Journal Impact Factor and highly cited papers: The beginning of a new era in Dental and Medical Problems

We are delighted to announce that Dental and Medical Problems is the first dentistry-focused scholarly journal in Poland and Eastern Europe to achieve a Journal Impact Factor (JIF) in the latest 2023 release of the Journal Citation Reports™!

Impact analysis of COVID-19 on Nigerian workers' productivity using multiple correspondence analysis

As the COVID-19 pandemic became a global health concern, many business activities have had to adjust to the protocols required to keep people safe, thereby altering the work structures of many professionals. With data gathered from 466 respondents in Nigeria, of which approximately 70% are from the South-West, this study shows how the factors associated with the health crisis have affected work productivity during this period. The snowball survey research design techniques with the two-way interaction model were employed. Multiple Correspondence Analysis was used to analyse and understand multiple and pairwise qualitative factors that influence productivity. The first part of the analysis identified boredom, remuneration, internet availability, fear of COVID-19 and depressing news of COVID-19 as the factors that had significant impacts on workers' productivity. The second part of the analysis shows how the categories of the five significant factors were either associated or not with productivity. An analysis of each of these factors showed that fear of the disease was associated with slight productivity but access to internet facilities and remuneration were strongly associated with improved work productivity, while boredom and depressing news about COVID-19 were associated with non-productivity during this period. Further evidence also showed that training and new skills acquisition might improve workers' productivity much more. We, therefore, recommend dynamic skills acquisition, training, and investment in tools and services that will enhance flexibility with the changing work structure that comes because of global crises.

Research on COVID-19 and its influence on Latin American medical journals impact factor

INTRODUCTION

The arrival of the pandemic caused by coronavirus disease (COVID-19) exponentially increased scientific production.

OBJECTIVE

To analyze the influence of COVID-19-related scientific production on the impact factor values of Latin American medical journals.

METHODS

Journals related to the Medicine categories included in Journal Citation Reports (JCR) were used. Impact factor data from the 2020 and 2021 editions were used to compare the citations received by documents related to COVID-19.

RESULTS

A decrease in the impact factor values of the evaluated journals was observed when the citations received by works related to COVID-19 were eliminated.

CONCLUSIONS

The volume of information published on COVID-19 and the citations received influenced the impact increase in 2021 JCR.

Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic on Biomedical Publications and Their Citation Frequency

BACKGROUND

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has resulted in enormous related publications. However, the citation frequency of these documents and their influence on the journal impact factor (JIF) are not well examined. We aimed to evaluate the impact of COVID-19 on biomedical research publications and their citation frequency.

METHODS

We searched publications on biomedical research in the Web of Science using the search terms "COVID-19," "SARS-Cov-2," "2019 corona*," "corona virus disease 2019," "coronavirus disease 2019," "novel coronavirus infection" and "2019-ncov." The top 200 journals were defined as those with a higher number of COVID-19 publications than other journals in 2020. The COVID-19 impact ratio was calculated as the ratio of the average number of citations per item in 2021 to the JIF for 2020.

RESULTS

The average number of citations for the top 200 journals in 2021, per item published in 2020, was 25.7 (range, 0-270). The average COVID-19 impact ratio was 3.84 (range, 0.26-16.58) for 197 journals that recorded the JIF for 2020. The average JIF ratio for the top 197 journals including the JIFs for 2020 and 2021 was 1.77 (range, 0.68-8.89). The COVID-19 impact ratio significantly correlated with the JIF ratio (r = 0.403, P = 0.010). Twenty-five Korean journals with a COVID-19 impact ratio > 1.5 demonstrated a higher JIF ratio (1.31 ± 0.39 vs. 1.01 ± 0.18, P < 0.001) than 33 Korean journals with a lower COVID-19 impact ratio.

CONCLUSION

COVID-19 pandemic infection has significantly impacted the trends in biomedical research and the citation of related publications.

