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.

[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.

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

Psychiatry and the Hirsch h-index: The relationship between journal impact factors and accrued citations.

PubMed

Hunt, Glenn E; Cleary, Michelle; Walter, Garry

2010-01-01

There is considerable debate on the use and abuse of journal impact factors and on selecting the most appropriate indicator to assess research outcome for an individual or group of scientists. Internet searches using Web of Science and Scopus were conducted to retrieve citation data for an individual in order to calculate nine variants of Hirsch's h-index. Citations to articles published in a wide range of psychiatric journals in the periods 1995-99 and 2000-05 were analyzed using Web of Science. Comparisons were made between journal impact factor, h-index of citations from publication to 2008, and the proportion of articles cited at least 30 or 50 times. For up to 14 years post-publication, there was a strong positive relationship between journal impact factor and h-index for citations received. Journal impact factor was also compared to the percentage of articles cited at least 30 or 50 times-a comparison that showed wide variations between journals with similar impact factors. This study found that 40%-50% of the articles published in the top ten psychiatry journals ranked by impact factor acquire 30 to 50 citations within ten to fifteen years. Despite certain flaws and weaknesses, the h-index provides a better way to assess long-term performance of articles or authors than using a journal's impact factor, and it provides an alternative way to assess a journal's long-term ranking.

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.

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.

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.

Social media impact factor: the top ten dermatology journals on Facebook and Twitter.

PubMed

Karimkhani, Chante; Gamble, Ryan; Dellavalle, Robert P

2014-04-16

Academic journals are mainly rated according to their impact factors. However, considering the enormous worldwide impact of social media, journals and potential authors may want to take social media impact into account.

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

PubMed

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

2013-01-01

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

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

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

Temporal Trends (1999-2015) in the Impact Factor of Biomedical Journals Published by US and EU Scientific Societies.

PubMed

Falagas, Matthew E; Kyriakidou, Margarita; Spais, George; Argiti, Efstathia; Vardakas, Konstantinos Z

2018-04-19

The impact factor has emerged as the most popular index of scientific journals' resonance. In this study we aimed to examine the impact factor trends of journals published by scientific bodies in the United States of America (USA) and Europe (EU). We randomly chose 11 categories of Journal of Citation Reports and created three research classes: clinical medicine, laboratory medicine, and basic science. The impact factor values for the years 1999-2015 were abstracted, and the impact factor of US and EU journals was studied through the years. A total of 265 journals were included in the final analysis. The impact factor of US journals was higher than that of EU journals throughout the study period. In addition, for both US and EU journals the median impact factor increased throughout the study period. The rate of annual change in the impact factor throughout the study period was lower for US than EU journals (1.85% versus 3.55%, P=0.019). A higher median annual increase was seen in the impact factor during the period 1999-2008 compared to the period 2009-2015 for both US (P<0.001) and EU (P=0.001) journals. In fact, during the second period the US median impact factor value did not show significant changes (P=0.31), while the EU median impact factor continued to increase (P<0.001). The impact factor of EU journals increased at a significantly higher rate than and approached that of the US journals during the last 16 years.

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.

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

PubMed

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

2015-12-01

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

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

PubMed Central

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

2015-01-01

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

The top-ten in journal impact factor manipulation.

PubMed

Falagas, Matthew E; Alexiou, Vangelis G

2008-01-01

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

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

PubMed

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

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

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.

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…

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).

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

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

PubMed

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

2012-12-01

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

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.

Temporal Trends (1999–2015) in the Impact Factor of Biomedical Journals Published by US and EU Scientific Societies

PubMed Central

Falagas, Matthew E.; Kyriakidou, Margarita; Spais, George; Argiti, Efstathia; Vardakas, Konstantinos Z.

2018-01-01

Objective The impact factor has emerged as the most popular index of scientific journals’ resonance. In this study we aimed to examine the impact factor trends of journals published by scientific bodies in the United States of America (USA) and Europe (EU). Methods We randomly chose 11 categories of Journal of Citation Reports and created three research classes: clinical medicine, laboratory medicine, and basic science. The impact factor values for the years 1999–2015 were abstracted, and the impact factor of US and EU journals was studied through the years. Results A total of 265 journals were included in the final analysis. The impact factor of US journals was higher than that of EU journals throughout the study period. In addition, for both US and EU journals the median impact factor increased throughout the study period. The rate of annual change in the impact factor throughout the study period was lower for US than EU journals (1.85% versus 3.55%, P=0.019). A higher median annual increase was seen in the impact factor during the period 1999–2008 compared to the period 2009–2015 for both US (P<0.001) and EU (P=0.001) journals. In fact, during the second period the US median impact factor value did not show significant changes (P=0.31), while the EU median impact factor continued to increase (P<0.001). Conclusion The impact factor of EU journals increased at a significantly higher rate than and approached that of the US journals during the last 16 years. PMID:29517962

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.

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...

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…

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

[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.

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

PubMed Central

Hughes, Andrew; Murphy, Colin G

2017-01-01

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

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.

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

PubMed

Brown, Ted; Gutman, Sharon A

2018-05-18

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

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.

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

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

PubMed

Hughes, Hannah; Hughes, Andrew; Murphy, Colin

2017-12-10

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

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.

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

PubMed

Bador, Pascal; Lafouge, Thierry

2010-01-01

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

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

PubMed

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

2017-10-01

Social media (SoMe) comprises a number of internet-based applications that have the capability to disseminate multimodal media and allow for unprecedented inter-user connectivity. The role of Twitter has been studied in conferences and education; moreover, there is increasing evidence that patients are more likely to use social media for their own health education. The aim of this study was to assess the impact of social media platforms on the impact factor of both urological and paediatric journals that publish on paediatric urology, and to assess parental awareness of social media in paediatric urology. A filtered Journal of Citation Reports (JCR) search was performed for the period 2012-16 for journals that published articles on paediatric urology. Journals were ranked according to impact factor, and each individual journal website was accessed to assess for the presence of social media. Parents in paediatric urology clinics and non-paediatric urology patients also filled out a questionnaire to assess for awareness and attitudes to social media. All statistical analysis was performed using Prism 6 software (Prism 6, GraphPad Software, California, USA). Overall, there were 50 urological journals and 39 paediatric journals with a mean impact factor of 2.303 and 1.766, respectively. There was an overall average increase in impact factor across all urological journals between 2012 and 16. The presence of a Twitter feed was statistically significant for a rise in impact factor over the 4 years (P = 0.017). The cohort of parents was statistically more likely to have completed post-secondary education, to have and access to a social media profile, use it for health education, and use it to access journal/physician/hospital social media accounts. This study examined, for the first time, the role of social media in paediatric urology, and demonstrated that SoMe use is associated with a positive influence in impact factor, but also a parental appetite for it

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.

