Assessing citations with the EigenfactorTM Metrics

A New Bibliometric Index: The Top 100 Most Disruptive and Developmental Publications in Colorectal Surgery Journals

BACKGROUND

A new bibliometric index called the disruption score was recently proposed to identify innovative and paradigm-changing publications.

OBJECTIVE

The goal was to apply the disruption score to the colorectal surgery literature to provide the community with a repository of important research articles.

DESIGN

This study is a bibliometric analysis.

SETTINGS

The 100 most disruptive and developmental publications in Diseases of the Colon & Rectum, Colorectal Disease, International Journal of Colorectal Disease, and Techniques in Coloproctology were identified from a validated data set of disruption scores and linked with the iCite National Institutes of Health tool to obtain citation counts.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcomes measured were the disruption score and citation count.

RESULTS

We identified 12,127 articles published in Diseases of the Colon & Rectum (n = 8109), International Journal of Colorectal Disease (n = 1912), Colorectal Disease (n = 1751), and Techniques in Coloproctology (n = 355) between 1954 and 2014. Diseases of the Colon & Rectum had the most articles in the top 100 most disruptive and developmental lists. The disruptive articles were in the top 1% of the disruption score distribution in PubMed and were cited between 1 and 671 times. Being highly cited was weakly correlated with high disruption scores (r = 0.09). Developmental articles had disruption scores that were more strongly correlated with citation count (r = 0.18).

LIMITATIONS

This study is subject to the limitations of bibliometric indices, which change over time.

DISCUSSION

The disruption score identified insightful and paradigm-changing studies in colorectal surgery. These studies include a wide range of topics and consistently identified editorials and case reports/case series as important research. This bibliometric analysis provides colorectal surgeons with a unique archive of research that can often be overlooked but that may have scholarly significance. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B639.UN NUEVO INDICE BIBLIOMÉTRICO: LAS 100 MAS IMPORTANTES PUBLICACIONES EN INNOVACIONES DESESTABILIZADORAS Y DE DESARROLLO EN LAS REVISTAS DE CIRUGÍA COLORRECTALANTECEDENTES:Un nuevo índice bibliométrico llamado innovación desestabilizadora y de desarrollo ha sido propuesto para identificar publicaciones de vanguardia y que pueden romper paradigmas.OBJETIVO:La meta fué aplicar el índice de desestabilización a la literature en cirugía colorectal para aportar a la comunidad con un acervo importante de artículos de investigación.DISEÑO:Un análisis bibliométrico.PARAMETROS:Las 100 publicaciones mas desestabilizadores y de desarrollo en las revistas: Diseases of the Colon and Rectum, Colorectal Disease, International Journal of Colorectal Disease, y Techniques in Coloproctology se recuperaron de una base de datos validada con puntuaciones de desestabilización y se ligaron con la herramienta iCite NIH para obtener la cuantificación de citas.PRINCIPAL MEDIDA DE RESULTADO:El índice desestabilizador y la cuantificación de citas.RESULTADOS:Se identificaron 12,127 articulos publicados en Diseases of the Colon and Rectum (n = 8,109), International Journal of Colorectal Disease (n = 1,912), Colorectal Disease (n = 1,751), y Techniques in Coloproctology (n = 355) de 1954-2014. Diseases of the Colon and Rectum representó la mayoría de las publicaciones dentro de la lista de los 100 mas desestabilizadores y de desarrollo. Esta literatura desestabilizadora se encuentra en el principal 1% de la distribución de la puntuacón desestabilizadora en PubMed y se citaron de 1 a 671 veces. El ser citado con frecuencia se relacionó vagamente con las puntuaciones de desastibilización (r = 0.09). Los artículos de desarrollo tuvieron puntuaciones de desestabilización que estuvieron muy correlacionados con la cuantificación de las citas (r = 0.18).LIMITACIONES:Las sujetas a las limitaciones de los índices bibliométricos, que se modifican en el tiempo.DISCUSION:La putuación de desestabilicación identificó trabajos perspicaces, pragmáticos y modificadores de paradigmas en cirugía colorrectal. Es de interés identificar que se incluyeron una gran variedad de temas y en forma consistente editoriales, reportes de casos y series de casos que representaron una investigación importante. Este análisis bibliométrico aporta a los cirujanos colorrectales de un acervo de investigación único que puede con frecuencia pasarse por alto, y sin embargo tener una gran importancia académica. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B639. (Traducción- Dr. Miguel Esquivel-Herrera).