A Metrics-Based Research Salary Award System and Its 9-Year Impact on Publication Productivity

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

Although metrics-based systems may incentivize academic output, no prior studies have evaluated the impact on publication metrics in academic radiology. This study presents a metrics-based system of awarding research protected time, and retrospectively evaluates its 9-year impact on publication productivity and impact factor.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Based on a metrics-based algorithm to award department funded Research Protected Time (RPT), metrics pre-RPT (2003-2009) and during the RPT period (2010-2018) from an academic radiology department were retrospectively analyzed to test the hypothesis that the RPT program resulted in higher publication productivity and journal impact factor at the departmental level and for faculty members receiving the award. Comparison was made between (1) pre-RPT and RPT periods and (2) during the RPT period, between RPT and non-RPT faculty members, for annual publication productivity normalized to faculty count (Student's t test) and median impact factor (Wilcoxon rank sum test).

RESULTS

For the evaluation period of 2003-2018, 724 unique publications were identified: 15% (107/724) pre-RPT period and 85% (617/724) RPT period. Normalized annual publication productivity was higher during the RPT period compared to the Pre-RPT period (1.2 vs. 0.3, p = 0.002), and within the RPT period, higher among faculty who received RPT vs. non-RPT faculty (3.5 vs. 0.4, p = 0.002). Median impact factor was higher during the RPT period compared to pre-RPT period (2.843 vs. 2.322, p = 0.044), and within the RPT period, higher in RPT vs. non-RPT faculty (3.016 vs. 2.346, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

The implementation of a metrics-based system of funded, research protected time, was associated with increased publication productivity and increased impact factor.

Scientific Literature and Evaluation Metrics: Impact Factor, Usage Metrics, and Altmetrics

Evaluating the quality of a scientific article has proven to be an elusive task. The most widely used bibliometric value currently used for this purpose, the journal impact factor, was not originally designed to determine the quality of research in a scientific article. Nevertheless, it has morphed into a surrogate to delineate the quality of a journal and even to represent the quality of individual articles in that that journal. Early 21^st century advances in computer technology have seen an explosive revolution in scientific publication that have included open access, online publication, and world-wide accessibility to these publications. These developments have made it obvious that more sophisticated tools are required to delimit the quality of material present in the scientific literature. Usage data, which is measured as the number of full-text downloads of a specific article, is just one new method to evaluate the source of the vast material available that can be leveraged to more fully evaluate the merit of scientific literature.

[Impact and prestige indicators of SciELO network health sciences journals: comparative study.]

OBJECTIVE

The use of bibliometric indicators to measure the quality of scientific journals is a general practice in all areas of science. The WoS and Scopus databases continue to be the reference sources to obtain bibliographic indicators. Others such as SciELO network offer indicators about Ibero-American science, which are scarcely collected in WoS and Scopus. The aim of this work was to analyze the association of the indicators proposed by SciELO for health sciences journals, with the most widely used impact and indicators and to study the complementarity of the existing prestige indicators.

METHODS

Analytical correlational study between SciELO indicators, with impact and prestige indicators from Journal Citation Report, Scopus and Web of Science. The results refer to 2018, the most recent and complete data available. Association between the qualitative variables was analyzed using the chi-square test, and the analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed for the quantitative variables using the Tukey method as a post hoc test. To obtain the relationship between quantitative variables, Pearson's correlation coefficient was used and Spearman's coefficient for ordinal variables. The level of significance used in all the hypothesis tests was α≤0.05.

RESULTS

The SciELO Impact Factor showed a weak correlation both, with Journal Citation Report (R=0.36; p=0.003), and Scopus Cite Score (R=0.39; p=0.001). The association between the H index of the Web of Science andthe H index of Scopus with the H index of SciELO was weak in both cases (R=0.45; p<0.001 and R=0.340; p=0.003).

CONCLUSIONS

Indicators proposed by SciELO, for health journals, did not show an association with those of WoS or Scopus. The weak correlation between Impact Factor and Cite Score with SciELO Impact Factor, converts the latter into a necessary "metrics" to assess journals excluded from the "mainstream" and fundamentally those from the Latin American region. The need of using the prestige indicators to fill in the impact indicators, has not been proven in this study.

Publication output of French orthopedic and trauma surgeons: Quantitative and qualitative bibliometric analysis of their scientific production in orthopedics and other medical fields

INTRODUCTION

Bibliometric analysis is being used more and more in orthopedics and traumatology. However, the quantity and quality of publications authored by French orthopedic and trauma surgeons outside their discipline have never been analyzed, nor has the change in the quality of orthopedics publications. This led us to carry out a bibliometric analysis to answer the following questions: 1) How has the quantity of scientific production by French orthopedists changed over the past 10 years? 2) How has the quality of the overall scientific production by French orthopedists changed over the past 10 years?

