Science.gov

Sample records for journal impact factor

  1. Comparison of SCImago journal rank indicator with journal impact factor.

    PubMed

    Falagas, Matthew E; Kouranos, Vasilios D; Arencibia-Jorge, Ricardo; Karageorgopoulos, Drosos E

    2008-08-01

    The application of currently available sophisticated algorithms of citation analysis allows for the incorporation of the "quality" of citations in the evaluation of scientific journals. We sought to compare the newly introduced SCImago journal rank (SJR) indicator with the journal impact factor (IF). We retrieved relevant information from the official Web sites hosting the above indices and their source databases. The SJR indicator is an open-access resource, while the journal IF requires paid subscription. The SJR indicator (based on Scopus data) lists considerably more journal titles published in a wider variety of countries and languages, than the journal IF (based on Web of Science data). Both indices divide citations to a journal by articles of the journal, during a specific time period. However, contrary to the journal IF, the SJR indicator attributes different weight to citations depending on the "prestige" of the citing journal without the influence of journal self-citations; prestige is estimated with the application of the PageRank algorithm in the network of journals. In addition, the SJR indicator includes the total number of documents of a journal in the denominator of the relevant calculation, whereas the journal IF includes only "citable" articles (mainly original articles and reviews). A 3-yr period is analyzed in both indices but with the use of different approaches. Regarding the top 100 journals in the 2006 journal IF ranking order, the median absolute change in their ranking position with the use of the SJR indicator is 32 (1st quartile: 12; 3rd quartile: 75). Although further validation is warranted, the novel SJR indicator poses as a serious alternative to the well-established journal IF, mainly due to its open-access nature, larger source database, and assessment of the quality of citations.

  2. Rising publication delays inflate journal impact factors.

    PubMed

    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.

  3. 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

  4. 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.

  5. 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

  6. Median Citation Index vs Journal Impact Factor

    NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

    Antonoyiannakis, Manolis

    2015-03-01

    The Journal Impact Factor is an arithmetic mean: It is the average number of citations, in a year, to a journal's articles that were published the previous two years. But for the vast majority of scholarly journals, the distribution of these citations is skewed (non-symmetric). We argue that a more representative member of the skewed distribution of citations is its median, not the mean. We thus introduce the Median Citation Index (MCI) and compare it to the journal Impact Factor (JIF) as a potentially more suitable choice of the ``center'' of the distribution, or its typical value. Unlike the JIF, the MCI is far less sensitive to outlier (very highly cited) papers or to gaming, and does not lend itself to the hype of calculating it to three decimal digits.

  7. [The "impact factor" and the impact of medical journals].

    PubMed

    Reyes, H

    1998-02-01

    Original articles published in scientific journals are important parameters for committees when they evaluate academic promotions or research grant applications. The analysis usually tries to give each paper a qualitative/quantitative assessment. An article's citation by others is accepted as a fair estimate of the value assigned to its originality and importance. A main determinant of every citation index is the international relevance attained by the journal where the article appeared. The "impact factor" of journals enlisted in the mainstream literature, as defined by the Journal Citation Reports (ISI), is being used by many assessors worldwide. But this index appears to be an unfair unit of measurement for journals that, although included in the main international data bases, are published in non-English languages. Furthermore, some local journals that are not enlisted by the Institute for Scientific Information apply external peer review to select their publications. In contrast, those same journals may have great relevance for their contributing authors and a high impact in their readers. The Editor's proposal is to classify original articles published in biomedical sciences, clinical medicine and public health topics using a three steps scale: a low score to articles published in local journals that use the peer review system, even though they were not enlisted in international data bases; a higher score to articles published in journals included in the mainstream literature, without considering their "impact factors" as differential values; and the highest score to articles published in journals recognized as international leaders in biomedicine, general medicine or in the subspecialties. Therefore, mainstream journals published in non-English languages would not be discriminated from other journals having higher "impact factors" mainly due to their use of the English language.

  8. 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)

  9. 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)

  10. Article and journal impact factor in various scientific fields.

    PubMed

    Falagas, Matthew E; Charitidou, Eustratia; Alexiou, Vangelis G

    2008-03-01

    We tried to provide the scientific community with data to answer the following simple question: What proportion of publications in the various scientific fields is published in journals with impact factor above the median and mean values of the distribution of journal impact factor? We analyzed and compared the distribution of the impact factor data reduced to the unit of science publication, the article. We calculated the proportion of articles published in journals with impact factor above the journal mean impact factor, journal median impact factor, and article mean impact. For all categories examined, at the article level, the mean impact factor was higher than the median (by 13.7% to 500% for the various scientific categories). The mean impact factor of journals was considerably lower than the mean impact factor of articles (by 0.3 to 6.4 units). The proportion of articles that were published in journals with impact factor above the journals' median impact factor was well above 50% in 17 of 19 scientific fields examined (all except mathematics and computer science). Our analysis shows that in most scientific fields examined, it is quite easier to publish an article in the top 50% of journals (based on impact factor calculations) than it is for the article to be included in the top 50% of published articles (based on the assumption made regarding the article' impact factor).

  11. Comparison of Journal Citation Reports and Scopus Impact Factors for Ecology and Environmental Sciences Journals

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Gray, Edward; Hodkinson, Sarah Z.

    2008-01-01

    Impact factors for journals listed under the subject categories "ecology" and "environmental sciences" in the Journal Citation Reports database were calculated using citation data from the Scopus database. The journals were then ranked by their Scopus impact factor and compared to the ranked lists of the same journals derived from Journal…

  12. Comparison of Journal Citation Reports and Scopus Impact Factors for Ecology and Environmental Sciences Journals

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Gray, Edward; Hodkinson, Sarah Z.

    2008-01-01

    Impact factors for journals listed under the subject categories "ecology" and "environmental sciences" in the Journal Citation Reports database were calculated using citation data from the Scopus database. The journals were then ranked by their Scopus impact factor and compared to the ranked lists of the same journals derived from Journal…

  13. Steady impact factor growth for MDPI open access journals.

    PubMed

    Thiesen, Alexander

    2012-09-12

    For the past three years MDPI has announced the newly released impact factors for its Open Access journals by the means of an annual editorial [1-3]. In 2012 we are-once again-pleased to report that the growth of the impact factors of MDPI's Open Access journals continues. This year's edition of the Journal Citation Reports (JCR), which is published annually by Thomson Reuters, includes 10 journals published by MDPI, including three that have received their first official Impact Factors- International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health (IJERPH), Materials Nutrients. Table 1 reports the latest Impact Factors for 2011. Figure 1 graphically depicts the evolution of the Impact Factors for four MDPI open access journals that have received Impact Factors in the past. Table 2 reports the ranking of the MDPI journals within the subject categories of the Science Citation Index Expanded.

  14. 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.

  15. 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…

  16. 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…

  17. 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…

  18. 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…

  19. Journal impact factor versus the evidence level of articles published in plastic surgery journals.

    PubMed

    Rodrigues, Maria A; Tedesco, Ana C B; Nahas, Fabio X; Ferreira, Lydia M

    2014-06-01

    The aim of this study was to assess the correlation between impact factor and the level of evidence of articles in plastic surgery journals. The four plastic surgery journals with the top impact factors in 2011 were selected. Articles were selected using the PubMed database between January 1 and December 31, 2011. The journal evidence index was calculated by dividing the number of randomized clinical trials by the total number of articles published in the specific journal, multiplied by 100. This index was correlated to the impact factor of the journal and compared with the average of the other journals. Two investigators independently evaluated each journal, followed by a consensus and assessment of the interexaminer concordance. The kappa test was used to evaluate the concordance between the two investigators and Fisher's exact test was used to evaluate which journal presented the highest number of randomized clinical trials. The journal evidence index values were as follows: Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, 1.70; Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery, 0.40; Aesthetic Plastic Surgery, 0.56; and Annals of Plastic Surgery, 0.35. The impact factors of these journals in 2011 were as follows: Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, 3.382; Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery, 1.494; Aesthetic Plastic Surgery, 1.407; and Annals of Plastic Surgery, 1.318. After consensus, the quantity of adequate studies was low and similar between these journals; only the journal Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery showed a higher journal evidence index. The journal Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery exhibited the highest journal evidence index and had the highest impact factor. The number of adequate articles was low in all of the assessed journals.

  20. 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.

  1. 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.

  2. Retraction policies of top scientific journals ranked by impact factor

    PubMed Central

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

    2015-01-01

    Objective This study gathered information about the retraction policies of the top 200 scientific journals, ranked by impact factor. Methods Editors of the top 200 science journals for the year 2012 were contacted by email. Results 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. Conclusions The majority of journals in this sample had a retraction policy, and almost all of them would retract an article without the authors’ permission. PMID:26213505

  3. Research Misconduct Policies of Social Science Journals and Impact Factor

    PubMed Central

    Resnik, David B.; Patrone, Daniel; Peddada, Shyamal

    2010-01-01

    In this study we gathered data on the misconduct policies of social science journals and combined it with the data from our previous study on journal misconduct policies, which did not include enough social science journals for data analysis. Consistent with our earlier finding, impact factor of the journal was the only variable significantly associated with whether a journal had a formal (written) misconduct policy with an odds-ratio of 1.72 (p < 0.01). We did not find that type of science (physical, biomedical, or social) or publisher had a significant effect on whether a journal had a policy. Another important finding is that less than half of the journals that responded to the survey had a formal misconduct policy. PMID:20306350

  4. 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).

  5. [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

  6. 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.

  7. Time trends in the impact factor of Public Health journals

    PubMed Central

    López-Abente, Gonzalo; Muñoz-Tinoco, Concha

    2005-01-01

    Background Journal impact factor (IF) is linked to the probability of a paper being cited and is progressively becoming incorporated into researchers' curricula vitae. Furthermore, the decision as to which journal a given study should be submitted, may well be based on the trend in the journal's overall quality. This study sought to assess time trends in journal IF in the field of public, environmental and occupational health. Methods We used the IFs of 80 public health journals that were registered by the Science Citation Index from 1992 through 2003 and had been listed for a minimum period of the previous 3 years. Impact factor time trends were assessed using a linear regression model, in which the dependent variable was IF and the independent variable, the year. The slope of the model and its statistical significance were taken as the indicator of annual change. Results The IF range for the journals covered went from 0.18 to 5.2 in 2003. Although there was no statistical association between annual change and mean IF, most of the fastest growing journals registered mean IFs in excess of 1.5, and some represented emerging areas of public health research. Graphs displaying IF trends are shown. Conclusion In view of the delay between the publication of IFs and that of any given paper, knowing the trend in IF is essential in order to make a correct choice of journal. PMID:15777471

  8. 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

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

    PubMed

    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.

  10. Comparison between Impact factor, SCImago journal rank indicator and Eigenfactor score of nuclear medicine journals.

    PubMed

    Ramin, Sadeghi; Sarraf Shirazi, Alireza

    2012-08-27

    Despite its widespread acceptance in the scientific world, impact factor (IF) has been criticized recently on many accounts: including lack of quality assessment of the citations, influence of self citation, English language bias, etc. In the current study, we evaluated three indices of journal scientific impact: (IF), Eigenfactor Score (ES), and SCImago Journal rank indicator (SJR) of nuclear medicine journals. Overall 13 nuclear medicine journals are indexed in ISI and SCOPUS and 7 in SCOPUS only. Self citations, Citations to non-English articles, citations to non-citable items and citations to review articles contribute to IFs of some journals very prominently, which can be better detected by ES and SJR to some extent. Considering all three indices while judging quality of the nuclear medicine journals would be a better strategy due to several shortcomings of IF.

  11. 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…

  12. Structure of the 2003 impact factor for Croatian medical journal.

    PubMed

    Kovacic, Natasa

    2004-12-01

    According to the Journal Citation Report from the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI), the last year's (2003) impact factor (IF) of the Croatian Medical Journal (CMJ) was 0.943. To determine the factors that contributed to this significant increase in the IF, we analyzed the structure of citations to CMJ in the ISI's publications, Science Citation Index (SCI), and Social Science Citation Index (SSCI). Thematic issues generally acquired more citations than regular issues. Furthermore, citation number varied for different article types. The citations to the original scientific articles corresponded to the average number of citations for the current IF value, whereas reviews and especially case reports were cited less frequently, and negatively contributed to the IF of the journal. Only half of all articles published in two previous years were cited in 2003. The majority of these articles were cited once or twice, whereas only 15 articles received more than three citations. Journal self-citations are still an important contributor to the CMJ's IF (39.6%). Their proportion may decrease in time, by further improving the visibility of the journal, and thus acquiring greater number of independent citations. In future, we can expect year-to-year variations in the journals IF. This trend may be positive on a long-term basis, but expectation of a value significantly higher than 1 is unrealistic. CMJ is small general medical journal whose quality-oriented editorial policy may in the long-term result in the increase in the IF.

  13. ISI's Impact Factor as Misnomer: A Proposed New Measure To Assess Journal Impact.

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Harter, Stephen P.; Nisonger, Thomas E.

    1997-01-01

    Discusses "impact factor," a measure of journal impact defined by the Institute of Scientific Information (ISI) and available in Journal Citation Reports. Argues that "impact factor" is misnamed and misused, suggesting an alternative name and interpretation of the measure, and proposes two new measures to assess the impact of…

  14. ISI's Impact Factor as Misnomer: A Proposed New Measure To Assess Journal Impact.

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Harter, Stephen P.; Nisonger, Thomas E.

    1997-01-01

    Discusses "impact factor," a measure of journal impact defined by the Institute of Scientific Information (ISI) and available in Journal Citation Reports. Argues that "impact factor" is misnamed and misused, suggesting an alternative name and interpretation of the measure, and proposes two new measures to assess the impact of…

  15. Calculating impact factor: how bibliographical classification of journal items affects the impact factor of large and small journals.

    PubMed

    Golubic, Rajna; Rudes, Mihael; Kovacic, Natasa; Marusic, Matko; Marusic, Ana

    2008-03-01

    As bibliographical classification of published journal items affects the denominator in this equation, we investigated how the numerator and denominator of the impact factor (IF) equation were generated for representative journals in two categories of the Journal Citation Reports (JCR). We performed a full text search of the 1st-ranked journal in 2004 JCR category "Medicine, General and Internal" (New England Journal of Medicine, NEJM, IF = 38.570) and 61st-ranked journal (Croatian Medical Journal, CMJ, IF = 0.690), 1st-ranked journal in category "Multidisciplinary Sciences" (Nature, IF = 32.182) and journal with a relative rank of CMJ (Anais da Academia Brasileira de Ciencias, AABC, IF = 0.435). Large journals published more items categorized by Web of Science (WoS) as non-research items (editorial material, letters, news, book reviews, bibliographical items, or corrections): 63% out of total 5,193 items in Nature and 81% out of 3,540 items in NEJM, compared with 31% out of 283 items in CMJ and only 2 (2%) out of 126 items in AABC. Some items classified by WoS as non-original contained original research data (9.5% in Nature, 7.2% in NEJM, 13.7% in CMJ and none in AABC). These items received a significant number of citations: 6.9% of total citations in Nature, 14.7% in NEJM and 18.5% in CMJ. IF decreased for all journals when only items presenting original research and citations to them were used for IF calculation. Regardless of the journal's size or discipline, publication of non-original research and its classification by the bibliographical database have an effect on both numerator and denominator of the IF equation.

  16. 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.

  17. 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.

  18. [Characteristics of nursing publications in journals with impact factor].

    PubMed

    Díaz-Membrives, Montserrat; Farrero-Muñoz, Sara; Lluch-Canut, Maria Teresa

    2012-01-01

    The aims of this study were to identify publishing characteristics of nursing journals with impact factor (IF) and to discuss methodological characteristics and authorship of original papers with IF. A retrospective descriptive study. A literature review was performed between 2009 and 2010 including all nursing publications indexed in the Journal Citation Reports (JCR) and analysis of selected original papers. The information was analyzed using descriptive statistics. In 2009, there were 74 nursing journals with an IF and in 2010 increased upto 91. In 2010, 93.5% were published in English, bimonthly journals predominated (43%) and for specialties, maternity and paediatrics were the most frequent (25%). Almost three-quarters (72.8%) of the original articles were quantitative studies performed mostly in hospitals (42%) and with patient samples (34.6%). The most frequently studied topics were "evidence-based care" (23.5%), "measuring quality care" (18.52%) and "effectiveness of nursing interventions" (14.81%). Authors came mostly from Europe and United States and the most common workplace was a university. Nursing Journals' Impact Factor has increased, particularly in areas of nurse specialization. Nursing publications in the Spanish language with IF are still incipient. Quantitative research continues to dominate. The main topics are effectiveness, evidence, and quality care, and researchers come mostly from academic areas. Copyright © 2011 Elsevier España, S.L. All rights reserved.

  19. Impact factor trends for general medical journals: non-English-language journals are lacking behind.

    PubMed

    Vinther, S; Rosenberg, J

    2012-09-25

    The impact factor (IF) is a common citation metric used for evaluating and comparing scientific journals within a certain field. Previous studies have shown that IFs are increasing. However, rates may depend on journal publication language. The aim of this study was to determine IF values and trends for general medical journals, comparing non-English-language with English-language journals. For all journals categorised as "medicine, general and internal" (n = 150) in the Journal Citation Reports (JCR), publication language, country of origin and IFs for the last 10 years were recorded (2001-2010). Data were classified, analysed descriptively and compared using non-parametric tests. From 2001 to 2010, IFs increased for English-language and non-English-language journals (p <0.001). During the 10-year study period, IFs were higher for English-language than for non-English-language journals (p <0.001). The proportion of non-English-language journals included in the JCR was 12.2% in 2001 and 18.0% in 2010 (p = 0.28). From 2001 to 2010, IFs increased significantly for English-language and non-English-language journals. When comparing IF values year-by-year (2001-2010), IFs were significantly higher for English-language than for non-English-language journals. In an international scientific community with English as the universal language of science, non-English-language journals should consider changing publication language, and adopt either a bi- or a monolingual approach. Publishing in English will increase citation counts and thus IFs, but, more importantly, scientific findings will be accessible to a much wider audience.

  20. The ups and downs of journal impact factors.

    PubMed

    Ogden, Trevor L; Bartley, David L

    2008-03-01

    The journal impact factor (JIF) for The Annals of Occupational Hygiene rose 68% between 2005 and 2006. JIFs are widely publicized and may influence subscriptions and where authors submit papers, so they are much discussed in the publishing world. But although they tell us something about a journal's citation performance, their shortcomings mean that they are poor general indicators of journal quality, and worse guides to the quality of authors and their institutions. The shortcomings include the following. (i) The two cited years may completely misrepresent the total current citation rate for the journal. (ii) The short citation period (1 year) results in many papers not contributing to the JIF, and usually two-thirds or more of the JIF depend on the most-cited 25% of papers. (iii) The JIF of the journal where a paper is published is therefore a very poor guide to the paper's citation performance or the success of the author. Citation counts more specific to the author are much better. (iv) The JIF depends strongly on the subject of the journal, even within the published categories. (v) Statistical analysis shows that the relative standard deviation of year-to-year variation of a JIF for a journal with a JIF approximately 1.5 is likely to be between 10 and 20%, on top of any longer trend. Quotation of JIFs to three decimal places is therefore meaningless, and, for a journal like Annals of Occupational Hygiene, a single annual change of 70% could easily be due to a chance shift from a negative to positive fluctuation. (vi) The citations counted are not only of individual papers, so it is difficult to reproduce the JIF calculation. (vii) The selection of journals has been criticized, for example, the alleged emphasis on American- or English-language publications. This journal's JIF does not noticeably influence the number of papers submitted to this journal, although it may influence some important authors. JIFs in our field seem to be increasing by approximately 5

  1. [Acupuncture clinical trials published in high impact factor journals].

    PubMed

    Hu, Min; Liu, Jian-Ping; Wu, Xiao-Ke

    2014-12-01

    Acupuncture clinical trials are designed to provide reliable evidence of clinical efficacy, and SCI papers is one of the high-quality clinical efficacy of acupuncture research. To analyze these papers published in high impact factor journals on acupuncture clinical trials, we can study clinical trials from design to implementation, the efficacy of prevention and cure, combined with international standard practices to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of acupuncture. That is the core of acupuncture clinical trials, as well as a prerequisite for outstanding academic output. A scientific and complete acupuncture clinical trial should be topically novel, designed innovative, logically clear, linguistically refining, and the most important point lies in a great discovery and solving the pragmatic problem. All of these are critical points of papers to be published in high impact factor journal, and directly affect international evaluation and promotion of acupuncture.

  2. Research on the Relationships between Chinese Journal Impact Factors and External Web Link Counts and Web Impact Factors

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    An, Lu; Qiu, Junping

    2004-01-01

    Journal impact factors (JIFs) as determined by the Institute for Scientific and Technological Information of China (ISTIC) of forty-two Chinese engineering journals were compared with external Web link counts, obtained from Lycos, and Web Impact Factors (WIFs) of corresponding journal Web sites to determine if any significant correlation existed…

  3. Environment for nursing scholarship and journal impact factors in Taiwan.

    PubMed

    Ketefian, Shaké; Dai, Yu-Tzu

    2010-06-01

    Universities are seeking objective measures to assess their faculty members' research output in order to improve their national and international standing. Despite concerns, many have adopted the impact factor of journals for this purpose. The objective of this study was to explore the conditions that have been created within Taiwan as a result of such national and institutional policies. A case study design was used. Information was sought from five senior faculty members, who responded to a questionnaire with items derived from the literature. A key participant provided context within the country. The data were summarized and described. The respondents confirmed the presence of governmental and university policies for publication in high-impact factor journals; they saw some positive aspects, yet described the obstacles faced by many scholars, felt that the policies led to competition rather than cooperation, and viewed national, compared to international, publications in opposing terms. The findings are discussed within the context of current nursing literature. It is recommended that, where impact factors are used, they not be the only quality measure. A larger and more representative study is also recommended.

  4. 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

  5. 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.

  6. The association between impact factors and language of general internal medicine journals.

    PubMed

    Mueller, Paul S; Murali, Narayana S; Cha, Stephen S; Erwin, Patricia F; Ghosh, Amit K

    2006-07-08

    We sought to determine the associations between journal country of origin and language and journal impact factor of general medicine journals. For each "Medicine, General and Internal" journal listed in the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) Journal Citation Reports (JCR), the 2003 impact factor, language (ie, English, multiple languages [including English], or non-English), and country of origin (ie, US or non-US) were determined. The mean log impact factors of the journals by language, country of origin, and a combination of country of origin and language were compared. Of the 102 "Medicine, General and Internal" journals listed in the ISI JCR, 41 (40%) were published in the US and 83 (81%) were published in English. English-language journals had a significantly greater 2003 mean log impact factor than non-English journals and journals originating in the US had a significantly greater impact factor than journals originating elsewhere. However, the mean log impact factor of English-language journals originating in the US did not differ significantly from that of English-language journals originating elsewhere. Journal impact factor is more associated with journal language (ie, English versus non-English), rather than journal country of origin.

  7. [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.

  8. Bradford's law, the long tail principle, and transparency in Journal Impact Factor calculations.

    PubMed

    Fernandez-Llimos, Fernando

    2016-01-01

    Beyond the commonly mentioned limitations of the Journal Impact Factor, we discuss the obsolete principle of selecting journals to create a fake-representative sample of 'journals that matter' and the opacity around the calculation and listing of Impact Factors. We use the example of Pharmacy Practice: in 2015 for illustration. We hypothesize that a business-oriented system of measuring the science and quality of scholarly journals may not be the best option to avoid biases and conflicts of interest.

  9. 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.

  10. 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…

  11. 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...

  12. 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…

  13. 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…

  14. On indexing in the Web of Science and predicting journal impact factor.

    PubMed

    Wu, Xiu-Fang; Fu, Qiang; Rousseau, Ronald

    2008-07-01

    We discuss what document types account for the calculation of the journal impact factor (JIF) as published in the Journal Citation Reports (JCR). Based on a brief review of articles discussing how to predict JIFs and taking data differences between the Web of Science (WoS) and the JCR into account, we make our own predictions. Using data by cited-reference searching for Thomson Scientific's WoS, we predict 2007 impact factors (IFs) for several journals, such as Nature, Science, Learned Publishing and some Library and Information Sciences journals. Based on our colleagues' experiences we expect our predictions to be lower bounds for the official journal impact factors. We explain why it is useful to derive one's own journal impact factor.

  15. On indexing in the Web of Science and predicting journal impact factor

    PubMed Central

    Wu, Xiu-fang; Fu, Qiang; Rousseau, Ronald

    2008-01-01

    We discuss what document types account for the calculation of the journal impact factor (JIF) as published in the Journal Citation Reports (JCR). Based on a brief review of articles discussing how to predict JIFs and taking data differences between the Web of Science (WoS) and the JCR into account, we make our own predictions. Using data by cited-reference searching for Thomson Scientific’s WoS, we predict 2007 impact factors (IFs) for several journals, such as Nature, Science, Learned Publishing and some Library and Information Sciences journals. Based on our colleagues’ experiences we expect our predictions to be lower bounds for the official journal impact factors. We explain why it is useful to derive one’s own journal impact factor. PMID:18600790

  16. Discussing some basic critique on Journal Impact Factors: revision of earlier comments.

    PubMed

    van Leeuwen, Thed

    2012-08-01

    In this study the issue of the validity of the argument against the applied length of citation windows in Journal Impact Factors calculations is critically re-analyzed. While previous studies argued against the relatively short citation window of 1-2 years, this study shows that the relative short term citation impact measured in the window underlying the Journal Impact Factor is a good predictor of the citation impact of the journals in the next years to come. Possible exceptions to this observation relate to journals with relatively low numbers of publications, and the citation impact related to publications in the year of publication. The study focuses on five Journal Subject Categories from the science and social sciences, on normal articles published in these journals, in the 2 years 2000 and 2004.

  17. 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.

  18. 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.

  19. The journal impact factor: how to interpret its true value and importance.

    PubMed

    Grzybowski, Andrzej

    2009-02-01

    In 1955, Garfield suggested that the number of references could be used to measure the "impact" of a journal, but the term "impact factor" was introduced in 1963 by Garfield and Sher. The primary goal of impact factor analysis was to improve the management of library journal collections. Single-parameter measurements of the quality of a journal article have become increasingly popular as a substitute for scientific quality. The simplicity of its counting system and convenience of its use are significant benefits. Probably for these reasons, funding bodies, academic authorities, and some governments began using the impact factor to guide decisions about allocating grants, awarding appointments and academic degrees, and defining scientific policy. The journal impact factor, which is often recognized as a symbol of scientific prestige and relevance, can be, however, greatly influenced by the type of medical article (review vs original work), clinical specialty, and research. The true value and implications of the journal impact factor (JIF) are important to understand. It is critical to remember that JIF can be used only to evaluate journals. All comparisons should include only journals and never individuals or departments. Only similar journals (particularly those dedicated to the same scientific specialty) must be compared, because the value of the impact factor varies greatly by discipline.

  20. [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

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

    PubMed Central

    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. PMID:27560807

  2. Bradford’s law, the long tail principle, and transparency in Journal Impact Factor calculations

    PubMed Central

    Beyond the commonly mentioned limitations of the Journal Impact Factor, we discuss the obsolete principle of selecting journals to create a fake-representative sample of ‘journals that matter’ and the opacity around the calculation and listing of Impact Factors. We use the example of Pharmacy Practice: in 2015 for illustration. We hypothesize that a business-oriented system of measuring the science and quality of scholarly journals may not be the best option to avoid biases and conflicts of interest. PMID:27785170

  3. 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

  4. Rethinking the meaning and significance of journal impact factors.

    PubMed

    Ironside, Pamela M

    2007-06-01

    It is not the case that impact factors are unhelpful and that their use should be abolished. Indeed, ISI is continuing to refine existing and develop new databases to provide important information to researchers, administrators, librarians, and editors. Impact factor data do provide useful information for the review process if used judiciously and with an awareness of what these data do and do not indicate. Perhaps it is timely for members of the nursing discipline to think more broadly about the nature of impact and to talk more about the ways in which review processes can account for the many ways the impact of research can be demonstrated. For example, as part of the review process, reviewers might ask each researcher to provide exemplars from teaching or clinical practice settings in which their research is actually being used. Researchers might also be asked to describe the impact that has occurred in ways other than through publication (e.g., presentations, consulting) and how this impact was determined. Creating review processes that allow researchers to describe their decision making related to disseminating their research and how this reflects their ability to influence the discipline may provide a more realistic picture of impact than calculated figures alone.

  5. Relationship between journal impact factor and levels of evidence in anaesthesia.

    PubMed

    Bain, C R; Myles, P S

    2005-10-01

    Evidence-based medicine uses a hierarchy of publication types according to their vulnerability to bias. A widely used measure of journal "quality" is its impact factor, which describes the citation rate of its publications. We investigated the relationship between impact factor for eight anaesthesia journals and publication type with respect to their level of evidence 1-4 using Spearman rank correlation (rho). There were 1418 original publications during 2001 included in the analysis. The number (%) of publication types according to evidence-based medicine level were: level 1:6 (0.4%), level 2:533 (38%) level 3:329 (23%), level 4:550 (39%). There was no correlation between journal ranking according to impact factor and publication type (rho =-0.03, P=0.25). The correlation between journal rank and the proportion of publications that were randomized trials was -0.35 (P<0.001). The correlation between journal rank and number of publications was 0.65 (P<0.001). The correlation between journal rank and number of level 1 or 2 studies was 0.58 (P<0.001). The overall level of evidence published in anaesthesia journals was high. Journal rank according to impact factor is related to the number of publications, but not the proportion of publications that are evidence-based medicine level 1 or 2.

  6. 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…

  7. 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…

  8. 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…

  9. 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

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

    PubMed

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

    2012-01-01

    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. 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. 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 (R(2) = 0.607, 95% CI 0.444 to 0.706, P<0.001). For the clinical literature, measures of scientific quality and clinical newsworthiness available at the time of publication can predict JIFs with 60% accuracy.

  11. [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.

  12. 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…

  13. Improving the Accuracy of the Institute for Scientific Information's Journal Impact Factors.

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Moed, H. F.; Van Leeuwen, T. N.

    1995-01-01

    Discussion of impact factors of scientific journals focuses on a study that examined the Institute for Scientific Information's annual listing based upon data from the Science Citation Index. This article presents evidence that the values of the impact factors are often inaccurate due to an inappropriate definition of citable documents.…

  14. 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…

  15. Brazilian impact factor of physics journals--the third side of the coin.

    PubMed

    Mohallem, José R; da Fonseca, Norma E

    2015-01-01

    The lack of correlation between the Journal Impact Factors and the most cited Brazilian papers in physics is statistically demonstrated. The existence of an effective "Brazilian Impact Factor" is observed, being its values, in general, lower than the international Impact Factors. In some cases, discrepancies from the international values are huge, leading to doubts on whether it is appropriate to use this indicator to judge Brazilian scientists.

  16. 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.

  17. 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

  18. The Use of Twitter by Radiology Journals: An Analysis of Twitter Activity and Impact Factor.

    PubMed

    Kelly, Brendan S; Redmond, Ciaran E; Nason, Gregory J; Healy, Gerard M; Horgan, Niall A; Heffernan, Eric J

    2016-11-01

    Medical journals use social media as a means to disseminate new research and interact with readers. The microblogging site Twitter is one such platform. The aim of this study was to analyze the recent use of Twitter by the leading radiology journals. The top 50 journals by Impact Factor were included. Twitter profiles associated with these journals, or their corresponding societies, were identified. Whether each journal used other social media platforms was also recorded. Each Twitter profile was analyzed over a one-year period, with data collected via Twitonomy software. Klout scores of social media influence were calculated. Results were analyzed in SPSS using Student's t test, Fisher contingency tables, and Pearson correlations to identify any association between social media interaction and Impact Factors of journals. Fourteen journals (28%) had dedicated Twitter profiles. Of the 36 journals without dedicated Twitter profiles, 25 (50%) were associated with societies that had profiles, leaving 11 (22%) journals without a presence on Twitter. The mean Impact Factor of all journals was 3.1 ± 1.41 (range, 1.7-6.9). Journals with Twitter profiles had higher Impact Factors than those without (mean, 3.37 vs 2.14; P < .001). There was no statistically significant difference between the Impact Factors of the journals with dedicated Twitter profiles and those associated with affiliated societies (P = .47). Since joining Twitter, 7 of the 11 journals (64%) experienced increases in Impact Factor. A greater number of Twitter followers was correlated with higher journal Impact Factor (R(2) = 0.581, P = .029). The investigators assessed the prevalence and activity of the leading radiology journals on Twitter. Radiology journals with Twitter profiles have higher Impact Factors than those without profiles, and the number of followers of a journal's Twitter profile is positively associated with Impact Factor. Copyright © 2016 American College of Radiology. Published by

  19. 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.

  20. 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,…

  1. 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,…

  2. 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.

  3. 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

  4. 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.

  5. 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

  6. [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.