Relationship between an editor in chief's commentary publications and the impact factor of cardiovascular medicine journals

Journal impact factor (IF) inflation is suggested as a problem resulting from commentaries published by the editors in chief (EiCs) of their respective journals. However, it is unclear whether this is a systemic problem across the top thirty cardiovascular medicine journals. Therefore, the purpose of this investigation was to examine the relationship between the number of commentaries written by an EiC and their journal's IF and Eigenfactor (Ef). Utilizing Spearman rank partial correlations controlling for length of service as the EiC, significant moderate correlations were found between the number of commentaries and the number of first-author commentaries by the EiC and the IF of their journal (r=0.568, p=0.001 and r=0.504, p=0.005; respectively). A weak but still significant correlation was found between the number of commentaries by the EiC and the Ef of their journal (r=0.431, p=0.020). The reason for these correlations is unclear, and whether the methodology used to compute the IF and Ef should be modified needs further research.

High-Impact Clinical Studies That Fomented New Developments in Anesthesia: History of Achievements, 1966-2015

The aim of this work is to identify the most influential initial clinical studies that fomented important developments in anesthesiology over the past 50 years. Studies fomenting new development can be selected using vastly different approaches and, therefore, might provide diverse outcomes. In the present work, two basic aspects of study assessments – the stage of development (eg, generation of idea, preclinical studies, clinical trials) and the method of selection (eg, committee vote, various types of citation analysis, method of finding the invention disclosure) – were chosen according to the following model. The stage of development: the initial clinical studies demonstrating the basic advantage of an innovation for providing anesthesia. The method: a combination of two factors – the study priority in terms of the time of its publication and the degree of its acknowledgement in the form of citation impact; the time of study publication was regarded as a primary factor, but only if the study’s citation count was =/>20. The initial high-impact studies were selected for 16 drug-related topics (ketamine, isoflurane, etomidate, propofol, midazolam in anesthesia, vecuronium, alfentanil, atracurium, sevoflurane, sufentanil, rocuronium, desflurane, ropivacaine, remifentanil, dexmedetomidine in anesthesia, and sugammadex), and 9 technique-related topics (ultrasound-guided peripheral nerve block, capnography in anesthesia, target-controlled intravenous anesthesia, pulse oximetry in anesthesia, total intravenous anesthesia, transesophageal echocardiography in anesthesia, combined spinal-epidural anesthesia, and bispectral index). Twenty-five studies were designated the first high-impact studies (one for each topic); 16 are drug-related and 9 are technique-related. Half of the first high-impact studies had a citation count of =/>100, (range: 100 to 555). The citation count of the other half of high-impact studies did not reach the 100-citation threshold (range: 41 to 97). If a selected first high-impact study had a citation count <100, a next-on-timeline, additional study with citation count =/>100 was also selected; (range: 100 to 344). The present results show that an initial high-impact clinical study on a new development in anesthesiology can be determined and that related citations usually vary from one hundred to five hundred.

Bibliometric indicators to evaluate scientific activity

Bibliometric indicators have been devised to quantify scientific production and to try to evaluate its impact in the community. In general, bibliometric indicators can be classified according to whether the unit of analysis is the author (individual or group) or journal. The most widely used indicators for authors are those that measure an individual author's production, such as the Crown index or the h-index and its derivatives (e-index, h5-index, and the absolute or Ab-index, among others). The bibliometric indicators devised to try to evaluate journal quality are associated with Journal Citation Reports (e.g., impact factor, field-weighted citation impact, Eigenfactor, and article influence) or with Scopus (Scimago Journal Rank (SJR), source normalized impact per paper (SNIP), and CiteScore). This article describes the main bibliometric indicators, explains how they are calculated, and discusses their advantages and limitations.

Confidence at 100%: Characteristics of Likelihood Ratio Confidence Intervals in the Emergency Medicine Diagnostics Literature

OBJECTIVE

We hypothesized that "perfect" 100% sample sensitivity or specificity (PSSS) is common in the emergency medicine (EM) literature. When results yield PSSS, calculating the likelihood ratio (LR) 95% confidence interval (CI) has been challenging. Consequently, we also hypothesized that studies with PSSS would be less likely to report the LR and associated CI, and those that did would use imperfect methods.

