To see the other types of publications on this topic, follow the link: Journal Citation Reports ™ Impact Factor.
Journal articles on the topic 'Journal Citation Reports ™ Impact Factor'
Create a spot-on reference in APA, MLA, Chicago, Harvard, and other styles
Consult the top 50 journal articles for your research 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.
Browse journal articles on a wide variety of disciplines and organise your bibliography correctly.
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.
11
Haddow, Gaby. "Level 1 COUNTER Compliant Vendor Statistics are a Reliable Measure of Journal Usage." Evidence Based Library and Information Practice 2, no. 2 (2007): 84. http://dx.doi.org/10.18438/b83g6s.
Full textAbstract:
A review of:
 
 Duy, Joanna and Liwen Vaughan. “Can Electronic Journal Usage Data Replace Citation Data as a Measure of Journal Use? An Empirical Examination.” The Journal of Academic Librarianship 32.5 (Sept. 2006): 512-17.
 
 Abstract
 
 Objective – To identify valid measures of journal usage by comparing citation data with print and electronic journal use data.
 
 Design – Bibliometric study.
 
 Setting – Large academic library in Canada.
 
 Subjects – Instances of use were collected from 11 print journals of the American Chemical Society (ACS), 9 print journals of the Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC), and electronic journals in chemistry and biochemistry from four publishers – ACS, RSC, Elsevier, and Wiley. ACS, Elsevier, and Wiley journals in chemistry-related subject areas were sampled for Journal Impact Factors and citations data from the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI).
 
 Methods – Journal usage data were collected to determine if an association existed between: (1) print and electronic journal use; (2) electronic journal use and citations to journals by authors from the university; and (3) electronic journal use and Journal Impact Factors. 
 
 Between June 2000 and September 2003, library staff recorded the re-shelving of bound volumes and loose issues of 20 journal titles published by the ACS and the RSC. 
 
 Electronic journal usage data were collected for journals published by ACS, RSC, Elsevier, and Wiley within the ISI-defined chemistry and biochemistry subject area. Data were drawn from the publishers’ Level 1 COUNTER compliant usage statistics. These data equate 1 instance of use with a user viewing an HTML or PDF full text article. The period of data collection varied, but at least 2.5 years of data were collected for each publisher. 
 
 Journal Impact Factors were collected for all ISI chemistry-related journals published by ACS, Elsevier, and Wiley for the year 2001. Library Journal Utilization Reports (purchased from ISI) were used to determine the number of times researchers at the university cited journals in the same set of chemistry-related journals over the period 1998 to 2002. The authors call this “local citation data.” (512)
 
 The results from electronic journal use were also analysed for correlation with the total number of citations, as reported in the Journal Citation Reports, for each journal in the sample.
 
 Main results – The study found a significant correlation between the results for print journal and electronic journal usage. A similar finding was reported for correlation between electronic journal usage data and local citation data. No significant association was found between Journal Impact Factors and electronic journal usage data. However, when an analysis was conducted for the total number of citations to the journals (drawn from the Journal Impact Factor calculations in Journal Citation Reports) and electronic journal use, significant correlations were found for all publishers’ journals.
 
 Conclusion – Within the fields of chemistry and biochemistry, electronic journal usage data provided by publishers are an equally valid method of determining journal usage as print journal re-shelving data. The results of the study indicate this association is valid even when print journal subscriptions have ceased. Local citation data (the citations made by researchers at the institution being studied) also provide a valid measure of journal use when compared with electronic journal usage results. Journal Impact Factors should be used with caution when libraries are making journal collection decisions.
12
Wiley, Zachary C., Carter J. Boyd, Shivani Ananthasekar, Nita Bhat, Shruthi Harish Bindiganavile, and Andrew G. Lee. "Examining the Relationship between Altmetric Score and Traditional Bibliometrics in the Ophthalmology Literature for 2013 and 2016 Cohorts." Journal of Academic Ophthalmology 13, no. 01 (2021): e95-e101. http://dx.doi.org/10.1055/s-0041-1728658.
Full textAbstract:
Abstract Background In this study, we reviewed a select sample of ophthalmology literature to determine if there was a correlation between Altimetric and traditional citation-based and impact factor metrics. We hypothesized that Altmetric score would more closely correlate with impact factor and citations in 2016. Methods Journal Citation Reports for the year 2013 was used to find the 15 highest impact factor ophthalmology journals in 2013. Then Elsevier's Scopus was used to identify the 10 most cited articles from each journal for the years 2013 and 2016. Metrics for all identified articles were collected using the Altmetric Bookmarklet, and date of Twitter account creation was noted for journals with such an account. Altmetric scores, impact factor, and citation counts were tabulated for each article. Pearson's correlation coefficient (r) determined correlation of independent variables (number of citations or impact factor) with dependent variable (Altmetric score). For our Twitter analysis, account age was the independent variable and calculated correlation coefficients (r) were the dependent variable. Proportion of variance was determined with a coefficient of determination (R 2). Results This study included 300 articles, evenly split between 2013 and 2016. Within the 2013 cohort, three journals had significant positive correlations between citation count and Altmetric score. For the 2016 cohort, both Altmetric score and citation count (r = 0.583, p < 0.001) and Altmetric score and impact factor (r = 0.183, p = 0.025) revealed significant positive correlations. In 2016, two journals were found to have significant correlations between Altmetric score and citation number. Neither year revealed a significant correlation between the age of a journal's Twitter profile and the relationship between Altmetric score and citation count. In each year, Twitter accounted for the highest number of mentions. Conclusion The findings suggest that correlation between Altmetric score and traditional quality metric scores may be increasing. Altmetric score was correlated with impact factor and number of citations in 2016 but not 2013. At this time, Altmetrics are best used as an adjunct that is complementary but not an alternative to traditional bibliometrics for assessing academic productivity and impact.
13
Salisbury, Lutishoor. "Scopus CiteScore and Clarivate Journal Citation Reports." Charleston Advisor 21, no. 4 (2020): 5–15. http://dx.doi.org/10.5260/chara.21.4.5.