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

PubMed

Kianifar, Hamidreza; Sadeghi, Ramin; Zarifmahmoudi, Leili

2014-04-01

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

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

PubMed Central

Kianifar, Hamidreza; Sadeghi, Ramin; Zarifmahmoudi, Leili

2014-01-01

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

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

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.

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

PubMed

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

2004-12-01

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

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…

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…

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

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.

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…

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

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…

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…

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…

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

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.

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

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

PubMed

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

2015-09-01

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

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

PubMed

Tanner-Smith, Emily E; Polanin, Joshua R

2016-07-01

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

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

PubMed Central

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

2016-01-01

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

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

PubMed

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

2011-04-01

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

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

PubMed

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

2016-06-24

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

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

PubMed Central

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

2015-01-01

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

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

PubMed

Brumback, Roger A

2004-04-01

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

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.

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

PubMed Central

Yang, Zu-Guo; Zhang, Chun-Ting

2013-01-01

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

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

PubMed

Yang, Zu-Guo; Zhang, Chun-Ting

2013-12-03

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

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…

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

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.

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

PubMed

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

2018-06-01

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

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

PubMed

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

2017-11-01

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

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…

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

PubMed

Rosenkrantz, Andrew B; Ayoola, Abimbola

2016-06-01

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

Impact of the Journal of Child Neurology: 2002 data.

PubMed

Brumback, Roger A

2003-11-01

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

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.

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

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

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

PubMed

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

2011-12-01

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

Milestones and impact factors.

PubMed

Ozonoff, David M; Grandjean, Philippe

2010-07-08

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

Milestones and Impact Factors

PubMed Central

2010-01-01

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

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.

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

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

[Obtaining the Impact Factor by Ginekologia Polska].

PubMed

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

2011-08-01

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

Publication 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.

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.

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

PubMed Central

Diekhoff, Torsten; Schlattmann, Peter; Dewey, Marc

2013-01-01

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

Alternatives to the impact factor.

PubMed

Oosthuizen, J C; Fenton, J E

2014-10-01

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

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

PubMed

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

2017-02-01

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

A 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.

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.

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

PubMed

Meenen, N M

1997-08-01

With shortage of research funds and increasing competition for medical posts, performance indicators and control instruments are being looked for in order to be able to allot research funds and make professorial appointments in relation to scientific performance. Incomprehensibly for many, the impact factor has become the decisive scientometric indicator at German universities despite of substantial systematic limitations. The impact factor is derived from the journal citation reports. Its basis of calculation entails the following problems: the editorial board of the private Institute of Scientific Information (ISI) decides on whether a journal is to be classified as a source journal. The citation index of all journals is calculated from their citations alone. Crucial means of influencing the impact factor result from self-citations and citation groups in these source journals. Languages other than English and other than Latin alphabets are appreciably disadvantaged by the citation index, which is why for example despite its international significance the rapid development of the osteosynthesis technique in German speaking countries went unnoticed by British and American orthopedic surgeons and scientists. The articles on postgraduate training necessarily published by clinicians in the respective language of their country are not cited because the addresses of such publications do not engage in research. Clinical disciplines (especially highly specialized disciplines such as trauma and hand surgery) thus attain appreciably lower impact factors for their journals than basic disciplines and interdisciplinary clinical sectors which lead the ranking of journals. The period covered in calculating the impact factor is only 2 years. Very modern and widely disseminated organs of publication with a short information halflife are favored. From the 10 objectively most often cited and most important journals for the scientific society, only 2 are to be found amongst those

Positive Results Bias and Impact Factor in Ophthalmology.

PubMed

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

2015-01-01

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

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

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

PubMed

Gholami, Javad; Ilghami, Roghayeh

2016-07-08

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

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.

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

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

Impact factor: Universalism and reliability of assessment.

PubMed

Grzybowski, Andrzej; Patryn, Rafał

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

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.

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

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

PubMed

Dul, Jan; Karwowski, Waldemar

2004-05-01

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

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,…

Who cares about impact factor?

NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

Mariethoz, Gregoire; Karssenberg, Derek; Grana, Dario

2018-06-01

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

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

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

PubMed Central

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

2007-01-01

Objective (1) To analyse trends in the journal impact factor (IF) of seven general medical journals (Ann Intern Med, BMJ, CMAJ, JAMA, Lancet, Med J Aust and N Engl J Med) over 12 years; and (2) to ascertain the views of these journals' past and present Editors on factors that had affected their journals' IFs during their tenure, including direct editorial policies. Design Retrospective analysis of IF data from ISI Web of Knowledge Journal Citation Reports—Science Edition, 1994 to 2005, and interviews with Editors-in-Chief. Setting Medical journal publishing. Participants Ten Editors-in-Chief of the journals, except Med J Aust, who served between 1999 and 2004. Main outcome measures IFs and component numerator and denominator data for the seven general medical journals (1994 to 2005) were collected. IFs are calculated using the formula: (Citations in year z to articles published in years x and y)/(Number of citable articles published in years x and y), where z is the current year and x and y are the previous two years. Editors' views on factors that had affected their journals' IFs were also obtained. Results IFs generally rose over the 12-year period, with the N Engl J Med having the highest IF throughout. However, percentage rises in IF relative to the baseline year of 1994 were greatest for CMAJ (about 500%) and JAMA (260%). Numerators for most journals tended to rise over this period, while denominators tended to be stable or to fall, although not always in a linear fashion. Nine of ten eligible editors were interviewed. Possible reasons given for rises in citation counts included: active recruitment of high-impact articles by courting researchers; offering authors better services; boosting the journal's media profile; more careful article selection; and increases in article citations. Most felt that going online had not affected citations. Most had no deliberate policy to publish fewer articles (lowering the IF denominator), which was sometimes the unintended

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

PubMed

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

2017-12-08

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

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

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

[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.

