published in high-impact journals.

Tweet success? Scientific communication correlates with increased citations in Ecology and Conservation

PubMed Central

Gilbert, Sophie L.; Ford, Adam T.

2018-01-01

Science communication is seen as critical for the disciplines of ecology and conservation, where research products are often used to shape policy and decision making. Scientists are increasing their online media communication, via social media and news. Such media engagement has been thought to influence or predict traditional metrics of scholarship, such as citation rates. Here, we measure the association between citation rates and the Altmetric Attention Score—an indicator of the amount and reach of the attention an article has received—along with other forms of bibliometric performance (year published, journal impact factor, and article type). We found that Attention Score was positively correlated with citation rates. However, in recent years, we detected increasing media exposure did not relate to the equivalent citations as in earlier years; signalling a diminishing return on investment. Citations correlated with journal impact factors up to ∼13, but then plateaued, demonstrating that maximizing citations does not require publishing in the highest-impact journals. We conclude that ecology and conservation researchers can increase exposure of their research through social media engagement and, simultaneously, enhance their performance under traditional measures of scholarly activity. PMID:29666750

Tweet success? Scientific communication correlates with increased citations in Ecology and Conservation.

PubMed

Lamb, Clayton T; Gilbert, Sophie L; Ford, Adam T

2018-01-01

Science communication is seen as critical for the disciplines of ecology and conservation, where research products are often used to shape policy and decision making. Scientists are increasing their online media communication, via social media and news. Such media engagement has been thought to influence or predict traditional metrics of scholarship, such as citation rates. Here, we measure the association between citation rates and the Altmetric Attention Score-an indicator of the amount and reach of the attention an article has received-along with other forms of bibliometric performance (year published, journal impact factor, and article type). We found that Attention Score was positively correlated with citation rates. However, in recent years, we detected increasing media exposure did not relate to the equivalent citations as in earlier years; signalling a diminishing return on investment. Citations correlated with journal impact factors up to ∼13, but then plateaued, demonstrating that maximizing citations does not require publishing in the highest-impact journals. We conclude that ecology and conservation researchers can increase exposure of their research through social media engagement and, simultaneously, enhance their performance under traditional measures of scholarly activity.

Globalization and Health: developing the journal to advance the field.

PubMed

Martin, Greg; MacLachlan, Malcolm; Labonté, Ronald; Larkan, Fiona; Vallières, Frédérique; Bergin, Niamh

2016-03-09

Founded in 2005, Globalization and Health was the first open access global health journal. The journal has since expanded the field, and its influence, with the number of downloaded papers rising 17-fold, to over 4 million. Its ground-breaking papers, leading authors -including a Nobel Prize winner- and an impact factor of 2.25 place it among the top global health journals in the world. To mark the ten years since the journal's founding, we, members of the current editorial board, undertook a review of the journal's progress over the last decade. Through the application of an inductive thematic analysis, we systematically identified themes of research published in the journal from 2005 to 2014. We identify key areas the journal has promoted and consider these in the context of an existing framework, identify current gaps in global health research and highlight areas we, as a journal, would like to see strengthened.

In the Lead Again Horizontal-Ellipsis [Journal of Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiology

DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

Vorwerk, Dierk, E-mail: dierk.vorwerk@klinikum-ingolstadt.de

The 2013 ISI journal rankings are out and it is my pleasure to inform our readership that CVIR ranks 43/120 (2012: 46/118) journals in the field of radiology. The 2013 impact factor further improved to 2.138 (2012: 2.093). This means that Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiology again continues to be the highest ranked journal dedicated to the field of interventional radiology in 2013.This is mainly due to the great support we achieve by you as authors and readers of CVIR, your dedication to the profession, and your loyalty both to the journal and to CIRSE. For all of this, we owemore » you our thanks and respect.« less

Continuously Variable Rating: a new, simple and logical procedure to evaluate original scientific publications

PubMed Central

Silva, Mauricio Rocha e

2011-01-01

OBJECTIVE: Impact Factors (IF) are widely used surrogates to evaluate single articles, in spite of known shortcomings imposed by cite distribution skewness. We quantify this asymmetry and propose a simple computer-based procedure for evaluating individual articles. METHOD: (a) Analysis of symmetry. Journals clustered around nine Impact Factor points were selected from the medical “Subject Categories” in Journal Citation Reports 2010. Citable items published in 2008 were retrieved and ranked by granted citations over the Jan/2008 - Jun/2011 period. Frequency distribution of cites, normalized cumulative cites and absolute cites/decile were determined for each journal cluster. (b) Positive Predictive Value. Three arbitrarily established evaluation classes were generated: LOW (1.3≤IF<2.6); MID: (2.6≤IF<3.9); HIGH: (IF≥3.9). Positive Predictive Value for journal clusters within each class range was estimated. (c) Continuously Variable Rating. An alternative evaluation procedure is proposed to allow the rating of individually published articles in comparison to all articles published in the same journal within the same year of publication. The general guiding lines for the construction of a totally dedicated software program are delineated. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: Skewness followed the Pareto Distribution for (1

Publication efficiency among the higher impact factor nursing journals in 2009: a retrospective analysis.

PubMed

Palese, Alvisa; Coletti, Sonia; Dante, Angelo

2013-04-01

Knowledge translation is attracting different professional, educational and institutional strategies mainly focused on how new knowledge should be tailored and transferred at bedside. Less attention is dedicated to the antecedent of knowledge translation, which is the availability of the knowledge itself. Knowledge diffusion is a process by which an innovation is communicated through certain channels among members of a social system over time. Publishing in peer review journals is recognised as the main method for knowledge diffusion: nevertheless publication efficiency has received little attention to date. Describing publication efficiency via nursing journals as the time occurring between data collection and manuscript publication was the main aim of the study. The secondary aim was to discover the differences, if any, in publication efficiency within manuscripts reporting results from different study designs. A retrospective study design was adopted in 2010. The 2009 Impact Factor List of Nursing Journals published by the ISI web of Knowledge in 2010 was obtained. The first top ten IF Nursing Journals available as a full text and for which the overall ISI 5-Year Impact Factor was also available, was eligible. The articles published on paper by the selected journals, from 1st January to 31st December 2009, were then included. Commentaries, editorials and book reviews were excluded. For each article included, the following were evaluated: (a) the time occurring between each step of publication, from data collection to article submission, acceptance and publication online and on paper; and (b) the differences in the publication efficiency within articles reporting different study designs. 1152 articles were included. From the end of data collection to manuscript publication online/on paper it takes an average of 981 days [CI95% 929-1032] (2.5-3 years). Meta-analysis and systematic reviews have demonstrated the fastest process, requiring an average 1.3 years and 1.9 years respectively. Case-control, cohort and quasi-experimental studies have required more time to enjoy publication in nursing journals, 4 years, 3.5 years and 3.2 years respectively. The production time of an article from its data collection involves significant processes and skills. However, the time may also be lengthened by factors not related to the processes of research, such as the time available to researchers. The scientific world needs to reflect on publication efficiency because lateness can potentially have a negative impact on patients and on further research. In the future, the same emphasis given to the evaluation of knowledge translation effectiveness should be given also to the complex process of knowledge diffusion, discovering facilitators and barriers. Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

The 'gender gap' in authorship in nursing literature.

PubMed

Shields, Linda; Hall, Jenny; Mamun, Abdulla A

2011-11-01

Gender bias has been found in medical literature, with more men than women as first or senior authors of papers, despite about half of doctors being women. Nursing is about 90% female, so we aimed to determine if similar biases exist in nursing literature. Taking the eight non-specialist nursing journals with the highest impact factors for that profession, we counted the numbers of men and women first authors over 30 years. We used nursing journals from around the world which attract the highest impact factors for nursing publication. Eight journals qualified for entry, three from the United Kingdom, four from the United States of America, and one from Australia. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Using Chi-square and Fisher exact tests, we determined differences between the numbers of men and women across all the journals, between countries (USA, UK and Australia), changes over the 30 years, and changes within journals over time. RESULTS Despite the small proportion of men in the nursing workforce, up to 30% of first authors were men. UK journals were more likely to have male authors than USA journals, and this increased over time. USA journals had proportions of male first authors consistent with the male proportion of its nursing workforce. CONCLUSIONS In the UK (though not in the USA) gender bias in nursing publishing exists, even though the nursing workforce is strongly feminized. This warrants further research, but is likely to be due to the same reasons for the gender gap in medical publishing; that is, female nurses take time out to have families, and social and family responsibilities prevent them taking opportunities for career progression, whereas men's careers often are not affected in such ways.

The ‘gender gap’ in authorship in nursing literature

PubMed Central

Shields, Linda; Hall, Jenny; Mamun, Abdulla A

2011-01-01

Objectives Gender bias has been found in medical literature, with more men than women as first or senior authors of papers, despite about half of doctors being women. Nursing is about 90% female, so we aimed to determine if similar biases exist in nursing literature. Design Taking the eight non-specialist nursing journals with the highest impact factors for that profession, we counted the numbers of men and women first authors over 30 years. Setting We used nursing journals from around the world which attract the highest impact factors for nursing publication. Participants Eight journals qualified for entry, three from the United Kingdom, four from the United States of America, and one from Australia. Main outcome measures Using Chi-square and Fisher exact tests, we determined differences between the numbers of men and women across all the journals, between countries (USA, UK and Australia), changes over the 30 years, and changes within journals over time. Results Despite the small proportion of men in the nursing workforce, up to 30% of first authors were men. UK journals were more likely to have male authors than USA journals, and this increased over time. USA journals had proportions of male first authors consistent with the male proportion of its nursing workforce. Conclusions In the UK (though not in the USA) gender bias in nursing publishing exists, even though the nursing workforce is strongly feminized. This warrants further research, but is likely to be due to the same reasons for the gender gap in medical publishing; that is, female nurses take time out to have families, and social and family responsibilities prevent them taking opportunities for career progression, whereas men's careers often are not affected in such ways. PMID:22048677

[International visibility and impact of the Spanish research on prison health (2002-2011)].

PubMed

Ruíz-Pérez, R; Robinson-García, N

2013-01-01

This paper sets out to analyze the dissemination and impact of Spanish research published in international scientific journals on Prison Health over the last decade. Descriptive, longitudinal and retrospective analysis of scientific output. We used the Medline-Pubmed database as an information resource. We focus on the bibliometric aspects of journals, papers and authors using the indicators offered by the Web of Science, the Journal Citation Reports and the Essential Science Indicators. We identify the output of Spanish researchers, journals in which they are published, authors and main research fields. From 2002 to 2011, Spanish researchers published 159 papers, that is, nearly 2% of the world's share in Prison Health. The publication profile is mainly in international journals with an average impact on JCR. The Revista Española de Sanidad Penitenciaria is the most productive journal (9.09%), although its role is not prominent. Only two authors can be considered as medium-high productive authors with 10 papers in the study time period. The co-authors network shows a dense network with 14 authors along with minor fragmented networks. As regards citations, 6 papers have been cited 15 or more times and only two can be considered as highly cited. Three main research fronts have been identified: infectious diseases, drugs and psychiatric-psychological problems. The Spanish research production on Prison Health represents a similar share of the world output similar to that of other disciplines (1.9%), although slightly lower (General Medicine represents 3.05%; Public Health, 2.38%; Psychiatry, 2.29%; Toxicology, 2.46%). It seems likely that this share will increase as a result of the inclusion of its main journal in Medline along with an increasing number of researchers working on this discipline at an international level. However, inclusion has not yet led to integration into high-impact journals or a larger number of citations. The average Journal Impact Factor is relatively low (2.062) and few papers are published in first-class journals (Q1). There are few articles with a good citation average according to the discipline's standard. Likewise, the collaboration pattern still shows a poor state for Spanish research on Prison Health.

[Analysis of highly cited articles published in Emergencias].

PubMed

Miró, Òscar; Fernández-Guerrero, Inés María; Burillo-Putze, Guillermo; Martín-Sánchez, Francisco Javier

2015-01-01

A journal is generally considered to be of higher quality to the extent that it publishes articles that are cited. A journal's articles are not all cited equally, however; rather, citations of only a select group of titles accounts for most of a journal's impact factor. This study aimed to identify the characteristics of Emergencias's most highly cited articles and compare their impact to that of papers by other authors in Spain, in Spanish, and internationally in the field of emergency medicine. Between 2008 and 2015, Emergencias published 975 articles, which received 2207 citations. The most-cited article received 52, and the group of 20 most-cited articles accumulated a total of 519 cites (23.5%). Even though Emergencias is published in Spanish and was included in Journal Citation Reports only recently (2008), some of the published articles have had considerable impact. The most-cited article (EVADUR Study) was in the top 2% (98th percentile) of all publications by authors in Spain, and in the top 1% of articles published in Spanish or in emergency medicine.

How to establish a first-class international scientific journal in China?

PubMed

Li, Zhen-Xi

2006-11-21

Hundreds of scientific journals are published in China. However, only scores of them are included in Science Citation Index by the Institute for Scientific Information, with impact factors of only 1 or less. Thus, how to establish a first-class international scientific journal in China is an important but difficult topic that deserves extensive exploration. World Journal of Gastroenterology (WJG) sets a good example although it has experienced setbacks on the road towards success. Concepts and pursuits that affirm the overall development direction, innovation and dreams that provide impetus and aspiration for higher objectives, team work and unique pattern that assure excellent quality and service, and culture and environment that also determine the speed and direction of the development, are believed to be the major factors contributing to the success of WJG. It is recommended that the effective resolution to the above issue is to learn from Chinese examples such as WJG rather than from "how foreign journals do".

How to establish a first-class international scientific journal in China?

PubMed Central

Li, Zhen-Xi

2006-01-01

Hundreds of scientific journals are published in China. However, only scores of them are included in Science Citation Index by the Institute for Scientific Information, with impact factors of only 1 or less. Thus, how to establish a first-class international scientific journal in China is an important but difficult topic that deserves extensive exploration. World Journal of Gastroenterology (WJG) sets a good example although it has experienced setbacks on the road towards success. Concepts and pursuits that affirm the overall development direction, innovation and dreams that provide impetus and aspiration for higher objectives, team work and unique pattern that assure excellent quality and service, and culture and environment that also determine the speed and direction of the development, are believed to be the major factors contributing to the success of WJG. It is recommended that the effective resolution to the above issue is to learn from Chinese examples such as WJG rather than from “how foreign journals do”. PMID:17109509

Analysis of aggregate impact factor inflation in ophthalmology.

PubMed

Caramoy, Albert; Korwitz, Ulrich; Eppelin, Anita; Kirchhof, Bernd; Fauser, Sascha

2013-01-01

To analyze the aggregate impact factor (AIF) in ophthalmology, its inflation rate, and its relation to other subject fields. A retrospective, database review of all subject fields in the Journal Citation Reports (JCR), Science edition. Citation data, AIF, number of journals and citations from the years 2003-2011 were analyzed. Data were retrieved from JCR. Future trends were calculated using a linear regression method. The AIF varies considerably between subjects. It shows also an inflation rate, which varies annually. The AIF inflation rate in ophthalmology was not as high as the background AIF inflation rate. The AIF inflation rate caused the AIF to increase annually. Not considering these variations in the AIF between years and between fields will make the AIF as a bibliometric tool inappropriate. Copyright © 2012 S. Karger AG, Basel.

A Comparison of Evaluation Metrics for Biomedical Journals, Articles, and Websites in Terms of Sensitivity to Topic

PubMed Central

Fu, Lawrence D.; Aphinyanaphongs, Yindalon; Wang, Lily; Aliferis, Constantin F.

2011-01-01

Evaluating the biomedical literature and health-related websites for quality are challenging information retrieval tasks. Current commonly used methods include impact factor for journals, PubMed’s clinical query filters and machine learning-based filter models for articles, and PageRank for websites. Previous work has focused on the average performance of these methods without considering the topic, and it is unknown how performance varies for specific topics or focused searches. Clinicians, researchers, and users should be aware when expected performance is not achieved for specific topics. The present work analyzes the behavior of these methods for a variety of topics. Impact factor, clinical query filters, and PageRank vary widely across different topics while a topic-specific impact factor and machine learning-based filter models are more stable. The results demonstrate that a method may perform excellently on average but struggle when used on a number of narrower topics. Topic adjusted metrics and other topic robust methods have an advantage in such situations. Users of traditional topic-sensitive metrics should be aware of their limitations. PMID:21419864

Web impact factor: a bibliometric criterion applied to medical informatics societies' web sites.

PubMed

Soualmia, Lina Fatima; Darmoni, Stéfan Jacques; Le Duff, Franck; Douyere, Magaly; Thelwall, Maurice

2002-01-01

Several methods are available to evaluate and compare medical journals. The most popular is the journal Impact Factor, derived from averaging counts of citations to articles. Ingwersen adapted this method to assess the attractiveness of Web sites, defining the external Web Impact Factor (WIF) to be the number of external pages containing a link to a given Web site. This paper applies the WIF to 43 medical informatics societies' Web sites using advanced search engine queries to obtain the necessary link counts. The WIF was compared to the number of publications available in the Medline bibliographic database in medical informatics in these 43 countries. Between these two metrics, the observed Pearson correlation was 0.952 (p < 0.01) and the Spearman rank correlation was 0.548 (p < 0.01) showing in both cases a positive and strong significant correlation. The WIF of medicalm informatics society's Web site is statistically related to national productivity and discrepancies can be used to indicate countries where there are either weak medical informatics associations, or ones that do not make optimal use of the Web.

[The long pilgrimage of Spanish biomedical journals toward excellence. Who helps? Quality, impact and research merit].

PubMed

Alfonso, Fernando

2010-03-01

Biomedical journals must adhere to strict standards of editorial quality. In a globalized academic scenario, biomedical journals must compete firstly to publish the most relevant original research and secondly to obtain the broadest possible visibility and the widest dissemination of their scientific contents. The cornerstone of the scientific process is still the peer-review system but additional quality criteria should be met. Recently access to medical information has been revolutionized by electronic editions. Bibliometric databases such as MEDLINE, the ISI Web of Science and Scopus offer comprehensive online information on medical literature. Classically, the prestige of biomedical journals has been measured by their impact factor but, recently, other indicators such as SCImago SJR or the Eigenfactor are emerging as alternative indices of a journal's quality. Assessing the scholarly impact of research and the merits of individual scientists remains a major challenge. Allocation of authorship credit also remains controversial. Furthermore, in our Kafkaesque world, we prefer to count rather than read the articles we judge. Quantitative publication metrics (research output) and citations analyses (scientific influence) are key determinants of the scientific success of individual investigators. However, academia is embracing new objective indicators (such as the "h" index) to evaluate scholarly merit. The present review discusses some editorial issues affecting biomedical journals, currently available bibliometric databases, bibliometric indices of journal quality and, finally, indicators of research performance and scientific success. Copyright 2010 SEEN. Published by Elsevier Espana. All rights reserved.

Review of Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance 2013.

PubMed

Pennell, Dudley John; Baksi, Arun John; Kilner, Philip John; Mohiaddin, Raad Hashem; Prasad, Sanjay Kumar; Alpendurada, Francisco; Babu-Narayan, Sonya Vidya; Neubauer, Stefan; Firmin, David Nigel

2014-12-05

There were 109 articles published in the Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance (JCMR) in 2013, which is a 21% increase on the 90 articles published in 2012. The quality of the submissions continues to increase. The editors are delighted to report that the 2012 JCMR Impact Factor (which is published in June 2013) has risen to 5.11, up from 4.44 for 2011 (as published in June 2012), a 15% increase and taking us through the 5 threshold for the first time. The 2012 impact factor means that the JCMR papers that were published in 2010 and 2011 were cited on average 5.11 times in 2012. The impact factor undergoes natural variation according to citation rates of papers in the 2 years following publication, and is significantly influenced by highly cited papers such as official reports. However, the progress of the journal's impact over the last 5 years has been impressive. Our acceptance rate is <25% and has been falling because the number of articles being submitted has been increasing. In accordance with Open-Access publishing, the JCMR articles go on-line as they are accepted with no collating of the articles into sections or special thematic issues. For this reason, the Editors have felt that it is useful once per calendar year to summarize the papers for the readership into broad areas of interest or theme, so that areas of interest can be reviewed in a single article in relation to each other and other recent JCMR articles. The papers are presented in broad themes and set in context with related literature and previously published JCMR papers to guide continuity of thought in the journal. We hope that you find the open-access system increases wider reading and citation of your papers, and that you will continue to send your quality manuscripts to JCMR for publication.

HIV research productivity and structural factors associated with HIV research output in European Union countries: a bibliometric analysis.

PubMed

Uusküla, A; Toompere, K; Laisaar, K T; Rosenthal, M; Pürjer, M L; Knellwolf, A; Läärä, E; Des Jarlais, D C

2015-02-03

To assess HIV/AIDS research productivity in the 27 countries of the European Union (EU), and the structural level factors associated with levels of HIV/AIDS research productivity. A bibliometric analysis was conducted with systematic search methods used to locate HIV/AIDS research publications (period of 1 January 2002 to 31 December 2011; search databases: MEDLINE (Ovid, PubMed), EMBASE, ISI-Thomson Web of Science; no language restrictions). The publication rate (number of HIV/AIDS research publications per million population in 10 years) and the rate of articles published in HIV/AIDS journals and selected journals with moderate to very high (IF ≥3) 5-year impact factors were used as markers for HIV research productivity. A negative binomial regression model was fitted to assess the impact of structural level factors (sociodemographic, health, HIV prevalence and research/development indicators) associated with the variation in HIV research productivity. The total numbers of HIV/AIDS research publications in 2002-2011 by country ranged from 7 to 9128 (median 319). The median publication rate (per million population in 10 years) was 45 (range 5-150) for all publications. Across all countries, 16% of the HIV/AIDS research was published in HIV/AIDS journals and 7% in selected journals with IF ≥3. Indicators describing economic (gross domestic product), demographic (size of the population) and epidemiological (HIV prevalence) conditions as well as overall scientific activity (total research output) in a country were positively associated with HIV research productivity. HIV research productivity varies noticeably across EU countries, and this variation is associated with recognisable structural factors. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.

Publishing bioethics and bioethics--reflections on academic publishing by a journal editor.

PubMed

Schüklenk, Udo

2011-02-01

This article by one of the Editors of Bioethics, published in the 25th anniversary issue of the journal, describes some of the revolutionary changes academic publishing has undergone during the last decades. Many humanities journals went from typically small print-runs, counting by the hundreds, to on-line availability in thousands of university libraries worldwide. Article up-take by our subscribers can be measured efficiently. The implications of this and other changes to academic publishing are discussed. Important ethical challenges need to be addressed in areas such as the enforcement of plagiarism-related policies, the so-called 'impact factor' and its impact on academic integrity, and the question of whether on-line only publishing can currently guarantee the integrity of academic publishing histories. © 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Publication in a Brazilian journal by Brazilian scientists whose papers have international impact.

PubMed

Meneghini, R

2010-09-01

Nine Brazilian scientists with an outstanding profile of international publications were invited to publish an original article in the same issue of a Brazilian Journal (Anais da Academia Brasileira de Ciências). The objective was to measure the impact of the papers on the number of citations to the articles, the assumption being that these authors would carry their international prestige to the Brazilian periodical. In a 2-year period there was a larger number of citations of these articles compared to others published in the same journal. Nevertheless, the number of citations in Brazilian journals did not equal the number of citations obtained by the other papers by the same authors in their international publications within the same 2-year period. The reasons for this difference in the number of citations could be either that less significant invited articles were submitted or that it was due to the intrinsic lack of visibility of the Brazilian journals, but this could not be fully determined with the present data. Also relevant was a comparison between the citations of Brazilian journals and the publication in Brazilian journals by these selected authors. A clear imbalance due to a remarkable under-citation of Brazilian authors by authors publishing in Brazilian journals raises the possibility that psychological factors may affect the decision of citing Brazilian journals.

Paucity of qualitative research in general medical and health services and policy research journals: analysis of publication rates.

PubMed

Gagliardi, Anna R; Dobrow, Mark J

2011-10-12

Qualitative research has the potential to inform and improve health care decisions but a study based on one year of publications suggests that it is not published in prominent health care journals. A more detailed, longitudinal analysis of its availability is needed. The purpose of this study was to identify, count and compare the number of qualitative and non-qualitative research studies published in high impact health care journals, and explore trends in these data over the last decade. A bibliometric approach was used to identify and quantify qualitative articles published in 20 top general medical and health services and policy research journals from 1999 to 2008. Eligible journals were selected based on performance in four different ranking systems reported in the 2008 ISI Journal Citation Reports. Qualitative and non-qualitative research published in these journals were identified by searching MEDLINE, and validated by hand-searching tables of contents for four journals. The total number of qualitative research articles published during 1999 to 2008 in ten general medical journals ranged from 0 to 41, and in ten health services and policy research journals from 0 to 39. Over this period the percentage of empirical research articles that were qualitative ranged from 0% to 0.6% for the general medical journals, and 0% to 6.4% for the health services and policy research journals. This analysis suggests that qualitative research it is rarely published in high impact general medical and health services and policy research journals. The factors that contribute to this persistent marginalization need to be better understood.

Payments by US pharmaceutical and medical device manufacturers to US medical journal editors: retrospective observational study.