Full textAbstract:
This review compares Scopus CiteScore (free resource) and Clarivate Journal Citation Reports (subscription resource). It focuses on the similarities and differences in these two database(s) primarily their searching interfaces, elements included in the records; and the availability of useful help. It uses two sets of journals to compare their content; highlight their assignments in various categories; in quartiles within these categories; and their difference and similarities of their Impact Factor.
14
Haghdoost, Aliakbar, Morteza Zare, and Azam Bazrafshan. "How variable are the journal impact measures?" Online Information Review 38, no. 6 (2014): 723–37. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/oir-05-2014-0102.
Full textAbstract:
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to examine the variability of the impact factor (IF) and additional metrics in biomedical journals to provide some clues to the reliability of journal citation indicators. Design/methodology/approach – Having used ISI Journal Citation Reports, from 2005 to 2011, the authors extracted 62 subject categories related to biomedical sciences. The category lists and citation profile for each journal were then downloaded and extracted. Coefficient of variation was applied to estimate the overall variability of the journal citation indicators. Findings – Total citation indicators for 3,411 journals were extracted and examined. The overall variability of IFs and other journal citation measures in basic, clinical or translational, open access or subscription journals decreased while the quality and prestige of those journals developed. Interestingly, journal citation measures produced dissimilar variability trends and thus highlighted the importance of using multiple instead of just one measure in evaluating the performance and influence of biomedical journals. Eigenfactor™, Article's Influence and Cited Half Life proposed as more reliable indicators. Originality/value – The relative variability of the journal citation measures in biomedical journals would decrease with a development in the impact and quality of journals. Eigenfactor™ and Cited Half Life are suggested as more reliable measures indicating few changes during the study period and across different impact level journals. These findings will be useful for librarians, researchers and decision makers who need to use citation measures as evaluative tools.
15
Lustosa, Luiggi Araujo, Mario Edmundo Pastrana Chalco, Cecília de Melo Borba, André Eizo Higa, and Renan Moritz Varnier Rodrigues Almeida. "Citation distribution profile in Brazilian journals of general medicine." Sao Paulo Medical Journal 130, no. 5 (2012): 314–17. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/s1516-31802012000500008.
Full textAbstract:
CONTEXT AND OBJECTIVE: Impact factors are currently the bibliometric index most used for evaluating scientific journals. However, the way in which they are used, for instance concerning the study or journal types analyzed, can markedly interfere with estimate reliability. This study aimed to analyze the citation distribution pattern in three Brazilian journals of general medicine. DESIGN AND SETTING: This was a descriptive study based on numbers of citations of scientific studies published by three Brazilian journals of general medicine. METHODS: The journals analyzed were São Paulo Medical Journal, Clinics and Revista da Associação Médica Brasileira. This survey used data available from the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) platform, from which the total number of papers published in each journal in 2007-2008 and the number of citations of these papers in 2009 were obtained. From these data, the citation distribution was derived and journal impact factors (average number of citations) were estimated. These factors were then compared with those directly available from the ISI Journal of Citation Reports (JCR). RESULTS: Respectively, 134, 203 and 192 papers were published by these journals during the period analyzed. The observed citation distributions were highly skewed, such that many papers had few citations and a small percentage had many citations. It was not possible to identify any specific pattern for the most cited papers or to exactly reproduce the JCR impact factors. CONCLUSION: Use of measures like "impact factors", which characterize citations through averages, does not adequately represent the citation distribution in the journals analyzed.
16
Berhidi, Anna, Péter Szluka, and Lívia Vasas. "Az Orvosi Hetilap idézetelemzése mutatószámok alapján 2012 és 2016 között." Orvosi Hetilap 159, no. 30 (2018): 1226–34. http://dx.doi.org/10.1556/650.2018.31104.
Full textAbstract:
Abstract: Introduction: After getting indexed by scientific databases – Web of Science, Journal Citation Reports – the obtained scientific performance of the journal needs to be kept up. Aim: The aim of this article is to analyse citation numbers based on different bibliometric indicators between 2012 and 2016 comparing data with an article published in 2012. Method: Authors evaluated issues of Orvosi Hetilap published in 2013–2015 and searched data in various international databases. Number of citations, quality of citing journals were analysed based on the official 2015–2016 impact factor of Orvosi Hetilap. Scientific performance of the journal was evaluated according to data of SCImago webpage and Scopus database as well. Results: The official 2016 impact factor of Orvosi Hetilap is 0,349 which is the highest value compared with the previous factors. The articles of Orvosi Hetilap are cited by international authors and high impact factor journals, too. Further, more than half of the publications cited are open access. The most frequently cited categories are original and review articles, and case reports. Scientific performance of Orvosi Hetilap is promising according to indicators of SCImago webpage and Scopus database. Mean self-citation rate of the journal is about 30%. Its h-index is 7 in Web of Science Core Collection, and 19 in Scopus database. Conclusions: Citation analysis of this article shows that citation numbers and various bibliometric indicators can increase in a short period, but drastic changes can only happen in a long period with keeping and pushing the obtained values, and focusing on the further development of the journal. Orv Hetil. 2018; 159(30): 1226–1234.
17
Murray, Gregg, Rebecca Hellen, James Ralph, and Siona Ni Raghallaigh. "Comparison of Traditional Citation Metrics and Altmetrics Among Dermatology Journals: Content and Correlational Analysis Study." JMIR Dermatology 3, no. 1 (2020): e15643. http://dx.doi.org/10.2196/15643.
Full textAbstract:
Background Research impact has traditionally been measured using citation count and impact factor (IF). Academics have long relied heavily on this form of metric system to measure a publication’s impact. A higher number of citations is viewed as an indicator of the importance of the research and a marker for the impact of the publishing journal. Recently, social media and online news sources have become important avenues for dissemination of research, resulting in the emergence of an alternative metric system known as altmetrics. Objective We assessed the correlation between altmetric attention score (AAS) and traditional scientific impact markers, namely journal IF and article citation count, for all the dermatology journal and published articles of 2017. Methods We identified dermatology journals and their associated IFs available in 2017 using InCites Journal Citation Reports. We entered all 64 official dermatology journals into Altmetric Explorer, a Web-based platform that enables users to browse and report on all attention data for every piece of scholarly content for which Altmetric Explorer has found attention. Results For the 64 dermatology journals, there was a moderate positive correlation between journal IF and journal AAS (rs=.513, P<.001). In 2017, 6323 articles were published in the 64 dermatology journals. Our data show that there was a weak positive correlation between the traditional article citation count and AAS (rs=.257, P<.001). Conclusions Our data show a weak correlation between article citation count and AAS. Temporal factors may explain this weak association. Newer articles may receive increased online attention after publication, while it may take longer for scientific citation counts to accumulate. Stories that are at times deemed newsworthy and then disseminated across the media and social media platforms border on sensationalism and may not be truly academic in nature. The opposite can also be true.
