The More Publication,the Higher Impact Factor: Citation Analysis of Top Nine Gastroenterology and Hepatology Journals

Background

The impact factor (IF), as the most important criterion for journal’s quality measurement, is affected by the self-citation and number of publications in each journal.

Objectives

To find out the relationship between the number of publications and self-citations in a journal, and their correlations with IF.

Materials and Methods

Self-citations and impact factors of nine top gastroenterology and hepatology journals were assessed during the seven recent years (2005-2011) through Journal Citation Reports (JCR, ISI Thomson Reuters).

Results

Although impact factors of all journals increased during the study, five out of nine journals increased the number of publications from 2005 to 2011. There was an increase in self-citation only in the journal of HEPATOLOGY (499 in 2005 vs. 707 in 2011). Impact factors of journals (6.5 ± 3.5) were positively correlated with total number of publications (248.6 ± 91.7) (R: 0.688, P < 0.001). Besides, the self-citation rate (238.73 ± 195.317) was highly correlated with total number of publications in each journal (248.6 ± 91.7) (R: 0.861, P < 0.001). On the other hand, impact factor without self-citation (6.08 ± 3.3) had a correlation (R: 0.672, P < 0.001) with the number of published items (248.6 ± 91.7).

Conclusions

The number of articles and self-citation have definite effects on IF of a journal and because IF is the most prominent criterion for journal’s quality measurement, it would be a good idea to consider factors affecting on IF such as self-citation.     

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

Background

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

Objectives

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

Materials and Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

Information assimilation and distribution challenges and goals for real and virtual journals

The distribution of biomedical information was transfigured over three centuries ago with the introduction of scientific journals. This enabled the widespread dissemination of data to global audiences and greatly facilitated not only the advance of science but amplified the interaction between investigators despite their different locations. This process continued to expand in a linear fashion prior to the emergence of the Internet. The latter system has prompted a phenomenal augmentation of information accessibility, and its ever-expanding use has resulted in an exponential increase in the demand for digital technology and online resources. This technology has achieved unprecedented acceptance in the scientific domain and enabled publishers to expeditiously produce and distribute journal contents online. Such unparalleled access to information has sparked incendiary debate within the scientific community and among journal publishers in regard to numerous issues. It is thus much debated as to who has the right to "own" or control intellectual property, whether information should be made freely available to the online global community, how to gauge the legitimacy and authenticity of published research, and the need to reexamine the feasibility and profitability of paper journals in consideration of the digital, online formats that continue to gain popularity. To assess the current status of the situation, a meeting of journal editors, research scientists, and publishing executives was held in Constance, Germany, on June 26, 2004, to discuss these issues and formulate strategies and recommendations for the future of biomedical publishing. Herewith we provide a summation (manifesto) of the meeting's proceedings and provide a consensus opinion with the aim of illuminating the subject and also proposing some putative solutions for the major challenges that currently confront the scientific and publishing community.     

A bibliometric analysis of global trends of research productivity in tropical medicine

The field of tropical medicine has a long history due to the significance of the relevant diseases for the humanity. We estimated the contribution of different world regions to research published in the main journals of tropical medicine. Using the PubMed and the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) "Web of Science" databases, we retrieved articles from 12 journals included in the "Tropical Medicine" category of the "Journal Citation Reports" database of ISI for the period 1995-2003. Data on the country of origin of the research were available for 11,860 articles in PubMed (98.1% of all articles from the tropical medicine category). The contribution of different world regions during the studied period, as estimated by the location of the affiliation of the first author, was: Western Europe 22.7%, Africa 20.9%, Latin America and the Caribbean 20.7%, Asia (excluding Japan) 19.8%, USA 10.6%, Oceania 2.1%, Japan 1.5%, Eastern Europe 1.3%, and Canada 0.6%. The contribution of regions, estimated by the location of the affiliation of at least one author of the published papers (retrieved from the ISI database), was similar: Western Europe 36.6%, Africa 27.7%, Latin America and the Caribbean 24.4%, and Asia 23.3%. The mean impact factor of articles published in tropical medicine journals was highest for the USA (1.65). Our analysis suggests that the developing areas of the world produce a considerable amount of research in tropical medicine; however, given the specific geographic distribution of tropical diseases they probably still need help by the developed nations to produce more research in this field.     