PubMed

Liu, Jessica J; Bell, Chaim M; Matelski, John J; Detsky, Allan S; Cram, Peter

2017-10-26

Objective  To estimate financial payments from industry to US journal editors. Design  Retrospective observational study. Setting  52 influential (high impact factor for their specialty) US medical journals from 26 specialties and US Open Payments database, 2014. Participants  713 editors at the associate level and above identified from each journal's online masthead. Main outcome measures  All general payments (eg, personal income) and research related payments from pharmaceutical and medical device manufacturers to eligible physicians in 2014. Percentages of editors receiving payments and the magnitude of such payments were compared across journals and by specialty. Journal websites were also reviewed to determine if conflict of interest policies for editors were readily accessible. Results  Of 713 eligible editors, 361 (50.6%) received some (>$0) general payments in 2014, and 139 (19.5%) received research payments. The median general payment was $11 (£8; €9) (interquartile range $0-2923) and the median research payment was $0 ($0-0). The mean general payment was $28 136 (SD $415 045), and the mean research payment was $37 963 (SD $175 239). The highest median general payments were received by journal editors from endocrinology ($7207, $0-85 816), cardiology ($2664, $0-12 912), gastroenterology ($696, $0-20 002), rheumatology ($515, $0-14 280), and urology ($480, $90-669). For high impact general medicine journals, median payments were $0 ($0-14). A review of the 52 journal websites revealed that editor conflict of interest policies were readily accessible (ie, within five minutes) for 17/52 (32.7%) of journals. Conclusions  Industry payments to journal editors are common and often large, particularly for certain subspecialties. Journals should consider the potential impact of such payments on public trust in published research. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.

Bibliometric Analysis of Orthopedic Literature on Total Knee Arthroplasty in Asian Countries: A 10-year Analysis.

PubMed

Eom, Sang Hwa; Bamne, Ankur B; Chowdhry, Madhav; Chae, Ihn Seok; Kim, Tae Kyun

2015-09-01

We aimed to determine the quantity and quality of research output of selected Asian countries in the field of total knee arthroplasty (TKA) in the last 10 years. Top 15 Asian countries were selected according to their gross domestic product. The Science Citation Index Expanded database was used to search for the literature published between 2004 and 2013 using "Total Knee Arthroplasty". The numbers of articles, journals and citations and the contribution of each country were analyzed. The articles were classified according to the type of study and the relative proportion of each type was analyzed. Asian surgeons have increasingly contributed to orthopedic literature on TKA for the past 10 years, but the dominant contribution came from only a few countries. The total number of articles published by Asian countries increased by 261%, with Japan producing most of the studies and China showing the maximum growth rate. The majority of studies were published in low impact factor journals. Korea published the highest proportion of articles in high impact factor journals. Clinical papers were most frequent. Our identification of research productivity pertaining to TKA among Asian countries gives a unique insight into the level of academic research in the field of TKA in these countries. There is a need to improve the quality of research to enhance the publishing power in high impact journals as well as the need for more basic research and epidemiological studies considering the unique differences among Asian patients undergoing TKA.

The differential impact of scientific quality, bibliometric factors, and social media activity on the influence of systematic reviews and meta-analyses about psoriasis.

PubMed

Ruano, Juan; Aguilar-Luque, Macarena; Gómez-Garcia, Francisco; Alcalde Mellado, Patricia; Gay-Mimbrera, Jesus; Carmona-Fernandez, Pedro J; Maestre-López, Beatriz; Sanz-Cabanillas, Juan Luís; Hernández Romero, José Luís; González-Padilla, Marcelino; Vélez García-Nieto, Antonio; Isla-Tejera, Beatriz

2018-01-01

Researchers are increasingly using on line social networks to promote their work. Some authors have suggested that measuring social media activity can predict the impact of a primary study (i.e., whether or not an article will be highly cited). However, the influence of variables such as scientific quality, research disclosures, and journal characteristics on systematic reviews and meta-analyses has not yet been assessed. The present study aims to describe the effect of complex interactions between bibliometric factors and social media activity on the impact of systematic reviews and meta-analyses about psoriasis (PROSPERO 2016: CRD42016053181). Methodological quality was assessed using the Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) tool. Altmetrics, which consider Twitter, Facebook, and Google+ mention counts as well as Mendeley and SCOPUS readers, and corresponding article citation counts from Google Scholar were obtained for each article. Metadata and journal-related bibliometric indices were also obtained. One-hundred and sixty-four reviews with available altmetrics information were included in the final multifactorial analysis, which showed that social media and impact factor have less effect than Mendeley and SCOPUS readers on the number of cites that appear in Google Scholar. Although a journal's impact factor predicted the number of tweets (OR, 1.202; 95% CI, 1.087-1.049), the years of publication and the number of Mendeley readers predicted the number of citations in Google Scholar (OR, 1.033; 95% CI, 1.018-1.329). Finally, methodological quality was related neither with bibliometric influence nor social media activity for systematic reviews. In conclusion, there seems to be a lack of connectivity between scientific quality, social media activity, and article usage, thus predicting scientific success based on these variables may be inappropriate in the particular case of systematic reviews.

Analysis of the Revision Process by American Journal of Roentgenology Reviewers and Section Editors: Metrics of Rejected Manuscripts and Their Final Disposition.

PubMed

Cejas, Claudia

2017-06-01

The objective of this study was to evaluate metrics related to manuscripts rejected by AJR with and without review during 2014 and to determine their final disposition: no record of eventual publication, eventually published, published with modified authors and title, published with the same title but modified authors, and published with modified title but the same authors. A total of 1245 unsolicited manuscripts submitted from January to December 2014 were included in this retrospective analysis. Data were extracted from the AJR's manuscript submission system. Standard statistical analysis was used to assess the fate of a sample of 200 rejected manuscripts. Of the 200 manuscripts studied, 117 (59%) were published in other scientific journals (61 with revision, 56 without revision; Χ 2 = 0.329, p = 0.566). Thirty-two of the 61 manuscripts (52%) rejected after peer review were later published in other journals without changes in their titles or authors, 16 (26%) with changes only in authors, 10 (16%) with changes only in their titles, and three (5%) with changes in authors and titles. Twenty-six of the 56 manuscripts (46%) rejected without peer review were published without changes in their titles or authors, 17 (30%) with changes in authors, 11 (20%) with changes only in their titles, and two (4%) with changes in both authors and titles (p = 0.686). Ten articles were published in open access journals. Of the remaining articles, those that had been reviewed were published in journals with a mean impact factor ± SD of 2.37 ± 1.30, and those that had not been reviewed were published in journals with a mean impact factor of 2.04 ± 1.06. Analysis of the 25th and 75th percentiles revealed that values were also higher for the group rejected with review (Wilcoxon rank sum test: W = 1679, p = 0.1127). Out of 61 articles rejected for publication with review, 52.5% were published with changes to their abstracts, whereas the remaining 47.5% were unchanged. This analysis found that manuscripts submitted to AJR that were rejected after review were published in journals with higher impact factors than those rejected without review. The commentaries provided by AJR reviewers and section editors appear to improve the quality of rejected manuscripts and thus contribute to the scientific community.

Do open access biomedical journals benefit smaller countries? The Slovenian experience.

PubMed

Turk, Nana

2011-06-01

Scientists from smaller countries have problems gaining visibility for their research. Does open access publishing provide a solution? Slovenia is a small country with around 5000 medical doctors, 1300 dentists and 1000 pharmacists. A search of Slovenia's Bibliographic database was carried out to identity all biomedical journals and those which are open access. Slovenia has 18 medical open access journals, but none has an impact factor and only 10 are indexed by Slovenian and international bibliographic databases. The visibility and quality of medical papers is poor. The solution might be to reduce the number of journals and encourage Slovenian scientists to publish their best articles in them. © 2011 The authors. Health Information and Libraries Journal © 2011 Health Libraries Group.

Hematology research output from Chinese authors and other countries: a 10-year survey of the literature.

PubMed

Zhang, Lei; Ye, Xin; Sun, Yi; Deng, An-mei; Qian, Bao-hua

2015-02-06

Hematologic disease affects people of all ages worldwide. In the past decade, researchers have made great progress in the field of hematology. In the present study we compared the hematology research output from China and other countries (USA, Germany, UK, Japan and South Korea) over the past 10 years and 5 years. The related articles were extracted based on the PubMed database. We recorded the number of publications, clinical trials, randomized controlled trials, meta-analyses, case reports, reviews, citations, impact factors, articles in the top 10 journals and most published journals to assess the quantity and quality of research output in each region. A total of 120,641 hematology-related articles were published from 2004 to 2013. The USA accounted for 27.13% (32,732/120,641) of the publications, followed by Germany (7,479/120,641; 6.20%), Japan (6,347/120,641; 5.26%), the UK (5,453/120,641; 4.52%), China (2,924/120,641; 2.42%) and South Korea (1,413/120,641; 1.17%). The ranking for cumulative impact factors was as follows: USA; Germany; UK; Japan; China and South Korea. The median impact factors in the UK, USA, and Germany were higher than Japan, South Korea, and China. Interestingly, the median impact factors in the three Asia countries were similar both in 2004-2013 and 2009-2013. The UK had the highest percentage of publications in the top 25% of journals, while China lagged behind and ranked last. When comparing the number of articles in the top 10 journals, the results were similar to the IF findings. Germany had the highest number of average citations, while China had the lowest number of average citation. The status of hematology research output from the 6 countries in 2009-2013 had little difference from 2004-2013. Thus, the USA has had a dominant role in hematologic research in the past 10 years. Overall, the quality of publications in European countries was better than Asia countries. Although China has made considerable progress in hematology research, the quality of research needs improvement.

Institute for Scientific Information-indexed biomedical journals of Saudi Arabia. Their performance from 2007-2014.

PubMed

Rohra, Dileep K; Rohra, Vikram K; Cahusac, Peter

2016-11-01

To compare the journal impact factor (JIF) and Eigenfactor score (ES) of Institute for Scientific Information (ISI)-indexed biomedical journals published from the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) over the last 8 years. Methods: This is a retrospective study, conducted at Alfaisal University, Riyadh, KSA from January to March 2016. The Journal Citation Reports of ISI Web of Knowledge were accessed, and 6 Saudi biomedical journals were included for analysis. Results: All Saudi journals have improved their IF compared with their baseline. However, the performance of the Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences and Neurosciences has been exceptionally good. The biggest improvement in percent growth in JIF was seen in the Saudi Pharmaceutical Journal (approximately 887%) followed by Neurosciences (approximately 462%). Interestingly, the ES of all biomedical journals, except Saudi Journal of Gastroenterology and Saudi Medical Journal, increased over the years. The greatest growth in ES (more than 5 fold) was noted for Neurosciences and Saudi Pharmaceutical Journal. Conclusion: This study shows that the overall quality of all Saudi biomedical journals has improved in the last 8 years.

Institute for Scientific Information-indexed biomedical journals of Saudi Arabia

PubMed Central

Rohra, Dileep K.; Rohra, Vikram K.; Cahusac, Peter

2016-01-01

Objectives: To compare the journal impact factor (JIF) and Eigenfactor score (ES) of Institute for Scientific Information (ISI)-indexed biomedical journals published from the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) over the last 8 years. Methods: This is a retrospective study, conducted at Alfaisal University, Riyadh, KSA from January to March 2016. The Journal Citation Reports of ISI Web of Knowledge were accessed, and 6 Saudi biomedical journals were included for analysis. Results: All Saudi journals have improved their IF compared with their baseline. However, the performance of the Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences and Neurosciences has been exceptionally good. The biggest improvement in percent growth in JIF was seen in the Saudi Pharmaceutical Journal (approximately 887%) followed by Neurosciences (approximately 462%). Interestingly, the ES of all biomedical journals, except Saudi Journal of Gastroenterology and Saudi Medical Journal, increased over the years. The greatest growth in ES (more than 5 fold) was noted for Neurosciences and Saudi Pharmaceutical Journal. Conclusion: This study shows that the overall quality of all Saudi biomedical journals has improved in the last 8 years. PMID:27761565

Open Access Publishing in the Field of Medical Informatics.

PubMed

Kuballa, Stefanie

2017-05-01

The open access paradigm has become an important approach in today's information and communication society. Funders and governments in different countries stipulate open access publications of funded research results. Medical informatics as part of the science, technology and medicine disciplines benefits from many research funds, such as National Institutes of Health in the US, Wellcome Trust in UK, German Research Foundation in Germany and many more. In this study an overview of the current open access programs and conditions of major journals in the field of medical informatics is presented. It was investigated whether there are suitable options and how they are shaped. Therefore all journals in Thomson Reuters Web of Science that were listed in the subject category "Medical Informatics" in 2014 were examined. An Internet research was conducted by investigating the journals' websites. It was reviewed whether journals offer an open access option with a subsequent check of conditions as for example the type of open access, the fees and the licensing. As a result all journals in the field of medical informatics that had an impact factor in 2014 offer an open access option. A predominantly consistent pricing range was determined with an average fee of 2.248 € and a median fee of 2.207 €. The height of a journals' open access fee did not correlate with the height of its Impact Factor. Hence, medical informatics journals have recognized the trend of open access publishing, though the vast majority of them are working with the hybrid method. Hybrid open access may however lead to problems in questions of double dipping and the often stipulated gold open access.

[Bibliometric map of research done in primary care in Spain during the period 2008-2012].

PubMed

López-Torres Hidalgo, Jesús; Basora Gallisà, Josep; Orozco Beltrán, Domingo; Bellón Saameño, Juan Ángel

2014-12-01

To describe the Spanish scientific production of primary care during 2008-2012. Observational study bibliometric. Spanish scientific production in primary care. The study focused on publications indexed in Medline. In each record was obtained journal, year of publication, first/last author, workplace and autonomous community. Later, articles were classified according to their content or areas of research. The impact factor was obtained from the basis of bibliometric analysis Journal Citation Reports. Using search criteria, were selected 1,048 documents. The transiency rate was 62.6%. Production increased from 170 papers in 2008 to 291 in 2012. Most (65.7%) came from health centers, but we observed a significant increase (P=.01) of the articles from units or research institutes (5.9% in 2008, 12.0% in 2012). Of the total, 61.6% were classified as «clinical aspects», 22.5% were published in the journal Atención Primaria, 80.5% in journals with impact factor and 33.49% in foreign journals, being higher this proportion (P<.001) in units or research institutes (70.5% vs. 29.8%). In relation to population (articles/100.000 inhab.), the most productive communities were Cataluña (4.1), Castilla-La Mancha (3.6), Aragón (3.4) and Navarra (3.4). In primary care publications there is great diversity in both research areas such as in journals where published. Most are from health centers, treat clinical aspects and published in Spanish journals. Differences in the volume of scientific production between regions are observed. Copyright © 2013 Elsevier España, S.L.U. All rights reserved.

How to Rank Journals

PubMed Central

Bradshaw, Corey J. A.; Brook, Barry W.

2016-01-01

There are now many methods available to assess the relative citation performance of peer-reviewed journals. Regardless of their individual faults and advantages, citation-based metrics are used by researchers to maximize the citation potential of their articles, and by employers to rank academic track records. The absolute value of any particular index is arguably meaningless unless compared to other journals, and different metrics result in divergent rankings. To provide a simple yet more objective way to rank journals within and among disciplines, we developed a κ-resampled composite journal rank incorporating five popular citation indices: Impact Factor, Immediacy Index, Source-Normalized Impact Per Paper, SCImago Journal Rank and Google 5-year h-index; this approach provides an index of relative rank uncertainty. We applied the approach to six sample sets of scientific journals from Ecology (n = 100 journals), Medicine (n = 100), Multidisciplinary (n = 50); Ecology + Multidisciplinary (n = 25), Obstetrics & Gynaecology (n = 25) and Marine Biology & Fisheries (n = 25). We then cross-compared the κ-resampled ranking for the Ecology + Multidisciplinary journal set to the results of a survey of 188 publishing ecologists who were asked to rank the same journals, and found a 0.68–0.84 Spearman’s ρ correlation between the two rankings datasets. Our composite index approach therefore approximates relative journal reputation, at least for that discipline. Agglomerative and divisive clustering and multi-dimensional scaling techniques applied to the Ecology + Multidisciplinary journal set identified specific clusters of similarly ranked journals, with only Nature & Science separating out from the others. When comparing a selection of journals within or among disciplines, we recommend collecting multiple citation-based metrics for a sample of relevant and realistic journals to calculate the composite rankings and their relative uncertainty windows. PMID:26930052

How to Rank Journals.

PubMed

Bradshaw, Corey J A; Brook, Barry W

2016-01-01

There are now many methods available to assess the relative citation performance of peer-reviewed journals. Regardless of their individual faults and advantages, citation-based metrics are used by researchers to maximize the citation potential of their articles, and by employers to rank academic track records. The absolute value of any particular index is arguably meaningless unless compared to other journals, and different metrics result in divergent rankings. To provide a simple yet more objective way to rank journals within and among disciplines, we developed a κ-resampled composite journal rank incorporating five popular citation indices: Impact Factor, Immediacy Index, Source-Normalized Impact Per Paper, SCImago Journal Rank and Google 5-year h-index; this approach provides an index of relative rank uncertainty. We applied the approach to six sample sets of scientific journals from Ecology (n = 100 journals), Medicine (n = 100), Multidisciplinary (n = 50); Ecology + Multidisciplinary (n = 25), Obstetrics & Gynaecology (n = 25) and Marine Biology & Fisheries (n = 25). We then cross-compared the κ-resampled ranking for the Ecology + Multidisciplinary journal set to the results of a survey of 188 publishing ecologists who were asked to rank the same journals, and found a 0.68-0.84 Spearman's ρ correlation between the two rankings datasets. Our composite index approach therefore approximates relative journal reputation, at least for that discipline. Agglomerative and divisive clustering and multi-dimensional scaling techniques applied to the Ecology + Multidisciplinary journal set identified specific clusters of similarly ranked journals, with only Nature & Science separating out from the others. When comparing a selection of journals within or among disciplines, we recommend collecting multiple citation-based metrics for a sample of relevant and realistic journals to calculate the composite rankings and their relative uncertainty windows.

The social media index: measuring the impact of emergency medicine and critical care websites.

PubMed

Thoma, Brent; Sanders, Jason L; Lin, Michelle; Paterson, Quinten S; Steeg, Jordon; Chan, Teresa M

2015-03-01

The number of educational resources created for emergency medicine and critical care (EMCC) that incorporate social media has increased dramatically. With no way to assess their impact or quality, it is challenging for educators to receive scholarly credit and for learners to identify respected resources. The Social Media index (SMi) was developed to help address this. We used data from social media platforms (Google PageRanks, Alexa Ranks, Facebook Likes, Twitter Followers, and Google+ Followers) for EMCC blogs and podcasts to derive three normalized (ordinal, logarithmic, and raw) formulas. The most statistically robust formula was assessed for 1) temporal stability using repeated measures and website age, and 2) correlation with impact by applying it to EMCC journals and measuring the correlation with known journal impact metrics. The logarithmic version of the SMi containing four metrics was the most statistically robust. It correlated significantly with website age (Spearman r=0.372; p<0.001) and repeated measures through seven months (r=0.929; p<0.001). When applied to EMCC journals, it correlated significantly with all impact metrics except number of articles published. The strongest correlations were seen with the Immediacy Index (r=0.609; p<0.001) and Article Influence Score (r=0.608; p<0.001). The SMi's temporal stability and correlation with journal impact factors suggests that it may be a stable indicator of impact for medical education websites. Further study is needed to determine whether impact correlates with quality and how learners and educators can best utilize this tool.

[Analysis on theses, funding ratio and impact factor of the "Chinese Journal of Parasitology and Parasitic Diseases" in 2000-2004].

PubMed

Sheng, Hui-feng; Fu, Xiu-lan; Bo, Wei; Hu, Ya-qing; Dai, Jing

2006-08-01

Number of theses published and the major evaluation indicators of the (Chinese Journal of Parasitology and Parasitic Diseases) in 2000-2004 were analyzed. Together 833 papers and communications were published in the 5 years and the original articles, reviews and experiment reports occupied 39.4%, 9.1% and 4.4% respectively. The key authors were from universities (53.4%) and disease control institutions (29.4%). 20 universities/institutions published over 8 papers in the period occupying 38.1%. The average rate of papers supported by various funds and by international agencies was 0.50 and 0.09 respectively, and higher in 2004, 0.52 and 0.07 respectively. The ratio of national, ministry (provincial) and international projects was 29.9%, 43.9% and 20.4% respectively. The overall citation and impact factor of this journal increased from 325 and 0.377 in 2000 to 437 and 0.462 in 2004 respectively, being among the best of the periodicals and expressing its high academic level and its domestic and abroad importance in the field of parasitology.

Secular trends in impact factor of neonatology publications over a 10-year period.

PubMed

Marom, Ronella; Mimouni, Francis B; Cohen, Shlomi; Lubetzky, Ronit; Mandel, Dror

2012-10-01

  To test the hypotheses that published randomized clinical trials (RCTs) in neonatology with negative results (NR) are more likely to be published in journals with lower impact factor (IF) than those with positive results (PR); that there is an increase in the number of yearly published RCTs; that studies with large sample sizes are likely to be published in journals with higher IF.   We used all English-written RCTs registered in MEDLINE between 1/1/2001-31/12/2010 in the field of neonatology. Each RCT was classified as having a PR or NR. IF of each journal was determined for the year of publication.   We identified 329 RCTs. Yearly number of RCTs varied between 19 and 46, with no significant consistent linear increase over the years. There was no significant change over the years in average IF or in average patient size. IF and sample size of the studies were not significantly higher in studies with PR than in studies with NR.   The number of RCTs per year in the field of neonatology has stabilized in the past 10 years, and RCTs with positive or negative results are published in journals of similar IF. © 2012 The Author(s)/Acta Paediatrica © 2012 Foundation Acta Paediatrica.

Top 100 Cited Articles in Recent Tobacco Research.

PubMed

Mahabee-Gittens, E Melinda; Gordon, Judith S; Melink, Katie F; Merianos, Ashley L

2017-01-01

The total citations that a peer-reviewed manuscript has is often used to measure the impact that a publication has in its respective field of study. Both the citation count and total number of publications are often used as measures of academic productivity and success. This issue has been previously investigated in the field of tobacco control research. Given the changing landscape in the field of tobacco research since 2004, we sought to re-examine this issue. The study purpose was to identify the 100 top-cited tobacco-related articles published since 2005, and to categorize and describe the fields of study represented in these articles. We searched the Scopus library database to determine the citations of the top 100 tobacco-related articles. Information was gathered on: title, number of authors, publication year, journal name and impact factor, country of origin, article type and subject category. Articles were selected and analyzed by two independent investigators. We identified the 100 top-cited articles published in 58 journals, led by The New England Journal of Medicine (8) and Lancet (6), between 2005 and 2014. The United States was the most common country of origin for the highly-cited articles. The top article types were observation (27%), basic science (26%), and review articles (24%). The most common article subject area was medicine (74%). A statistically significant association was found between the journal impact factor and the number of top 100 cited articles ( p = 0.03). This review may be helpful to identify articles that may be contributing to the conduct of current and future tobacco research. The analysis can be used as a reference to review and evaluate the publications that are making a high impact in the field of tobacco research.

Which Articles Make a Difference? Introduction to the Special 30th APS Anniversary Issue of Perspectives on Psychological Science.

PubMed

Sternberg, Robert J

2018-03-01

This introduction to the special symposium on the top 30 most-cited articles in APS journals considers some of the factors that lead some articles to have huge impact. What is it that scientists can do to achieve the greatest impact for their work?

Payments by US pharmaceutical and medical device manufacturers to US medical journal editors: retrospective observational study

PubMed Central

Bell, Chaim M; Matelski, John J; Detsky, Allan S; Cram, Peter

2017-01-01

Objective To estimate financial payments from industry to US journal editors. Design Retrospective observational study. Setting 52 influential (high impact factor for their specialty) US medical journals from 26 specialties and US Open Payments database, 2014. Participants 713 editors at the associate level and above identified from each journal’s online masthead. Main outcome measures All general payments (eg, personal income) and research related payments from pharmaceutical and medical device manufacturers to eligible physicians in 2014. Percentages of editors receiving payments and the magnitude of such payments were compared across journals and by specialty. Journal websites were also reviewed to determine if conflict of interest policies for editors were readily accessible. Results Of 713 eligible editors, 361 (50.6%) received some (>$0) general payments in 2014, and 139 (19.5%) received research payments. The median general payment was $11 (£8; €9) (interquartile range $0-2923) and the median research payment was $0 ($0-0). The mean general payment was $28 136 (SD $415 045), and the mean research payment was $37 963 (SD $175 239). The highest median general payments were received by journal editors from endocrinology ($7207, $0-85 816), cardiology ($2664, $0-12 912), gastroenterology ($696, $0-20 002), rheumatology ($515, $0-14 280), and urology ($480, $90-669). For high impact general medicine journals, median payments were $0 ($0-14). A review of the 52 journal websites revealed that editor conflict of interest policies were readily accessible (ie, within five minutes) for 17/52 (32.7%) of journals. Conclusions Industry payments to journal editors are common and often large, particularly for certain subspecialties. Journals should consider the potential impact of such payments on public trust in published research. PMID:29074628

United European Gastroenterology Week scientific abstracts and their progression to full publication.