18
Cummins, Paul, and Patrick W. Serruys. "The Journal Citation Reports® Impact Factor: annual results 2016." EuroIntervention 12, no. 4 (2016): 415–16. http://dx.doi.org/10.4244/eijv12i4a72.
Full text
19
Cummins, Paul, and Patrick W. Serruys. "The Journal Citation Reports® Impact Factor: annual results 2012." EuroIntervention 9, no. 3 (2013): 294–95. http://dx.doi.org/10.4244/eijv9i3a48.
Full text
20
Coelho, D. H., L. W. Edelmayer, and J. E. Fenton. "Citation analysis of otorhinolaryngology journals: follow-up study." Journal of Laryngology & Otology 129, no. 5 (2015): 489–93. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s002221511500050x.
Full textAbstract:
AbstractObjective:This study aimed to evaluate the changes in impact factors of otorhinolaryngology journals over the past 15 years.Method:Using the online edition of Journal Citation Reports, standard (2-year) and 5-year impact factors were calculated for the leading 15 journals.Results:The results were compared with the impact factors for 1998. The average standard impact factor and 5-year impact factor increased by 2.72 and 2.05 fold respectively when compared with 1998. The average 2012 standard impact factor and 5-year impact factor were 1.82 and 1.99 respectively, reflecting a 9.3 per cent difference. The average 1998 standard impact factor and 5-year impact factor were 0.67 and 0.97 respectively, reflecting a 44.8 per cent difference. The Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology had the highest standard and five-year impact factors.Conclusion:These data may indicate changing clinical and research interests within our field, as well as increased speed and ease with which the internet has allowed citation. As a result, five-year intervals may no longer be necessary to adequately gauge journal impact.
21
Kjaer. "Diagnostics Receives First Impact Factor." Diagnostics 9, no. 2 (2019): 64. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics9020064.
Full text
22
Reid, Greg, and Dale A. Ulrich. "The Impact Factor and APAQ." Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly 18, no. 2 (2001): 119–26. http://dx.doi.org/10.1123/apaq.18.2.119.
Full textAbstract:
The impact factor is a measure of the frequency with which the “average article” in a journal has been cited in a particular year or period (Journal Citation Reports; http://jcr.isihost.com). Specifically, it is the ratio of the number of articles from the journal cited over a given time period to the number of articles published by that journal during the same period. It is an objective measure of the journal’s importance, especially when compared to others in the same field. The purpose of the present study was to compare the impact factor of APAQ to 11 other journals in sport science, special education, and rehabilitation. The impact factor of APAQ compares quite favorably to most other journals in sport science, special education, and rehabilitation. However, it is strikingly different in 1998 and 1999, and therefore scholars should monitor it closely in the next few years while remembering it is only one estimate of journal prestige.
23
Biglu, Mohammad Hossein. "Tendency towards the Self-citation among Journals in Iran and Turkey." Bilgi Dünyası 8, no. 2 (2007): 297–309. http://dx.doi.org/10.15612/bd.2007.343.
Full textAbstract:
This paper investigates the trends of Impact Factors and self-citation rates of journals indexed in the JCR by two neighbouring countries Iran and Turkey for a period of five years (2000- 2005). All data extracted from the Journal Citation Reports – Science Edition (2000-2005). The study showed that the portion of Turkish journals entering data to the JCR data bank is two times higher than the portion of Iranian journals. From a total number of 6,088 journals in the JCR in 2005, 3 (0.05%) were published in Iran and the same number of journals published in Turkey. The 6,088 journals in the JCR produced 847,114 articles, 159 (0.02%) appeared in the Iranian journals and 352 (0.04%) in the Turkish journals. Of the 22,353,992 citations in 2005, 214 (0.001%) came from Iranian journals and 911 (0.004%) came from Turkish journals.
 The self-citation tendency by Iranian journals has increased dramatically throughout the period of study, it reached from 8% self-citation rate in 2000 to 18% in 2005, an increase of 2.25 times, whereas the self-citation rate by Turkish journals showed a negative trend, its self-citation rate fell from 22% in 2002 to 15% in 2005. The Impact Factors of Turkish journals showed faster growth than the Iranian journals, the mean value of Impact Factor for Turkish journals in 2000 was 0.49 under than the mean value of Impact Factor for Iranian journals, but in 2005 the mean value of Impact Factor for Turkish journals stayed 0.14 higher than the mean value of Impact Factor for Iranian journals.
24
Zhang, Zhi-Qiang. "Significant impact of developing countries and emerging markets in Systematic and Applied Acarology." Systematic and Applied Acarology 24, no. 7 (2019): 1121–23. http://dx.doi.org/10.11158/saa.24.7.1.
Full textAbstract:
Journal impact factors for 2018 were recently announced by Clarivate Analytics in the June 2019 edition of Journal Citation Reports (JCR). In this editorial, I compared the impact factor of Systematic and Applied Acarology (SAA) with those of other main acarological journals as I did in Zhang (2017). Following Zhang (2018a), I also highlighted the top 10 SAA papers from 2016/2017 with the highest numbers of citations in 2018 (according to JCR June 2019 edition). In addition, I remarked on the increasing impact of developing countries and emerging markets in systematic and applied acarology, both in the number of publications and citations, and also include announcements of meetings on applied acarology.
25
Dilevko, Juris, and Esther Atkinson. "Evaluating Academic Journals without Impact Factors for Collection Management Decisions." College & Research Libraries 63, no. 6 (2002): 562–77. http://dx.doi.org/10.5860/crl.63.6.562.