HYPOTHESIS

From 2008 to 2017, the production of French orthopedists has increased in quantity and quality in orthopedics and other medical fields.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The analysis was performed by cross-referencing the list of SOFCOT (French Society for Orthopaedic Surgery and Traumatology) members with the French SIGAPS database and the InCites platform. Out of 3979 SOFCOT members, 972 (24%) had authored publications during this period and were included in the analysis. Several indicators were analyzed: number of publications; SIGAPS score (production quality) for the various Web of Science (WoS) categories; number and percentage of publications in the top 1% and top 10% (most highly cited articles worldwide).

RESULTS

The "Orthopedics" discipline was still the most prevalent with 68% of all publications identified. The "Surgery" discipline was stable, and the share of publications had increased in five other disciplines: Sports Sciences, Clinical Neurology, Emergency Medicine, Engineering-Biomedical and Material Science-Biomaterials. Of the 727 journals indexed in PubMed in which at least one author is a French orthopedic or trauma surgeon, 79 journals (11%) had at least 10 articles authored by a French orthopedists, making up 4680/6056 published articles (77%) during the study period. The highest SIGAPS score was in the "Orthopedics" discipline followed by "Surgery", and then by "Sport Sciences" with a large number of publications in the SIGAPS B category. Publications in "Orthopedics" category A and B journals increased 14% during this period. When all disciplines are pooled, the share of publications in SIGAPS A, B and C categories increased by 10% from 2008 to 2017. The largest increase in publications for categories A and B and the top 1% and 10% was in "Sports Sciences".

DISCUSSION

Over the past 10 years, French orthopedists have continued to increase their scientific production in the orthopedics field and in related fields such as Sport Sciences, Clinical Neurology and Biomedical Engineering. The quality of the scientific production of French orthopedists in their discipline and outside of it has greatly improved, as evidenced by the shift toward SIGAPS A and B journals.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV, retrospective study without control group.

Social media in cardiology: Reasons to learn how to use it

Social media has changed the way we learn, educate, and interact with our peers. The dynamic nature of social media and their immediate availability through our portable devices (smartphones, tablets, smartwatches, etc.) is quickly transforming the way we participate in society. The scope of these digital tools is broad as they deal with many different aspects: Teaching and learning, case discussion, congresses coverage, peer to peer interaction, research are examples worth mentioning. The scientific societies considered more innovative, are promoting these tools between their members. These new concepts need to be known by the cardiologists to stay updated, as countless information is moving rapidly through these channels. We summarize the main reasons why learning how to use these tools to be part of the conversation is essential for the cardiologist in training or fully stablished.

Study Comparing Traditional Versus Alternative Metrics to Measure the Impact of the Critical Care Medicine Literature

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.

Our objective was to evaluate the association between traditional metrics such as Impact Factor and Eigenfactor with respect to alternative metrics. The Altmetric Attention Score for the top nine pulmonary and critical care journals was compared with Impact Factor, Eigenfactor, and citations over two time periods (2007–2011 and 2012–2016). There was a significant increase in the Altmetric Attention Score (52 from 2007 to 2011 vs 1,061 from 2012 to 2016; p < 0.001) but no significant differences in Total Citations, Impact Factor, or Eigenfactor. There was a strong positive correlation between citations and Altmetric Attention Score, negative correlations between Eigenfactor and Altmetric Attention Score for most journals, and no clear association between Impact Factor and Altmetric Attention Score. Over time, the digital reach of traditional publications has increased significantly, while no significant increase was noted for the traditional metrics. These findings likely reflect discussions of articles online that are not captured by traditional metrics and hence their impact on the community at large.

Predatory publishing or a lack of peer review transparency?-a contemporary analysis of indexed open and non-open access articles in paediatric urology

INTRODUCTION

The advent of open access publishing has allowed for unrestricted and rapid knowledge dissemination and can generate higher citation levels. However, the establishment of predatory journals exploits this model and may lead to publication of non-peer reviewed work.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to compare the characteristics and trends of indexed publications in paediatric urology. The primary outcomes were to compare open access vs non-open access publishing. The secondary outcome was to assess whether any open access publications in this cohort could be classified as predatory based on journal data basing and external peer review policies.