  7. 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…

  8. 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…

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

    PubMed Central

    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 r2 = 0.26, range 0.18–1.0). Conclusion. The impact

  10. 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

  11. Peer review and journal impact factor: the two pillars of contemporary medical publishing

    PubMed Central

    Triaridis, S; Kyrgidis, A

    2010-01-01

    The appraisal of scientific quality is a particularly difficult problem. Editorial boards resort to secondary criteria including crude publication counts, journal prestige, the reputation of authors and institutions, and estimated importance and relevance of the research field, making peer review a controversial rather than a rigorous process. On this background different methods for evaluating research may become required, including citation rates and journal impact factors (IF), which are thought to be more quantitative and objective indicators, directly related to published science. The aim of this review is to go into the two pillars of contemporary medical publishing, that is the peer review process and the IF. Qualified experts' reviewing the publications appears to be the only way for the evaluation of medical publication quality. To improve and standardise the principles, procedures and criteria used in peer review evaluation is of great importance. Standardizing and improving training techniques for peer reviewers, would allow for the magnification of a journal's impact factor. This may be a very important reason that impact factor and peer review need to be analyzed simultaneously. Improving a journal's IF would be difficult without improving peer-review efficiency. Peer-reviewers need to understand the fundamental principles of contemporary medical publishing, that is peer-review and impact factors. The current supplement of the Hippokratia for supporting its seminar for reviewers will help to fulfil some of these scopes. PMID:21487485

  12. 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…

  13. 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…

  14. The impact factor of an open access journal does not contribute to an article's citations.

    PubMed

    Chua, S K; Qureshi, Ahmad M; Krishnan, Vijay; Pai, Dinker R; Kamal, Laila B; Gunasegaran, Sharmilla; Afzal, M Z; Ambawatta, Lahiru; Gan, J Y; Kew, P Y; Winn, Than; Sood, Suneet

    2017-01-01

    Background Citations of papers are positively influenced by the journal's impact factor (IF). For non-open access (non-OA) journals, this influence may be due to the fact that high-IF journals are more often purchased by libraries, and are therefore more often available to researchers, than low-IF journals. This positive influence has not, however, been shown specifically for papers published in open access (OA) journals, which are universally accessible, and do not need library purchase. It is therefore important to ascertain if the IF influences citations in OA journals too. Methods 203 randomized controlled trials (102 OA and 101 non-OA) published in January 2011 were included in the study. Five-year citations for papers published in OA journals were compared to those for non-OA journals. Source papers were derived from PubMed. Citations were retrieved from Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar databases. The Thompson-Reuter's IF was used. Results OA journals were found to have significantly more citations overall compared to non-OA journals (median 15.5 vs 12, p=0.039). The IF did not correlate with citations for OA journals (Spearman's rho =0.187, p=0.60). The increase in the citations with increasing IF was minimal for OA journals (beta coefficient = 3.346, 95% CI -0.464, 7.156, p=0.084). In contrast, the IF did show moderate correlation with citations for articles published in non-OA journals (Spearman's rho=0.514, p<0.001). The increase in the number of citations was also significant (beta coefficient = 4.347, 95% CI 2.42, 6.274, p<0.001). Conclusion It is better to publish in an OA journal for more citations. It may not be worth paying high publishing fees for higher IF journals, because there is minimal gain in terms of increased number of citations. On the other hand, if one wishes to publish in a non-OA journal, it is better to choose one with a high IF.

  15. 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

    2017-06-04

    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.

  16. First CytoJournal Peer-Reviewer's Retreat in 2006 – Open access, peer-review, and impact factor

    PubMed Central

    Shidham, Vinod B; Sandweiss, Lynn; Atkinson, Barbara F

    2006-01-01

    CytoJournal organized its first Peer-Reviewer's Retreat of 2006 during the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology Annual Meeting at Atlanta on Feb 12, 2006. The major topics discussed were open access, peer review, and impact factors. Representative participants volunteered to join the task force to prepare an instructional guide for peer-reviewing cytopathology manuscripts. Concern about the impact factor for CytoJournal was discussed. A feedback to its readers and authors was recommended. Impact factor calculation needs at least three years of journal statistics. It is only possible after two years from the time a journal is first accepted by Thomson-ISI for citation tracking. CytoJournal is still too new for an impact factor to be calculated. However, general progress of CytoJournal suggests an encouraging pattern for high impact factor. PMID:16566816

  17. 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.

  18. Ophthalmology and vision science research. Part 1: Understanding and using journal impact factors and citation indices.

    PubMed

    Cartwright, Victoria A; McGhee, Charles N J

    2005-10-01

    In an increasingly "publish or perish" clinical and academic environment, all clinicians and clinician-scientists involved in research must have a firm understanding of the measures commonly used to assess the quality of scientific journals and, by default, those extended to grade individual articles and authors. The publication of research is a vital part of clinical and experimental research, and citation analyses of research publications have increasingly been adopted as a means of assessing the apparent quality of journals and the research published therein. In the first of a series of articles for those embarking on ophthalmic and vision science research, this paper discusses the key features of citation analysis, concentrating on the 2004 Journal Citation Report figures for the field of ophthalmology that include 42 ophthalmology, vision science, physiological optics, and optometry journals. The Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) calculates a number of parameters including citation counts, Journal Impact Factor (JIF), Immediacy Index, and cited/citing half-life. This article discusses the methods of calculation and possible uses along with current controversies and potential abuses. The JIF and its relevance, potential bias, and limitations are discussed in depth as it has become the most widely used analysis of journal quality. The possible alternatives to ISI citation analysis are presented, and we conclude that citation analysis can be considered a reasonable measure of journal research quality only if used correctly.

  19. 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…

  20. Impact factor and other standardized measures of journal citation: a perspective.

    PubMed

    Mathur, Vijay Prakash; Sharma, Ashutosh

    2009-01-01

    The impact factor of journals has been widely used as glory quotients. Despite its limitations, this citation metric is widely used to reflect scientific merit and standing in one's field. Apart from the impact factor, other bibliometric indicators are also available but are not as popular among decision makers. These indicators are the immediacy index and cited half-life. The impact factor itself is affected by a wide range of sociological and statistical factors. This paper discusses the limitations of the impact factor with suggestions of how it can be used and how it should not be used. It also discusses how other bibliometric indicators can be used to assess the quality of publications.

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

    PubMed Central

    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. PMID:27105434

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. Knowledge of journal impact factors among nursing faculty: a cross-sectional study

    PubMed Central

    Kumaran, Maha; Ha, Chau

    2017-01-01

    Objective The research assessed nursing faculty awareness and knowledge of the journal impact factor (JIF) and its impact on their publication choices. Methods A qualitative cross-sectional questionnaire was developed using Fluid Survey and distributed electronically to nursing faculty and instructors at three post-secondary institutions in Saskatchewan. Data were collected on place and status of employment, knowledge and awareness of JIFs, and criteria used to choose journals for publication. Results A total of forty-four nursing faculty and instructors completed the questionnaire. The authors found that faculty lack awareness or complete understanding of JIFs and that JIFs are not the most important or only criterion used when they choose a journal for publication. Conclusions There are various reasons for choosing a journal for publication. It is important for librarians to understand faculty views of JIFs and their criteria for choosing journals for publication, so that librarians are better equipped to guide researchers in considering their academic goals, needs, and personal values. PMID:28377676

  5. The distribution of forensic journals, reflections on authorship practices, peer-review and role of the impact factor.

    PubMed

    Jones, Alan Wayne

    2007-01-17

    This article presents information about journals specializing in the forensic sciences and legal medicine, their development and distribution and their current status as reflected in the journal impact factor. The first scientific journal devoted to spreading information and reporting new developments in social and legal medicine seemingly originated in Germany about 150 years ago. The official journal of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences (Journal of Forensic Sciences, JFS) was founded in 1956 and has enjoyed 50 years of scholarly publishing. The two leading European journals specializing in forensics are Forensic Science International (FSI) and International Journal of Legal Medicine (IJLM). Besides the size of the circulation, the readership numbers, the quality of the editorial staff and the peer-reviewers, the number of submitted and accepted manuscripts, considerable interest has focused on the journal's impact factor as a measure of prestige. The 2006 impact factor of a certain journal is derived by counting the number of citations in 2006 to all material published in the journal in the previous 2 years (2004 and 2005) and dividing this total by the number of citable items (articles and reviews) published in the same 2 years. Impact factors for several thousand scientific journals are compiled and published by a company called Thomson Institute for Scientific Information (Thomson ISI) and are available on-line via the database Journal Citation Reports. Forensic journals are grouped within the subject category Medicine, Legal, which currently comprises nine journals a few of which are seemingly unrelated to mainstream forensics. The top-ranked forensic journal in terms of its impact factor was IJLM with a score of just over 2.0 in 2004. This means that the average article published in 2003 and 2002 was cited twice per year in the 2-year window after publication. Impact factors of forensic journals are fairly low in comparison with many other

  6. A New Classification System To Describe the Ageing of Scientific Journals and Their Impact Factors.

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Moed, H. F.; Van Leeuwen, Th. N.; Reedijk, J.

    1998-01-01

    Aging patterns are examined in "formal" use or impact of all scientific journals processed for the "Science Citation Index" during 1981 to 1995. A new classification system of journals in terms of their aging characteristics is introduced. It is shown that the cited half-life, printed in the "Journal Citation…

  7. A New Classification System To Describe the Ageing of Scientific Journals and Their Impact Factors.

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Moed, H. F.; Van Leeuwen, Th. N.; Reedijk, J.

    1998-01-01

    Aging patterns are examined in "formal" use or impact of all scientific journals processed for the "Science Citation Index" during 1981 to 1995. A new classification system of journals in terms of their aging characteristics is introduced. It is shown that the cited half-life, printed in the "Journal Citation…

  8. 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. Exploring the relationship between impact factor and manuscript rejection rates in radiologic journals.

    PubMed

    Kurmis, Andrew P; Kurmis, Timothy P

    2006-01-01

    Stratifying candidates objectively on the merit of publication portfolios is an onerous and difficult task. Institutional committees are under increasing pressure to rank applicants based on previous achievements for appointments/promotions, funding, and awards, and must do so within unforgiving time constraints. The journal impact factor (IF) has been loosely adopted in many circles for assessing article "quality," circumventing detailed review of individual articles. The premise supporting such practice often hinges on assuming that high-IF journals are harder to publish in, for example, have higher rejection rates (RRs), and therefore, authors achieving publication in such periodicals should be "recognized" for their achievement. There is no evidence of previous research linking IF and RR. A subset of Institute for Scientific Information (ISI)-listed radiology journals, for which IF data were available, was identified and a direct-contact survey approach (63.3% response rate) used to ascertain journal manuscript RR. Of the sample reviewed, the ISI-listed IF values ranged from 4.759 to 0.056 (mean 1.491), and editor-reported manuscript RRs from 80.0% to 8.0% (mean 47.8%). Statistical comparison of IF and RR using linear regression yielded an r2 value of 0.223. In summary, this study demonstrates poor linear agreement between IF and RR for manuscripts submitted to peer-reviewed radiology journals. This suggests that journal IF is a poor predictor of RR, and vice versa. This finding may be of interest to institutional committees who have adopted the IF as an indicator of merit in reviewing publication curriculum vitae, and may encourage rethinking of currently practiced candidate assessment approaches.

  10. 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.

  11. 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…

  12. 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

  13. 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.

  14. Citations for Randomized Controlled Trials in Sepsis Literature: The Halo Effect Caused by Journal Impact Factor

    PubMed Central

    Poucke, Sven Van

    2017-01-01

    Citations for randomized controlled trials (RCT) are important for the dissemination of study results. However, predictors of citations for RCTs have not been investigated. The study aimed to investigate the predictors of citations for RCTs in sepsis literature. RCTs that investigated the efficacy of treatment strategies on clinical outcomes in sepsis patients were included, and publication dates were restricted to the period from 2000 to 2016. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews and interventions. A multivariable linear regression model was built to investigate the independent variables associated with total citations. In total, 160 RCTs met our inclusion criteria and were included for analysis. The median of total citations was 28.5 (IQR: 6–76). The journal impact factor (IF) for articles was 6.312 (IQR: 3.143–7.214). The dependent variable was transformed by the square root to improve normality and meet the assumption of homoscedasticity. The journal IF (coefficient: 0.2; 95% CI: 0.16, 0.25) was independently associated with total citations. Large samples were associated with more total citations (coefficient: 0.0026; 95% CI: 0.0013, 0.0039). The study demonstrated that the journal IF was a major determinant of the RCT’s total citation number. PMID:28046105

  15. [The journal impact factor as a parameter for the evaluation of researchers and research].

    PubMed

    Kaltenborn, Karl-Franz; Kuhn, Klaus

    2003-03-15

    The journal impact factor (IF), which is published annually by the Institute for Scientific Information, (Philadelphia, USA), is meanwhile in widespread use as a scientometric parameter for the evaluation of research and researchers in Germany and other European countries. The present article subjects the IF to critical analysis. It first deals with processes of production, transfer, and use of medical knowledge, because the IF intervenes in these processes on account of its reflexivity. Secondary effects of the IF resulting from its reflexivity are discussed with the focus on the level of the author, the journal and the medical discipline as well as on social knowledge processes in society. In addition, the extent to which the IF is appropriate for evaluating the quality of a specific article, of a journal or of individual and collective research achievements is discussed. The present article calls for (1) research evaluation in accordance with the recommendations of the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (German Research Council) and of the Arbeitsgemeinschaft der Wissenschaftlichen Medizinischen Fachgesellschaften (Association of the Scientific Medical Societies) and (2) more intensive occupation with and organization of medical knowledge processes.

  16. 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

    2017-04-21

    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

  17. 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.

  18. 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

  19. 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

  20. 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.

  1. Species Distribution Models and Impact Factor Growth in Environmental Journals: Methodological Fashion or the Attraction of Global Change Science

    PubMed Central

    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. PMID:25386926

  2. Alternative bibliometrics from impact factor improved the esteem of a journal in a 2-year-ahead annual-citation calculation: multivariate analysis of gastroenterology and hepatology journals.

    PubMed

    Roldan-Valadez, Ernesto; Rios, Camilo

    2015-02-01

    A deeper understanding of supplementary bibliometrics beyond the impact factor might provide researchers with a better understanding of the citation process. This study presents a multivariate analysis of gastroenterology and hepatology journals to evaluate the predictive ability of seven bibliometrics in the Web of Science to calculate total cites over a 2-year period. Coincidentally, bibliometrics appearing during 2008, 2009, and 2010, with their corresponding cites in 2010, 2011, and 2012, were recorded from the Journal Citation Reports Science Edition. A linear mixed-effects design using random slopes and intercepts was performed on 51 out of 74 journals in the Gastroenterology and Hepatology category. There was a significant global effect size (R(2) = 0.992; P < 0.001), which yielded a total variance of 99.2%. The strongest predictors in the model were the Eigenfactor Score and Cited Half-life (P < 0.001), followed by the Number of Articles (P = 0.011) and the Immediacy Index (P = 0.021). The impact factor was not a significant predictor. The Eigenfactor Score and Cited Half-life predictors might be the new standards to assess the influence and importance of scientific journals; this approach may help researchers select journals in which to publish their work.

  3. The value of lesser-impact-factor surgical journals as a source of negative and inconclusive outcomes reporting.

    PubMed

    Kanaan, Ziad; Galandiuk, Susan; Abby, Margaret; Shannon, Katherine V; Dajani, Daoud; Hicks, Nathan; Rai, Shesh N

    2011-03-01

    (1) Examine the tendency of peer-reviewed surgical journals to publish positive reports or negative and inconclusive outcome articles as a function of the journals' impact factor (IF). (2) Examine the frequency with which surgical journal editors/publishers adhere to the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors statement on sources of funding and/or conflicts of interest (COI). Evidence-based medicine is often used as a template for measuring quality of medical care. Clinicians put their faith in peer-reviewed articles as quality-assured and reliable information. However, peer-reviewed literature does not provide balanced access to positive, negative, and inconclusive reports. Funding may also influence the decision to publish certain articles and can thus add to the reported bias in the literature. Articles from 15 surgical journals comprising 3 separate journal groups based upon 2006 impact factor (IF) rankings were reviewed. All were published in 2007. Manuscripts were classified by 5 independent reviewers as having positive, negative, or inconclusive primary and secondary outcomes and for statements on funding/COI. Positive reports were defined as P < 0.05, null hypothesis rejected; negative reports defined as P < 0.05, null hypothesis accepted; and inconclusive reports defined as P > 0.05. Inter-observer consistency was affirmed. Separate analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCT) was performed to assess for the quality of published positive and negative trials. We evaluated 2457 published articles. Positive primary outcomes were reported in 67% to 100% of studied articles in selected journals. Negative and inconclusive primary outcomes were less likely to be reported, except for one journal that reported a high of 33% negative articles. Higher-ranked journals published fewer negative and inconclusive studies (5%-7%) than both medium- and lowly-ranked journals (P < 0.0001). The proportion of RCTs published varied, constituting 18% to 21% of

  4. The citation impact of hydrology journals

    NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

    Clark, Martyn P.; Hanson, R. Brooks

    2017-06-01

    We examine a suite of journal-level productivity and citation statistics for six leading hydrology journals in order to help authors understand the robustness and meaning of journal impact factors. The main results are (1) the probability distribution of citations is remarkably homogenous across hydrology journals; (2) hydrology papers tend to have a long-lasting impact, with a large fraction of papers cited after the 2 year window used to calculate the journal impact factor; and (3) journal impact factors are characterized by substantial year-to-year variability (especially for smaller journals), primarily because a small number of highly cited papers have a large influence on the journal impact factor. Consequently, the ranking of hydrology journals with respect to the journal impact factor in a given year does not have much information content. These results highlight problems in using citation data to evaluate hydrologic science. We hope that this analysis helps authors better understand journal-level citation statistics, and also helps improve research assessments in institutions and funding agencies.

  5. Reporting of ethical committee approval and patient consent in the Portuguese Journal of Pulmonology and in the other Portuguese medical journals with impact factor.

    PubMed

    Bernardes, M J; Nunes, R

    2012-01-01

    Reporting of ethical committee (EC) approval and patient consent in publications involving human subjects may be lower than recommended. In this paper this ethical issue was analysed in the Portuguese Journal of Pulmonology and in the other two Portuguese medical journals with impact factor indexed in the ISI Web of Knowledge. Reporting of EC approval and patient consent was searched in all publications involving human subjects published in the Acta Médica Portuguesa, Acta Reumatológica Portuguesa and Portuguese Journal of Pulmonology, from the 1(st) July 2010 until the 30(th) June 2011. The search also looked for the involvement of vulnerable and potentially identifiable subjects. Most of the analysed publications, which included a considerable proportion of vulnerable (23%) and of potentially identifiable case reports (14%), were case reports (49%). Overall EC approval ranged from 0% to 28%, in case reports and prospective studies, respectively, whereas overall patient consent ranged from 0% to 26%. There were not statistically significant differences in results among the selected journals. Reporting of EC approval and patient consent in the three leading Portuguese medical journals has been lower than in their leading world counterparts. This should be taken into account and further audited in future, not only for the protection of the research subjects but also to maintain public trust in the process. Copyright © 2012 Sociedade Portuguesa de Pneumologia. Published by Elsevier España. All rights reserved.

  6. 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.

  7. The level of non-citation of articles within a journal as a measure of quality: a comparison to the impact factor

    PubMed Central

    Weale, Andy R; Bailey, Mick; Lear, Paul A

    2004-01-01

    Background Current methods of measuring the quality of journals assume that citations of articles within journals are normally distributed. Furthermore using journal impact factors to measure the quality of individual articles is flawed if citations are not uniformly spread between articles. The aim of this study was to assess the distribution of citations to articles and use the level of non-citation of articles within a journal as a measure of quality. This ranking method is compared with the impact factor, as calculated by ISI®. Methods Total citations gained by October 2003, for every original article and review published in current immunology (13125 articles; 105 journals) and surgical (17083 articles; 120 journals) fields during 2001 were collected using ISI® Web of Science. Results The distribution of citation of articles within an individual journal is mainly non-parametric throughout the literature. One sixth (16.7%; IQR 13.6–19.2) of articles in a journal accrue half the total number of citations to that journal. There was a broader distribution of citation to articles in higher impact journals and in the field of immunology compared to surgery. 23.7% (IQR 14.6–42.4) of articles had not yet been cited. Levels of non-citation varied between journals and subject fields. There was a significant negative correlation between the proportion of articles never cited and a journal's impact factor for both immunology (rho = -0.854) and surgery journals (rho = -0.924). Conclusion Ranking journals by impact factor and non-citation produces similar results. Using a non-citation rate is advantageous as it creates a clear distinction between how citation analysis is used to determine the quality of a journal (low level of non-citation) and an individual article (citation counting). Non-citation levels should therefore be made available for all journals. PMID:15169549

  8. 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.

  9. 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.

  10. 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.

  11. Impact beyond the impact factor.

    PubMed

    Zupanc, Günther K H

    2014-02-01

    The journal impact factor is an annually calculated number for each scientific journal, based on the average number of times its articles published in the two preceding years have been cited. It was originally devised as a tool for librarians and publishers to provide information about the citation performance of a journal as a whole, but over the last few decades it has increasingly been used to assess the quality of specific articles and the research performance of individual investigators, institutions, and countries. In addition to this clear abuse of the journal impact factor, several conceptual and technical issues limit its usability as a measure of journal reputation, especially when journals are compared across different fields. An author's decision regarding the suitability of a scholarly journal for publication should, therefore, be based on the impact that this journal makes in the field of research, rather than on the journal impact factor.

  12. Use of Journal Citation Reports and Journal Performance Indicators in measuring short and long term journal impact.

    PubMed

    Garfield, E

    2000-12-01

    The impact factor has become the subject of widespread controversy. It has gradually developed to mean both journal and author impact. The emphasis on impact factors obscures the main purpose of bibliographic databases created at the Institute for Scientific Information. I will here show how two of these databases, Journal Citation Reports and the Journal Performance Indicators, can be used to study scientific journals and the articles they publish, as well as the evolution of scientific fields.

  13. 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

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

    PubMed

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

    2015-01-01

    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. 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. 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. 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. We designed the survey questionnaire

  15. 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.

  16. 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

  17. 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

  18. Deep impact: unintended consequences of journal rank

    PubMed Central

    Brembs, Björn; Button, Katherine; Munafò, Marcus

    2013-01-01

    Most researchers acknowledge an intrinsic hierarchy in the scholarly journals (“journal rank”) that they submit their work to, and adjust not only their submission but also their reading strategies accordingly. On the other hand, much has been written about the negative effects of institutionalizing journal rank as an impact measure. So far, contributions to the debate concerning the limitations of journal rank as a scientific impact assessment tool have either lacked data, or relied on only a few studies. In this review, we present the most recent and pertinent data on the consequences of our current scholarly communication system with respect to various measures of scientific quality (such as utility/citations, methodological soundness, expert ratings or retractions). These data corroborate previous hypotheses: using journal rank as an assessment tool is bad scientific practice. Moreover, the data lead us to argue that any journal rank (not only the currently-favored Impact Factor) would have this negative impact. Therefore, we suggest that abandoning journals altogether, in favor of a library-based scholarly communication system, will ultimately be necessary. This new system will use modern information technology to vastly improve the filter, sort and discovery functions of the current journal system. PMID:23805088

  19. The h-Index of Editorial Board Members Correlates Positively With the Impact Factor of Sports Medicine Journals

    PubMed Central

    Kay, Jeffrey; Memon, Muzammil; de SA, Darren; Simunovic, Nicole; Duong, Andrew; Karlsson, Jon; Ayeni, Olufemi Rolland

    2017-01-01

    Background: The h-index is a metric widely used to present both the productivity and impact of an author’s previous publications. Purpose: To evaluate and observe any correlations among the h-indices of 2015 editorial board members from 8 top sports medicine journals. Study Design: Systematic review. Methods: The sex, country of residence, degree, and faculty position of the editorial board members were identified using their respective scientific publication profiles. The h-index and other bibliometric indicators of these editorial board members were obtained using both the Web of Science (WoS) and Google Scholar (GS) databases. Nonparametric statistics were used to analyze differences in h-index values, and regression models were used to assess the ability of the editorial board member’s h-index to predict their journal’s impact factor (IF). Results: A total of 422 editorial board members were evaluated. The median h-index of all editors was 20 (interquartile range [IQR], 19) using GS and 15 (IQR, 15) using WoS. GS h-index values were 1.19 times higher than WoS, with significant correlation between these values (r 2 = 0.88, P = .0001). Editorial board members with a PhD had significantly higher h-indices than those without (GS, P = .0007; WoS, P = .0002), and full professors had higher h-indices than associate and assistant professors (GS, P = .0001; WoS, P = .0001). Overall, there were significant differences in the distribution of the GS (P < .0001) and WoS (P < .0001) h-indices of the editorial board members by 2014 IF of the journals. Both the GS h-index (β coefficient, 0.01228; 95% CI, 0.01035-0.01423; P < .0001) as well as the WoS h-index (β coefficient, 0.01507; 95% CI, 0.01265-0.01749; P < .0001) of editorial board members were significant predictors of the 2014 IF of their journal. Conclusion: The h-indices of editorial board members of top sports medicine journals are significant predictors of the IF of their respective journals.

  20. Behind the curtain of the European journal of physical and rehabilitation medicine: internal audit, impact factor, and more.

    PubMed

    Negrini, S

    2010-06-01

    The European Journal of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine (EJPRM) is listed in PubMed and Current Contents and in 2010 will have its first Impact Factor; the unofficial one in the last two years was around 1.00, coming from 0.04 in 2004; also the independent SCImago Journal Rate and Cites per Doc (2 years) have increased steadily since 2005. These results in the main bibliometric indexes are due to many reasons, including a careful internal audit to guarantee a continuous quality increase of the journal. The aim of this short paper is to report the results of this audit. We continuously register each step of our editorial work to check if there is any problem and where. The evolution of these indicators in the last five years is here analyzed using simple statistical tools. The EJPRM receives today 12 papers per month and publishes more than 600 pages in 4 issues. The rejection rate is now around 60%, starting from 40% in 2005. The review and publication times are 1.54 (quartiles 0.57-2.79) and 8.4 (5.47-10.93) months, respectively: these parameters have decreased in these years, particularly the last one. Papers are mainly clinically oriented, original papers prevails with a 12% of RCTs, meta-analysis and Cochrane reviews in the last 5 years. The EJPRM has a well balanced coverage of different rehabilitation topics. How these indices have been used to improve quality for the readers and authors is here discussed. The actual literature requires such a process, that is one of the main points for quality continuous improvement of scientific journals. The growth of the EJPRM in these years comes from the internal audit using the correct quality indicators and working to increase the actual standards. Together with this, also external factors (development of the specialty in our continent and region, European Society and Mediterranean Forum of PRM role, etc.) and other internal ones (e-Pub, Open Access, Special Sections, Awards, Cochrane reviews, collaboration with

  1. Impact of article language in multi-language medical journals--a bibliometric analysis of self-citations and impact factor.

    PubMed

    Diekhoff, Torsten; Schlattmann, Peter; Dewey, Marc

    2013-01-01

    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). 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. 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.

  2. Comparison of the distribution of citations received by articles published in high, moderate, and low impact factor journals in clinical medicine.

    PubMed

    Falagas, M E; Kouranos, V D; Michalopoulos, A; Rodopoulou, S P; Batsiou, M A; Karageorgopoulos, D E

    2010-08-01

    Whether the journal impact factor (JIF) indicator reflects the number of citations to an average article of a journal in different subject categories is controversial. We sought to further investigate this issue in general and internal medicine journals. We selected to evaluate three journals of the above subject category, in each of three different JIF levels (high: 15.5-28.6, moderate: 4.4-4.9 and low: 1.6). Using the Scopus database, we retrieved the original research articles (after detailed screening) and review articles (as classified by Scopus) that were published in the selected journals in 2005 along with the number of citations they received in 2006 and 2007. We pooled the citations for articles of the same type in journals with the same JIF level into distinct variables. There was no marked association between the distribution of citations per article published in general medical journals and their JIF. All distributions studied were skewed to the right (higher number of citations). Specifically, 16-22% of the original research articles accounted for 50% of the total citations to this type of article for all three categories of studied journals; 34-37% of original research articles accounted for 75% of citations. The respective values for review articles were 12-18% and 29-39%. The distribution of citations received by articles published in high, moderate and low impact factor journals in clinical medicine seems similar. The JIF is not an accurate indicator of the citations the average article receives; articles published in low impact factor journals can still be highly cited and vice versa.

  3. Impact factor of Korean Journal of Pediatrics on Korean Medical Citation Index and Science Citation Index of Web of Science

    PubMed Central

    Choi, Sun Hee; Han, Man Yong; Rha, Yeong Ho; Lee, Young Jin

    2011-01-01

    Purpose The total number of times a paper is cited, also known as the impact factor (IF) of a medical journal, is widely implied in evaluating the quality of a research paper. We evaluated the citation index data as an IF of Korean J Pediatr in Korean Medical Citation Index (KoMCI) and JCI of Web of Science. Methods We calculated the IF of Korean J Pediatr at KoMCI supervised by Korean Association of Medical Journal Editors. And we estimated the IF of Korean J Pediatr by the JCI of Web of Science although it was never officially reported. Results The IF of Korean J Pediatr on KoMCI has increased from 0.100 in the year 2000, to 0.205 in 2008, and 0.326 in 2009. Although the IF of Korean J Pediatr was 0.006 in 2005, 0.018 in 2006, 0.028 in 2008, 0.066 in 2009, and 0.018 in 2010 according to the JCI of Web of Science, the number of citations are steadily increasing. Conclusion Understanding and realizing the current status will be a stepping stone for further improvement. The next objective of the Korean J Pediatr is to become registered in the SCI or SCIE. Increasing the IF according to the JCI of Web of Science is crucial in order to achieve this goal. PMID:21738548

  4. Impact factor of Korean Journal of Pediatrics on Korean Medical Citation Index and Science Citation Index of Web of Science.

    PubMed

    Bae, Chong Woo; Choi, Sun Hee; Han, Man Yong; Rha, Yeong Ho; Lee, Young Jin

    2011-04-01

    The total number of times a paper is cited, also known as the impact factor (IF) of a medical journal, is widely implied in evaluating the quality of a research paper. We evaluated the citation index data as an IF of Korean J Pediatr in Korean Medical Citation Index (KoMCI) and JCI of Web of Science. We calculated the IF of Korean J Pediatr at KoMCI supervised by Korean Association of Medical Journal Editors. And we estimated the IF of Korean J Pediatr by the JCI of Web of Science although it was never officially reported. The IF of Korean J Pediatr on KoMCI has increased from 0.100 in the year 2000, to 0.205 in 2008, and 0.326 in 2009. Although the IF of Korean J Pediatr was 0.006 in 2005, 0.018 in 2006, 0.028 in 2008, 0.066 in 2009, and 0.018 in 2010 according to the JCI of Web of Science, the number of citations are steadily increasing. Understanding and realizing the current status will be a stepping stone for further improvement. The next objective of the Korean J Pediatr is to become registered in the SCI or SCIE. Increasing the IF according to the JCI of Web of Science is crucial in order to achieve this goal.

  5. Some Thoughts on the Future of Libraries, Journals, Impact Factors, and Replicability.

    PubMed

    Elwood, Thomas W

    2016-01-01

    A report on the "The Future of Libraries" is the outcome of a year's worth of discussions among faculty members, staff, and students at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. While its findings and recommendations still are preliminary, the report presents a vision of the library as an "open global platform" that provides access to information to help solve global challenges. Digital access already has changed the face of research, making it more efficient for individual library users. Instead of going to a library building today to find and read books and journal articles, students and faculty access, organize, and read scholarly content on their own electronic devices. This transformation-from libraries where knowledge is accessed individually through analog and digital means into ones where creation and access to knowledge are dynamically networked-will affect all aspects of the research library.

  6. 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.

  7. Impact of Electronic Publishing on Scholarly Journals.

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Koch, H. William

    Three general features of scholarly journals--internal processing, format, and form--are examined with regard to journals published by the American Institute of Physics (AIP). Reasons for the minor impact of electronic processing on output forms and display formats in physics journals are discussed, including the dependence of such journals on the…

  8. Impact of Electronic Publishing on Scholarly Journals.

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Koch, H. William

    Three general features of scholarly journals--internal processing, format, and form--are examined with regard to journals published by the American Institute of Physics (AIP). Reasons for the minor impact of electronic processing on output forms and display formats in physics journals are discussed, including the dependence of such journals on the…

  9. How is impact factor impacting our research?

    PubMed

    Rawat, Seema

    2014-01-01

    The impact factor (IF) of an journal is a measure reflecting the average number of citations to recent articles published in the journal. It is frequently used as a proxy for the relative importance of a journal within its field, with journals with higher impact factors deemed to be more important than those with lower ones. However it is not a perfect metric and has its own limitations. Journals are increasingly finding new ways to improve their impact factor by increasing self citation, publishing more review articles. This correspondence discuss the fallacies of the impact factor.

  10. [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.

  11. Fifty-Year Fate and Impact of General Medical Journals

    PubMed Central

    Ioannidis, John P. A.; Belbasis, Lazaros; Evangelou, Evangelos

    2010-01-01

    Background Influential medical journals shape medical science and practice and their prestige is usually appraised by citation impact metrics, such as the journal impact factor. However, how permanent are medical journals and how stable is their impact over time? Methods and Results We evaluated what happened to general medical journals that were publishing papers half a century ago, in 1959. Data were retrieved from ISI Web of Science for citations and PubMed (Journals function) for journal history. Of 27 eligible journals publishing in 1959, 4 have stopped circulation (including two of the most prestigious journals in 1959) and another 7 changed name between 1959 and 2009. Only 6 of these 27 journals have been published continuously with their initial name since they started circulation. The citation impact of papers published in 1959 gives a very different picture from the current journal impact factor; the correlation between the two is non-significant and very close to zero. Only 13 of the 5,223 papers published in 1959 received at least 5 citations in 2009. Conclusions Journals are more permanent entities than single papers, but they are also subject to major change and their relative prominence can change markedly over time. PMID:20824146

  12. Information on adverse events in randomised clinical trials assessing drug interventions published in four medical journals with high impact factors.

    PubMed

    Maggi, Cátia Bauer; Griebeler, Isabel Heinzmann; Dal Pizzol, Tatiane da Silva

    2014-01-01

    The impact of the extension of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement, which was published in 2004 and aimed to improve the quality of the safety information presented in clinical trials, remains uncertain. To assess the incorporation of the CONSORT statement extension's recommendations in randomised clinical trials (RCTs) evaluating drug therapies published in high-impact medical journals. Using Medline, 122 RCTs published in 2009 were selected from BMJ, JAMA, Lancet, and NEJM. A structured form was used to identify the harms information reported in the RCTs, following the recommendations of the CONSORT statement extension. The most frequently met CONSORT recommendation was the mention of harms in the title or abstract of the paper (72.1% of the papers analysed); the least-met recommendation was the reporting of how the harms information was collected (10.7%). The studies that focused on harms presented better information on safety, but only 10.8% met all recommendations in the CONSORT statement. The adverse event information was insufficient for the RCTs published in four high-impact medical journals five years after the publication of the extension of the CONSORT statement.