Full textAbstract:
Evaluation of academic journals for collection management decisions is made all the more difficult when some journals do not have impact factors as assigned by the Institute for Scientific Information and its Journal Citation Reports. Focusing on science, technology, and medicine journals, this study presents a method of evaluating such nonranked journals. The method is based on finding a comparator journal to the nonranked journal, distinguishing between original research articles and other article types, tracing citations to these two target journals in citing journals, comparing the quality of the citing journals that cite both target journals, and describing the contextual typology of the citations to the target journals. A case study of two medical science journals, the nonranked Annals of the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada and the comparator ranked Canadian Family Physician, illustrates the method. This method can help in determining the value of a nonranked journal in relation to a ranked journal.
26
Campanario, Juan. "Journals that Rise from the Fourth Quartile to the First Quartile in Six Years or Less: Mechanisms of Change and the Role of Journal Self-Citations." Publications 6, no. 4 (2018): 47. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/publications6040047.
Full textAbstract:
Journal self-citations may be increased artificially to inflate a journal’s scientometric indicators. The aim of this study was to identify possible mechanisms of change in a cohort of journals that rose from the fourth (Q4) to the first quartile (Q1) over six years or less in Journal Citation Reports (JCR), and the role of journal self-citations in these changes. A total of 51 different journals sampled from all JCR Science Citation Index (SCI) subject categories improved their rank position from Q4 in 2009 to Q1 in any year from 2010 to 2015. I identified changes in the numerator or denominator of the Journal Impact Factor (JIF) that were involved in each year-to-year transition. The main mechanism of change was the increase in the number of citations used to compute the JIF. The effect of journal self-citations in the increase of the JIF was studied. The main conclusion is that there was no evidence of widespread JIF manipulation through the overuse of journal self-citations.
27
Kim, Sang-Jun, and Kay Sook Park. "Influence of the top 10 journal publishers listed in Journal Citation Reports based on six indicators." Science Editing 7, no. 2 (2020): 142–48. http://dx.doi.org/10.6087/kcse.209.
Full textAbstract:
Purpose: : An accurate evaluation of the influence of the largest publishers in world journal publishing is a starting point for negotiating journal subscriptions and an important issue for research libraries. This study was conducted to evaluate the influence of the largest publishers based on Journal Citation Reports (JCR) indicators.Methods: From JCR 2014 to 2018 data, a unique journal list by publisher was created in Excel. The top 10 publishers were selected and evaluated in terms of the average share of six JCR indicators including the impact factor, Eigenfactor score, and article influence score, along with the number of journals, articles, and citations.Results: The top three publishers accounted for about 50% of the JCR indicators, the top five for 60%, and the top 10 for 70%. Therefore, the concentration of the top three publishers, with a share exceeding 50% for five indicators, was more intensive than has been reported in previous studies. For the top 10 publishers, not only the number of journals and articles, but also citations and the impact factor, which reflect the practical use of journals, were increasing.Conclusion: These evaluation results will be important to research libraries and librarians in deciding upon journal subscriptions using publisher information, to journal publishers trying to list their journals in JCR, and to consortium operators to negotiate strategically. Using the unique journal list created in this research process, various follow-up studies are possible. However, it is also urgent to build a standardized world journal list with accurate information.
28
Navarrete-Cortés, José, Juan Antonio Fernández-López, Alfonso López-Baena, Raúl Quevedo-Blasco, and Gualberto Buela-Casal. "Global psychology: a bibliometric analysis of Web of Science publications." Universitas Psychologica 9, no. 2 (2010): 553–67. http://dx.doi.org/10.11144/javeriana.upsy9-2.gpba.
Full textAbstract:
In this study, we carried a classification by country based on the analysis of the scientific production of psychology journals. We analyzed a total of 108,741 documents, published in the Web of Science. The indicators used were the Weighted Impact Factor, the Relative Impact Factor, the Citation Rate per article and the articles published in the top five journals of the Journal Citation Report (JCR). The results indicate that Spain has the highest percentage of articles in the top five journals in the JCR and Colombia is the second latin-american, Spanish-speaking country that has more citations per article. Countries like Hungary, Italy and USA, had a higher Impact Factor and Citation Rate.
29
KRAUSKOPF, Erwin, Fernanda GARCIA, and Robert FUNK. "Bibliometric analysis of multi-language veterinary journals." Transinformação 29, no. 3 (2017): 343–53. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/2318-08892017000300011.
Full textAbstract:
Abstract The purpose of this study was to investigate the association between language and total number of citations found among documents in journals written in English and other languages. We selected all the journals clustered together in the Journal Citation Reports 2014 under the subject category “Veterinary Sciences” and downloaded all the data registered between 1994-2013 by Web of Science for the journals that stated publishing documents in languages other than English. We classified each of these journals by quartile and extracted information regarding their impact factor, language(s) stated, country of origin, total number of documents published, total number of reviews published, percentage of documents published in English and the quartile in which each journal ranked. Of the 48,118 documents published by the 28 journals analyzed, 55.8% were published in English. Interestingly, although most of the journals state being multi-language, most documents published in quartile 1 journals were in English (an average of 99.2%), while the percentage was 93.1% in quartile 2 journals, 62.1% in quartile 3 journals and 27.4% in quartile 4 journals. We also confirmed that citation distribution in these journals was highly skewed. The results of this study suggest that journals should consider adopting English as the main language as this will increase citation counts and the impact factor of the journal.
30
Filipi-Matutinovic, Stela, Aleksandra Popovic, and Sanja Antonic. "Subject category oncology in journal citation reports 2000-2006: Analysis of impact factor distribution and publishing data." Archive of Oncology 16, no. 3-4 (2008): 85–87. http://dx.doi.org/10.2298/aoo0804085f.
Full textAbstract:
Impact factor (IF) of journals is assumed an adequate measure of its importance in the scientific communication of a defined subject. It is important to have in mind that IF is varying very much in time. The range of IF for journals classified in the subject group ONCOLOGY is analyzed for the period 2000-2006. There are only seven of 127 journals in year 2006 which have IF higher than 10. The highest impact in the analyzed period has the journal CA-CANCERJ CLIN, varying from 24,674 to 63,342, but the important fact about that journal is that it publishes very small number of articles annually. The number of journals on the list also changed from 103 in 2000 to 127 in year 2006. Only one journal from the list is published in German and five are multilingual, all the rest are published in English language. Besides US (66), Great Britain (29), Holland (7), and Switzerland (6), all other 11 countries have few journals, mostly situated in the last part of the list ranked by IF. When choosing where to publish their results, scientists should consider all available facts about a journal - from its IF and the way it changes with time, to its openness, availability in libraries and on the WWW, possibility to keep author rights and put the article in an open access repository, where it will get more attention from authors that do not have access to that journal, etc.