METHODS

We searched PubMed or Scopus for all articles reporting diagnostic test results in the 20 top EM journals from 2011 to 2016 and randomly sampled 124 articles. Trained researchers coded the articles as having PSSS or not ("controls"). We separately sampled 100 articles with PSSS and compared them to 100 controls in terms of their reporting of diagnostic tests and associated CIs.

RESULTS

Of the 124 articles, 19.4% (95% CI = 13% to 27.6%) feature a diagnostic test with PSSS. The LR is reported significantly less often in PSSS studies versus control studies: 18 of 100 articles (18% [95% CI = 11.3% to 27.2%]) versus 34 of 100 articles (34% [95% CI = 25% to 44.2%]), with an odds ratio (OR) of 0.43 (95% CI = 0.21 to 0.86). The LR 95% CI is also reported less often in PSSS versus control studies: five of 100 articles (5% [95% CI = 1.9% to 11.8%]) versus 27 of 100 articles (27% [95% CI = 18.8% to 37%]), with an OR of 0.11 (95% CI = 0.02 to 0.44). Five articles with perfect sample sensitivity reported their negative LR CI. The bootstrap method resulted in CIs that were 42.7% smaller on average (range = 16.6% to 63.6%).

CONCLUSION

This analysis provides systematic evidence of diagnostic test reporting in the EM literature. Sample sensitivity or specificity of 100% is common. LRs and their associated 95% CIs are infrequently reported, particularly for PSSS samples. When the LR CI is reported in this scenario, it is overly wide. Improved reporting and methods can enhance the utility and confidence in diagnostic tests in EM.

Exploring direct citations between citing publications

This article defines and explores the direct citations between citing publications (DCCPs) of a publication. We construct an ego-centred citation network for each paper that contains all of its citing papers and itself, as well as the citation relationships among them. By utilising a large-scale scholarly dataset from the computer science field in the Microsoft Academic Graph (MAG-CS) dataset, we find that DCCPs exist universally in medium and highly cited papers. For those papers that have DCCPs, DCCPs do occur frequently; highly cited papers tend to contain more DCCPs than others. Meanwhile, the number of DCCPs of papers published in different years does not vary dramatically. This paper also discusses the relationship between DCCPs and some indirect citation relationships (e.g. co-citation and bibliographic coupling).

A comparison of bibliometric indicators in occupational therapy journals published in English

BACKGROUND.

The use of bibliometrics to evaluate the quality and impact of refereed journals has increased along with access to electronic databases and citation counts.

PURPOSE.

This analysis compared and contrasted the range of publication metrics available for English-language occupational therapy journals.

METHOD.

Bibliometric data were sourced for 23 English-language occupational therapy journals, including data from the Journal Citation Reports (JCR) 2- and 5-year impact factor, JCR Immediacy Index, Eigenfactor Score, Article Influence Score, Scopus Source Normalized Impact per Paper, SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) score, and ResearchGate journal impact score. H-indexes for journals were also sourced.

FINDINGS.

The American Journal of Occupational Therapy had the highest publication metrics. SJR-based scores included a larger number of journals, whereas JCR-based metrics were more restrictive in the number of journals included.

IMPLICATIONS.

Multiple metrics should be used to comprehensively understand occupational therapy journal performance.

Impact factor correlations with Scimago Journal Rank, Source Normalized Impact per Paper, Eigenfactor Score, and the CiteScore in Radiology, Nuclear Medicine & Medical Imaging journals

INTRODUCTION

In the last decade, several journal's editors decided to publish alternative bibliometric indices parallel to the impact factor (IF): Scimago Journal Rank (SJR), Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP), Eigenfactor Score (ES) and CiteScore™ (CiteScore); however, there is scarce information about the correlations among them. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the associations between this bibliometrics in the Radiology, Nuclear Medicine & Medical Imaging category of the Web of Knowledge. We hypothesized the IF did not show the best correlation with other metrics.

METHODS

Retrospective study. We used bibliometrics recorded from the 2017 publicly available versions of the Journal Citation Reports (JCR), SJR ( www.scimagojr.com ), SNIP ( www.journalindicators.com ), and CiteScore ( www.scopus.com ); we also included the Total Cites. We measured the correlations using the Spearman correlation coefficients (R_S) for all combinations of the bivariate pair, performed pairwise comparisons of the R_S values, and calculated the coefficients of determination. We also tested the statistical significance of the difference between r coefficients between groups. All analyses were conducted with the JMP Pro software.