PubMed

Raju, Suneil A; Sanders, David S; Akram, Rahim; Glover, Rebecca; Al-Rifaie, Ammar; Peever, Elise; Purves, Josh; Scanu, Emily; Kurien, Matthew

2017-10-01

Abstracts presentations at scientific meetings enable rapid dissemination of novel research. The percentage of abstracts that proceed to full publication from differing medical specialties is highly variable. This study aims to evaluate the outcomes of abstracts presented at the United European Gastroenterology Week (UEGW). All abstracts presented at UEGW between 2009 and 2011 were assessed. Cross-referencing of the first author, senior author and at least one keyword of the abstract was performed using PubMed and EMBASE databases. Abstracts and possible resultant full publications were then examined in tandem to ensure that they represented the same study. Data were also collected on lag time to publication, journal impact factors, country of the author and factors influencing subsequent publication. A total of 6785 abstracts (1438 oral and 5347 poster presentations) were presented during the period assessed. Of these, 2099 (30.9%) proceeded to full publication in indexed journals. Oral abstract presentations were most likely to proceed to full publication compared with poster presentations (odds ratio: 1.38, 95% confidence interval: 1.22-1.56) and were more likely to achieve publication in higher impact journals (median impact factor 4.78 vs. 2.89, P<0.0005). The median lag time to full publication was 15 (IQR: 7-15) months. The Netherlands had the highest United European Gastroenterology abstract conversion rate to full publication (46.8%). This is the first study to assess the publication rates of UEGW. Findings are favourable with similar studies from other societies.

How come scientists uncritically adopt and embody Thomson's bibliographic impact factor?

PubMed

Porta, Miquel; Alvarez-Dardet, Carlos

2008-05-01

The bibliographic impact factor (BIF) of Thomson Scientific is sometimes not a valid scientometric indicator for a number of reasons. One major reason is the strong influence of the number of "source items" or "articles" for each journal that the company chooses each year as BIF's denominator. The irresistible fascination with (and picturesque uses of) a construct as scientifically weak as BIF are simple reminders that scientists are embedded in and embody culture.

100 classic papers of interventional radiology: A citation analysis.

PubMed

Crockett, Matthew T; Browne, Ronan Fj; MacMahon, Peter J; Lawler, Leo

2015-04-28

To define the 100 citation classic papers of interventional radiology. Using the database of Journal Citation Reports the 40 highest impact factor radiology journals were chosen. From these journals the 100 most cited interventional radiology papers were chosen and analysed. The top paper received 2497 citations and the 100(th) paper 200 citations. The average number of citations was 320. Dates of publication ranged from 1953 - 2005. Most papers originated in the United States (n = 67) followed by Italy (n = 20) and France (n = 10). Harvard University (n = 18) and Osped Civile (n = 11) were the most prolific institutions. Ten journals produced all of the top 100 papers with "Radiology" and "AJR" making up the majority. SN Goldberg and T Livraghi were the most prolific authors. Nearly two thirds of the papers (n = 61) were published after 1990. This analysis identifies many of the landmark interventional radiology papers and provides a fascinating insight into the changing discourse within the field. It also identifies topics, authors and institutions which have impacted greatly on the specialty.

The place of the British Journal of Psychiatry in the mental health league.

PubMed

Tyrer, Peter

2010-01-01

The British Journal of Psychiatry is an independent mainstream general psychiatric journal that competes reasonably well with others in the field. It does so by keeping a healthy balance between the demands of its readers, its contributors and the need for good science. It publishes an eclectic mix of original articles, reviews, editorials, reappraisals, comment, opinion and extras, the latter including poetry, short summaries, literature and psychiatry, and a touch of humour. These contributions are not always in keeping with the harsh requirements of the impact factor, but we judge that this makes for a better all-round journal that advances psychiatry in all its manifold aspects and is anything but dull.

Factors Affecting Journal Quality Indicator in Scopus (SCImago Journal Rank) in Obstetrics and Gynecology Journals: a Longitudinal Study (1999-2013).

PubMed

Jamali, Jamshid; Salehi-Marzijarani, Mohammad; Ayatollahi, Seyyed Mohammad Taghi

2014-12-01

Awareness of the latest scientific research and publishing articles in top journals is one of the major concerns of health researchers. In this study, we first introduced top journals of obstetrics and gynecology field based on their Impact Factor (IF), Eigenfactor Score (ES) and SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) indicator indexed in Scopus databases and then the scientometric features of longitudinal changes of SJR in this field were presented. In our analytical and bibiliometric study, we included all the journals of obstetrics and gynecology field which were indexed by Scopus from 1999 to 2013. The scientometric features in Scopus were derived from SCImago Institute and IF and ES were obtained from Journal Citation Report through the Institute for Scientific Information. Generalized Estimating Equation was used to assess the scientometric features affecting SJR. From 256 journals reviewed, 54.2% and 41.8% were indexed in the Pubmed and the Web of Sciences, respectively. Human Reproduction Update based on the IF (5.924±2.542) and SJR (2.682±1.185), and American Journal of obstetrics and gynecology based on the ES (0.05685±0.00633) obtained the first rank among the other journals. Time, Index in Pubmed, H_index, Citable per Document, Cites per Document, and IF affected changes of SJR in the period of study. Our study showed a significant association between SJR and scientometric features in obstetrics and gynecology journals. According to this relationship, SJR may be an appropriate index for assessing journal quality.

Factors Affecting Journal Quality Indicator in Scopus (SCImago Journal Rank) in Obstetrics and Gynecology Journals: a Longitudinal Study (1999-2013)

PubMed Central

Jamali, Jamshid; Salehi-Marzijarani, Mohammad; Ayatollahi, Seyyed Mohammad Taghi

2014-01-01

Introduction: Awareness of the latest scientific research and publishing articles in top journals is one of the major concerns of health researchers. In this study, we first introduced top journals of obstetrics and gynecology field based on their Impact Factor (IF), Eigenfactor Score (ES) and SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) indicator indexed in Scopus databases and then the scientometric features of longitudinal changes of SJR in this field were presented. Method and material: In our analytical and bibiliometric study, we included all the journals of obstetrics and gynecology field which were indexed by Scopus from 1999 to 2013. The scientometric features in Scopus were derived from SCImago Institute and IF and ES were obtained from Journal Citation Report through the Institute for Scientific Information. Generalized Estimating Equation was used to assess the scientometric features affecting SJR. Result: From 256 journals reviewed, 54.2% and 41.8% were indexed in the Pubmed and the Web of Sciences, respectively. Human Reproduction Update based on the IF (5.924±2.542) and SJR (2.682±1.185), and American Journal of obstetrics and gynecology based on the ES (0.05685±0.00633) obtained the first rank among the other journals. Time, Index in Pubmed, H_index, Citable per Document, Cites per Document, and IF affected changes of SJR in the period of study. Discussion: Our study showed a significant association between SJR and scientometric features in obstetrics and gynecology journals. According to this relationship, SJR may be an appropriate index for assessing journal quality. PMID:25684846

PRISMA and AMSTAR Show Systematic Reviews of Health Literacy and Cancer Screening are Good Quality.

PubMed

Sharma, Sakshi; Oremus, Mark

2018-04-11

To evaluate the reporting and methodological quality of systematic reviews (SRs) in health literacy and cancer screening; to investigate factors that may influence overall quality. A review of SRs published between 2009 and 2017. We calculated indices to represent the included SRs' adherence to PRISMA and AMSTAR. To assess possible determinants of SR quality, we regressed the index scores on year and region of publication, journal impact factor, authors' reported use of PRISMA, and presence of funding statements. We included 19 SRs and median index scores were 0.86 for PRISMA (interquartile range [IQR] = 0.11; range = 0.32 to 1.00) and 0.67 for AMSTAR (IQR = 0.30; range = 0.22 to 1.00). Methodological and reporting problems pertained to protocol registration or publication, number of raters used, gray literature searches, excluded article lists, and unintegrated discussions of risk of bias and efficacy. Only journal impact factor was statistically significantly associated (positively) with PRISMA and AMSTAR index scores. The quality of SRs in health literacy and cancer screening was generally good. Systematic reviewers should register or publish their protocols, include PRISMA and AMSTAR checklists when submitting SRs to journals, and self-evaluate their SRs before submission. Copyright © 2018. Published by Elsevier Inc.

The impact factor ranking--a challenge for scientists and publishers.

PubMed

Rieder, Simon; Bruse, Charlotte S; Michalski, Christoph W; Kleeff, Jörg; Friess, Helmut

2010-04-01

The Impact Factor (IF) has originally been designed as a bibliometric tool to estimate the relevance of a scientific journal and has as such gained widespread acceptance in the scientific community. It denominates the ratio of all citations received by a particular journal within 1 year and all original research or review articles published by that journal during the preceding 2 years. Recently, the IF is more and more frequently used to judge the importance of single articles or the scientific achievement of researchers themselves. These approaches are associated with a number of backlashes such as the inability of the IF to reflect citation rates of single articles, the lack of elimination of self-citations and the time frame within which the IF is calculated (i.e., the two preceding years). Thus, for the evaluation of single articles, citation rankings would be-though time consuming in their compilation-more adequate. For the assessment of the scientific output of individual researchers, the h-index is emerging as a valuable tool which reflects both the citation rate as well as the number of publications of a given researcher. Although the IF is suitable for judging the overall importance of journals, IF rankings should be made solely within the respective subspecialty categorizations to avoid overrepresentation of larger research areas. In conclusion, the IF remains the widest accepted qualitative tool for the benchmarking of journals, though the assessment of individual scientific quality remains a challenging endeavor.

Are Study and Journal Characteristics Reliable Indicators of "Truth" in Imaging Research?

PubMed

Frank, Robert A; McInnes, Matthew D F; Levine, Deborah; Kressel, Herbert Y; Jesurum, Julia S; Petrcich, William; McGrath, Trevor A; Bossuyt, Patrick M

2018-04-01

Purpose To evaluate whether journal-level variables (impact factor, cited half-life, and Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies [STARD] endorsement) and study-level variables (citation rate, timing of publication, and order of publication) are associated with the distance between primary study results and summary estimates from meta-analyses. Materials and Methods MEDLINE was searched for meta-analyses of imaging diagnostic accuracy studies, published from January 2005 to April 2016. Data on journal-level and primary-study variables were extracted for each meta-analysis. Primary studies were dichotomized by variable as first versus subsequent publication, publication before versus after STARD introduction, STARD endorsement, or by median split. The mean absolute deviation of primary study estimates from the corresponding summary estimates for sensitivity and specificity was compared between groups. Means and confidence intervals were obtained by using bootstrap resampling; P values were calculated by using a t test. Results Ninety-eight meta-analyses summarizing 1458 primary studies met the inclusion criteria. There was substantial variability, but no significant differences, in deviations from the summary estimate between paired groups (P > .0041 in all comparisons). The largest difference found was in mean deviation for sensitivity, which was observed for publication timing, where studies published first on a topic demonstrated a mean deviation that was 2.5 percentage points smaller than subsequently published studies (P = .005). For journal-level factors, the greatest difference found (1.8 percentage points; P = .088) was in mean deviation for sensitivity in journals with impact factors above the median compared with those below the median. Conclusion Journal- and study-level variables considered important when evaluating diagnostic accuracy information to guide clinical decisions are not systematically associated with distance from the truth; critical appraisal of individual articles is recommended. © RSNA, 2017 Online supplemental material is available for this article.

Paucity of qualitative research in general medical and health services and policy research journals: analysis of publication rates

PubMed Central

2011-01-01

Background Qualitative research has the potential to inform and improve health care decisions but a study based on one year of publications suggests that it is not published in prominent health care journals. A more detailed, longitudinal analysis of its availability is needed. The purpose of this study was to identify, count and compare the number of qualitative and non-qualitative research studies published in high impact health care journals, and explore trends in these data over the last decade. Methods A bibliometric approach was used to identify and quantify qualitative articles published in 20 top general medical and health services and policy research journals from 1999 to 2008. Eligible journals were selected based on performance in four different ranking systems reported in the 2008 ISI Journal Citation Reports. Qualitative and non-qualitative research published in these journals were identified by searching MEDLINE, and validated by hand-searching tables of contents for four journals. Results The total number of qualitative research articles published during 1999 to 2008 in ten general medical journals ranged from 0 to 41, and in ten health services and policy research journals from 0 to 39. Over this period the percentage of empirical research articles that were qualitative ranged from 0% to 0.6% for the general medical journals, and 0% to 6.4% for the health services and policy research journals. Conclusions This analysis suggests that qualitative research it is rarely published in high impact general medical and health services and policy research journals. The factors that contribute to this persistent marginalization need to be better understood. PMID:21992238

Does the Level of Evidence of Paper Presentations at the Arthroscopy Association of North America Annual Meetings From 2006-2010 Correlate With the 5-Year Publication Rate or the Impact Factor of the Publishing Journal?

PubMed

Kay, Jeffrey; Memon, Muzammil; de Sa, Darren; Duong, Andrew; Simunovic, Nicole; Ayeni, Olufemi R

2017-01-01

The purpose of this study was to determine the proportion of paper (podium) presentations at the 2006-2010 Arthroscopy Association of North America (AANA) annual scientific meetings that were ultimately published in a peer-reviewed journal. Furthermore, we aimed to evaluate whether the level of evidence correlated with the publication rate of these presentations or the impact factor (IF) of the publishing journal. Paper presentations from the 2006-2010 AANA annual meetings were included for evaluation. Clinical studies were graded for quality using the level of evidence by 2 independent reviewers. A comprehensive strategy was used to search the databases PubMed, Medline, and Embase for publications in scientific journals that corresponded to the presentations and were published within 5 years of the presentation date. Three hundred twenty-eight presentations were evaluated. Overall, 179 peer-reviewed publications corresponding to particular meeting presentations were identified, for a 5-year publication rate of 55%. There was no correlation between the publication rate and the level of evidence (P = .836), the type of study (P = .628), or the joint of focus (P = .07) of the presentations. The mean IF of journals that published Level I studies (4.8 [standard error, 2.3]) was significantly higher than the mean IF of journals that published Level II, III, or IV studies (2.58 [standard error, 0.10]) (P = .017). Between 2006 and 2010, presentations of the highest level of evidence at AANA meetings were subsequently published at a similar rate to presentations of lower levels of evidence, albeit in journals with higher IFs. This study is an important initial evaluation of the ultimate clinical impact of AANA meeting presentations. The study type, joint of focus, and level of evidence of the presentations all had no correlation with the rate at which these presentations were ultimately published. Copyright © 2016 Arthroscopy Association of North America. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Stress in nurses: The 100 top-cited papers published in nursing journals.

PubMed

Martín-Del-Río, Beatriz; Solanes-Puchol, Ángel; Martínez-Zaragoza, Fermín; Benavides-Gil, Gemma

2018-03-08

To identify and analyse the 100 most cited papers on stress in nurses published in nursing journals. The number of citations an article receives is an index of its impact on the scientific community. An analysis of the most cited articles on stress in nursing would allow us to identify the most important articles and to obtain information about this area of knowledge. A retrospective bibliometric analysis. In 2016, 111 journals belonging to the "nursing" category were identified in the Science and Social Science Citation Index. A search was performed of the Science Core Collection Website for articles on stress published in these journals. The topic, type of article, publishing journal, countries and institutions of origin and year of publication were extracted from the articles. The impact factor, immediacy index, journal country and publisher and h index were collected from the Institute for Scientific Information. The citation density, citation tendency and Bradford's law were calculated. They identified articles were mostly empirical quantitative studies with a transversal design, published from 1975 - 2011 in 23 journals. They were signed by 233 authors, most of whom are English-speaking from the USA and UK. The core distribution of the publications comprises a single journal, the Journal of Advanced Nursing. The study of stress in nursing has shown increased visibility and recognition each decade. The most recent articles have the highest number of citations, are the highest in rank and have the higher citation densities. © 2018 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Toward Reproducible Computational Research: An Empirical Analysis of Data and Code Policy Adoption by Journals.

PubMed

Stodden, Victoria; Guo, Peixuan; Ma, Zhaokun

2013-01-01

Journal policy on research data and code availability is an important part of the ongoing shift toward publishing reproducible computational science. This article extends the literature by studying journal data sharing policies by year (for both 2011 and 2012) for a referent set of 170 journals. We make a further contribution by evaluating code sharing policies, supplemental materials policies, and open access status for these 170 journals for each of 2011 and 2012. We build a predictive model of open data and code policy adoption as a function of impact factor and publisher and find higher impact journals more likely to have open data and code policies and scientific societies more likely to have open data and code policies than commercial publishers. We also find open data policies tend to lead open code policies, and we find no relationship between open data and code policies and either supplemental material policies or open access journal status. Of the journals in this study, 38% had a data policy, 22% had a code policy, and 66% had a supplemental materials policy as of June 2012. This reflects a striking one year increase of 16% in the number of data policies, a 30% increase in code policies, and a 7% increase in the number of supplemental materials policies. We introduce a new dataset to the community that categorizes data and code sharing, supplemental materials, and open access policies in 2011 and 2012 for these 170 journals.

Toward Reproducible Computational Research: An Empirical Analysis of Data and Code Policy Adoption by Journals

PubMed Central

Stodden, Victoria; Guo, Peixuan; Ma, Zhaokun

2013-01-01

Journal policy on research data and code availability is an important part of the ongoing shift toward publishing reproducible computational science. This article extends the literature by studying journal data sharing policies by year (for both 2011 and 2012) for a referent set of 170 journals. We make a further contribution by evaluating code sharing policies, supplemental materials policies, and open access status for these 170 journals for each of 2011 and 2012. We build a predictive model of open data and code policy adoption as a function of impact factor and publisher and find higher impact journals more likely to have open data and code policies and scientific societies more likely to have open data and code policies than commercial publishers. We also find open data policies tend to lead open code policies, and we find no relationship between open data and code policies and either supplemental material policies or open access journal status. Of the journals in this study, 38% had a data policy, 22% had a code policy, and 66% had a supplemental materials policy as of June 2012. This reflects a striking one year increase of 16% in the number of data policies, a 30% increase in code policies, and a 7% increase in the number of supplemental materials policies. We introduce a new dataset to the community that categorizes data and code sharing, supplemental materials, and open access policies in 2011 and 2012 for these 170 journals. PMID:23805293

Factor analysis of sources of information on organ donation and transplantation in journalism students.

PubMed

Martínez-Alarcón, L; Ríos, A; Ramis, G; López-Navas, A; Febrero, B; Ramírez, P; Parrilla, P

2013-01-01

Journalists and the information they disseminate are essential to promote health and organ donation and transplantation (ODT). The attitude of journalism students toward ODT could influence public opinion and help promote this treatment option. The aim of this study was to determine the media through which journalism students receive information on ODT and to analyze the association between the sources of information and psychosocial variables. We surveyed journalism students (n = 129) recruited in compulsory classes. A validated psychosocial questionnaire (self-administered, anonymous) about ODT was used. Student t test and χ(2) test were applied. Questionnaire completion rate was 98% (n = 126). The medium with the greatest incidence on students was television (TV), followed by press and magazines/books. In the factor analysis to determine the impact of the information by its source, the first factor was talks with friends and family; the second was shared by hoardings/publicity posters, health professionals, and college/school; and the third was TV and radio. In the factor analysis between information sources and psychosocial variables, the associations were between information about organ donation transmitted by friends and family and having spoken about ODT with them; by TV, radio, and hoardings and not having spoken in the family; and by TV/radio and the father's and mother's opinion about ODT. The medium with the greatest incidence on students is TV, and the medium with the greatest impact on broadcasting information was conversations with friends, family, and health professionals. This could be useful for society, because they should be provided with clear and concise information. Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

EDITORIAL: Welcome to the New Year!

NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

Hampshire, D. P.

2008-01-01

I have the privilege of taking over from Professor Gordon Donaldson as Editor-in-Chief of Superconductor Science and Technology (SuST) for the next two years. During the last ten years, he has refereed several thousand papers and ensured that SuST has the highest impact factor of any specialist journal in the field. It is a pleasure to take this opportunity to thank him on behalf of our whole community. It is a great time to be involved with superconductivity. Following the physics Nobel prize in 2003 for pioneering contributions to the theory of superconductivity and superfluidity, many of us hope that another Nobel prize will be awarded for contributions to superconductivity when the mechanism that causes high temperature superconductivity (HTS) is explained. The mechanism for HTS currently provides one of the most important challenges for basic science. We also have the successes associated with large-scale superconducting systems including the LHC and the $10 billion ITER fusion tokomak to look forward to. Since the management of energy resources will be one of the critical issues in the 21st century, superconductivity will have an important contribution to make to the development of new technologies. It is one of the exciting and rewarding aspects of research in superconductivity where many world-class basic and applied research groups collaborate. In this context, SuST is well-positioned to broaden the scope and appeal of the journal and publish the best papers in both the science and technology of superconductivity. I would like to encourage scientists in all fields of superconductivity to submit their papers to the journal. Here are three reasons why SuST has already become the leading specialist journal in superconductivity: The average publication time, if your paper is accepted, is around 80 days from submission to online publication; All papers published are free to download from the web for 30 days from publication; SuST has the highest impact factor of all journals specialising in superconductivity. Further improvements, implemented from this January issue onwards, include: The introduction of article numbering which will speed up the publication process. Papers in different issues can be published online as soon as they are ready, without having to wait for a whole issue or section to be allocated page numbers. This will improve submission to publication times. Bringing the journal into line with other IOP journals so that reports from two referees are required for each paper prior to an acceptance/rejection decision. Refreshing the design of SuST's cover, modernising the typography and creating a consistent look and feel across the range of journals. Naturally we have also been asking how SuST and IOP Publishing can help the superconductivity community meet the challenges of the future and maintain the broad international readership that supports SuST. Clearly a specialist journal like SuST has a very different role in our community from general science journals such as Science and Nature. However the superconductivity community would benefit if publication in SuST brought with it the prestige of a yet higher impact factor, comparable to the very best physics, chemistry and engineering journals. In this context, I have identified the following aims for the Editorial Board: To increase the impact factor of SuST; To broaden the scope and size of the journal by increasing its profile and publishing the best papers in superconductivity— both in basic science and in technology; To improve the refereeing process by eliminating the tail of low impact papers submitted to SuST and reducing the time from submission to online availability; To make SuST the natural place to publish invited papers from the best of the community's pure and applied conferences and workshops; To improve the effectiveness of the Editorial Board; To improve the services that IOP Publishing provides for the superconductivity community. I am looking forward to working with IOP— one of the fabulous (not-for-profit) learned societies in the UK. IOP has a long tradition of supporting world-class international science in both the developed and developing world. It just remains for me to say that I am very much looking forward to working with you in the future and welcome any suggestions that will help to ensure that SuST remains essential reading for anyone working in superconductivity.

Citation Analysis of Hepatitis Monthly by Journal Citation Report (ISI), Google Scholar, and Scopus.

PubMed

Miri, Seyyed Mohammad; Raoofi, Azam; Heidari, Zahra

2012-09-01

Citation analysis as one of the most widely used methods of bibliometrics can be used for computing the various impact measures for scholars based on data from citation databases. Journal Citation Reports (JCR) from Thomson Reuters provides annual report in the form of impact factor (IF) for each journal. We aimed to evaluate the citation parameters of Hepatitis Monthly by JCR in 2010 and compare them with GS and Sc. All articles of Hepat Mon published in 2009 and 2008 which had been cited in 2010 in three databases including WoS, Sc and GS gathered in a spreadsheet. The IFs were manually calculated. Among the 104 total published articles the accuracy rates of GS and Sc in recording the total number of articles was 96% and 87.5%. There was a difference between IFs among the three databases (0.793 in ISI [Institute for Scientific Information], 0.945 in Sc and 0.85 GS). The missing rate of citations in ISI was 4% totally. Original articles were the main cited types, whereas, guidelines and clinical challenges were the least ones. None of the three databases succeed to record all articles published in the journal. Despite high sensitivity of GS comparing to Sc, it cannot be a reliable source for indexing since GS has lack of screening in the data collection and low specificity. Using an average of three IFs is suggested to find the correct IF. Editors should be more aware on the role of original articles in increasing IF and the potential efficacy of review articles in long term impact factor.

Review of Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance 2011

PubMed Central

2012-01-01

There were 83 articles published in the Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance (JCMR) in 2011, which is an 11% increase in the number of articles since 2010. The quality of the submissions continues to increase. The editors had been delighted with the 2010 JCMR Impact Factor of 4.33, although this fell modestly to 3.72 for 2011. The impact factor undergoes natural variation according to citation rates of papers in the 2 years following publication, and is significantly influenced by highly cited papers such as official reports. However, we remain very pleased with the progress of the journal's impact over the last 5 years. Our acceptance rate is approximately 25%, and has been falling as the number of articles being submitted has been increasing. In accordance with Open-Access publishing, the JCMR articles go on-line as they are accepted with no collating of the articles into sections or special thematic issues. For this reason, the Editors feel it is useful to summarize the papers for the readership into broad areas of interest or theme, which we feel would be useful, so that areas of interest from the previous year can be reviewed in a single article in relation to each other and other recent JCMR articles [1]. The papers are presented in broad themes and set in context with related literature and previously published JCMR papers to guide continuity of thought in the journal. We hope that you find the open-access system increases wider reading and citation of your papers, and that you will continue to send your quality manuscripts to JCMR for publication. PMID:23158097

A comparison of evaluation metrics for biomedical journals, articles, and websites in terms of sensitivity to topic.

PubMed

Fu, Lawrence D; Aphinyanaphongs, Yindalon; Wang, Lily; Aliferis, Constantin F

2011-08-01

Evaluating the biomedical literature and health-related websites for quality are challenging information retrieval tasks. Current commonly used methods include impact factor for journals, PubMed's clinical query filters and machine learning-based filter models for articles, and PageRank for websites. Previous work has focused on the average performance of these methods without considering the topic, and it is unknown how performance varies for specific topics or focused searches. Clinicians, researchers, and users should be aware when expected performance is not achieved for specific topics. The present work analyzes the behavior of these methods for a variety of topics. Impact factor, clinical query filters, and PageRank vary widely across different topics while a topic-specific impact factor and machine learning-based filter models are more stable. The results demonstrate that a method may perform excellently on average but struggle when used on a number of narrower topics. Topic-adjusted metrics and other topic robust methods have an advantage in such situations. Users of traditional topic-sensitive metrics should be aware of their limitations. Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Organizational Benchmarks for Test Utilization Performance: An Example Based on Positivity Rates for Genetic Tests.