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

    PubMed

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

    2007-03-01

    (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. Retrospective analysis of IF data from ISI Web of Knowledge Journal Citation Reports-Science Edition, 1994 to 2005, and interviews with Editors-in-Chief. Medical journal publishing. 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. 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

  14. 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.

  15. Content Factor: a measure of a journal's contribution to knowledge.

    PubMed

    Bernstein, Joseph; Gray, Chancellor F

    2012-01-01

    Impact Factor, the pre-eminent performance metric for medical journals, has been criticized for failing to capture the true impact of articles; for favoring methodology papers; for being unduly influenced by statistical outliers; and for examining a period of time too short to capture an article's long-term importance. Also, in the era of search engines, where readers need not skim through journals to find information, Impact Factor's emphasis on citation efficiency may be misplaced. A better metric would consider the total number of citations to all papers published by the journal (not just the recent ones), and would not be decremented by the total number of papers published. We propose a metric embodying these principles, "Content Factor", and examine its performance among leading medical and orthopaedic surgery journals. To remedy Impact Factor's emphasis on recent citations, Content Factor considers the total number of citations, regardless of the year in which the cited paper was published. To correct for Impact Factor's emphasis on efficiency, no denominator is employed. Content Factor is thus the total number of citations in a given year to all of the papers previously published in the journal. We found that Content Factor and Impact Factor are poorly correlated. We further surveyed 75 experienced orthopaedic authors and measured their perceptions of the "importance" of various orthopaedic surgery journals. The correlation between the importance score and the Impact Factor was only 0.08; the correlation between the importance score and Content Factor was 0.56. Accordingly, Content Factor better reflects a journal's "importance". In sum, while Content Factor cannot be defended as the lone metric of merit, to the extent that performance data informs journal evaluations, Content Factor--an easily obtained and intuitively appealing metric of the journal's knowledge contribution, not subject to gaming--can be a useful adjunct.

  16. 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

  17. 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

  18. 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

  19. Global collaborative networks on meta-analyses of randomized trials published in high impact factor medical journals: a social network analysis

    PubMed Central

    2014-01-01

    Background Research collaboration contributes to the advancement of knowledge by exploiting the results of scientific efforts more efficiently, but the global patterns of collaboration on meta-analysis are unknown. The purpose of this research was to describe and characterize the global collaborative patterns in meta-analyses of randomized trials published in high impact factor medical journals over the past three decades. Methods This was a cross-sectional, social network analysis. We searched PubMed for relevant meta-analyses of randomized trials published up to December 2012. We selected meta-analyses (including at least randomized trials as primary evidence source) published in the top seven high impact factor general medical journals (according to Journal Citation Reports 2011): The New England Journal of Medicine, The Lancet, the BMJ, JAMA, Annals of Internal Medicine, Archives of Internal Medicine (now renamed JAMA Internal Medicine), and PLoS Medicine. Opinion articles, conceptual papers, narrative reviews, reviews without meta-analysis, reviews of reviews, and other study designs were excluded. Results Overall, we included 736 meta-analyses, in which 3,178 authors, 891 institutions, and 51 countries participated. The BMJ was the journal that published the greatest number of articles (39%), followed by The Lancet (18%), JAMA (15%) and the Archives of Internal Medicine (15%). The USA, the UK, and Canada headed the absolute global productivity ranking in number of papers. The 64 authors and the 39 institutions with the highest publication rates were identified. We also found 82 clusters of authors (one group with 55 members and one group with 54 members) and 19 clusters of institutions (one major group with 76 members). The most prolific authors were mainly affiliated with the University of Oxford (UK), McMaster University (Canada), and the University of Bern (Switzerland). Conclusions Our analysis identified networks of authors, institutions and countries

  20. Global collaborative networks on meta-analyses of randomized trials published in high impact factor medical journals: a social network analysis.

    PubMed

    Catalá-López, Ferrán; Alonso-Arroyo, Adolfo; Hutton, Brian; Aleixandre-Benavent, Rafael; Moher, David

    2014-01-29

    Research collaboration contributes to the advancement of knowledge by exploiting the results of scientific efforts more efficiently, but the global patterns of collaboration on meta-analysis are unknown. The purpose of this research was to describe and characterize the global collaborative patterns in meta-analyses of randomized trials published in high impact factor medical journals over the past three decades. This was a cross-sectional, social network analysis. We searched PubMed for relevant meta-analyses of randomized trials published up to December 2012. We selected meta-analyses (including at least randomized trials as primary evidence source) published in the top seven high impact factor general medical journals (according to Journal Citation Reports 2011): The New England Journal of Medicine, The Lancet, the BMJ, JAMA, Annals of Internal Medicine, Archives of Internal Medicine (now renamed JAMA Internal Medicine), and PLoS Medicine. Opinion articles, conceptual papers, narrative reviews, reviews without meta-analysis, reviews of reviews, and other study designs were excluded. Overall, we included 736 meta-analyses, in which 3,178 authors, 891 institutions, and 51 countries participated. The BMJ was the journal that published the greatest number of articles (39%), followed by The Lancet (18%), JAMA (15%) and the Archives of Internal Medicine (15%). The USA, the UK, and Canada headed the absolute global productivity ranking in number of papers. The 64 authors and the 39 institutions with the highest publication rates were identified. We also found 82 clusters of authors (one group with 55 members and one group with 54 members) and 19 clusters of institutions (one major group with 76 members). The most prolific authors were mainly affiliated with the University of Oxford (UK), McMaster University (Canada), and the University of Bern (Switzerland). Our analysis identified networks of authors, institutions and countries publishing meta-analyses of randomized

  1. Scientific Publication Performance of Turkish Anaesthesia Clinics in High Impact Factor International Journals Between 2005 and 2014: A Bibliometric Analysis

    PubMed Central

    Yılmaz, Hüseyin Oğuz; Babazade, Rovnat; Turan, Oğuz Alp; Babazade, Betül; Koyuncu, Onur; Turan, Alparslan

    2017-01-01

    Objective International scientific publication productivity is a tangible indicator for the accuracy of scientific policies. The quality of scientific publications is not increasing despite the fast increase in the publication count in Turkey. The international publication activities of Turkish anaesthesia clinics have not been previously explored. Thus, we aimed to evaluate the high quality scientific productivity of Turkish anesthesia clinics within the last 10 years. Methods We searched for studies conducted by anaesthesiologists in Turkey within the last 10 years and published in journals listed under the medical subject categories of anaesthesiology and critical care using ‘Thomson Reuters InCites’ and PubMed databases. We recorded publication year, subject, method, citation count and origin of each paper and conducted descriptive analyses. Results There were 630 papers meeting our inclusion criteria. Among those, 525 (83%) were studies on anaesthesia, 66 (10%) were studies on critical care and 39 (6%) were studies on pain. The average citation count was 9.90. There were 376 controlled/randomized controlled trials, 98 observational studies, 66 laboratory studies, 64 case series/reports, 5 reviews and 21 letters to the editor. Studies were conducted by universities (82.4%), by training and research hospitals (15.56%), by state and military hospitals (0.63%) and by physicians in private practice (1.27%). Baskent University had the highest publication count, Istanbul University had the highest citation count and Trakya University had the highest publication count per faculty teaching staff. Conclusion The high-impact scientific productivity of Turkish anesthesia clinics is in a downward trend in the last 10 years, and the average citation count is lower than the global average. PMID:28377836

  2. Scientific Publication Performance of Turkish Anaesthesia Clinics in High Impact Factor International Journals Between 2005 and 2014: A Bibliometric Analysis.

    PubMed

    Yılmaz, Hüseyin Oğuz; Babazade, Rovnat; Turan, Oğuz Alp; Babazade, Betül; Koyuncu, Onur; Turan, Alparslan

    2017-02-01

    International scientific publication productivity is a tangible indicator for the accuracy of scientific policies. The quality of scientific publications is not increasing despite the fast increase in the publication count in Turkey. The international publication activities of Turkish anaesthesia clinics have not been previously explored. Thus, we aimed to evaluate the high quality scientific productivity of Turkish anesthesia clinics within the last 10 years. We searched for studies conducted by anaesthesiologists in Turkey within the last 10 years and published in journals listed under the medical subject categories of anaesthesiology and critical care using 'Thomson Reuters InCites' and PubMed databases. We recorded publication year, subject, method, citation count and origin of each paper and conducted descriptive analyses. There were 630 papers meeting our inclusion criteria. Among those, 525 (83%) were studies on anaesthesia, 66 (10%) were studies on critical care and 39 (6%) were studies on pain. The average citation count was 9.90. There were 376 controlled/randomized controlled trials, 98 observational studies, 66 laboratory studies, 64 case series/reports, 5 reviews and 21 letters to the editor. Studies were conducted by universities (82.4%), by training and research hospitals (15.56%), by state and military hospitals (0.63%) and by physicians in private practice (1.27%). Baskent University had the highest publication count, Istanbul University had the highest citation count and Trakya University had the highest publication count per faculty teaching staff. The high-impact scientific productivity of Turkish anesthesia clinics is in a downward trend in the last 10 years, and the average citation count is lower than the global average.

  3. AGU Journals Increase Speed and Impact

    NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

    Warner, Mary

    2014-08-01

    Fast publication and high quality and impact are important for effective dissemination of geoscience research. With this in mind, AGU's journal editors and staff, along with staff at our publishing partner, Wiley, have been working to increase both the speed of publication and the impact of the research published in our 18 peer-reviewed journals while maintaining our commitment to quality. Significant progress continues to be made on both fronts, as evidenced by the most recent publication times and the 2013 release of the Journal Citation Reports®, which was issued by Thomson Reuters on 29 July.

  4. 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

  5. Impact factor distribution revisited

    NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

    Huang, Ding-wei

    2017-09-01

    We explore the consistency of a new type of frequency distribution, where the corresponding rank distribution is Lavalette distribution. Empirical data of journal impact factors can be well described. This distribution is distinct from Poisson distribution and negative binomial distribution, which were suggested by previous study. By a log transformation, we obtain a bell-shaped distribution, which is then compared to Gaussian and catenary curves. Possible mechanisms behind the shape of impact factor distribution are suggested.

  6. 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…

  7. 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…

  8. Subspecialty Influence on Scientific Peer Review for an Obstetrics and Gynecology Journal With a High Impact Factor.

    PubMed

    Parikh, Laura I; Benner, Rebecca S; Riggs, Thomas W; Hazen, Nicholas; Chescheir, Nancy C

    2017-02-01

    To evaluate whether quality of peer review and reviewer recommendation differ based on reviewer subspecialty in obstetrics and gynecology and to determine the role of experience on reviewer recommendation. We performed a retrospective cohort study of reviews submitted to Obstetrics & Gynecology between January 2010 and December 2014. Subspecialties were determined based on classification terms selected by each reviewer and included all major obstetrics and gynecology subspecialties, general obstetrics and gynecology, and nonobstetrics and gynecology categories. Review quality (graded on a 5-point Likert scale by the journal's editors) and reviewer recommendation of "reject" were compared across subspecialties using χ, analysis of variance, and multivariate logistic regression. There were 20,027 reviews from 1,889 individual reviewers. Reviewers with family planning subspecialty provided higher-quality peer reviews compared with reviewers with gynecology only, reproductive endocrinology and infertility, gynecologic oncology, and general obstetrics and gynecology specialties (3.61±0.75 compared with 3.44±0.78, 3.42±0.72, 3.35±0.75, and 3.32±0.81, respectively, P<.05). Reviewers with gynecology-only subspecialty recommended rejection more often compared with reviewers with a nonobstetrics and gynecology subspecialty (57.7% compared with 38.7%, P<.05). Editorial Board members recommended rejection more often than new reviewers (68.0% compared with 41.5%, P<.05). Increased adjusted odds of manuscript rejection recommendation were associated with reproductive endocrinology, female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgery, and gynecology-only reviewer subspecialty (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 1.23 [1.07-1.41], 1.21 [1.05-1.39], and 1.11 [1.02-1.20]). Manuscript rejection recommendation rate was also increased for reviewers who had completed the highest quintile of peer reviews (greater than 195) compared with the lowest quintile (one to seven) (adjusted OR 2.85 [2

  9. The "impact factor" revisited

    PubMed Central

    Dong, Peng; Loh, Marie; Mondry, Adrian

    2005-01-01

    The number of scientific journals has become so large that individuals, institutions and institutional libraries cannot completely store their physical content. In order to prioritize the choice of quality information sources, librarians and scientists are in need of reliable decision aids. The "impact factor" (IF) is the most commonly used assessment aid for deciding which journals should receive a scholarly submission or attention from research readership. It is also an often misunderstood tool. This narrative review explains how the IF is calculated, how bias is introduced into the calculation, which questions the IF can or cannot answer, and how different professional groups can benefit from IF use. PMID:16324222

  10. Impact factors: uses and abuses.

    PubMed

    Neuberger, James; Counsell, Christopher

    2002-03-01

    Quantitative assessment of the scientific merit of journals and articles is being used increasingly to assess and compare researchers and institutions. The most commonly used measure is the 2 year Impact Factor, which broadly reflects the number of times each article in the journal has been cited over the previous 2 years. There are clear limitations to the use of such measures - not least, Impact Factors reflect the journal not the article, vary with time and correlate only poorly with perceived excellence. Simple comparison of impact factors in different specialties may be misleading. Review journals often have higher Impact Factors than those with original data. Both authors and editors can try to manipulate journal Impact Factors. However, despite valid concerns, Impact Factors are widely used and offer, at present, the best simple tool for comparison of output. Like all measures, the use of Impact Factors has to be tempered with knowledge of their limitations and common sense used in interpreting any data based on any analysis.

  11. 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.

  12. [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.

  13. 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

  14. Impact fact-or fiction?

    PubMed Central

    Pulverer, Bernd

    2013-01-01

    The Journal Impact Factor dominates research assessment in many disciplines and in many countries. While research assessment will always have to rely to some extent on quantitative, standardized metrics, the focus on this single measure has gone so far as to hamper and distort scientific research. The Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA), signed by influential journals, funders, academic institutions and individuals across the natural sciences, aims to raise awareness and to redress the use of non-objective research assessment practices. PMID:23685358

  15. Outcome Discrepancies and Selective Reporting: Impacting the Leading Journals?

    PubMed Central

    Fleming, Padhraig S.; Koletsi, Despina; Dwan, Kerry; Pandis, Nikolaos

    2015-01-01

    Background Selective outcome reporting of either interesting or positive research findings is problematic, running the risk of poorly-informed treatment decisions. We aimed to assess the extent of outcome and other discrepancies and possible selective reporting between registry entries and published reports among leading medical journals. Methods Randomized controlled trials published over a 6-month period from July to December 31st, 2013, were identified in five high impact medical journals: The Lancet, British Medical Journal, New England Journal of Medicine, Annals of Internal Medicine and Journal of American Medical Association were obtained. Discrepancies between published studies and registry entries were identified and related to factors including registration timing, source of funding and presence of statistically significant results. Results Over the 6-month period, 137 RCTs were found. Of these, 18% (n = 25) had discrepancies related to primary outcomes with the primary outcome changed in 15% (n = 20). Moreover, differences relating to non-primary outcomes were found in 64% (n = 87) with both omission of pre-specified non-primary outcomes (39%) and introduction of new non-primary outcomes (44%) common. No relationship between primary or non-primary outcome change and registration timing (prospective or retrospective; P = 0.11), source of funding (P = 0.92) and presence of statistically significant results (P = 0.92) was found. Conclusions Discrepancies between registry entries and published articles for primary and non-primary outcomes were common among trials published in leading medical journals. Novel approaches are required to address this problem. PMID:25996928

  16. 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.

  17. 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.

  18. Journalism 2.0: Exploring the Impact of Mobile and Social Media on Journalism Education

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Cochrane, Thomas; Sissons, Helen; Mulrennan, Danni; Pamatatau, Richard

    2013-01-01

    This paper explores the impact of social media upon journalism education from two perspectives: both from the pedagogical changes Web 2.0 and mobile devices enable, and within the context of the changes in journalism that social media use are driving. A participatory action research approach was adopted, beginning with the establishment of a…

  19. Journalism 2.0: Exploring the Impact of Mobile and Social Media on Journalism Education

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Cochrane, Thomas; Sissons, Helen; Mulrennan, Danni; Pamatatau, Richard

    2013-01-01

    This paper explores the impact of social media upon journalism education from two perspectives: both from the pedagogical changes Web 2.0 and mobile devices enable, and within the context of the changes in journalism that social media use are driving. A participatory action research approach was adopted, beginning with the establishment of a…

  20. 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

  1. Global survey of factors influencing choice of surgical journal for manuscript submission.

    PubMed

    Søreide, Kjetil; Winter, Desmond C

    2010-04-01

    An increasing number of general and affiliated specialty society journals make finding the right place for manuscript submission of an article challenging. Little is known about what factors surgeons hold important when choosing a journal for article submission. A global e-mail survey of authors publishing in 5 general surgery journals (Annals of Surgery, British Journal of Surgery, World Journal of Surgery, Archives of Surgery, and Surgery) from January 1, 2007, to December 31, 2008. Demographic data were collected. 15 arbitrarily chosen factors associated with submission strategy were rated for importance on a 5-point modified Likert scale (ranging from 1 representing "unimportant" and 5 representing "very important"). Of 1,855 authors, 250 (14%) responded. Representing 41 countries, 23 (10%) of the respondents were female and 250 (90%) were male. About two thirds of the authors had less than 10 years of clinical practice, with general surgery or gastrointestinal surgery as the major fields of interest represented. Of the 15 factors, the journal "reputation" was rated "very important" (5 points) by 62% of the respondents, followed by the journal "impact factor," which was rated "very important" by 61%, although some geographic differences were noted in this rating. Grouping several factors together in categories, the journal "prestige" and "turnaround time" category was held to be most important based on the average scores received. Age correlated with valued importance of the journal reputation (Spearman rho=0.141; P=.033). The factors considered the least important included the journal's acceptance/rejection rate, the option to suggest peer reviewers, and open access. The majority of seasoned surgeons held the overall reputation of the journal as the most important factor followed by the impact factor when choosing a journal for manuscript submission. Copyright 2010 Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.

  2. 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

  3. Does an expert-based evaluation allow us to go beyond the Impact Factor? Experiences from building a ranking of national journals in Poland.

    PubMed

    Kulczycki, Emanuel; Rozkosz, Ewa A

    2017-01-01

    This article discusses the Polish Journal Ranking, which is used in the research evaluation system in Poland. In 2015, the ranking, which represents all disciplines, allocated 17,437 journals into three lists: A, B, and C. The B list constitutes a ranking of Polish journals that are indexed neither in the Web of Science nor the European Reference Index for the Humanities. This ranking was built by evaluating journals in three dimensions: formal, bibliometric, and expert-based. We have analysed data on 2035 Polish journals from the B list. Our study aims to determine how an expert-based evaluation influenced the results of final evaluation. In our study, we used structural equation modelling, which is regression based, and we designed three pairs of theoretical models for three fields of science: (1) humanities, (2) social sciences, and (3) engineering, natural sciences, and medical sciences. Each pair consisted of the full model and the reduced model (i.e., the model without the expert-based evaluation). Our analysis revealed that the multidimensional evaluation of local journals should not rely only on the bibliometric indicators, which are based on the Web of Science or Scopus. Moreover, we have shown that the expert-based evaluation plays a major role in all fields of science. We conclude with recommendations that the formal evaluation should be reduced to verifiable parameters and that the expert-based evaluation should be based on common guidelines for the experts.

  4. Misconduct policies in high-impact biomedical journals.

    PubMed

    Bosch, Xavier; Hernández, Cristina; Pericas, Juan M; Doti, Pamela; Marušić, Ana

    2012-01-01

    It is not clear which research misconduct policies are adopted by biomedical journals. This study assessed the prevalence and content policies of the most influential biomedical journals on misconduct and procedures for handling and responding to allegations of misconduct. We conducted a cross-sectional study of misconduct policies of 399 high-impact biomedical journals in 27 biomedical categories of the Journal Citation Reports in December 2011. Journal websites were reviewed for information relevant to misconduct policies. Of 399 journals, 140 (35.1%) provided explicit definitions of misconduct. Falsification was explicitly mentioned by 113 (28.3%) journals, fabrication by 104 (26.1%), plagiarism by 224 (56.1%), duplication by 242 (60.7%) and image manipulation by 154 (38.6%). Procedures for responding to misconduct were described in 179 (44.9%) websites, including retraction, (30.8%) and expression of concern (16.3%). Plagiarism-checking services were used by 112 (28.1%) journals. The prevalences of all types of misconduct policies were higher in journals that endorsed any policy from editors' associations, Office of Research Integrity or professional societies compared to those that did not state adherence to these policy-producing bodies. Elsevier and Wiley-Blackwell had the most journals included (22.6% and 14.8%, respectively), with Wiley journals having greater a prevalence of misconduct definition and policies on falsification, fabrication and expression of concern and Elsevier of plagiarism-checking services. Only a third of top-ranking peer-reviewed journals had publicly-available definitions of misconduct and less than a half described procedures for handling allegations of misconduct. As endorsement of international policies from policy-producing bodies was positively associated with implementation of policies and procedures, journals and their publishers should standardize their policies globally in order to increase public trust in the integrity of

  5. Misconduct Policies in High-Impact Biomedical Journals

    PubMed Central

    Bosch, Xavier; Hernández, Cristina; Pericas, Juan M.; Doti, Pamela; Marušić, Ana

    2012-01-01

    Background It is not clear which research misconduct policies are adopted by biomedical journals. This study assessed the prevalence and content policies of the most influential biomedical journals on misconduct and procedures for handling and responding to allegations of misconduct. Methods We conducted a cross-sectional study of misconduct policies of 399 high-impact biomedical journals in 27 biomedical categories of the Journal Citation Reports in December 2011. Journal websites were reviewed for information relevant to misconduct policies. Results Of 399 journals, 140 (35.1%) provided explicit definitions of misconduct. Falsification was explicitly mentioned by 113 (28.3%) journals, fabrication by 104 (26.1%), plagiarism by 224 (56.1%), duplication by 242 (60.7%) and image manipulation by 154 (38.6%). Procedures for responding to misconduct were described in 179 (44.9%) websites, including retraction, (30.8%) and expression of concern (16.3%). Plagiarism-checking services were used by 112 (28.1%) journals. The prevalences of all types of misconduct policies were higher in journals that endorsed any policy from editors’ associations, Office of Research Integrity or professional societies compared to those that did not state adherence to these policy-producing bodies. Elsevier and Wiley-Blackwell had the most journals included (22.6% and 14.8%, respectively), with Wiley journals having greater a prevalence of misconduct definition and policies on falsification, fabrication and expression of concern and Elsevier of plagiarism-checking services. Conclusions Only a third of top-ranking peer-reviewed journals had publicly-available definitions of misconduct and less than a half described procedures for handling allegations of misconduct. As endorsement of international policies from policy-producing bodies was positively associated with implementation of policies and procedures, journals and their publishers should standardize their policies globally in order to

  6. 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

  7. 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.

  8. A bibliometric analysis of two PubMed-indexed high-impact factor endodontic journals: A comparison of India with other countries

    PubMed Central

    Mishra, Lora; Pattnaik, Prajna; Kumar, Manoj; Aggarwal, Sonia; Misra, Satya Ranjan

    2016-01-01

    Aim: The present study was conducted with an aim to determine the number and trends of published articles in the International Endodontic Journal (IEJ) and Journal of Endodontics (JOE) from 2009 to 2014. Settings and Designs: A retrospective observational study was conducted for IEJ and JOE. Subjects and Methods: All issues of IEJ and JOE were electronically and hand searched for the following parameters: Amount of papers, publication year, affiliated organizations, and countries. Statistical Analysis Used: The data were organized and analyzed using software SPSS version 21.0; descriptive statistics was used. Results: A total of 872 articles were analyzed in the IEJ and JOE with 1606 papers. Brazil had the largest number of articles (170) mainly in IEJ, and the USA (350) in JOE. Indians published more of their research in JOE than IEJ. Conclusions: Original articles in endodontic publication from different universities in India have considerably increased, showing that research is becoming more important. PMID:27795645

  9. Osteopathic emergency medicine programs infrequently publish in high-impact emergency medicine journals.

    PubMed

    Baskin, Sean M; Lin, Christina; Carlson, Jestin N

    2014-11-01

    Both the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) and the American Osteopathic Association (AOA) require core faculty to engage in scholarly work, including publication in peer-reviewed journals. With the ACGME/AOA merger, we sought to evaluate the frequency of publication in high-impact peer-reviewed EM journals from authors affiliated with osteopathic emergency medicine (EM) programs. We performed a retrospective literature review using the Journal Citation Report database and identified the top five journals in the category of 'Emergency Medicine' by their 2011 Impact Factor. We examined all publications from each journal for 2011. For each article we recorded article type, authors' names, position of authorship (first, senior or other), the author's degree and affiliated institution. We present the data in raw numbers and percentages. The 2011 EM journals with the highest impact factor were the following: Annals of Emergency Medicine, Resuscitation, Journal of Trauma, Injury, and Academic Emergency Medicine. Of the 9,298 authors published in these journals in 2011; 1,309 (15%) claimed affiliation with U.S.-based EM programs, of which 16 (1%) listed their affiliations with eight different osteopathic EM programs. The 16 authors claimed affiliation with 8 of 46 osteopathic EM programs (17%), while 1,301 authors claimed affiliation with 104 of 148 (70%) U.S.-based allopathic programs. Authors from osteopathic EM programs are under-represented in the top EM journals. With the pending ACGME/AOA merger, there is a significant opportunity for improvement in the rate of publication of osteopathic EM programs in top tier EM journals.

  10. 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

    Uhlig, Christopher; Krause, Hannes; Koch, Thea; Gama de Abreu, Marcelo; Spieth, Peter Markus

    2015-01-01

    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. 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. 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. The present systematic review revealed insufficient reporting of anesthesia and euthanasia

  11. 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

  12. How well does journal 'impact' work in the assessment of papers on clinical physiology and nuclear medicine?

    PubMed

    Hansen, H B; Henriksen, J H

    1997-07-01

    This study reports a citation analysis of 217 scientific papers on clinical physiology and nuclear medicine published in 69 different journals during the years 1985-92. The actual citation frequency was compared with the journal 'impact factor' (i.e. the average number of times a paper is cited in a particular journal in the year of publication and the subsequent year). The average impact factor per paper was 1.96 and per journal 1.92 (range 0.0-22.8). A direct relation was found between the journal impact factor and the citation factor (i.e. the actual citations in the year of publication and the subsequent year) (journals with five or more papers R = 0.69, P < 0.01; all journals R = 0.40, P < 0.001). However, the citation factor was significantly below the journal impact factor (P < 0.0001). An almost linear relation was found between cumulated citations and time (R = 0.99, P < 0.02.-0.0001), but an initial phase of no citation was identified, and the number of citations per year reached a maximum or plateau 3-7 years after publication, which was later than the general maximum of 2-3 years for all medical specialities. In a sample of 200 known autocitations, 75% of the papers had full recovery, 3% mixed recovery and 22% no recovery, giving an overall recovery of 70%. In conclusion, although a phase of no citation was identified, which gave a lower citation factor than the journal impact factor, the citation frequency increased over time, and altogether there seems to be a good agreement between journal impact factor and overall citation frequency of papers on clinical physiology and nuclear medicine.

  13. [Impact factor of Revista Iberoamericana de Micología].

    PubMed

    Aleixandre Benavent, Rafael; Valderrama Zurián, Juan Carlos; Miguel-Dasit, Alberto; de Granda Orive, José Ignacio

    2004-12-01

    The impact factor is a bibliometric indicator published annually in the Journal Citation Reports, and widely regarded as a quality ranking of the journals included in this database. The problem with this indicator is that the impact factor of several journals not listed in the Science Citation Index database is largely unknown. The aim of this study was to analyze the 2001 national and international impact factor of Revista Iberoamericana de Micología. The National impact factor of Revista Iberoamericana de Micología was obtained by adding the number of cites in 2001 from a total of 87 Spanish medical journals of greater scientific quality. Also, bibliographical references from Spanish journals indexed in the 2001 Journal Citation reports database have been included to determine the international impact factor of this analyzed journal. Revista Iberoamericana de Micología received a total of 62 cites from published articles in 1999 to 2001, coming from 20 different journals, being their self-citation index 10.1%. The journal with the highest number of cites to Revista Iberoamericana de Micología was Journal of Clinical Microbiology, with 12 cites (19.3%). According to this findings the national and international impact factor of Revista Iberoamericana de Micología was 0.266 and 0.606, respectively. The impact factor of Revista Iberoamericana de Micología, although not included in the Science Citation Index database, was higher than other Journal Citation Reports. Moreover, Revista Iberoamericana de Micología received most of its citations from high impact factor journals included in the Journal Citation Reports database. These data support the international recognition of the scientific level of the journal.

  14. Journaling.

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Barlow, Bob

    2001-01-01

    Daily journal writing can help students become strong, confident writers. Students can use journals to reflect on what they are studying, brainstorm on a topic before writing an essay, track and react to current events, and explore ideas in their imaginations. Tips for journal writing include: keep it stress free, reassure students they are…

  15. [Approximation to the impact of biomedical journals in neurological sciences: study of bibliometric indicators in the Journal Citation Reports-Science Citation Index 2006].

    PubMed

    Gonzalez de Dios, J; Valderrama-Zurian, J C; Gonzalez-Alcaide, G; Sempere, A P; Bolanos-Pizarro, M; Aleixandre-Benavent, R

    Neurological sciences form a multidisciplinary field that produces a wide range of scientific journals. The aim of this study was to perform a scientometric analysis of neurological science journals in the 2006 Journal Citation Reports-Science Citation Index (JCR-SCI) edition. We study the three areas dedicated to neurological sciences (Neurosciences, Clinical Neurology and Neuroimaging) in the 2006 JCR-SCI edition. Bibliometric indicators used are: journals, articles, citations, impact factor (IF), immediacy index, half life and journals with the greatest IF in each specialty. We also perform a special analysis of Spanish neurological journals in JCR-SCI. In the area of Neurosciences we find a total of 200 journals, 27.157 articles, 1.109.784 citations and an average IF of 2,446, the greatest IF belonging to Annu Rev Neurosci (28,533) and Nat Rev Neurosci (23,054); Spanish journals: Neurocirugia and Acta Esp Psiquiatr. The area of Clinical Neurology contains 147 journals, 18.114 articles, 540.364 citations and an average IF of 1,848, the greatest IF belonging to Lancet Neurol (9,479) and Ann Neurol (8,051); Spanish journals: Neurologia and Rev Neurol. The area of Neuroimaging contains 13 journals, 1.747 articles, 49.210 citations and an average IF of 1,298, the greatest IF belonging to Neuroimage (5,559) and Hum Brain Mapp (4,888). We found out a broad representation of neurological journals from the 6,166 journals included in the 2006 JCR-SCI edition. Bibliometric characteristics differ in accordance to the clinical (Clinical Neurology) or experimental (Neurosciences) nature of the area. Even though bibliometric indicators for the four Spanish neurological journals have gradually improve over the previous 5 years, they are still proportionally ranked low in JCR-SCI. Due to significant limitations observed in the IF, we suggest conducting its analysis from a multidimensional bibliometric perspective, and always within its contextual research area.

  16. 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.

  17. 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.

  18. Publication trends and impact factors in the Medical Informatics literature.

    PubMed

    Lavallie, Donna L; Wolf, Fredric M

    2005-01-01

    We survey the "evolution" of the field of Medical Informatics by describing trends in volume(quantity) of Medical Informatics-indexed publications, identifying major journals of publication and their focus areas and presenting trends in impact factor scores during the 1994-2003 period. Changes in total impact-scores suggest an increasing trend of publication in journals of higher impact.

  19. [Impact factor and/or Hirsch index?].

    PubMed

    Gracza, Tünde; Somoskövi, Istvánné

    2007-05-06

    Is the best measure of a scientist's worth the total number of his or her published papers? For many years Institute for Scientific Information has been publishing the lists of impact factors providing quantitative tools for ranking scientists. The impact factor was devised by Eugene Garfield, the founder of the Institute for Scientific Information. Impact factors are calculated each year by the Institute for Scientific Information for those journals which it indexes, and are published in Journal Citation Reports. These measures apply only to journals, not individual articles or individual scientists. For the impact factor of individual scientists, there exists the h-index or Hirsch number. The Hirsch-index (h-index) has recently been defined by Hirsch as a new method for measuring the scientific activity. If a scientist has published n articles which all have been cited at least n times, then he will have a h-index of n . The h-index seeks to describe the impact of individual researchers, rather than journals. The h-index is the result of the balance between the number of publications and the number of citations per publication. H-index: Impact of Individual Scientists. H-index or/and impact factor - it is the question of the future.

  20. The Focus Factor: A Dynamic Measure of Journal Specialisation

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Nicolaisen, Jeppe; Frandsen, Tove Faber

    2015-01-01

    Introduction: We present a new bibliometric indicator to measure journal specialisation over time, named the focus factor. This new indicator is based on bibliographic coupling and counts the percentage of re-citations given in subsequent years. Method: The applicability of the new indicator is demonstrated on a selection of general science…

  1. Outcomes reported in high-impact surgical journals.

    PubMed

    Antonescu, I; Mueller, C L; Fried, G M; Vassiliou, M C; Mayo, N E; Feldman, L S

    2014-04-01

    With advances in operative technique and perioperative care, traditional endpoints such as morbidity and mortality provide an incomplete description of surgical outcomes. There is increasing emphasis on the need for patient-reported outcomes (PROs) to evaluate fully the effectiveness and quality of surgical interventions. The objective of this study was to identify the outcomes reported in clinical studies published in high-impact surgical journals and the frequency with which PROs are used. Electronic versions of material published between 2008 and 2012 in the four highest-impact non-subspecialty surgical journals (Annals of Surgery, British Journal of Surgery (BJS), Journal of the American College of Surgeons (JACS), Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) Surgery) were hand-searched. Clinical studies of adult patients undergoing planned abdominal, thoracic or vascular surgery were included. Reported outcomes were classified into five categories using Wilson and Cleary's conceptual model. A total of 893 articles were assessed, of which 770 were included in the analysis. Some 91·6 per cent of studies reported biological and physiological outcomes, 36·0 per cent symptoms, 13·4 per cent direct indicators of functional status, 10·6 per cent general health perception and 14·8 per cent overall quality of life (QoL). The proportion of studies with at least one PRO was 38·7 per cent overall and 73·4 per cent in BJS (P < 0·001). The proportion of studies using a formal measure of health-related QoL ranged from 8·9 per cent (JAMA Surgery) to 33·8 per cent (BJS). The predominant reporting of clinical endpoints and the inconsistent use of PROs underscore the need for further research and education to enhance the applicability of these measures in specific surgical settings. © 2014 BJS Society Ltd. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

  2. [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.