Systematic review: Outcome reporting bias is a problem in high impact factor neurology journals

PubMed Central

Scott, Jared T.; Blubaugh, Mark; Roepke, Brie; Scheckel, Caleb; Vassar, Matt

2017-01-01

Background Selective outcome reporting is a significant methodological concern. Comparisons between the outcomes reported in clinical trial registrations and those later published allow investigators to understand the extent of selection bias among trialists. We examined the possibility of selective outcome reporting in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in neurology journals. Methods We searched PubMed for randomized controlled trials from Jan 1, 2010 –Dec 31, 2015 published in the top 3 impact factor neurology journals. These articles were screened according to specific inclusion criteria. Each author individually extracted data from trials following a standardized protocol. A second author verified each extracted element and discrepancies were resolved. Consistency between registered and published outcomes was evaluated and correlations between discrepancies and funding, journal, and temporal trends were examined. Results 180 trials were included for analysis. 10 (6%) primary outcomes were demoted, 38 (21%) primary outcomes were omitted from the publication, and 61 (34%) unregistered primary outcomes were added to the published report. There were 18 (10%) cases of secondary outcomes being upgraded to primary outcomes in the publication, and there were 53 (29%) changes in timing of assessment. Of 82 (46%) major discrepancies with reported p-values, 54 (66.0%) favored publication of statistically significant results. Conclusion Across trials, we found 180 major discrepancies. 66% of major discrepancies with a reported p-value (n = 82) favored statistically significant results. These results suggest a need within neurology to provide more consistent and timely registration of outcomes. PMID:28727834

Systematic review: Outcome reporting bias is a problem in high impact factor neurology journals.

PubMed

Howard, Benjamin; Scott, Jared T; Blubaugh, Mark; Roepke, Brie; Scheckel, Caleb; Vassar, Matt

2017-01-01

Selective outcome reporting is a significant methodological concern. Comparisons between the outcomes reported in clinical trial registrations and those later published allow investigators to understand the extent of selection bias among trialists. We examined the possibility of selective outcome reporting in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in neurology journals. We searched PubMed for randomized controlled trials from Jan 1, 2010 -Dec 31, 2015 published in the top 3 impact factor neurology journals. These articles were screened according to specific inclusion criteria. Each author individually extracted data from trials following a standardized protocol. A second author verified each extracted element and discrepancies were resolved. Consistency between registered and published outcomes was evaluated and correlations between discrepancies and funding, journal, and temporal trends were examined. 180 trials were included for analysis. 10 (6%) primary outcomes were demoted, 38 (21%) primary outcomes were omitted from the publication, and 61 (34%) unregistered primary outcomes were added to the published report. There were 18 (10%) cases of secondary outcomes being upgraded to primary outcomes in the publication, and there were 53 (29%) changes in timing of assessment. Of 82 (46%) major discrepancies with reported p-values, 54 (66.0%) favored publication of statistically significant results. Across trials, we found 180 major discrepancies. 66% of major discrepancies with a reported p-value (n = 82) favored statistically significant results. These results suggest a need within neurology to provide more consistent and timely registration of outcomes.

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.

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

Results from a Web Impact Factor Crawler.

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Thelwall, Mike

2001-01-01

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

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.

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

PubMed

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

2018-02-01

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

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

PubMed

Loomba, Rohit S; Anderson, Robert H

2018-03-01

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

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.

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

PubMed

Narayan, Anand; Lobner, Katie; Fritz, Jan

2018-02-01

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

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.

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

PubMed

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

2016-10-01

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

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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

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…

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.

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

PubMed

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

2002-01-01

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

Characteristics of Orthopedic Publications in High-Impact General Medical Journals.

PubMed

Nwachukwu, Benedict U; Kahlenberg, Cynthia A; Lehman, Jason D; Lyman, Stephen; Marx, Robert G

2017-05-01

Orthopedic studies are occasionally published in high-impact general medical journals; these studies are often given high visibility and have significant potential to impact health care policy and inform clinical decision-making. The purpose of this review was to investigate the characteristics of operative orthopedic studies published in high-impact medical journals. The number of orthopedic studies published in high-impact medical journals is relatively low; however, these studies demonstrate methodological characteristics that may bias toward nonoperative treatment. Careful analysis and interpretation of orthopedic studies published in these journals is warranted. [Orthopedics. 2017; 40(3):e405-e412.]. Copyright 2017, SLACK Incorporated.

A Journal-Level Analysis of Progress in Transplantation.

PubMed

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

2018-03-01

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

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.

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

PubMed

Kanavakis, Georgios; Dombroski, Meghann M; Malouf, David P; Athanasiou, Athanasios E

2016-02-01

The aim of this study was to explore demographic characteristics of systematic reviews (SRs), meta-analyses (MAs), and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in orthodontic journals with an impact factor (IF). An electronic search was developed and implemented to identify all the SRs, MAs, and RCTs published in the seven orthodontic journals with an IF. No restrictions were applied regarding language, publication date, or publication status. The initial search generated 1147 articles, which were reviewed by three authors in order to determine if they met the inclusion criteria. Five hundred and fifty-seven articles were included in the final analysis. Type of article, name of journal, year of publication, number of authors, country of origin, and primary affiliation were recorded. Associations between those parameters were tested with the Pearson chi-square test for independence at the 0.05 level of significance. The majority (72%) of this kind of articles published in the orthodontic literature were RCTs, followed by SRs (20.1%) and MAs (7.9%). Approximately 77.2% of all RCTs, SRs, and MAs were published between 2004 and 2013, and 72.9% came from orthodontic departments. More than 80% of all articles were collaborative efforts between three or more authors. Contributions from Asia, South and Central America significantly increased during last decade, while contributions from North America decreased by almost 30%. Most RCTs, MAs, and SRs have been published between 2004 and 2013, indicating a significant improvement of the orthodontic literature during the last decade. Asia, South and Central America have significantly increased their contributions to the high evidence orthodontic literature since 2004. © The Author 2015. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Orthodontic Society. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.