31
Szewczykiewicz, Joanna, Iwona Skrzecz, and Katarzyna Materska. "Bibliometric analysis in the evaluation of journals published by the Forest Research Institute: Forest Research Papers and Folia Forestalia Polonica Series A – Forestry." Forest Research Papers 78, no. 3 (2017): 218–25. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/frp-2017-0024.
Full textAbstract:
Abstract In recent years, there has been a significant increase in interest in publishing articles in journals recorded by global databases, in particular the Web of Science ™ Core Collection, which indexes journals found in the Journal Citation Reports. The publication of results in these journals has a significant impact on the assessment of the achievements of researchers and scientific institutions. Our study focused on the bibliometric analysis of two journals published by the Forest Research Institute: Forest Research Papers (Leśne Prace Badawcze) and Folia Forestalia Polonica Series A – Forestry. The results of these analyses were used to develop theoretical indices for the editorial boards of these journals in terms of requirements for including both periodicals in the Journal Citation Reports. The analysis covered the volumes published in 2000–2015 and the publication activity of the journals was evaluated on the basis of the numbers of articles, references, authors and journal citations. Bibliometric indicators such as the predicted Impact Factor, the Hirsch index, the Scimago Journal Rank and the Index Copernicus Value were used to evaluate the rank of the journals within the databases. In the examined period, 65 volumes of Forest Research Papers were published, with an average of 31 articles per year containing about 14,000 references and almost 900 contributing authors. During the same time frame, 30 volumes of Folia Forestalia Polonica Series A – Forestry were published, with an average of 14 articles per year. These articles included approximately 5,000 references and 600 authors. An increase in the bibliometric indicators for both journals was observed with the Impact Factor predicted to rise to 0.192 (Forest Research Papers) and 0.178 (Folia Forestalia Polonica Series A – Forestry). In order for the two examined journals to be included in the Journal Citation Reports the following requirements need to be met: (1) an increased number of articles published by authors with significant international authority in their field, (2) a greater number of researchers, especially from developed countries, in advisory boards, (3) more articles published in individual volumes to reach higher citation numbers in databases, and (4) promotion of the most cited articles.
32
Brown, Ted, and Sharon A. Gutman. "A comparison of bibliometric indicators in occupational therapy journals published in English." Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy 86, no. 2 (2019): 125–35. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0008417419831453.
Full textAbstract:
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.
33
Kim, Jihyun, Soon Kim, Hye-Min Cho, Jae Hwa Chang, and Soo Young Kim. "Data sharing policies of journals in life, health, and physical sciences indexed in Journal Citation Reports." PeerJ 8 (October 13, 2020): e9924. http://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.9924.
Full textAbstract:
Background Many scholarly journals have established their own data-related policies, which specify their enforcement of data sharing, the types of data to be submitted, and their procedures for making data available. However, except for the journal impact factor and the subject area, the factors associated with the overall strength of the data sharing policies of scholarly journals remain unknown. This study examines how factors, including impact factor, subject area, type of journal publisher, and geographical location of the publisher are related to the strength of the data sharing policy. Methods From each of the 178 categories of the Web of Science’s 2017 edition of Journal Citation Reports, the top journals in each quartile (Q1, Q2, Q3, and Q4) were selected in December 2018. Of the resulting 709 journals (5%), 700 in the fields of life, health, and physical sciences were selected for analysis. Four of the authors independently reviewed the results of the journal website searches, categorized the journals’ data sharing policies, and extracted the characteristics of individual journals. Univariable multinomial logistic regression analyses were initially conducted to determine whether there was a relationship between each factor and the strength of the data sharing policy. Based on the univariable analyses, a multivariable model was performed to further investigate the factors related to the presence and/or strength of the policy. Results Of the 700 journals, 308 (44.0%) had no data sharing policy, 125 (17.9%) had a weak policy, and 267 (38.1%) had a strong policy (expecting or mandating data sharing). The impact factor quartile was positively associated with the strength of the data sharing policies. Physical science journals were less likely to have a strong policy relative to a weak policy than Life science journals (relative risk ratio [RRR], 0.36; 95% CI [0.17–0.78]). Life science journals had a greater probability of having a weak policy relative to no policy than health science journals (RRR, 2.73; 95% CI [1.05–7.14]). Commercial publishers were more likely to have a weak policy relative to no policy than non-commercial publishers (RRR, 7.87; 95% CI, [3.98–15.57]). Journals by publishers in Europe, including the majority of those located in the United Kingdom and the Netherlands, were more likely to have a strong data sharing policy than a weak policy (RRR, 2.99; 95% CI [1.85–4.81]). Conclusions These findings may account for the increase in commercial publishers’ engagement in data sharing and indicate that European national initiatives that encourage and mandate data sharing may influence the presence of a strong policy in the associated journals. Future research needs to explore the factors associated with varied degrees in the strength of a data sharing policy as well as more diverse characteristics of journals related to the policy strength.
34
الصلاحي, اياد كريم. "معامل التأثير Impact factor او تقارير الاستشهادات المرجعية الذي تصدره journal citation reports". لارك 1, № 24 (2019): 148–52. http://dx.doi.org/10.31185/lark.vol1.iss24.469.
Full textAbstract:
هاجسا لهيئات التحرير خوفا من تراجع مستوى المجلات التي يشرفون عليها في حال قل الاستشهاد بما ينشر فيها من اوراق في بلدانهم وفي بقية دول العالم.
 تعريف معامل التأثير: هو مقياس لأهمية المجلات العلمية المحكمة ضمن مجال تخصصها البحثي, ويعكس معامل التأثير مدى اشارة الابحاث الجديدة للأبحاث التي نشرت سابقا في تلك المجلة والاستشهاد بها, وقد تم ابتكار معامل التأثير من قبل ايوجين جارفيلد مؤسس المعهد العلمي للمعلوماتisi, وتقوم بعض المؤسسات حاليا (كمؤسسة تومسون رويترز) بحساب معاملات التأثير بشكل سنوي للمجلات العلمية المحكمة المسجلة عندها ونشرها فيما يعرف بتقارير استشهاد المجلات, والتي يتم فيها تصنيف المجلات بحسب معاملات التأثير.