PubMed

Rudolf, Joseph; Jackson, Brian R; Wilson, Andrew R; Smock, Kristi J; Schmidt, Robert L

2017-04-01

Health care organizations are under increasing pressure to deliver value by improving test utilization management. Many factors, including organizational factors, could affect utilization performance. Past research has focused on the impact of specific interventions in single organizations. The impact of organizational factors is unknown. The objective of this study is to determine whether testing patterns are subject to organizational effects, ie, are utilization patterns for individual tests correlated within organizations. Comparative analysis of ordering patterns (positivity rates for three genetic tests) across 659 organizations. Hierarchical regression was used to assess the impact of organizational factors after controlling for test-level factors (mutation prevalence) and hospital bed size. Test positivity rates were correlated within organizations. Organizations have a statistically significant impact on the positivity rate of three genetic tests. © American Society for Clinical Pathology, 2017. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com

Peer Review Quality and Transparency of the Peer-Review Process in Open Access and Subscription Journals.

PubMed

Wicherts, Jelte M

2016-01-01

Recent controversies highlighting substandard peer review in Open Access (OA) and traditional (subscription) journals have increased the need for authors, funders, publishers, and institutions to assure quality of peer-review in academic journals. I propose that transparency of the peer-review process may be seen as an indicator of the quality of peer-review, and develop and validate a tool enabling different stakeholders to assess transparency of the peer-review process. Based on editorial guidelines and best practices, I developed a 14-item tool to rate transparency of the peer-review process on the basis of journals' websites. In Study 1, a random sample of 231 authors of papers in 92 subscription journals in different fields rated transparency of the journals that published their work. Authors' ratings of the transparency were positively associated with quality of the peer-review process but unrelated to journal's impact factors. In Study 2, 20 experts on OA publishing assessed the transparency of established (non-OA) journals, OA journals categorized as being published by potential predatory publishers, and journals from the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ). Results show high reliability across items (α = .91) and sufficient reliability across raters. Ratings differentiated the three types of journals well. In Study 3, academic librarians rated a random sample of 140 DOAJ journals and another 54 journals that had received a hoax paper written by Bohannon to test peer-review quality. Journals with higher transparency ratings were less likely to accept the flawed paper and showed higher impact as measured by the h5 index from Google Scholar. The tool to assess transparency of the peer-review process at academic journals shows promising reliability and validity. The transparency of the peer-review process can be seen as an indicator of peer-review quality allowing the tool to be used to predict academic quality in new journals.

Research Data in Core Journals in Biology, Chemistry, Mathematics, and Physics.

PubMed

Womack, Ryan P

2015-01-01

This study takes a stratified random sample of articles published in 2014 from the top 10 journals in the disciplines of biology, chemistry, mathematics, and physics, as ranked by impact factor. Sampled articles were examined for their reporting of original data or reuse of prior data, and were coded for whether the data was publicly shared or otherwise made available to readers. Other characteristics such as the sharing of software code used for analysis and use of data citation and DOIs for data were examined. The study finds that data sharing practices are still relatively rare in these disciplines' top journals, but that the disciplines have markedly different practices. Biology top journals share original data at the highest rate, and physics top journals share at the lowest rate. Overall, the study finds that within the top journals, only 13% of articles with original data published in 2014 make the data available to others.

Research Data in Core Journals in Biology, Chemistry, Mathematics, and Physics

PubMed Central

Womack, Ryan P.

2015-01-01

This study takes a stratified random sample of articles published in 2014 from the top 10 journals in the disciplines of biology, chemistry, mathematics, and physics, as ranked by impact factor. Sampled articles were examined for their reporting of original data or reuse of prior data, and were coded for whether the data was publicly shared or otherwise made available to readers. Other characteristics such as the sharing of software code used for analysis and use of data citation and DOIs for data were examined. The study finds that data sharing practices are still relatively rare in these disciplines’ top journals, but that the disciplines have markedly different practices. Biology top journals share original data at the highest rate, and physics top journals share at the lowest rate. Overall, the study finds that within the top journals, only 13% of articles with original data published in 2014 make the data available to others. PMID:26636676

Journal Impact Factor Shapes Scientists’ Reward Signal in the Prospect of Publication

PubMed Central

Paulus, Frieder Michel; Rademacher, Lena; Schäfer, Theo Alexander Jose; Müller-Pinzler, Laura; Krach, Sören

2015-01-01

The incentive structure of a scientist’s life is increasingly mimicking economic principles. While intensely criticized, the journal impact factor (JIF) has taken a role as the new currency for scientists. Successful goal-directed behavior in academia thus requires knowledge about the JIF. Using functional neuroimaging we examined how the JIF, as a powerful incentive in academia, has shaped the behavior of scientists and the reward signal in the striatum. We demonstrate that the reward signal in the nucleus accumbens increases with higher JIF during the anticipation of a publication and found a positive correlation with the personal publication record (pJIF) supporting the notion that scientists have incorporated the predominant reward principle of the scientific community in their reward system. The implications of this behavioral adaptation within the ecological niche of the scientist’s habitat remain unknown, but may also have effects which were not intended by the community. PMID:26555725

Evolution of poor reporting and inadequate methods over time in 20 920 randomised controlled trials included in Cochrane reviews: research on research study.

PubMed

Dechartres, Agnes; Trinquart, Ludovic; Atal, Ignacio; Moher, David; Dickersin, Kay; Boutron, Isabelle; Perrodeau, Elodie; Altman, Douglas G; Ravaud, Philippe

2017-06-08

Objective  To examine how poor reporting and inadequate methods for key methodological features in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have changed over the past three decades. Design  Mapping of trials included in Cochrane reviews. Data sources  Data from RCTs included in all Cochrane reviews published between March 2011 and September 2014 reporting an evaluation of the Cochrane risk of bias items: sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding, and incomplete outcome data. Data extraction  For each RCT, we extracted consensus on risk of bias made by the review authors and identified the primary reference to extract publication year and journal. We matched journal names with Journal Citation Reports to get 2014 impact factors. Main outcomes measures  We considered the proportions of trials rated by review authors at unclear and high risk of bias as surrogates for poor reporting and inadequate methods, respectively. Results  We analysed 20 920 RCTs (from 2001 reviews) published in 3136 journals. The proportion of trials with unclear risk of bias was 48.7% for sequence generation and 57.5% for allocation concealment; the proportion of those with high risk of bias was 4.0% and 7.2%, respectively. For blinding and incomplete outcome data, 30.6% and 24.7% of trials were at unclear risk and 33.1% and 17.1% were at high risk, respectively. Higher journal impact factor was associated with a lower proportion of trials at unclear or high risk of bias. The proportion of trials at unclear risk of bias decreased over time, especially for sequence generation, which fell from 69.1% in 1986-1990 to 31.2% in 2011-14 and for allocation concealment (70.1% to 44.6%). After excluding trials at unclear risk of bias, use of inadequate methods also decreased over time: from 14.8% to 4.6% for sequence generation and from 32.7% to 11.6% for allocation concealment. Conclusions  Poor reporting and inadequate methods have decreased over time, especially for sequence generation and allocation concealment. But more could be done, especially in lower impact factor journals. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.

[Surgical research in Germany. Organization, quality and international competitiveness].

PubMed

Menger, M D; Laschke, M W

2012-04-01

Surgical research in Germany is performed within surgical clinics by individual working groups or in surgical research divisions. Additionally, a few independent institutes and departments of surgical research have been established at medical faculties. The number of these institutions, however, is too small. To increase productivity in surgical research, structural changes are necessary, including additional establishment of further institutes and professorships. The quality of clinical research in surgery in Germany is critically discussed. International comparison shows that Germany has a low ranking with respect to the number of clinical studies published in leading surgical journals. However, there has been some improvement in the quality of clinical studies performed in surgical departments during the last 15 years. The establishment of the study center of the German Society of Surgery shows that excellent clinical studies with adequate numbers of patients can also be performed in Germany and can be published in leading journals. Accordingly, there is need to distribute the structures and the competence necessary to perform clinical studies in a standardized manner to all surgical departments involved in clinical research. The experimental surgical research in Germany is not adequately visible, although over the last 10 years the most relevant publications from institutions for surgical research have been placed in journals with a mean impact factor of 8. This may be due to the fact that 85% of these top publications are published in non-surgical journals. The aim for the future must therefore be to increase the impact factor and, thus, the attractiveness of surgical journals. This may be achieved by publishing the highest quality results from experimental surgical research not in non-surgical but in surgical journals.

Retractions in cancer research: a systematic survey.

PubMed

Bozzo, Anthony; Bali, Kamal; Evaniew, Nathan; Ghert, Michelle

2017-01-01

The annual number of retracted publications in the scientific literature is rapidly increasing. The objective of this study was to determine the frequency and reason for retraction of cancer publications and to determine how journals in the cancer field handle retracted articles. We searched three online databases (MEDLINE, Embase, The Cochrane Library) from database inception until 2015 for retracted journal publications related to cancer research. For each article, the reason for retraction was categorized as plagiarism, duplicate publication, fraud, error, authorship issues, or ethical issues. Accessibility of the retracted article was defined as intact, removed, or available but with a watermark over each page. Descriptive data was collected on each retracted article including number of citations, journal name and impact factor, study design, and time between publication and retraction. The publications were screened in duplicated and two reviewers extracted and categorized data. Following database search and article screening, we identified 571 retracted cancer publications. The majority (76.4%) of cancer retractions were issued in the most recent decade, with 16.6 and 6.7% of the retractions in the prior two decades respectively. Retractions were issued by journals with impact factors ranging from 0 (discontinued) to 55.8. The average impact factor was 5.4 (median 3.54, IQR 1.8-5.5). On average, a retracted article was cited 45 times (median 18, IQR 6-51), with a range of 0-742. Reasons for retraction include plagiarism (14.4%), fraud (28.4%), duplicate publication (18.2%), error (24.2%), authorship issues (3.9%), and ethical issues (2.1%). The reason for retraction was not stated in 9.8% of cases. Twenty-nine percent of retracted articles remain available online in their original form. Retractions in cancer research are increasing in frequency at a similar rate to all biomedical research retractions. Cancer retractions are largely due to academic misconduct. Consequences to cancer patients, the public at large, and the research community can be substantial and should be addressed with future research. Despite the implications of this important issue, some cancer journals currently fall short of the current guidelines for clearly stating the reason for retraction and identifying the publication as retracted.

Majority of systematic reviews published in high-impact journals neglected to register the protocols: a meta-epidemiological study.

PubMed

Tsujimoto, Yasushi; Tsujimoto, Hiraku; Kataoka, Yuki; Kimachi, Miho; Shimizu, Sayaka; Ikenoue, Tatsuyoshi; Fukuma, Shingo; Yamamoto, Yosuke; Fukuhara, Shunichi

2017-04-01

To describe the registration of systematic review (SR) protocols and examine whether or not registration reduced the outcome reporting bias in high-impact journals. We searched MEDLINE via PubMed to identify SRs of randomized controlled trials of interventions. We included SRs published between August 2009 and June 2015 in the 10 general and internal medicinal journals with the highest impact factors in 2013. We examined the proportion of SR protocol registration and investigated the relationship between registration and outcome reporting bias using multivariable logistic regression. Among the 284 included reviews, 60 (21%) protocols were registered. The proportion of registration increased from 5.6% in 2009 to 27% in 2015 (P for trend <0.001). Protocol registration was not associated with outcome reporting bias (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 0.85, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.39-1.86). The association between Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) adherence and protocol registration was not statistically significant (OR 1.09, 95% CI 0.59-2.01). Six years after the launch of the PRISMA statement, the proportion of protocol registration in high-impact journals has increased some but remains low. The present study found no evidence suggesting that protocol registration reduced outcome reporting bias. Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

[The Vancouver regulations and publishing in biomedical journals].

PubMed

Brkić, S; Pejić, M

1996-01-01

The paper deals with structure, importance and advantage as well as the path of development of the Uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals (Vancouver style) from 1978, when they were established and firstly published, through changes and amendments up to their last--fourth edition. Authorship, abstract, key words and literature citation are fields dealt with in detail with appropriate discussions. The 16 year long existence of the Vancouver style, a great number of journals with high impact factor which conform to its requirements, as well as its advantages presented in the paper, should be a sufficient reason for scientists, explorers and editors of biomedical journals to conform to the requirements if they have not conformed to them yet.

A systematic assessment of Cochrane reviews and systematic reviews published in high-impact medical journals related to cancer.

PubMed

Goldkuhle, Marius; Narayan, Vikram M; Weigl, Aaron; Dahm, Philipp; Skoetz, Nicole

2018-03-25

To compare cancer-related systematic reviews (SRs) published in the Cochrane Database of SRs (CDSR) and high-impact journals, with respect to type, content, quality and citation rates. Methodological SR with assessment and comparison of SRs and meta-analyses. Two authors independently assessed methodological quality using an Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR)-based extraction form. Both authors independently screened search results, extracted content-relevant characteristics and retrieved citation numbers of the included reviews using the Clarivate Analytics Web of Science database. Cancer-related SRs were retrieved from the CDSR, as well as from the 10 journals which publish oncological SRs and had the highest impact factors, using a comprehensive search in both the CDSR and MEDLINE. We included all cancer-related SRs and meta-analyses published from January 2011 to May 2016. Methodological SRs were excluded. We included 346 applicable Cochrane reviews and 215 SRs from high-impact journals. Cochrane reviews consistently met more individual AMSTAR criteria, notably with regard to an a priori design (risk ratio (RR) 3.89; 95% CI 3.10 to 4.88), inclusion of the grey literature and trial registries (RR 3.52; 95% CI 2.84 to 4.37) in their searches, and the reporting of excluded studies (RR 8.80; 95% CI 6.06 to 12.78). Cochrane reviews were less likely to address questions of prognosis (RR 0.04; 95% CI 0.02 to 0.09), use individual patient data (RR 0.03; 95% CI 0.01 to 0.09) or be based on non-randomised controlled trials (RR 0.04; 95% CI 0.02 to 0.09). Citation rates of Cochrane reviews were notably lower than those for high-impact journals (Cochrane reviews: mean number of citations 6.52 (range 0-143); high-impact journal SRs: 74.45 (0-652)). When comparing cancer-related SRs published in the CDSR versus those published in high-impact medical journals, Cochrane reviews were consistently of higher methodological quality, but cited less frequently. © Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2018. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.

Spatial data analysis and the use of maps in scientific health articles.

PubMed

Nucci, Luciana Bertoldi; Souccar, Patrick Theodore; Castilho, Silvia Diez

2016-07-01

Despite the growing number of studies with a characteristic element of spatial analysis, the application of the techniques is not always clear and its continuity in epidemiological studies requires careful evaluation. To verify the spread and use of those processes in national and international scientific papers. An assessment was made of periodicals according to the impact index. Among 8,281 journals surveyed, four national and four international were selected, of which 1,274 articles were analyzed regarding the presence or absence of spatial analysis techniques. Just over 10% of articles published in 2011 in high impact journals, both national and international, showed some element of geographical location. Although these percentages vary greatly from one journal to another, denoting different publication profiles, we consider this percentage as an indication that location variables have become an important factor in studies of health.

Editorial quality, diffusion and bibliometric indicators of the Revista Espaãnola de Enfermedades Digestivas.

PubMed

López-Cózar, E D; Ruiz-Pérez, R; Jiménez-Contreras, E

1999-01-01

To evaluate the editorial quality, diffusion, relevance of the scientific content, and the publication practices of the specialised journal Revista Española de Enfermedades Digestivas. We checked 136 parameters based on ISO standards, the recommendations of scientific and editorial organisations, and studies of scientific editing and international publishing practices for biomedical journals. Diffusion was calculated using national and international databases, specialised libraries in Spain, and Internet sources. The analysis of the scientific content and publication practices was based on bibliometric indicators for the journal, authorship, and contributions. The sample for this study comprised six alternate issues of volume number 88 (1996), the last issue of this volume, and the first issue of volume 89 (1997). The samples used for the bibliometric analysis varied depending on the characteristics of specific indicators and the availability of information. The overall mean value for compliance with standards was 46.1%, while the real mean was calculated at 72.21%. The editorial procedures at the journal are similar to those of analogous international journals. The Revista Española de Enfermedades Digestivas is included in international databases of biomedical journals, and in the interdisciplinary international database SCI. It was found to be present in 70% of the medical libraries of Spanish universities, and in 73% of the hospital libraries studied. Bibliometric indicators showed co-authorship to be 5.5%; the origin of the authors grouped by province and by type of institutional affiliations showed 27.8% of all authors to be from Madrid, and that more were affiliated with general hospitals than with university hospitals. The mean delay between initial receipt of a manuscript and its publication was 300 days. Cocitation analysis gave the journal a central position amongst the 38 Spanish biomedical journals considered representative of the field. The journal's impact factor for 1996 was 0.260. The Revista Española de Enfermedades Digestivas is a high-quality vehicle of research results, and has acceptable internal editorial procedures. The journal is widely distributed, though its visibility on the Internet should be improved. Co-authorship is similar to that seen in other medical journals. Steps should be taken to make this journal better known within Spain, and to reduce the delay between the initial receipt and the final publication of manuscripts. Its impact factor is increasing steadily.

Publication Rate and Impact Factor for Society of Military Orthopedic Surgeons. Annual Meeting Presentations, 2009-2013.

PubMed

Orr, Justin; Dunn, John C; Kusnezov, Nicholas; Fares, Austin B; Waterman, Brian R; Garcia, E'stephan; Pallis, Mark

2017-11-01

The Society of Military Orthopaedic Surgeons (SOMOS) is a robust academic organization with more than 1,000 members and has held annual academic scientific meetings since 1958. Currently, there is a paucity of data regarding the volume and quality of orthopaedic surgery presentations accepted for peer-reviewed publication. The purpose of this study was to answer the following questions: (1) What is the publication acceptance rate for abstract presented at SOMOS meetings? (2) What is the distribution by orthopaedic subspecialty for SOMOS presentations accepted for publication? (3) What is the overall quality of these publications? Abstracts of podium presentations at SOMOS were reviewed from 2009 to 2013. Author institutional information was obtained. Abstracts were then queried in PubMed to obtain publication status, time to publication, and impact factor of the journal in which the manuscript was successfully published. From 2009 to 2013, 592 abstracts were presented at the SOMOS conference. Overall, 59% of abstracts went on to publication at a mean of 18.1 months. Published manuscripts appeared in 59 journals with a mean impact factor of 2.6. The subspecialties of spine (67%) and basic science (66%) achieved the highest abstract publication rate while sports had the highest mean impact factor (3.3). The annual SOMOS meeting is a productive academic event, producing quality presentations resulting in a high manuscript publication rate in every orthopaedic surgery subspecialty. This is the first series to demonstrate overall productivity of a general orthopaedic surgery scientific meeting as well as the subspecialty-specific impact factors of published investigations. Reprint & Copyright © 2017 Association of Military Surgeons of the U.S.

The 50 Most Cited Articles in Invasive Neuromodulation.

PubMed

Ward, Max; Doran, Joseph; Paskhover, Boris; Mammis, Antonios

2018-06-01

Bibliometric analysis is a commonly used analytic tool for objective determination of the most influential and peer-recognized articles within a given field. This study is the first bibliometric analysis of the literature in the field of invasive neuromodulation, excluding deep brain stimulation. The objectives of this study are to identify the 50 most cited articles in invasive neuromodulation, provide an overview of the literature to assist in clinical education, and evaluate the effect of impact factor on manuscript recognition. Bibliometric analysis was performed using the Science Citation Index from the Institute for Scientific Information, accessed through the Web of Science. Search terms relevant to the field of invasive neuromodulation were used to identify the 50 most cited journal articles between 1900 and 2016. The median number of citations was 236 (range, 173-578). The most common topics among the articles were vagus nerve stimulation (n = 24), spinal cord stimulation (n = 9), and motor cortex stimulation (n = 6). Median journal impact factor was 5.57. Most of these articles (n = 19) contained level I, II, or III evidence. This analysis provides a brief look into the most cited articles within the field, many of which evaluated innovated procedures and therapies that helped to drive surgical neuromodulation forward. These landmark articles contain vital clinical and educational information that remains relevant to clinicians and students within the field and provide insight into areas of expanding research. Journal impact factor may play a significant role in determining the literary relevance and general awareness of invasive neuromodulation studies. Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Worldwide orthopaedic research activity 2010-2014: Publication rates in the top 15 orthopaedic journals related to population size and gross domestic product.

PubMed

Hohmann, Erik; Glatt, Vaida; Tetsworth, Kevin

2017-06-18

To perform a bibliometric analysis of publications rates in orthopedics in the top 15 orthopaedic journals. Based on their 2015 impact factor, the fifteen highest ranked orthopaedic journals between January 2010 and December 2014 were used to establish the total number of publications; cumulative impact factor points (IF) per country were determined, and normalized to population size, GDP, and GDP/capita, comparison to the median country output and the global leader. Twenty-three thousand and twenty-one orthopaedic articles were published, with 66 countries publishing. The United States had 8149 publications, followed by the United Kingdom (1644) and Japan (1467). The highest IF was achieved by the United States (24744), United Kingdom (4776), and Japan (4053). Normalized by population size Switzerland lead. Normalized by GDP, Croatia was the top achiever. Adjusting GDP/capita, for publications and IF, China, India, and the United States were the leaders. Adjusting for population size and GDP, 28 countries achieved numbers of publications to be considered at least equivalent with the median academic output. Adjusting GDP/capita only China and India reached the number of publications to be considered equivalent to the current global leader, the United States. Five countries were responsible for 60% of the orthopaedic research output over this 5-year period. After correcting for GDP/capita, only 28 of 66 countries achieved a publication rate equivalent to the median country. The United States, United Kingdom, South Korea, Japan, and Germany were the top five countries for both publication totals and cumulative impact factor points.

Open access publishing and author-pays business models: a survey of authors' knowledge and perceptions

PubMed Central

Schroter, Sara; Tite, Leanne

2006-01-01

Objectives: We aimed to assess journal authors' current knowledge and perceptions of open access and author-pays publishing. Design: An electronic survey. Setting: Authors of research papers submitted to BMJ, Archives of Disease in Childhood, and Journal of Medical Genetics in 2004. Main outcome measures: Familiarity with and perceptions of open access and author-pays publishing. Results: 468/1113 (42%) responded. Prior to definitions being provided, 47% (222/468) and 38% (176/468) reported they were familiar with the terms `open access' and `author-pays' publishing, respectively. Some who did not at first recognize the terms, did claim to recognize them when they were defined. Only 10% (49/468) had submitted to an author-pays journal. Compared with non-open access subscription-based journals, 35% agreed that open access author-pays journals have a greater capacity to publish more content making it easier to get published, 27% thought they had lower impact factors, 31% thought they had faster and more timely publicaitons, and 46% agreed that people will think anyone can pay to get published. 55% (256/468) thought they would not continue to submit to their respective journal if it became open access and charged, largely because of the reputaiton of the journals. Half (54%, 255/468) said open access has `no impact' or was `low priority' in their submission decisions. Two-thirds (66%, 308/468) said they would prefer to submit to a non-open access subscription-based journal than an open access author-pays journal. Over half thought they would have to make a contribution or pay the full cost of an author charge (56%, 262/468). Conclusions: The survey yielded useful information about respondents' knowledge and perceptions of these publishing models. Authors have limited familiarity with the concept of open-access publishing and surrounding issues. Currently, open access policies have little impact on authors' decision of where to submit papers. PMID:16508053

Peer Review Quality and Transparency of the Peer-Review Process in Open Access and Subscription Journals

PubMed Central

Wicherts, Jelte M.

2016-01-01

Background Recent controversies highlighting substandard peer review in Open Access (OA) and traditional (subscription) journals have increased the need for authors, funders, publishers, and institutions to assure quality of peer-review in academic journals. I propose that transparency of the peer-review process may be seen as an indicator of the quality of peer-review, and develop and validate a tool enabling different stakeholders to assess transparency of the peer-review process. Methods and Findings Based on editorial guidelines and best practices, I developed a 14-item tool to rate transparency of the peer-review process on the basis of journals’ websites. In Study 1, a random sample of 231 authors of papers in 92 subscription journals in different fields rated transparency of the journals that published their work. Authors’ ratings of the transparency were positively associated with quality of the peer-review process but unrelated to journal’s impact factors. In Study 2, 20 experts on OA publishing assessed the transparency of established (non-OA) journals, OA journals categorized as being published by potential predatory publishers, and journals from the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ). Results show high reliability across items (α = .91) and sufficient reliability across raters. Ratings differentiated the three types of journals well. In Study 3, academic librarians rated a random sample of 140 DOAJ journals and another 54 journals that had received a hoax paper written by Bohannon to test peer-review quality. Journals with higher transparency ratings were less likely to accept the flawed paper and showed higher impact as measured by the h5 index from Google Scholar. Conclusions The tool to assess transparency of the peer-review process at academic journals shows promising reliability and validity. The transparency of the peer-review process can be seen as an indicator of peer-review quality allowing the tool to be used to predict academic quality in new journals. PMID:26824759

The birth and growth of a scientific journal.