The 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

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

PubMed

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

2018-03-05

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

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.

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

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.

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.

[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.

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…

Bibliometric study of articles on skeletal Class II malocclusions published in four high impact factor journals.

PubMed

Ousehal, Lahcen; El Aouame, Amal; Fatene, Nassiba; Lazrak, Laila; Traiba, Loubna; N'Gom, Papa Ibrahima

2018-04-11

Perform a bibliometric analysis of the orthodontic literature on skeletal Class II malocclusions during the first decade of the 21st century. A retrospective, observational, and comprehensive study ranging from January the first 2001 to December 31 2010, based on the articles published in four high impact factor orthodontic journals: Angle Orthod, OCR, EJO, and AJODO (Quotation Report Newspaper of the Scientific Information Institute). In the 4565 reviewed articles, only 338 were published on Class II malocclusions. Brazil, the United States, Turkey, and Germany are the nationalities, which have published the most. The cross-sectional descriptive studies represent 33%, randomized clinical trials (RCTs) 10.5%, meta-analyses 0.3%. Kanavakis et al. (2006) reported 72.34% of original articles, 2.83% of synthetic reviews, 8.89% of case reports, and 15.75% of unclassifiable articles. In conclusion, searchers in Orthodontics are invited to publish more clinical trials on skeletal Class II malocclusions. Copyright © 2018. Published by Elsevier Masson SAS.

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.

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

[Analysis on theses, funding ratio and impact factor of the "Chinese Journal of Parasitology and Parasitic Diseases" in 2000-2004].

PubMed

Sheng, Hui-feng; Fu, Xiu-lan; Bo, Wei; Hu, Ya-qing; Dai, Jing

2006-08-01

Number of theses published and the major evaluation indicators of the (Chinese Journal of Parasitology and Parasitic Diseases) in 2000-2004 were analyzed. Together 833 papers and communications were published in the 5 years and the original articles, reviews and experiment reports occupied 39.4%, 9.1% and 4.4% respectively. The key authors were from universities (53.4%) and disease control institutions (29.4%). 20 universities/institutions published over 8 papers in the period occupying 38.1%. The average rate of papers supported by various funds and by international agencies was 0.50 and 0.09 respectively, and higher in 2004, 0.52 and 0.07 respectively. The ratio of national, ministry (provincial) and international projects was 29.9%, 43.9% and 20.4% respectively. The overall citation and impact factor of this journal increased from 325 and 0.377 in 2000 to 437 and 0.462 in 2004 respectively, being among the best of the periodicals and expressing its high academic level and its domestic and abroad importance in the field of parasitology.

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.

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

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

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

[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.

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…

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

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

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

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Perera, Upeksha; Wijewickrema, Manjula

2018-01-01

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

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

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.

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.

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…

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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

[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

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

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

PubMed Central

2013-01-01

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

How 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.

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…

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.

[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.

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…

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.

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.

Peer assessment of journal quality in clinical neurology

PubMed Central

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

2007-01-01

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

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.

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.

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

PubMed

Pendlebury, David A

2009-01-01

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

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

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.

Ethics and the psychiatry journal editor: responsibilities and dilemmas.

PubMed

Greenberg, David; D Strous, Rael

2014-01-01

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

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.…

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…

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…

JOURNAL ANALYSIS ON OPHTHALMOLOGY AND OTHERS.

PubMed

Freitas, Denise de

2015-01-01

To update knowledge and methods to access and view the journals included in Qualis of CAPES Medicine III, and how to measure the impact factor. Document review on the attempt to verify the way Qualis uses for ranking journals cited by the post-graduate programs of Medicine III in their evaluation periods, and the impact factors obtained by journals indexing base. The classification is annual and are ranking in strata ranging from A1, the highest, and A2; B1; B2; B3; B4; B5; C. The latter has zero evaluation weight. These strata take as reference the impact factor of the journals listed by the programs. The same journal can be classified into different Qualis in other areas, and this is no inconsistency, but expressed the assigned value, in each area, at that particular journal. The Impact Factor is measured using the Journal of Citation Report in Web of Knowledge website. Using the criteria established by WebQualis for stratification of journals there is a quality guidance of what is produced by the program and, based on it, can be made scientific comparison of program performance. Consulting the JCR is recommended because it defines exactly what is the journal's impact factor; Qualis stratifies numerical intervals and not individual journal specificity. Atualização do conhecimento dos meios e métodos de acessar e visualizar os periódicos do Qualis da Medicina III da CAPES e a mensuração do Fator de Impacto. Buscou-se verificar a forma utilizada pelo Qualis para classificar os periódicos referidos pelos programas de pós-graduação da Medicina III em seus períodos de avaliação e os fatores de impacto obtidos pelas revistas em base indexadora. A classificação é anual e são enquadrados em estratos que variam de A1, o mais elevado, a A2; B1; B2; B3; B4; B5; C. Este último tem peso zero. Esses estratos levam como referência o Fator de Impacto dos periódicos referidos pelos programas. Um mesmo periódico pode ter classificação em Qualis diferentes em

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.

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.

[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.

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.

Support Science by Publishing in Scientific Society Journals.

PubMed

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

2017-09-26

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

A systematic assessment of Cochrane reviews and systematic reviews published in high-impact medical journals related to cancer.

