Academic literature on the topic 'Journal Citation Reports ™ Impact Factor'
Create a spot-on reference in APA, MLA, Chicago, Harvard, and other styles
Consult the lists of relevant articles, books, theses, conference reports, and other scholarly sources on the topic 'Journal Citation Reports ™ Impact Factor.'
Next to every source in the list of references, there is an 'Add to bibliography' button. Press on it, and we will generate automatically the bibliographic reference to the chosen work in the citation style you need: APA, MLA, Harvard, Chicago, Vancouver, etc.
You can also download the full text of the academic publication as pdf and read online its abstract whenever available in the metadata.
Journal articles on the topic "Journal Citation Reports ™ Impact Factor"
1
Howard, Louise, and Greg Wilkinson. "Impact factors of psychiatric journals." British Journal of Psychiatry 170, no. 2 (1997): 109–12. http://dx.doi.org/10.1192/bjp.170.2.109.
Full textAbstract:
BackgroundWe examined citation data for the British Journal of Psychiatry (BJP) and four other general psychiatry journals to assess their impact on the scientific community.MethodData on three measures of citations (total number of citations, impact factor and ranking by impact factor) were obtained from Journal Citation Reports for 1985–1994. Rank correlations from year to year were calculated.ResultsThe BJP currently ranks sixth of all psychiatry journals when journals are ranked by impact factor. The journal's impact factor fell between 1985 and 1990 and this was followed by a rise in impact factor after 1991. The BJP did not rank in the top 10 psychiatry journals between 1991 and 1993. Archives of General Psychiatry is cited more frequently than any other psychiatry journal, with the American Journal of Psychiatry usually ranking second. Psychopharmacology journals are replacing more general journals in the top rankings. Rankings of most journals have become less stable in recent years.ConclusionsThe BJP would have to change the nature and number of papers published to improve its impact factor. There are a number of limitations to citation data and such data are only one of several factors useful in evaluating the importance of a journal's contribution to scientific and clinical communities.Conflict of interestThese condauthor is Editor of the British Journal of Psychiatry.
2
Lee, Jen-Sin, and Chu-Yun Wei. "Journal features and impact factor." Managerial Finance 42, no. 4 (2016): 354–64. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/mf-04-2015-0130.
Full textAbstract:
Purpose – Journal quality and prestige are the main considerations for researchers, editors, and publishers when submitting manuscripts, citing papers, and developing publishing policies. Journal Citation Reports calculates the impact factor (IF) from journals covered in Social Science Citation Index (SSCI). IF is widely considered as an indicator of journal quality and prestige among business disciplines. Thus, researching what affects the IF is critical. The purpose of this paper is to investigate the relation between journal features and the IF, particularly between “hot issues” and the IF, and categorizes journal rankings into top-ten and other journals. Design/methodology/approach – The research sample encompasses publications from 2003 to 2013, focussing specifically on SSCI journals in the categories of business and finance. The examined journal features are the effect of the newly selected as an SSCI journal, frequency of publication, self-citation ratio, citable items, and whether the journal features articles on relevant international economic topics. Findings – The findings are as follows: increasing the publishing frequencies of top-ten journals will elevate IF significantly, conversely, increasing that of other journals will degrade the expected IF; both top-ten and other journals with a high self-citation ratio have a low IF; and publishing papers on critical topics significantly positively affects the IF; however, the level of significance decreases over time. In summary, publishing research on critical topics significantly increases the IF in short term. Originality/value – The findings offer valuable information for researchers, editors, and publishers.
3
Patini, Romeo, Edoardo Staderini, Andrea Camodeca, Federica Guglielmi, and Patrizia Gallenzi. "Case Reports in Pediatric Dentistry Journals: A Systematic Review about Their Effect on Impact Factor and Future Investigations." Dentistry Journal 7, no. 4 (2019): 103. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/dj7040103.