  3. 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.

  4. Biomedical journal title changes: reasons, trends, and impact.

    PubMed Central

    Afes, V B; Wrynn, P E

    1993-01-01

    A study was conducted to document the impact of biomedical journal title changes on medical libraries and to increase awareness of the reasons titles are changed. The study consisted of two parts: a survey of academic health sciences libraries in the United States and Canada and an analysis of title changes from two different years. The survey response rate was 83%. The majority of respondents commented on difficulties in identifying and processing title changes, often resulting in the delay or loss of information. The analysis revealed that a third of title changes were not justified by the journal. The study results substantiate the need to standardize title change reporting by publishers. A standard developed by the National Information Standards Organization requires publishers to conform to standardized practices for notification. This standard precisely reflects the concerns reflected in both the survey and the study of title changes, and librarians are urged to ensure that the standard is implemented by publishers. PMID:8428189

  5. Common statistical and research design problems in manuscripts submitted to high-impact medical journals

    PubMed Central

    2011-01-01

    Background To assist educators and researchers in improving the quality of medical research, we surveyed the editors and statistical reviewers of high-impact medical journals to ascertain the most frequent and critical statistical errors in submitted manuscripts. Findings The Editors-in-Chief and statistical reviewers of the 38 medical journals with the highest impact factor in the 2007 Science Journal Citation Report and the 2007 Social Science Journal Citation Report were invited to complete an online survey about the statistical and design problems they most frequently found in manuscripts. Content analysis of the responses identified major issues. Editors and statistical reviewers (n = 25) from 20 journals responded. Respondents described problems that we classified into two, broad themes: A. statistical and sampling issues and B. inadequate reporting clarity or completeness. Problems included in the first theme were (1) inappropriate or incomplete analysis, including violations of model assumptions and analysis errors, (2) uninformed use of propensity scores, (3) failing to account for clustering in data analysis, (4) improperly addressing missing data, and (5) power/sample size concerns. Issues subsumed under the second theme were (1) Inadequate description of the methods and analysis and (2) Misstatement of results, including undue emphasis on p-values and incorrect inferences and interpretations. Conclusions The scientific quality of submitted manuscripts would increase if researchers addressed these common design, analytical, and reporting issues. Improving the application and presentation of quantitative methods in scholarly manuscripts is essential to advancing medical research. PMID:21854631

  6. The gender gap in high-impact psychiatry journals.

    PubMed

    Amering, Michaela; Schrank, Beate; Sibitz, Ingrid

    2011-08-01

    The number of women in medicine generally and in psychiatry specifically has increased considerably during the past 40 years, but the lack of advancement of women in academic medicine is still concerning. This study explores the changes in female authorship patterns in three high-impact general psychiatric journals. The authors categorized articles published in 1994 and 2007 by the Archives of General Psychiatry, The American Journal of Psychiatry, and The British Journal of Psychiatry according to the characteristics of the psychiatric research and the gender of each author for all articles. Overall, the percentage of female authors increased from 24.6% in 1994 to 33.6% in 2007. The authors found the greatest increases in the percentages of female authors in the areas most relevant to an academic career-first authorship (from 17.1% in 1994 to 35.3% in 2007) and original research articles (from 18.4% in 1994 to 42.7% in 2007)-and in articles on the topic with the most growth over the same time frame-neuroimaging (from 14.7% in 1994 to 43.2% in 2007). The percentages of female authors of editorials rose from only 13.5% in 1994 to 26.2% in 2007. In 2007, women made up only 25% of the editorial boards of the journals under study (up from 16% in 1994). Despite considerable gains, women still are underrepresented in academic psychiatry, including in leadership positions. Ongoing efforts and interventions are required to promote further advances and gender equity.

  7. Writing for publication in medical education in high impact journals.

    PubMed

    Azer, S A; Dupras, D M; Azer, S

    2014-10-01

    One of the key priorities of a scholarly teacher is to demonstrate the ability to contribute to the advancement of knowledge, and transformation of new knowledge into applications that can be of value to the profession and the teaching/learning community. However, successful contribution to a scholarly activity such as publication is challenging particularly when academics lack confidence in their writing skills. The aim of this article is to highlight keys for successful publication in medical education. We reviewed the current literature, recent medical education proceedings, and Association of Medical Education in Europe (AMEE) Guides and explored the basic principles for creating a scholarly publication. We have also reflected on our collective long experience as reviewers to educational, scientific, and clinical journals as well as our roles on editorial boards of medical education and scientific journals. Using the methods described, we have developed the following twelve tips: (1) Start with the end of mind, (2) Sharpen your idea, (3) Select the right journal, (4) Discuss authorship, (5) Adhere to ethical principles, (6) Prepare the manuscript, (7) Avoid common mistakes, (8) See it from the reviewer's eyes, (9) Prepare a cover letter, (10) Respond to the editor's and reviewers' reports, (11) Don't be discouraged by rejection, and (12) Reflect on your experience. Writing for publication in medical education, particularly in journals with high impact ratings, is a challenging task. However, becoming passionate about your contention, and working on transforming your idea into a published work necessitates self-regulation, resilience, visualization of outcomes, and implementing scholarly approaches. Overcoming challenges and focusing on your goal can be reached if these tips are applied.

  8. Author Impact Factor: tracking the dynamics of individual scientific impact

    PubMed Central

    Pan, Raj Kumar; Fortunato, Santo

    2014-01-01

    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. PMID:24814674

  9. 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.

  10. Author Impact Factor: tracking the dynamics of individual scientific impact.

    PubMed

    Pan, Raj Kumar; Fortunato, Santo

    2014-05-12

    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.

  11. A Bibliometric Snapshot of "The Journal of Higher Education" and Its Impact on the Field

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Earp, Vanessa J.

    2010-01-01

    In recent decades the field of higher education has grown exponentially; however, little research examines a particular journal and its impact on the field. The purpose of this study was to conduct a brief bibliometric analysis and discuss the impact of "The Journal of Higher Education" (1998-2002), a premier journal in the discipline. (Contains 6…

  12. 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

  13. 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.

  14. 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

  15. [Brazilian scientific journals in speech-language and hearing science: impact indicator].

    PubMed

    Campanatti-Ostiz, Heliane; de Andrade, Claudia Regina Furquim

    2006-01-01

    Global value of scientific papers published in national journals of the Brazilian Speech-language and Hearing Science analyzed through the Impact Factor (IF). To analyze part of the Brazilian Speech-Language and Hearing Science through its scientific journals: characterization of the impact indicator--in this case the Impact Factor (IF). Seven national Speech-language and Hearing Science journals (1986/ 2001) registered in the Brazilian Institute of Information in Science and Technology (Ibict) and with a given International Standard Serial Number (ISSN) were analyzed. In order to calculate the IF of the scientific journals, the lists of bibliographic references of the published papers were consulted and the original formula of Garfield was used, adapting it to the seven journals. Bibliographic references cited in the research papers, in the case studies, in the review and update articles were considered for analyses. Researches which were cited in the summaries like letters to the editors; editorial, abstracts, commentaries and others were excluded. A total of 9,334 bibliographic references of 549 papers were analyzed, excluding self-citations of authors. It was observed that the resulting IFs revealed practically null values. The obtained results demonstrate that the Brazilian Speech-language and Hearing Science needs to develop a few aspects of its editorial and scientific processes--the researches of the Brazilian Speech-language and Hearing Science are being lost, making it necessary for the editors to raise the access and visibility of their journals and for the speech-language and hearing scientists to cite the work of their antecessors and national partners. According to the obtained data, for the Brazilian Speech-language and Hearing Science, the publication of 11.9 papers is necessary for only one of these papers to be cited in another research. It is observed that the IFs of the Brazilian Speech-language and Hearing Science, among these seven journals

  16. Falsified papers in high-impact journals were slow to retract and indistinguishable from nonfraudulent papers

    PubMed Central

    Trikalinos, Nikolaos A.; Evangelou, Evangelos; Ioannidis, John P.A.

    2015-01-01

    Objective The aim was to evaluate papers retracted due to falsification in high-impact journals. Study Design and Setting We selected articles retracted due to allegations of falsification in January 1, 1980 to March 1, 2006 from journals with impact factor >10 and >30,000 annual citations. We evaluated characteristics of these papers and misconduct-involved authors and assessed whether they correlated with time to retraction. We also compared retracted articles vs. matched nonretracted articles in the same journals. Results Fourteen eligible journals had 63 eligible retracted articles. Median time from publication to retraction was 28 months; it was 79 months for articles where a senior researcher was implicated in the misconduct vs. 22 months when junior researchers were implicated (log-rank P < 0.001). For the 25 implicated authors, the median time from the first publication of a fraudulent paper to the first retraction was 34 months, again with a clear difference according to researcher rank (log-rank P = 0.001). Retracted articles didn’t differ from matched nonretracted papers in citations received within 12 months, number of authors, country, funding, or field, but were twofold more likely to have multinational authorship (P = 0.049). Conclusions Retractions due to falsification can take a long time, especially when senior researchers are implicated. Fraudulent articles are not obviously distinguishable from nonfraudulent ones. PMID:18394539

  17. 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.

  18. Citation analysis of otorhinolaryngology journals.

    PubMed

    Roy, D; Hughes, J P; Jones, A S; Fenton, J E

    2002-05-01

    Bibliometric analysis is used to assess the 'impact' of scientific journals. The commonest method of evaluation is impact factor. The aim of this study was to analyse the citation data for otorhinolaryngology journals of the years 1994 to 1998. Data on the total number of citations and impact factor of journals was obtained from the CD-ROM editions 1994-98 of the Journal Citation Reports and 'Web of Science' database. The adjusted impact factor and five-year impact factor has been calculated. Fifteen otorhinolaryngology journals have been identified and ranked according to the impact factor. Head and Neck has the highest adjusted impact factor. Archives of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery has the highest five-year impact factor. There is considerable variation in the ranking of journals calculated by the five-year impact factor. Impact factors of otolaryngology journals can help to direct readers to those journals that have a track record of publishing data that are frequently cited. Although there are several limitations to the use of citation data to rank journals, the authors recommend the use of the five-year period for calculation of the impact factor for ranking of otolaryngology journals.

  19. Self-citation rate and impact factor in ophthalmology.

    PubMed

    Mimouni, Michael; Segal, Ori

    2014-01-01

    To analyze the self-citation rate (SCR) of ophthalmology journals, determine its possible effect on a journal's impact factor (IF) and compare the SCR of subspecialty journals versus general ophthalmology journals. A retrospective consecutive study of ophthalmology journals listed in the Journal Citations Report (JCR) 2013. We retrieved these parameters from each journal's report: IF, total citations, self-citations, SCR and IF without self-citations (corrected IF). A significant correlation was detected between the number of self-citations and publications (R(2) = 86.3, p = 0.000). Subspecialty journals had a significantly higher SCR than general journals (p = 0.017). No significant difference was found in terms of IF and corrected IF between general and subspecialty journals (p = 0.260 and p = 0.108, respectively). No significant correlation between IF and SCR was detected (p = 0.099). The corrected IF was inversely correlated with SCR (R(2) = -32.6, p = 0.013). An inverse correlation was detected between SCR and IF in the 29 ophthalmology journals with the lowest IF (R(2) = -57.3, p = 0.001). Unlike other fields of medicine, the IF of an ophthalmology journal does not correlate with its SCR. Self-citation is found more often in journals with a low corrected IF and is inversely correlated with IF in the bottom half. © 2014 S. Karger AG, Basel.

  20. The first three years of the Journal of Global Health: Assessing the impact.

    PubMed

    Rudan, Igor; Campbell, Harry; Marušić, Ana

    2014-06-01

    The Journal of Global Health (JoGH) is three years old. To assess its impact, we analysed online access to JoGH's articles using PubMed Central and Google Analytics tools. Moreover, we tracked citations that JoGH received in 2013 using ISI Web of Knowledge(SM) and Google Scholar® tools. The 66 items (articles, viewpoints and editorials) published between June 2011 and December 2013 were accessed more than 50 000 times during 2013, from more than 160 countries of the world. Seven among the 13 most accessed papers were focused on global, regional and national epidemiological estimates of important infectious diseases. JoGH articles published in 2011 and 2012 received 77 citations in Journal Citation Reports® (JCR)-indexed journals in 2013 to 24 original research articles, setting our first, unofficial impact factor at 3.208. In addition, JoGH received 11 citations during 2013 to its 12 original research papers published during 2013, resulting in an immediacy index of 0.917. The number of external, non-commissioned submissions that we consider to be of high quality is continuously increasing, leading to current JoGH's rejection rate of about 80%. The current citation analysis raises favourable expectations for the JoGH's overall impact on the global health community in future years.

  1. 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.

  2. The impact of dermatology in premier medicine journals.

    PubMed

    Kheterpal, Meenal K; Ellis, Charles N

    2011-01-01

    In the past 15 years, research in dermatology has significantly increased. Dermatology-related contributions in premier medical journals such as The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) and The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) are the representation of our field in the medical world. To analyze this representation, incidence of dermatology-related contributions in NEJM and JAMA during 3 separate years (during a 15-year period) was calculated.

  3. Citation Indicators of Japanese Journals.

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Haiqi, Zhang; Yamazaki, Shigeaki

    1998-01-01

    Evaluates Japanese journals--128 indexed in the 1994 "Journal Citation Reports"--in bibliometric parameters such as impact factors (IFs), mean IFs from citing and cited journals, and self-citing and self-cited rates. Results: only 15 journals, with a wide variation of self-citing and self-cited rates, have obtained a current impact…

  4. Citation Indicators of Japanese Journals.

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Haiqi, Zhang; Yamazaki, Shigeaki

    1998-01-01

    Evaluates Japanese journals--128 indexed in the 1994 "Journal Citation Reports"--in bibliometric parameters such as impact factors (IFs), mean IFs from citing and cited journals, and self-citing and self-cited rates. Results: only 15 journals, with a wide variation of self-citing and self-cited rates, have obtained a current impact…

  5. High-impact medical journals and peace: a history of involvement.

    PubMed

    Bloom, Joshua D; Sambunjak, Dario; Sondorp, Egbert

    2007-01-01

    The aim of this study is to explore the positions of five leading general medical journals (The Lancet, British Medical Journal--BMJ, Journal of American Medical Association--JAMA, New England Journal of Medicine--NEJM, and Annals of Internal Medicine--AIM) toward the issues of collective violence. We calculated the proportion of war-related articles in the total number of articles published in these five high-impact journals, and in the total number of articles indexed in PubMed during the last 60 years. The results showed a continuous increase in the proportion of war-related articles. Our findings suggest that the leading general medical journals have taken an active editorial stance toward the issues of war and peace. We conclude that high-impact medical journals can make an important contribution to efforts aimed at reducing the risks and consequences of war and violence.

  6. 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

  7. A journal cancellation survey and resulting impact on interlibrary loan.

    PubMed

    Nash, Jacob L; McElfresh, Karen R

    2016-10-01

    The research describes an extensible method of evaluating and cancelling electronic journals during a budget shortfall and evaluates implications for interlibrary loan (ILL) and user satisfaction. We calculated cost per use for cancellable electronic journal subscriptions (n=533) from the 2013 calendar year and the first half of 2014, cancelling titles with cost per use greater than $20 and less than 100 yearly uses. For remaining titles, we issued an online survey asking respondents to rank the importance of journals to their work. Finally, we gathered ILL requests and COUNTER JR2 turnaway reports for calendar year 2015. Three hundred fifty-four respondents completed the survey. Because of the level of heterogeneity of titles in the survey as well as respondents' backgrounds, most titles were reported to be never used. We developed criteria based on average response across journals to determine which to cancel. Based on this methodology, we cancelled eight journals. Examination of ILL data revealed that none of the cancelled titles were requested with any frequency. Free-text responses indicated, however, that many value free ILL as a suitable substitute for immediate full-text access to biomedical journal literature. Soliciting user feedback through an electronic survey can assist collections librarians to make electronic journal cancellation decisions during slim budgetary years. This methodology can be adapted and improved upon at other health sciences libraries.

  8. A journal cancellation survey and resulting impact on interlibrary loan

    PubMed Central

    Nash, Jacob L.; McElfresh, Karen R.

    2016-01-01

    Objective The research describes an extensible method of evaluating and cancelling electronic journals during a budget shortfall and evaluates implications for interlibrary loan (ILL) and user satisfaction. Methods We calculated cost per use for cancellable electronic journal subscriptions (n=533) from the 2013 calendar year and the first half of 2014, cancelling titles with cost per use greater than $20 and less than 100 yearly uses. For remaining titles, we issued an online survey asking respondents to rank the importance of journals to their work. Finally, we gathered ILL requests and COUNTER JR2 turnaway reports for calendar year 2015. Results Three hundred fifty-four respondents completed the survey. Because of the level of heterogeneity of titles in the survey as well as respondents' backgrounds, most titles were reported to be never used. We developed criteria based on average response across journals to determine which to cancel. Based on this methodology, we cancelled eight journals. Examination of ILL data revealed that none of the cancelled titles were requested with any frequency. Free-text responses indicated, however, that many value free ILL as a suitable substitute for immediate full-text access to biomedical journal literature. Conclusions Soliciting user feedback through an electronic survey can assist collections librarians to make electronic journal cancellation decisions during slim budgetary years. This methodology can be adapted and improved upon at other health sciences libraries. PMID:27822151

  9. Financial, nonfinancial and editors' conflicts of interest in high-impact biomedical journals.

    PubMed

    Bosch, Xavier; Pericas, Juan M; Hernández, Cristina; Doti, Pamela

    2013-07-01

    To assess financial, nonfinancial and editors' conflicts of interest (COI) disclosure policies among the most influential biomedical journals publishing original research. We conducted a cross-sectional study of 399 high-impact biomedical journals in 27 biomedical categories of the Journal Citation Reports (JCR) in December 2011. Information relevant to COI and requirements for disclosures that was publicly available on journal websites was collected. While financial COI disclosures were required by 358 (89.7%) and nonfinancial by 280 (70.2%) journals, 155 (38.8%) required editors' disclosures. Journals in the first decile of the JCR classification scored significantly higher than those in the second decile for all disclosure policies. Ninety (22.6%) journals were published by Elsevier and 59 (14.8%) by Wiley-Blackwell, with Elsevier scoring significantly better in financial disclosure policies (P = 0.022). Clinical journals scored significantly higher than basic journals for all disclosure policies. No differences were observed between open-access (n = 25) and nonopen-access (n = 374) journals for any type of disclosure. Somewhat incoherently, authors' disclosure statements were included in some published manuscript in 57.1% of journals without any COI disclosure policies. Authors' financial COI disclosures were required by about 90% of high-impact clinical and basic journals publishing original research. Unlike recent studies showing a significantly lower prevalence of nonfinancial compared with financial disclosures, the former were required by about 70% of journals, suggesting that editors are increasingly concerned about nonfinancial competing interests. Only 40% of journals required disclosure of editors' COI, in conflict with the recommendations of the most influential editors' associations. © 2013 Stichting European Society for Clinical Investigation Journal Foundation. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

  10. Reporting of Randomized Controlled Trials With Statistically Nonsignificant Primary Outcomes Published in High-impact Surgical Journals.

    PubMed

    Arunachalam, Lakshmanan; Hunter, Iain A; Killeen, Shane

    2017-06-01

    To determine the nature and frequency of distorted presentation or "spin" (ie, specific reporting strategies which highlight that the experimental treatment is beneficial, despite a statistically nonsignificant difference for the primary outcome, or distract the reader from statistically nonsignificant results) in published reports of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with statistically nonsignificant results for primary outcomes in surgical journals. Multiple reports have suggested that interpretation of RCT results in medical journals can be distorted by authors of published reports. Using a defined search strategy, RCTs with clearly nonsignificant results for the primary outcome (P > 0.05) form 10 high-impact factor surgical journals (Annals of Surgery, Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Psychiatry, Journal of Heart and Lung Transplantation, American Journal of Transplantation, British Journal of Surgery, Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Journal of the American College of Surgeons, Endoscopy, Archives of Surgery, and Liver transplantation), published between July 2013 to July 2015, were identified. Two reviewers independently appraised each selected article using a validated, standardized data abstraction form. In all, 110 eligible RCTs with nonsignificant primary outcomes were appraised. The title was reported with spin in 8 (7%) articles. Forty-four (40%) included abstracts and 39 (35%) main texts were classified as having spin in at least 1 section. The level of spin was high in 16 (14%) abstract and 19 (19%) main-text "Conclusions" sections. Twenty-five articles (23%) recommended the intervention of interest despite a nonsignificant primary outcome. There was no relationship between trial funding source, use of statistician and article section, and the presence of spin. In RCTs with statistically nonsignificant primary outcomes published in surgical journals, the reporting and interpretation of findings was frequently inconsistent with the results.

  11. 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.

  12. The impact of article titles on citation hits: an analysis of general and specialist medical journals

    PubMed Central

    Jacques, Thomas S; Sebire, Neil J

    2010-01-01

    Objectives Most published articles are not cited and citation rates depend on many variables. We hypothesized that specific features of journal titles may be related to citation rates. Design We reviewed the title characteristics of the 25 most cited articles and the 25 least cited articles published in 2005 in general and specialist medical journals including the Lancet, BMJ and Journal of Clinical Pathology. The title length and construction were correlated to the number of times the papers have been cited to May 2009. Setting Retrospective review of a scientific database. Participants None. Main outcome measures Citation rate. Results The number of citations was positively correlated with the length of the title, the presence of a colon in the title and the presence of an acronym. Factors that predicted poor citation included reference to a specific country in the title. Conclusions These data suggest that the construction of an article title has a significant impact on frequently the paper is cited. We hypothesize that this may be related to the way electronic searches of the literature are undertaken. PMID:21103094

  13. Exploring the Use of Social Media to Measure Journal Article Impact

    PubMed Central

    Evans, Perry; Krauthammer, Michael

    2011-01-01

    Science blogs, Twitter commentary, and comments on journal websites represent an immediate response to journal articles, and may help in identifying relevant publications. However, the use of these media for establishing paper impact is not well studied. Using Wikipedia as a proxy for other social media, we explore the correlation between inclusion of a journal article in Wikipedia, and article impact as measured by citation count. We start by cataloging features of PubMed articles cited in Wikipedia. We find that Wikipedia pages referencing the most journal articles are about disorders and diseases, while the most referenced articles in Wikipedia are about genomics. We note that journal articles in Wikipedia have significantly higher citation counts than an equivalent random article subset. We also observe that articles are included in Wikipedia soon after publication. Our data suggest that social media may represent a largely untapped post-publication review resource for assessing paper impact. PMID:22195090

  14. 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.

  15. Assessing the Impact Participation in Science Journalism Activities Has on Scientific Literacy among High School Students

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Farrar, Cathy

    2012-01-01

    As part of the National Science Foundation Science Literacy through Science Journalism (SciJourn) research and development initiative (http://www.scijourn.org; Polman, Saul, Newman, and Farrar, 2008) a quasi-experimental design was used to investigate what impact incorporating science journalism activities had on students' scientific literacy.…

  16. Scientific impact of studies published in temporarily available radiation oncology journals: a citation analysis.

    PubMed

    Nieder, Carsten; Geinitz, Hans; Andratschke, Nicolaus H; Grosu, Anca L

    2015-01-01

    The purpose of this study was to review all articles published in two temporarily available radiation oncology journals (Radiation Oncology Investigations, Journal of Radiosurgery) in order to evaluate their scientific impact. From several potential measures of impact and relevance of research, we selected article citation rate because landmark or practice-changing research is likely to be cited frequently. The citation database Scopus was used to analyse number of citations. During the time period 1996-1999 the journal Radiation Oncology Investigations published 205 articles, which achieved a median number of 6 citations (range 0-116). However, the most frequently cited article in the first 4 volumes achieved only 23 citations. The Journal of Radiosurgery published only 31 articles, all in the year 1999, which achieved a median number of 1 citation (range 0-11). No prospective randomized studies or phase I-II collaborative group trials were published in these journals. Apparently, the Journal of Radiosurgery acquired relatively few manuscripts that were interesting and important enough to impact clinical practice. Radiation Oncology Investigations' citation pattern was better and closer related to that reported in several previous studies focusing on the field of radiation oncology. The vast majority of articles published in temporarily available radiation oncology journals had limited clinical impact and achieved few citations. Highly influential research was unlikely to be submitted during the initial phase of establishing new radiation oncology journals.

  17. E-Journal Bundling and Its Impact on Academic Libraries: Some Early Results.

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Nabe, Jonathan

    2001-01-01

    Discusses journal bundling for science, technical and medical electronic journals and its impact on academic libraries. Reports results of a survey of the academic libraries in the Boston Library Consortium that investigated reasons for subscribing, including price, content, faculty demand, license agreement, archiving issues, format, and…

  18. Assessing the Impact Participation in Science Journalism Activities Has on Scientific Literacy among High School Students

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Farrar, Cathy

    2012-01-01

    As part of the National Science Foundation Science Literacy through Science Journalism (SciJourn) research and development initiative (http://www.scijourn.org; Polman, Saul, Newman, and Farrar, 2008) a quasi-experimental design was used to investigate what impact incorporating science journalism activities had on students' scientific literacy.…

  19. Web Link Counts Correlate with ISI Impact Factors: Evidence from Two Disciplines.

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Vaughan, Liwen; Thelwall, Mike

    2002-01-01

    Reports on a study that compared counts of links to the Web home pages of academic journals with the citation based Journal Impact Factor (JIF) for two disciplines: library and information science, and law. Highlights include compiling the lists of journals (which are appended); locating Web pages; and correlations between JIF and link counts.…

  20. [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.

  1. Desktop Publishing: Its Impact on Community College Journalism.

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Grzywacz-Gray, John; And Others

    1987-01-01

    Illustrates the kinds of copy that can be created on Apple Macintosh computers and laser printers. Shows font and type specification options. Discusses desktop publishing costs, potential problems, and computer compatibility. Considers the use of computers in college journalism in production, graphics, accounting, advertising, and promotion. (AYC)

  2. A journal-level analysis of Health Communication.

    PubMed

    Feeley, Thomas Hugh; Smith, Rachel A; Moon, Shin-Il; Anker, Ashley E

    2010-09-01

    Citation data from 2006 through 2008 were used to examine the journal citation network of Health Communication in comparison to 26 related journals indexed by Journal Citation Reports, a database published by the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) Web of Knowledge. A recently advanced journal relatedness factor based on out-degree (i.e., cited journals) and in-degree (i.e., citing journals) citations was used to determine the network of peer journals. Results indicate Health Communication serves to link communication and health-related journals. Data were also reported on journal impact and 5-year journal impact factors. When compared to ISI-indexed communication journals, Health Communication is consistently ranked in the top 25% across impact factors and citations to the journal are consistent over the 7 years of analysis from 2002 through 2008. Methods of increasing the impact of Health Communication among journals in social sciences are discussed.

  3. Factors in Science Journal Cancellation Projects: The Roles of Faculty Consultations and Data

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Williamson, Jeanine; Fernandez, Peter; Dixon, Lana

    2014-01-01

    The economic downturn of 2007-08 forced many academic libraries in the United States to cancel journals. We surveyed life sciences librarians from ARL libraries to find out about their experiences with journal cancellations during 2008-12. Overall, we discovered that two factors were essential in decision-making: faculty consultations and data.…

  4. Factors in Science Journal Cancellation Projects: The Roles of Faculty Consultations and Data

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Williamson, Jeanine; Fernandez, Peter; Dixon, Lana

    2014-01-01

    The economic downturn of 2007-08 forced many academic libraries in the United States to cancel journals. We surveyed life sciences librarians from ARL libraries to find out about their experiences with journal cancellations during 2008-12. Overall, we discovered that two factors were essential in decision-making: faculty consultations and data.…

  5. Joint editorial: Fostering innovation and improving impact assessment for journal publications in hydrology

    NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

    Koutsoyiannis, Demetris; Blöschl, Günter; Bárdossy, András.; Cudennec, Christophe; Hughes, Denis; Montanari, Alberto; Neuweiler, Insa; Savenije, Hubert

    2016-04-01

    Editors of several journals in the field of hydrology met during the Assembly of the International Association of Hydrological Sciences—IAHS (within the Assembly of the International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics—IUGG) in Prague in June 2015. This event was a follow-up of a similar meeting held in July 2013 in Gothenburg (as reported by Blöschl et al. [2014]). These meetings enable the group of editors to review the current status of the journals and the publication process, and share thoughts on future strategies. Journals were represented in the 2015 meeting through their editors, as shown in the list of authors. The main points on fostering innovation and improving impact assessment in journal publications in hydrology are communicated in this joint editorial published in the above journals.

  6. Joint editorial - Fostering innovation and improving impact assessment for journal publications in hydrology

    NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

    Koutsoyiannis, Demetris; Blöschl, Günter; Bárdossy, András; Cudennec, Christophe; Hughes, Denis; Montanari, Alberto; Neuweiler, Insa; Savenije, Hubert

    2016-06-01

    Editors from several journals in the field of hydrology met during the Assembly of the International Association of Hydrological Sciences-IAHS (within the Assembly of the International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics-IUGG) in Prague in June 2015. This event was a follow-up of a similar meeting in July 2013 in Gothenburg (as reported by Blöschl et al. (2014)). In these meetings the group of editors reviewed the current status of the journals and the publication process, and shared thoughts on future strategies. Journals were represented in the meeting through their editors, as shown in the list of authors. The main points on fostering innovation and improving impact assessment in journal publications in hydrology are communicated in this joint editorial published in journals that participated in the meeting.

  7. 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.

  8. Is the impact factor the only game in town?

    PubMed Central

    2015-01-01

    “Not everything that can be counted counts. Not everything that counts can be counted.” William Bruce Cameron Journal metrics mania started over 50 years ago with the impact factor that has since become so well entrenched in publishing. Ask anyone where they would like to publish their research and most will reply by saying in a journal with the highest impact factor. While this suggests quality and a degree of vetting by the scientific community, the impact factor has also been used to benchmark and compare journals. Impact factors are often used as a proxy of a journal 's quality and scientific prestige. However, is medicine dependent on a valuation system that may be grounded in falsity? Much about this measure is imperfect and destructive. Journals can manipulate the impact factor by refusing to publish articles like case reports that are unlikely to be cited or, conversely, by publishing a large proportion of review articles, which tend to attract more citations. Another tactic that may be used is to publish articles that could be highly cited early in the year, thereby leaving more time to collect citations. Many use the impact factor as an important determinant of grants, awards, promotions and career advancement, and also as a basis for an individual's reputation and professional standing. Nevertheless, you should remember that the impact factor is not a measure of an individual article, let alone an individual scientist. As long as an article has been cited, the citation will contribute to the journal's impact factor. This is regardless of whether the article's premise is true or false, or whether the cited paper was being credited or criticised. Perversely, a weak paper that is being refuted will augment the impact factor, as will a retracted article, because although the article may have been retracted, the citations of this article will still count. The impact factor has weathered many storms in the past but criticisms against it are increasing, as

  9. Journal Self-Citedness in "Journal Citation Reports" Library and Information Science and Genetics Journal Rankings.

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Nisonger, Thomas E.

    1998-01-01

    Investigates the effect of journal self-citedness on "Journal Citation Reports" (JCR) rankings of library and information science and genetics journals using data from 1994 on CD-ROM. Results for library and information science indicate that the effect of self-citedness on both JCR impact factor and total citation rankings was minimal.…

  10. Journal Self-Citedness in "Journal Citation Reports" Library and Information Science and Genetics Journal Rankings.

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Nisonger, Thomas E.

    1998-01-01

    Investigates the effect of journal self-citedness on "Journal Citation Reports" (JCR) rankings of library and information science and genetics journals using data from 1994 on CD-ROM. Results for library and information science indicate that the effect of self-citedness on both JCR impact factor and total citation rankings was minimal.…

  11. Performance of Malaysian Medical Journals.

    PubMed

    Abrizah, Abdullah

    2016-03-01

    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.

  12. 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

  13. Current biomedical scientific impact (2013) of institutions, academic journals and researchers in the Republic of Macedonia.

    PubMed

    Spiroski, Mirko

    2014-01-01

    To analyse current ranking (2013) of institutions, journals and researchers in the Republic of Macedonia. the country rankings of R. Macedonia were analyzed with SCImago Country & Journal Rank (SJR) for subject area Medicine in the years 1996-2013, and ordered by H-index. SCImago Institutions Rankings for 2013 was used for the scientific impact of biomedical institutions in the Republic of Macedonia. Journal metrics from Elsevier for the Macedonian scholarly journals for the period 2009-2013 were performed. Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP), the Impact per Publication (IPP), and SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) were analysed. Macedonian scholarly biomedical journals included in Google Scholar metrics (2013, 2012) were analysed with h5-index and h5-median (June 2014). A semantic analysis of the PubMed database was performed with GoPubMed on November 2, 2014 in order to identify published papers from the field of biomedical sciences affiliated with the country of Macedonia. Harzing's Publish or Perish software was used for author impact analysis and the calculation of the Hirsh-index based on Google Scholar query. The rank of subject area Medicine of R. Macedonia according to the SCImago Journal & Country Rank (SJR) is 110th in the world and 17th in Eastern Europe. Of 20 universities in Macedonia, only Ss Cyril and Methodius University, Skopje, and the University St Clement of Ohrid, Bitola, are listed in the SCImago Institutions Rankings (SIR) for 2013. A very small number of Macedonian scholarly journals is included in Web of Sciences (2), PubMed (1), PubMed Central (1), SCOPUS (6), SCImago (6), and Google Scholar metrics (6). The rank of Hirsh index (h-index) was different from the rank of number of abstracts indexed in PubMed for the top 20 authors from R. Macedonia. The current biomedical scientific impact (2013) of institutions, academic journals and researchers in R. Macedonia is very low. There is an urgent need for organized measures to improve the quality

  14. The Impact of Article Length on the Number of Future Citations: A Bibliometric Analysis of General Medicine Journals

    PubMed Central

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

    2013-01-01

    Background 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. Methods 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. Results 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%. Conclusion 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. PMID:23405060

  15. 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.