RESULTS

The stronger bivariate correlations were represented by the ES↔Total Cites R_S = 0.968, p < 0.001, R² = 0.937; and the CiteScore↔SJR R_S = 0.911, p < 0.001, R² = 0.829. From 105 possible combinations of pairwise comparisons, 38 depicted a p value > 0.050 which would suggest interchangeability among bivariate correlations.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings support our hypothesis that the IF does not show the best correlation between other metrics. Radiologists, interventional radiologist, or nuclear medicine doctors should have a clear understanding of the associations among the journal's bibliometrics for their decision-making during the manuscript submission phase.

[Indicators of research impact: Tools for measuring journals, researchers and published articles in health - Pharmaceutical perspective]

There are several indicators to evaluate the impact of the scientific publication in pharmacy. Given their number, complexity, heterogeneity, strengths and weaknesses, we believe that pharmacists are not sufficiently familiar with these indicators. The main objective is to present an inventory of available indicator to measure the research impact. PubMed, GoogleScholar and Google were interviewed in October 2017 from the following terms: bibliométrique/bibliometrics, facteur d'impact/impact factor, impact de citations/citation impact, revue/journal, chercheur/researcher, article, indicateur/indicator, score. For each identified indicator, the following variables were extracted: name, calculation method, calculation time window, data sources considered, access conditions, inclusion of self-citation, strengths and weaknesses. A total of 15 indicators were included: seven for journals, four for researchers and four for articles. Among them two are non-bibliometric indicators: the Altmetric attention score, the RGscore and one other indicator deriving from the impact factor: the SIGAPS indicator developed to finance the research activity of French hospitals. Of the 12 bibliometric indicators, nine include self-citation. All involve forces (e.g. exclusion of editorials, letters, free access) and weaknesses (e.g. self-citations included, time window too short, disciplinary indistinction). There is no indicator with no weaknesses and pharmacists should be able to understand their strengths and weaknesses.

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.

Academic Journals Assessed as Springboards for New Developments: A Study of Leading Anesthesia Journals Over Past 50 Years

PURPOSE

The impact of academic journals on scientific activity can be measured using different approaches. The aim of this study was to assess the leading anesthesia journals as springboards for new developments in the field of anesthesia.

METHODS

The selection of the topics for analysis was based on the degree of increase in the number of articles on a topic that was at the center of specialty interest during 1966-2015. The assessment of a journal's response to a new development was made by measuring the number of initial articles on a related topic. Six leading anesthesia journals were assessed collectively and individually as to whether their responses to new developments were prompt and prominent.

RESULTS

The role of the leading specialty journals in presentation of 28 topics related to prominent new developments in anesthesia was found to depend on the nature of topics and the type of articles. Compared with all PubMed journals publishing articles associated with anesthesia in 1966-2015, the six leading anesthesia journals published 43% of drug-related research articles, 30% of technique-related research articles, and 16% of both drug- and technique-related review articles. Regarding initial publications (on new topics), this group of six journals contributed comparably more articles: from 43% to 84% of drug-related research articles, from 30% to 49% of technique-related research articles, from 16% to 33% of drug-related review articles, and from 16% to 25% of technique-related review articles. The approximate doubling of the shares demonstrates the dominance of this group of journals in the swiftness response to new anesthesia developments. The promptness of reaction to new developments in anesthesia of each of the six leading anesthesia journals was assessed (the combination of drug- and technique-related articles) based on the number of articles published among the first (first 5 plus next 30) on all 28 topics. The ranking order of four journals (with the highest number of all 1966-2015 articles) regarding early publications was (from high to low): Anesthesia & Analgesia, British Journal of Anaesthesia, Anesthesiology, and Anaesthesia.

CONCLUSION

This study assesses six leading anesthesia journals for their function as springboards for new developments in anesthesia over the past 50 years. The dominance of leading journals in initial publications on 28 drug-related and technique-related topics was clearly demonstrated. The results also indicate the possibility of using promptness of response to new advances for quantitative assessment of this aspect of a journal's contribution to the specialty.

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.

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

BACKGROUND

Journals are currently assessed and ranked using a number of different quantitative performance metrics.

AIM

To compare and correlate the publication metrics of English-language occupational therapy journals published in 2015.

METHOD

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.

RESULTS

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.

CONCLUSIONS

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.

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

INTRODUCTION

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.

METHODS

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.

RESULTS

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 (R² = 0.934; p < 0.001), which yielded a total variance of 93.4%.

CONCLUSIONS

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.