Full textAbstract:
Background: The effects of publishing case reports on journal impact factor and their impact on future research in pediatric dentistry has not been clearly evaluated yet. Aim. To assess the relevance and role of case reports in pediatric dentistry. Methods: A systematic review (PROSPERO registration number: CRD42018108621) of all case reports published between 2011 and 2012 in the three major pediatric dentistry journals was performed manually. Data regarding citations of each report were acquired from the Institute for Scientific Information database available online. The authors analyzed information regarding citations (number, percentage, and mean) received by each case report and considered their relation with the 2013 journal impact factor. Results: Case reports accounted for almost sixteen per cent of all articles published between 2011 and 2012. The citation rate of case reports was generally low and the highest mean citation was 0.5. This review revealed that 6 (9.52%) case reports had at least 5 citations and that the majority of the citing articles were also case reports (27.78%) or narrative reviews (25%). Conclusions: The publication of case reports affected the journal impact factor in a negative way, this influence is closely related to the percentage of the published case reports. Case reports about innovative topics, describing rare diseases, syndromes, and pathologies were more frequently cited.
4
Asaad, Malke, Austin Paul Kallarackal, Jesse Meaike, Aashish Rajesh, Rafael U. de Azevedo, and Nho V. Tran. "Citation Skew in Plastic Surgery Journals: Does the Journal Impact Factor Predict Individual Article Citation Rate?" Aesthetic Surgery Journal 40, no. 10 (2019): 1136–42. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/asj/sjz336.
Full textAbstract:
Abstract Background Citation skew refers to the unequal distribution of citations to articles published in a particular journal. Objectives We aimed to assess whether citation skew exists within plastic surgery journals and to determine whether the journal impact factor (JIF) is an accurate indicator of the citation rates of individual articles. Methods We used Journal Citation Reports to identify all journals within the field of plastic and reconstructive surgery. The number of citations in 2018 for all individual articles published in 2016 and 2017 was abstracted. Results Thirty-three plastic surgery journals were identified, publishing 9823 articles. The citation distribution showed right skew, with the majority of articles having either 0 or 1 citation (40% and 25%, respectively). A total of 3374 (34%) articles achieved citation rates similar to or higher than their journal’s IF, whereas 66% of articles failed to achieve a citation rate equal to the JIF. Review articles achieved higher citation rates (median, 2) than original articles (median, 1) (P < 0.0001). Overall, 50% of articles contributed to 93.7% of citations and 12.6% of articles contributed to 50% of citations. A weak positive correlation was found between the number of citations and the JIF (r = 0.327, P < 0.0001). Conclusions Citation skew exists within plastic surgery journals as in other fields of biomedical science. Most articles did not achieve citation rates equal to the JIF with a small percentage of articles having a disproportionate influence on citations and the JIF. Therefore, the JIF should not be used to assess the quality and impact of individual scientific work.
5
Peltoniemi, Markku. "Impact factors, citations, and GEOPHYSICS." GEOPHYSICS 70, no. 2 (2005): 3MA—17MA. http://dx.doi.org/10.1190/1.1897303.
Full textAbstract:
This review assesses the contributions and impact that GEOPHYSICS journal has made to both the theory and the applications of exploration geophysics during its publication life span. The contributions are evaluated first on the basis of Journal Citation Reports data, which summarize information available since 1975 about the impact factor of our journal. The impact factor for GEOPHYSICS in 1975–2002 has ranged between 1.461 and 0.591, with an average of 0.924 and with a relative ranking between 16 and 45 for all journals in its category. The journal receiving the highest impact factor for the period 2000–2003 in the “Geochemistry and Geophysics” category is Reviews of Geophysics, with an average impact factor of 7.787 and which ranged between 9.226 and 6.083. A second and important criterion is the frequency with which individual papers published in GEOPHYSICS have been cited elsewhere. This information is available for the entire publication history of GEOPHYSICS and supports the choices made for the early classic papers. These were listed in both the Silver and the Golden Anniversary issues of GEOPHYSICS. In August 2004, the five most-cited papers in GEOPHYSICS published in the time period 1936 to February 2003 are Thomsen (1986) with 423 citations, Constable et al. (1987) with 380 citations, Cagniard (1953) with 354 citations, Sen et al. (1981) with 313 citations, and Stolt (1978) with 307 citations. Fifteen more papers exceed a threshold value of 200 citations. During 2000–2002, GEOPHYSICS, Geophysical Prospecting, Geophysical Journal International, and Journal of Applied Geophysics were the four journals with the highest number of citations of papers published in GEOPHYSICS. In the same 2000–2002 period, those journals in which papers published in GEOPHYSICS are cited most are GEOPHYSICS, Geophysical Prospecting, Geophysical Journal International, and Journal of Geophysical Research. During 1985, the total number of citations in all journals in the Science Citation Index database to papers published in GEOPHYSICS was 2657. By 2002, this same citation count for GEOPHYSICS had increased to 4784.