35
Nisonger, Thomas E. "A methodological issue concerning the use of Social Sciences Citation Index Journal Citation Reports impact factor data for journal ranking." Library Acquisitions: Practice & Theory 18, no. 4 (1994): 447–58. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0364-6408(94)90052-3.
Full text
36
Kim, Eun Soo, Dae Young Yoon, Hye Jeong Kim, et al. "Citation classics in neurointerventional research: a bibliometric analysis of the 100 most cited articles." Journal of NeuroInterventional Surgery 9, no. 5 (2016): 508–11. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/neurintsurg-2016-012399.
Full textAbstract:
Background and purposeThe number of citations that an article has received can be used to evaluate its impact on the scientific community. This study aimed to identify the 100 most cited articles in the field of neurointervention and to analyze their characteristics.Materials and methodsWe selected the 669 journals that were considered potentially to publish neurointervention articles based on the database of Journal Citation Reports. Using the Web of Science citation search tool, we identified the 100 most cited articles relevant to neurointervention within the selected journals. Each article was evaluated for several characteristics including publication year, journal, journal category, impact factor, number of citations, number of citations per year, authorship, department, institution, country, type of article, and topic.ResultsThe number of citations for the top 100 articles ranged from 1912 to 170 (mean 363.4) and citations per year ranged from 271.0 to 4.1 (mean 40.0). The majority of articles were published in clinical neurology journals (63%), were published in 2000–2009 (39%), originated in the USA (45%), were original articles (95%), and dealt with endovascular treatment of cerebral aneurysm (42%). The Department of Radiology, University of California School of Medicine (n=12) was the leading institution and Viñuela F (n=11) was the most prolific author.ConclusionsOur study presents a detailed list and analysis of the 100 most cited articles in the field of neurointervention and provides a historical perspective on the scientific progress in this field.
37
Santos, Carlos F. "The 2011 Journal Citation Reports and the impact factor of the Journal of Applied Oral Science." Journal of Applied Oral Science 20, no. 3 (2012): 1. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/s1678-77572012000300001.
Full text
38
Fernández-Sola, Cayetano, José Granero-Molina, José Manuel Hernández-Padilla, and Gabriel Aguilera-Manrique. "The Journal Impact Factor: A Threat or Opportunity?" Aquichan 11, no. 3 (2011): 245–55. http://dx.doi.org/10.5294/aqui.2011.11.3.1.
Full textAbstract:
Este artículo contiene un resumen de las críticas a la utilización del factor de impacto (FI) como indicador de calidad de las publicaciones y de producción de investigadores. Tales críticas alcanzan a los autores que intentan publicar en revistas con FI, argumentando que así renuncian a la propia identidad, primando su currículum sobre la utilidad de su investigación. En oposición a esas críticas se afirma que unos criterios de evaluación exigentes sirven de estímulo para la internacionalización del sistema científico. Existe consenso en la comunidad académica sobre las imperfecciones del FI y su aceptación como recurso válido y necesario para la evaluación científica, como también en que el debate identitario contribuye poco a resolver la invisibilidad internacional de la investigación de enfermería en español. Se esbozan propuestas que apuestan por aprovechar las fortalezas para incrementar y visibilizar dicha investigación, desarrollar estrategias para incluir y mantener a las revistas en español en el Journal Citation Reports (JCR), fomentar la formación y cooperación interdisciplinar, promover la publicación de investigaciones desarrolladas en los programas de posgrado, y reclamar la apuesta editorial por la indexación de sus revistas en el JCR. Se concluye que, aunque difícil, es posible aumentar la visibilidad de la producción científica de enfermería en español.
39
Liu, Zao. "Bibliometric Study of Family Studies Journals Using Journal Impact Factors, CiteScore and H-index." International Journal of Librarianship 6, no. 1 (2021): 1–12. http://dx.doi.org/10.23974/ijol.2021.vol6.1.174.
Full textAbstract:
Although there are bibliometric studies of journals in various fields, the field of family studies remains unexplored. Using the bibliometric metrics of the two-year and five-year Journal Impact Factors, the H-index, and the newly revised CiteScore, this paper examines the relationships among these metrics in a bibliometric study of forty-four representative family studies journals. The citation data were drawn from Journal Citation Reports, Scopus, and Google Scholar. The correlation analysis found strong positive relationships on the metrics. Despite the strong correlations, discrepancies in rank orders of the journals were found. A possible explanation of noticeable discrepancy in rankings was provided, and the implications of the study for stakeholders were discussed.
40
Bravo-Vinaja, Ángel. "IMPACTO DE LA REVISTA FITOTECNIA MEXICANA Y DE LAS REVISTAS MEXICANAS INDEXADAS." Revista Fitotecnia Mexicana 38, no. 3 (2015): 229. http://dx.doi.org/10.35196/rfm.2015.3.229.
Full textAbstract:
El Factor de Impacto (FI) es una medida bibliométrica que Eugene Garfield e Irving H Sher crearon a principios de 1960, con la finalidad de seleccionar revistas para el Science Citation Index (SCI) (Garfield, 2005). Esta medida ahora es manejada por Thomson Reuters, editor del Journal of Citation Reports (JCR) en sus ediciones de Ciencias y Ciencias sociales (InCitesTM Journal of Citation Reports® 2015).
41
ZADPOOR, AMIR ABBAS, and ALI ASADI NIKOOYAN. "PUBLICATION AND CITATION IN BIOMECHANICS: A COMPARISON WITH CLOSELY RELATED FIELDS (2003–2010)." Journal of Mechanics in Medicine and Biology 11, no. 04 (2011): 705–11. http://dx.doi.org/10.1142/s0219519411004836.