Article and journal impact factor in various scientific fields

BackgroundWe tried to provide the scientific community with data to answer the following simple question: What proportion of publications in the various scientific fields is published in journals with impact factor above the median and mean values of the distribution of journal impact factor?MethodsWe analyzed and compared the distribution of the impact factor data reduced to the unit of science publication, the article. We calculated the proportion of articles published in journals with impact factor above the journal mean impact factor, journal median impact factor, and article mean impact.ResultsFor all categories examined, at the article level, the mean impact factor was higher than the median (by 13.7% to 500% for the various scientific categories). The mean impact factor of journals was considerably lower than the mean impact factor of articles (by 0.3 to 6.4 units). The proportion of articles that were published in journals with impact factor above the journals’ median impact factor was well above 50% in 17 of 19 scientific fields examined (all except mathematics and computer science).SignificanceOur analysis shows that in most scientific fields examined, it is quite easier to publish an article in the top 50% of journals (based on impact factor calculations) than it is for the article to be included in the top 50% of published articles (based on the assumption made regarding the article’ impact factor).     

Citation classics: Top 50 cited articles in ‘respiratory system’

Identifying citation classics in the field is one of the key methodologies used to conduct a systematic evaluation of research performance. The objective of this study was to determine the most frequently cited articles published in journals that are placed under the ‘respiratory system’ subject category (Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) Journal Citation Reports) and to compare them with the most frequently cited respiratory‐related articles published in any journal, regardless of subject category. The authors utilized the ISI Journal Citation Reports: Science Edition 2010 database in April 2012 to determine the most frequently cited articles by respiratory system subject category and by respiratory‐related keywords. The top 50 most‐cited articles were identified in each category and evaluated according to various characteristics. The majority of these papers originated from the United States. The median numbers of citations for the top 50 cited articles stratified by respiratory system subject category and respiratory‐related keywords were 841.5 and 2701, respectively. Half of the top 50 cited articles identified by respiratory‐related keywords were published in general medical or basic science journals, whereas only three out of these were published in journals under the respiratory system subject category in ISI Journal Citation Reports. In summary, respiratory‐related articles published in general medical or science journals attracted more citations than those published in the specific respiratory journals.     

Eighteen years of research on AIDS: contribution of and collaborations between different world regions

The scientific community invests significant resources on HIV/AIDS research to confront the current epidemic. We reviewed the medical literature in order to evaluate the contribution of different world regions on HIV/AIDS research during the past 18 years. We retrieved articles, using an elaborate methodology, from three journals focusing on HIV/AIDS between 1986 and 2003, indexed in the Journal Citation Reports (JCR) and the Web of Science databases of the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI). Comparisons were made by dividing the world into nine geographic regions, and by using the human development index (HDI) categorization. A total of 9502 articles on HIV/AIDS were retrieved from three AIDS journals over an 18-year study period. The United States and Western Europe together and five developed out of nine world regions made up a striking 83% and 92% of the world's research production on HIV/AIDS, respectively. Scientists from the developing world participated in 10.4% of the articles published during 1986-1991, 14.7% during 1992-1997, and 21.3% during 1998-2003. Researchers from countries included in the high, medium, and low HDI category produced 2240, 9, and 15 articles per billion population, respectively. About half of articles originating in Latin America and the Caribbean and half in Asia were produced in collaboration with the United States. However, 40% of articles from Africa and 58% from Eastern Europe were produced in cooperation with Western Europe. Collaboration between researchers within developing regions was negligible. The vast majority of the world's research on AIDS is produced in the developed world. Although research production was minimal in the developing world, we found that regions included in the low and medium HDI categories showed a higher proportion of increase in research productivity than the developed countries. International collaborations should significantly increase and expand beyond the traditional cultural and political lines of international relationships.     

Publication Outcomes of Abstracts Presented at an American College of Rheumatology/Association of Rheumatology Health Professionals Annual Scientific Meeting

Objective

The American College of Rheumatology (ACR) and the Association of Rheumatology Health Professionals (ARHP) Annual Scientific Meeting is an important forum for early dissemination of novel ideas. However, unlike published studies in peer‐reviewed journals, reviewers select abstracts based solely on a general summary of the research. Analyses of the scientific impact and the publication record of the ACR/ARHP Annual Meeting have not been previously described. This study characterizes publication trends and outcomes associated with abstracts presented at the ACR/ARHP Annual Scientific Meeting.