6
Jamalnia, Sheida, and Nasrin Shokrpour. "Relationship Between the Journal Self-Citation and Author Self-Citation and the Impact Factor in Iranian, American ,and European ISI Indexed Medical Journals in 2014-2021." Galen Medical Journal 10 (July 24, 2021): 2156. http://dx.doi.org/10.31661/gmj.v10i0.2156.
Full textAbstract:
Background: Author and journal self-citation contributes to the overall citation count of an article and the impact factor of the journal in which it appears. Little is known, however, about the extent of self-citation in the general clinical medicine literature. The objective of this study was to determine the effect of self-citation (Journal and Author) on the impact factor of Iranian, American, and European English medical journals. Methods: IF (Impact Factor), IF without self-citations (corrected IF), journal self-citation rate, and author self-citation rate for medical journals were investigated from 2014–2021, by reviewing the Journal Citation Report. Twenty Iranian English medical journals in WoS indexed were selected and compared with twenty American and twenty European English medical journals. The correlation between the journal self-citation and author self-citation with IF was obtained. We used Spearman’s correlation coefficient for correlation of self-citation and IF. A P. value of0.05 was considered as significant in all the tests. Results: The overall journal citations were higher in the American and European journals compared to the Iranian ones between 2014 and 2021. There was a significant relationship between journal self-citation rates and impact factor (P
7
Nisonger, Thomas E. "Use of the Journal Citation Reports for Serials Management in Research Libraries: An Investigation of the Effect of Self-Citation on Journal Rankings in Library and Information Science and Genetics." College & Research Libraries 61, no. 3 (2000): 263–75. http://dx.doi.org/10.5860/crl.61.3.263.
Full textAbstract:
This article explores the use of the Institute for Scientific Information’s Journal Citation Reports (JCR) for journal management in academic libraries. The advantages and disadvantages to using JCR citation data for journal management are outlined, and a literature review summarizes reported uses of these data by libraries and scholars. This study researches the impact of journal self-citation on JCR rankings of library and information science (LIS) and genetics journals. The 1994 rankings by impact factor and total citations received were recalculated with journal self-citations removed; then the recalculated rankings were compared to the original rankings to analyze the effect of self-citations. It is concluded that librarians can use JCR data without correcting for journal self-citation, although self-citations do exert a major effect on the rankings for a small number of journals.
8
Wolf, Dennis M., and Peter A. Williamson. "Impact Factor and Study Design: The Academic Value of Published Research (AVaRes) Score." Annals of The Royal College of Surgeons of England 91, no. 1 (2009): 71–73. http://dx.doi.org/10.1308/003588409x359222.
Full textAbstract:
INTRODUCTION To compare the citation indices of original articles and case reports in otolaryngology journals and thereby determine whether case reports are of less interest and possibly of academically inferior value to original articles. METIERIALS AND METHODS All articles in two reputable UK otolaryngology journals (Clinical Otolaryngology and Journal of Laryngology and Otology) for 2000 and 2001 were identified. Citation indices were obtained from ISI Web of Knowledge and compared. Statistical analysis was performed using Microsoft® Office Excel 2003. RESULTS Review articles were cited most frequently with a mean of 5.21 followed by original articles with 4.28 citations and case reports with 2.40 citations. The difference in citing between original articles and case reports was statistically significant (P < 0.0001). There was no statistically significant difference in citations between review articles and original articles. CONCLUSIONS As case reports are clearly of lesser academic value than original and review articles, we suggest a scoring system incorporating journal impact factor and a scoring multiple taking into account study design. This facilitates easier comparison and recognition of publications in curricula vitae during job application.