Full textAbstract:
The publication and citation patterns of the journals published in the broad area of Biomechanical engineering are compared with those of the journals published in several other closely related areas of research. The data published in ISI Journal Citation Reports® (2003–2010) for different subject categories is used for this purpose. A subject category comprising of Biomechanics journals is defined in this article. It is shown that the aggregate impact factor of the journals included in the defined subject category has been increasing with a slower pace as compared to the aggregate impact factor of the journals belonging to all other subject categories considered in the current study. More extensive research is required to clarify the reasons for the observed patterns.
42
Estrada, Alejandro, and Rhett Butler. "Rapid Gains in Impact Factor in the Journal Citation Reports by Tropical Conservation Science." Tropical Conservation Science 7, no. 3 (2014): i—ii. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/194008291400700316.
Full text
43
Freitas, Denise de. "JOURNAL ANALYSIS ON OPHTHALMOLOGY AND OTHERS." Revista do Colégio Brasileiro de Cirurgiões 42, suppl 1 (2015): 70–72. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/0100-69912015s01025.
Full textAbstract:
Objective: To update knowledge and methods to access and view the journals included in Qualis of CAPES Medicine III, and how to measure the impact factor. Method: Document review on the attempt to verify the way Qualis uses for ranking journals cited by the post-graduate programs of Medicine III in their evaluation periods, and the impact factors obtained by journals indexing base. Results: The classification is annual and are ranking in strata ranging from A1, the highest, and A2; B1; B2; B3; B4; B5; C. The latter has zero evaluation weight. These strata take as reference the impact factor of the journals listed by the programs. The same journal can be classified into different Qualis in other areas, and this is no inconsistency, but expressed the assigned value, in each area, at that particular journal. The Impact Factor is measured using the Journal of Citation Report in Web of Knowledge website. Conclusion: Using the criteria established by WebQualis for stratification of journals there is a quality guidance of what is produced by the program and, based on it, can be made scientific comparison of program performance. Consulting the JCR is recommended because it defines exactly what is the journal's impact factor; Qualis stratifies numerical intervals and not individual journal specificity.
44
Taglialatela-Scafati, Orazio. "Editor-in-Chief’s Letter to Readers and Authors of Marine Drugs." Marine Drugs 19, no. 8 (2021): 422. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/md19080422.
Full text
45
Tran, Trung, Khanh-Linh Hoang, Viet-Phuong La, Manh-Toan Ho, and Quan-Hoang Vuong. "Scrambling for higher metrics in the Journal Impact Factor bubble period: a real-world problem in science management and its implications." Problems and Perspectives in Management 18, no. 1 (2020): 48–56. http://dx.doi.org/10.21511/ppm.18(1).2020.05.
Full textAbstract:
Universities and funders in many countries have been using Journal Impact Factor (JIF) as an indicator for research and grant assessment despite its controversial nature as a statistical representation of scientific quality. This study investigates how the changes of JIF over the years can affect its role in research evaluation and science management by using JIF data from annual Journal Citation Reports (JCR) to illustrate the changes. The descriptive statistics find out an increase in the median JIF for the top 50 journals in the JCR, from 29.300 in 2017 to 33.162 in 2019. Moreover, on average, elite journal families have up to 27 journals in the top 50. In the group of journals with a JIF of lower than 1, the proportion has shrunk by 14.53% in the 2015–2019 period. The findings suggest a potential ‘JIF bubble period’ that science policymaker, university, public fund managers, and other stakeholders should pay more attention to JIF as a criterion for quality assessment to ensure more efficient science management.
46
Singson, Mangkhollen, S. Thiyagarajan, and M. Leeladharan. "Relationship between electronic journal downloads and citations in library consortia." Library Review 65, no. 6/7 (2016): 429–44. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/lr-02-2016-0019.
Full textAbstract:
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to examine the relationship between electronic journal downloads and citations and whether online electronic resource usage can be adopted as an alternative to citation for evaluation of scholarly discourse. Design/methodology/approach A consolidated 16 publishers’ COUNTER usage data of UGC-Infonet members was collected from INFLIBNET Centre. The usage was meticulously filtered from UGC-subscribed journals and institutional subscriptions. The quantitative data were analysed to establish the relationship between download, impact factor (IF) and price. Multiple regression analysis was used to assess the influence of price and IF on usage and to predict the usage when they are known and the threshold for significance was set at p < 0.05. Findings There exists a relationship between IF and downloads of journals in UGC-Infonet. Journal IF and price significantly influence usage, where journal IF plays an important role in the intensity of the use. Also, the top 25 hottest downloaded papers were journals with IF; hence, no journal without IF featured in the top 25 most downloaded journals in the consortia. The relationship between the top 25 IF journals in the consortia and download is strong (r = 0.368537). Originality/value The only account that reports on the relationship between journal IFs and downloads for UGC-Infonet consortia. Also, the influence of usage behaviour with respect to citation and price of a journal.
47
Menezes, Sabrina, and Letícia Strehl. "The correlations between certain features of the journal Neotropical Ichthyology and its impact factor: a comparative analysis at the thematic and national levels." Neotropical Ichthyology 11, no. 1 (2013): 1–8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/s1679-62252013000100001.
Full textAbstract:
The present article analyzes the relationship between characteristics of the journal Neotropical Ichthyology and its impact factor (IF) between 2006 and 2011 using bibliometric descriptive quantitative methods. To perform this analysis, two samples of journals included in Journal Citation Reports (JCR) were studied. One sample was composed of journals classified within the subject of zoology, and the other contained journals from different areas published in Brazil. The instrument used for data collection was a database created in Microsoft Excel 2007 and the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) version 18. The results show that despite its short history, Neotropical Ichthyologyhas exhibited a distinctive impact, as manifested in a significant progression in the IF of this journal in the field of zoology during the investigated period.
48
Smart, P. "Is the impact factor the only game in town?" Annals of The Royal College of Surgeons of England 97, no. 6 (2015): 405–8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1308/rcsann.2015.0028.
