Bibliometric Indices of Scientific Journals: Time to overcome the obsession and think beyond the Impact Factor

h-Index, Journal Citation Indicator, and Other Impact Factors in Neurosurgical Publications: Is There a Cost Factor That Determines the Quality?

OBJECTIVE

There has been an increase in number of Neurosurgical publications, including open access (OA), in recent years. We aimed to compare journals' performance and the relationship to submission fees incurred in publication.

METHODS

We identified 53 journals issuing neurosurgery-related work. Quantitative analysis from various search engines involved obtaining h-index, Journal Citation Indicator (JCI), and other metrics such as Immediacy Index and 5-year impact factor utilising Journal Citation Reports. OA fees and individual subscription fees were collected. Correlations were produced using Spearman rho (ρ) (P < 0.05).

RESULTS

Median h-index for 53 journals was 54 (range: 0-292), with JCI median reported as 0.785 (range: 0-2.45). Median Immediacy Index was 0.797 (range: 0-4.076), and median for 5-year impact factor was 2.76 (range: 0-12.704). There was a very strong positive correlation between JCI and Immediacy Index, JCI and 5-year impact factor, and 5-year impact factor and Immediacy Index (ρ > 0.7, P < 0.05). It is unclear whether there was any correlation between the indices and the OA costs and subscription costs for personal usage (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Larger costs incurred for OA fees and subscription costs for personal use do not clearly reflect on the journals' performance, as quantified by using various indices. There appears to be a strong association with performance across the journals' metrics. It would be beneficial to include learning about bibliometric indices' impact for research publications in medical education training to maximize the quality of the scientific work produced and increase the visibility of the information produced. The potential full movement to exclusively OA journals would create a significant barrier for junior researchers, small institutions, and full time-trainee physicians with limited funding available. This study suggests the need for a robust measurement of journals' output and the quality of the work produced.

Publication Times and Impact Factors (IFs) in Dentistry Journals

INTRODUCTION

 The speed of manuscript publication in reputable journals plays a crucial role in spreading scientific novelties and may influence the number of received citations. In the present study, the authors investigated the publication speed of dentistry journals. This is crucial for both authors, who desire rapid dissemination of their findings, and patients in need, who seek new therapies.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

 This was a cross-sectional bibliometric analysis of published dentistry journals. A list of dentistry journals featured in the 2021 Journal Citation Report was downloaded. A total of five random original articles were extracted from each of these journals. These articles were published between January and December 2020. Median and interquartile range (IQR) times from submission to acceptance, publication in print, online publication, time from acceptance to in print and online publication were calculated. The correlation between publication times and journal impact factor (IF) was examined.

RESULTS

 A total of 89 journals were included. Individual time from submission to acceptance (peer review time) ranged from 6 to 279 days, the combined median peer review time was 115 (80-159) days. The overall median time from acceptance to online or print publication was 17 (12-38) and 153 (92-249) days, respectively. Journals with available data concerning publication times tended to have higher IF than others. Only journals that did not have available time from acceptance to online publication had higher IF. There were negative correlations between times from submission (r = -0.442, p = 0.007), acceptance (r = -0.616, p < 0.001) to in-print publication, and IF. There were no correlations between IF and time from submission to acceptance, acceptance to online publication, and submission to online publication.

CONCLUSIONS

 Publication times availability was revealed to be an indicator of higher impacted journals, which is a potential new exponent of journal quality. Higher IF values were associated with shorter times from submission to acceptance and in-print publication, which is consistent with current editorial policies.

Does the journal impact factor predict individual article citation rate in otolaryngology journals?

OBJECTIVE

Citation skew is a phenomenon that refers to the unequal citation distribution of articles in a journal. The objective of this study was to establish whether citation skew exists in Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery (OHNS) journals and to elucidate whether journal impact factor (JIF) was an accurate indicator of citation rate of individual articles.

METHODS

Journals in the field of OHNS were identified using Journal Citation Reports. After extraction of the number of citations in 2020 for all primary research articles and review articles published in 2018 and 2019, a detailed citation analysis was performed to determine citation distribution. The main outcome of this study was to establish whether citation skew exists within OHNS literature and whether JIF was an accurate prediction of individual article citation rate.

RESULTS

Thirty-one OHNS journals were identified. Citation skew was prevalent across OHNS literature with 65% of publications achieving citation rates below the JIF. Furthermore, 48% of publications gathered either zero or one citation. The mean and median citations for review articles, 3.66 and 2, respectively, were higher than the mean and median number of citations for primary research articles, 1 and 2.35, respectively (P < .001). A statistically significant correlation was found between citation rate and JIF (r = 0.394, P = 0.028).

CONCLUSIONS

The current results demonstrate a citation skew among OHNS journals, which is in keeping with findings from other surgical subspecialties. The majority of publications did not achieve citation rates equal to the JIF. Thus, the JIF should not be used to measure the quality of individual articles. Otolaryngologists should assess the quality of research through the use of other metrics, such as the evaluation of sound scientific methodology, and the relevance of the articles.