9
Shanahan, Daniel R. "Auto-correlation of journal impact factor for consensus research reporting statements: a cohort study." PeerJ 4 (March 31, 2016): e1887. http://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.1887.
Full textAbstract:
Background.The Journal Citation Reports journal impact factors (JIFs) are widely used to rank and evaluate journals, standing as a proxy for the relative importance of a journal within its field. However, numerous criticisms have been made of use of a JIF to evaluate importance. This problem is exacerbated when the use of JIFs is extended to evaluate not only the journals, but the papers therein. The purpose of this study was therefore to investigate the relationship between the number of citations and journal IF for identical articles published simultaneously in multiple journals.Methods.Eligible articles were consensus research reporting statements listed on the EQUATOR Network website that were published simultaneously in three or more journals. The correlation between the citation count for each article and the median journal JIF over the published period, and between the citation count and number of article accesses was calculated for each reporting statement.Results.Nine research reporting statements were included in this analysis, representing 85 articles published across 58 journals in biomedicine. The number of citations was strongly correlated to the JIF for six of the nine reporting guidelines, with moderate correlation shown for the remaining three guidelines (medianr= 0.66, 95% CI [0.45–0.90]). There was also a strong positive correlation between the number of citations and the number of article accesses (medianr= 0.71, 95% CI [0.5–0.8]), although the number of data points for this analysis were limited. When adjusted for the individual reporting guidelines, each logarithm unit of JIF predicted a median increase of 0.8 logarithm units of citation counts (95% CI [−0.4–5.2]), and each logarithm unit of article accesses predicted a median increase of 0.1 logarithm units of citation counts (95% CI [−0.9–1.4]). This model explained 26% of the variance in citations (median adjustedr2= 0.26, range 0.18–1.0).Conclusion.The impact factor of the journal in which a reporting statement was published was shown to influence the number of citations that statement will gather over time. Similarly, the number of article accesses also influenced the number of citations, although to a lesser extent than the impact factor. This demonstrates that citation counts are not purely a reflection of scientific merit and the impact factor is, in fact, auto-correlated.
10
Feeley, Thomas, Seyoung Lee, and Shin-Il Moon. "A Journal-Level Analysis of Progress in Transplantation." Progress in Transplantation 28, no. 1 (2017): 19–23. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1526924817746914.
Full textAbstract:
Context: Citations to articles published in academic journals represent a proxy for influence in bibliometrics. Objective: To measure the journal impact factor for Progress in Transplantation over time and to also identify related journals indexed in transplantation and surgery. Design: Data from Journal Citation Reports (ISI web of science) were used to rank Progress in Transplantation compared to peer journals using journal impact and journal relatedness measures. Social network analysis was used to measure relationships between pairs of journals in Progress in Transplantation’s relatedness network. Main Outcome Measures: Journal impact factor and journal relatedness. Results: Data from 2010 through 2015 indicate the average journal article in PIT was cited 0.87 times (standard deviation [SD] = 0.12) and this estimate was stable over time. Progress in Transplantation most often cited American Journal of Transplantation, Transplantation, American Journal of Kidney Diseases, and Liver Transplantation. In terms of cited data, the journal was most often referenced by Clinical Transplantation, Transplant International, and Current Opinion in Organ Transplantation. Conclusion: The journal is listed both in surgery and transplantation categories of Journal Citation Reports and its impact factors over time fare better with surgery journals than with transplant journals. Network data using betweenness centrality indicate Progress in Transplantation links transplantation-focused journals and journals indexed in health sciences categories.
Dissertations / Theses on the topic "Journal Citation Reports ™ Impact Factor"
1
Craft, Emalee, Rachel Ogumbo, and Marion Slack. "Use of CONSORT Criteria for Reporting Randomized Controlled Trials in Pharmacy Journals." The University of Arizona, 2012. http://hdl.handle.net/10150/614462.
Full textAbstract:
Class of 2012 Abstract<br>Specific Aims: To explore whether publishing requirements for human-centered randomized control trials, particularly the CONSORT criteria, have any relationship to impact as measured by the Journal Citation Reports ™ Impact Factor.