Full textAbstract:
“Not everything that can be counted counts. Not everything that counts can be counted.” William Bruce Cameron Journal metrics mania started over 50 years ago with the impact factor that has since become so well entrenched in publishing. Ask anyone where they would like to publish their research and most will reply by saying in a journal with the highest impact factor. While this suggests quality and a degree of vetting by the scientific community, the impact factor has also been used to benchmark and compare journals. Impact factors are often used as a proxy of a journal 's quality and scientific prestige. However, is medicine dependent on a valuation system that may be grounded in falsity? Much about this measure is imperfect and destructive. Journals can manipulate the impact factor by refusing to publish articles like case reports that are unlikely to be cited or, conversely, by publishing a large proportion of review articles, which tend to attract more citations. Another tactic that may be used is to publish articles that could be highly cited early in the year, thereby leaving more time to collect citations. Many use the impact factor as an important determinant of grants, awards, promotions and career advancement, and also as a basis for an individual's reputation and professional standing. Nevertheless, you should remember that the impact factor is not a measure of an individual article, let alone an individual scientist. As long as an article has been cited, the citation will contribute to the journal's impact factor. This is regardless of whether the article's premise is true or false, or whether the cited paper was being credited or criticised. Perversely, a weak paper that is being refuted will augment the impact factor, as will a retracted article, because although the article may have been retracted, the citations of this article will still count. The impact factor has weathered many storms in the past but criticisms against it are increasing, as is interest in displacing it as a single metric used to measure an article's influence. Many would like the scientific community to assess research on its merits rather than on the basis of the journal in which it is published. With the advent of social media, an article can now be commented on in real time with Tweets, bookmarks and blogs. In future, these measures will complement the impact factor but they will probably not become an alternative. Despite its imperfections, the impact factor has been around for a long time. As yet, although many alternative metrics have since emerged, nothing better is available. Perhaps it is the scientific community's misuse of the impact factor that is the problem and not the impact factor itself? In this article, Pippa Smart, who is the guest editor for this series, writes about the ways to measure the impact of a journal and published articles. JYOTI SHAH Commissioning Editor
49
Aleixandre-Benavent, Rafael, Juan Carlos Valderrama Zurián, Alberto Miguel-Dasit, Adolfo Alonso Arroyo, and Miguel Castellano Gómez. "Hypothetical influence of non-indexed Spanish medical journals on the impact factor of the Journal Citation Reports-indexed journals." Scientometrics 70, no. 1 (2007): 53–66. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11192-007-0104-x.
Full text
50
Krueger, Thomas, and Jack Shorter. "Bibliographic measures of top-tier finance and information systems journals." Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education 12, no. 5 (2019): 841–55. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/jarhe-12-2018-0257.
Full textAbstract:
Purpose Pay, tenure and promotion decisions are frequently based upon inferences regarding the value of faculty research. Meanwhile, departmental, college and university reputations are frequently based on perceptions regarding the quality of research being produced by its faculty. Making correct inferences requires accurate measurement of research quality, which is often based upon the journal through which results are shared. This research expands upon the research found elsewhere through its detailed investigation of leading journals in two business disciplines, including examination of four different citation-based measures and four journal characteristics which are exogenous to the quality of any individual piece of research. The paper aims to discuss this issue. Design/methodology/approach This study assists in the development of an accurate perspective regarding research quality, by studying the popular Journal Citation Reports (JCR) impact factor. A further expansion on the past literature is consideration of three newer journal quality metrics: SCImago Journal Rank (SJR), Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) and percentage of articles cited. Top-tier journals in finance and information systems are compared to evaluate the consistency of these measures across disciplines. Differences in journal characteristics and their impact on citation-rate based measures of quality are also examined. The potential impact of discipline-based variation in acceptance rate, issue frequency, the time since journal inception and total reviewers are put forth as additional potential exogenous factors that may impact the perception of journal quality. t-Tests are employed for discipline comparisons, while correlation and multiple regression are used for journal characteristic analysis. Findings There is a significant difference in the JCR impact measures of high-quality finance journals vs high-quality information systems journals, which are correlated with a variety of journal-specific factors including the journal’s acceptance rate and frequency of issue. Information systems journals domination of finance journals persists whether one considers mean, median, minimum or maximum impact factors. SJR measures for finance journals are consistently higher than information systems journals, though the SJR value of any individual journal can be quite volatile. By comparison, the SNIP metric rates premier information systems journals higher. Over 12 percent more of the articles in leading information systems journals are cited during the initial three years. Research limitations/implications Logical extensions of this research include examining journals in other business disciplines. One could also evaluate quality measures reaction to variation in journal characteristics (i.e. changes in acceptance rates). Furthermore, one could include other measures of journal quality, including the recently released CiteScore metric. Such research will build on the present research and improve the accuracy of research quality assessment. Practical implications To the extent that citation-based research measures and journal-specific factors vary across disciplines as demonstrated by our investigation, discipline-specific traits should be considered adjusted for, when making inferences about the long-term value of recently published research. For instance, finance faculty publishing in journals with JCR readings of 2.0 are in journals that are 53 percent above the discipline’s average, while information systems faculty publishing in journals with JCR readings of 2.0 are in journals that are 18 percent below the discipline’s average. Furthermore, discipline-specific differences in journal characteristics, leading to differences in citation-based quality measures, should be considered when making inferences about the long-term value of recently published research in the process of making recommendations regarding salary adjustments, retention and promotion. Social implications Quantity and quality of research are two hallmarks of leading research institutions. Assessing research quality is very problematic because its definition has changed from being based on review process (i.e. blind refereed), to acceptance rates, to impact factors. Furthermore, the impact factor construct has been a lightning rod of controversy as researchers, administrators and journals themselves argue over which metric to employ. This research is attempting to assess how impact factors and journal characteristics may influence the impact factors, and how these interactions vary business discipline. The research is especially important and relevant to the authors which separately chair departments including finance and information systems faculty, and therefore are in roles requiring assessment of faculty research productivity including quality. Originality/value This study is a detailed analysis of bibliographic aspects of the top-tier journals in two quantitative business areas. In addition to the popular JCR, SJR and SNIP measures of performance, the analysis studies the seldom-examined percentage of the article cited metric. A deeper understanding of citation-based measures is obtained though the evaluation of changes in how journals have been rated on these metrics over time. The research shows that there are discipline-related systematic differences in both citation-based research measures and journal-specific factors and that these discipline-specific traits should be considered when making inferences about the long-term value of recently published research. Furthermore, discipline-specific difference in journal characteristics, leading to differences in citation-based quality measures, should be considered when making personnel and remuneration decisions.