Characteristics and Research Techniques Associated with the Journal Impact Factor and Other Key Metrics in Pharmacology Journals

In the present age, there is intense pressure on researchers to publish their research in ‘high-impact factor’ journals. It would be interesting to understand the trend of research publications in the field of pharmacology by exploring the characteristics of research articles, including research techniques, in relation to the journal’s key bibliometrics, particularly journal impact factor (JIF), the seemingly most mentioned metric. This study aimed to determine the characteristics and research techniques in relation to research articles in pharmacology journals with higher or lower JIF values. A cross-sectional study was conducted on primary research journals under the ‘Pharmacology and Pharmacy’ category. Analysis of 768 original research articles across 32 journals (with an average JIF of 2.565 ± 0.887) demonstrated that research studies involving molecular techniques, in vivo experiments on animals, and bioinformatics and computational modeling were significantly associated with a higher JIF value of the journal in which such contributions were published. Our analysis suggests that research studies involving such techniques/approaches are more likely to be published in higher-ranked pharmacology journals.

A Comparative Scientometric Analysis of the 100 Most Cited Articles of Acta Neurochirurgica (Wien) and World Neurosurgery

BACKGROUND

Acta Neurochirurgica (ANCH) and World Neurosurgery (WN), are 2 journals of significant importance in the neurosurgical community and have been associated with international federations. These journals carry a similar impact factor. The difference is the years they have been active (ANCH starting publication in 1973 and WN in 2010). This factor allows for a unique opportunity to delve deep into comparative, scientometric parameters, to understand the evolution of neurosurgical research.

METHODS

A title-specific search of the Web of Science database using the keywords "Acta Neurochirurgica," "Acta," "Neurochirurgica," "World Neurosurgery," "World," and "Neurosurgery" was performed and arranged according to number of citations. The title of the articles, authors, corresponding authors, country of origin, journal of publication, year of publication, citation count. and journal impact factor were assessed.

RESULTS

The average citation for ANCH was 170.1 citations, most being original articles (83/100). The articles of WN garnered nearly 70.48 citations, averaging 8.3 citations per publication. Most corresponding authors in ANCH originated from Germany with neuro-oncology, followed by neurotrauma and vascular as subjects. In contrast, the United States followed by China were the most common countries of origin for WN, with endoscopy and skull base being the topics achieving high impact.

CONCLUSIONS

Neurotrauma and consensus guidelines have been shown to have maximal citations for ANCH whereas endoscopy and skull base lesions garnered the most for WN. Author subspecialization and increased collaboration across specialties with more articles on refinement of technique and outcome have emerged as recent trends.

Time to publish? Turnaround times, acceptance rates, and impact factors of journals in fisheries science

Selecting a target journal is a universal decision faced by authors of scientific papers. Components of the decision, including expected turnaround time, journal acceptance rate, and journal impact factor, vary in terms of accessibility. In this study, I collated recent turnaround times and impact factors for 82 journals that publish papers in the field of fisheries sciences. In addition, I gathered acceptance rates for the same journals when possible. Findings indicated clear among-journal differences in turnaround time, with median times-to-publication ranging from 79 to 323 days. There was no clear correlation between turnaround time and acceptance rate nor between turnaround time and impact factor; however, acceptance rate and impact factor were negatively correlated. I found no field-wide differences in turnaround time since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, though some individual journals took significantly longer or significantly shorter to publish during the pandemic. Depending on their priorities, authors choosing a target journal should use the results of this study as guidance toward a more informed decision.

Progress in Research on Sustainable Urban Renewal Since 2000: Library and Visual Analyses

Urban renewal is an ideal approach to promoting the value of the urban fabric and improving the sustainability of the urban environment. This study, which shows the continuity of research on sustainable urban renewal, aimed to identify sustainable urban renewal literature based on a library analysis of scientific research since 2000. A total of 3971 scientific papers from the SCIE (Science Citation Index Expanded) and SSCI (Social Sciences Citation Index) databases were reviewed to examine how research concerning “sustainable urban renewal” has emerged and developed in the past 20 years. The h-indices and impact factors of the most relevant journals in urban renewal and sustainable development since 2000 were analyzed. The most frequently cited articles were analyzed using analysis of social networks (VOSviewer). The results revealed potential future focuses of research and guidelines that link urban renewal and sustainability: the engagement of all stakeholders in the decision-making process; the involvement of residents in projects; the development of cooperation between towns and cities; the preservation and reuse of built and industrial heritage while respecting environmental law; and, finally, the search for new financing techniques. These potential future research topics were analyzed in four research areas so that sustainable development can easily be integrated into an urban renewal project.

Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus: The Titans of Bibliographic Information in Today’s Academic World

Nowadays, the importance of bibliographic databases (DBs) has increased enormously, as they are the main providers of publication metadata and bibliometric indicators universally used both for research assessment practices and for performing daily tasks. Because the reliability of these tasks firstly depends on the data source, all users of the DBs should be able to choose the most suitable one. Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus are the two main bibliographic DBs. The comprehensive evaluation of the DBs’ coverage is practically impossible without extensive bibliometric analyses or literature reviews, but most DBs users do not have bibliometric competence and/or are not willing to invest additional time for such evaluations. Apart from that, the convenience of the DB’s interface, performance, provided impact indicators and additional tools may also influence the users’ choice. The main goal of this work is to provide all of the potential users with an all-inclusive description of the two main bibliographic DBs by gathering the findings that are presented in the most recent literature and information provided by the owners of the DBs at one place. This overview should aid all stakeholders employing publication and citation data in selecting the most suitable DB.

An indexing system for the relevance of academic production and research from digital repositories and metadata

Purpose

This paper aims to propose a set of quantitative statistical indicators for measuring the scientific relevance of research groups and researchers, based on high-impact open-access digital production repositories.

Design/methodology/approach

An action research (AR) methodology is proposed in which research is associated with the practice; research informs practice and practice is responsible for informing research in a cooperative way. AR is divided into five phases, beginning with the definition of the problematic scenario and an analysis of the state of the art and ending with conducting tests and publishing the results.

Findings

The proposed indicators were used to characterise group and individual output in a major public university in south-eastern Mexico. University campuses hosting a large number of high-impact research groups. These indicators were very useful in generating information that confirmed specific assumptions about the scientific production of the university.

Research limitations/implications

The data used here were retrieved from Scopus and open access national repository of Mexico. It would be possible to use other data sources to calculate these indicators.

Practical implications

The system used to implement the proposed indicators is independent of any particular technological tool and is based on standards for metadata description and exchange, thus facilitating the easy integration of new elements for evaluation.

Social implications

Many organisations evaluate researchers according to specific criteria, one of which is the prestige of journals. Although the guidelines differ between evaluation bodies, relevance is measured based on elements that can be adapted and where some have greater weight than others, including the prestige of the journal, the degree of collaboration with other researchers and individual production, etc. The proposed indicators can be used by various entities to evaluate researchers and research groups. Each country has its own organisations that are responsible for evaluation, using various criteria based on the impact of the publications.

Originality/value

The proposed indicators assess based on the importance of the types of publications and the degree of collaborations. However, they can be adapted to other similar scenarios.

Metrics of activity in social networks are correlated with traditional metrics of scientific impact in endocrinology journals

AIMS

Traditional journal level metrics, as the impact factor or Scimago journal ranking indicator (SJR) measure the impact of research on other researchers, but fail to assess the reach of these publications among wider audiences. This study aims to assess the correlation between SJR and metrics of presence on social networks of endocrinology journals.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Journals within the area of endocrinology, diabetes and metabolism were identified from the electronic portal Scimago Journal and Country Rank, and their metrics based on the number of citation collected. Different metrics of the presence on social networks, such as the number of followers and number of tweets, were assessed. The correlation between both metrics was evaluated by calculating the Spearman correlation coefficient.

RESULTS

Of the 232 journals evaluated, 28 (12.1%) had social networks. The median SJR (1.53 vs 0.60, p < 0.01), and H index (58.5 vs 22, p < 0.01) were significantly higher among journals with social networks. The correlation between the number of followers on twitter and the SJR was moderate (r = 0.60, p < 0.05), and it was better in journals with more than 500 publications in the last 3 years (r = 0.85, p < 0.05). The number of tweets also had a moderate correlation with the SJR (r = 0.59, p < 0.05) CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that the dissemination of research on social networks is moderately related to the traditional metrics of impact. Both types of metrics offer complementary information: while metrics based on social media may not perfectly predict the impact a scientific journal, it does have the advantage of immediacy.

Journal impact factor: a bumpy ride in an open space

The journal impact factor (IF) is the leading method of scholarly assessment in today’s research world. An important question is whether or not this is still a constructive method. For a specific journal, the IF is the number of citations for publications over the previous 2 years divided by the number of total citable publications in these years (the citation window). Although this simplicity works to an advantage of this method, complications arise when answers to questions such as ‘What is included in the citation window’ or ‘What makes a good journal impact factor’ contain ambiguity. In this review, we discuss whether or not the IF should still be considered the gold standard of scholarly assessment in view of the many recent changes and the emergence of new publication models. We will outline its advantages and disadvantages. The advantages of the IF include promoting the author meanwhile giving the readers a visualization of the magnitude of review. On the other hand, its disadvantages include reflecting the journal’s quality more than the author’s work, the fact that it cannot be compared across different research disciplines, and the struggles it faces in the world of open access. Recently, alternatives to the IF have been emerging, such as the SCImago Journal & Country Rank, the Source Normalized Impact per Paper and the Eigenfactor Score, among others. However, all alternatives proposed thus far are associated with their own limitations as well. In conclusion, although IF contains its cons, until there are better proposed alternative methods, IF remains one of the most effective methods for assessing scholarly activity.