PubMed

Kent, Raymond D

2011-11-01

Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics (CLP) and its namesake field have accomplished a great deal in the last quarter of a century. The success of the journal parallels the growth and vitality of the field it represents. The markers of journal achievement are several, including increased number of journal pages published annually; greater diversity of topics related to the core mission of the journal; expanding cross-language coverage; and healthy interactions among editors, reviewers and contributors; and - for better or worse - journal impact factors. A journal is in a competitive dynamic with other journals that share its general domain of scholarship, which is a major reason why an apparent imbalance may emerge in the topic content of any particular journal. The content of a journal is determined by the nature and number of submitted manuscripts. As far as linguistic content goes, CLP's centre of gravity appears to have been mostly in phonology and phonetics, but certainly not to the exclusion of syntax, semantics and pragmatics. The clinical scope is broad, both in terms of concepts and types of disorder. CLP has secured its place among journals in the field, and it is an outlet of choice for many researchers throughout the world.

Randomized trials published in higher vs. lower impact journals differ in design, conduct, and analysis.

PubMed

Bala, Malgorzata M; Akl, Elie A; Sun, Xin; Bassler, Dirk; Mertz, Dominik; Mejza, Filip; Vandvik, Per Olav; Malaga, German; Johnston, Bradley C; Dahm, Philipp; Alonso-Coello, Pablo; Diaz-Granados, Natalia; Srinathan, Sadeesh K; Hassouneh, Basil; Briel, Matthias; Busse, Jason W; You, John J; Walter, Stephen D; Altman, Douglas G; Guyatt, Gordon H

2013-03-01

To compare methodological characteristics of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in higher vs. lower impact Core Clinical Journals. We searched MEDLINE for RCTs published in 2007 in Core Clinical Journals. We randomly sampled 1,140 study reports in a 1:1 ratio in higher (five general medicine journals with the highest total citations in 2007) and lower impact journals. Four hundred sixty-nine RCTs proved eligible: 219 in higher and 250 in lower impact journals. RCTs in higher vs. lower impact journals had larger sample sizes (median, 285 vs. 39), were more likely to receive industry funding (53% vs. 28%), declare concealment of allocation (66% vs. 36%), declare blinding of health care providers (53% vs. 41%) and outcome adjudicators (72% vs. 54%), report a patient-important primary outcome (69% vs. 50%), report subgroup analyses (64% vs. 26%), prespecify subgroup hypotheses (42% vs. 20%), and report a test for interaction (54% vs. 27%); P < 0.05 for all differences. RCTs published in higher impact journals were more likely to report methodological safeguards against bias and patient-important outcomes than those published in lower impact journals. However, sufficient limitations remain such that publication in a higher impact journal does not ensure low risk of bias. Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

100 classic papers of interventional radiology: A citation analysis

PubMed Central

Crockett, Matthew T; Browne, Ronan FJ; MacMahon, Peter J; Lawler, Leo

2015-01-01

AIM: To define the 100 citation classic papers of interventional radiology. METHODS: Using the database of Journal Citation Reports the 40 highest impact factor radiology journals were chosen. From these journals the 100 most cited interventional radiology papers were chosen and analysed. RESULTS: The top paper received 2497 citations and the 100th paper 200 citations. The average number of citations was 320. Dates of publication ranged from 1953 - 2005. Most papers originated in the United States (n = 67) followed by Italy (n = 20) and France (n = 10). Harvard University (n = 18) and Osped Civile (n = 11) were the most prolific institutions. Ten journals produced all of the top 100 papers with “Radiology” and “AJR” making up the majority. SN Goldberg and T Livraghi were the most prolific authors. Nearly two thirds of the papers (n = 61) were published after 1990. CONCLUSION: This analysis identifies many of the landmark interventional radiology papers and provides a fascinating insight into the changing discourse within the field. It also identifies topics, authors and institutions which have impacted greatly on the specialty. PMID:25918585

Objective Methodology to Assess Meaningful Research Productivity by Orthopaedic Residency Departments: Validation Against Widely Distributed Ranking Metrics and Published Surrogates.

PubMed

Jones, Louis B; Goel, Sameer; Hung, Leroy Y; Graves, Matthew L; Spitler, Clay A; Russell, George V; Bergin, Patrick F

2018-04-01

The mission of any academic orthopaedic training program can be divided into 3 general areas of focus: clinical care, academic performance, and research. Clinical care is evaluated on clinical volume, patient outcomes, patient satisfaction, and becoming increasingly focused on data-driven quality metrics. Academic performance of a department can be used to motivate individual surgeons, but objective measures are used to define a residency program. Annual in-service examinations serve as a marker of resident knowledge base, and board pass rates are clearly scrutinized. Research productivity, however, has proven harder to objectively quantify. In an effort to improve transparency and better account for conflicts of interest, bias, and self-citation, multiple bibliometric measures have been developed. Rather than using individuals' research productivity as a surrogate for departmental research, we sought to establish an objective methodology to better assess a residency program's ability to conduct meaningful research. In this study, we describe a process to assess the number and quality of publications produced by an orthopaedic residency department. This would allow chairmen and program directors to benchmark their current production and make measurable goals for future research investment. The main goal of the benchmarking system is to create an "h-index" for residency programs. To do this, we needed to create a list of relevant articles in the orthopaedic literature. We used the Journal Citation Reports. This publication lists all orthopaedic journals that are given an impact factor rating every year. When we accessed the Journal Citation Reports database, there were 72 journals included in the orthopaedic literature section. To ensure only relevant, impactful journals were included, we selected journals with an impact factor greater than 0.95 and an Eigenfactor Score greater than 0.00095. After excluding journals not meeting these criteria, we were left with 45 journals. We performed a Scopus search over a 10-year period of these journals and created a database of articles and their affiliated institutions. We performed several iterations of this to maximize the capture of articles attributed to institutions with multiple names. Based off of this extensive database, we were able to analyze all allopathic US residency programs based on their quality research productivity. We believe this as a novel methodology to create a system by which residency program chairmen and directors can assess progress over time and accurate comparison with other programs.

CONSORT item reporting quality in the top ten ranked journals of critical care medicine in 2011: a retrospective analysis.

PubMed

Stevanovic, Ana; Schmitz, Sabine; Rossaint, Rolf; Schürholz, Tobias; Coburn, Mark

2015-01-01

Reporting randomised controlled trials is a key element in order to disseminate research findings. The CONSORT statement was introduced to improve the reporting quality. We assessed the adherence to the CONSORT statement of randomised controlled trials published 2011 in the top ten ranked journals of critical care medicine (ISI Web of Knowledge 2011, Thomson Reuters, London UK). Design. We performed a retrospective cross sectional data analysis. Setting. This study was executed at the University Hospital of RWTH, Aachen. Participants. We selected the following top ten listed journals according to ISI Web of Knowledge (Thomson Reuters, London, UK) critical care medicine ranking in the year 2011: American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, Critical Care Medicine, Intensive Care Medicine, CHEST, Critical Care, Journal of Neurotrauma, Resuscitation, Pediatric Critical Care Medicine, Shock and Minerva Anestesiologica. Main outcome measures. We screened the online table of contents of each included journal, to identify the randomised controlled trials. The adherence to the items of the CONSORT Checklist in each trial was evaluated. Additionally we correlated the citation frequency of the articles and the impact factor of the respective journal with the amount of reported items per trial. We analysed 119 randomised controlled trials and found, 15 years after the implementation of the CONSORT statement, that a median of 61,1% of the checklist-items were reported. Only 55.5% of the articles were identified as randomised trials in their titles. The citation frequency of the trials correlated significantly (rs = 0,433; p<0,001 and r = 0,331; p<0,001) to the CONSORT statement adherence. The impact factor showed also a significant correlation to the CONSORT adherence (r = 0,386; p<0,001). The reporting quality of randomised controlled trials in the field of critical care medicine remains poor and needs considerable improvement.

Role of Protein Synthesis Initiation Factors in Dietary Soy Isoflavone-Mediated Effects on Breast Cancer Progression

DTIC Science & Technology

2014-08-01

experiments of this award and published in the high-impact peer-reviewed journal: Journal of Biological Chemistry (13), was that the described increase...of genistein and other flavonoids in human breast cancer cells in vitro, Nutr Cancer, 27: 31-40, 1997. 13 de la,P.C., Otero-Franqui,E., Martinez...properties of genistein and other flavonoids in human breast cancer cells in vitro, Nutr Cancer, 27: 31-40, 1997. 3 Okabe,Y., Shimazu,T. and Tanimoto,H

Examining the Impact of the National Institutes of Health Public Access Policy on the Citation Rates of Journal Articles

PubMed Central

De Groote, Sandra L.; Shultz, Mary; Smalheiser, Neil R.

2015-01-01

Purpose To examine whether National Institutes of Health (NIH) funded articles that were archived in PubMed Central (PMC) after the release of the 2008 NIH Public Access Policy show greater scholarly impact than comparable articles not archived in PMC. Methods A list of journals across several subject areas was developed from which to collect article citation data. Citation information and cited reference counts of the articles published in 2006 and 2009 from 122 journals were obtained from the Scopus database. The articles were separated into categories of NIH funded, non-NIH funded and whether they were deposited in PubMed Central. An analysis of citation data across a five-year timespan was performed on this set of articles. Results A total of 45,716 articles were examined, including 7,960 with NIH-funding. An analysis of the number of times these articles were cited found that NIH-funded 2006 articles in PMC were not cited significantly more than NIH-funded non-PMC articles. However, 2009 NIH funded articles in PMC were cited 26% more than 2009 NIH funded articles not in PMC, 5 years after publication. This result is highly significant even after controlling for journal (as a proxy of article quality and topic). Conclusion Our analysis suggests that factors occurring between 2006 and 2009 produced a subsequent boost in scholarly impact of PubMed Central. The 2008 Public Access Policy is likely to be one such factor, but others may have contributed as well (e.g., growing size and visibility of PMC, increasing availability of full-text linkouts from PubMed, and indexing of PMC articles by Google Scholar). PMID:26448551

Citation Analysis of Hepatitis Monthly by Journal Citation Report (ISI), Google Scholar, and Scopus

PubMed Central

Miri, Seyyed Mohammad; Raoofi, Azam; Heidari, Zahra

2012-01-01

Background Citation analysis as one of the most widely used methods of bibliometrics can be used for computing the various impact measures for scholars based on data from citation databases. Journal Citation Reports (JCR) from Thomson Reuters provides annual report in the form of impact factor (IF) for each journal. Objectives We aimed to evaluate the citation parameters of Hepatitis Monthly by JCR in 2010 and compare them with GS and Sc. Materials and Methods All articles of Hepat Mon published in 2009 and 2008 which had been cited in 2010 in three databases including WoS, Sc and GS gathered in a spreadsheet. The IFs were manually calculated. Results Among the 104 total published articles the accuracy rates of GS and Sc in recording the total number of articles was 96% and 87.5%. There was a difference between IFs among the three databases (0.793 in ISI [Institute for Scientific Information], 0.945 in Sc and 0.85 GS). The missing rate of citations in ISI was 4% totally. Original articles were the main cited types, whereas, guidelines and clinical challenges were the least ones. Conclusions None of the three databases succeed to record all articles published in the journal. Despite high sensitivity of GS comparing to Sc, it cannot be a reliable source for indexing since GS has lack of screening in the data collection and low specificity. Using an average of three IFs is suggested to find the correct IF. Editors should be more aware on the role of original articles in increasing IF and the potential efficacy of review articles in long term impact factor. PMID:23087765

"Are you gonna publish that?" Peer-reviewed publication outcomes of doctoral dissertations in psychology.

PubMed

Evans, Spencer C; Amaro, Christina M; Herbert, Robyn; Blossom, Jennifer B; Roberts, Michael C

2018-01-01

If a doctoral dissertation represents an original investigation that makes a contribution to one's field, then dissertation research could, and arguably should, be disseminated into the scientific literature. However, the extent and nature of dissertation publication remains largely unknown within psychology. The present study investigated the peer-reviewed publication outcomes of psychology dissertation research in the United States. Additionally, we examined publication lag, scientific impact, and variations across subfields. To investigate these questions, we first drew a stratified random cohort sample of 910 psychology Ph.D. dissertations from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses. Next, we conducted comprehensive literature searches for peer-reviewed journal articles derived from these dissertations published 0-7 years thereafter. Published dissertation articles were coded for their bibliographic details, citation rates, and journal impact metrics. Results showed that only one-quarter (25.6% [95% CI: 23.0, 28.4]) of dissertations were ultimately published in peer-reviewed journals, with significant variations across subfields (range: 10.1 to 59.4%). Rates of dissertation publication were lower in professional/applied subfields (e.g., clinical, counseling) compared to research/academic subfields (e.g., experimental, cognitive). When dissertations were published, however, they often appeared in influential journals (e.g., Thomson Reuters Impact Factor M = 2.84 [2.45, 3.23], 5-year Impact Factor M = 3.49 [3.07, 3.90]) and were cited numerous times (Web of Science citations per year M = 3.65 [2.88, 4.42]). Publication typically occurred within 2-3 years after the dissertation year. Overall, these results indicate that the large majority of Ph.D. dissertation research in psychology does not get disseminated into the peer-reviewed literature. The non-publication of dissertation research appears to be a systemic problem affecting both research and training in psychology. Efforts to improve the quality and "publishability" of doctoral dissertation research could benefit psychological science on multiple fronts.

"Are you gonna publish that?" Peer-reviewed publication outcomes of doctoral dissertations in psychology

PubMed Central

Amaro, Christina M.; Herbert, Robyn; Blossom, Jennifer B.; Roberts, Michael C.

2018-01-01

If a doctoral dissertation represents an original investigation that makes a contribution to one’s field, then dissertation research could, and arguably should, be disseminated into the scientific literature. However, the extent and nature of dissertation publication remains largely unknown within psychology. The present study investigated the peer-reviewed publication outcomes of psychology dissertation research in the United States. Additionally, we examined publication lag, scientific impact, and variations across subfields. To investigate these questions, we first drew a stratified random cohort sample of 910 psychology Ph.D. dissertations from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses. Next, we conducted comprehensive literature searches for peer-reviewed journal articles derived from these dissertations published 0–7 years thereafter. Published dissertation articles were coded for their bibliographic details, citation rates, and journal impact metrics. Results showed that only one-quarter (25.6% [95% CI: 23.0, 28.4]) of dissertations were ultimately published in peer-reviewed journals, with significant variations across subfields (range: 10.1 to 59.4%). Rates of dissertation publication were lower in professional/applied subfields (e.g., clinical, counseling) compared to research/academic subfields (e.g., experimental, cognitive). When dissertations were published, however, they often appeared in influential journals (e.g., Thomson Reuters Impact Factor M = 2.84 [2.45, 3.23], 5-year Impact Factor M = 3.49 [3.07, 3.90]) and were cited numerous times (Web of Science citations per year M = 3.65 [2.88, 4.42]). Publication typically occurred within 2–3 years after the dissertation year. Overall, these results indicate that the large majority of Ph.D. dissertation research in psychology does not get disseminated into the peer-reviewed literature. The non-publication of dissertation research appears to be a systemic problem affecting both research and training in psychology. Efforts to improve the quality and “publishability” of doctoral dissertation research could benefit psychological science on multiple fronts. PMID:29444130

Methodological survey of designed uneven randomization trials (DU-RANDOM): a protocol.

PubMed

Wu, Darong; Akl, Elie A; Guyatt, Gordon H; Devereaux, Philip J; Brignardello-Petersen, Romina; Prediger, Barbara; Patel, Krupesh; Patel, Namrata; Lu, Taoying; Zhang, Yuan; Falavigna, Maicon; Santesso, Nancy; Mustafa, Reem A; Zhou, Qi; Briel, Matthias; Schünemann, Holger J

2014-01-23

Although even randomization (that is, approximately 1:1 randomization ratio in study arms) provides the greatest statistical power, designed uneven randomization (DUR), (for example, 1:2 or 1:3) is used to increase participation rates. Until now, no convincing data exists addressing the impact of DUR on participation rates in trials. The objective of this study is to evaluate the epidemiology and to explore factors associated with DUR. We will search for reports of RCTs published within two years in 25 general medical journals with the highest impact factor according to the Journal Citation Report (JCR)-2010. Teams of two reviewers will determine eligibility and extract relevant information from eligible RCTs in duplicate and using standardized forms. We will report the prevalence of DUR trials, the reported reasons for using DUR, and perform a linear regression analysis to estimate the association between the randomization ratio and the associated factors, including participation rate, type of informed consent, clinical area, and so on. A clearer understanding of RCTs with DUR and its association with factors in trials, for example, participation rate, can optimize trial design and may have important implications for both researchers and users of the medical literature.

The ranking of scientists based on scientific publications assessment.

PubMed

Zerem, Enver

2017-11-01

It is generally accepted that the scientific impact factor (Web of Science) and the total number of citations of the articles published in a journal, are the most relevant parameters of the journal's significance. However, the significance of scientists is much more complicated to establish and the value of their scientific production cannot be directly reflected by the importance of the journals in which their articles are published. Evaluating the significance of scientists' accomplishments involves more complicated metrics than just their publication records. Based on a long term of academic experience, the author proposes objective criteria to estimate the scientific merit of an individual's publication record. This metric can serve as a pragmatic tool and the nidus for discussion within the readership of this journal. Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Where on earth to publish? A sample survey comparing traditional and open access publishing in the oncological field.

PubMed

Poltronieri, Elisabetta; Bravo, Elena; Camerini, Tiziana; Ferri, Maurizio; Rizzo, Roberto; Solimini, Renata; Cognetti, Gaetana

2013-01-22

The paper intends to help scientific authors to make the best choice of journals in which to publish, by describing and comparing journal features in the area of oncology. For this purpose, the authors identified impact factor (IF) ranking, cost options and copyright conditions offered to authors wishing to publish in full open access (OA), subscription-based or hybrid journals. Data referring to articles published in 2010 by three Italian research institutions (National Institute of Health - Rome (ISS), Regina Elena National Cancer Institute - Rome (IRE), National Cancer Institute - Milan (INT) in journals (78) managed according to different business models, all listed in the Journal Citation Reports, subject category Oncology, were collected and analysed. The journals surveyed were ranked according to IF, position in quartiles, publication charges, usage rights in published articles, self-archiving conditions in OAI-compliant repositories digital archives. Almost half (34) the journals surveyed were included in the first quartile, thus revealing authors' preference for journals with a high IF. The prevalent journal business model was the hybrid formula (based on subscriptions but also offering a paid OA option) with 51 journals, followed by subscription-based only journals accounting for 22, while just 5 full OA journals were identified. In general, no relationship was found between IF and article publication charges, in terms of correspondence between more expensive fees and higher IF. The issue of OA journals as compared with traditional subscription-based journals is highly debated among stakeholders: library administrators facing financial restrictions, authors seeking to locate the best outlet for their research, publishers wishing to increase their revenues by offering journals with wider appeal. Against this background, factors such as the quest for alternatives to high-cost business models, investments in setting up institutional repositories hosting the published versions of articles and efforts to overcome copyright barriers and gain free access to scientific literature are all crucial.

Where on earth to publish? A sample survey comparing traditional and open access publishing in the oncological field

PubMed Central

2013-01-01

Background The paper intends to help scientific authors to make the best choice of journals in which to publish, by describing and comparing journal features in the area of oncology. For this purpose, the authors identified impact factor (IF) ranking, cost options and copyright conditions offered to authors wishing to publish in full open access (OA), subscription-based or hybrid journals. Methods Data referring to articles published in 2010 by three Italian research institutions (National Institute of Health – Rome (ISS), Regina Elena National Cancer Institute – Rome (IRE), National Cancer Institute – Milan (INT) in journals (78) managed according to different business models, all listed in the Journal Citation Reports, subject category Oncology, were collected and analysed. The journals surveyed were ranked according to IF, position in quartiles, publication charges, usage rights in published articles, self-archiving conditions in OAI-compliant repositories digital archives. Results Almost half (34) the journals surveyed were included in the first quartile, thus revealing authors’ preference for journals with a high IF. The prevalent journal business model was the hybrid formula (based on subscriptions but also offering a paid OA option) with 51 journals, followed by subscription-based only journals accounting for 22, while just 5 full OA journals were identified. In general, no relationship was found between IF and article publication charges, in terms of correspondence between more expensive fees and higher IF. Conclusions The issue of OA journals as compared with traditional subscription-based journals is highly debated among stakeholders: library administrators facing financial restrictions, authors seeking to locate the best outlet for their research, publishers wishing to increase their revenues by offering journals with wider appeal. Against this background, factors such as the quest for alternatives to high-cost business models, investments in setting up institutional repositories hosting the published versions of articles and efforts to overcome copyright barriers and gain free access to scientific literature are all crucial. PMID:23339627

Impact Factors and Prediction of Popular Topics in a Journal.

PubMed

Nielsen, M B; Seitz, K

2016-08-01

The impact factor (IF) for 2015 was recently released and this could be the time to once again reflect on its use as a metric of a journal. Problems and concerns regarding the IF have been addressed extensively elsewhere 1 2. The principle of the IF for a given year is that it represents the average number of citations of articles published in the journal in the two previous years.While authors frequently cite the IF as a determining factor for submission, the IF does not predict how many times individual articles will be cited. In a study from a peer-reviewed cardiovascular journal, nearly half of all published articles were poorly cited, i. e., less than five citations in five years 3. A similar percentage seems to apply to our journal. In nearly all journals we estimate that the majority of citations relate to a minority of the articles. Some articles are never cited. 13 % of the articles published in our journal from 2010 to 2013 have never been cited. Even authors of poorly cited articles benefit from the IF since many institutions use the combined impact factors of their published papers to measure research activity and this may be reflected in their research budgets.The competition for the printed pages in the six annual issues of Ultraschall in der Medizin/European Journal of Ultrasound (UiM/EJU) has resulted in high rejection rates (between 80 % and 90 %). One negative review with recommendation of major revision may therefore result in rejection. Peer-review fraud where the submitting author listed recommended reviewers with fake email addresses supplying fabricated peer reviews has recently been described in the New England Journal of Medicine 4. Some of the editors of our journal believe they have experienced this as well. Fabricating reviews in order to get a high IF for an article is to be considered fraud and is inexcusable.One aspect of using impact factors as a measure of the quality of a journal is that the IF only goes back two years. There may be differences between journals for different medical specialties since the citations in some areas seem to "burn out" within a few years while some articles continue to be cited even after several years. Therefore, a citation window that is longer than 2 years has been proposed 5.For this editorial we took a look at the 60 articles published in UiM/EJU in 2010. Half of them were no longer being cited in 2015. However, 10 articles were cited more than 5 times in 2015, and 5 of these were cited more than 10 times 6 7 8 9 10. It therefore seems that many of our articles have a long scientific life and generate more citations than indicated by the IF. Moreover, some articles have the highest number of citations after three years when they are no longer contributing to the impact factor. The most frequently cited articles from 2010 were multicenter studies, recommendations, and papers on hot topics like contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) and elastography, but it should be noted that there were also articles on the same topics that were poorly cited.The same trending topics continued into 2013 now topped by European guidelines and recommendations 11 12 13. 9 of the 10 most cited articles we published in 2014 were on CEUS or elastography 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22, but the most cited article from that year so far has been on peripheral nerves 23. Surprisingly many good scientific papers on obstetrics/fetal US and musculoskeletal US have low citation rates 24 25 26. Our predictions for 2016 based on the topics of submitted articles in the last 12 months are that CEUS and elastography will continue to be popular topics.It is also worth mentioning that there can be a discrepancy between which titles are cited and which are accessed online. In addition to international guidelines, our CME articles are usually popular according to online access. CME articles are well established educational papers but they are rarely cited for the IF. Looking at the most read full-text recent articles on our journal's website shows that multicenter studies as well as recommendations backed by a national society or by the EFSUMB (European Federation of Societies for Ultrasound in Medicine and Biology) are still important 27 28 29 30 31 32 33. Upcoming important topics appear to be pediatric use of CEUS, simulation training and the introduction of ultrasound to medical students 34 35 36 37. Some of these are also backed by EFSUMB.A recent paper on the IF of radiology journals found that subspecialty radiology journals had a higher IF than general radiology journals 38. This could prove a challenge to interdisciplinary journals like ours but we take pride in continuing to cover all aspects of ultrasound in more than 15 fields.The distribution between reviews, original articles and case reports in a journal is worth addressing. An important aspect of a journal is the publication of original scientific research articles. CME articles, pictorials and letters are important for other reasons but are cited at a lower rate. The value of case reports with regard to the IF is low since they are rarely cited 39 and we have observed that some journals have abandoned the publication of case reports, thus leaving them to spin-off journals. The rationale is that keeping case reports in a journal will only increase the denominator, thereby decreasing the IF 39. At our journal we have seen a decline in case report submissions but still want to publish them and even put one case on the front cover of every issue. Case reports still hold an educational value 40 and are important to our readers.In conclusion, a healthy mix of original articles, CME articles, reviews and case reports combined with a few international guidelines and recommendations is important to UIM/EJU. Although we see popular topics like CEUS and elastography, it is not possible to predict which articles will be read or even cited based on the topic, with multicenter studies being the exception. © Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.

Open-Access Mega-Journals: A Bibliometric Profile.