Scientific Misconduct (Fraud) in Medical Writing

Scientific misconduct (fraud) in medical writing is an important and not infrequent problem for the scientific community. Although noteworthy examples of fraud surface occasionally in the media, detection of fraud in medical publishing is generally not as straightforward as one might think. National bodies on ethics in science, strict selection criteria, a robust peer-review process, careful statistical validation, and anti-plagiarism and image-fraud detection software contribute to the production of high-quality manuscripts. This article reviews the various types of fraud in medical writing, discusses the related literature, and describes tools journals implement to unmask fraud. [Orthopedics. 2018; 41(2):e176-e183].

Relative Citation Ratio (RCR): A New Metric That Uses Citation Rates to Measure Influence at the Article Level

Despite their recognized limitations, bibliometric assessments of scientific productivity have been widely adopted. We describe here an improved method to quantify the influence of a research article by making novel use of its co-citation network to field-normalize the number of citations it has received. Article citation rates are divided by an expected citation rate that is derived from performance of articles in the same field and benchmarked to a peer comparison group. The resulting Relative Citation Ratio is article level and field independent and provides an alternative to the invalid practice of using journal impact factors to identify influential papers. To illustrate one application of our method, we analyzed 88,835 articles published between 2003 and 2010 and found that the National Institutes of Health awardees who authored those papers occupy relatively stable positions of influence across all disciplines. We demonstrate that the values generated by this method strongly correlate with the opinions of subject matter experts in biomedical research and suggest that the same approach should be generally applicable to articles published in all areas of science. A beta version of iCite, our web tool for calculating Relative Citation Ratios of articles listed in PubMed, is available at https://icite.od.nih.gov.

Relative Citation Ratio of Top Twenty Macedonian Biomedical Scientists in PubMed: A New Metric that Uses Citation Rates to Measure Influence at the Article Level

AIM

The aim of this study was to analyze relative citation ratio (RCR) of top twenty Macedonian biomedical scientists with a new metric that uses citation rates to measure influence at the article level.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Top twenty Macedonian biomedical scientists were identified by GoPubMed on the base of the number of deposited abstracts in PubMed, corrected with the data from previously published paper, and completed with the Macedonian biomedical scientists working in countries outside the Republic of Macedonia, but born or previously worked in the country. iCite was used as a tool to access a dashboard of bibliometrics for papers associated with a portfolio.

RESULTS

The biggest number of top twenty Macedonian biomedical scientists has RCR lower than one. Only four Macedonian biomedical scientists have bigger RCR in comparison with those in PubMed. The most prominent RCR of 2.29 has Rosoklija G. RCR of the most influenced individual papers deposited in PubMed has shown the biggest value for the paper of Efremov D (35.19). This paper has the biggest number of authors (860).

CONCLUSION

It is necessary to accept top twenty Macedonian biomedical scientists as an example of new metric that uses citation rates to measure influence at the article level, rather than qualification of the best Macedonian biomedical scientists.

Ascertaining the standard of journal using quality indices

In the modern era, most of the researchers want to share their work on a global platform so that they not only receive the due recognition but even their findings can be utilized by other professionals working in the same arena. In order to achieve this, the most common approach is to publish the research findings in an appropriate journal. However, the indicators which eventually determine the overall quality of a journal are variable and there is a great need that the contributors should understand the meaning and scope of each of these indicators. In conclusion, in order to establish the journal's quality, the researchers should obtain the information about the various indices from the journals' website or editorial board and then only submit their research work for publishing.

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

PURPOSE

To analyze the trends and developments among journals in the specialty of obstetrics and gynecology.

METHODS

Using the Journal Citation Reports from 2007 to 2013, we analyzed the impact factor (IF), Eigenfactor® Score (ES), and Article Influence® Score (AIS) of 43 journals in the field of obstetrics and gynecology published in this time period.

RESULTS

From 78 journals of the Journal Citation Report 2013, 43 were selected for this study. The mean IF grew from 1.68 ± 0.97 in 2007 to 2.12 ± 1.05 in 2013, the ES from 0.0113 ± 0.0169 to 0.0114 ± 0.0140, and the AIS from 0.513 ± 0.302 to 0.663 ± 0.359. Differences in the IF, ES, and AIS between journals from the United States versus Europe could be observed. In most cases, the IF, ES, and AIS increased between 2007 and 2013. Strong correlations could be found between IF, AIS, and ES.