PubMed

Goldkuhle, Marius; Narayan, Vikram M; Weigl, Aaron; Dahm, Philipp; Skoetz, Nicole

2018-03-25

To compare cancer-related systematic reviews (SRs) published in the Cochrane Database of SRs (CDSR) and high-impact journals, with respect to type, content, quality and citation rates. Methodological SR with assessment and comparison of SRs and meta-analyses. Two authors independently assessed methodological quality using an Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR)-based extraction form. Both authors independently screened search results, extracted content-relevant characteristics and retrieved citation numbers of the included reviews using the Clarivate Analytics Web of Science database. Cancer-related SRs were retrieved from the CDSR, as well as from the 10 journals which publish oncological SRs and had the highest impact factors, using a comprehensive search in both the CDSR and MEDLINE. We included all cancer-related SRs and meta-analyses published from January 2011 to May 2016. Methodological SRs were excluded. We included 346 applicable Cochrane reviews and 215 SRs from high-impact journals. Cochrane reviews consistently met more individual AMSTAR criteria, notably with regard to an a priori design (risk ratio (RR) 3.89; 95% CI 3.10 to 4.88), inclusion of the grey literature and trial registries (RR 3.52; 95% CI 2.84 to 4.37) in their searches, and the reporting of excluded studies (RR 8.80; 95% CI 6.06 to 12.78). Cochrane reviews were less likely to address questions of prognosis (RR 0.04; 95% CI 0.02 to 0.09), use individual patient data (RR 0.03; 95% CI 0.01 to 0.09) or be based on non-randomised controlled trials (RR 0.04; 95% CI 0.02 to 0.09). Citation rates of Cochrane reviews were notably lower than those for high-impact journals (Cochrane reviews: mean number of citations 6.52 (range 0-143); high-impact journal SRs: 74.45 (0-652)). When comparing cancer-related SRs published in the CDSR versus those published in high-impact medical journals, Cochrane reviews were consistently of higher methodological quality, but cited less

Some Determinants of Journal Holding Patterns in Academic Libraries.

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

McCain, Katherine W.

1992-01-01

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

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.

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

PubMed Central

Fraser, Véronique J; Martin, James G

2009-01-01

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

Analysis of aggregate impact factor inflation in ophthalmology.

PubMed

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

2013-01-01

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

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

PubMed

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

2018-01-01

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

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

WE-E-204-01: ASTRO Based Journals

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

Klein, E.

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

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.

Majority of systematic reviews published in high-impact journals neglected to register the protocols: a meta-epidemiological study.

PubMed

Tsujimoto, Yasushi; Tsujimoto, Hiraku; Kataoka, Yuki; Kimachi, Miho; Shimizu, Sayaka; Ikenoue, Tatsuyoshi; Fukuma, Shingo; Yamamoto, Yosuke; Fukuhara, Shunichi

2017-04-01

To describe the registration of systematic review (SR) protocols and examine whether or not registration reduced the outcome reporting bias in high-impact journals. We searched MEDLINE via PubMed to identify SRs of randomized controlled trials of interventions. We included SRs published between August 2009 and June 2015 in the 10 general and internal medicinal journals with the highest impact factors in 2013. We examined the proportion of SR protocol registration and investigated the relationship between registration and outcome reporting bias using multivariable logistic regression. Among the 284 included reviews, 60 (21%) protocols were registered. The proportion of registration increased from 5.6% in 2009 to 27% in 2015 (P for trend <0.001). Protocol registration was not associated with outcome reporting bias (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 0.85, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.39-1.86). The association between Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) adherence and protocol registration was not statistically significant (OR 1.09, 95% CI 0.59-2.01). Six years after the launch of the PRISMA statement, the proportion of protocol registration in high-impact journals has increased some but remains low. The present study found no evidence suggesting that protocol registration reduced outcome reporting bias. Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

How to Rank Journals

PubMed Central

Bradshaw, Corey J. A.; Brook, Barry W.

2016-01-01

There are now many methods available to assess the relative citation performance of peer-reviewed journals. Regardless of their individual faults and advantages, citation-based metrics are used by researchers to maximize the citation potential of their articles, and by employers to rank academic track records. The absolute value of any particular index is arguably meaningless unless compared to other journals, and different metrics result in divergent rankings. To provide a simple yet more objective way to rank journals within and among disciplines, we developed a κ-resampled composite journal rank incorporating five popular citation indices: Impact Factor, Immediacy Index, Source-Normalized Impact Per Paper, SCImago Journal Rank and Google 5-year h-index; this approach provides an index of relative rank uncertainty. We applied the approach to six sample sets of scientific journals from Ecology (n = 100 journals), Medicine (n = 100), Multidisciplinary (n = 50); Ecology + Multidisciplinary (n = 25), Obstetrics & Gynaecology (n = 25) and Marine Biology & Fisheries (n = 25). We then cross-compared the κ-resampled ranking for the Ecology + Multidisciplinary journal set to the results of a survey of 188 publishing ecologists who were asked to rank the same journals, and found a 0.68–0.84 Spearman’s ρ correlation between the two rankings datasets. Our composite index approach therefore approximates relative journal reputation, at least for that discipline. Agglomerative and divisive clustering and multi-dimensional scaling techniques applied to the Ecology + Multidisciplinary journal set identified specific clusters of similarly ranked journals, with only Nature & Science separating out from the others. When comparing a selection of journals within or among disciplines, we recommend collecting multiple citation-based metrics for a sample of relevant and realistic journals to calculate the composite rankings and their relative uncertainty windows. PMID:26930052

How to Rank Journals.

PubMed

Bradshaw, Corey J A; Brook, Barry W

2016-01-01

There are now many methods available to assess the relative citation performance of peer-reviewed journals. Regardless of their individual faults and advantages, citation-based metrics are used by researchers to maximize the citation potential of their articles, and by employers to rank academic track records. The absolute value of any particular index is arguably meaningless unless compared to other journals, and different metrics result in divergent rankings. To provide a simple yet more objective way to rank journals within and among disciplines, we developed a κ-resampled composite journal rank incorporating five popular citation indices: Impact Factor, Immediacy Index, Source-Normalized Impact Per Paper, SCImago Journal Rank and Google 5-year h-index; this approach provides an index of relative rank uncertainty. We applied the approach to six sample sets of scientific journals from Ecology (n = 100 journals), Medicine (n = 100), Multidisciplinary (n = 50); Ecology + Multidisciplinary (n = 25), Obstetrics & Gynaecology (n = 25) and Marine Biology & Fisheries (n = 25). We then cross-compared the κ-resampled ranking for the Ecology + Multidisciplinary journal set to the results of a survey of 188 publishing ecologists who were asked to rank the same journals, and found a 0.68-0.84 Spearman's ρ correlation between the two rankings datasets. Our composite index approach therefore approximates relative journal reputation, at least for that discipline. Agglomerative and divisive clustering and multi-dimensional scaling techniques applied to the Ecology + Multidisciplinary journal set identified specific clusters of similarly ranked journals, with only Nature & Science separating out from the others. When comparing a selection of journals within or among disciplines, we recommend collecting multiple citation-based metrics for a sample of relevant and realistic journals to calculate the composite rankings and their relative uncertainty windows.