  16. Private Journals versus Public Blogs: The Impact of Peer Readership on Low-Stakes Reflective Writing

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Foster, Drew

    2015-01-01

    This article isolates and observes the impact of peer readership on low-stakes reflective writing assignments in two large Introduction to Sociology classes. Through a comparative content analysis of over 2,000 private reflective journal entries and semipublic reflective blog posts, I find that both practices produce distinct forms of reflection.…

  17. Content Analysis of the Papers in 2015 High-Impact A-Class SSCI Journals

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Ay, Sule; Sahin, Seyma; Okmen, Burcu; Incirci, Ayhan

    2016-01-01

    It was aimed in this study to reveal the general tendency of studies in the field of education by examining the papers in the high-impact A-class SSCI journals, to which qualified papers are accepted from all around the world, in terms of their dependent-independent variables, sample or study groups, research designs, data collection instruments,…

  18. Using Google Scholar to Estimate the Impact of Journal Articles in Education

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    van Aalst, Jan

    2010-01-01

    This article discusses the potential of Google Scholar as an alternative or complement to the Web of Science and Scopus for measuring the impact of journal articles in education. Three handbooks on research in science education, language education, and educational technology were used to identify a sample of 112 accomplished scholars. Google…

  19. Using Google Scholar to Estimate the Impact of Journal Articles in Education

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    van Aalst, Jan

    2010-01-01

    This article discusses the potential of Google Scholar as an alternative or complement to the Web of Science and Scopus for measuring the impact of journal articles in education. Three handbooks on research in science education, language education, and educational technology were used to identify a sample of 112 accomplished scholars. Google…

  20. Thirty Years of "International Journal of Behavioral Development": Scope, Internationality, and Impact since Its Inception

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Schui, Gabriel; Krampen, Gunter

    2010-01-01

    The article presents 30-year bibliometrical results on trends in the scope, internationality, and impact of the "International Journal of Behavioral Development" ("IJBD") from its inception in 1978 to 2007. Bibliometric data were collected using the databases PsycINFO and Social Science Citation Index (SSCI), and the "IJBD" itself. In comparison…

  1. Thirty Years of "International Journal of Behavioral Development": Scope, Internationality, and Impact since Its Inception

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Schui, Gabriel; Krampen, Gunter

    2010-01-01

    The article presents 30-year bibliometrical results on trends in the scope, internationality, and impact of the "International Journal of Behavioral Development" ("IJBD") from its inception in 1978 to 2007. Bibliometric data were collected using the databases PsycINFO and Social Science Citation Index (SSCI), and the "IJBD" itself. In comparison…

  2. The Impact of the Programme for International Student Assessment on Academic Journals

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Dominguez, Maria; Vieira, Maria-Jose; Vidal, Javier

    2012-01-01

    The aim of this study is to assess the impact of PISA (Programme for International Student Assessment) on international scientific journals. A bibliometric analysis was conducted of publications included in three main scientific publication databases: Eric, EBSCOhost and the ISI Web of Knowledge, from 2002 to 2010. The paper focused on four main…

  3. The Impact of the Programme for International Student Assessment on Academic Journals

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Dominguez, Maria; Vieira, Maria-Jose; Vidal, Javier

    2012-01-01

    The aim of this study is to assess the impact of PISA (Programme for International Student Assessment) on international scientific journals. A bibliometric analysis was conducted of publications included in three main scientific publication databases: Eric, EBSCOhost and the ISI Web of Knowledge, from 2002 to 2010. The paper focused on four main…

  4. [National and international impact factor of Anales de Pediatría].

    PubMed

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

    2004-09-01

    The aim of this study was to present bibliometric indicators of the impact of Anales de Pediatría in 2001 and to compare this journal with other Spanish pediatrics journals. A total of 5,388 bibliographic references from 1999, 2000 and 2001 corresponding to citable articles published in 2001 in a sample of 87 selected Spanish medical journals were analyzed. The indicators obtained were the number of citations, the national and international impact factor (IF) and the immediacy index. The national IF of Anales de Pediatría was 0.334 and the international IF was 0.372. The immediacy index was 0.111. This study confirms the leadership of Anales de Pediatría, since this journal is the most frequently cited Spanish pediatrics journal and has the highest IF and immediacy index. The bibliometric indicators obtained are comparable with those observed in other journals included in Journal Citation Reports.

  5. 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…

  6. 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…

  7. 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.

  8. 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.

  9. 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

  10. 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…

  11. 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…

  12. 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

  13. [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.

  14. Scholarly Publishing's Evolving Landscape: Impact Metrics, Electronic-Only Journals, and Open Access in Journalism and Communication Research

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Antell, Karen; Foote, Joe S.; Foote, Jody Bales

    2016-01-01

    This study surveys the landscape of scholarly publishing, with particular emphasis on scholarly journals in the communication discipline, measuring the shift to electronic publishing in six selected disciplines and exploring two other important emerging topics: open-access publishing and new journal citation metrics. The goals are to inform…

  15. Scholarly Publishing's Evolving Landscape: Impact Metrics, Electronic-Only Journals, and Open Access in Journalism and Communication Research

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Antell, Karen; Foote, Joe S.; Foote, Jody Bales

    2016-01-01

    This study surveys the landscape of scholarly publishing, with particular emphasis on scholarly journals in the communication discipline, measuring the shift to electronic publishing in six selected disciplines and exploring two other important emerging topics: open-access publishing and new journal citation metrics. The goals are to inform…

  16. Literature survey of high-impact journals revealed reporting weaknesses in abstracts of diagnostic accuracy studies.

    PubMed

    Korevaar, Daniël A; Cohen, Jérémie F; Hooft, Lotty; Bossuyt, Patrick M M

    2015-06-01

    Informative journal abstracts are crucial for the identification and initial appraisal of studies. We aimed to evaluate the informativeness of abstracts of diagnostic accuracy studies. PubMed was searched for reports of studies that had evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of a test against a clinical reference standard, published in 12 high-impact journals in 2012. Two reviewers independently evaluated the information contained in included abstracts using 21 items deemed important based on published guidance for adequate reporting and study quality assessment. We included 103 abstracts. Crucial information on study population, setting, patient sampling, and blinding as well as confidence intervals around accuracy estimates were reported in <50% of the abstracts. The mean number of reported items per abstract was 10.1 of 21 (standard deviation 2.2). The mean number of reported items was significantly lower for multiple-gate (case-control type) studies, in reports in specialty journals, and for studies with smaller sample sizes and lower abstract word counts. No significant differences were found between studies evaluating different types of tests. Many abstracts of diagnostic accuracy study reports in high-impact journals are insufficiently informative. Developing guidelines for such abstracts could help the transparency and completeness of reporting. Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

  17. Risk of bias assessment of randomised controlled trials in high-impact ophthalmology journals and general medical journals: a systematic review.

    PubMed

    Joksimovic, Lazar; Koucheki, Robert; Popovic, Marko; Ahmed, Yusuf; Schlenker, Matthew B; Ahmed, Iqbal Ike K

    2017-10-01

    Evidence-based treatments in ophthalmology are often based on the results of randomised controlled trials. Biased conclusions from randomised controlled trials may lead to inappropriate management recommendations. This systematic review investigates the prevalence of bias risk in randomised controlled trials published in high-impact ophthalmology journals and ophthalmology trials from general medical journals. Using Ovid MEDLINE, randomised controlled trials in the top 10 high-impact ophthalmology journals in 2015 were systematically identified and critically appraised for the prevalence of bias risk. Included randomised controlled trials were assessed in all domains of bias as defined by the Cochrane Collaboration. In addition, the prevalence of conflict of interest and industry sponsorship was investigated. A comparison with ophthalmology articles from high-impact general medical journals was performed. Of the 259 records that were screened from ophthalmology-specific journals, 119 trials met all inclusion criteria and were critically appraised. In total, 29.4% of domains had an unclear risk, 13.8% had a high risk and 56.8% had a low risk of bias. In comparison, ophthalmology articles from general medical journals had a lower prevalence of unclear risk (17.1%), higher prevalence of high risk (21.9%) and a higher prevalence of low risk domains (61.9%). Furthermore, 64.7% of critically appraised trials from ophthalmology-specific journals did not report any conflicts of interest, while 70.6% did not report an industry sponsor of their trial. In closing, it is essential that authors, peer reviewers and readers closely follow published risk of bias guidelines. © Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2017. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.

  18. [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.

  19. Factors Impacting Decommissioning Costs - 13576

    SciTech Connect

    Kim, Karen; McGrath, Richard

    2013-07-01

    The Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) studied United States experience with decommissioning cost estimates and the factors that impact the actual cost of decommissioning projects. This study gathered available estimated and actual decommissioning costs from eight nuclear power plants in the United States to understand the major components of decommissioning costs. Major costs categories for decommissioning a nuclear power plant are removal costs, radioactive waste costs, staffing costs, and other costs. The technical factors that impact the costs were analyzed based on the plants' decommissioning experiences. Detailed cost breakdowns by major projects and other cost categories from actual power plant decommissioning experiences will be presented. Such information will be useful in planning future decommissioning and designing new plants. (authors)

  20. Open access to journal articles in oncology: current situation and citation impact.

    PubMed

    Hua, F; Sun, H; Walsh, T; Glenny, A-M; Worthington, H

    2017-10-01

    Recent years have seen numerous efforts and resources devoted to the development of open access (OA), but the current OA situation of the oncology literature remains unknown. We conducted this cross-sectional study to determine the current share and provision methods of OA in the field of oncology, identify predictors of OA status (OA versus non-OA), and study the association between OA and citation counts. PubMed was searched for oncology-related, peer-reviewed journal articles published in December 2014. Google, Google Scholar, PubMed, ResearchGate, OpenDOAR and OAIster were manually checked to assess the OA status of each included article. Citation data were extracted from Web of Science, Scopus and Google Scholar. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the OA proportion (primary outcome) and OA provision methods. Multivariable logistic regression and multilevel generalized linear model analyses were performed to study predictors of OA status and the association between OA and citation counts, respectively. In a random sample of 1000 articles, 912 were deemed eligible and therefore included. Of these, the full-texts of 530 articles (58.1%; 95% CI: 54.9-61.3) were freely available online: 314 (34.4%) were available from publishers ('Gold road' to OA), 424 (46.5%) were available via self-archiving ('Green road' to OA). According to multivariable regression analyses, impact factor, publisher type, language, research type, number of authors, continent of origin, and country income were significant predictors of articles' OA status; OA articles received a citation rate 1.24 times the incidence rate for non-OA articles (95% CI: 1.05-1.47; P = 0.012). Based on our sample, in the field of oncology, 42% of recent journal articles are behind the pay-wall (non-OA) 1 year after publication; the 'Green road' of providing OA is more common than the 'Gold road'; OA is associated with higher citation counts.

  1. Media Coverage, Journal Press Releases and Editorials Associated with Randomized and Observational Studies in High-Impact Medical Journals: A Cohort Study

    PubMed Central

    Wang, Michael T. M.; Bolland, Mark J.; Gamble, Greg; Grey, Andrew

    2015-01-01

    Background Publication of clinical research findings in prominent journals influences health beliefs and medical practice, in part by engendering news coverage. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) should be most influential in guiding clinical practice. We determined whether study design of clinical research published in high-impact journals influences media coverage. Methods and Findings We compared the incidence and amount of media coverage of RCTs with that of observational studies published in the top 7 medical journals between 1 January 2013 and 31 March 2013. We specifically assessed media coverage of the most rigorous RCTs, those with >1000 participants that reported ‘hard’ outcomes. There was no difference between RCTs and observational studies in coverage by major newspapers or news agencies, or in total number of news stories generated (all P>0.63). Large RCTs reporting ‘hard’ outcomes did not generate more news coverage than small RCTs that reported surrogate outcomes and observational studies (all P>0.32). RCTs were more likely than observational studies to attract a journal editorial (70% vs 46%, P = 0.003), but less likely to be the subject of a journal press release (17% vs 50%, P<0.001). Large RCTs that reported ‘hard’ outcomes did not attract an editorial more frequently than other studies (61% vs 58%, P>0.99), nor were they more likely to be the subject of a journal press release (14% vs 38%, P = 0.14). Conclusions The design of clinical studies whose results are published in high-impact medical journals is not associated with the likelihood or amount of ensuing news coverage. PMID:26701758

  2. 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

  3. Examining the Impact of the National Institutes of Health Public Access Policy on the Citation Rates of Journal Articles.

    PubMed

    De Groote, Sandra L; Shultz, Mary; Smalheiser, Neil R

    2015-01-01

    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. 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. 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). 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).

  4. [Evaluation of "Japanese Journal of Psychology" using citation analysis].

    PubMed

    Kato, Tsukasa; Baba, Mamiko; Tabata, Naoya; Shimoda, Shunsuke; Fukuda, Mildki; Okubo, Nobutoshi

    2013-06-01

    This study investigated the professional impact of "Japanese Journal of Psychology." Thirty four psychological journals written in Japanese were selected to register articles in a new database. This database included approximately 23,900 articles published through 2010. Using citations extracted from the references and footnotes in these scholarly journals, the Psychology Citation Index for Japanese Papers was created. The citation impact factors in Japanese psychology was determined on the basis of the number of times a journal was cited, cumulative impact factors, and the cited half-life of the journal; five years was a valid period for impact factor of psychological journals in Japan. The changes in the 5-year impact factors of "Japanese Journal of Psychology" were reviewed by comparing it with other journals.

  5. Evaluating the Research Quality of Education Journals in China: Implications for Increasing Global Impact in Peripheral Countries

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Zhao, Juanjuan; Beckett, Gulbahar H.; Wang, Lihshing Leigh

    2017-01-01

    There has been a rapid growth of academic research and publishing in non-Western countries. However, academic journal articles in these peripheral countries suffer from low citation impact and limited global recognition. This critical review systematically analyzed 1,096 education research journal articles that were published in China in a 10-year…

  6. 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…

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

    PubMed Central

    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. PMID:26120416

  8. 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.

  9. 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

  10. [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.

  11. 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…

  12. 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…

  13. 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.

  14. 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 Central

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

    2013-01-01

    Background Inadequate reporting undermines findings of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). This study assessed and compared articles published in high-impact general medical and specialized journals. Methods 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. Results 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). Interpretation 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. PMID:24391973

  15. Changing Use Patterns of Print Journals in the Digital Age: Impacts of Electronic Equivalents on Print Chemistry Journal Use.

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Vaughan, K. T. L.

    2003-01-01

    Examines the short-term effects of online availability on the use of print chemistry journals based on a study at Duke University Chemistry Library. Discusses results that showed a diminished use of the print collection and considers implications for collection management in scientific and technical libraries. (Author/LRW)

  16. Changing Use Patterns of Print Journals in the Digital Age: Impacts of Electronic Equivalents on Print Chemistry Journal Use.

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Vaughan, K. T. L.

    2003-01-01

    Examines the short-term effects of online availability on the use of print chemistry journals based on a study at Duke University Chemistry Library. Discusses results that showed a diminished use of the print collection and considers implications for collection management in scientific and technical libraries. (Author/LRW)

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

    PubMed

    Miyamoto, Shimpei

    2017-05-09

    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.

  18. The impact factor of Angewandte Chemie ….

    PubMed

    Gölitz, Peter

    2015-01-02

    What does the Impact Factor tell us? This question is addressed by Peter Glitz in his Editorial, particularly in light of the surprising drop in the 2013 Impact Factor of Angewandte Chemie. An explanation is sought and found. Most importantly the influence of the individual variables that determine the Impact Factor needs to be understood.

  19. Nursing education in Slovenia and its impact on nurses publishing in their professional journal.

    PubMed

    Dornik, Ema; Vidmar, Gaj; Zumer, Maja

    2005-04-01

    The paper describes development of nursing education in Slovenia (from Associate Degree to Diploma level, with BSN programme of brief duration) and discusses its impact on structure and contents of the Journal of the Slovenian Nursing Association (JSNA). Extensive bibliometric analysis was performed on all scientific and technical papers published in the JSNA between 1976 and 2001. Statistical analyses were carried out to study characteristics and inter-relations of authorship, article type, cited references and subject classification. A positive impact of improved and extended education of nurses on quantity and quality of their publications was confirmed. Nevertheless, further steps in terms of education and research are needed fully to establish nursing as an independent profession in Slovenia, and there is still much room for improving the standard of the articles in the JSNA.

  20. A General Framework for Relative Impact Indicators.

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Egghe, Leo; Rousseau, Ronald

    2003-01-01

    Discussion of the assessment and comparison of scientific journals, bibliometrics, and types of impact factors focuses on a general framework for the relative comparison of journal impact. Highlights include the relative impact of a journal within a set of journals, or meta-journal; and mathematical explorations of relative indicators. (Author/LRW)

  1. Journal information flow in nanotechnology

    NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

    Andrievski, Rostislav A.; Klyuchareva, Svetlana V.

    2011-12-01

    The nanotechnology development is accompanied by an intensive growth of information flow which is specially noticeable as applied to journal information flow. Now over the world there are the 69 nano-titled journals with the impact factor and/or a settled periodicity as well as the 70 those which lack stability periodicity and are in an organization stage. Only 49 nano-titled have the impact factor with the comparatively high mean value of about 3.44. The domestic nano-titled journals published in Russia, India, China, and other countries are also considered. The attention is taken that in the 2006-2010 period the 95 new nano-titled journals were organized and in 2011 this process is continuing and seems to be the most impressive. Many nano-related journals (including classical physical, chemical and materials science ones) are also described and discussed.

  2. 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.

  3. Comparing Stylistic Traits of Two Medical Journals: An Exploration into Factors of Readability.

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Vande Kopple, William J.

    Excerpts from articles in the "British Medical Journal" and "The American Journal of Medicine" were compared to determine which journal was easier to read and what stylistic traits might account for such ease. Nine paragraphs from the discussion sections of articles on hypertension were taken from each of the journals. When…

  4. 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…

  5. 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…

  6. Exposure factors resources: contrasting EPA’s Exposure Factors Handbook with international sources(journal article)

    EPA Science Inventory

    Efforts to compile and standardize exposure human factors have resulted in the development of a variety of resources available to the scientific community. For example, the U.S. EPA developed the Exposure Factors Handbook and Child-specific Exposure Factors Handbook to promote c...

  7. Exposure factors resources: contrasting EPA’s Exposure Factors Handbook with international sources(journal article)

    EPA Science Inventory

    Efforts to compile and standardize exposure human factors have resulted in the development of a variety of resources available to the scientific community. For example, the U.S. EPA developed the Exposure Factors Handbook and Child-specific Exposure Factors Handbook to promote c...

  8. Trends and comparison of female first authorship in high impact medical journals: observational study (1994-2014)

    PubMed Central

    da Graca, Briget; Sass, Danielle M; Pollock, Benjamin D; Smith, Emma B; Martinez, Melissa Ashley-Marie

    2016-01-01

    Objective To examine changes in representation of women among first authors of original research published in high impact general medical journals from 1994 to 2014 and investigate differences between journals. Design Observational study. Study sample All original research articles published in Annals of Internal Medicine, Archives of Internal Medicine, The BMJ, JAMA, The Lancet, and the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) for one issue every alternate month from February 1994 to June 2014. Main exposures Time and journal of publication. Main outcome measures Prevalence of female first authorship and its adjusted association with time of publication and journal, assessed using a multivariable logistic regression model that accounted for number of authors, study type and specialty/topic, continent where the study was conducted, and the interactions between journal and time of publication, study type, and continent. Estimates from this model were used to calculate adjusted odds ratios against the mean across the six journals, with 95% confidence intervals and P values to describe the associations of interest. Results The gender of the first author was determined for 3758 of the 3860 articles considered; 1273 (34%) were women. After adjustment, female first authorship increased significantly from 27% in 1994 to 37% in 2014 (P<0.001). The NEJM seemed to follow a different pattern, with female first authorship decreasing; it also seemed to decline in recent years in The BMJ but started substantially higher (approximately 40%), and The BMJ had the highest total proportion of female first authors. Compared with the mean across all six journals, first authors were significantly less likely to be female in the NEJM (adjusted odds ratio 0.68, 95% confidence interval 0.53 to 0.89) and significantly more likely to be female in The BMJ (1.30, 1.01 to 1.66) over the study period. Conclusions The representation of women among first authors of original research in high

  9. Trends and comparison of female first authorship in high impact medical journals: observational study (1994-2014).

    PubMed

    Filardo, Giovanni; da Graca, Briget; Sass, Danielle M; Pollock, Benjamin D; Smith, Emma B; Martinez, Melissa Ashley-Marie

    2016-03-02

    To examine changes in representation of women among first authors of original research published in high impact general medical journals from 1994 to 2014 and investigate differences between journals. Observational study. All original research articles published in Annals of Internal Medicine, Archives of Internal Medicine, The BMJ, JAMA, The Lancet, and the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) for one issue every alternate month from February 1994 to June 2014. Time and journal of publication. Prevalence of female first authorship and its adjusted association with time of publication and journal, assessed using a multivariable logistic regression model that accounted for number of authors, study type and specialty/topic, continent where the study was conducted, and the interactions between journal and time of publication, study type, and continent. Estimates from this model were used to calculate adjusted odds ratios against the mean across the six journals, with 95% confidence intervals and P values to describe the associations of interest. The gender of the first author was determined for 3758 of the 3860 articles considered; 1273 (34%) were women. After adjustment, female first authorship increased significantly from 27% in 1994 to 37% in 2014 (P<0.001). The NEJM seemed to follow a different pattern, with female first authorship decreasing; it also seemed to decline in recent years in The BMJ but started substantially higher (approximately 40%), and The BMJ had the highest total proportion of female first authors. Compared with the mean across all six journals, first authors were significantly less likely to be female in the NEJM (adjusted odds ratio 0.68, 95% confidence interval 0.53 to 0.89) and significantly more likely to be female in The BMJ (1.30, 1.01 to 1.66) over the study period. The representation of women among first authors of original research in high impact general medical journals was significantly higher in 2014 than 20 years ago, but it has

  10. Sex-specific analysis of data in high-impact orthopaedic journals: how are we doing?

    PubMed

    Hettrich, Carolyn M; Hammoud, Sommer; LaMont, Lauren E; Arendt, Elizabeth A; Hannafin, Jo A

    2015-12-01

    In 2001, the Institute of Medicine released a report stating that sex must be considered in all aspects and at all levels of biomedical research. Knowledge of differences between males and females in responses to treatment serves to improve our ability to care for our patients. The purpose of our study was to determine (1) if there is an increase in the proportion of sex-specific reporting from 2000 to 2005 and to 2010; and (2) whether there is a proportional difference in such reporting based on journal type: subspecialty versus general orthopaedics. We hypothesize that assessment of the role of sex in outcomes has improved during the past 15 years and that the proportion of studies with of sex-specific analyses has increased with awareness of the role of sex in clinical outcomes and disease states. We additionally hypothesized that the reporting of sex would be similar between subspecialty and general orthopaedic journals. Five high-impact orthopaedic journals, consisting of two general and three subspecialty journals, were chosen for review. Issues from even-numbered months during three calendar years (2000, 2005, 2010) were critically assessed for the presence of sex-specific analyses and reporting by two separate reviewers. Retrospective and prospective clinical studies, with a minimum of 20 patients, were included for analysis. Cadaveric, biomechanical, and in vitro studies were excluded. Review articles and clinical studies with less than 20 patients were excluded. A total of 821 studies that met inclusion criteria were analyzed: 206 in 2000, 277 in 2005, and 338 in 2010. Overall, the proportion of sex-specific analyses increased during the three times studied (19%, 40/206, [95% CI, 0.14-0.25] of the studies in 2000; 27%, 77/277, [95% CI, 0.23-0.33] in 2005; and 30%, 102/338, [95% CI, 0.25-0.35] in 2010). The increase in the proportion of sex-specific analysis was significant between 2000 and 2005 (p = 0.033), but was not significant between 2005 and 2010 (p

  11. Impact factor, H index, peer comparisons, and Retrovirology: is it time to individualize citation metrics?

    PubMed Central

    Jeang, Kuan-Teh

    2007-01-01

    There is a natural tendency to judge a gift by the attractiveness of its wrapping. In some respect, this reflects current mores of measuring the gravitas of a scientific paper based on the journal cover in which the work appears. Most journals have an impact factor (IF) which some proudly display on their face page. Although historically journal IF has been a convenient quantitative shorthand, has its (mis)use contributed to inaccurate perceptions of the quality of scientific articles? Is now the time that equally convenient but more individually accurate metrics be adopted? PMID:17577403

  12. The use and misuse of the "impact factor" as a parameter for evaluation of scientific publication quality: a proposal to rationalize its application.

    PubMed

    Coelho, P M Z; Antunes, C M F; Costa, H M A; Kroon, E G; Sousa Lima, M C; Linardi, P M

    2003-12-01

    We present a critical analysis of the generalized use of the "impact factor". By means of the Kruskal-Wallis test, it was shown that it is not possible to compare distinct disciplines using the impact factor without adjustments. After assigning the median journal the value of one (1.000), the impact factor value for each journal was calculated by the rule of three. The adjusted values were homogeneous, thus permitting comparison among distinct disciplines.

  13. Brazilian Science between National and Foreign Journals: Methodology for Analyzing the Production and Impact in Emerging Scientific Communities

    PubMed Central

    Calabró, Luciana; Souza, Diogo Onofre; Amaral, Lívio

    2016-01-01

    In recent decades, we have observed an intensification of science, technology and innovation activities in Brazil. The increase in production of scientific papers indexed in international databases, however, has not been accompanied by an equivalent increase in the impact of publications. This paper presents a methodology for analyzing production and the impact of certain research areas in Brazil related to two aspects: the origin of the journals (national or foreign) and international collaboration. These two variables were selected for being of particular importance in understanding the context of scientific production and communication in countries with emerging economies. The sample consisted of papers written by Brazilian researchers in 19 subfields of knowledge published from 2002 to 2011, totaling 85,082 papers. To calculate the impact, we adopted a normalized indicator called the relative subfield citedness (Rw) using a window of 5 years to obtain measurements evaluated in 2 different years: 2007 and 2012. The data on papers and citations were collected from the Web of Science database. From the results, we note that most of the subfields have presented, from one quinquennium to another, improved performance in the world production rankings. Regarding publication in national and foreign journals, we observed a trend in the distribution maintenance of production of the subfields based on the origin of the journal. Specifically, for impact, we identified a lower Rw pattern for Brazilian papers when they were published in national journals in all subfields. When Brazilian products are published in foreign journals, we observed a higher impact for those papers, even surpassing the average global impact in some subfields. For international collaboration, we analyzed the percentage of participation of foreign researchers and the connection between collaboration and the impact of papers, especially emphasizing the distinction of hyperauthorship papers in terms of

  14. Brazilian Science between National and Foreign Journals: Methodology for Analyzing the Production and Impact in Emerging Scientific Communities.

    PubMed

    Strehl, Letícia; Calabró, Luciana; Souza, Diogo Onofre; Amaral, Lívio

    2016-01-01

    In recent decades, we have observed an intensification of science, technology and innovation activities in Brazil. The increase in production of scientific papers indexed in international databases, however, has not been accompanied by an equivalent increase in the impact of publications. This paper presents a methodology for analyzing production and the impact of certain research areas in Brazil related to two aspects: the origin of the journals (national or foreign) and international collaboration. These two variables were selected for being of particular importance in understanding the context of scientific production and communication in countries with emerging economies. The sample consisted of papers written by Brazilian researchers in 19 subfields of knowledge published from 2002 to 2011, totaling 85,082 papers. To calculate the impact, we adopted a normalized indicator called the relative subfield citedness (Rw) using a window of 5 years to obtain measurements evaluated in 2 different years: 2007 and 2012. The data on papers and citations were collected from the Web of Science database. From the results, we note that most of the subfields have presented, from one quinquennium to another, improved performance in the world production rankings. Regarding publication in national and foreign journals, we observed a trend in the distribution maintenance of production of the subfields based on the origin of the journal. Specifically, for impact, we identified a lower Rw pattern for Brazilian papers when they were published in national journals in all subfields. When Brazilian products are published in foreign journals, we observed a higher impact for those papers, even surpassing the average global impact in some subfields. For international collaboration, we analyzed the percentage of participation of foreign researchers and the connection between collaboration and the impact of papers, especially emphasizing the distinction of hyperauthorship papers in terms of

  15. Journals Not Included in BIOSIS Previews Have a Notable Impact in Biology

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Lascar, Claudia; Barnett, Philip

    2009-01-01

    The purpose of this study was to reveal influential journals used by life scientists; journals not currently included in "BIOSIS Previews," but included in either "PubMed" or "Science Citation Index Expanded". These 252 journals were revealed by the Eigenfactor, an iterative ranking scheme which quantitatively measures the scientific influence of…

  16. Journals Not Included in BIOSIS Previews Have a Notable Impact in Biology

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Lascar, Claudia; Barnett, Philip

    2009-01-01

    The purpose of this study was to reveal influential journals used by life scientists; journals not currently included in "BIOSIS Previews," but included in either "PubMed" or "Science Citation Index Expanded". These 252 journals were revealed by the Eigenfactor, an iterative ranking scheme which quantitatively measures the scientific influence of…

  17. 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.

  18. [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.

  19. Assessing the impact participation in science journalism activities has on scientific literacy among high school students

    NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

    Farrar, Cathy

    As part of the National Science Foundation Science Literacy through Science Journalism (SciJourn) research and development initiative (http://www.scijourn.org ; Polman, Saul, Newman, and Farrar, 2008) a quasi-experimental design was used to investigate what impact incorporating science journalism activities had on students' scientific literacy. Over the course of a school year students participated in a variety of activities culminating in the production of science news articles for Scijourner, a regional print and online high school science news magazine. Participating teachers and SciJourn team members collaboratively developed activities focused on five aspects of scientific literacy: placing information into context, recognizing relevance, evaluating factual accuracy, use of multiple credible sources and information seeking processes. This study details the development process for the Scientific Literacy Assessment (SLA) including validity and reliability studies, evaluates student scientific literacy using the SLA, examines student SLA responses to provide a description of high school students' scientific literacy, and outlines implications of the findings in relation to the National Research Council's A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas (2012) and classroom science teaching practices. Scientifically literate adults acting as experts in the assessment development phase informed the creation of a scoring guide that was used to analyze student responses. Experts tended to draw on both their understanding of science concepts and life experiences to formulate answers; paying close attention to scientific factual inaccuracies, sources of information, how new information fit into their view of science and society as well as targeted strategies for information seeking. Novices (i.e., students), in contrast, tended to ignore factual inaccuracies, showed little understanding about source credibility and suggested

  20. 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.…

  1. 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.…

  2. Is Quality and Completeness of Reporting of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Published in High Impact Radiology Journals Associated with Citation Rates?

    PubMed Central

    van der Pol, Christian B.; McInnes, Matthew D. F.; Petrcich, William; Tunis, Adam S.; Hanna, Ramez

    2015-01-01

    Purpose The purpose of this study is to determine whether study quality and completeness of reporting of systematic reviews (SR) and meta-analyses (MA) published in high impact factor (IF) radiology journals is associated with citation rates. Methods All SR and MA published in English between Jan 2007–Dec 2011, in radiology journals with an IF >2.75, were identified on Ovid MEDLINE. The Assessing the Methodologic Quality of Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) checklist for study quality, and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist for study completeness, was applied to each SR & MA. Each SR & MA was then searched in Google Scholar to yield a citation rate. Spearman correlation coefficients were used to assess the relationship between AMSTAR and PRISMA results with citation rate. Multivariate analyses were performed to account for the effect of journal IF and journal 5-year IF on correlation with citation rate. Values were reported as medians with interquartile range (IQR) provided. Results 129 studies from 11 journals were included (50 SR and 79 MA). Median AMSTAR result was 8.0/11 (IQR: 5–9) and median PRISMA result was 23.0/27 (IQR: 21–25). The median citation rate for SR & MA was 0.73 citations/month post-publication (IQR: 0.40–1.17). There was a positive correlation between both AMSTAR and PRISMA results and SR & MA citation rate; ρ=0.323 (P=0.0002) and ρ=0.327 (P=0.0002) respectively. Positive correlation persisted for AMSTAR and PRISMA results after journal IF was partialed out; ρ=0.243 (P=0.006) and ρ=0.256 (P=0.004), and after journal 5-year IF was partialed out; ρ=0.235 (P=0.008) and ρ=0.243 (P=0.006) respectively. Conclusion There is a positive correlation between the quality and the completeness of a reported SR or MA with citation rate which persists when adjusted for journal IF and journal 5-year IF. PMID:25775455

  3. FUTURE OF DERMATOVENEREOLOGICAL JOURNALS1.

    PubMed

    Marinović, Branka

    2016-04-01

    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.

  4. Effects of binding policy and other factors on the availability of journal issues.

    PubMed Central

    Piternick, A B

    1976-01-01

    Random samples of journal issues, derived from a test set of 106 biomedical journal titles, were checked against the shelves of the Woodward Biomedical Library under circulating and noncirculating conditions. As well as circulation, binding procedures and duplication of sets were seen to affect availability. Indications are that the practice of binding journals upon completion of the volume may remove them from use at a time of peak demand. The usefulness of second sets of journals appeared to decline rapidly within a few years after publication. A change from circulating to noncirculating conditions may have increased availability certain journals by discouraging use. PMID:938774

  5. [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.