CONCLUSIONS

The overall mean IF for obstetrical and gynecological journals increased over the analyzed time period. The IF remains the standard measure to compare scientific journals. It correlates well with two major alternative measures of scientific impact, the ES and especially the AIS. Other measures are evolving and might show superior usage in the future.

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

INTRODUCTION

A deeper understanding of supplementary bibliometrics beyond the impact factor might provide researchers with a better understanding of the citation process. This study presents a multivariate analysis of gastroenterology and hepatology journals to evaluate the predictive ability of seven bibliometrics in the Web of Science to calculate total cites over a 2-year period.

METHODS

Coincidentally, bibliometrics appearing during 2008, 2009, and 2010, with their corresponding cites in 2010, 2011, and 2012, were recorded from the Journal Citation Reports Science Edition. A linear mixed-effects design using random slopes and intercepts was performed on 51 out of 74 journals in the Gastroenterology and Hepatology category.

RESULT

There was a significant global effect size (R(2) = 0.992; P < 0.001), which yielded a total variance of 99.2%. The strongest predictors in the model were the Eigenfactor Score and Cited Half-life (P < 0.001), followed by the Number of Articles (P = 0.011) and the Immediacy Index (P = 0.021). The impact factor was not a significant predictor.

CONCLUSION

The Eigenfactor Score and Cited Half-life predictors might be the new standards to assess the influence and importance of scientific journals; this approach may help researchers select journals in which to publish their work.

Factors Affecting Journal Quality Indicator in Scopus (SCImago Journal Rank) in Obstetrics and Gynecology Journals: a Longitudinal Study (1999-2013)

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.

Evaluation of the scientific outputs of researchers with similar h index: a critical approach

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

h-index has been always reviewed as one of the most useful criteria for evaluating the scientific outputs of researchers by the sciencometric experts. In this study, the h-index of 40 Iranian researchers accompanied with its relationship to assessment criteria of scientific outputs such as the number of articles, scientific age, number of citations and self-citation were reviewed.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The first part of this study was related to the literature review. But the information of 40 Iranian researchers' Citation Reports was observational extracted from WOS database and the Pearson correlation coefficient test was used to answer the research hypotheses.

RESULTS

Citation analysis showed that 40 selected researchers published 877 articles in web of science up to 9 January 2013. These articles have been cited 3858 time. The average of their h-index was estimated 38.5 ±12.12 Correlation coefficient test showed that there was a significant and direct relationship between the h-index and the number of papers, the number of citations and self-citation (Sig>0.05) but there was no significant relationship between scientific age and h-index (Sig> 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Analysis of the data showed that the quantitative and qualitative indicators of the researchers with the same h-index had considerable differences. Therefore, only the h-index should not be a criterion for scientific ranking of the researchers and other complementary indexes such as M parameter and G index along with h-index must be used to be able to more accurately determine the degree of scientific influence of the researchers with the same h.

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

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.

Entitymetrics: measuring the impact of entities

This paper proposes entitymetrics to measure the impact of knowledge units. Entitymetrics highlight the importance of entities embedded in scientific literature for further knowledge discovery. In this paper, we use Metformin, a drug for diabetes, as an example to form an entity-entity citation network based on literature related to Metformin. We then calculate the network features and compare the centrality ranks of biological entities with results from Comparative Toxicogenomics Database (CTD). The comparison demonstrates the usefulness of entitymetrics to detect most of the outstanding interactions manually curated in CTD.

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

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.

PageRank and rank-reversal dependence on the damping factor

PageRank (PR) is an algorithm originally developed by Google to evaluate the importance of web pages. Considering how deeply rooted Google's PR algorithm is to gathering relevant information or to the success of modern businesses, the question of rank stability and choice of the damping factor (a parameter in the algorithm) is clearly important. We investigate PR as a function of the damping factor d on a network obtained from a domain of the World Wide Web, finding that rank reversal happens frequently over a broad range of PR (and of d). We use three different correlation measures, Pearson, Spearman, and Kendall, to study rank reversal as d changes, and we show that the correlation of PR vectors drops rapidly as d changes from its frequently cited value, d_{0}=0.85. Rank reversal is also observed by measuring the Spearman and Kendall rank correlation, which evaluate relative ranks rather than absolute PR. Rank reversal happens not only in directed networks containing rank sinks but also in a single strongly connected component, which by definition does not contain any sinks. We relate rank reversals to rank pockets and bottlenecks in the directed network structure. For the network studied, the relative rank is more stable by our measures around d=0.65 than at d=d_{0}.