Methods: A worksheet was used to evaluate a methodically selected list of journals, including types of articles published, requirements of authors for human-focused randomized control trials, JCR Impact Factor and other JCR metrics for each specific journal title. A worksheet was filled out for each journal by each member of the research team and answers combined for consensus. Group means and SDs were calculated and the Student’s t-Test applied to values for selected journals.
Main Results: 50 candidate pharmacy journals were identified and 41 met the criteria for publishing human-centered randomized control trials. Journals were grouped according to whether they required CONSORT or had other reporting requirements for human RCTs, or had no requirements for such studies. Few (6; 15%) pharmacy journals required authors to use CONSORT; and additional 15 (37%) journals provided as least some author guidelines similar to CONSORT. Pharmacy journals using CONSORT or other guidelines had a higher average impact factor (3.5; SD = 1.5) than did journals without guidelines (2.4; SD = 0.9; p = 0.007).
Conclusions: There appears to be a statistical difference in average JCR metrics between journals which require specific RCT guidelines and those which do not. The use of reporting guidelines, such as CONSORT, by pharmacy journals is associated with increased impact as represented by JCR influence measures.
2
Brown), (E Ashley Rogers. "Building a Better Mousetrap: Capturing New Data in ISI Journal Citation Reports and Local Journal Utilization Reports to Support Academic Collection Managers." Thesis, School of Information and Library Science, 2006. http://hdl.handle.net/1901/312.
Full textAbstract:
The ISI provides librarians with tools such as the Journal Citation Reports (JCR) and the institution specific Local Journal Utilization Report (LJUR) to aid in the management of serials collections. These tools enable librarians to respond quickly to changes in publishing practices and purchasing options. While available literature often criticizes ISI data, few studies provide concrete recommendations for improvement. This study explores two extensions to LJUR: (1) adding citation date and (2) creating institution specific impact factors. In addition, I explore the degree to which self-citations influence the ISI impact factor. Publication and citation calculations are made for three prominent southern universities’ research chemists using a corpus of full text articles drawn from 27 American Chemical Society (ACS) journals and stored in an Oracle database. The ACS research corpus impact factor simulation and ACS research corpus self-citation omission impact factor are also created and compared with current JCR data.
3
Jones, Teresa Helen. "From health research to clinical practice : understanding pathways that use journal articles and informing impact assessment." Thesis, Brunel University, 2017. http://bura.brunel.ac.uk/handle/2438/15606.
Full textAbstract:
For biomedical research to improve clinical practice, and for funding levels to be sustained, it is increasingly important to understand the pathways from research to clinical practice and to assess the societal impact of research. Approaches to research evaluation through traditional study of journals, journal articles and standard citation analysis, have played comparatively small roles in these developments. In this thesis I critically review how I applied existing methods, and developed a new approach, to study two pathways from research to clinical practice. For Pathway 1, questionnaire surveys of clinicians' views on journals read to inform their clinical practice, and comparisons with impact factors, revealed that a few journals were read widely and considered important by clinicians. Relationships between journal importance and impact factor were complex. For Pathway 2, I applied a novel methodology to identify important citations to four key research papers in an attempt to trace important citations through numerous citing generations. My findings included: few cited papers were important to the citing papers; the number of citation occasions within the citing paper correlated strongly with a cited paper's importance; self-citations were also important; and it was feasible to trace through a series of generations of citations. Evidence of societal impact of the four key research papers examined in my studies included important papers in subsequent generations cited in clinical guidelines, many of which were international. In assessing the impact of my own studies, I found Pathway 1 papers had societal impact on research evaluation methodology; journal editorial policy; and medical library provision policy and practice. Societal impacts of the new methodology, Pathway 2, included informing further methodological development and research evaluation. My portfolio, together with my critical review, adds understanding and provides additional data to current assessment methods of wider impacts of research, and bases for further studies.
4
Montefusco, Adilson Marcos. "A influência de autores estrangeiros no aumento de citações em periódicos brasileiros de medicina: uma análise bibliométrica." Universidade de São Paulo, 2018. http://www.teses.usp.br/teses/disponiveis/5/5143/tde-23042018-122038/.
