Comparación del factor de impacto y el índice SCImago Journal Rank en las revistas del sistema respiratorio

Autocitas de revistas incluidas en una misma categoría temática del Clarivate Journal Citation Reports (JCR): el caso de la revista Adicciones

El objetivo del presente estudio es determinar si el criterio impuesto por Clarivate Analytics de penalizar las revistas que tengan un elevado número de autocitas debería aplicarse a todas las revistas por igual, sin considerar indicadores bibliométricos diferenciales entre revistas. Se analizaron las características editoriales de la revista Adicciones, la cual fue excluida del JCR del 2019 por un exceso de autocitas, frente a las revistas de su misma categoría, y diferentes indicadores bibliométricos de la revista Adicciones. Los resultados indican características editoriales diferentes entre las publicaciones incluidas en la categoría Substance Abuse del JCR según país de edición, número de categorías temáticas, idioma de publicación, números editados al año y editorial. Se observa que en la revista Adicciones existe una presencia muy mayoritaria de un único país (autores españoles) tanto en los artículos publicados como en los citados. Se puede concluir que el criterio seguido por Clarivate Analytics con respecto a las autocitas de revista requiere de una revisión atendiendo a las características concretas de cada publicación científica.

Correlation Between Cost of Publication and Journal Impact. Comprehensive Cross-sectional Study of Exclusively Open-Access Surgical Journals

OBJECTIVES

As open-access journals have become increasingly common, it has provided more options for researchers to publish their work and improved access of information to the public. However, some open-access journals charge the authors processing fee on submission. In certain cases, this can be rather expensive. This study is the first study to specifically assess the cost of publishing in exclusively open-access, peer-reviewed surgical journals, and their correlation with journal impact, in the form of 6 bibliometrics.

DESIGN AND SETTING

This is a cross-sectional study. A list of journals is compiled using the SCImago Journal & Country Rank and Directory of Open Access Journals. 6 indices are measured - impact factor, SCOPUS h-index, SCImago journal rank indicator (SJR), Eigenfactor, Article Influence Score and Google h5 index. The cost of publication (in USD$) of a research article (maximum of 6 pages) is used as a baseline.

RESULTS

89 research journals are included. The median cost of publication is USD$100 (range [0-2580]). 47% are free of charge. 13% can cost more than USD$2000 per article. SJR and Google h5 index appear to be the only indices that correlate linearly with the cost (p = 0.015 and 0.041, respectively), although the correlations are weak. 3 indices, namely impact factor, SJR and Article Influence Score appear to have very strong correlations with each other (Pearson coefficient > 0.90).

CONCLUSIONS

From this study, the cost of publishing in open-access journals bears little correlation to their impact; this poses a dilemma for researchers without significant funding. Therefore, authors and funders must consider cautiously when submitting to these journals.

Current concepts on bibliometrics: a brief review about impact factor, Eigenfactor score, CiteScore, SCImago Journal Rank, Source-Normalised Impact per Paper, H-index, and alternative metrics

BACKGROUND

Understanding the impact of a publication by using bibliometric indices becomes an essential activity not only for universities and research institutes but also for individual academicians. This paper aims to provide a brief review of the current bibliometric tools used by authors and editors and proposes an algorithm to assess the relevance of the most common bibliometric tools to help the researchers select the fittest journal and know the trends of published submissions by using self-evaluation.

METHODS

We present a narrative review answering at least two related consecutive questions triggered by the topics mentioned above. How prestigious is a journal based on its most recent bibliometrics, so authors may choose it to submit their next manuscript? And, how can they self-evaluate/understand the impact of their whole publishing scientific life?

RESULTS

We presented the main relevant definitions of each bibliometrics and grouped them in those oriented to evaluated journals or individuals. Also, we share with our readers our algorithm to assess journals before manuscript submission.

CONCLUSIONS

Since there is a journal performance market and an article performance market, each one with its patterns, an integrative use of these metrics, rather than just the impact factor alone, might represent the fairest and most legitimate approach to assess the influence and importance of an acceptable research issue, and not only a sound journal in their respective disciplines.

Comparison of Impact Factor, Eigenfactor Metrics, and SCImago Journal Rank Indicator and h-index for Neurosurgical and Spinal Surgical Journals

BACKGROUND

In academic specialties such as neurosurgery, bibliometrics are often used to guide readers, academic institutes, and researchers to make objective assessment of journals. Recently, new indices have been developed to overcome the shortcomings of the widely used Impact Factor. The objective of our study was to investigate the correlations among 6 of the commonly used bibliometric indices (Impact Factor, SCImago Journal indicator, SCOPUS h-index, Google h-index, Eigenfactor, Article Influence Score) in neurosurgical and spinal surgical journals.

METHODS

A list of all neurosurgical and spinal surgical journals was compiled using the databases of SCOPUS, Clarivate Analytics (Thomson Reuters), and National Library of Medicine Catalog. Journals that are not surgically oriented, non-English journals, and nursing journals were excluded. Bivariate Spearman ranking correlation tests were performed.

RESULTS

Fifty-four journals were included, of which 14 were spine themed. High positive correlations were obtained among the bibliometric indices of neurosurgical (nonspinal) journals (P < 0.05 in all pairs). Median values were 1.54, 0.66, 53, 25, 0.0035, and 0.46 for Impact Factor, SCImago Journal rank indicator, SCOPUS h-index, Google h-index, Eigenfactor, and Article Influence Score, respectively. However, the correlations for spinal surgical journals were more variable, likely because of the small sample size.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the different mathematical basis among the citation-based bibliometric indices studied, they have strong correlations in ranking neurosurgical journals. This study provides evidence that the newer indices may be used interchangeably with the Impact Factor in this context, and they may, theoretically, mitigate some the shortcomings of the Impact Factor.