  6. Can Electronic Journal Usage Data Replace Citation Data as a Measure of Journal Use? An Empirical Examination

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Duy, Joanna; Vaughan, Liwen

    2006-01-01

    Citation and print journal use data have been used to measure quality and usefulness of library journal titles. This study examined relationships among different measurements and found that electronic usage correlates with print usage and that local citation data are a valid reflection of total journal usage but Impact Factors are not as valid.

  7. 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.

  8. A General Econometric Model of the Determinants of Library Subscription Prices of Scholarly Journals: The Role of Exchange Rate Risk and Other Factors.

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Chressanthis, George A.; Chressanthis, June D.

    1994-01-01

    Provides regression-based empirical evidence of the effects of variations in exchange rate risk on 1985 library prices of the top-ranked 99 journals in economics. The relationship between individual journal prices and library prices is shown, and other factors associated with increases and decreases in library journal prices are given. (Contains…

  9. 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.

  10. Citation distribution profile in Brazilian journals of general medicine.

    PubMed

    Lustosa, Luiggi Araujo; Chalco, Mario Edmundo Pastrana; Borba, Cecília de Melo; Higa, André Eizo; Almeida, Renan Moritz Varnier Rodrigues

    2012-01-01

    Impact factors are currently the bibliometric index most used for evaluating scientific journals. However, the way in which they are used, for instance concerning the study or journal types analyzed, can markedly interfere with estimate reliability. This study aimed to analyze the citation distribution pattern in three Brazilian journals of general medicine. This was a descriptive study based on numbers of citations of scientific studies published by three Brazilian journals of general medicine. The journals analyzed were São Paulo Medical Journal, Clinics and Revista da Associação Médica Brasileira. This survey used data available from the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) platform, from which the total number of papers published in each journal in 2007-2008 and the number of citations of these papers in 2009 were obtained. From these data, the citation distribution was derived and journal impact factors (average number of citations) were estimated. These factors were then compared with those directly available from the ISI Journal of Citation Reports (JCR). Respectively, 134, 203 and 192 papers were published by these journals during the period analyzed. The observed citation distributions were highly skewed, such that many papers had few citations and a small percentage had many citations. It was not possible to identify any specific pattern for the most cited papers or to exactly reproduce the JCR impact factors. Use of measures like "impact factors", which characterize citations through averages, does not adequately represent the citation distribution in the journals analyzed.

  11. Journals Supporting Terrorism Research: Identification and Investigation into Their Impact on the Social Sciences

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Bullis, Daryl R.; Irving, Richard D.

    2013-01-01

    A citation analysis of two preeminent terrorism journals ("Terrorism and Political Violence" and "Studies in Conflict and Terrorism") was used to identify 37 additional social science journals of significant importance to terrorism research. Citation data extracted from the "Web of Science" database was used to…

  12. A Data-Based Method of Ranking Department, Faculty and Journals in Professional Impact.

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Matson, Johnny L.; Lott, Julia D.; Bielecki, JoAnne

    2003-01-01

    Reviewed current popular rankings of clinical psychology schools and journals. Overall publication and citation records for full-time faculty at the top institutions were tabulated. Faculty members from the Department of Psychology at Louisiana State University were asked to list the most highly regarded journals in their specialty area. Rankings…

  13. Progressive Trends and Impact of the Journal of Career Development: A Citation Analysis

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Chaichanasakul, Adipat; He, Yuhong; Chen, Hsui-Hui; Allen, G. E. Kawika; Khairallah, Taleb S.; Ramos, Karina

    2011-01-01

    As one of the four premier journals in vocational psychology, the "Journal of Career Development" ("JCD") has published over 830 articles over the past three decades. This study examined the performance of "JCD" through a citation analysis and provided evaluative data for scholars publishing in the field of vocation psychology. Articles published…

  14. Journals Supporting Terrorism Research: Identification and Investigation into Their Impact on the Social Sciences

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Bullis, Daryl R.; Irving, Richard D.

    2013-01-01

    A citation analysis of two preeminent terrorism journals ("Terrorism and Political Violence" and "Studies in Conflict and Terrorism") was used to identify 37 additional social science journals of significant importance to terrorism research. Citation data extracted from the "Web of Science" database was used to…

  15. The Intellectual Foundations of Education: Core Journals and Their Impacts on Scholarship and Practice

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Goodyear, Rodney K.; Brewer, Dominic J.; Gallagher, Karen Symms; Tracey, Terence J. G.; Claiborn, Charles D.; Lichtenberg, James W.; Wampold, Bruce E.

    2009-01-01

    Academic journals are the primary mode of communication among researchers, and they play a central role in the creation, diffusion, and use of knowledge. This article updates previous attempts to identify a core set of journals that most education scholars would acknowledge as consequential sources. On the basis of nominations from a panel of…

  16. The early years of the Journal of Fluid Mechanics. Style and international impact

    NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

    Moffatt, H. Keith

    2017-07-01

    The origins of the Journal of Fluid Mechanics, of which the first volume was published in 1956, are discussed, with reference to editorial correspondence during the early years of the Journal. This paper is based on a lecture given at the colloquium: A Century of Fluid Mechanics, 1870-1970, IMFT, Toulouse, France, 19-21 October 2016.

  17. Progressive Trends and Impact of the Journal of Career Development: A Citation Analysis

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Chaichanasakul, Adipat; He, Yuhong; Chen, Hsui-Hui; Allen, G. E. Kawika; Khairallah, Taleb S.; Ramos, Karina

    2011-01-01

    As one of the four premier journals in vocational psychology, the "Journal of Career Development" ("JCD") has published over 830 articles over the past three decades. This study examined the performance of "JCD" through a citation analysis and provided evaluative data for scholars publishing in the field of vocation psychology. Articles published…

  18. The Human Implications of Technology's Impact on the Content of Library Science Journals.

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Riggs, Donald E.; Zhang, Sha Li

    1999-01-01

    The content of library science journals, by sharing information about technology-based change, may affect the organizational structure in which librarians and staff work, their expectations for using technology, and their need for libraries to become, to a greater degree, learning organizations. This article deals only with print journals. (AEF)

  19. The N-Pact Factor: Evaluating the Quality of Empirical Journals with Respect to Sample Size and Statistical Power

    PubMed Central

    Fraley, R. Chris; Vazire, Simine

    2014-01-01

    The authors evaluate the quality of research reported in major journals in social-personality psychology by ranking those journals with respect to their N-pact Factors (NF)—the statistical power of the empirical studies they publish to detect typical effect sizes. Power is a particularly important attribute for evaluating research quality because, relative to studies that have low power, studies that have high power are more likely to (a) to provide accurate estimates of effects, (b) to produce literatures with low false positive rates, and (c) to lead to replicable findings. The authors show that the average sample size in social-personality research is 104 and that the power to detect the typical effect size in the field is approximately 50%. Moreover, they show that there is considerable variation among journals in sample sizes and power of the studies they publish, with some journals consistently publishing higher power studies than others. The authors hope that these rankings will be of use to authors who are choosing where to submit their best work, provide hiring and promotion committees with a superior way of quantifying journal quality, and encourage competition among journals to improve their NF rankings. PMID:25296159

  20. Reflections on the Journal of Applied Psychology for 2009 to 2014: Infrastructure, operations, innovations, impact, evolution, and desirable directions.

    PubMed

    Kozlowski, Steve W J

    2017-03-01

    In this reflection on my experiences as editor of the Journal of Applied Psychology, I consider 6 foci including (a) information on the background, infrastructure, and mechanics of running this top-tier journal; (b) statistics on journal operations across the 7 years of editorial activity (i.e., incoming plus 6 years on the masthead); (c) innovations that my senior editorial team introduced (i.e., transparency via supplemental materials, revival of monographs, initiation of integrative conceptual reviews); (d) impact and influence with respect to articles, authors, and institutions; (e) latent sematic analysis findings to illustrate the evolution and change of journal content over a 33-year comparison period (i.e., it has evolved substantially); and desirable directions for future evolution of the journal (i.e., strengthen our scientific foundation, increase multidisciplinary linkages, focus on multilevel system dynamics as core capabilities, and improve the translation of industrial and organizational science to evidence-based practice and vice versa). (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2017 APA, all rights reserved).

  1. Vulvodynia: Definition, Prevalence, Impact, and Pathophysiological Factors.

    PubMed

    Pukall, Caroline F; Goldstein, Andrew T; Bergeron, Sophie; Foster, David; Stein, Amy; Kellogg-Spadt, Susan; Bachmann, Gloria

    2016-03-01

    Vulvodynia constitutes a highly prevalent form of chronic genital pain in women, and current information regarding its definition, prevalence, impact, and pathophysiologic factors involved is needed. To update the scientific evidence published in 2010 from the Third International Consultation of Sexual Medicine pertaining to the definition, prevalence, impact, and pathophysiologic factors of women's sexual pain. An expert committee, as part of the Fourth International Consultation of Sexual Medicine, comprised of researchers and clinicians from biological and social science disciplines, reviewed the scientific evidence on the definition, prevalence, impact, and pathophysiologic factors related to chronic genital pain. A review of the definition, prevalence, impact, and pathophysiological factors involved in vulvodynia. Vulvodynia is a prevalent and highly impactful genital pain condition. Numerous factors have been implicated in its development and maintenance. What is becoming increasingly apparent is that it likely represents the end point of different factors that can differ from patient to patient. Longitudinal research is needed to shed light on risk factors involved in the expression of vulvodynia, as well as in potential subgroups of affected patients, in order to develop an empirically supported treatment algorithm. Copyright © 2016 International Society for Sexual Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

  2. [Citation characteristics of German authors in "Der Chirurg": hegemony of the impact factor].

    PubMed

    Hasse, W; Fischer, R J

    2010-04-01

    Characteristics of citation and language in publications of German authors from the journal "Der Chirurg" (vol 78, 2007) were analysed. Out of a total of 3,342 citations, 756 (22.62%) were from German authors with 248 (32.8) self-citations. The hegemony of the impact factor in science, research and education is critically discussed. The imbalance between the number of surgeons in the US and United Kingdom (66,032) and surgeons in the German speaking countries in Europe (25,300) is compared with respect to the counting methods used to create the impact factor of a journal. The creation of an independent impact factor in Europe and the development of an EU-based citation data bank which allows unselected access to national language scientific literature are strongly needed.

  3. Photon impact factor in the NLO

    SciTech Connect

    Balitsky, Ian

    2013-04-01

    The photon impact factor for the BFKL pomeron is calculated in the next-to-leading order (NLO) approximation using the operator expansion in Wilson lines. The result is represented as a NLO k{sub T}-factorization formula for the structure functions of small-x deep inelastic scattering.

  4. Gauging the impact of Forensic Science International: Genetics--Citation metrics for top articles in the journal.

    PubMed

    Phillips, Chris

    2014-07-01

    Using the Thomson Reuters' Web of Knowledge bibliometric tool enables the analysis of citation patterns for the articles published in FSI: Genetics since it was launched. This brief survey identifies the most cited articles published by the journal since its inception and amongst these, the most impactful original research articles: those showing the highest citation rates per year since their publication. Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

  5. 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.

  6. Scientometrics Study of Impact of Journal Indexing on the Growth of Scientific Productions of Iran.

    PubMed

    Najari, Abbas; Yousefvand, Masoud

    2013-10-01

    This study represents scientific production of Iran in medical sciences field at recent years, and the correlation between scientific productions with the number of indexed journals. Data extracted from SCOPUS database between years 2000 and 2011, and Iran's performance measured in terms of different Scientometrics indexes including self-citations, percent of cited articles, number of articles with international collaboration and contribution of Iran in medical sciences in Middle East and world. Moreover correlation between the number of articles, citations, self-citations, and H-index and number of indexed journals for 50 countries in all fields is included. In 2011 year, Iran contributed 32.77 percent of the Middle East, and accounted for 1.57 percent of the world scientific production. The most frequent document type was original journal article published in English. Retrieved records revealed preferred subject areas, including medicine miscellaneous (14.53 percent of Iran publications in 2011 year). In 2011, according to the number of articles and citations to them, Iran was at 17th and 23th position between 226 countries, respectively. After adjustment for 19708 journals from 50 countries, Iran's rank based on the number of journals in medical sciences was 24th. The number of indexed journals with number of articles, citations, self-citations, and H-index of each country showed significant correlation (P-value<0.01). In recent years, by favoring quality over quantity of researches, the new rules have proven to be more effective for discriminating Iranian scientific productions.

  7. [Good and bad uses of the Impact Factor, a bibliometric tool].

    PubMed

    Sculier, J P

    2004-02-01

    The Impact Factor (IF) is a bibliometric tool that has become very popular among the academic people. It has been developed by the publishers of scientific reviews to determine the impact of their journal among the scientific and medical community. It is based on the following principle: more often are cited the articles of a journal, more often is that journal read and thus sold. Various secondary applications have been performed with the IF, including the evaluation of the academic curriculum of a scientist or of a research group. That approach is however not validated, a recent methodological study having demonstrated a lack of good correlation between the IF of a given review and the quality scores of its published articles.

  8. Endorsement of the CONSORT statement by high-impact medical journals in China: a survey of instructions for authors and published papers.

    PubMed

    Li, Xiao-qian; Tao, Kun-ming; Zhou, Qing-hui; Moher, David; Chen, Hong-yun; Wang, Fu-zhe; Ling, Chang-quan

    2012-01-01

    The CONSORT Statement is a reporting guideline for authors when reporting randomized controlled trials (RCTs). It offers a standard way for authors to prepare RCT reports. It has been endorsed by many high-impact medical journals and by international editorial groups. This study was conducted to assess the endorsement of the CONSORT Statement by high-impact medical journals in China by reviewing their instructions for authors. A total of 200 medical journals were selected according to the Chinese Science and Technology Journal Citation Reports, 195 of which publish clinical research papers. Their instructions for authors were reviewed and all texts mentioning the CONSORT Statement or CONSORT extension papers were extracted. Any mention of the Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals (URM) developed by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) or 'clinical trial registration' was also extracted. For journals endorsing the CONSORT Statement, their most recently published RCT reports were retrieved and evaluated to assess whether the journals have followed what the CONSORT Statement required. Out of the 195 medical journals publishing clinical research papers, only six (6/195, 3.08%) mentioned 'CONSORT' in their instructions for authors; out of the 200 medical journals surveyed, only 14 (14/200, 7.00%) mentioned 'ICMJE' or 'URM' in their instructions for authors, and another five journals stated in their instructions for authors that clinical trials should have trial registration numbers and that priority would be given to clinical trials which had been registered. Among the 62 RCT reports published in the six journals endorsing the CONSORT Statement, 20 (20/62, 32.26%) contained flow diagrams and only three (3/62, 4.84%) provided trial registration information. Medical journals in China endorsing either the CONSORT Statement or the ICMJE's URM constituted a small percentage of the total; all of these journals used

  9. Journal metrics-based position of diabetes & metabolism journal after the change of its text language to english.

    PubMed

    Huh, Sun

    2014-06-01

    After changing its language from Korean or English to English only in 2010, the journal metrics of Diabetes & Metabolism Journal (DMJ) were analyzed to assess whether this change in the journal policy was successful. The journal metric items that were analyzed were the following: impact factor; total citations; countries of authors; proportion of the articles funded out of the total number of original articles; and Hirsch-index (H-index). A retrospective, descriptive analysis was carried out using various databases, such as KoreaMed, Korean Medical Citation Index (KoMCI), KoreaMed Synapse, Web of Science, and Journal Citation Ranking. The journal's impact factor was 2.054, which corresponds to 83/122 (68.0%) out of the 2012 JCR endocrinology and metabolism category. The number of the journal's total citations was 330 in 2013. In addition to Korean authors, authors from 13 other countries published papers in the journal from 2010 to 2013. The number of funded papers from 2010 to 2013 was 65 out of 148 original articles (43.9%). The journal's H-index from KoreaMed Synapse was 7, and that from Web of Science was 9. It can be concluded that changing the journal's language to English was successful based on journal metrics. DMJ is currently positioned as an international journal based on the international diversity of authors and editors, its sufficiently high proportion of funded articles, its relatively high impact factor, and the number of total citations.

  10. Where should family medicine papers be published - following the impact factor?

    PubMed

    Peleg, Roni; Shvartzman, Pesach

    2006-01-01

    Academic institutions weigh the research contribution of family physicians and take this factor into account when determining eligibility for the candidates' promotion. Among other parameters, these institutions consider the journals in which family physicians publish. In this respect, the impact factor (IF) has gained a foothold as one of the most accepted means to measure this contribution. The IF may be a measure of the main importance of a scientific journal. IF has a huge, but controversial, influence on the perception and evaluation of published scientific research. It is important for family physicians to understand and be aware of the importance of the IF and the way it is calculated. The IF is one consideration in the decision-making process of a researcher as to where to publish because the IF of most family medicine journals is less than 2.0. Thus publication in these journals might not yield the proper "score" for academic promotion in many institutions. On the other hand, publication in journals with higher IF that are not necessarily widely read by primary care physicians could result in a small impact of their findings on direct patient care.

  11. 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

  12. Clarivate Analytics: Continued Omnia vanitas Impact Factor Culture.

    PubMed

    Teixeira da Silva, Jaime A; Bernès, Sylvain

    2017-02-23

    This opinion paper takes aim at an error made recently by Clarivate Analytics in which it sent out an email that congratulated academics for becoming exclusive members of academia's most cited elite, the Highly Cited Researchers (HCRs). However, that email was sent out to an undisclosed number of non-HCRs, who were offered an apology shortly after, through a bulk mail, which tried to down-play the importance of the error, all the while praising the true HCRs. When Clarivate Analytics senior management was contacted, the company declined to offer an indication of the number of academics who had been contacted and erroneously awarded the HCR status. We believe that this regrettable blunder, together with the opacity offered by the company, fortify the corporate attitude about the value of the journal impact factor (JIF), and what it represents, namely a marketing tool that is falsely used to equate citations with quality, worth, or influence. The continued commercialization of metrics such as the JIF is at the heart of their use to assess the "quality" of a researcher, their work, or a journal, and contributes to a great extent to driving scientific activities towards a futile endeavor.

  13. 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

  14. 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

  15. Key Impact Factors on Dam Break Fatalities

    NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

    Huang, D.; Yu, Z.; Song, Y.; Han, D.; Li, Y.

    2016-12-01

    Dam failures can lead to catastrophes on human society. However, there is a lack of research about dam break fatalities, especially on the key factors that affect fatalities. Based on the analysis of historical dam break cases, most studies have used the regression analysis to explore the correlation between those factors and fatalities, but without implementing optimization to find the dominating factors. In order to understand and reduce the risk of fatalities, this study has proposed a new method to select the impact factors on the fatality. It employs an improved ANN (Artificial Neural Network) combined with LOOCV (Leave-one-out cross-validation) and SFS (Stepwise Forward Selection) approach to explore the nonlinear relationship between impact factors and life losses. It not only considers the factors that have been widely used in the literature but also introduces new factors closely involved with fatalities. Dam break cases occurred in China from 1954 to 2013 are summarized, within which twenty-five cases are selected with a comprehensive coverage of geographic position and temporal variation. Twelve impact factors are taken into account as the inputs, i.e., severity of dam break flood (SF), population at risk (PR), public understanding of dam break (UB), warning time (TW), evacuation condition (EC), weather condition during dam break (WB), dam break mode (MB), water storage (SW), building vulnerability (VB), dam break time (TB), average distance from the affected area to the dam (DD) and preventive measures by government (PG).From those, three key factors of SF, MB and TB are chosen. The proposed method is able to extract the key factors, and the derived fatality model performs well in various types of dam break conditions.

  16. The impact of social media on readership of a peer-reviewed medical journal.

    PubMed

    Hawkins, C Matthew; Hillman, Bruce J; Carlos, Ruth C; Rawson, James V; Haines, Rebecca; Duszak, Richard

    2014-11-01

    Social media microblogging has made major inroads in physician education and information exchange. The authors evaluated their early experience with Twitter "tweet chat" sessions as a medium to expand the reach and audience of a peer-reviewed radiology journal. The authors analyzed Twitter activity metadata tagged with the #JACR hashtag from the first 6 tweet chat sessions sponsored and promoted by JACR. The assessment included multiple metrics: radiologist versus nonradiologist session participants, individual tweets, tweets with embedded web links, common words, retweets, and impressions. We correlated Twitter metrics with temporally related journal website activity. Each session generated a mean of 444 ± 172 tweets contributed by a mean of 33 ± 14 participants (45.4% nonradiologists) and resulted in a mean of 1,163,712 ± 441,971 impressions. Per session, a mean of 19 ± 7.6 tweets contained web links, and 138 ± 35.6 tweets were retweets. Monthly journal website article views increased from 31,220 to 41,017 (+31.4%), journal website visits increased from 9,192 to 11,539 (+25.5%), and unique visitors increased from 7,368 to 8,841 (+20%). Since JACR tweet chats were initiated, mean monthly journal website visits and page views per month directly from twitter.com increased from 24 to 101 (+321%) and from 38 to 159 (+318%), respectively. Early experience with JACR tweet chats demonstrates that organizing Twitter microblogging activities around topics of general interest to their target readership bears the potential for medical journals to increase their audiences and reach. Copyright © 2014 American College of Radiology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

  17. Scholarly Use of the Web: What Are the Key Inducers of Links to Journal Web Sites?

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Vaughan, Liwen; Thelwall, Mike

    2003-01-01

    Reports on a study to investigate the factors that influence the creation of links to journal Web sites. Specific questions addressed are whether site age and site content are inducers of links to a journal's Web site as measured by the ratio of link counts to Journal Impact Factors. (Author/MES)

  18. Reproducibility of Search Strategies Is Poor in Systematic Reviews Published in High-Impact Pediatrics, Cardiology and Surgery Journals: A Cross-Sectional Study

    PubMed Central

    2016-01-01

    Background A high-quality search strategy is considered an essential component of systematic reviews but many do not contain reproducible search strategies. It is unclear if low reproducibility spans medical disciplines, is affected by librarian/search specialist involvement or has improved with increased awareness of reporting guidelines. Objectives To examine the reporting of search strategies in systematic reviews published in Pediatrics, Surgery or Cardiology journals in 2012 and determine rates and predictors of including a reproducible search strategy. Methods We identified all systematic reviews published in 2012 in the ten highest impact factor journals in Pediatrics, Surgery and Cardiology. Each search strategy was coded to indicate what elements were reported and whether the overall search was reproducible. Reporting and reproducibility rates were compared across disciplines and we measured the influence of librarian/search specialist involvement, discipline or endorsement of a reporting guideline on search reproducibility. Results 272 articles from 25 journals were included. Reporting of search elements ranged widely from 91% of articles naming search terms to 33% providing a full search strategy and 22% indicating the date the search was executed. Only 22% of articles provided at least one reproducible search strategy and 13% provided a reproducible strategy for all databases searched in the article. Librarians or search specialists were reported as involved in 17% of articles. There were strong disciplinary differences on the reporting of search elements. In the multivariable analysis, only discipline (Pediatrics) was a significant predictor of the inclusion of a reproducible search strategy. Conclusions Despite recommendations to report full, reproducible search strategies, many articles still do not. In addition, authors often report a single strategy as covering all databases searched, further decreasing reproducibility. Further research is needed

  19. Survey of editors and reviewers of high-impact psychology journals: statistical and research design problems in submitted manuscripts.

    PubMed

    Harris, Alex; Reeder, Rachelle; Hyun, Jenny

    2011-01-01

    The authors surveyed 21 editors and reviewers from major psychology journals to identify and describe the statistical and design errors they encounter most often and to get their advice regarding prevention of these problems. Content analysis of the text responses revealed themes in 3 major areas: (a) problems with research design and reporting (e.g., lack of an a priori power analysis, lack of congruence between research questions and study design/analysis, failure to adequately describe statistical procedures); (b) inappropriate data analysis (e.g., improper use of analysis of variance, too many statistical tests without adjustments, inadequate strategy for addressing missing data); and (c) misinterpretation of results. If researchers attended to these common methodological and analytic issues, the scientific quality of manuscripts submitted to high-impact psychology journals might be significantly improved.

  20. Impact of Histochemistry on Biomedical Research: Looking Through the Articles Published in a Long-established Histochemical Journal

    PubMed Central

    Pellicciari, C.

    2014-01-01

    Histochemistry provides the unique opportunity to detect single molecules in the very place where they exert their structural roles or functional activities: this makes it possible to correlate structural organization and function, and may be fruitfully exploited in countless biomedical research topics. Aiming to estimate the impact of histochemical articles in the biomedical field, the last few years citations of articles published in a long-established histochemical journal have been considered. This brief survey suggests that histochemical journals, especially the ones open to a large spectrum of research subjects, do represent an irreplaceable source of information not only for cell biologists, microscopists or anatomists, but also for biochemists, molecular biologists and biotechnologists. PMID:25578981

  1. What makes the best medical ethics journal? A North American perspective

    PubMed Central

    Savulescu, J; Viens, A

    2005-01-01

    Objective: To establish which factors contribute to medical ethicists reviewing articles for or submitting them to medical ethics journals by consulting those who are active in this capacity. Methods: Medical ethicists were surveyed to determine their incentives and disincentives for reviewing articles for or submitting them to medical ethics journals. Survey participants were chosen based on a review of the academic and research record of medical ethicists working in North America in higher education institutions. Results: The most frequent incentives to reviewing journal articles were: an opportunity to contribute to the field/profession, the good reputation of the journal, the high impact factor of the journal, and to keep up to date on current research. The most frequent disincentives to reviewing journal articles were: time constraints due to academic commitments, the poor reputation of the journal, and time constraints caused by other editorial commitments (for example, reviewing for other journals/publishers). The most important incentives to submitting journal articles were: the good reputation of the journal, the quality of scholarship previously published in the journal, the impact factor of the journal, and a fast turn-around from acceptance to publication. The most important disincentives to submitting journal articles were: the poor reputation of the journal, the poor quality of work previously published in the journal, and a slow turn-around from acceptance to publication. Conclusion: A series of factors that medical ethics journals should strive to employ to encourage reviewing and submission of articles are recommended. PMID:16199602

  2. Thoughts and recommendations concerning impact and productivity in school psychology journals.

    PubMed

    Robinson, Daniel H

    2011-12-01

    Having been personally involved in several examinations of productivity in various sub-disciplines of psychology, I read with great interest the articles in this special issue. I commend the authors for engaging in this activity, as I feel that a field benefits from occasional self-examinations. In this commentary, I caution against placing too much emphasis on impact factors, arguing that they are not measured without error and unethical behaviors could increase if they are weighted too heavily. I recommend examinations of methodological trends, whether implications for practice are based on observational data, whether female participation in the publication process matches their participation as members of the field, and finally including other characteristics in defining highly productive scholars that would attract potential graduate students.

  3. The Impact of Journal Ranking Fetishism on Australian Policy-Related Research: A Case Study

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Young, Suzanne; Peetz, David; Marais, Magalie

    2011-01-01

    In Australia, the Excellence in Research (ERA) exercise, first conducted in 2008 and continuing relatively unchanged in 2012, determines the level of research funding made available to Australian universities. However, the use of journal rankings as part of ERA is argued to be problematic (Cooper & Poletti 2011). Through a survey of academics…

  4. A Step-by-Step Guide to Publishing Journal Articles and Strategies for Securing Impactful Publications

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Onwuegbuzie, Anthony J.

    2016-01-01

    In the last few years, I have been presenting workshops on publishing (among other topics) in many countries across 6 continents. And presenting these workshops in various countries has allowed me to learn the policies and practices of editors of journals representing numerous countries, thereby helping me to broaden the framework for writing…

  5. The Journal Usage Statistics Portal (JUSP): Helping Libraries Measure Use and Impact

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Mihlrad, Leigh

    2012-01-01

    The Joint Usage Statistics Portal (JUSP) (jusp.mimas.ac.uk), created by five U.K. libraries in 2009, gives participating libraries a single point of access for electronic journal statistics. It provides its more than 160 participants, including 140+ academic libraries in the United Kingdom, as well as 21 publishers and 3 intermediaries, with…

  6. The Journal Usage Statistics Portal (JUSP): Helping Libraries Measure Use and Impact

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Mihlrad, Leigh

    2012-01-01

    The Joint Usage Statistics Portal (JUSP) (jusp.mimas.ac.uk), created by five U.K. libraries in 2009, gives participating libraries a single point of access for electronic journal statistics. It provides its more than 160 participants, including 140+ academic libraries in the United Kingdom, as well as 21 publishers and 3 intermediaries, with…

  7. Local Journal Holdings Availability Messages on CD+ MEDLINE: Impact on Users and Interlibrary Loan Patterns.

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Bernal, Nancy E.

    1991-01-01

    Describes the capability of printing availability messages for a library's local journal holdings with CD-ROM MEDLINE databases. Results of a survey conducted at the James A. Haley Veterans Hospital medical library suggest that users will tend to use only those sources available locally rather than interlibrary loan. (five references) (LRW)

  8. Local Journal Holdings Availability Messages on CD+ MEDLINE: Impact on Users and Interlibrary Loan Patterns.

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Bernal, Nancy E.

    1991-01-01

    Describes the capability of printing availability messages for a library's local journal holdings with CD-ROM MEDLINE databases. Results of a survey conducted at the James A. Haley Veterans Hospital medical library suggest that users will tend to use only those sources available locally rather than interlibrary loan. (five references) (LRW)

  9. A Step-by-Step Guide to Publishing Journal Articles and Strategies for Securing Impactful Publications

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Onwuegbuzie, Anthony J.

    2016-01-01

    In the last few years, I have been presenting workshops on publishing (among other topics) in many countries across 6 continents. And presenting these workshops in various countries has allowed me to learn the policies and practices of editors of journals representing numerous countries, thereby helping me to broaden the framework for writing…

  10. Digital Distribution of Academic Journals and Its Impact on Scholarly Communication: Looking Back after 20 Years

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Solomon, David J.

    2013-01-01

    It has been approximately 20 years since distributing scholarly journals digitally became feasible. This article discusses the broad implications of the transition to digital distributed scholarship from a historical perspective and focuses on the development of open access (OA) and the various models for funding OA in the context of the roles…

  11. Digital Distribution of Academic Journals and Its Impact on Scholarly Communication: Looking Back after 20 Years

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Solomon, David J.

    2013-01-01

    It has been approximately 20 years since distributing scholarly journals digitally became feasible. This article discusses the broad implications of the transition to digital distributed scholarship from a historical perspective and focuses on the development of open access (OA) and the various models for funding OA in the context of the roles…

  12. Impact of peer review on reports of randomised trials published in open peer review journals: retrospective before and after study.

    PubMed

    Hopewell, Sally; Collins, Gary S; Boutron, Isabelle; Yu, Ly-Mee; Cook, Jonathan; Shanyinde, Milensu; Wharton, Rose; Shamseer, Larissa; Altman, Douglas G

    2014-07-01

    To investigate the effectiveness of open peer review as a mechanism to improve the reporting of randomised trials published in biomedical journals. Retrospective before and after study. BioMed Central series medical journals. 93 primary reports of randomised trials published in BMC-series medical journals in 2012. Changes to the reporting of methodological aspects of randomised trials in manuscripts after peer review, based on the CONSORT checklist, corresponding peer reviewer reports, the type of changes requested, and the extent to which authors adhered to these requests. Of the 93 trial reports, 38% (n=35) did not describe the method of random sequence generation, 54% (n=50) concealment of allocation sequence, 50% (n=46) whether the study was blinded, 34% (n=32) the sample size calculation, 35% (n=33) specification of primary and secondary outcomes, 55% (n=51) results for the primary outcome, and 90% (n=84) details of the trial protocol. The number of changes between manuscript versions was relatively small; most involved adding new information or altering existing information. Most changes requested by peer reviewers had a positive impact on the reporting of the final manuscript--for example, adding or clarifying randomisation and blinding (n=27), sample size (n=15), primary and secondary outcomes (n=16), results for primary or secondary outcomes (n=14), and toning down conclusions to reflect the results (n=27). Some changes requested by peer reviewers, however, had a negative impact, such as adding additional unplanned analyses (n=15). Peer reviewers fail to detect important deficiencies in reporting of the methods and results of randomised trials. The number of these changes requested by peer reviewers was relatively small. Although most had a positive impact, some were inappropriate and could have a negative impact on reporting in the final publication. © Hopewell et al 2014.

  13. Impact of peer review on reports of randomised trials published in open peer review journals: retrospective before and after study

    PubMed Central

    Collins, Gary S; Boutron, Isabelle; Yu, Ly-Mee; Cook, Jonathan; Shanyinde, Milensu; Wharton, Rose; Shamseer, Larissa; Altman, Douglas G

    2014-01-01

    Objective To investigate the effectiveness of open peer review as a mechanism to improve the reporting of randomised trials published in biomedical journals. Design Retrospective before and after study. Setting BioMed Central series medical journals. Sample 93 primary reports of randomised trials published in BMC-series medical journals in 2012. Main outcome measures Changes to the reporting of methodological aspects of randomised trials in manuscripts after peer review, based on the CONSORT checklist, corresponding peer reviewer reports, the type of changes requested, and the extent to which authors adhered to these requests. Results Of the 93 trial reports, 38% (n=35) did not describe the method of random sequence generation, 54% (n=50) concealment of allocation sequence, 50% (n=46) whether the study was blinded, 34% (n=32) the sample size calculation, 35% (n=33) specification of primary and secondary outcomes, 55% (n=51) results for the primary outcome, and 90% (n=84) details of the trial protocol. The number of changes between manuscript versions was relatively small; most involved adding new information or altering existing information. Most changes requested by peer reviewers had a positive impact on the reporting of the final manuscript—for example, adding or clarifying randomisation and blinding (n=27), sample size (n=15), primary and secondary outcomes (n=16), results for primary or secondary outcomes (n=14), and toning down conclusions to reflect the results (n=27). Some changes requested by peer reviewers, however, had a negative impact, such as adding additional unplanned analyses (n=15). Conclusion Peer reviewers fail to detect important deficiencies in reporting of the methods and results of randomised trials. The number of these changes requested by peer reviewers was relatively small. Although most had a positive impact, some were inappropriate and could have a negative impact on reporting in the final publication. PMID:24986891

  14. 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

  15. 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.