Methods

We identified all abstracts accepted for oral or poster presentation at the 2006 ACR/ARHP Annual Scientific Meeting. Using a defined search algorithm, we conducted a manual PubMed search for each accepted abstract, which was repeated by a custom computerized search, and analyzed the resulting journal title, impact factor, and time to publication.

Results

A total of 2,149 abstracts were analyzed. The overall publication ratio was 59.1%. The mean ± SD time from abstract presentation to publication was 18.2 ± 15.2 months with a mean ± SD impact factor of 5.61 ± 4.20. Overall, studies presented in oral format were significantly more likely to be published than poster presentations (P < 0.0001). The average time to publication was significantly shorter for basic science studies than clinical research studies (P < 0.0001). The average journal impact factor of published studies presented in oral format was significantly higher than those presented as posters (P < 0.0001).

Conclusion

These results reflect high research productivity with a publication ratio of approximately 60% for abstracts presented at the 2006 Annual Scientific Meeting.     

Initial impact of drug-eluting stent use on the spectrum of patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention

BACKGROUND: The availability of drug-eluting stents was expected to expand the application of percutaneous coronary intervention to a wider group of patients and lesion types. We sought to determine whether drug-eluting stents' availability has changed the practices of operators performing percutaneous coronary intervention with regard to patient selection and procedural factors. METHODS: We compared the clinical and angiographic characteristics of patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention at the Methodist Hospital, Houston, Texas, during three periods: June 2002-March 2003, June 2003-March 2004 and June 2004-March 2005. Sirolimus-eluting stents were available during the latter two periods. Paclitaxel eluting stents became available during the third period. RESULTS: A greater proportion of patients undergoing diagnostic catheterization were referred for percutaneous coronary intervention during the latter two periods (26.8%, 30.4%, 30.4%, respectively, P<0.0001). Patients undergoing stent placement during the latter two periods were more likely to have hypertension, hyperlipidemia or to have undergone previous percutaneous coronary intervention. The average implanted stent length was greater during the latter periods (14.5+/-4.6, 16.4+/-5.2, 16.8+/-5.5 mm, respectively, P<0.0001) and the average stent diameter was smaller (3.23+/-1.22, 3.13+/-1.16, 3.02+/-0.6 mm, respectively, P<0.0001). The frequency of percutaneous coronary intervention involving long lesions (>20 mm) and Left Anterior Descending (LAD) lesions was higher in the latter two periods and the frequency of multivessel stenting was higher in the last period. CONCLUSIONS: The spectrum of patients and coronary lesions that have undergone stenting has changed, particularly in the third period when both drug-eluting stent types were available. We observed a gradual shift toward higher-risk clinical and lesion characteristics following the introduction of drug-eluting stents.     

A total of 484 articles published in World Journal of Gastroenterology are cited by 367 ISI-SCI covered journals disrtibuted in 38 countries during 1998-2003

Articles published in the World Journal of Gastroenterology(WJG) have been cited by 361 SCI covered journals,44.59% of which are journals in the USA and 3.60% in China.Authors from 484 insritutions have cited WJG,in which 22.58% of them are in the USA and 18.84% in china.The highest impact factor of SCI journals that have cited WJG is 28.740 (Nature Medicine),with 52.95% (n=170) of journals with an impact factor over 2.0.The total citation times of articles published in WJG during 1998-2003 were 484.The total citation times in 2003 were 2736 with 73.24% (2004) self-citation,1486 in 2002 with 94.27% (1401) self-citation,537 in 2001 with 92.92% (499) self-citation,238 in 2000 with 92.43% (220) self-citation and 24 in 1999 with 33.33% (8) self-citation.Articles published in WJG in 2002 were cited 85 times by other SCI covered journals,and 82 articles were cited.The number was increased to 372 and 332 for articles published in 2003,respectively,with increase rates of 337.64% and 304.87%,respectively.Authors who have cited WJG are from 37 countries.A total of 1012 (57.46%) articles published in WJG were supported by international or national grants.Authors of WJG articles are from 40 countries.Articles published in issues 5-12 in 2003 have been downloaded 53 476 times online.In 2002,WJG was awarded a special grant from National Natural Science Foundation of China.Generally,the percentage of the self-citation times of articles published in WJG declined from 94.27% in 2002 to 73.24% in 2003.Meanwhile,article numbers and times cited by other SCI covered journals rose ty 304.87% and 337.64% respectively.The above data suggested that the WJG underwent rapid development in 2003 with a sigmificant increase in both numbers of cited articles and times of citatiion.     