METHODS

PubMed, MEDLINE and Embase reviews were carried out for any publication using the terms 'p(a)ediatric urology' over a 5-year period (October 2012-2017). These publications were individually accessed, assessed for relevance and cross-checked using the ISI Web of Knowledge Journal Citation Report. Bibliometric data, journal type and access model were all individually assessed, ranked and compared using descriptive and non-parametric statistical methods.

RESULTS

From an initial total of 4075 indexed publications, 2244 journal publications across 51 countries were included based on relevance, of which 611 were open access. Open access journals were significantly more likely to publish basic science/laboratory versus clinical publications (10.9% vs 3.3%). They were more likely have higher average citations/publication (17 vs. 8), but there was no difference between open and closed journal impact factors (3.1 vs. 2.7). The overall rate of open access, indexed publications that were not peer reviewed and/or included in open access databases was 6.5% DISCUSSION: The overall numbers of paediatric urological articles appearing on PubMed between 2012 and 2017 have increased by approximately 75%, while the number of open access articles has remained relatively static (25%). Researchers may prefer to publish in specific journals to disseminate results to a particular audience or fear in the current climate that an open access journal may not be considered legitimate, and possibly even predatory, thus having a negative impact on the data and the author's reputation. The impact factor status and route/method of publication may be less important.

CONCLUSIONS

Open access, peer reviewed publishing allows rapid international knowledge dissemination. The exact objective definition of what constitutes a predatory journal remains controversial. We have identified a time-stable prevalence of 6.5% open access publications that could meet proposed criteria for a 'borderline/predatory journal'; however, this should not influence the decision to publish in open access journals.

[Publications German-speaking countries in high impact journals: development and validation of a search filter]

Publications German-speaking countries in high impact journals: development and validation of a search filter Abstract.

BACKGROUND

The number of publications in journals with a high impact factor is an indication of a discipline's participation in international discourse. A search filter allows reliable and reproducible searches for specific publications.

AIM

Development and validation of a geographic search filter for publications by nursing scientists affiliated to German-speaking countries in nursing journals with a high impact factor.

METHODS

The search filter was objectively developed following several steps: (i) creation of a development and a validation set, each consisting of relevant and non-relevant publications, (ii) generation of the search filter by means of text analysis of the development set, (iii) internal validation based on the development set and (iv) external validation using the validation set. The validity was examined regarding several accuracy parameters, e. g. sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and number needed to read (NNR).

RESULTS

The search filter correctly identified 22 of 30 relevant and 16 of 21 non-relevant publications in the development set: sensitivity 80 % (95 % CI 66 - 94), specificity 76 % (95 % CI 58 - 94), PPV 83 % (95 % CI 69 - 97). External validation yielded similar or better results: sensitivity 81 % (95 % CI 67 - 96), specificity 88 % (95 % CI 71 - 100), PPV 88 % (95 % CI 75 - 100). The NNR was 1.2 and 1.1, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The search filter has the potential to identify the intended publications.

RELATION BETWEEN IMPACT FACTOR IN ORTHOPEDIC JOURNALS AND LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Objective:

This study aims to assess the quality of articles published in the leading orthopedic surgery journals, by measuring the relation between the impact factor and the number studies with a high level of evidence.

Methods:

A literature review was performed of articles published in four previously selected journals. A score of journal evidence (RER - Relation between Randomized clinical trials and Systematic reviews) was calculated, considering the number of RCTs and SR published and the total number of full-text articles.

Results:

The selected journals were JBJS-Am, ASMJ, BJJ-Br and Arthroscopy, with Impact factors of 5.280, 4.362, 3.309 and 3.206 respectively in 2015. In the study, the RER Scores, in the same order, were 9.408, 6.153, 7.456 and 7.779.

Conclusion:

The journal JBJS-Am is the best available source of information on orthopedic surgery from this point of view. It has the highest Impact Factor and clearly the highest RER Score. On the other hand, we could conclude that the number of published RCT and good quality SR is very low, with less than 10% of all the articles. Level of evidence III, Analyses based on limited alternatives and costs, and poor estimates.