Full textAbstract:
Introdução: Muito se tem discutido sobre o desafio de aumentar o impacto das publicações brasileiras. Comparado com outros países, o Brasil possui alta taxa de publicação, mas com baixo índice de citação por documento. Enquanto instituições de fomento e de pesquisa propõem a cooperação internacional como meio de aumentar o impacto das publicações científicas, os editores de periódicos contestam essa exigência. Objetivo: Avaliar se nos periódicos brasileiros de medicina, o número de citações recebidas é influenciado pelo tipo de afiliação dos autores e por outras variáveis relacionadas ao documento ou ao periódico. Métodos: Foram analisados 61 periódicos de medicina publicados no Brasil em 2012, utilizando o SCImago e o Scopus para a extração dos artigos e seus dados. O número de citações de um documento num período de cinco anos foi analisado de acordo com a afiliação dos autores (nacional, internacional ou colaboração), idioma e tipo do documento, indicador SCImago e categoria do assunto do periódico. Resultados: Análises univariadas mostraram que todas as variáveis testadas influenciaram o número de citações recebidas. Após ajuste de covariáveis pela análise multivariada observamos aumento de citações em 0,17 (IC 95%: 0,094-0,246) para documentos com afiliação em colaboração quando comparado à afiliação nacional. Aumento significativo no número de citações foram observados em documentos em idioma bilíngue (Inglês e Português) 0,329 (IC 95%: 0,256-0,402) e apenas em Inglês 0,158 (IC 95%: 0,086-0,231) quando comparado a documentos em português, do tipo artigo 1,716 (IC 95%: 1,410-2,021) e artigo de Revisão 2,931 (IC 95%: 2,618-3,245) quando comparados a artigo no prelo e que possuem categoria de assunto Hematologia 1,280 (IC 95%: 1,019-1,540), entre outros, quando comparado ao assunto geriatria e gerontologia. Conclusão: Documentos com autoria em colaboração, aumentaram, de modo discreto, o índice de citação nos periódicos de interesse, quando comparados aos de autoria nacional. Idioma, tipo do documento, indicador Scimago (cites per doc - 2 years) e categoria do assunto do periódico influenciaram significantemente o número de citações recebidas<br>Introduction: The challenge of increasing the impact of Brazilian science has been much discussed. Compared with other countries, Brazil has a high publication rate, but with low citation index per document. While sponsoring and research institutions are proposing international cooperation as a means of increasing the impact of science, journal editors question this demand. Objective: To evaluate whether, in Brazilian medical journals, the number of received citations is influenced by the type of authors affiliation and other variables related to the document or to the journal. Methods: A total of 61 medical journals published in Brazil in 2012 were analyzed, SCImago and Scopus were used to extract the articles and their data. The number of citations of a document over five years was analyzed according to the authors\' affiliation (national, international or in collaboration), language and document type, SCImago index and journal subject category. Results: Univariate analyses showed that all tested variables influenced the number of received citations. After adjusting for covariates by multivariate analysis, we observed an increase of citations in 0.17 (95% CI: 0.094-0.246) for documents with affiliation in collaboration when compared to national affiliation. A significant increase in the number of citations was observed in bilingual documents (English and Portuguese) 0.329 (95% CI: 0.256-0.402) and only English 0.158 (95% CI: 0.086-0.231) when compared to documents in Portuguese, document type: Article 1.716 (95% CI: 1.410-2.021) and Review 2.931 (95% CI: 2.618-3.245) when compared to Article-in-Press and that have subject category Hematology 1.280 (95% CI: 1.019-1.540), among others, when compared to geriatrics and gerontology. Conclusion: Documents with authorship in collaboration increased, in a discreet way, the citation index in journals of interest, when compared to those with national authorship. Language, document type, SCImago index (cites per doc 2 years) and journal subject category significantly influenced the number of received citations
5
Nourmohammadi, Hamzehali. "Über die szientometrische Bedeutung des Impact-Faktors." Doctoral thesis, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Philosophische Fakultät I, 2007. http://dx.doi.org/10.18452/15622.