Improvement analysis of article quality in World Journal of Gastroenterology during 2008-2012

AIM:To understand the changes and development of World Journal of Gastroenterology(WJG)in recent years.METHODS:The Journal Citation Report(JCR)and SCI-E database of the ISI Web of Knowledge were used to search the articles and data of related indices in WJG during 2008-2012.Bibliometric methods were used for statistical analysis of the author’s degree of collaboration,collaboration rate,the first author’s publications,high-productivity authors,the authors’origins in each year;the distribution of the countries and journals of the authors citing WJG papers was also analyzed.In addition,the indices related to this journal in each year were compared with the data from 6 SCI journals in the field of gastroenterology in the 2012 volume.RESULTS:A total of 4409 papers in WJG were examined in this study.For the period 2008-2012,the selfcitation rate was 8.59%,6.02%,5.50%,4.47%and5.21%.Of a total of 3898 first authors,3526 published1 paper,291 published 2 papers,59 published 3 papers,and 22 published 4 or more papers.The origin of WJG authors covered the six continents,and the majority came from Asia,Europe and North America.The number of countries of origin of WJG authors was65,66,61,65 an 60 for the period 2008-2012.Authors from 66 countries cited a total of 3194 of the 4409 papers,and these citations were found in 1140 journals.CONCLUSION:The results suggest that WJG has stayed on the track of normal international publication and all the indices of this journal are stable and reasonable.     

A total of 484 articles published in World Journal of Gastroenterology are cited by 361 ISI-SCI covered journals distributed in 38 countries during 1998-2003

Articles published in the World Journal of Gastroenterology (WJG) have been cited by 361 SCI covered journals, 44.59% of which are journals in the USA and 3.60% in China. Authors from 484 institutions have cited WJG, in which 22.58% of them are in the USA and 18.84% in China. The highest impact factor of SCI journals that have cited WJG is 28.740(Nature Medicine), with 52.95% (n=170) of journals with an impact factor over 2.0. The total citation times of articles published in WJG during 1998-2003 were 484. The total citation times in 2003 were 2736 with 73.24% (2004) selfcitation, 1486 in 2002 with 94.27% (1401) self-citation, 537in 2001 with 92.92% (499) self-citation, 238 in 2000 with 92.43% (220) self-citation and 24 in 1999 with 33.33% (8)self-citation. Articles published in WJG in 2002 were cited 85 times by other SCI covered journals, and 82 articles were cited. The number was increased to 372 and 332 for articles published in 2003, respectively, with increase rates of 337.64% and 304.87%, respectively. Authors who have cited WJG are from 37 countries, and the journals that have cited WJG are from 21 countries. A total of 1020 (57.46%)articles published in WJG were supported by international or national grants. Authors of WJG articles are from 40countries. Articles published in issues 5-12 in 2003 have been downloaded 53 476 times online. In 2002, WJG was awarded a special grant from National Natural Science Foundation of China. Generally, the percentage of the selfcitation times of articles published in WJG declined from 94.27% in 2002 to 73.24% in 2003. Meanwhile, article numbers and times cited by other SCI covered journals rose to 304.87% and 337.64% respectively. The above data suggested that the WJG underwent rapid development in 2003 with a significant increase in both numbers of cited articles and times of citation.     