Author's failure to read and follow instructions leads to increased trauma to their manuscripts

Authors under pressure to publish to meet some academic requirement are one of the most dangerous pressure group which the editors of good quality peer review biomedical journals have to face every day. Their failure to read and follow instructions for authors which are published on every journal website, lack of training facilities in research methodology, medical writing, and low computer literacy rate leads to increased trauma to their manuscripts. The authors must realize that from submission to final publication manuscripts go through various stages i.e. internal review, editor's triage, similarity index check, formatting, external review, revision of the manuscripts in the light of reviewers comments and suggestions. It all takes time and there is no short cut. They must plan at least for six to eight months from the date of submission to acceptance and publication and avoid getting trapped by predatory journals which offer quick publication on payment.

Scientific research output in orthopaedics from China and other top-ranking countries: a 10-year survey of the literature

OBJECTIVES

Orthopaedics-related diseases and conditions are a significant burden worldwide. In this study, we aimed to compare the quantity and quality of research output in the field of orthopaedics from Mainland China (MC), USA, UK, Japan and Germany.

SETTING

The USA, UK, Japan, Germany and MC.

PARTICIPANTS

We selected orthopaedics journals from the subject category 'orthopedics' from the Science Citation Index Expanded (SCIE).

OUTCOME MEASURES

The number of publications, the number of publications in the surveyed publication types, impact factor (IF) and citations from the corresponding country from 2005 to 2014 were collected for quantity and quality comparisons.

RESULTS

A total of 128 895 articles were published worldwide in orthopaedics-related journals from 2005 to 2014. The USA contributed the largest proportion (31 190 (24.20%)), followed by the UK (6703 (5.20%)), Japan (5718 (4.41%)), Germany (4701 (3.66%)) and MC (3389 (2.63%)). Publications from MC represented the fewest, but this quantity is rapidly increasing. The quantity of annual publications from MC has exceeded that of Germany since 2012. The USA plays a predominant role in all kinds of publication types under investigation in the study, except in the category of meta-analysis. MC was in the last place for cumulative IFs, and the average IF actually decreased from the beginning of the study. For total and average citations, MC still lags behind the other countries in the study.

CONCLUSIONS

The USA has occupied the dominant place in orthopaedics-related research for the last 10 years. Although MC has made great progress in the number of published works in the field of orthopaedics over the last 10 years, the quality of these publishing efforts needs further improvement.

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

PURPOSE

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.

METHODS

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.

RESULTS

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 (R² = 0.581, P = .029).

CONCLUSIONS

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.

Bias and other limitations affect measures of journals in integrative and complementary medicineKa-wai Fan, PhD

Publishing articles in a prestigious journal is a golden rule for university professors and researchers nowadays. Impact factor, journal rank, and citation count, included in Science Citation Index managed by Thomson Reuters Web of Science, are the most important indicators for evaluating the quality of academic journals. By listing the journals encompassed in the "Integrative and Complementary Medicine" category of Science Citation Index from 2003 to 2013, this paper examines the publication trends of journals in the category. The examination includes number, country of origin, ranking, and languages of journals. Moreover, newly listed or removed journals in the category, journal publishers, and open access strategies are examined. It is concluded that the role of journal publisher should not be undermined in the "Integrative and Complementary Medicine" category.

The EJHF last Editor's legacy: how can a high impact factor be built?

The European Journal of Heart Failure (EJHF) has reached a high impact factor making it one of the most important cardiology journals. I discuss herein what could be the main causes of such high ranking. Publication of the European Society of Cardiology guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure has had the most important role with a number of citations, which has been approximately 10 times that of the other most cited articles of the same year. Other position statements, reviews, design papers, and research articles about landmark topics have given major contributions. With respect to the different clinical presentations, articles about heart failure with preserved ejection fraction and about advanced heart failure have gained many citations. Epidemiology, biomarkers, medical treatment, and devices have attracted most of the interest. In conclusion, being able to look ahead and to publish what is going to become important remains a major challenge. That of EJHF has been a success story, to date, and learning from the past may help to build upon this achievement.

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.

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.