PubMed

Wakeling, Simon; Willett, Peter; Creaser, Claire; Fry, Jenny; Pinfield, Stephen; Spezi, Valérie

2016-01-01

In this paper we present the first comprehensive bibliometric analysis of eleven open-access mega-journals (OAMJs). OAMJs are a relatively recent phenomenon, and have been characterised as having four key characteristics: large size; broad disciplinary scope; a Gold-OA business model; and a peer-review policy that seeks to determine only the scientific soundness of the research rather than evaluate the novelty or significance of the work. Our investigation focuses on four key modes of analysis: journal outputs (the number of articles published and changes in output over time); OAMJ author characteristics (nationalities and institutional affiliations); subject areas (the disciplinary scope of OAMJs, and variations in sub-disciplinary output); and citation profiles (the citation distributions of each OAMJ, and the impact of citing journals). We found that while the total output of the eleven mega-journals grew by 14.9% between 2014 and 2015, this growth is largely attributable to the increased output of Scientific Reports and Medicine. We also found substantial variation in the geographical distribution of authors. Several journals have a relatively high proportion of Chinese authors, and we suggest this may be linked to these journals' high Journal Impact Factors (JIFs). The mega-journals were also found to vary in subject scope, with several journals publishing disproportionately high numbers of articles in certain sub-disciplines. Our citation analsysis offers support for Björk & Catani's suggestion that OAMJs's citation distributions can be similar to those of traditional journals, while noting considerable variation in citation rates across the eleven titles. We conclude that while the OAMJ term is useful as a means of grouping journals which share a set of key characteristics, there is no such thing as a "typical" mega-journal, and we suggest several areas for additional research that might help us better understand the current and future role of OAMJs in scholarly communication.

Production Indicators of Mathematics Teachers in Public Universities of the Valencian Community on Web of Science

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Lorenzo, G.; Santagueda, M.

2016-01-01

The current evaluation and comparison system of scientific production by impact factor has been criticised from different perspectives in recent years, and has ensured that publishing in high-impact journals does not necessarily imply that works are quality works. Many of these jobs are mostly not cited or, in the best of cases, only a very small…

Impact of lexical and sentiment factors on the popularity of scientific papers

PubMed Central

Sienkiewicz, Julian; Altmann, Eduardo G.

2016-01-01

We investigate how textual properties of scientific papers relate to the number of citations they receive. Our main finding is that correlations are nonlinear and affect differently the most cited and typical papers. For instance, we find that, in most journals, short titles correlate positively with citations only for the most cited papers, whereas for typical papers, the correlation is usually negative. Our analysis of six different factors, calculated both at the title and abstract level of 4.3 million papers in over 1500 journals, reveals the number of authors, and the length and complexity of the abstract, as having the strongest (positive) influence on the number of citations. PMID:27429773

Impact of lexical and sentiment factors on the popularity of scientific papers

NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

Sienkiewicz, Julian; Altmann, Eduardo G.

2016-06-01

We investigate how textual properties of scientific papers relate to the number of citations they receive. Our main finding is that correlations are nonlinear and affect differently the most cited and typical papers. For instance, we find that, in most journals, short titles correlate positively with citations only for the most cited papers, whereas for typical papers, the correlation is usually negative. Our analysis of six different factors, calculated both at the title and abstract level of 4.3 million papers in over 1500 journals, reveals the number of authors, and the length and complexity of the abstract, as having the strongest (positive) influence on the number of citations.

Trends in female authorship in research papers on eating disorders: 20-year bibliometric study.

PubMed

Strand, Mattias; Bulik, Cynthia M

2018-03-01

There is a clear gender gap in scientific authorship. Although the proportions of female authors in medicine and psychiatry have increased over the past decades, women are still underrepresented. Aims To analyse authorship gender trends in eating disorder research. First and last author gender in research articles on eating disorders during the period 1997-2016 were assessed in eating disorder specialty journals, high-impact psychiatry journals and high-impact clinical psychology journals. The total number of papers on eating disorders increased substantially over the observation period, although a decrease was observed in high-impact psychiatry journals. Female authorship increased in both specialty journals and high-impact psychiatry journals. Authors were significantly less likely to be female in high-impact psychiatry and clinical psychology journals than in speciality journals. Eating disorder research has been increasingly allocated to specialty journals over the past 20 years. A consistent gender gap between specialty and high-impact journals exists. Declaration of interest C.M.B is a grant recipient from Shire Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and has participated as a member of their scientific advisory board. These positions are unrelated to the content of this article.

[An analysis of Chilean biomedical publications in PubMed in the years 2008-2009].

PubMed

Valdés S, Gloria; Pérez G, Fernanda; Reyes B, Humberto

2015-08-01

During the years 2008 and 2009, 1,191 biomedical articles authored by Chilean investigators working in Chile were indexed in PubMed. To evaluate the potential visibility of those articles, according to scientometric indexes of the journals where they were published. Those journals where the articles had been published were identified and each journal’s Impact Factor (JIF), 5-year JIF, SCImago Journal Rank (SJR), SCImago Quartiles (Q) for 2010 and the Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) for 2008-2009 were identified. Three hundred and twelve articles (26,2%) were dedicated to experimental studies in animals, tissues or cells and they were classified as “Biomedicine”, while 879 (73,8%) were classified as “Clinical Medicine”; in both areas the main type of articles were original reports (90% and 73.6%, respectively). Revista Médica de Chile and Revista Chilena de Infectología concentrated the greater number of publications. Articles classified in Biomedicine were published more frequently in English and in journals with higher scientometric indexes than those classified in Clinical Medicine. Biomedical articles dealing with clinical topics, particularly case reports, were published mostly in national journals or in foreign journals with low scientometric indexes. It can be partly attributable to the authors’ interest in reaching local readers. The evaluation of research productivity should combine several scientometric indexes, selected according to the field of research, the institution's and investigators’ interests, with a qualitative and multifactorial assessment.

A vision of the future for BMC Medicine: serving science, medicine and authors.

PubMed

Cassady-Cain, Robin L; Appleford, Joanne M; Patel, Jigisha; Aulakh, Mick; Norton, Melissa L

2009-10-07

In June 2009, BMC Medicine received its first official impact factor of 3.28 from Thomson Reuters. In recognition of this landmark event, the BMC Medicine editorial team present and discuss the vision and aims of the journal.

A qualitative analysis of the determinants in the choice of a French journal reviewing procedures

NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

Morge, Ludovic

2015-12-01

Between 1993 and 2010, two French journals (Aster and Didaskalia) coming from different backgrounds but belonging to the same institution used to publish papers on research in science and technology education. The merging of these journals made it necessary for them to compare the different reviewing procedures used by each. This merging occurred at a time when research is becoming increasingly international which partly determines some of the reviewing procedure choices. In order for a francophone international journal to survive, it needs to take this internationalization into account in a reasoned manner. The author of this article, as a chief editor of RDST (Recherches en Didactique des Sciences et des Technologies)—the journal resulting from the merging- taking part in this merger, analyses the social, cultural and pragmatic determinants which impacted the choices made in reviewing procedures. This paper describes how these diversity of factors leads us to drop the idea of a standard reviewing procedure which would be valid for all journals.

Worldwide orthopaedic research activity 2010-2014: Publication rates in the top 15 orthopaedic journals related to population size and gross domestic product

PubMed Central

Hohmann, Erik; Glatt, Vaida; Tetsworth, Kevin

2017-01-01

AIM To perform a bibliometric analysis of publications rates in orthopedics in the top 15 orthopaedic journals. METHODS Based on their 2015 impact factor, the fifteen highest ranked orthopaedic journals between January 2010 and December 2014 were used to establish the total number of publications; cumulative impact factor points (IF) per country were determined, and normalized to population size, GDP, and GDP/capita, comparison to the median country output and the global leader. RESULTS Twenty-three thousand and twenty-one orthopaedic articles were published, with 66 countries publishing. The United States had 8149 publications, followed by the United Kingdom (1644) and Japan (1467). The highest IF was achieved by the United States (24744), United Kingdom (4776), and Japan (4053). Normalized by population size Switzerland lead. Normalized by GDP, Croatia was the top achiever. Adjusting GDP/capita, for publications and IF, China, India, and the United States were the leaders. Adjusting for population size and GDP, 28 countries achieved numbers of publications to be considered at least equivalent with the median academic output. Adjusting GDP/capita only China and India reached the number of publications to be considered equivalent to the current global leader, the United States. CONCLUSION Five countries were responsible for 60% of the orthopaedic research output over this 5-year period. After correcting for GDP/capita, only 28 of 66 countries achieved a publication rate equivalent to the median country. The United States, United Kingdom, South Korea, Japan, and Germany were the top five countries for both publication totals and cumulative impact factor points. PMID:28660144

Case-control studies in diabetes. Do they really use a case-control design?

PubMed

Ramos, Analía; Mendoza, Lilian Cristina; Rabasa, Fernanda; Bolíbar, Ignasi; Puig, Teresa; Corcoy, Rosa

2017-07-01

Studies defined as case-control do not always use this design. We aimed to estimate the frequency of mislabelled case-control studies in published articles in the area of diabetes and to identify the predictors of incorrect labelling. We searched Medline and Web of Science for articles with "diabetes" and "case control" in title and filtered for language (English/Romance) and period (January 2010-December 2014). Inclusion criteria were: (1) statement to use a case-control design in title, (2) to be a final full-length publication and (3) to have original data in the area of diabetes. Three independent reviewers went through titles, looked for full texts and reviewed them. Discrepancies were settled with a fourth reviewer. Expert epidemiologist advice was requested in case of doubt. case-control mislabelling; addressed predictors: publication year, journal impact factor and journal subject. proportion of mislabelled CC articles and assessment of predictors by multivariate logistic regression analysis. We retrieved 362 articles, 251 of them fulfilling inclusion criteria. The proportion of mislabelled CC studies was 43.8% (confidence interval 95% 37.7-50.0%). Most mislabelled studies had a cross-sectional design (82.7%). Predictors of mislabelling were publication year, journal impact factor and journal area. A relevant subset of studies defined as case-control in the area of diabetes correspond to mislabelled cross-sectional studies. Incorrect labelling misleads readers regarding the interpretation of results and the cause-effect hypothesis. Researchers, reviewers and editors should be aware of and commit to settle this issue.

Community pharmacy-based research in Spain (1995-2005): A bibliometric study

PubMed Central

Andrés Iglesias, José Carlos; Andrés Rodríguez, N. Floro; Fornos Pérez, José Antonio

Only one study evaluated the scientific activity in community pharmacies in Spain, and it was restricted to articles published in just two journals. Objective To assess the scientific activity in community pharmacies in Spain through a bibliometric analysis of the original papers published during the years 1995-2005. Methods IPA, MEDLINE, CSIC database and the journals Seguimiento Farmacoterapéutico y Pharmaceutical Care España were used as data sources. Production indicators, consumption indicators and the impact factor (IF) as a repercussion index were analyzed. Results 122 articles were included in the review. The articles were published in 12 journals, 78.7% of them in Pharmaceutical Care España and Seguimiento Farmacoterapéutico. The mean number of authors per article was 4.2 (SD=2.1). The transitivity index was 71.3%. The total number of references cited in the articles was 2110. The mean number of references per article was 17.3 SD=9.3. The value of the insularity index was 57.6%. Self citation was 6.8% and the Price index was 66.5%. No impact factor was available for 6 journals. Conclusions Publication of articles on community pharmacy-based research in Spain has undergone an important increase in the last 5 years. The existence of authors who publish very few studies, the high insularity index and the lack of randomized, controlled trials may be considered as negative indicators in community pharmacy-based research in Spain. PMID:25214914

Systematic review: Outcome reporting bias is a problem in high impact factor neurology journals

PubMed Central

Scott, Jared T.; Blubaugh, Mark; Roepke, Brie; Scheckel, Caleb; Vassar, Matt

2017-01-01

Background Selective outcome reporting is a significant methodological concern. Comparisons between the outcomes reported in clinical trial registrations and those later published allow investigators to understand the extent of selection bias among trialists. We examined the possibility of selective outcome reporting in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in neurology journals. Methods We searched PubMed for randomized controlled trials from Jan 1, 2010 –Dec 31, 2015 published in the top 3 impact factor neurology journals. These articles were screened according to specific inclusion criteria. Each author individually extracted data from trials following a standardized protocol. A second author verified each extracted element and discrepancies were resolved. Consistency between registered and published outcomes was evaluated and correlations between discrepancies and funding, journal, and temporal trends were examined. Results 180 trials were included for analysis. 10 (6%) primary outcomes were demoted, 38 (21%) primary outcomes were omitted from the publication, and 61 (34%) unregistered primary outcomes were added to the published report. There were 18 (10%) cases of secondary outcomes being upgraded to primary outcomes in the publication, and there were 53 (29%) changes in timing of assessment. Of 82 (46%) major discrepancies with reported p-values, 54 (66.0%) favored publication of statistically significant results. Conclusion Across trials, we found 180 major discrepancies. 66% of major discrepancies with a reported p-value (n = 82) favored statistically significant results. These results suggest a need within neurology to provide more consistent and timely registration of outcomes. PMID:28727834

Systematic review: Outcome reporting bias is a problem in high impact factor neurology journals.

PubMed

Howard, Benjamin; Scott, Jared T; Blubaugh, Mark; Roepke, Brie; Scheckel, Caleb; Vassar, Matt

2017-01-01

Selective outcome reporting is a significant methodological concern. Comparisons between the outcomes reported in clinical trial registrations and those later published allow investigators to understand the extent of selection bias among trialists. We examined the possibility of selective outcome reporting in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in neurology journals. We searched PubMed for randomized controlled trials from Jan 1, 2010 -Dec 31, 2015 published in the top 3 impact factor neurology journals. These articles were screened according to specific inclusion criteria. Each author individually extracted data from trials following a standardized protocol. A second author verified each extracted element and discrepancies were resolved. Consistency between registered and published outcomes was evaluated and correlations between discrepancies and funding, journal, and temporal trends were examined. 180 trials were included for analysis. 10 (6%) primary outcomes were demoted, 38 (21%) primary outcomes were omitted from the publication, and 61 (34%) unregistered primary outcomes were added to the published report. There were 18 (10%) cases of secondary outcomes being upgraded to primary outcomes in the publication, and there were 53 (29%) changes in timing of assessment. Of 82 (46%) major discrepancies with reported p-values, 54 (66.0%) favored publication of statistically significant results. Across trials, we found 180 major discrepancies. 66% of major discrepancies with a reported p-value (n = 82) favored statistically significant results. These results suggest a need within neurology to provide more consistent and timely registration of outcomes.

Chinese academic contribution to burns: A comprehensive bibliometrics analysis from 1985 to 2014.

PubMed

Fan, XiaoMing; Gao, Ying; Ma, Bing; Xia, ZhaoFan

2016-11-01

The objective of this study was to conduct a survey of the academic contribution and influence of Chinese scholars in the field of burns. The PubMed database was searched to obtain literature items originating from various countries and Chinese provinces from 1985 to 2014. The citation data were collected through the Google Scholar engine. A total of 1037 papers published in 256 journals were included in this survey. China was second only to the USA in the number of publications on burns since 2010. In addition, the annual number of papers has increased significantly since 2001. The journal Burns published the most number of articles, but its proportion has been decreasing. Of the papers included in the survey, 58.34% were published in journals with a 5-year impact factor between 1 and 2, whereas only 3.66% were published in journals with an impact factor >5. Both total citations and citations per paper have decreased in the past decade. Randomized controlled trials or systematic reviews merely accounted for a small proportion. Twenty-nine provinces including 64 cities contributed one paper at least. The publications from Taiwan, Beijing, Chongqing, Shanghai, and Guangdong were high in both quantity and quality. The Chinese academic contribution to the field of burns is now on a rise. Although the quality of papers is lagging behind quantity, scholars and academies are dedicated to improving China's academic level. Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ltd and ISBI. All rights reserved.

Bibliometric Indicators of Russian Journals by JCR-Science Edition, 1995-2010.

PubMed

Libkind, A N; Markusova, V A; Mindeli, L E

2013-07-01

A representative empirical bibliometric analysis of Russian journals included in the Journal Citation Reports-Science Edition (JCR-SE) for the time period 1995-2010 was conducted at the macro level (excluding the subject categories). It was found that the growth in the number of articles covered by JCR (a 1.8-fold increase compared to 1995) is ahead of the growth rates of Russian publications (1.2-fold increase). Hence, the share of Russian articles covered by JCR-SE was down from 2.5% in 1995 to 1.7% in 2010. It was determined that the number of articles published in an average Russian journal reduced by 20% as compared to the number of articles in an average journal of the full data set. These facts could partly shed light on the question why Russian research performance is staggering (approximately 30,000 articles per year), although the coverage of Russian journals has expanded to 150 titles. Over the past 15 years, a twofold increase in the impact factor of the Russian journals has been observed, which is higher than that for the full data set of journals (a 1.4-fold increase). Measures to improve the quality of Russian journals are proposed.

Just Say Know: An Examination of Substance Use Disorders among Older Adults in Gerontological and Substance Abuse Journals

PubMed Central

Rosen, Daniel; Engel, Rafael J.; Hunsaker, Amanda E.; Engel, Yael; Detlefsen, Ellen Gay; Reynolds, Charles F.

2014-01-01

This article examines the extent to which studies of alcohol abuse, illicit drug use, and prescription drug abuse among older adults appear in the leading gerontological and substance abuse journals. The authors reviewed articles published in the 10 social science gerontological journals and the 10 social science substance abuse journals with the highest 5-year impact factors in PubMed from 2000 to 2010. Articles were selected that presented original research on alcohol, substance, or prescription abuse with older adults aged 50 and older; and were identified through aging and substance abuse-related Medical Subject Headings and word searches of titles and abstracts (N = 634). Full text of each article was reviewed by the authors, and consensus determined inclusion in the final sample. Of the 19,953 articles published respectively in the top 10 gerontological and substance abuse journals, 181 articles met the inclusion criteria of reporting findings related to substance use disorders among older adults. Specifically, 0.9% (102 of 11,700) of articles from the top 10 gerontology journals and 1.0% (79 of 8,253) of articles from the top 10 substance abuse journals met the criteria. Most published articles addressed alcohol misuse/abuse or polysubstance abuse with few articles addressing illicit drug use or the misuse of prescription medications. Less than 1% of articles published in the 10 gerontology journals and the 10 substance abuse journals with the highest 5-year impact scores addressed substance abuse in older adults. Practitioners treating health and/or mental health problems are at a disadvantage in accurately identifying and treating these conditions in older adult populations without a proper understanding of the role of comorbid substance use disorders. PMID:23731426

Bibliometrics, citation indexing, and the journals of nursing.

PubMed

Smith, Derek R; Hazelton, Michael

2008-12-01

Bibliometric research has risen in popularity during recent years and an increasing number of investigations now have examined the nursing literature. Our article provides a comprehensive overview of citation-based research in the nursing profession, as well as a discussion of bibliometrics, journal impact factors, and international publishing trends. The debate on evidence-based practice and its potential influence and relevance for nursing scholars is also covered. Although journal performance indicators are, no doubt, important for the contemporary nursing academic, it is the core research skills and attributes that nursing scholars, academics, and educators will need to consider more carefully in future if the next generation of professional nurse researchers is to truly flourish.

Open-access publishing for pharmacy-focused journals.

PubMed

Clauson, Kevin A; Veronin, Michael A; Khanfar, Nile M; Lou, Jennie Q

2008-08-15

Pharmacy-focused journals that are available in open-access (OA), freely accessible, hybrid, or traditional formats were identified. Relevant journals were accessed from PubMed, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, EMBASE, and the Pharmacology and Pharmacy category of Thomson Scientific Journal Citation Reports. Criteria were established to select journals that satisfied the definition of pharmacy focused. Journals were assessed based on accessibility, copyright transfer requirements, and restrictions. If tracked, the journal's impact factor (IF) was identified according to classification, and medians were calculated for each journal category. A total of 317 pharmacy-focused journals were identified. The majority of pharmacy-focused journals identified were traditional/non-OA (n = 240). A smaller number of journals were freely accessible/ non-OA (n = 37), freely accessible/non-OA with content restrictions (n = 20), or freely available/non-OA with date restrictions (n = 18). The fewest number of journals were completely OA (n = 2). The median IF for the 185 journals whose IF was tracked was 2.029. The median IF for freely accessible and hybrid journals (n = 42) was 2.550, whereas the median IF for traditional journals (n = 143) was 1.900. A very small number of pharmacy-focused journals adhere to the OA paradigm of access. However, journals that adopt some elements of the OA model, chiefly free accessibility, may be more likely to be cited than traditional journals. Pharmacy practitioners, educators, and researchers could benefit from the advantages that OA offers but should understand its financial disadvantages.

TU-B-16A-01: To Which Journal Should I Submit My Paper

DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

Williamson, J; Mills, M; Klein, E

Research papers authored by Medical Physicists address a large spectrum of oncologic, imaging, or basic research problems; exploit a wide range of physical and engineering methodologies; and often describe the efforts of a multidisciplinary research team. Given the large number (about 100) competing journals accepting medical physics articles, it may not be clear to an individual author which journal is the best venue for disseminating their work to the scientific community. Relevant factors usually include the Journal’s audience and scientific impact, but also such factors as perceived acceptance rate, interest in their topic, and quality of service. The purpose ofmore » this symposium is to provide the medical physics community with an overview of scope, review processes, and article guidelines for the following journals: Medical Physics, International Journal of Radiation Biology and Physics, Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics, and Practical Radiation Oncology. The senior editors for each journal will provide details as to the journals review process, for example: single blind versus double blind reviews; the hierarchy of the review process in terms of editorial board structure; the reality of acceptance, in terms of acceptance rate; and the types of research the journal prefers to publish. The goal is to provide for authors guidance before they begin to write their papers, not only for proper formatting, but also that the readership is appropriate for the particular paper, hopefully increasing the likelihood of publication. Learning Objectives: To review each Journal’s submission and review process Guidance as to how to increase chances of acceptance To help decipher which journal is appropriate for a given work.« less

Disclosure of funding sources and conflicts of interest in phase III surgical trials: survey of ten general surgery journals.

PubMed

Bridoux, Valérie; Moutel, Grégoire; Schwarz, Lilian; Michot, Francis; Herve, Christian; Tuech, Jean-Jacques

2014-10-01

Discussions regarding disclosure of funding sources and conflicts of interest (COI) in published peer-reviewed journal articles are becoming increasingly more common and intense. The aim of the present study was to examine whether randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in leading surgery journals report funding sources and COI. All articles reporting randomized controlled phase III trials published January 2005 through December 2010 were chosen for review from ten international journals. We evaluated the number of disclosed funding sources and COI, and the factors associated with such disclosures. From a review of 657 RCT from the ten journals, we discovered that presence or absence of a funding source and COI was disclosed by 47 % (309) and 25.1 % (165), respectively. Most articles in "International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE)-affiliated journals" did not disclose COI. Disclosure of funding was associated with a journal impact factor >3 (51.7 vs 41.6 %; p < 0.01), statistician/epidemiologist involvement (64.2 vs 43.7 %; p < 0.001), publication after 2008 (52.9 vs 41.1 %; p < 0.01), and the journal being ICMJE-affiliated (49.3 vs 40 %; p < 0.05). Conflict of interest disclosure was associated with publication after 2008 (38.7 vs 11.3 %; p < 0.001), and with the journal not being affiliated with ICMJE (36.9 vs 21.3 %; p < 0.001). Of the published studies we investigated, over half did not disclose funding sources (i.e., whether or not there was a funding source), and almost three quarters did not disclose whether COI existed. Our findings suggest the need to adopt best current practices regarding disclosure of competing interests to fulfill responsibilities to readers and, ultimately, to patients.

Open-Access Mega-Journals: A Bibliometric Profile

PubMed Central

Willett, Peter; Creaser, Claire; Fry, Jenny; Pinfield, Stephen; Spezi, Valérie

2016-01-01

In this paper we present the first comprehensive bibliometric analysis of eleven open-access mega-journals (OAMJs). OAMJs are a relatively recent phenomenon, and have been characterised as having four key characteristics: large size; broad disciplinary scope; a Gold-OA business model; and a peer-review policy that seeks to determine only the scientific soundness of the research rather than evaluate the novelty or significance of the work. Our investigation focuses on four key modes of analysis: journal outputs (the number of articles published and changes in output over time); OAMJ author characteristics (nationalities and institutional affiliations); subject areas (the disciplinary scope of OAMJs, and variations in sub-disciplinary output); and citation profiles (the citation distributions of each OAMJ, and the impact of citing journals). We found that while the total output of the eleven mega-journals grew by 14.9% between 2014 and 2015, this growth is largely attributable to the increased output of Scientific Reports and Medicine. We also found substantial variation in the geographical distribution of authors. Several journals have a relatively high proportion of Chinese authors, and we suggest this may be linked to these journals’ high Journal Impact Factors (JIFs). The mega-journals were also found to vary in subject scope, with several journals publishing disproportionately high numbers of articles in certain sub-disciplines. Our citation analsysis offers support for Björk & Catani’s suggestion that OAMJs’s citation distributions can be similar to those of traditional journals, while noting considerable variation in citation rates across the eleven titles. We conclude that while the OAMJ term is useful as a means of grouping journals which share a set of key characteristics, there is no such thing as a “typical” mega-journal, and we suggest several areas for additional research that might help us better understand the current and future role of OAMJs in scholarly communication. PMID:27861511

Historical bibliometric analysis of the top cited articles on vesicoureteral reflux 1950-2016, and incorporation of a novel impact index.