《中国防痨杂志》近10年核心作者群及期刊主要评价指标变化情况分析

目的 分析《中国防痨杂志》近10年（2004 2013年）作者群及期刊主要评价指标的变化,为期刊可持续发展提供参考.方法 通过CNKI全文数据库检索2004 2013年《中国防痨杂志》刊发论文的第一作者信息及被引情况,采用基于普赖斯定律和综合指数法的测评方法确定期刊核心作者,采用描述性分析方法对20042013年核心作者及其所在机构、期刊主要评价指标变化情况进行统计分析.对随年度增加有单向变化趋势的数据采用x2趋势检验,分析这种变化趋势是否具有统计学意义.结果 10年共载文2091篇,篇均作者4.45名,篇均发文机构1.48家,篇均被下载46.52次,篇均被引用4.19次.通过计算确定2004 2013年《中国防痨杂志》核心作者候选人352名,最终确定核心作者125名.拥有核心作者人数排名前5位的机构是中国疾病预防控制中心结核病预防控制中心（17名）、北京市结核病胸部肿瘤研究所（首都医科大学附属北京胸科医院）（10名）、广州市胸科医院、同济大学附属上海市肺科医院和浙江省疾病预防控制中心（均有8名）、广东省结核病防治研究所（现更名为广东省结核病控制中心）（5名）、北京结核病控制研究所（4名）;77.60％（97/125）的核心作者集中在北京市、广东省、浙江省、上海市、福建省和湖北省共6个省（直辖市）.到2012年,《中国防痨杂志》的各项评价指标均有明显提高,其中总被引频次在全部期刊中排名从510名（2004年）上升到428名,影响因子从0.570（2004年）上升到0.911,影响因子排名从306名上升到174名,综合评价总分从36.9（2009年）上升到61.0,综合评价在全部期刊中排名从804上升到265,期刊综合评价在全部期刊中排名呈逐年上升趋势（x势=404.65,P＜0.001）.结论 2004 2013年《中国防痨杂志》拥有核心作者125名,核心作者分布不均衡,呈现明显的机构、地域聚集现象.期刊综?     

2005-2009年《中国地方病学杂志》综合质量分析

目的 评价<中国地方病学杂志>在预防医学类核心期刊中的学术地位和影响力,为进一步提高杂志的质量提供科学依据.方法 以<中国科技期刊引证报告>(2005-2009年版)期刊评价数据作为统计源,以预防医学类28种核心期刊作为评价对象,以期刊的单一评价指标(影响因子,总被引频次,他引率)为参考,利用主成分分析方法,将28种期刊15种期刊评价指标按相关矩阵的特征值≥1,且累计贡献率≥80%的原则,简化成4个综合评价指标,计算各项综合指标的得分.将综合指标的得分值与其相应的贡献率加权组成线性组合,计算各核心期刊的综合评价得分,根据得分分值,对比单一指标的评价结果,分析2005-2009年<中国地方病学杂志>在预防医学类核心期刊中的总体水平和学术质量.结果 2005-2009年<中国地方病学杂志>的影响因子分别为0.909、1.237、0.899、0.832、1.019,在28种核心期刊中分别排在第4、1、4,6、3位;总被引频次分别为933、1172、1101、1267、1491,在28种核心期刊中分别排在第4,4、6、5、6位;综合得分依次为0.269、0.371、0.282、0.247、0.602,在28种核心期刊中分别排在第7,5、7、5、4位.结论 2005-2009年<中国地方病学杂志>的影响因子、总被引频次和综合评价得分排序处于预防医学类核心期刊前列.今后需进一步扩大相关专业领域的学术交流,提升期刊的学术质量.

Abstract：

Objective To evaluate the academic status and influence of "Chinese Journal of Endemiology" in the preventive medicinal core periodicals to provide a scientific basis for further improving the quality of the journal. Methods Journal evaluation data of "Chinese Science and Technology Journal Citation Reports" (2005 -2009 periodicals) as a statistical source, twenty-eight core journals of preventive medicine as an evaluation object, a single evaluation index (such as impact factor, total cites and he cited rate) as a reference, integrated 15 journal evaluation indicators of 28 kinds of preventive medicinial core periodicals into 4 comprehensive evaluation indexes.Calculate the composite indicator score through principal component analysis method if the index's relevant eigenvalue was greater than 1 and their cumulative contribution rate was more than 80%. Then calculated the composite indicator scores of the 4 kinds of indexes, which were weighted into linear combination of the composition with its corresponding contribution. Assess the overall level and the academic quality of "Chinese Journal of Endemiology" among core journals of preventive medicine on the basis of the 4 composite score. Results Impact factors of Chinese Journal of Endemiology were 0.909, 1.237, 0.899, 0.832, 1.019 between 2005 and 2009, ranked number 4, 1, 4, 6 and 3 among the 28 core journals. Its total cited frequency respectively were 933, 1172,1101, 1267 and 1491, among the 28 kinds of core journals and ranked number 4, 4, 6, 5 and 6. Comprehensive score of "Chinese Journal of Endemiology" were 0.269, 0.371, 0.282, 0.247 and 0.602, and its rank were 7th, 5th,7th,5th and 4th in the 28 core journals. Conclusions The impact factor and citation frequency of "Chinese Journal of Endemiology" are ranked at the forefront of preventive medicinal core periodicals. More attention should be paid to academic exchanges of related areas, and to enhance the academic quality of the journal.