Clinical relevance in anesthesia journals.

PubMed

Lauritsen, Jakob; Møller, Ann M

2006-04-01

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

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

PubMed Central

2014-01-01

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

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

PubMed

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

2015-01-01

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. 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). 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.

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.

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.

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

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

[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.

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

PubMed

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

2002-01-01

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

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

PubMed

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

2012-12-01

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

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

PubMed Central

Habibzadeh, Farrokh; Yadollahie, Mahboobeh

2010-01-01

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

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

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

Karellas, A.

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

Reporting quality of randomised controlled trial abstracts among high-impact general medical journals: a review and analysis

PubMed Central

Hays, Meredith; Andrews, Mary; Wilson, Ramey; Callender, David; O'Malley, Patrick G; Douglas, Kevin

2016-01-01

Objective The aim of this study was to assess adherence to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) for Abstracts by five high-impact general medical journals and to assess whether the quality of reporting was homogeneous across these journals. Design This is a descriptive, cross-sectional study. Setting Randomised controlled trial (RCT) abstracts in five high-impact general medical journals. Participants We used up to 100 RCT abstracts published between 2011 and 2014 from each of the following journals: The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), the Annals of Internal Medicine (Annals IM), The Lancet, the British Medical Journal (The BMJ) and the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA). Main outcome The primary outcome was per cent overall adherence to the 19-item CONSORT for Abstracts checklist. Secondary outcomes included per cent adherence in checklist subcategories and assessing homogeneity of reporting quality across the individual journals. Results Search results yielded 466 abstracts, 3 of which were later excluded as they were not RCTs. Analysis was performed on 463 abstracts (97 from NEJM, 66 from Annals IM, 100 from The Lancet, 100 from The BMJ, 100 from JAMA). Analysis of all scored items showed an overall adherence of 67% (95% CI 66% to 68%) to the CONSORT for Abstracts checklist. The Lancet had the highest overall adherence rate (78%; 95% CI 76% to 80%), whereas NEJM had the lowest (55%; 95% CI 53% to 57%). Adherence rates to 8 of the checklist items differed by >25% between journals. Conclusions Among the five highest impact general medical journals, there is variable and incomplete adherence to the CONSORT for Abstracts reporting checklist of randomised trials, with substantial differences between individual journals. Lack of adherence to the CONSORT for Abstracts reporting checklist by high-impact medical journals impedes critical appraisal of important studies. We recommend diligent assessment of adherence to reporting

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

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

PubMed

Huh, Sun

2013-04-01

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

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

PubMed

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

2017-01-01

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

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

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.

[Impact factors and bibliometrics of science. Does pure science really exist?].

PubMed

Sochman, J; Belán, A

2003-01-01

The impact factor is an artificially created indicator which when applied separately does not achieve the value attributed to it. In its assessment a number of different influences are projected which cause partial mistakes with a cumulative effect. It can have an even worse effect if the impact factor is incorrectly conceived or inadequately handled. Only in a long-term review using specific corrections it can serve to determine really top class periodicals but only within the framework of a single scientific discipline. It is not suitable for comparison of interdisciplinary journals. It should be used very carefully in the evaluation of authors. However it is still used in various types of administrative management. From the submitted paper it may seen that with a certain amount of overstatement it is personified and acts on its own. Its personification is homo sapiens scientometricus who evaluates himself as well as his environment which is represented by mere homo sapiens scientificus. In addition to the impact factor the authors discuss also other indicators and some aspects of scientometry.

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

PubMed Central

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

2017-01-01

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

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.

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.

ANALYSIS OF OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY, ORTHOPEDICS AND THORACIC SURGERY JOURNALS.

PubMed

Lima, Wilma Terezinha Anselmo

2015-01-01

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

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.

Retracted Publications in the Biomedical Literature from Open Access Journals.

PubMed

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

2018-03-07

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

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.

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

PubMed

Quindós, Guillermo

2009-06-30

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

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

PubMed Central

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

2012-01-01

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

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…

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

PubMed Central

2013-01-01

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

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

PubMed

Miyamoto, Shimpei

2018-02-01

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

Reporting quality of randomised controlled trial abstracts among high-impact general medical journals: a review and analysis.

PubMed

Hays, Meredith; Andrews, Mary; Wilson, Ramey; Callender, David; O'Malley, Patrick G; Douglas, Kevin

2016-07-28

The aim of this study was to assess adherence to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) for Abstracts by five high-impact general medical journals and to assess whether the quality of reporting was homogeneous across these journals. This is a descriptive, cross-sectional study. Randomised controlled trial (RCT) abstracts in five high-impact general medical journals. We used up to 100 RCT abstracts published between 2011 and 2014 from each of the following journals: The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), the Annals of Internal Medicine (Annals IM), The Lancet, the British Medical Journal (The BMJ) and the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA). The primary outcome was per cent overall adherence to the 19-item CONSORT for Abstracts checklist. Secondary outcomes included per cent adherence in checklist subcategories and assessing homogeneity of reporting quality across the individual journals. Search results yielded 466 abstracts, 3 of which were later excluded as they were not RCTs. Analysis was performed on 463 abstracts (97 from NEJM, 66 from Annals IM, 100 from The Lancet, 100 from The BMJ, 100 from JAMA). Analysis of all scored items showed an overall adherence of 67% (95% CI 66% to 68%) to the CONSORT for Abstracts checklist. The Lancet had the highest overall adherence rate (78%; 95% CI 76% to 80%), whereas NEJM had the lowest (55%; 95% CI 53% to 57%). Adherence rates to 8 of the checklist items differed by >25% between journals. Among the five highest impact general medical journals, there is variable and incomplete adherence to the CONSORT for Abstracts reporting checklist of randomised trials, with substantial differences between individual journals. Lack of adherence to the CONSORT for Abstracts reporting checklist by high-impact medical journals impedes critical appraisal of important studies. We recommend diligent assessment of adherence to reporting guidelines by authors, reviewers and editors to promote transparency

Publications in anesthesia journals: quality and clinical relevance.