PubMed

Fernandez, N; Puerto, A; Azuero, A; O'Kelly, F; Hannick, J; Rickard, M; Kirsch, A; Caldamone, A; Koyle, M

2018-04-24

Vesicoureteral reflux (VUR) has been one of the defining conditions unique to pediatric urology since its inception. The clinical implications of this disease process depend on intrinsic patient factors such as age, genetics, epigenetics, voiding habits, anatomic anomalies, and extrinsic factors such as the pathogenicity of infectious agents. Knowledge about its natural history, the implications of conservative and surgical management, and their associated outcomes have evolved dramatically over time. This study aimed to use bibliometric analyses to summarize the evolution of VUR management over time. In order to accomplish this, the most referenced articles for VUR since 1950 were identified, and a comprehensive analysis of their impact on the management and understanding of VUR was performed by creating a novel impact index. A reference search was carried out for indexed citations through the portal 'Science Citation Index' in the subsection 'Web of Science Core Collection' using 'vesicoureteral reflux' as a MeSH term. References were analyzed and subcategorized according to various subtopics. A unique impact index was developed to adjust the number of publications for the time since publication, in order to define the impact of the paper amongst the most frequently cited papers. Articles were analyzed and data were tabulated according to the number of citations, country and institute of origin, journal of publication, impact factor, and first authorship. Citation counts ranged from 43 to 510, and the mean number of citations per publication was 101.43. The most discussed topic was 'treatment'. The impact index showed that more recent publications have a higher impact. The author with the highest index impact had 271 citations in a period of 5 years. The top 150 articles were published across 23 countries, the majority being from the USA (Summary fig.). The most frequently cited institution had 12 publications. The journal with the highest publication referencing rate was the Journal of Urology. The most cited articles were valuable sources of information to describe the historical evolution of the pathophysiology and management of VUR. After adjusting for time since publication, the most recent publications (i.e. those published after 1990) had a higher impact index. Combining traditional bibliometric analysis with this novel impact index may allow researchers to optimize future literature analyses, while also assisting clinicians in understanding best practices for patient management based on the available literature. Copyright © 2018. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Demographic characteristics of systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and randomized controlled trials in orthodontic journals with impact factor.

PubMed

Kanavakis, Georgios; Dombroski, Meghann M; Malouf, David P; Athanasiou, Athanasios E

2016-02-01

The aim of this study was to explore demographic characteristics of systematic reviews (SRs), meta-analyses (MAs), and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in orthodontic journals with an impact factor (IF). An electronic search was developed and implemented to identify all the SRs, MAs, and RCTs published in the seven orthodontic journals with an IF. No restrictions were applied regarding language, publication date, or publication status. The initial search generated 1147 articles, which were reviewed by three authors in order to determine if they met the inclusion criteria. Five hundred and fifty-seven articles were included in the final analysis. Type of article, name of journal, year of publication, number of authors, country of origin, and primary affiliation were recorded. Associations between those parameters were tested with the Pearson chi-square test for independence at the 0.05 level of significance. The majority (72%) of this kind of articles published in the orthodontic literature were RCTs, followed by SRs (20.1%) and MAs (7.9%). Approximately 77.2% of all RCTs, SRs, and MAs were published between 2004 and 2013, and 72.9% came from orthodontic departments. More than 80% of all articles were collaborative efforts between three or more authors. Contributions from Asia, South and Central America significantly increased during last decade, while contributions from North America decreased by almost 30%. Most RCTs, MAs, and SRs have been published between 2004 and 2013, indicating a significant improvement of the orthodontic literature during the last decade. Asia, South and Central America have significantly increased their contributions to the high evidence orthodontic literature since 2004. © The Author 2015. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Orthodontic Society. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.

The Pipeline From Abstract Presentation to Publication in Pediatric Hospital Medicine.

PubMed

Herrmann, Lisa E; Hall, Matthew; Kyler, Kathryn; Cochran, Joseph; Andrews, Annie L; Williams, Derek J; Wilson, Karen M; Shah, Samir S

2018-02-01

The annual Pediatric Hospital Medicine (PHM) conference serves as a venue for the dissemination of research in this rapidly growing discipline. A measure of research validity is subsequent publication in peer-reviewed journals. To identify the publication rate of abstracts submitted to the 2014 PHM conference and determine whether presentation format was associated with subsequent journal publication or time to publication. We identified abstracts submitted to the 2014 PHM conference. Presentation formats included rejected abstracts and poster and oral presentations. Abstracts subsequently published in journals were identified by searching the author and abstract title in PubMed, MedEdPORTAL, and Google Scholar. We used logistic regression and Cox proportional hazards models to determine if presentation format was associated with publication, time to publication, and publishing journal impact factor. Of 226 submitted abstracts, 19.0% were rejected, 68.0% were selected for posters, and 12.8% were selected for oral presentations; 36.3% were subsequently published within 30 months after the conference. Abstracts accepted for oral presentation had more than 7-fold greater odds of publication (adjusted odds ratio 7.8; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.6-23.5) and a 4-fold greater likelihood of publication at each month (adjusted hazard ratio 4.5; 95% CI, 2.1-9.7) compared with rejected abstracts. Median journal impact factor was significantly higher for oral presentations than other presentation formats (P < 0.01). Abstract reviewers may be able to identify methodologically sound studies for presentation; however, the low overall publication rate may indicate that presented results are preliminary or signify a need for increased mentorship and resources for research development in PHM.

A vision of the future for BMC Medicine: serving science, medicine and authors

PubMed Central

Cassady-Cain, Robin L; Appleford, Joanne M; Patel, Jigisha; Aulakh, Mick; Norton, Melissa L

2009-01-01

In June 2009, BMC Medicine received its first official impact factor of 3.28 from Thomson Reuters. In recognition of this landmark event, the BMC Medicine editorial team present and discuss the vision and aims of the journal. PMID:19811626

Bibliometric study of articles on skeletal Class II malocclusions published in four high impact factor journals.

PubMed

Ousehal, Lahcen; El Aouame, Amal; Fatene, Nassiba; Lazrak, Laila; Traiba, Loubna; N'Gom, Papa Ibrahima

2018-04-11

Perform a bibliometric analysis of the orthodontic literature on skeletal Class II malocclusions during the first decade of the 21st century. A retrospective, observational, and comprehensive study ranging from January the first 2001 to December 31 2010, based on the articles published in four high impact factor orthodontic journals: Angle Orthod, OCR, EJO, and AJODO (Quotation Report Newspaper of the Scientific Information Institute). In the 4565 reviewed articles, only 338 were published on Class II malocclusions. Brazil, the United States, Turkey, and Germany are the nationalities, which have published the most. The cross-sectional descriptive studies represent 33%, randomized clinical trials (RCTs) 10.5%, meta-analyses 0.3%. Kanavakis et al. (2006) reported 72.34% of original articles, 2.83% of synthetic reviews, 8.89% of case reports, and 15.75% of unclassifiable articles. In conclusion, searchers in Orthodontics are invited to publish more clinical trials on skeletal Class II malocclusions. Copyright © 2018. Published by Elsevier Masson SAS.

An Overview and Analysis of Journal Operations, Journal Publication Patterns, and Journal Impact in School Psychology and Related Fields

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Floyd, Randy G.; Cooley, Kathryn M.; Arnett, James E.; Fagan, Thomas K.; Mercer, Sterett H.; Hingle, Christine

2011-01-01

This article describes the results of three studies designed to understand better the journal operations, publishing practices, and impact of school psychology journals in recent years. The first study presents the results of a survey focusing on journal operations and peer-review practices that was completed by 61 journal editors of school…

A gender gap in the dermatology literature? Cross-sectional analysis of manuscript authorship trends in dermatology journals during 3 decades.

PubMed

Feramisco, Jamison D; Leitenberger, Justin J; Redfern, Shelley I; Bian, Aihua; Xie, Xian-Jin; Resneck, Jack S

2009-01-01

Despite a dramatic influx of female dermatologists during the last 30 years, women in academic dermatology departments remain relatively clustered in junior faculty positions. Research in other specialties showing a disparity in the academic productivity of women has led to many hypotheses regarding factors that may place them at a competitive disadvantage. It is unknown, however, whether similar differences in academic productivity might also serve as barriers to advancement in dermatology, or whether any productivity gap actually exists in this specialty that experienced a more substantial entry of women. Because publication in peer-reviewed journals is one of the core measures of academic productivity used in the promotion process, we evaluated trends in the prevalence of female authorship in top dermatology journals during the last 3 decades. We conducted an observational study of trends in the sex distribution of US authors in 3 prestigious general dermatology journals (in 1976, 1986, 1996, and 2006) and 3 subspecialty dermatology journals (in 2006 only). Journals were chosen based on published impact factors and citation half-lives. During the last 3 decades, the proportion of women authoring manuscripts in the 3 major general dermatology journals increased from 12% to 48% of US-affiliated first authors (P < .001) and from 6.2% to 31% of US-affiliated senior authors (P < .001). Separate analyses by journal and by article type showed similar increases. The prevalence of female authors in subspecialty journals in 2006 was slightly more variable. Although the publications selected for this study capture many of the most respected US journals in dermatology, they may not be representative of all journals in which dermatologists publish. Female dermatologists are authoring publications in growing numbers that match or exceed their prevalence in the academic and overall workforce. This suggests that other factors (differences in productivity outside of the publishing arena, differences in job descriptions or opportunities, differences in career aspirations, a lack of institutional support or flexibility, or gender bias) may be associated with the ongoing reduced advancement of women to senior academic dermatology ranks relative to their male colleagues, and further research is warranted to explore these possibilities.

A retrospective analysis of 10-year authorship trends in biomedical engineering journals.

PubMed

Foo, Jong Yong Abdiel

2011-03-01

Studies have indicated that academic research has become increasingly complex and multidisciplinary. There seems to be an increasing trend of multiple author articles published across most journals. As the field of biomedical engineering also encompasses multidisciplinary-based knowledge, it is interesting to understand the authorship trend over time. In this study, six journals were carefully chosen from the Journal Citation Report of the Thomson Scientific based on predefined criteria (year 1999 to 2008). The data pertaining to authorships for the articles published in these journals were then acquired from the PubMed database. The results show that there is a general upward trend for the number of author per article, but it is not significant (p > .01) despite a 64.5% increase in the total number of article published in the six chosen journals. Thus, the expected increase is not observed in this field, and it may be due to the stringent guidelines by journals in defining the contributions of an author. Particularly, contributing factors like the impact of authorship irregularities is discussed herein.

Impact factor and other indices to assess science, scientists and scientific journals.

PubMed

Satyanarayana, K

2010-01-01

This paper traces the evolution of measures and parameters for the evaluation of science and scientific journals from the first attempts during the early part of the last century to the development of the most popular, current and widely used metrics viz., citations, impact factor (IF) etc. The identification of measures of evaluation in science and scientific reporting paralled the post-war increase in funding in the United States of America. Biomedical and medical sciences continue to garner a major share, estimated to be almost two-thirds of total research and development funding of over US$ 350 billion. There has been a concomitant growth in the publications in learned journals. About 1.4 million papers are published every year in an estimated 20,000 journals. In India there are an estimated 100 journals in medical sciences. With a steady increase of about 10% every year, the competition for grants, awards, rewards etc., is fierce. This unrelenting increase in number of scientists and the resultant competition, the limitation of peer review was felt. A search was on for new quantifiable measures for informed decision making for funding, awards, rewards, etc. Now virtually all major decisions all over the world are based on some data linked to publications and/or citations. The concept of citations as tool for 'evaluating' science was first proposed by Eugene Garfield in 1955. The availability of Science Citation Index (SCI), Journal Citation Reports (JCR), Web of Science etc. and the relative ease with which they could be used (and abused) has spawned an entirely new area bibliometrics/scientometrics. As only a limited number of journals could be included in the Thomson Reuters (TR) databases (currently numbering about 10500), analyses based on such a limited dataset (also selected in a non-transparent way by the TR) has been widely and severely criticized by both the developed and developing countries. Yet, studies have shown that citation-based data and indicators (warts and all) could still be put to productive use for purposes of evaluation (as scientists just love numbers). There were simultaneous efforts to find alternative indicators using the TR databases, and through other innovative methods. Some of these include Google Scholar, PageRank, H-index, Y-factor, Faculty of 1000, Eigen Factor etc. The advantages and limitations of these indices are discussed. There is a need for a more critical look at these parameters from the Indian perspective to compute/ device/adapt these measures to suit our needs. There are 205 journals under the category Physiology and 201 in the Pharmacology category listed in the JCR. There are four major Indian journals under the category of Physiology and Pharmacology and none of them are listed in the TR databases reflecting the limitation of these databases. Eventually, and in the long run, the quality of our journals needs to be improved as the current era of globalization and web-access provides both a challenge and an oppportunity for the science and scientific journals published from India to get increased global visibility.

Factors associated with online media attention to research: a cohort study of articles evaluating cancer treatments.

PubMed

Haneef, Romana; Ravaud, Philippe; Baron, Gabriel; Ghosn, Lina; Boutron, Isabelle

2017-01-01

New metrics have been developed to assess the impact of research and provide an indication of online media attention and data dissemination. We aimed to describe online media attention of articles evaluating cancer treatments and identify the factors associated with high online media attention. We systematically searched MEDLINE via PubMed on March 1, 2015 for articles published during the first 6 months of 2014 in oncology and medical journals with a diverse range of impact factors, from 3.9 to 54.4, and selected a sample of articles evaluating a cancer treatment regardless of study design. Altmetric Explorer was used to identify online media attention of selected articles. The primary outcome was media attention an article received online as measured by Altmetric score (i.e., number of mentions in online news outlets, science blogs and social media). Regression analysis was performed to investigate the factors associated with high media attention, and regression coefficients represent the logarithm of ratio of mean (RoM) values of Altmetric score per unit change in the covariate. Among 792 articles, 218 (27.5%) received no online media attention (Altmetric score = 0). The median [Q1-Q3] Altmetric score was 2.0 [0.0-8.0], range 0.0-428.0. On multivariate analysis, factors associated with high Altmetric score were presence of a press release (RoM = 10.14, 95%CI [4.91-20.96]), open access to the article (RoM = 1.48, 95%CI [1.02-2.16]), and journal impact factor (RoM = 1.10, 95%CI [1.07-1.12]. As compared with observational studies, systematic reviews were not associated with high Altmetric score (RoM = 1.46, 95%CI [0.74-2.86]; P  = 0.27), nor were RCTs (RoM = 0.65, 95%CI [0.41-1.02]; P  = 0.059) and phase I/II non-RCTs (RoM = 0.58, 95%CI [0.33-1.05]; P  = 0.07). The articles with abstract conclusions favouring study treatments were not associated with high Altmetric score (RoM = 0.97, 95%CI [0.60-1.58]; P  = 0.91). Most important factors associated with high online media attention were the presence of a press release and the journal impact factor. There was no evidence that study design with high level of evidence and type of abstract conclusion were associated with high online media attention.

Characteristics of Orthopedic Publications in High-Impact General Medical Journals.

PubMed

Nwachukwu, Benedict U; Kahlenberg, Cynthia A; Lehman, Jason D; Lyman, Stephen; Marx, Robert G

2017-05-01

Orthopedic studies are occasionally published in high-impact general medical journals; these studies are often given high visibility and have significant potential to impact health care policy and inform clinical decision-making. The purpose of this review was to investigate the characteristics of operative orthopedic studies published in high-impact medical journals. The number of orthopedic studies published in high-impact medical journals is relatively low; however, these studies demonstrate methodological characteristics that may bias toward nonoperative treatment. Careful analysis and interpretation of orthopedic studies published in these journals is warranted. [Orthopedics. 2017; 40(3):e405-e412.]. Copyright 2017, SLACK Incorporated.

A comparison of citations across multidisciplinary psychology journals: a case study of two independent journals.

PubMed

Schumm, Walter R

2010-02-01

Citation rates and impact factors are often used in an attempt to evaluate the apparent prestige of scholarly journals and the quality of research published by individual scholars. However, the apparent prestige of "top tier" journals may reflect aggressive marketing and advertising efforts as much as scholarship. Some journals have retained their independence from professional organizations and the funding, marketing, and advocacy policies that may be associated with such organizations. While lacking as much visibility as organizational journals and sometimes considered "lower tier," independent journals may be able to provide comparable scientific quality as measured by citation rates. To test this, the citation rates of 169 articles published by a frequently cited scholar were compared across first- and second-tier journals, including many sponsored and marketed by large professional organizations, and to rates for two independent journals combined, Psychological Reports and Perceptual and Motor Skills. Citation rates were higher for first-tier journals but for most comparisons, especially those that controlled for heterogeneity of variance, results did not differ in statistically significant ways among the three tiers of journals, though some nonsignificant trends (p < .15) were found. If citation rates of articles are any indication of scientific quality, tiered classifications of journals appear to be a relatively weak indicator of scientific merit; journals at any tier contain articles that are useful and of good quality.

The Impact of Environmental Design on Teamwork and Communication in Healthcare Facilities: A Systematic Literature Review.

PubMed

Gharaveis, Arsalan; Hamilton, D Kirk; Pati, Debajyoti

2018-01-01

The purpose of this systematic review is to investigate the current knowledge about the impact of healthcare facility design on teamwork and communication by exploring the relevant literature. Teamwork and communication are behavioral factors that are impacted by physical design. However, the effects of environmental factors on teamwork and communication have not been investigated extensively in healthcare design literature. There are no published systematic reviews on the current topic. Searches were conducted in PubMed and Google Scholar databases in addition to targeted design journals including Health Environmental Research & Design, Environment and Behavior, Environmental Psychology, and Applied Ergonomics. Inclusion criteria were (a) full-text English language articles related to teamwork and communication and (b) involving any healthcare built environment and space design published in peer-reviewed journals between 1984 and 2017. Studies were extracted using defined inclusion and exclusion criteria. In the first phase, 26 of the 195 articles most relevant to teamwork and 19 studies of the 147 were identified and reviewed to understand the impact of communication in healthcare facilities. The literature regarding the impact of built environment on teamwork and communication were reviewed and explored in detail. Eighteen studies were selected and succinctly summarized as the final product of this review. Environmental design, which involves nurses, support staff, and physicians, is one of the critical factors that promotes the efficiency of teamwork and collaborative communication. Layout design, visibility, and accessibility levels are the most cited aspects of design which can affect the level of communication and teamwork in healthcare facilities.

[Bibliometry of collaboration and impact of the Revista de Biología Tropical (Web of Science 2003-2012)].

PubMed

De Filippo, Daniela; Córdoba González, Saray; Sanz-Casado, Elías

2016-03-01

The activity analysis of a scientific journal is relevant to know the evolution of its characteristics over time. In this paper, results of a bibliometric study of the Revista de Biología Tropical/International Journal of Tropical Biology and Conservation (Costa Rica) are presented. The goal of this study was to describe the main characteristics of its scientific production, and analyze its level of collaboration and its impact between the years 2003-2012. Data was derived from the Web of Science (Thomson-Reuters), and the relationship among authors and coauthors, institutions and countries, and their links with the citations received were analyzed for that period. Descriptive statistics about production (number of documents per year, institution and country), collaboration (authorship index, collaboration among institutions and countries) and impact (IF, position in JCR and number of citations received) were collected. Results showed that the journal has published 1 473 papers in this period, in similar proportions English and Spanish. Mexico, Costa Rica, Venezuela and Colombia are the most common countries of origin, with the Universidad of Costa Rica, Universidad Autónoma de Mexico and the University of Puerto Rico as the most common leader institutions. Collaboration between authors, institutions and countries has shown an increasing trend over the last decade. The co-author index was 3.07 per document, 63 % of publications included 2 or more institutions, and 22 % of the papers were product of international collaboration. The most common collaboration link was between Costa Rica and the United States of America. The impact factor has been oscillating during this last decade, reaching a maximum in 2012 (IF JCR = 0.553). Besides, 10 % of the most cited papers concentrated half of the citations received by the journal, and have a very high number of citations, compared with the journal mean. The main countries that cite the journal were USA, Brazil, Mexico, Argentina and Costa Rica. Data showed an increasing collaboration between authors, institutions and countries, and a direct relationship between the increase of this collaboration and the received impact.

Factors Affecting Subsequent Full-text Publication of Papers Presented at the Annual Conference of the Indian Academy of Pediatrics.

PubMed

Khalil, Sumaira; Mishra, Devendra; Mishra, Ruchi; Gupta, Shalu

2017-02-15

To study the factors associated with the subsequent (over next 9 years) full-text publication of papers presented at the 44th National Conference of Indian Academy of Pediatrics (PEDICON), 2007. All papers presented at PEDICON 2007 were searched for subsequent full-text publication over the next 9 years in English-language journals by an internet-based search. The published papers were compared with the conference-abstracts. 74 (16%) of the 450 abstracts presented were subsequently published; 61 (82.4%) in Medline-indexed journals. Majority (50, 67.6%) of the papers was published within the first 36 mo in journals with mean (SD) impact factor of 2.62 (1.63). The factors significantly associated with subsequent publication were papers presented as award papers (P<0.001), those reporting on Interventional trials (P<0.001), and those from medical colleges (P<0.05). On comparison of the conference abstracts with the subsequently published full-papers, 55% had a change in title; authors were changed in 65%, and participants' numbers were dissimilar in 8.6%. There is a need to identify the factors responsible for this low rate of subsequent publication, and interventions to improve it both at institutional and researchers' level.

Aeolian Research: Reflections on progress after five years

NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

Chappell, Adrian; Lee, Jeffrey A.

2015-03-01

Aeolian Research was launched in 2009 by the co-Editors in Chief, Ted Zobeck and Jeff Lee and since then more than 200 papers have been published under their guidance. The journal's first Thompson Scientific Impact Factor (IF), in 2011, was 2.179 and the IF has increased to 2.841 in 2013, which is comparable to its well-established peer journals. These achievements have been accomplished with the exceptional support of the associate editors and the broader research community in reviewing more than 400 papers. Of the papers received, more than half are published.

The Neurosurgery Match: A Bibliometric Analysis of 206 First-Year Residents.

PubMed

Kashkoush, Ahmed; Prabhu, Arpan V; Tonetti, Daniel; Agarwal, Nitin

2017-09-01

An important component of the residency application for neurosurgery is research experience and the subsequent number of produced publications. Bibliometrics research has been developed to establish quantitative methods for the standardization of publishing impactful research. This study aims to quantify the research productivity of medical students who successfully matriculated into a Neurosurgery residency program. We initially identified first-year neurosurgery residents for the 2016-2017 academic year of all U.S. neurosurgical residency programs through departmental websites. The Scopus database was then queried for all articles published in the years 2006 to 2015 by first-year residents and bibliometric variables, such as publication count, journal impact factors, and author h-index, were extracted. The main outcome measured was residency program, tiered 1-5 by total departmental faculty research output. Two hundred six (206) Scopus records for first-year neurosurgery residents were identified in 99 programs nationwide. Multivariate ordinal regression demonstrated that only h-index was independently associated with tier of matriculation (P = 0.043). H-index was observed to strongly correlate with the number of original research articles (P = 0.005), years since first publication (P < 0.0001), and journal impact factor (P = 0.048) as assessed by multiple linear regression. Notably, h-index was observed to increase by approximately 1 point with every 3 original research articles (B = 0.368) and 4 years since first publication (B = 0.257). H-index is a powerful research predictor of matching into neurosurgical research institutions and can be improved by starting research early, targeting high impact journals, and participating in original clinical and laboratory investigations. Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

[The management of errors and scientific fraud by biomedical journals: They cannot replace Institutions].

PubMed

Maisonneuve, Hervé

2012-09-01

Research integrity is not negotiable, but we regularly observe research misconduct, and journals are victims or guilty. Journals do not have the objective to assess research integrity: that's the Institutions' roles. Journals discover research misconduct when articles are reviewed (an editor or a reviewer detect signals), or after the article's publication when a reader or a whistleblower call the journal. The editors and reviewers' research misconduct are less described and not publicized in the medias. The peer-review system is criticised. If authors were fair-play, and reviews well done, the journals should not publish articles containing false data. The opponents to the peer-review system propose no alternatives to replace it. The anonymous peer reviews are questioned: it has never been proved that quality of anonymous reading was better than quality of open reading. The Open Access facilitated the creation of many journals. Some journals are excellent and got an impact factor; most journals have a poor quality and don't follow the publications ethics standards. When errors and fraud are identified, journals can publish 3 statements: erratum for errors, expression of concern for errors or fraud when evidence is not established, and retraction when evidence is obvious. Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.

Reporting of research quality characteristics of studies published in 6 major clinical dental specialty journals.

PubMed

Pandis, Nikolaos; Polychronopoulou, Argy; Madianos, Phoebus; Makou, Margarita; Eliades, Theodore

2011-06-01

The objective of this article was to record reporting characteristics related to study quality of research published in major specialty dental journals with the highest impact factor (Journal of Endodontics, Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics; Pediatric Dentistry, Journal of Clinical Periodontology, and International Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry). The included articles were classified into the following 3 broad subject categories: (1) cross-sectional (snap-shot), (2) observational, and (3) interventional. Multinomial logistic regression was conducted for effect estimation using the journal as the response and randomization, sample calculation, confounding discussed, multivariate analysis, effect measurement, and confidence intervals as the explanatory variables. The results showed that cross-sectional studies were the dominant design (55%), whereas observational investigations accounted for 13%, and interventions/clinical trials for 32%. Reporting on quality characteristics was low for all variables: random allocation (15%), sample size calculation (7%), confounding issues/possible confounders (38%), effect measurements (16%), and multivariate analysis (21%). Eighty-four percent of the published articles reported a statistically significant main finding and only 13% presented confidence intervals. The Journal of Clinical Periodontology showed the highest probability of including quality characteristics in reporting results among all dental journals. Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Publication rates following pancreas meetings.