The impact factor of a journal is a poor measure of the clinical relevance of its papers

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.

Citation Analysis of Hepatitis Monthly by Journal Citation Report (ISI), Google Scholar, and Scopus

BACKGROUND

Citation analysis as one of the most widely used methods of bibliometrics can be used for computing the various impact measures for scholars based on data from citation databases. Journal Citation Reports (JCR) from Thomson Reuters provides annual report in the form of impact factor (IF) for each journal.

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to evaluate the citation parameters of Hepatitis Monthly by JCR in 2010 and compare them with GS and Sc.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

All articles of Hepat Mon published in 2009 and 2008 which had been cited in 2010 in three databases including WoS, Sc and GS gathered in a spreadsheet. The IFs were manually calculated.

RESULTS

Among the 104 total published articles the accuracy rates of GS and Sc in recording the total number of articles was 96% and 87.5%. There was a difference between IFs among the three databases (0.793 in ISI [Institute for Scientific Information], 0.945 in Sc and 0.85 GS). The missing rate of citations in ISI was 4% totally. Original articles were the main cited types, whereas, guidelines and clinical challenges were the least ones.

CONCLUSIONS

None of the three databases succeed to record all articles published in the journal. Despite high sensitivity of GS comparing to Sc, it cannot be a reliable source for indexing since GS has lack of screening in the data collection and low specificity. Using an average of three IFs is suggested to find the correct IF. Editors should be more aware on the role of original articles in increasing IF and the potential efficacy of review articles in long term impact factor.

A more comprehensive index in the evaluation of scientific research: the single researcher impact factor proposal

Good alternatives to the Impact Factor (IF) algorithm are needed. The Thomson IF represents a limited measure of the importance of an individual article because 80% of a journal's IF is determined by only the 20% of the papers published. In the past few years, several new indexes has been created to provide alternatives to the IF algorithm. These include the removal of self citations from the calculation of the IF using the Adjusted IF, Index Copernicus initiative and other modifications such as the Cited Half-Life IF, Median IF, Disciplinary IF, and Prestige Factor. There is also the Euro-Factor, born in Europe to avoid the strong US centrality, and the English language basis of the Thomson database. One possible strategy to avoid "IF supremacy" is to create a new index, the Single Researcher Impact Factor (SRIF), that would move the evaluation from the power of scientific journals to the quality of single researchers. This measure can take into account the number and quality of the traditional publications and other activities usually associated with being a researcher, such as reviewing manuscripts, writing books, and attending scientific meetings. Also, in funding policy, it might be more useful to consider the merits, contributions, and real impact of all the scientific activities of a single researcher instead of adding only the journals' IF numbers. The major aim of this paper is to propose and describe the SRIF index that could represent a novel option to evaluate scientific research and researchers.

Impactitis: the impact factor myth syndrome

BACKGROUND

In the early 1960s, Eugene Garfield and Irving Sher created the journal impact factor to help select journals for the Science Citation Index (SCI). Today it has become a widespread subject of controversy even for Garfield, the man who created it who is quoted saying "Impact Factor is not a perfect tool to measure the quality of articles but there is nothing better and it has the advantage of already being in existence and is, therefore, a good technique for scientific evaluation". The use of the term "impact factor" has gradually evolved, especially in Europe, to include both journal and author impact. This ambiguity often causes problems. It is one thing to use impact factors to compare journals and quite another to use them to compare authors. Journal impact factors generally involve relatively large populations of articles and citations. Individual authors, on average, produce much smaller numbers of articles.

OBJECTIVES

Impact factor, an index based on the frequency with which a journal's articles are cited in scientific publications, is a putative marker of journal quality. However, empiric studies on impact factor's validity as an indicator of quality are lacking. The authors try to evaluate and highlight the validity of Impact Factors and its significance as a tool of assessment for scientific publications.

METHODS

Analysis of the several reports in literature and from their own point of view.

CONCLUSION

A journal's impact factor is based on 2 elements: the numerator, which is the number of citations in the current year to any items published in a journal in the previous 2 years, and the denominator, which is the number of substantive articles (source items) published in the same 2 years. The impact factor could just as easily be based on the previous year's articles alone, which would give an even greater weight to rapidly changing fields.