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

    PubMed Central

    2016-01-01

    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. PMID:27247735

  17. 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.

  18. The relationship between journal use in a medical library and citation use.

    PubMed Central

    Tsay, M Y

    1998-01-01

    The purpose of the study was to investigate the relationship between library journal use and journal citation use in the medical sciences. The six-month journal use study was conducted in the Library of the Veterans General Hospital in Taipei. The data on citation frequency and impact factors were obtained from Journal Citation Reports, 1993 microfiche edition. The study explored the use, citation, and impact factor data, especially for heavily used, highly cited, or high-impact-factor journals. The correlations between frequency of use and citation frequency and between frequency of use and impact factor were determined by using the Spearman rank and Pearson correlation tests. The same comparisons were also made within four subject categories: clinical medicine journals, life science journals, hybrid journals publishing both clinical medicine and life science papers, and journals that publish neither clinical medicine nor life science articles. The results of the study showed that there is a significant correlation between frequency of use and citation frequency, and between frequency of use and impact factor for all titles. There is also a significant correlation between frequency of use and citation frequency and between frequency of use and impact factor for journals that publish either clinical medicine or life science articles, or both. However, the correlation is not significant for other journals. PMID:9549010

  19. The relationship between journal use in a medical library and citation use.

    PubMed

    Tsay, M Y

    1998-01-01

    The purpose of the study was to investigate the relationship between library journal use and journal citation use in the medical sciences. The six-month journal use study was conducted in the Library of the Veterans General Hospital in Taipei. The data on citation frequency and impact factors were obtained from Journal Citation Reports, 1993 microfiche edition. The study explored the use, citation, and impact factor data, especially for heavily used, highly cited, or high-impact-factor journals. The correlations between frequency of use and citation frequency and between frequency of use and impact factor were determined by using the Spearman rank and Pearson correlation tests. The same comparisons were also made within four subject categories: clinical medicine journals, life science journals, hybrid journals publishing both clinical medicine and life science papers, and journals that publish neither clinical medicine nor life science articles. The results of the study showed that there is a significant correlation between frequency of use and citation frequency, and between frequency of use and impact factor for all titles. There is also a significant correlation between frequency of use and citation frequency and between frequency of use and impact factor for journals that publish either clinical medicine or life science articles, or both. However, the correlation is not significant for other journals.

  20. 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

  1. Authorship policies of scientific journals

    PubMed Central

    Resnik, David B; Tyle, Ana M; Black, Jennifer R; Kissling, Grace

    2016-01-01

    We analysed the authorship policies of a random sample of 600 journals from the Journal Citation Reports database. 62.5% of the journals we sampled had an authorship policy. Having an authorship policy was positively associated with impact factor. Journals from the biomedical sciences and social sciences/humanities were more likely to have an authorship policy than journals from the physical sciences, engineering or mathematical sciences. Among journals with a policy, the most frequent type of policy was guidance on criteria for authorship (99.7%); followed by guidance on acknowledgments (97.3%); requiring that authors make substantial contributions to the research (94.7%); requiring that authors be accountable for the research as a whole (84.8%); guidance on changes in authorship (77.9%); requiring that authors give final approval to the manuscript (77.6%); requiring that authors draft or critically revise the manuscript (71.7%); providing guidance on corporate authorship (58.9%); prohibiting gift, guest or ghost authorship (31.7%); requiring authors to describe their contributions (5.3%); limiting the number of authors for some types of articles (4.0%) and requiring authors to be accountable for their part in the research (1.1%). None of the policies addressed equal contribution statements. Journals that do not have authorship policies should consider adopting or developing ones. PMID:26714812

  2. Journal club: Requiring clinical justification to override repeat imaging decision support: impact on CT use.

    PubMed

    O'Connor, Stacy D; Sodickson, Aaron D; Ip, Ivan K; Raja, Ali S; Healey, Michael J; Schneider, Louise I; Khorasani, Ramin

    2014-11-01

    The purpose of this study was to determine the impact of requiring clinical justification to override decision support alerts on repeat use of CT. This before and after intervention study was conducted at a 793-bed tertiary hospital with computerized physician order entry and clinical decision support systems. When a CT order is placed, decision support alerts the orderer if the patient's same body part has undergone CT within the past 90 days. The study cohort included all 28,420 CT orders triggering a repeat alert in 2010. The intervention required clinical justification, selected from a predetermined menu, to override repeat CT decision support alerts to place a CT order; otherwise the order could not be placed and was dropped. The primary outcome, dropped repeat CT orders, was analyzed using three methods: chi-square tests to compare proportions dropped before and after intervention; multiple logistic regression tests to control for orderer, care setting, and patient factors; and statistical process control for temporal trends. The repeat CT order drop rate had an absolute increase of 1.4%; 6.1% (682/11,230) before to 7.5% (1290/17,190) after intervention, which was a 23% relative change (7.5 - 6.1)/6.1 × 100 = 23%; p < 0.0001). Orders were dropped more often after intervention (odds ratio, 1.3; 95% CI, 1.1-1.4; p < 0.0001). Statistical control analysis supported the association between the increase in the drop rate with intervention rather than underlying trends. Adding a requirement for clinical justification to override alerts modestly but significantly improves the impact of repeat CT decision support (23% relative change), with the overall effect of preventing one in 13 repeat CT orders.

  3. Publication of comparative effectiveness research has not increased in high-impact medical journals, 2004-2013.

    PubMed

    Hester, Laura L; Poole, Charles; Suarez, Elizabeth A; Der, Jane S; Anderson, Olivia G; Almon, Kathryn G; Shirke, Avanti V; Brookhart, M Alan

    2017-04-01

    To explore the impact of increasing interest and investment in patient-centered research, this study sought to describe patterns of comparative effectiveness research (CER) and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in pharmacologic intervention studies published in widely read medical journals from 2004-2013. We identified 2335 articles published in five widely read medical journals from 2004-2013 with ≥1 intervention meeting the US Food and Drug Administration's definitions for a drug, biologic, or vaccine. Six trained reviewers extracted characteristics from a 20% random sample of articles (468 studies). We calculated the proportion of studies with CER and PROs. Trends were summarized using locally-weighted means and 95% confidence intervals. Of the 468 sampled studies, 30% used CER designs and 33% assessed PROs. The proportion of studies using CER designs did not meaningfully increase over the study period. However, we observed an increase in the use of PROs. Among pharmacological intervention studies published in widely read medical journals from 2004-2013, we identified no increase in CER. Randomized, placebo-controlled trials continue to be the dominant study design for assessing pharmacologic interventions. Increasing trends in PRO use may indicate greater acceptance of these outcomes as evidence for clinical benefit. Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

  4. [New bibliometric indicators. Is this the end of the impact factor era?].

    PubMed

    Berhidi, Anna; Szluka, Péter; Vasas, Lívia

    2009-06-01

    More and more bibliometric indicators emerge beside the impact factor, and a few of them are promising performance indicators. The aim of the study is to show briefly, but clearly the newest bibliometric measure numbers - like the recent enhancements of Journal Citation Report Web, Hirsch-index, Eigenfactor and SCImago Journal & Country Rank algorithms - focusing on the ranking of oncological journals, and to demonstrate the similarities and differences of the results with some examples. There are unified and well-structured web pages behind the newly appeared indicators, and some of the new numbers are presented in the well-known databases (Web of Science, Scopus) as scientific measures. The ranking of the compared oncological journals based on the different indicators show more similarities than differences, but more in-depth studies are required to find out how the results converge on any scientific area. There are some other methods, such as usage factor of the journals, beyond the indicators based on the citations. But the main point is that any ranking system should be a valid and correct representation of the scientific quality.

  5. 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.

  6. Publication activities of German junior researchers in academic medicine: which factors impact impact factors?

    PubMed

    Pfeiffer, Mona; Fischer, Martin R; Bauer, Daniel

    2016-07-25

    Previous studies have shown medical students in Germany to have little interest in research while at the same time there is a lack of physician scientists. This study's aim is to investigate factors influencing publication productivity of physicians during and after finishing their medical doctorate. We conducted a PubMed search for physicians having received their doctoral degree at Ludwig-Maxmilians-University Munich Faculty of Medicine between 2011 and 2013 (N = 924) and identified the appropriate impact factor (IF) for each journal the participants had published in. Gender, age, final grade of the doctorate, participation in a structured doctoral study program and joint publication activities between graduate and academic supervisor were defined as factors. For analyses we used nonparametric procedures. Men show significantly more publications than women. Before their doctoral graduation men publish 1.98 (SD ± 3.64) articles on average, women 1.15 (±2.67) (p < 0.0001, d = 0.27). After completion of the doctorate (up to 06/2015), 40 % of men still publish, while only 24.3 % of women (p < 0.0001, φ = 0.17) continue to publish. No differences were found concerning the value of IFs. Similar results were found regarding the variable 'participation in a structured doctoral study program'. Until doctoral graduation, program participants publish 2.82 (±5.41) articles, whereas participants doing their doctorate individually only publish 1.39 (±2.87) articles (p < 0.0001, d = 0.46). These differences persist in publication activities after graduation (45.5 vs. 29.7 %, p = 0.008, φ = 0.09). A structured doctorate seems to have positive influence on IFs (4.33 ± 2.91 vs. 3.37 ± 2.82, p = 0.006, d = 0.34). Further significant results concern the variables 'final grade' and 'age': An early doctoral graduation and an excellent or very good grade for the doctoral thesis positively influence publication

  7. Fate of manuscripts declined by the British Journal of Surgery.

    PubMed

    Wijnhoven, B P L; Dejong, C H C

    2010-03-01

    The fate of papers submitted and subsequently rejected by the British Journal of Surgery (BJS) is currently unknown. The present study was designed to investigate whether, when and where these papers are published following rejection. All rejected manuscripts in the year 2006 were identified from the Manuscript Central electronic database. Between December 2008 and February 2009, a PubMed search was conducted spanning the period 2006-2009 using the corresponding author's last name and initials to identify whether and when manuscripts had been published elsewhere. From the 926 manuscripts rejected by BJS, 609 (65.8 per cent) were published in 198 different journals with a mean(s.d.) time lapse of 13.8(6.5) months. Some 165 manuscripts (27.1 per cent) were published in general surgical journals, 250 (41.1 per cent) in subspecialty surgical journals and 194 (31.9 per cent) in non-surgical journals. The mean(s.d.) impact factor of the journals was 2.0(1.1). Only 14 manuscripts (2.3 per cent) were published in journals with a higher impact factor than that of BJS. Rejection of a manuscript by BJS does not preclude publication, but rejected manuscripts are published more often in surgical subspecialty journals and journals with a lower impact factor, although the occasional exception exists. (c) 2010 British Journal of Surgery Society Ltd. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

  8. 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…

  9. Science deserves to be judged by its contents, not by its wrapping: Revisiting Seglen's work on journal impact and research evaluation.

    PubMed

    Zhang, Lin; Rousseau, Ronald; Sivertsen, Gunnar

    2017-01-01

    The scientific foundation for the criticism on the use of the Journal Impact Factor (JIF) in evaluations of individual researchers and their publications was laid between 1989 and 1997 in a series of articles by Per O. Seglen. His basic work has since influenced initiatives such as the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA), the Leiden Manifesto for research metrics, and The Metric Tide review on the role of metrics in research assessment and management. Seglen studied the publications of only 16 senior biomedical scientists. We investigate whether Seglen's main findings still hold when using the same methods for a much larger group of Norwegian biomedical scientists with more than 18,000 publications. Our results support and add new insights to Seglen's basic work.

  10. Science deserves to be judged by its contents, not by its wrapping: Revisiting Seglen's work on journal impact and research evaluation

    PubMed Central

    Rousseau, Ronald; Sivertsen, Gunnar

    2017-01-01

    The scientific foundation for the criticism on the use of the Journal Impact Factor (JIF) in evaluations of individual researchers and their publications was laid between 1989 and 1997 in a series of articles by Per O. Seglen. His basic work has since influenced initiatives such as the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA), the Leiden Manifesto for research metrics, and The Metric Tide review on the role of metrics in research assessment and management. Seglen studied the publications of only 16 senior biomedical scientists. We investigate whether Seglen’s main findings still hold when using the same methods for a much larger group of Norwegian biomedical scientists with more than 18,000 publications. Our results support and add new insights to Seglen’s basic work. PMID:28350849

  11. 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.

  12. 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.

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

    PubMed Central

    Huh, Sun

    2016-01-01

    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. PMID:28119870

  14. 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

  15. 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.

  16. Impact of GDP, Spending on R&D, Number of Universities and Scientific Journals on Research Publications among Asian Countries

    PubMed Central

    Meo, Sultan Ayoub; Al Masri, Abeer A.; Usmani, Adnan Mahmood; Memon, Almas Naeem; Zaidi, Syed Ziauddin

    2013-01-01

    Objectives This study aimed to compare the impact of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita, spending on Research and Development (R&D), number of universities, and Indexed Scientific Journals on total number of research documents (papers), citations per document and Hirsch index (H-index) in various science and social science subjects among Asian countries. Materials and Methods In this study, 40 Asian countries were included. The information regarding Asian countries, their GDP per capita, spending on R&D, total number of universities and indexed scientific journals were collected. We recorded the bibliometric indicators, including total number of research documents, citations per document and H-index in various science and social sciences subjects during the period 1996–2011. The main sources for information were World Bank, SCI-mago/Scopus and Web of Science; Thomson Reuters. Results The mean per capita GDP for all the Asian countries is 14448.31±2854.40 US$, yearly per capita spending on R&D 0.64±0.16 US$, number of universities 72.37±18.32 and mean number of ISI indexed journal per country is 17.97±7.35. The mean of research documents published in various science and social science subjects among all the Asian countries during the period 1996–2011 is 158086.92±69204.09; citations per document 8.67±0.48; and H-index 122.8±19.21. Spending on R&D, number of universities and indexed journals have a positive correlation with number of published documents, citations per document and H-index in various science and social science subjects. However, there was no association between the per capita GDP and research outcomes. Conclusion The Asian countries who spend more on R&D have a large number of universities and scientific indexed journals produced more in research outcomes including total number of research publication, citations per documents and H-index in various science and social science subjects. PMID:23840471

  17. Impact of GDP, spending on R&D, number of universities and scientific journals on research publications among Asian countries.

    PubMed

    Meo, Sultan Ayoub; Al Masri, Abeer A; Usmani, Adnan Mahmood; Memon, Almas Naeem; Zaidi, Syed Ziauddin

    2013-01-01

    This study aimed to compare the impact of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita, spending on Research and Development (R&D), number of universities, and Indexed Scientific Journals on total number of research documents (papers), citations per document and Hirsch index (H-index) in various science and social science subjects among Asian countries. In this study, 40 Asian countries were included. The information regarding Asian countries, their GDP per capita, spending on R&D, total number of universities and indexed scientific journals were collected. We recorded the bibliometric indicators, including total number of research documents, citations per document and H-index in various science and social sciences subjects during the period 1996-2011. The main sources for information were World Bank, SCI-mago/Scopus and Web of Science; Thomson Reuters. The mean per capita GDP for all the Asian countries is 14448.31±2854.40 US$, yearly per capita spending on R&D 0.64±0.16 US$, number of universities 72.37±18.32 and mean number of ISI indexed journal per country is 17.97±7.35. The mean of research documents published in various science and social science subjects among all the Asian countries during the period 1996-2011 is 158086.92±69204.09; citations per document 8.67±0.48; and H-index 122.8±19.21. Spending on R&D, number of universities and indexed journals have a positive correlation with number of published documents, citations per document and H-index in various science and social science subjects. However, there was no association between the per capita GDP and research outcomes. The Asian countries who spend more on R&D have a large number of universities and scientific indexed journals produced more in research outcomes including total number of research publication, citations per documents and H-index in various science and social science subjects.

  18. 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.

  19. 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.

  20. 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.

  1. ISI's Journal Citation Reports on the Web.

    PubMed

    Fitzpatrick, Roberta Bronson

    2003-01-01

    This column features an overview of the Institute for Scientific Information's (ISI) Journal Citation Reports (JCR) database. Basic searching techniques are presented, as well as simple ways to manipulate data contained in the file. The Journal Citation Reports database can provide information on highest impact journals, most frequently used journals, "hottest" journals, and largest journals in a field or discipline.

  2. 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.

  3. Creative Journalism: English, Journalism.

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Adams, Marlene E.

    A course in the basic principles of journalism is presented. The principles are studied as applied to writing columns, reviews, feature stories, human interest articles, fashion reporting, comics, personality interviews, and other types of entertaining writing for the newspaper. Course objectives include: (1) The student will identify feature…

  4. Could Long Term Shifts of Publishing Sector Dominance among the Top 100 Physical Science Journals Slow Rates of Invoice Inflation?

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Stankus, Tony

    1995-01-01

    Discusses factors involved in journal competition such as price, volume of literature, the not-for-profit and for-profit sectors, as well as foreign literature quality. Presents results of a study to gauge the stability of impact factor leadership in physical sciences journals by identifying the top 100 journals in 1983 and 1993. (Author/JKP)

  5. [The impact factor: a fair measure of research excellence in nursing?].

    PubMed

    Contreras-Moreira, Mónica

    2010-01-01

    Nursing in Spain is now reaching a turning point due to the expansion of its academic horizons. In order to consolidate its existence and development, it must strengthen its scientific base. Bibliometric indicators report in a quantitative way on the production, transmission and consumption of scientific information, with the impact factor (IF) being the most internationally accepted bibliometric indicator. This is a tool that compares journals and assesses the relative importance of a journal within a scientific field, and its calculation is possible by consulting certain databases recording papers published in the major journals. Thomson Scientific analyzes the production of journals for this purpose, and annually ranks journals by their IF. It has become the benchmark for excellence in the evaluation of scientific production. An article published in a journal without an IF should not be judged in advance to be of lower quality. Given that few nursing publications are indexed, have a low IF, are almost exclusively English-speaking and from the U.S., this makes publishing more difficult in IF journals for nursing professionals, especially if they are not English-speaking. The journal's IF where the author publishes has become an increasingly strong criterion for resources allocation. In Spain, it is among the evaluation criteria of the Health Research Fund (FIS), the ANECA (National Agency for Quality Assessment and accreditation) and at the National Commission for the Assessment of Research. There have been several proposals for alternative indices to the IF, aimed at assessing the scientific excellence of the journals and papers published. In the nursing and care field, what is most relevant is that the generation of knowledge strengthens the discipline, and has a social impact capable, ultimately, of improving the care and health of the population these professionals serve. This raises the need for a bibliometric indicator, which incorporates the social and

  6. [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

  7. Review and Analysis of Publication Trends over Three Decades in Three High Impact Medicine Journals.

    PubMed

    Ivanov, Alexander; Kaczkowska, Beata A; Khan, Saadat A; Ho, Jean; Tavakol, Morteza; Prasad, Ashok; Bhumireddy, Geetha; Beall, Allan F; Klem, Igor; Mehta, Parag; Briggs, William M; Sacchi, Terrence J; Heitner, John F

    2017-01-01

    Over the past three decades, industry sponsored research expanded in the United States. Financial incentives can lead to potential conflicts of interest (COI) resulting in underreporting of negative study results. We hypothesized that over the three decades, there would be an increase in: a) reporting of conflict of interest and source of funding; b) percentage of randomized control trials c) number of patients per study and d) industry funding. Original articles published in three calendar years (1988, 1998, and 2008) in The Lancet, New England Journal of Medicine and Journal of American Medical Association were collected. Studies were reviewed and investigational design categorized as prospective and retrospective clinical trials. Prospective trials were categorized into randomized or non-randomized and single-center or multi-center trials. Retrospective trials were categorized as registries, meta-analyses and other studies, mostly comprising of case reports or series. Study outcomes were categorized as positive or negative depending on whether the pre-specified hypothesis was met. Financial disclosures were researched for financial relationships and profit status, and accordingly categorized as government, non-profit or industry sponsored. Studies were assessed for reporting COI. 1,671 original articles were included in this analysis. Total number of published studies decreased by 17% from 1988 to 2008. Over 20 year period, the proportion of prospective randomized trials increased from 22 to 46% (p < 0.0001); whereas the proportion of prospective non-randomized trials decreased from 59% to 27% (p < 0.001). There was an increase in the percentage of prospective randomized multi-center trials from 11% to 41% (p < 0.001). Conversely, there was a reduction in non-randomized single-center trials from 47% to 10% (p < 0.001). Proportion of government funded studies remained constant, whereas industry funded studies more than doubled (17% to 40%; p < 0.0001). The number

  8. Review and Analysis of Publication Trends over Three Decades in Three High Impact Medicine Journals

    PubMed Central

    Ivanov, Alexander; Kaczkowska, Beata A.; Khan, Saadat A.; Ho, Jean; Tavakol, Morteza; Prasad, Ashok; Bhumireddy, Geetha; Beall, Allan F.; Klem, Igor; Mehta, Parag; Briggs, William M.; Sacchi, Terrence J.; Heitner, John F.

    2017-01-01

    Context Over the past three decades, industry sponsored research expanded in the United States. Financial incentives can lead to potential conflicts of interest (COI) resulting in underreporting of negative study results. Objective We hypothesized that over the three decades, there would be an increase in: a) reporting of conflict of interest and source of funding; b) percentage of randomized control trials c) number of patients per study and d) industry funding. Data sources and Study Selection Original articles published in three calendar years (1988, 1998, and 2008) in The Lancet, New England Journal of Medicine and Journal of American Medical Association were collected. Data Extraction Studies were reviewed and investigational design categorized as prospective and retrospective clinical trials. Prospective trials were categorized into randomized or non-randomized and single-center or multi-center trials. Retrospective trials were categorized as registries, meta-analyses and other studies, mostly comprising of case reports or series. Study outcomes were categorized as positive or negative depending on whether the pre-specified hypothesis was met. Financial disclosures were researched for financial relationships and profit status, and accordingly categorized as government, non-profit or industry sponsored. Studies were assessed for reporting COI. Results 1,671 original articles were included in this analysis. Total number of published studies decreased by 17% from 1988 to 2008. Over 20 year period, the proportion of prospective randomized trials increased from 22 to 46% (p < 0.0001); whereas the proportion of prospective non-randomized trials decreased from 59% to 27% (p < 0.001). There was an increase in the percentage of prospective randomized multi-center trials from 11% to 41% (p < 0.001). Conversely, there was a reduction in non-randomized single-center trials from 47% to 10% (p < 0.001). Proportion of government funded studies remained constant, whereas

  9. What Medical Journal Editing Means to Me

    PubMed Central

    Marcovitch, Harvey

    2008-01-01

    Papers in medical journals are often difficult to understand and tedious to read. An editor's first loyalty should be to readers, by prioritising readability over merely producing a repository of data for the scientific community generally. The web now provides infinite repository space so there is even less excuse for journals to be unreadable. I give examples of how I attempted to improve one journal, despite external pressures and regardless of how it might affect the Impact Factor. As a postscript I outline increasing involvement in promoting honesty and integrity in publishing through the auspices of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). PMID:22013361

  10. A comparison of impact factor, clinical query filters, and pattern recognition query filters in terms of sensitivity to topic.

    PubMed

    Fu, Lawrence D; Wang, Lily; Aphinyanagphongs, Yindalon; Aliferis, Constantin F

    2007-01-01

    Evaluating journal quality and finding high-quality articles in the biomedical literature are challenging information retrieval tasks. The most widely used method for journal evaluation is impact factor, while novel approaches for finding articles are PubMed's clinical query filters and machine learning-based filter models. The related literature has focused on the average behavior of these methods over all topics. The present study evaluates the variability of these approaches for different topics. We find that impact factor and clinical query filters are unstable for different topics while a topic-specific impact factor and machine learning-based filter models appear more robust. Thus when using the less stable methods for a specific topic, researchers should realize that their performance may diverge from expected average performance. Better yet, the more stable methods should be preferred whenever applicable.

  11. Theory versus practice in the human factors and ergonomics discipline: Trends in journal publications from 1960 to 2010.

    PubMed

    Chung, Amy Z Q; Williamson, Ann

    2018-01-01

    The research-practice gap has been highlighted as a barrier to effective practice in human factors and ergonomics (HFE). There is also evidence of a theory-research gap that may be limiting the scientific evidence base of HFE. The purpose of this study was to examine trends in journal publications, especially relating to the research-practice gap and the involvement of theory over time. A content analysis was conducted on 425 journal articles published in Human Factors, Ergonomics, and Applied Ergonomics from 1960 to 2010. Results showed evidence of growth in applied research with increasing collaborative research between research and industry, larger research teams, and more empirical research-especially on applied problems. While there has been a corresponding increase in the involvement of theory in HFE publications, around half of the publications failed to acknowledge theory. This calls into question whether the HFE discipline may be missing the benefits of theory to guide research and subsequent practice, and to enhance the development of new ideas. Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

  12. 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

  13. Promotion of Neurointervention to International Journal Based on Journal Metrics.

    PubMed

    Huh, Sun

    2016-03-01

    The aim is to provide evidence of the internationalization of Neurointervention based on journal metrics for articles published from 2011 to 2015. 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. 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. 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.

  14. State of the Journal, 2016.

    PubMed

    Richards, Lorie Gage

    The American Journal of Occupational Therapy (AJOT) had a successful 2016. From September 2015 to September 2016, the number of manuscripts submitted remained steady at 255. Manuscripts were received from 30 non-U.S. countries, compared with 23 countries in 2015. AJOT continues to have the highest impact factor and to be the highest ranked of the occupational therapy journals listed in Journal Citation Reports. AJOT continues to focus on publishing research articles on aspects of occupational therapy among varied populations with diverse acute and chronic conditions. Changes in 2016 include requiring authors to register clinical trials at public trial registration sites and welcoming new associate editors and reviewers to the AJOT family.

  15. State of the Journal, 2015.

    PubMed

    Richards, Lorie Gage

    2015-01-01

    The American Journal of Occupational Therapy (AJOT) had a successful 2015. From September 2014 to September 2015, the number of manuscripts submitted had increased by 35%. Manuscripts were received from 23 countries, compared with 17 countries in 2014. AJOT continues to have the highest impact factor and to be the highest ranked of the occupational therapy journals listed in Journal Citation Reports. AJOT continues to focus on publishing research articles on aspects of occupational therapy among varied populations with diverse acute and chronic conditions. Additional changes for 2015 include new associate editors, a significantly enlarged pool of reviewers from across the globe, continuous publishing, pay-per-view, updated author guidelines, and the adoption of clinical trial registration requirements effective January 1, 2016.

  16. The role of vegetation in mitigating air quality impacts from traffic emissions--journal

    EPA Science Inventory

    On Apri1 27-28, 2019, a multi-disciplinary group of researchers and po1icymakers met to discuss the state-of-the-science regarding the potential of roadside vegetation to mitigate near-road air quality impacts. Concerns over population exposures to traffic-generated pollutants ne...

  17. The role of vegetation in mitigating air quality impacts from traffic emissions--journal

    EPA Science Inventory

    On Apri1 27-28, 2019, a multi-disciplinary group of researchers and po1icymakers met to discuss the state-of-the-science regarding the potential of roadside vegetation to mitigate near-road air quality impacts. Concerns over population exposures to traffic-generated pollutants ne...

  18. [The history of journalism in Spain (I). Brief history of scientific-medical journalism in Spain and the impact of urologists on its establishment and development].

    PubMed

    Maganto Pavón, E

    1996-11-01

    The history of Spanish medical publications runs parallel with the history of Spanish Medicine. The 18th century witnessed the development of the scientific press in Europe. During this period, leading Spanish physicians established 11 periodicals, some of which continue to be published and are ranked among the oldest in the continent. However, the social, political and military turmoil in Spain during the period spanning 1800-1834, led to the decline of Spanish Medicine and consequently, of Spanish medical literature. With the liberal changes of the mid-19th century, and as a consequence of doctors' returning from exile, the Spanish scientific press resumed its activity with renewed vigour and more than 700 new journals were established up to 1905. During this period of unequalled expansion, which reached its apex in the 20th century, the specialized medical journals that developed in the late 19th century had a notable influence that grew as the medical and surgical specialties became more defined. Those dedicated to the diseases of the genitourinary system appeared during this period. There were 6 journals by 1903 and 7 more were established until the Spanish Civil War broke out in 1936. The specific contribution of the Spanish urologists in the past and present centuries to the promotion and permanence of the medical publications in general and the urological in particular has yet to be elucidated.

  19. Open access to journal articles in dentistry: Prevalence and citation impact.

    PubMed

    Hua, Fang; Sun, Heyuan; Walsh, Tanya; Worthington, Helen; Glenny, Anne-Marie

    2016-04-01

    To investigate the current prevalence of open access (OA) in the field of dentistry, the means used to provide OA, as well as the association between OA and citation counts. PubMed was searched for dental articles published in 2013. The OA status of each article was determined by manually checking Google, Google Scholar, PubMed and ResearchGate. Citation data were extracted from Google Scholar, Scopus and Web of Science. Chi-square tests were used to compare the OA prevalence by different subjects, study types, and continents of origin. The association between OA and citation count was studied with multivariable logistic regression analyses. A random sample of 908 articles was deemed eligible and therefore included. Among these, 416 were found freely available online, indicating an overall OA rate of 45.8%. Significant difference in OA rate was detected among articles in different subjects (P<0.001) and among those from different continents (P<0.001). Of articles that were OA, 74.2% were available via self-archiving ('Green road' OA), 53.3% were available from publishers ('Gold road' OA). According to multivariable logistic regression analyses, OA status was not significantly associated with either the existence of citation (P=0.37) or the level of citation (P=0.52). In the field of dentistry, 54% of recent journal articles are behind the paywall (non-OA) one year after their publication dates. The 'Green road' of providing OA was more common than the 'Gold road'. No evidence suggested that OA articles received significantly more citations than non-OA articles. Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

  20. [Cited status and its correlated factors of articles published in Chinese Journal of Pediatrics from 2001 to 2010].

    PubMed

    Fu, Xiao-xia; Zhang, Xiu-mei; Li, Jing; Cheng, Yu-hua; Xu, Jian-wu; Li, Gui-cun

    2012-03-01

    The present study was designed to explore the cited status and its correlated factors of articles published in Chinese Journal of Pediatrics. Articles published in Chinese Journal of Pediatrics from 2001 to 2010 were searched using Wanfang Medical Online database, and the relationship between cited number and column and funding status were analyzed. Totally 3209 articles were published by Chinese Journal of Pediatrics from 2001 to 2010. Two thousand and seventy-three articles (64.60%) were cited. The total cited number was 18 546 (mean rate: 5.78 per paper). Standard/protocol/guideline was the most often cited column (mean rate: 62.92 per paper). Featured articles including editorials (mean rate: 7.12 per paper), special articles (mean rate: 6.50 per paper) and original articles (mean rate: 7.90 per paper) had higher cited rate. Cited rate of original papers in featured articles was higher than other original articles (mean rate: 6.03 per paper). Those with academic perspectives, such as Opinion/Debate/Discussion, were well cited (mean rate: 7.09 per paper). All of original articles in Rapid Pathway were well cited (mean rate: 16.20 per paper). Mean cited number of grant-supported articles was 4.81 per paper, lower than that of all kinds of papers (mean rate: 5.78 per paper) and non-grant-supported articles (mean rate: 6.06 per paper). However, it was slightly higher than that of articles except Standard/protocol/guideline (mean rate: 4.36 per paper). Cited status varies among columns. The invited papers should be increased in number to raise commentary papers and original articles with high quality.Grant-supported or non-grant-supported papers should be reviewed based on the same standard after submission.

  1. Environmental Factors Impacting Bone-Relevant Chemokines

    PubMed Central

    Smith, Justin T.; Schneider, Andrew D.; Katchko, Karina M.; Yun, Chawon; Hsu, Erin L.

    2017-01-01

    Chemokines play an important role in normal bone physiology and the pathophysiology of many bone diseases. The recent increased focus on the individual roles of this class of proteins in the context of bone has shown that members of the two major chemokine subfamilies—CC and CXC—support or promote the formation of new bone and the remodeling of existing bone in response to a myriad of stimuli. These chemotactic molecules are crucial in orchestrating appropriate cellular homing, osteoblastogenesis, and osteoclastogenesis during normal bone repair. Bone healing is a complex cascade of carefully regulated processes, including inflammation, progenitor cell recruitment, differentiation, and remodeling. The extensive role of chemokines in these processes and the known links between environmental contaminants and chemokine expression/activity leaves ample opportunity for disruption of bone healing by environmental factors. However, despite increased clinical awareness, the potential impact of many of these environmental factors on bone-related chemokines is still ill defined. A great deal of focus has been placed on environmental exposure to various endocrine disruptors (bisphenol A, phthalate esters, etc.), volatile organic compounds, dioxins, and heavy metals, though mainly in other tissues. Awareness of the impact of other less well-studied bone toxicants, such as fluoride, mold and fungal toxins, asbestos, and chlorine, is also reviewed. In many cases, the literature on these toxins in osteogenic models is lacking. However, research focused on their effects in other tissues and cell lines provides clues for where future resources could be best utilized. This review aims to serve as a current and exhaustive resource detailing the known links between several classes of high-interest environmental pollutants and their interaction with the chemokines relevant to bone healing. PMID:28261155

  2. 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.