PubMed

Timmer, A; Blum, T; Lankisch, P G

2001-08-01

Publication rates and determinants of publication were studied based on abstracts presented at pancreatic meetings. All abstracts presented at the 1994 and 1995 annual meetings of the European Pancreatic Club (EPC) and the American Pancreatic Association (APA) were followed up by searching MEDLINE. Publication rates were compared using log-rank tests and multiple logistic regression. The prestige of the publishing journals was compared using Kruskal-Wallis tests on scientific impact factors (SIF). Overall, 340 abstracts were presented at the EPC, and 254 were presented at the APA. Of these, 203 (59.7%, EPC) and 138 (54.3%, APA) were later published in peer-reviewed journals. Publication rates did not differ by study type or country region of origin. In addition, median SIFs were similar by conference (APA vs. EPC) and research type (basic science vs. clinical studies) (overall, 1.7). However, North American and North/West European articles were published in higher impact journals as compared with those from other countries. Publication rates and median journal SIFs in pancreas research are similar to those reported from other medical specialty meetings. There is no difference by conference, type of research, or origin (North American vs. European).

[Analysis of the scientific productivity and impact of Spanish paediatrics (2006-2010)].

PubMed

Alonso-Arroyo, A; González de Dios, J; Bolaños-Pizarro, M; Castelló-Cogollos, L; González-Alcaide, G; Navarro-Molina, C; Vidal-Infer, A; Coronado-Ferrer, S; González-Muñoz, M; Málaga-Guerrero, S; Aleixandre-Benavent, R

2013-06-01

The aim of this paper is to quantify, by means of bibliometric indicators, the scientific production of Spanish researchers and institutions publishing in national and international paediatric journals, as well as multidisciplinary and other knowledge areas publications during the period 2006-2010, and to determine their impact. The articles were obtained by applying specific search strategies in databases including, Science Citation Index-Expanded, Scopus, Índice Médico Español, and Índice Bibliográfico Español en Ciencias de la Salud. A total of 7971 articles were published in 971 journals, in which 142 were from Spain and 829 were international. The most productive journals were Anales DE PEDIATRÍA (n=1257), Acta Pediátrica Española (n=456) and Evidencias en Pediatría (n=358). Articles were published mostly in English (41.04%) and in Spanish (38.18%), with the participation of 17 874 different authors from 3302 institutions. Approximately 60% of the papers were cited at least once, and 39.81% were never cited. The mean number of citations per document was 4.28 (SD=9.54). The most cited journals were Pediatrics (n=770), Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal, and Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism (n=553). The number of articles progressively increased from 2006 to 2010, which confirms the consolidation and growth of Spanish pediatric research, where the results are published in a wide range of Spanish and international journals, among which stands out is the ANALES DE PEDIATRÍA, the only Spanish pediatric journal with an impact factor. The increasing internationalization of Spanish Pediatrics is also confirmed, since a sustained growth of articles published in international journals is observed, where a quarter was published in US or British journals, as well as the importance of the publication in English. There is a concern about the fact that almost 40% of the articles did not receive a citation, which should encourage authors to complete research of quality, and editors to start editorial policies addressed to increase manuscript and journal quality. Copyright © 2013 Asociación Española de Pediatría. Published by Elsevier España, S.L. All rights reserved.

Assesment of publication practices in geosciences in developing countries

NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

Cazenave, A.; Barbe, V.

2003-12-01

We present results of a study which goal was to investigate in which journals scientists in geosciences (i.e., in the fields covered by the AGU) in developing countries publish most of their papers.We were interested in particular in looking at the percentage of publications in AGU journals. Using science indicators collected by the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI), we analysed publication practices for 1997-2002 in the following countries : India, China, Russia, Brazil, Argentina and Chile. We investigated the evolution of the number of publications through time, identified most used journals, determined times cited and impact factors of papers published in the top 15 most used journals. We also determined the percentage of articles published in AGU journals versus other journals. We found that for the 6 counties considered, this percentage varies from about 2 to 3 percent (Argentina, China) to about 8 percent (the other 4 countries). Investigation of authors addresses indicates that the majority of articles published in AGU journals are multi-countries publications, involving international collaboration mainly with scientists from North America and Europe. Implications on page-charge and access to AGU journals are also discussed.

Anesthesia and Monitoring in Small Laboratory Mammals Used in Anesthesiology, Respiratory and Critical Care Research: A Systematic Review on the Current Reporting in Top-10 Impact Factor Ranked Journals

PubMed Central

Koch, Thea; Gama de Abreu, Marcelo; Spieth, Peter Markus

2015-01-01

Rationale This study aimed to investigate the quality of reporting of anesthesia and euthanasia in experimental studies in small laboratory mammals published in the top ten impact factor journals. Methods A descriptive systematic review was conducted and data was abstracted from the ten highest ranked journals with respect to impact factor in the categories ‘Anesthesiology’, ‘Critical Care Medicine’ and ‘Respiratory System’ as defined by the 2012 Journal Citation Reports. Inclusion criteria according to PICOS criteria were as follows: 1) population: small laboratory mammals; 2) intervention: any form of anesthesia and/or euthanasia; 3) comparison: not specified; 4) primary outcome: type of anesthesia, anesthetic agents and type of euthanasia; secondary outcome: animal characteristics, monitoring, mechanical ventilation, fluid management, postoperative pain therapy, animal care approval, sample size calculation and performed interventions; 5) study: experimental studies. Anesthesia, euthanasia, and monitoring were analyzed per performed intervention in each article. Results The search yielded 845 articles with 1,041 interventions of interest. Throughout the manuscripts we found poor quality and frequency of reporting with respect to completeness of data on animal characteristics as well as euthanasia, while anesthesia (732/1041, 70.3%) and interventions without survival (970/1041, 93.2%) per se were frequently reported. Premedication and neuromuscular blocking agents were reported in 169/732 (23.1%) and 38/732 (5.2%) interventions, respectively. Frequency of reporting of analgesia during (117/610, 19.1%) and after painful procedures (38/364, 10.4%) was low. Euthanasia practice was reported as anesthesia (348/501, 69%), transcardial perfusion (37/501, 8%), carbon dioxide (26/501, 6%), decapitation (22/501, 5%), exsanguination (23/501, 5%), other (25/501, 5%) and not specified (20/501, 4%, respectively. Conclusions The present systematic review revealed insufficient reporting of anesthesia and euthanasia methods throughout experimental studies in small laboratory mammals. Specific guidelines for anesthesia and euthanasia regimens should be considered to achieve comparability, quality of animal experiments and animal welfare. These measures are of special interest when translating experimental findings to future clinical applications. PMID:26305700

Sex Roles on Campus: Does Professor Charles Really Get His Angels?

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Rochelle, Larry

1980-01-01

Reveals factors which foster sexual relationships between male professors and female students. Considers the journals commonly read by males and females and their impact on sexual attitudes. Discusses the issues of miscommunication, sexual harassment, and students' perceptions of sex roles on campus. Suggests ways of dealing with sexual…

Motivation for Healthy Behavior: A Review of Health Promotion Research

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Dunsmore, Sarah; Goodson, Patricia

2006-01-01

Authors reviewed the theoretical history of the "motivation" construct, and its utilization within past/current health behavior research. Textbooks and review articles functioned as sources for the theoretical history review. Research published within a 10-year period (1993-2002) in four health promotion journals (all with impact factors greater…

Evaluation of Scientific Journal Validity, It's Articles and Their Authors.

PubMed

Masic, Izet; Begic, Edin

2016-01-01

The science that deals with evaluation of a scientific article refer to the finding quantitative indicators (index) of the scientific research success is called scientometrics. Scientometrics is part of scientology (the science of science) that analyzes scientific papers and their citations in a selected sample of scientific journals. There are four indexes by which it is possible to measure the validity of scientific research: number of articles, impact factor of the journal, the number and order of authors and citations number. Every scientific article is a record of the data written by the rules recommended by several scientific associations and committees. Growing number of authors and lot of authors with same name and surname led to the introduction of the necessary identification agent - ORCID number.

PubFocus: semantic MEDLINE/PubMed citations analytics through integration of controlled biomedical dictionaries and ranking algorithm

PubMed Central

Plikus, Maksim V; Zhang, Zina; Chuong, Cheng-Ming

2006-01-01

Background Understanding research activity within any given biomedical field is important. Search outputs generated by MEDLINE/PubMed are not well classified and require lengthy manual citation analysis. Automation of citation analytics can be very useful and timesaving for both novices and experts. Results PubFocus web server automates analysis of MEDLINE/PubMed search queries by enriching them with two widely used human factor-based bibliometric indicators of publication quality: journal impact factor and volume of forward references. In addition to providing basic volumetric statistics, PubFocus also prioritizes citations and evaluates authors' impact on the field of search. PubFocus also analyses presence and occurrence of biomedical key terms within citations by utilizing controlled vocabularies. Conclusion We have developed citations' prioritisation algorithm based on journal impact factor, forward referencing volume, referencing dynamics, and author's contribution level. It can be applied either to the primary set of PubMed search results or to the subsets of these results identified through key terms from controlled biomedical vocabularies and ontologies. NCI (National Cancer Institute) thesaurus and MGD (Mouse Genome Database) mammalian gene orthology have been implemented for key terms analytics. PubFocus provides a scalable platform for the integration of multiple available ontology databases. PubFocus analytics can be adapted for input sources of biomedical citations other than PubMed. PMID:17014720

[Predatory journals: how their publishers operate and how to avoid them].

PubMed

Kratochvíl, Jiří; Plch, Lukáš

Authors who publish in scientific or scholarly journals today face the risk of publishing in so-called predatory journals. These journals exploit the noble idea of the Open Access movement, whose goal is to make the latest scientific findings available for free. Predatory journals, unlike the reputable ones working on an Open Access basis, neglect the review process and publish low-quality submissions. The basic attributes of predatory journals are a very quick review process or even none at all, failure to be transparent about author fees for publishing an article, misleading potential authors by imitating the names of well-established journals, and false information on indexing in renowned databases or assigned impact factor. Some preventive measures against publishing in predatory journals or drawing information from them are: a thorough credibility check of the journals webpages, verification of the journals indexing on Bealls List and in the following databases: Web of Science Core Collection, Scopus, ERIH PLUS and DOAJ. Asking other scientists or scholars about their experience with a given journal can also be helpful. Without these necessary steps authors face an increased risk of publishing in a journal of poor quality, which will prevent them from obtaining Research and Development Council points (awarded based on the Information Register of Research & Development results); even more importantly, it may damage their reputation as well as the good name of their home institution in the professional community.Key words: academic writing - medical journals - Open Access - predatory journals - predatory publishers - scientific publications.

Clinical trial registration in oral health journals.

PubMed

Smaïl-Faugeron, V; Fron-Chabouis, H; Durieux, P

2015-03-01

Prospective registration of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) represents the best solution to reporting bias. The extent to which oral health journals have endorsed and complied with RCT registration is unknown. We identified journals publishing RCTs in dentistry, oral surgery, and medicine in the Journal Citation Reports. We classified journals into 3 groups: journals requiring or recommending trial registration, journals referring indirectly to registration, and journals providing no reference to registration. For the 5 journals with the highest 2012 impact factors in each group, we assessed whether RCTs with results published in 2013 had been registered. Of 78 journals examined, 32 (41%) required or recommended trial registration, 19 (24%) referred indirectly to registration, and 27 (35%) provided no reference to registration. We identified 317 RCTs with results published in the 15 selected journals in 2013. Overall, 73 (23%) were registered in a trial registry. Among those, 91% were registered retrospectively and 32% did not report trial registration in the published article. The proportion of trials registered was not significantly associated with editorial policies: 29% with results in journals that required or recommended registration, 15% in those that referred indirectly to registration, and 21% in those providing no reference to registration (P = 0.05). Less than one-quarter of RCTs with results published in a sample of oral health journals were registered with a public registry. Improvements are needed with respect to how journals inform and require their authors to register their trials. © International & American Associations for Dental Research.

Worldwide access to evidence-based mental health literature: how useful is PubMed in Anglo-Saxon and non-Anglo-Saxon countries?

PubMed

Morlino, Massimo; Polese, Daniela; Bruni, Andrea; Renato, Bellinello

2005-10-01

The aim of this study was to verify the presence of cultural variety among the psychiatric journals available on PubMed, the major online tool for accessing literature. Data for analysis were taken from a survey of the world psychiatric journals indexed in Index Medicus 1999 (IM), the alphabetical list used by PubMed, and from the mean impact factor (IF) values of the journals. Approximately 80% of international psychiatric literature available on PubMed is published in Anglo-Saxon countries, especially in the USA (59.8% of the total). The widespread use of the English language (94.9% of all the journals) further stresses the dominance of the Anglo-Saxon cultural model, as do the mean IF values of Anglo-Saxon journals compared to non-Anglo-Saxon publications (3.252 vs. 1.693; P=0.0079). The under-representation of non-Anglo-Saxon cultural models on PubMed plays a negative role for bringing about a truly multicultural literature in psychiatry.

Bibliometrics of systematic reviews: analysis of citation rates and journal impact factors

PubMed Central

2013-01-01

Background Systematic reviews are important for informing clinical practice and health policy. The aim of this study was to examine the bibliometrics of systematic reviews and to determine the amount of variance in citations predicted by the journal impact factor (JIF) alone and combined with several other characteristics. Methods We conducted a bibliometric analysis of 1,261 systematic reviews published in 2008 and the citations to them in the Scopus database from 2008 to June 2012. Potential predictors of the citation impact of the reviews were examined using descriptive, univariate and multiple regression analysis. Results The mean number of citations per review over four years was 26.5 (SD ±29.9) or 6.6 citations per review per year. The mean JIF of the journals in which the reviews were published was 4.3 (SD ±4.2). We found that 17% of the reviews accounted for 50% of the total citations and 1.6% of the reviews were not cited. The number of authors was correlated with the number of citations (r = 0.215, P < 0.001). Higher numbers of citations were associated with the following characteristics: first author from the United States (36.5 citations), an ICD-10 chapter heading of Neoplasms (31.8 citations), type of intervention classified as Investigation, Diagnostics or Screening (34.7 citations) and having an international collaboration (32.1 citations). The JIF alone explained more than half of the variation in citations (R2 = 0.59) in univariate analysis. Adjusting for both JIF and type of intervention increased the R2 value to 0.81. Fourteen percent of reviews published in the top quartile of JIFs (≥ 5.16) received citations in the bottom quartile (eight or fewer), whereas 9% of reviews published in the lowest JIF quartile (≤ 2.06) received citations in the top quartile (34 or more). Six percent of reviews in journals with no JIF were also in the first quartile of citations. Conclusions The JIF predicted over half of the variation in citations to the systematic reviews. However, the distribution of citations was markedly skewed. Some reviews in journals with low JIFs were well-cited and others in higher JIF journals received relatively few citations; hence the JIF did not accurately represent the number of citations to individual systematic reviews. PMID:24028376

Bibliometric Indicators of Russian Journals by JCR-Science Edition, 1995-2010

PubMed Central

Libkind, A.N.; Markusova, V.A.; Mindeli, L.E.

2013-01-01

A representative empirical bibliometric analysis of Russian journals included in the Journal Citation Reports-Science Edition (JCR-SE) for the time period 1995–2010 was conducted at the macro level (excluding the subject categories). It was found that the growth in the number of articles covered by JCR (a 1.8-fold increase compared to 1995) is ahead of the growth rates of Russian publications (1.2-fold increase). Hence, the share of Russian articles covered by JCR-SE was down from 2.5% in 1995 to 1.7% in 2010. It was determined that the number of articles published in an average Russian journal reduced by 20% as compared to the number of articles in an average journal of the full data set. These facts could partly shed light on the question why Russian research performance is staggering (approximately 30,000 articles per year), although the coverage of Russian journals has expanded to 150 titles. Over the past 15 years, a twofold increase in the impact factor of the Russian journals has been observed, which is higher than that for the full data set of journals (a 1.4-fold increase). Measures to improve the quality of Russian journals are proposed. PMID:24303198

Accessibility to editorial information in Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery journals: The authors' point of view.

PubMed

Castelo-Baz, Pablo; Leira-Feijoo, Yago; Seoane-Romero, Juan Manuel; Varela-Centelles, Pablo; Seoane, Juan

2015-09-01

To evaluate the accessibility to editorial information in Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery journals. A cross-sectional study using the WOS-Web of Science database in three categories: "Surgery," "Otorhinolaryngology," and "Dentistry, Oral Surgery & Medicine" was designed. Journals were filtered by title and classified under three headings: OMFS specialty; OMFS subspecialty and related sciences; and multidisciplinary journals. Specialty scope (OMFS vs. other); impact factor; path for the manuscript; blinding policy; accessibility to reviewers' criteria; and percentage of acceptance. Only 46 of 330 journals met the inclusion criteria. All OMFS journals provided comprehensive information about the review process, compared to 5 of 27 (18.5%) of Oral Surgery and related sciences periodicals. Most specialty journals do not inform about the blind review mode used (20 of 33; 60.6%). Generally, information about the reviewers' assessment criteria is scarce, but is available from all OMFS journals, which also state the percentage of manuscript acceptance (100% vs. 14.8%). OMFS JCR journals provide adequate information about their editorial process in terms of path for the manuscript, accessibility to reviewers' criteria, and percentage of acceptance. Additional efforts are needed to increase accessibility to information about blinding policy and average time from submission to acceptance. Copyright © 2015 European Association for Cranio-Maxillo-Facial Surgery. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Scientific publications from mainland China, Taiwan, and Hong Kong in integrative and complementary medicine journals: a ten-year literature survey.

PubMed

Li, Xiao-Qian; Tao, Kun-Ming; Zhou, Qing-Hui; Ling, Chang-Quan

2011-01-01

Practitioners and researchers from China, the largest user of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM), have been publishing an increasing number of scientific articles in world-famous CAM journals in recent years. However, the status of CAM research in the three major regions of China, the Mainland, Taiwan and Hong Kong has, until now, not been reported. In this study, we compared articles from these three regions published in international CAM journals from 2000 to 2009 using PubMed database and the Journal Citation Reports. The study results showed that the number of published articles from Mainland China increased significantly from 2000 to 2009, particularly since 2005. Meanwhile, the number of published articles from Taiwan also increased, whereas those from Hong Kong remained steady. Clinical trials and randomized controlled trials from Chinese authors both took a small percentage of the total. The impact factors of the journals in which these articles were published suggested similar academic levels whereas the average number of citation of articles from the Mainland was less than those from the other two regions. Journal of Ethnopharmacology, American Journal of Chinese Medicine, Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine and Evidence-based Complementary and Alternative Medicine were the most popular journals for Chinese authors.

U.S. publication trends in social and administrative pharmacy: implications for promotion and tenure.

PubMed

Kangethe, Anne; Franic, Duska M; Huang, Ming-Yi; Huston, Sally; Williams, Chakita

2012-01-01

There is no consensus on the preferred approach to assess journal quality. Procedures previously used include journal acceptance or rejection policies, impact factors, number of subscribers, citation counts, whether the articles were refereed or not, and journals cited in books within the discipline. This study built on the work of previous authors by using a novel approach to assess journal quality in social and administrative pharmacy (SAdP). To determine U.S. SAdP faculty perceptions of prestigious journals for their research, SAdP faculty perceptions of prestigious journals by their promotion and tenure (P&T) committees, and current research trends in SAdP. A census of U.S. colleges and schools of pharmacy was conducted using an e-mailed survey and an open-ended approach requiring respondents to list their preferred journals. Seventy-nine SAdP faculty reported that the 5 most prestigious journals were JAMA, New England Journal of Medicine, Health Affairs, Health Services Research, and Medical Care. These journals were selected because respondents wished to seek broad readership. Results of this study can be used as a guide by U.S. SAdP faculty and P&T committees to assess the quality of publications by pharmacy administration faculty with the caveat being that pharmacy versus nonpharmacy journals will be chosen based on the fit of the article with the audience. Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Update in Outpatient General Internal Medicine: Practice-Changing Evidence Published in 2015.

PubMed

Szostek, Jason H; Wieland, Mark L; Post, Jason A; Sundsted, Karna K; Mauck, Karen F

2016-08-01

Identifying new practice-changing articles is challenging. To determine the 2015 practice-changing articles most relevant to outpatient general internal medicine, 3 internists independently reviewed the titles and abstracts of original articles, synopses of single studies and syntheses, and databases of syntheses. For original articles, internal medicine journals with the 7 highest impact factors were reviewed: New England Journal of Medicine, Lancet, Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), British Medical Journal, Public Library of Science Medicine, Annals of Internal Medicine, and JAMA Internal Medicine. For synopses of single studies and syntheses, collections in American College of Physicians Journal Club, Journal Watch, and Evidence-Based Medicine were reviewed. For databases of synthesis, Evidence Updates and the Cochrane Library were reviewed. More than 100 articles were identified. Criteria for inclusion were as follows: clinical relevance, potential for practice change, and strength of evidence. Clusters of important articles around one topic were considered as a single-candidate series. The 5 authors used a modified Delphi method to reach consensus on inclusion of 7 topics for in-depth appraisal. Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Update in Outpatient General Internal Medicine: Practice-Changing Evidence Published in 2017.

PubMed

Wieland, Mark L; Szostek, Jason H; Wingo, Majken T; Post, Jason A; Mauck, Karen F

2018-02-26

Clinicians are challenged to identify new practice-changing articles in the medical literature. To identify the practice-changing articles published in 2017 most relevant to outpatient general internal medicine, 5 internists reviewed the following sources: 1) titles and abstracts from internal medicine journals with the 7 highest impact factors, including New England Journal of Medicine, Lancet, Journal of the American Medical Association, British Medical Journal, Public Library of Science Medicine, Annals of Internal Medicine, and JAMA Internal Medicine; 2) synopses and syntheses of individual studies, including collections in the American College of Physicians Journal Club, Journal Watch, and Evidence-Based Medicine; 3) databases of synthesis, including Evidence Updates and the Cochrane Library. Inclusion criteria were perceived clinical relevance to outpatient general medicine, potential for practice change, and strength of evidence. This process yielded 140 articles. Clusters of important articles around one topic were considered as a single-candidate series. A modified Delphi method was utilized by the 5 authors to reach consensus on 7 topics to highlight and appraise from the 2017 literature. Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

How Multidisciplinary Are the Multidisciplinary Journals Science and Nature?

PubMed Central

Solomon, Gregg E. A.; Carley, Stephen; Porter, Alan L.

2016-01-01

Interest in cross-disciplinary research knowledge interchange runs high. Review processes at funding agencies, such as the U.S. National Science Foundation, consider plans to disseminate research across disciplinary bounds. Publication in the leading multidisciplinary journals, Nature and Science, may signify the epitome of successful interdisciplinary integration of research knowledge and cross-disciplinary dissemination of findings. But how interdisciplinary are they? The journals are multidisciplinary, but do the individual articles themselves draw upon multiple fields of knowledge and does their influence span disciplines? This research compares articles in three fields (Cell Biology, Physical Chemistry, and Cognitive Science) published in a leading disciplinary journal in each field to those published in Nature and Science. We find comparable degrees of interdisciplinary integration and only modest differences in cross-disciplinary diffusion. That said, though the rate of out-of-field diffusion might be comparable, the sheer reach of Nature and Science, indicated by their potent Journal Impact Factors, means that the diffusion of knowledge therein can far exceed that of leading disciplinary journals in some fields (such as Physical Chemistry and Cognitive Science in our samples). PMID:27043924

How Multidisciplinary Are the Multidisciplinary Journals Science and Nature?

PubMed

Solomon, Gregg E A; Carley, Stephen; Porter, Alan L

2016-01-01

Interest in cross-disciplinary research knowledge interchange runs high. Review processes at funding agencies, such as the U.S. National Science Foundation, consider plans to disseminate research across disciplinary bounds. Publication in the leading multidisciplinary journals, Nature and Science, may signify the epitome of successful interdisciplinary integration of research knowledge and cross-disciplinary dissemination of findings. But how interdisciplinary are they? The journals are multidisciplinary, but do the individual articles themselves draw upon multiple fields of knowledge and does their influence span disciplines? This research compares articles in three fields (Cell Biology, Physical Chemistry, and Cognitive Science) published in a leading disciplinary journal in each field to those published in Nature and Science. We find comparable degrees of interdisciplinary integration and only modest differences in cross-disciplinary diffusion. That said, though the rate of out-of-field diffusion might be comparable, the sheer reach of Nature and Science, indicated by their potent Journal Impact Factors, means that the diffusion of knowledge therein can far exceed that of leading disciplinary journals in some fields (such as Physical Chemistry and Cognitive Science in our samples).

A bibliometric analysis of the 100 most influential papers in burns.

PubMed

Joyce, C W; Kelly, J C; Sugrue, C

2014-02-01

The importance of a published paper to a particular area is reflected in the quantity of citations obtained from peers. In burns, it is unknown which papers have been the most influential on this specialty. The purpose of our study was to identify the 100 most cited papers in burns and to analyze their characteristics. Twenty-seven journals were chosen for analysis. These included high impact factor scientific journals and journals dedicated to burns and trauma. Only twelve of these journals contributed to the 100 most cited papers in burns and we analyzed each paper individually looking at its subject matter, authorship, article type, institution, country and year of publication. Our citation analysis revealed an interesting mix of clinical and scientific papers that documents the key landmarks in burn care over the past 66 years. Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ltd and ISBI. All rights reserved.