Full textAbstract:
Auf der Basis des Impact-Faktors, entsprechend der Definition Eugene Garfields, werden die Implikationen dieses IF für szientometrische Überlegungen und deren Folgen für das Zeitschriftenwesen untersucht. Die Ergebnisse der vorliegenden Arbeit zeigen: Der Impact-Faktor ist ein Wert, der einen Hinweis auf den durchschnittlichen Bekanntheitsgrad eines Beitrags in einer vom SCI erfassten Zeitschrift gibt. Der Impact-Faktor ist ein Wert, der in hohem Maße vom Umfang des SCI bestimmt ist. Über die dort erfassten Zitationen wird ermittelt, wie oft eine Zeitschrift zitiert worden ist. Der Impact-Faktor ist in hohem Maße davon bestimmt, in wieweit die Quellen zugänglich sind, die zitiert werden. Der lineare Zusammenhang, den R. Rousseau und G.V. Hooydonk (1996) zwischen dem Impact-Faktor von Zeitschriften und der Zahl der darin erschienenen Aufsätze (Produktion) hergestellt haben, gilt nur in dem von ihnen untersuchten Bereich des Impact-Faktors 0,5 – 3. Bei höheren Werten kommt es zu einer Abflachung, bei Werten über 7 sogar zu einer Umkehr der Steigung. Es gibt einen Zusammenhang zwischen der Höhe des Impact-Faktors und seinem jährlichen Zuwachs im SCI. Je höher der IF, desto höher ist auch sein jährlicher Anstieg. Bei genauerer Analyse zeigte sich, dass der Zuwachs, zum Zeitpunkt der vorliegenden Untersuchung, gegen einen Grenzwert von 0,42 ging. Die Impact-Faktoren von Zeitschriften und deren Preise für die Abonnements hängen statistisch nur schwach voneinander ab. Ob Zeitschriften erworben werden müssen ist weitaus stärker von den Zitationen abhängig, die diese Zeitschriften auf sich versammeln. Der IF steigt mit der Auflagenhöhe von Zeitschriften, wenn diese bereits einen höheren IF aufweisen. Für wissenschaftliche Autoren ist der Druck, in Zeitschriften mit einem hohen IF zu publizieren, beobachtsam. Je höher dieser allgemeine Druck ist, desto geringer ist die Wahrscheinlichkeit für einen einzelnen Autor wiederholt in derartigen Zeitschriften publizieren zu können.<br>The current thesis investigates the Impact Factor (IF) in scientific journals and its consequences for scientometric considerations. The results are: The Impact Factor is a value for Journals listed in the Science Citation Index, which show the average degree of acquaintance in the scientific community. It is much less a sign of quality than often believed. The IF is highly determined by the degree of the extent of the SCI. The Impact Factor is also, to a considerable degree determined by the availability of the cited sources. Methodological the IF depends strongly on the topical adjustment of the SCI. A linear correlation, found by R. Rousseau and G.V. Hooydonk (1996) between the Impact Factor and the number of papers per journal, is only valid in the analysed range of 0.5 - 3 examined by these authors. At higher IF values it comes to a flattening, and for values greater 7 even to a reversal of the curve. There is an annual increase of the Impact Factor in the SCI, in which the annual rate is rising as higher the IF is. More exact analyses have shown that the increase had an upper of 0.42, at the investigated time. Impact factors of Journals and prices for their relations depend only on a weak statistic from each other. Whether Journal is acquired, depends by far more strongly on the citations, which meets these magazines on itself. The IF rises with the number of copies of magazines if these already exhibit a higher IF. A clear separation between a cause and effect cannot be recognized here. It would be both possible that Journals with high IF experience increased demand, so that the copy number thereby rises and that the IF rises, because the Journal enjoys a high interest. Scientific authors are under pressure to publish in journals with Ifs as high as possible. The higher this general pressure is the smaller is the probability for an author to publish in such journals repeatedly. Exceptions are the publishers or editors of these Journals.
Book chapters on the topic "Journal Citation Reports ™ Impact Factor"
1
Mathur, Vijay, and Ashutosh Sharma. "Understanding journal impact factor and citation index." In Publish and Flourish: A Practical Guide for Effective Scientific Writing. Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd., 2011. http://dx.doi.org/10.5005/jp/books/11313_29.