PubMed

Lauritsen, Jakob; Moller, Ann M

2004-11-01

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

The emerging use of Twitter by urological journals.

PubMed

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

2015-03-01

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

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

PubMed

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

2017-01-01

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

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

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

Williamson, J.

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

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

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

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…

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

PubMed

Huh, Sun

2017-06-01

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

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

PubMed Central

2017-01-01

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

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

PubMed

Eyre-Walker, Adam; Stoletzki, Nina

2013-10-01

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

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

PubMed Central

Eyre-Walker, Adam; Stoletzki, Nina

2013-01-01

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

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.

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

PubMed

Huh, Sun

2015-07-01

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

Fate of Manuscripts Rejected From the Red Journal

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

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

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

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.…

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.

Impacted science: impact is not importance.

PubMed

Casadevall, Arturo; Fang, Ferric C

2015-10-13

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

Impacted Science: Impact Is Not Importance

PubMed Central

Fang, Ferric C.

2015-01-01

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

A Survey of the Prevalence and Impact of Reporting Guideline Endorsement in Pathology Journals.

PubMed

Caron, Justin E; March, Jordon K; Cohen, Michael B; Schmidt, Robert L

2017-10-01

To determine the prevalence of reporting guideline endorsement in pathology journals and to estimate the impact of guideline endorsement. We compared the quality of reporting in two sets of studies: (1) studies published in journals that explicitly mentioned a guideline vs studies published in journals that did not and (2) studies that cited a guideline vs studies that did not. The quality of reporting in prognostic biomarker studies was assessed using the REporting recommendations for tumor MARKer prognostic studies (REMARK) guideline. We found that six (10%) of the 59 leading pathology journals explicitly mention reporting guidelines in the instructions to authors. Only one journal required authors to submit a checklist. There was significant variation in the rate at which various REMARK items were reported (P < .001). Journal endorsement was associated with more complete reporting (P = .04). Studies that cited REMARK had greater adherence to the REMARK reporting guidelines than studies that did not (P = .02). The prevalence of guideline endorsement is relatively low in pathology journals, but guideline endorsement may improve the quality of reporting. © American Society for Clinical Pathology, 2017. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com

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

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

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

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

PubMed

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

2006-03-01

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

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

PubMed

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

2002-06-05

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

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

Evidence of the Internationalization of Clinical Endoscopy Based on Journal Metrics

PubMed Central

2015-01-01

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

A Fine Balance: How Authors Strategize Around Journal Submission.

PubMed

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

2018-04-24

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

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.

Clarivate Analytics: Continued Omnia vanitas Impact Factor Culture.

PubMed

Teixeira da Silva, Jaime A; Bernès, Sylvain

2018-02-01

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.

Publication Rate and Impact Factor for Society of Military Orthopedic Surgeons. Annual Meeting Presentations, 2009-2013.

PubMed

Orr, Justin; Dunn, John C; Kusnezov, Nicholas; Fares, Austin B; Waterman, Brian R; Garcia, E'stephan; Pallis, Mark

2017-11-01

The Society of Military Orthopaedic Surgeons (SOMOS) is a robust academic organization with more than 1,000 members and has held annual academic scientific meetings since 1958. Currently, there is a paucity of data regarding the volume and quality of orthopaedic surgery presentations accepted for peer-reviewed publication. The purpose of this study was to answer the following questions: (1) What is the publication acceptance rate for abstract presented at SOMOS meetings? (2) What is the distribution by orthopaedic subspecialty for SOMOS presentations accepted for publication? (3) What is the overall quality of these publications? Abstracts of podium presentations at SOMOS were reviewed from 2009 to 2013. Author institutional information was obtained. Abstracts were then queried in PubMed to obtain publication status, time to publication, and impact factor of the journal in which the manuscript was successfully published. From 2009 to 2013, 592 abstracts were presented at the SOMOS conference. Overall, 59% of abstracts went on to publication at a mean of 18.1 months. Published manuscripts appeared in 59 journals with a mean impact factor of 2.6. The subspecialties of spine (67%) and basic science (66%) achieved the highest abstract publication rate while sports had the highest mean impact factor (3.3). The annual SOMOS meeting is a productive academic event, producing quality presentations resulting in a high manuscript publication rate in every orthopaedic surgery subspecialty. This is the first series to demonstrate overall productivity of a general orthopaedic surgery scientific meeting as well as the subspecialty-specific impact factors of published investigations. Reprint & Copyright © 2017 Association of Military Surgeons of the U.S.

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.…

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

USGS Publications Warehouse

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

2010-01-01

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

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

PubMed

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

2015-04-01

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

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

PubMed

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

2018-05-19

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

Open-Access Mega-Journals: A Bibliometric Profile.