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

    PubMed Central

    Romanovsky, Andrej A

    2015-01-01

    ABSTRACT 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. PMID:27227057

  4. Algorithmic Procedure for Finding Semantically Related Journals.

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Pudovkin, Alexander I.; Garfield, Eugene

    2002-01-01

    Using citations, papers and references as parameters a relatedness factor (RF) is computed for a series of journals. Sorting these journals by the RF produces a list of journals most closely related to a specified starting journal. The method appears to select a set of journals that are semantically most similar to the target journal. The…

  5. 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…

  6. 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…

  7. Impact Factor and Study Design: The Academic Value of Published Research (AVaRes) Score

    PubMed Central

    Wolf, Dennis M; Williamson, Peter A

    2009-01-01

    INTRODUCTION To compare the citation indices of original articles and case reports in otolaryngology journals and thereby determine whether case reports are of less interest and possibly of academically inferior value to original articles. METIERIALS AND METHODS All articles in two reputable UK otolaryngology journals (Clinical Otolaryngology and Journal of Laryngology and Otology) for 2000 and 2001 were identified. Citation indices were obtained from ISI Web of Knowledge and compared. Statistical analysis was performed using Microsoft® Office Excel 2003. RESULTS Review articles were cited most frequently with a mean of 5.21 followed by original articles with 4.28 citations and case reports with 2.40 citations. The difference in citing between original articles and case reports was statistically significant (P < 0.0001). There was no statistically significant difference in citations between review articles and original articles. CONCLUSIONS As case reports are clearly of lesser academic value than original and review articles, we suggest a scoring system incorporating journal impact factor and a scoring multiple taking into account study design. This facilitates easier comparison and recognition of publications in curricula vitae during job application. PMID:18990264

  8. Neophilia Ranking of Scientific Journals

    PubMed Central

    Packalen, Mikko; Bhattacharya, Jay

    2017-01-01

    The ranking of scientific journals is important because of the signal it sends to scientists about what is considered most vital for scientific progress. Existing ranking systems focus on measuring the influence of a scientific paper (citations)—these rankings do not reward journals for publishing innovative work that builds on new ideas. We propose an alternative ranking based on the proclivity of journals to publish papers that build on new ideas, and we implement this ranking via a text-based analysis of all published biomedical papers dating back to 1946. In addition, we compare our neophilia ranking to citation-based (impact factor) rankings; this comparison shows that the two ranking approaches are distinct. Prior theoretical work suggests an active role for our neophilia index in science policy. Absent an explicit incentive to pursue novel science, scientists underinvest in innovative work because of a coordination problem: for work on a new idea to flourish, many scientists must decide to adopt it in their work. Rankings that are based purely on influence thus do not provide sufficient incentives for publishing innovative work. By contrast, adoption of the neophilia index as part of journal-ranking procedures by funding agencies and university administrators would provide an explicit incentive for journals to publish innovative work and thus help solve the coordination problem by increasing scientists' incentives to pursue innovative work. PMID:28713181

  9. The Impact of Transformational Leadership, Experiential Learning, and Reflective Journaling on the Conservation Ethic of Tertiary-Level Non-Science Majors

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Reynolds, Bradley Robert

    2013-01-01

    The impact of transformational leadership, experiential learning, and reflective journaling on the conservation ethic of non-science majors in a general education survey course was investigated. The main research questions were: (1) Is the Conservation of Biodiversity professor a transformational leader? (2) Is there a difference in the…

  10. The Impact of Transformational Leadership, Experiential Learning, and Reflective Journaling on the Conservation Ethic of Tertiary-Level Non-Science Majors

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Reynolds, Bradley Robert

    2013-01-01

    The impact of transformational leadership, experiential learning, and reflective journaling on the conservation ethic of non-science majors in a general education survey course was investigated. The main research questions were: (1) Is the Conservation of Biodiversity professor a transformational leader? (2) Is there a difference in the…

  11. Most common dermatologic topics published in five high-impact general medical journals, 1970-2012: melanoma, psoriasis, herpes simplex, herpes zoster, and acne.

    PubMed

    Choi, Young M; Namavar, Aram A; Wu, Jashin J

    2014-01-01

    General practitioners frequently encounter skin diseases and are accustomed to diagnosing the most common dermatologic conditions. We sought to determine the most common dermatologic topics published in five high-impact general medical journals (New England Journal of Medicine, The Lancet, the Journal of the American Medical Association, British Medical Journal (now The BMJ), and Annals of Internal Medicine). We conducted an independent search of the Thomson Reuters’ Science Citation Index for common dermatologic topics, limited to the period 1970 to 2012. Total number of publications dealing with each dermatologic topic considered. The five most common dermatologic topics published were melanoma, psoriasis, herpes simplex, herpes zoster, and acne. Melanoma and psoriasis were the top two dermatologic topics published in each journal except for Annals of Internal Medicine. Internists frequently diagnose herpes simplex, herpes zoster, and acne, which are also common dermatologic topics published. Although internists infrequently diagnose melanoma and psoriasis, they are major topics for general medical journals because of their increased community awareness, major advancements in therapeutic research, and their nondermatologic manifestations.

  12. Most Common Dermatologic Topics Published in Five High-Impact General Medical Journals, 1970–2012: Melanoma, Psoriasis, Herpes Simplex, Herpes Zoster, and Acne

    PubMed Central

    Choi, Young M; Namavar, Aram A; Wu, Jashin J

    2014-01-01

    Context: General practitioners frequently encounter skin diseases and are accustomed to diagnosing the most common dermatologic conditions. Objective: We sought to determine the most common dermatologic topics published in five high-impact general medical journals (New England Journal of Medicine, The Lancet, the Journal of the American Medical Association, British Medical Journal (now The BMJ), and Annals of Internal Medicine). Design: We conducted an independent search of the Thomson Reuters’ Science Citation Index for common dermatologic topics, limited to the period 1970 to 2012. Main Outcome Measure: Total number of publications dealing with each dermatologic topic considered. Results: The five most common dermatologic topics published were melanoma, psoriasis, herpes simplex, herpes zoster, and acne. Melanoma and psoriasis were the top two dermatologic topics published in each journal except for Annals of Internal Medicine. Conclusions: Internists frequently diagnose herpes simplex, herpes zoster, and acne, which are also common dermatologic topics published. Although internists infrequently diagnose melanoma and psoriasis, they are major topics for general medical journals because of their increased community awareness, major advancements in therapeutic research, and their nondermatologic manifestations. PMID:25662523

  13. Coverage of Acta Dermatovenerologica Alpina, Pannonica et Adriatica in Elsevier's CiteScore index: a new tool for measuring the citation impact of academic journals.

    PubMed

    Poljak, Mario

    2017-03-01

    In December 2016, Elsevier launched a new tool that helps measure the citation impact of academic journals, called the CiteScore index. The CiteScore index values for 2015 confirmed the status of Acta Dermatovenerologica Alpina, Pannonica et Adriatica (Acta Dermatovenerol APA) as the leading journal in dermatology and sexually transmitted infections in the region. Sixty-five articles published in Acta Dermatovenerol APA from 2012 to 2014 received a total of 77 citations in 2015, resulting in a CiteScore index value of 1.18 for the journal. More than half of the articles published from 2012 to 2014 received at least one citation in 2015. Acta Dermatovenerol APA performed well in all three categories listed because it is ranked 384th out of 1,549 journals in the category General Medicine (75th percentile), 53rd out of 122 journals in the category Dermatology (56th percentile), and 142nd out of 246 journals in the category Infectious Diseases (42nd percentile).

  14. Authorship policies of scientific journals.

    PubMed

    Resnik, David B; Tyler, Ana M; Black, Jennifer R; Kissling, Grace

    2016-03-01

    We analysed the authorship policies of a random sample of 600 journals from the Journal Citation Reports database. 62.5% of the journals we sampled had an authorship policy. Having an authorship policy was positively associated with impact factor. Journals from the biomedical sciences and social sciences/humanities were more likely to have an authorship policy than journals from the physical sciences, engineering or mathematical sciences. Among journals with a policy, the most frequent type of policy was guidance on criteria for authorship (99.7%); followed by guidance on acknowledgments (97.3%); requiring that authors make substantial contributions to the research (94.7%); requiring that authors be accountable for the research as a whole (84.8%); guidance on changes in authorship (77.9%); requiring that authors give final approval to the manuscript (77.6%); requiring that authors draft or critically revise the manuscript (71.7%); providing guidance on corporate authorship (58.9%); prohibiting gift, guest or ghost authorship (31.7%); requiring authors to describe their contributions (5.3%); limiting the number of authors for some types of articles (4.0%) and requiring authors to be accountable for their part in the research (1.1%). None of the policies addressed equal contribution statements. Journals that do not have authorship policies should consider adopting or developing ones. 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/

  15. EDITORIAL: Changes to the journal Changes to the journal

    NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

    Zheludev, Nikolay I.

    2010-01-01

    It is a privilege to be Editor-in-Chief of Journal of Optics at this exciting time when the use of light spearheads the development of new technologies in telecommunications, green energy, manufacturing, medicine and defence, just to mention a few. These technological advances, seen by many as the next photonic technological revolution, are underpinned by fundamental and applied research in the following key directions: Nanophotonics and plasmonics Metamaterials and structured photonic materials Nonlinear and ultrafast optics Photonics at the life science interface Information and communication optics Integrated optics systems and devices Material processing with light Propagation, diffraction and scattering This is where Journal of Optics focuses its attention. This editorial marks the first issue of the journal published under the abbreviated name (shortened from Journal of Optics A: Pure and Applied Optics). The name change is just one of a series of changes introduced in the last year, along with the 8 subject sections listed above and the appointment of Section Editors. With the name change, we will also update the look of the journal by introducing colour cover images which will feature some of the most exciting research in the journal. We have retained many of the journal's original selling points: we are found in thousands of libraries around the world, and will continue our policy of free web access to all papers for 30 days after publication, ensuring broad and unrestricted dissemination of your research results. We will also continue our strong and well respected special issue and topical review programmes and we are always grateful to receive new suggestions for special issues or review articles. Along with the Editorial Board, I would like to thank the authors, referees and readers who have contributed to the success of Journal of Optics. The increasing quality and visibility of the journal, as demonstrated by the dramatic increase in its impact factor

  16. Common statistical and research design problems in manuscripts submitted to high-impact psychiatry journals: what editors and reviewers want authors to know.

    PubMed

    Harris, Alex H S; Reeder, Rachelle; Hyun, Jenny K

    2009-10-01

    Journal editors and statistical reviewers are often in the difficult position of catching serious problems in submitted manuscripts after the research is conducted and data have been analyzed. We sought to learn from editors and reviewers of major psychiatry journals what common statistical and design problems they most often find in submitted manuscripts and what they wished to communicate to authors regarding these issues. Our primary goal was to facilitate communication between journal editors/reviewers and researchers/authors and thereby improve the scientific and statistical quality of research and submitted manuscripts. Editors and statistical reviewers of 54 high-impact psychiatry journals were surveyed to learn what statistical or design problems they encounter most often in submitted manuscripts. Respondents completed the survey online. The authors analyzed survey text responses using content analysis procedures to identify major themes related to commonly encountered statistical or research design problems. Editors and reviewers (n=15) who handle manuscripts from 39 different high-impact psychiatry journals responded to the survey. The most commonly cited problems regarded failure to map statistical models onto research questions, improper handling of missing data, not controlling for multiple comparisons, not understanding the difference between equivalence and difference trials, and poor controls in quasi-experimental designs. The scientific quality of psychiatry research and submitted reports could be greatly improved if researchers became sensitive to, or sought consultation on frequently encountered methodological and analytic issues.

  17. Medical Hypotheses 2006 impact factor rises to 1.3--a vindication of the 'editorial review' system for revolutionary science.

    PubMed

    Charlton, Bruce G

    2007-01-01

    The Thomson Scientific Impact Factor (IF) for Medical Hypotheses has risen to 1.299 for 2006. This means that the IF has more than doubled since 2004, when it stood at 0.607. Using Elsevier's Scopus database; in 2004 there were 437 citations to Medical Hypotheses papers published in the previous two years--by 2006 this had trebled to 1216 citations. Monthly internet usage of Medical Hypotheses run at an average of about 26000 papers downloaded per month. An IF of 1.3 means that Medical Hypotheses has now entered the mainstream level of 'respectable' medical journals, in terms of its usage by other scientists. This is particularly pleasing given the aim of the journal is to publish radical and speculative ideas. A healthy IF is important to Medical Hypotheses because the journal deploys a system of editorial review, rather than peer review, for evaluation and selection of papers. Editorial review involves selection of a journal's content primarily by an editor who has broad experience and competence in the field, assisted by a relatively small editorial advisory board. The great advantage of editorial review is that it is able, by policy, to favour the publication of revolutionary science. But since editorial review relies on hard-to-quantify and non-transparent individual judgments, it is important for its outcomes to be open to objective evaluations. Scientometric measures of usage such as citations, impact factors and downloads constitute objective evidence concerning a journal's usefulness. Since Medical Hypotheses is performing adequately by such criteria, this provides a powerful answer to those who fetishize peer review and regard any other system of evaluation as suspect. Journal review procedures are merely a means to the end, and the end is a journal that serves a useful function in the dynamic process of science. Medical Hypotheses can now claim to perform such a role.

  18. 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

  19. 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

  20. 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…

  1. 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…

  2. 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.

  3. Do Neuroscience Journals Accept Replications? A Survey of Literature.

    PubMed

    Yeung, Andy W K

    2017-01-01

    Background: Recent reports in neuroscience, especially those concerning brain-injury and neuroimaging, have revealed low reproducibility of results within the field and urged for more replication studies. However, it is unclear if the neuroscience journals welcome or discourage the submission of reports on replication studies. Therefore, the current study assessed the explicit position of neuroscience journals on replications. Methods: A list of active neuroscience journals publishing in English was compiled from Scopus database. These journal websites were accessed to read their aims and scope and instructions to authors, and to assess if they: (1) explicitly stated that they accept replications; (2) did not state their position on replications; (3) implicitly discouraged replications by emphasizing on the novelty of the manuscripts; or (4) explicitly stated that they reject replications. For journals that explicitly stated they accept or reject replications, their subcategory within neuroscience and their 5-year impact factor were recorded. The distribution of neuroscience replication studies published was also recorded by searching and extracting data from Scopus. Results: Of the 465 journals reviewed, 28 (6.0%) explicitly stated that they accept replications, 394 (84.7%) did not state their position on replications, 40 (8.6%) implicitly discouraged replications by emphasizing on the novelty of the manuscripts, and 3 (0.6%) explicitly stated that they reject replications. For the 28 journals that explicitly welcomed replications, three (10.7%) stated their position in the aims and scope, whereas 25 (89.3%) stated in within the detailed instructions to authors. The five-year impact factor (2015) of these journals ranged from 1.655 to 10.799, and nine of them (32.1%) did not receive a 5-year or annual impact factor in 2015. There was no significant difference in the proportions of journals explicitly welcomed replications (journals with vs. without impact factors

  4. 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

  5. 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.

  6. 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

  7. I publish in I edit?--Do editorial board members of urologic journals preferentially publish their own scientific work?

    PubMed

    Mani, Jens; Makarević, Jasmina; Juengel, Eva; Ackermann, Hanns; Nelson, Karen; Bartsch, Georg; Haferkamp, Axel; Blaheta, Roman A

    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.

  8. Effect of editors’ implementation of CONSORT guidelines on the reporting of abstracts in high impact medical journals: interrupted time series analysis

    PubMed Central

    Ravaud, Philippe; Baron, Gabriel; Boutron, Isabelle

    2012-01-01

    Objective To investigate the effect of the CONSORT for Abstracts guidelines, and different editorial policies used by five leading general medical journals to implement the guidelines, on the reporting quality of abstracts of randomised trials. Design Interrupted time series analysis. Sample We randomly selected up to 60 primary reports of randomised trials per journal per year from five high impact, general medical journals in 2006-09, if indexed in PubMed with an electronic abstract. We excluded reports that did not include an electronic abstract, and any secondary trial publications or economic analyses. We classified journals in three categories: those not mentioning the guidelines in their instructions to authors (JAMA and New England Journal of Medicine), those referring to the guidelines in their instructions to authors but with no specific policy to implement them (BMJ), and those referring to the guidelines in their instructions to authors with an active policy to implement them (Annals of Internal Medicine and Lancet). Two authors extracted data independently using the CONSORT for Abstracts checklist. Main outcome Mean number of CONSORT items reported in selected abstracts, among nine items reported in fewer than 50% of the abstracts published across the five journals in 2006. Results We assessed 955 reports of abstracts of randomised trials. Journals with an active policy to enforce the guidelines showed an immediate increase in the level of mean number of items reported (increase of 1.50 items; P=0.0037). At 23 months after publication of the guidelines, the mean number of items reported per abstract for the primary outcome was 5.41 of nine items, a 53% increase compared with the expected level estimated on the basis of pre-intervention trends. The change in level or trend did not increase in journals with no policy to enforce the guidelines (BMJ, JAMA, and New England Journal of Medicine). Conclusion Active implementation of the CONSORT for Abstracts

  9. 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

  10. Factors That Impact the Ethical Behavior of College Students

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Joseph, Jacob; Berry, Kevin

    2010-01-01

    This study examines factors impacting ethical behavior of 182 college students in the midwestern and northwestern United States. Ethical behavior of peers had the most significant impact on ethical behavior of students. Success (in terms of grade point average) of students, and gender of the respondents, also significantly impacted ethical…

  11. Factors Impacting the Child with Behavioral Inhibition

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Hornbuckle, Suzanne R.

    2010-01-01

    Various factors influence the developmental course of the behaviorally inhibited child. These factors include reciprocating, contextual factors, such as the child's own traits, the environment, the maternal characteristics, and the environment. Behaviorally inhibited children show physiological and behavioral signs of fear and anxiety when…

  12. Modeling nonuniversal citation distributions: the role of scientific journals

    NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

    Yao, Zheng; Peng, Xiao-Long; Zhang, Li-Jie; Xu, Xin-Jian

    2014-04-01

    Whether a scientific paper is cited is related not only to the influence of its author(s) but also to the journal publishing it. Scientists, either proficient or less experienced, usually submit their most important work to prestigious journals which receive more citations than others. How to model the role of scientific journals in citation dynamics is of great importance. In this paper we address this issue through two approaches. One is the intrinsic heterogeneity of a paper determined by the impact factor of the journal publishing it. The other is the mechanism of a paper being cited which depends on its citations and prestige. We develop a model for citation networks via an intrinsic nodal weight function and an intuitive aging mechanism. The node’s weight is drawn from the distribution of impact factors of journals and the aging transition is a function of the citation and the prestige. The node-degree distribution of resulting networks shows nonuniversal scaling: the distribution decays exponentially for small degree and has a power-law tail for large degree, hence the dual behavior. The higher the impact factor of the journal, the larger the tipping point and the smaller the power exponent that are obtained. With the increase of the journal rank, this phenomenon will fade and evolve to pure power laws.

  13. Coherent measures of the impact of co-authors in peer review journals and in proceedings publications

    NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

    Ausloos, Marcel

    2015-11-01

    This paper focuses on the coauthor effect in different types of publications, usually not equally respected in measuring research impact. A priori unexpected relationships are found between the total coauthor core value, ma, of a leading investigator (LI), and the related values for their publications in either peer review journals (j) or in proceedings (p). A surprisingly linear relationship is found: ma(j) + 0.4 ma(p) = ma(jp) . Furthermore, another relationship is found concerning the measure of the total number of citations, Aa, i.e. the surface of the citation size-rank histogram up to ma. Another linear relationship exists : Aa(j) + 1.36 Aa(p) = Aa(jp) . These empirical findings coefficients (0.4 and 1.36) are supported by considerations based on an empirical power law found between the number of joint publications of an author and the rank of a coauthor. Moreover, a simple power law relationship is found between ma and the number (rM) of coauthors of an LI: ma ≃ rMμ ; the power law exponent μ depends on the type (j or p) of publications. These simple relations, at this time limited to publications in physics, imply that coauthors are a "more positive measure" of a principal investigator role, in both types of scientific outputs, than the Hirsch index could indicate. Therefore, to scorn upon co-authors in publications, in particular in proceedings, is incorrect. On the contrary, the findings suggest an immediate test of coherence of scientific authorship in scientific policy processes.

  14. [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.

  15. The Impact of a Student-Run Journal Club on Pharmacy Students' Self-Assessment of Critical Appraisal Skills.

    PubMed

    Landi, Macayla; Springer, Sydney; Estus, Erica; Ward, Kristina

    2015-06-01

    After attending an educational session on hosting journal clubs at the 2013 Annual Meeting & Exhibition, American Society of Consultant Pharmacists, Seattle, Washington, two third-year professional pharmacy students created a student-run journal club through the University of Rhode Island's ASCP student chapter. Three journal club sessions were held during the spring semester and were open to all pharmacy students. Students completed an anonymous pre- and post-survey to assess confidence in evaluating medical literature. Of the 18 participants, 5 were lost to follow-up. Significant improvements were found among all participants in their confidence in critically evaluating clinical research, interpreting statistical methods, and completing a journal club during Advanced Pharmacy Practice Experience rotations. This activity can be replicated in academic settings as well as workplace environments where pharmacy students are involved.

  16. Bibliometric analysis of Human Factors (1970-2000): a quantitative description of scientific impact.

    PubMed

    Dee, John D; Cassano-Pinché, Andrea; Vicente, Kim J

    2005-01-01

    Bibliometric analyses use the citation history of scientific articles as data to measure scientific impact. This paper describes a bibliometric analysis of the 1682 papers and 2413 authors published in Human Factors from 1970 to 2000. The results show that Human Factors has substantial relative scientific influence, as measured by impact, immediacy, and half-life, exceeding the influence of comparable journals. Like other scientific disciplines, human factors research is a highly stratified activity. Most authors have published only one paper, and many papers are cited infrequently, if ever. A small number of authors account for a disproportionately large number of the papers published and citations received. However, the degree of stratification is not as extreme as in many other disciplines, possibly reflecting the diversity of the human factors discipline. A consistent trend of more authors per paper parallels a similar trend in other fields and may reflect the increasingly interdisciplinary nature of human factors research and a trend toward addressing human-technology interaction in more complex systems. Ten of the most influential papers from each of the last 3 decades illustrate trends in human factors research. Actual or potential applications of this research include considerations for the publication and distribution policy of Human Factors.

  17. Publication of original research in urologic journals--a neglected orphan?

    PubMed

    Mani, Jens; Makarević, Jasmina; Juengel, Eva; Ackermann, Hanns; Nelson, Karen; Haferkamp, Axel; Blaheta, Roman A

    2012-01-01

    The pathophysiologic mechanisms behind urologic disease are increasingly being elucidated. The object of this investigation was to evaluate the publication policies of urologic journals during a period of progressively better understanding and management of urologic disease. Based on the ISI Web of Knowledge Journal Citation Reports and the PubMed database, the number and percentage of original experimental, original clinical, review or commentarial articles published between 2002-2010 in six leading urologic journals were analyzed. "British Journal of Urology International", "European Urology", "Urologic Oncology-Seminars and Original Investigations" ("Urologic Oncology"), "Urology", "The Journal of Urology", and "World Journal of Urology" were chosen, because these journals publish articles in all four categories. The publication policies of the six journals were very heterogeneous during the time period from 2002 to 2010. The percentage of original experimental and original clinical articles, related to all categories, remained the same in "British Journal of Urology International", "Urologic Oncology", "Urology" and "The Journal of Urology". The percentage of experimental reports in "World Journal of Urology" between 2002-2010 significantly increased from 10 to 20%. A distinct elevation in the percentage of commentarial articles accompanied by a reduction of clinical articles became evident in "European Urology" which significantly correlated with a large increase in the journal's impact factor. No clearly superior policy could be identified with regard to a general increase in the impact factors from all the journals. The publication policy of urologic journals does not expressly reflect the increase in scientific knowledge, which has occurred over the period 2002-2010. One way of increasing the exposure of urologists to research and expand the interface between experimental and clinical research, would be to enlarge the percentage of experimental articles

  18. Impact of interventions to improve the quality of peer review of biomedical journals: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

    PubMed

    Bruce, Rachel; Chauvin, Anthony; Trinquart, Ludovic; Ravaud, Philippe; Boutron, Isabelle

    2016-06-10

    The peer review process is a cornerstone of biomedical research. We aimed to evaluate the impact of interventions to improve the quality of peer review for biomedical publications. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis. We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and WHO ICTRP databases, for all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the impact of interventions to improve the quality of peer review for biomedical publications. We selected 22 reports of randomized controlled trials, for 25 comparisons evaluating training interventions (n = 5), the addition of a statistical peer reviewer (n = 2), use of a checklist (n = 2), open peer review (i.e., peer reviewers informed that their identity would be revealed; n = 7), blinded peer review (i.e., peer reviewers blinded to author names and affiliation; n = 6) and other interventions to increase the speed of the peer review process (n = 3). Results from only seven RCTs were published since 2004. As compared with the standard peer review process, training did not improve the quality of the peer review report and use of a checklist did not improve the quality of the final manuscript. Adding a statistical peer review improved the quality of the final manuscript (standardized mean difference (SMD), 0.58; 95 % CI, 0.19 to 0.98). Open peer review improved the quality of the peer review report (SMD, 0.14; 95 % CI, 0.05 to 0.24), did not affect the time peer reviewers spent on the peer review (mean difference, 0.18; 95 % CI, -0.06 to 0.43), and decreased the rate of rejection (odds ratio, 0.56; 95 % CI, 0.33 to 0.94). Blinded peer review did not affect the quality of the peer review report or rejection rate. Interventions to increase the speed of the peer review process were too heterogeneous to allow for pooling the results. Despite the essential role of peer review, only a few interventions have been assessed in randomized controlled

  19. Regarding "A new method for predicting nonlinear structural vibrations induced by ground impact loading" [Journal of Sound and Vibration, 331/9 (2012) 2129-2140

    NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

    Cartmell, Matthew P.

    2016-09-01

    The Editor wishes to make the reader aware that the paper "A new method for predicting nonlinear structural vibrations induced by ground impact loading" by Jun Liu, Yu Zhang, Bin Yun, Journal of Sound and Vibration, 331 (2012) 2129-2140, did not contain a direct citation of the fundamental and original work in this field by Dr. Mark Svinkin. The Editor regrets that this omission was not noted at the time that the above paper was accepted and published.

  20. Dwight D. Eisenhower Army Medical Center (DDEAMC) Staff Preferences: Electronic Journals versus Print Journals

    DTIC Science & Technology

    2003-04-01

    Biomedical Library Journal Preferences 26 investigated the impact of electronic journals on research processes. The results of this research indicated... Library Journal Preferences 28 reported that health science researchers valued the convenience and time-saving features of electronic journals including 24...Health Science Library (2001). Health Science Library Journal List [Brochure]. Fort Gordon, Georgia: Author. Department of Defense (2002). Department

  1. Examining the factor structure of the Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale.

    PubMed

    Fitzgerald, Shawn M; Li, Jian; Rumrill, Phillip D; Merchant, William; Bishop, Malachy

    2014-01-01

    The purpose of this study was to investigate the factor structure of the Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale (MSIS-29) to assess its suitability for modeling the impact of MS on a nation-wide sample of individuals from the United States. Investigators completed a Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) to examine the two-factor structure proposed by Hobart et al. [17]. Although the original MSIS-29 factor structure did not fit the data exactly, the hypothesized two-factor model was partially supported in the current data. Implications for future instrument development and rehabilitation practice are discussed.

  2. Surveys on Reporting Guideline Usage in Dental Journals.

    PubMed

    Hua, F; Walsh, T; Glenny, A-M; Worthington, H

    2016-10-01

    The objectives of this study were 1) to find out if and how authors and peer reviewers for dental journals are encouraged to use reporting guidelines (RGs); 2) to identify factors related to RG endorsement; and 3) to assess the knowledge, opinions, and future plans of dental journal editors in chief (EICs) on RGs. A total of 109 peer-reviewed and original research-oriented dental journals that were indexed in the MEDLINE and/or SCIE database in 2015 were included. The "instructions to authors" and "instructions to reviewers" of these journals were identified and retrieved from journals' official websites. Any mention of RGs or other related policies were sought and extracted. In addition, an anonymous survey of the EICs of the included journals was conducted with a validated questionnaire. All 109 journals provided "instructions to authors," among which 55 (50.5%) mentioned RGs. Only the CONSORT (45.0%), PRISMA (13.8%), and STROBE (12.8%) guidelines were mentioned by >10% of the included journals. Statistical analyses suggest that RGs were more frequently mentioned by SCIE-indexed journals (P < 0.001), higher-impact journals (P = 0.002), and journals that endorsed the ICMJE recommendations (P < 0.001). "Instructions to reviewers" were available online for only 9 journals (8.3%), 3 of which mentioned RGs. For the EIC survey, the response rate was 32.1% (35 of 109). Twenty-six editors (74.3%) stated that they knew what RGs were before receiving our questionnaire. Twenty-four editors (68.6%) believed that RGs should be adopted by all refereed dental journals where appropriate. RGs are important tools for enhancing research reporting and reducing avoidable research waste, but currently they are not widely endorsed by dental journals. Joint efforts by all stakeholders to further promote RG usage in dentistry are needed. © International & American Associations for Dental Research 2016.

  3. Monopoly Power and Electronic Journals.

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Meyer, Richard W.

    1997-01-01

    Rising periodical prices and lagging library budgets have many academics hoping that scholarly print journals will migrate to online versions. Examines economic factors shaping the electronic journal market, emerging new electronic journals, access versus ownership, consortial purchasing, self-maintained infrastructures, elimination of tenure and…

  4. Impact of Life Factors upon Attitudes toward Death.

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Franke, Kevin J.; Durlak, Joseph A.

    1990-01-01

    Investigated impact of life factors on college students' (N=47) feelings about death. Most important life factors clustered into three categories: Death of Significant Other, Religious Upbringing, and Near-Death Experiences. Although factors had mixed effects across individuals, they were significant predictors of current feelings about death.…

  5. 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.

  6. 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

  7. 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.

  8. Fate of submitted manuscripts rejected from the American Journal of Neuroradiology: outcomes and commentary.

    PubMed

    McDonald, R J; Cloft, H J; Kallmes, D F

    2007-09-01

    The purpose of this study was to determine the publication fate of submissions previously rejected from the American Journal of Neuroradiology (AJNR) to provide guidance to authors who receive rejection notices. A retrospective search by using MEDLINE of all submissions rejected from AJNR in 2004 was performed to identify subsequently published manuscripts. The fate of subsequently published manuscripts was analyzed as a function of submission type (major study, technical note, or case report), publication delay, publishing journal type (neuroradiology, general radiology, or clinical neuroscience journal), impact factor, publication volume, and circulation volume. Of the 554 rejected submissions to AJNR, 315 (56%) were subsequently published in 115 different journals, with the journal Neuroradiology publishing the greatest number of articles (37 [12%] of 315). The mean publication delay was 15.8 +/- 7.5 months. Major studies were more likely than case reports to be subsequently published (P = .034), but all 3 subtypes were published at rates greater than 50%. Radiologic journals collectively published approximately 60% of subsequent publications, whereas neurosurgery and neurology journals published 27% of rejected manuscripts. The mean impact factor of journals subsequently publishing rejected manuscripts was 1.8 +/- 1.3 (AJNR = 2.5), and 24 (7.5%) manuscripts were subsequently published in journals with higher impact factors than AJNR. These findings should give hope to authors receiving a rejection from AJNR, because greater than 50% of articles rejected from AJNR are subsequently published within 2-3 years, irrespective of publication type, into high-quality journals.

  9. HRD Journals.

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    1996

    This document consists of four papers presented during a symposium on human resource development (HRD) journals moderated by Peter W.J. Schramade at the 1996 conference of the Academy of Human Resource Development. "Refereed Journals: The Cornerstone of a Developing Profession" (Gary N. McLean) describes the purpose, format, success, and…

  10. New Journalism.

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Fishwick, Marshall, Ed.

    This volume contains a selection of articles which examine, critique, and help to define the phenomenon of new journalism. Included are "Popular Culture and the New Journalism" (Marshall Fishwick), "Entrance" (Richard A. Kallan), "How 'New'?" (George A. Hough III), "Journalistic Primitivism" (Everette E. Dennis), "Wherein Lies the Value?" (Michael…

  11. After Journalism.

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Jurgensen, Karen; Meyer, Philip

    1992-01-01

    Maintains that the central journalistic function is changing from the transportation of information to its processing. Offers a model for the more sophisticated standard of objectivity needed by the new process-intensive journalism. Discusses changes in journalism training to meet these demands. (SR)

  12. New Journalism.

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Fishwick, Marshall, Ed.

    This volume contains a selection of articles which examine, critique, and help to define the phenomenon of new journalism. Included are "Popular Culture and the New Journalism" (Marshall Fishwick), "Entrance" (Richard A. Kallan), "How 'New'?" (George A. Hough III), "Journalistic Primitivism" (Everette E. Dennis), "Wherein Lies the Value?" (Michael…

  13. Selecting the right journal for your submission.

    PubMed

    Welch, Stephen J

    2012-06-01

    Increasing pressure on researchers and academic clinicians to publish high volumes of work in highly visible publication outlets means that authors must have a finely tuned, efficient process for submission. One of the key decisions every author must make is where to submit their paper. This article addresses several important components to making that decision, including (I) topic match; (II) acceptance/rejection rate of the journal; (III) speed of review/publication; (IV) distribution of and access to the journal; and (V) impact factor.

  14. 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.

  15. 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.

  16. Editorial: Citation of the Serbian Astronomical Journal in the Period 2010-2012

    NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

    Arbutina, B.

    2013-06-01

    This is the third in a series of papers conceived with an idea in mind to track the Serbian Astronomical Journal citation. Full citation information for the last three years, necessary for calculating impact factors, is given.

  17. Editorial: Citation of the Serbian Astronomical Journal in the Period 2007-2009

    NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

    Arbutina, B.

    2010-06-01

    This editorial provides results of research on the Serbian Astronomical Journal citation. We give full information on citation for the last three years, and the impact factors calculated for the period 2003-2009.

  18. The Photon Impact Factor for DIS at NLO: analytic result

    SciTech Connect

    Chirilli, Giovanni A.

    2011-07-15

    Using the Operator Product Expansion for high-energy scattering processes, we compute the photon impact factor at next-to-leading order accuracy. We obtain an analytic expression as a linear combination of five independent conformal tensor structures.

  19. 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