Full text
2
Baykoucheva, Svetla. "From the Science Citation Index to the Journal Impact Factor and Web of Science." In Managing Scientific Information and Research Data. Elsevier, 2015. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-08-100195-0.00012-3.
Full textConference papers on the topic "Journal Citation Reports ™ Impact Factor"
1
Jasim, Kawthar Hasan. "The Critical Care Medicine Research: A Systematic Review." In Qatar University Annual Research Forum & Exhibition. Qatar University Press, 2020. http://dx.doi.org/10.29117/quarfe.2020.0205.
Full textAbstract:
Objectives: The cost-effectiveness terminology is a common term used in the critical care medicine research. A systematic review analysis was conducted to study the patterns of the use and misuse of the cost-effectiveness terminology in the critical care medicine literature between 1998 and 2018. Methods: A search in the inCite journal citation report was done to identify all the critical care medicine journals. An independednt search done to identify all the articles between 1980 to 2018 that claimed in their abstracts/article to perform a cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA). Eligible articles were included and analyzed using x2-test. The articles were categorized into four different levels based on the appropriateness of CEA terminology use. The analysis performed to assess the association between the appropriateness of CEA terminology and the journal impact factor (IF), author background, and the publication year (5-year time points). Results: Out of 7,835 articles in targeted subject category, 76 met the inclusion criteria, but 50 of them were analyzed. Of these 50 articles, 32 (64.0%) met the appropriate criterion of CEA terminology use. 71.4% of articles published in journals with IF: 3.0 - 21.4 were appropriately using CEA term compared to 54.5% studies that are published in journals with IF: 0.4 - 2.8. Of these articles, which are appropriately use CEA terminology, 56.2% of the articles have at least one author with health economics expertise. Conclusion and recommendation: The preliminary data suggest that there is an association between the level of appropriateness and journal impact factor and the author health-economic background authorship. However, we did not demonstrate changes in the level of appropriateness with time. Decision-makers, authors, and editors should pay better attention in seeking ways to monitor the appropriate use of “cost-effectiveness” terminology. More future studies should be done in this context.
2
Silva, Eduardo, and Paulo Gabriel. "Genetic algorithms and multiprocessor task scheduling: A systematic literature review." In Encontro Nacional de Inteligência Artificial e Computacional. Sociedade Brasileira de Computação - SBC, 2019. http://dx.doi.org/10.5753/eniac.2019.9288.
Full textAbstract:
This paper reports a systematic review of the literature about genetic algorithms applied to the multiprocessor task scheduling problem. After defining a protocol with the main rules of this review, the research was performed considering journal papers published between 1990 and 2018. At the end of this process, 37 works were recovered and analyzed. By performing a meta-analysis, a variety of information was extracted and summarized, including impact factor, Eigenfactor score, scenarios considered, optimization metrics, volume of citations, and others.
3
Mao, Jin, Xun Xu, Lihui Wang, and Stephen Newman. "A Statistic Review of Computer-Aided Process Planning Research." In ASME 2010 International Manufacturing Science and Engineering Conference. ASMEDC, 2010. http://dx.doi.org/10.1115/msec2010-34022.
Full textAbstract:
Since the late 1970’s, computer-aided process planning (CAPP) has attracted a large amount of research interest, which has led to a huge volume of literature published on this subject. The literature encompasses both reviews and research articles. The review articles are mostly technologically oriented. This paper takes a different angle to look back the CAPP research, that is, a statistic approach. The paper analyses the journals that have been publishing CAPP research works. The concept of “Subject Strength” of a journal is introduced and used to gauge the level of focus of a journal on a particular research subject/domain, i.e. CAPP. Discussions about the recent CAPP research works are presented in different categories as they fall in. The term “Technology Impact Factor (TIF)” is introduced to assess the level of impact of a particular technology, in terms of citation counts. All discussions and analyses are carried out based on the data gathered from the Elsevier’s Scopus abstract and citation database. Finally, a discussion on the future development is presented. The literature suggests that this is the only review article of the similar nature in the first decade of the century.