PubMed

Wakeling, Simon; Willett, Peter; Creaser, Claire; Fry, Jenny; Pinfield, Stephen; Spezi, Valérie

2016-01-01

In this paper we present the first comprehensive bibliometric analysis of eleven open-access mega-journals (OAMJs). OAMJs are a relatively recent phenomenon, and have been characterised as having four key characteristics: large size; broad disciplinary scope; a Gold-OA business model; and a peer-review policy that seeks to determine only the scientific soundness of the research rather than evaluate the novelty or significance of the work. Our investigation focuses on four key modes of analysis: journal outputs (the number of articles published and changes in output over time); OAMJ author characteristics (nationalities and institutional affiliations); subject areas (the disciplinary scope of OAMJs, and variations in sub-disciplinary output); and citation profiles (the citation distributions of each OAMJ, and the impact of citing journals). We found that while the total output of the eleven mega-journals grew by 14.9% between 2014 and 2015, this growth is largely attributable to the increased output of Scientific Reports and Medicine. We also found substantial variation in the geographical distribution of authors. Several journals have a relatively high proportion of Chinese authors, and we suggest this may be linked to these journals' high Journal Impact Factors (JIFs). The mega-journals were also found to vary in subject scope, with several journals publishing disproportionately high numbers of articles in certain sub-disciplines. Our citation analsysis offers support for Björk & Catani's suggestion that OAMJs's citation distributions can be similar to those of traditional journals, while noting considerable variation in citation rates across the eleven titles. We conclude that while the OAMJ term is useful as a means of grouping journals which share a set of key characteristics, there is no such thing as a "typical" mega-journal, and we suggest several areas for additional research that might help us better understand the current and future role of OAMJs in

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

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

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

Alternative Metrics ("Altmetrics") for Assessing Article Impact in Popular General Radiology Journals.

PubMed

Rosenkrantz, Andrew B; Ayoola, Abimbola; Singh, Kush; Duszak, Richard

2017-07-01

Emerging alternative metrics leverage social media and other online platforms to provide immediate measures of biomedical articles' reach among diverse public audiences. We aimed to compare traditional citation and alternative impact metrics for articles in popular general radiology journals. All 892 original investigations published in 2013 issues of Academic Radiology, American Journal of Roentgenology, Journal of the American College of Radiology, and Radiology were included. Each article's content was classified as imaging vs nonimaging. Traditional journal citations to articles were obtained from Web of Science. Each article's Altmetric Attention Score (Altmetric), representing weighted mentions across a variety of online platforms, was obtained from Altmetric.com. Statistical assessment included the McNemar test, the Mann-Whitney test, and the Pearson correlation. Mean and median traditional citation counts were 10.7 ± 15.4 and 5 vs 3.3 ± 13.3 and 0 for Altmetric. Among all articles, 96.4% had ≥1 traditional citation vs 41.8% for Altmetric (P < 0.001). Online platforms for which at least 5% of the articles were represented included Mendeley (42.8%), Twitter (34.2%), Facebook (10.7%), and news outlets (8.4%). Citations and Altmetric were weakly correlated (r = 0.20), with only a 25.0% overlap in terms of articles within their top 10th percentiles. Traditional citations were higher for articles with imaging vs nonimaging content (11.5 ± 16.2 vs 6.9 ± 9.8, P < 0.001), but Altmetric scores were higher in articles with nonimaging content (5.1 ± 11.1 vs 2.8 ± 13.7, P = 0.006). Although overall online attention to radiology journal content was low, alternative metrics exhibited unique trends, particularly for nonclinical articles, and may provide a complementary measure of radiology research impact compared to traditional citation counts. Copyright © 2017 The Association of University Radiologists. Published by

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

PubMed Central

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

2011-01-01

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

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

PubMed

Li, Meina; Liu, Xiaodong; Zhang, Lulu

2015-01-01

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

Open-access publishing for pharmacy-focused journals.

PubMed

Clauson, Kevin A; Veronin, Michael A; Khanfar, Nile M; Lou, Jennie Q

2008-08-15

Pharmacy-focused journals that are available in open-access (OA), freely accessible, hybrid, or traditional formats were identified. Relevant journals were accessed from PubMed, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, EMBASE, and the Pharmacology and Pharmacy category of Thomson Scientific Journal Citation Reports. Criteria were established to select journals that satisfied the definition of pharmacy focused. Journals were assessed based on accessibility, copyright transfer requirements, and restrictions. If tracked, the journal's impact factor (IF) was identified according to classification, and medians were calculated for each journal category. A total of 317 pharmacy-focused journals were identified. The majority of pharmacy-focused journals identified were traditional/non-OA (n = 240). A smaller number of journals were freely accessible/ non-OA (n = 37), freely accessible/non-OA with content restrictions (n = 20), or freely available/non-OA with date restrictions (n = 18). The fewest number of journals were completely OA (n = 2). The median IF for the 185 journals whose IF was tracked was 2.029. The median IF for freely accessible and hybrid journals (n = 42) was 2.550, whereas the median IF for traditional journals (n = 143) was 1.900. A very small number of pharmacy-focused journals adhere to the OA paradigm of access. However, journals that adopt some elements of the OA model, chiefly free accessibility, may be more likely to be cited than traditional journals. Pharmacy practitioners, educators, and researchers could benefit from the advantages that OA offers but should understand its financial disadvantages.

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

PubMed

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

2013-01-01

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

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

PubMed

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

2015-11-01

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

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

Review of Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance 2012

PubMed Central

2013-01-01

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

Review of Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance 2014.

PubMed

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

2015-11-20

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

Review of Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance 2013.

PubMed

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

2014-12-05

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

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…

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…

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

PubMed

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

2013-12-01

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

Institute for Scientific Information-indexed biomedical journals of Saudi Arabia

PubMed Central

Rohra, Dileep K.; Rohra, Vikram K.; Cahusac, Peter

2016-01-01

Objectives: To compare the journal impact factor (JIF) and Eigenfactor score (ES) of Institute for Scientific Information (ISI)-indexed biomedical journals published from the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) over the last 8 years. Methods: This is a retrospective study, conducted at Alfaisal University, Riyadh, KSA from January to March 2016. The Journal Citation Reports of ISI Web of Knowledge were accessed, and 6 Saudi biomedical journals were included for analysis. Results: All Saudi journals have improved their IF compared with their baseline. However, the performance of the Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences and Neurosciences has been exceptionally good. The biggest improvement in percent growth in JIF was seen in the Saudi Pharmaceutical Journal (approximately 887%) followed by Neurosciences (approximately 462%). Interestingly, the ES of all biomedical journals, except Saudi Journal of Gastroenterology and Saudi Medical Journal, increased over the years. The greatest growth in ES (more than 5 fold) was noted for Neurosciences and Saudi Pharmaceutical Journal. Conclusion: This study shows that the overall quality of all Saudi biomedical journals has improved in the last 8 years. PMID:27761565

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…

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

PubMed

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

2014-12-01

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