ORIGINAL ARTICLE: Comparison of the distribution of citations received by articles published in high,moderate, and low impact factor journals in clinical medicine

Background: Whether the journal impact factor (JIF) indicator reflects the number of citations to an average article of a journal in different subject categories is controversial. We sought to further investigate this issue in general and internal medicine journals. Methods: We selected to evaluate three journals of the above subject category, in each of three different JIF levels (high: 15.5–28.6, moderate: 4.4–4.9 and low: 1.6). Using the Scopus database, we retrieved the original research articles (after detailed screening) and review articles (as classified by Scopus) that were published in the selected journals in 2005 along with the number of citations they received in 2006 and 2007. We pooled the citations for articles of the same type in journals with the same JIF level into distinct variables. Results: There was no marked association between the distribution of citations per article published in general medical journals and their JIF. All distributions studied were skewed to the right (higher number of citations). Specifically, 16–22% of the original research articles accounted for 50% of the total citations to this type of article for all three categories of studied journals; 34–37% of original research articles accounted for 75% of citations. The respective values for review articles were 12–18% and 29–39%. Conclusion: The distribution of citations received by articles published in high, moderate and low impact factor journals in clinical medicine seems similar. The JIF is not an accurate indicator of the citations the average article receives; articles published in low impact factor journals can still be highly cited and vice versa.     

Measuring the quality of journals and journal articles: the impact factor tells but a portion of the story

Much emphasis has been placed on the IMPACT FACTOR, a measure of journal article citation rates used as a surrogate marker of both journal and article quality. There is little doubt that the impact factor is an important audit of journal article usage, as it in essence provides a measure of the level of peer attention being given to articles within journals and (by extrapolation) of the level of attention being given to the journal containing those articles. However, the impact factor has its limitations and only tells a very small fraction of the overall story regarding the utility of journals and the articles within them. In addition, the impact factor can be easily manipulated. The current article includes a brief review of the current and past uses and abuses of the impact factor and describes some of its strengths and limitations. In addition, a review of past publications, primarily from this journal, has been undertaken to help show the potential use of alternative measures of journal utility, such as Internet-based journal sessions and article downloads. The evaluation of previously published articles also helps serve to illustrate, by example, some of the limitations to the use of the impact factor as the sole determinant of a journal's "quality."     

Are we allowing impact factor to have too much impact: The need to reassess the process of academic advancement in pediatric cardiology?

Impact factor has been used as a metric by which to gauge scientific journals for several years. A metric meant to describe the performance of a journal overall, impact factor has also become a metric used to gauge individual performance as well. This has held true in the field of pediatric cardiology where many divisions utilize impact factor of journals that an individual has published in to help determine the individual's academic achievement. This subsequently can impact the individual's promotion through the academic ranks. We review the purpose of impact factor, its strengths and weaknesses, discuss why impact factor is not a fair metric to apply to individuals, and offer alternative means by which to gauge individual performance for academic promotion.     

Selecting the right journal for your submission

Increasing pressure on researchers and academic clinicians to publish high volumes of work in highly visible publication outlets means that authors must have a finely tuned, efficient process for submission. One of the key decisions every author must make is where to submit their paper. This article addresses several important components to making that decision, including (I) topic match; (II) acceptance/rejection rate of the journal; (III) speed of review/publication; (IV) distribution of and access to the journal; and (V) impact factor.     

A common standard for conflict of interest disclosure in addiction journals

This paper presents a common standard for conflict of interest disclosure. The common standard was drafted by the authors, following consultation with a multi-disciplinary group of journal editors, publishers, bioethicists and other academics. It is presented here for the benefit of authors, editorial managers, journal editors and peer reviewers to stimulate discussion and to provide guidance to authors in reporting real, apparent and potential conflicts of interest. It is particularly relevant to addiction specialty journals because of the potential conflicts of interest associated with funding from the alcohol, tobacco, pharmaceutical and gambling industries. Following an appropriate period of vetting the common standard within the scientific community, it is recommended that journal editors adopt journal policies and reporting procedures that are consistent across journals.     

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).     

Metrics of activity in social networks are correlated with traditional metrics of scientific impact in endocrinology journals

AimsTraditional journal level metrics, as the impact factor or Scimago journal ranking indicator (SJR) measure the impact of research on other researchers, but fail to assess the reach of these publications among wider audiences. This study aims to assess the correlation between SJR and metrics of presence on social networks of endocrinology journals.Materials and methodsJournals within the area of endocrinology, diabetes and metabolism were identified from the electronic portal Scimago Journal and Country Rank, and their metrics based on the number of citation collected. Different metrics of the presence on social networks, such as the number of followers and number of tweets, were assessed. The correlation between both metrics was evaluated by calculating the Spearman correlation coefficient.ResultsOf the 232 journals evaluated, 28 (12.1%) had social networks. The median SJR (1.53 vs 0.60, p < 0.01), and H index (58.5 vs 22, p < 0.01) were significantly higher among journals with social networks. The correlation between the number of followers on twitter and the SJR was moderate (r = 0.60, p < 0.05), and it was better in journals with more than 500 publications in the last 3 years (r = 0.85, p < 0.05). The number of tweets also had a moderate correlation with the SJR (r = 0.59, p < 0.05)ConclusionsOur results suggest that the dissemination of research on social networks is moderately related to the traditional metrics of impact. Both types of metrics offer complementary information: while metrics based on social media may not perfectly predict the impact a scientific journal, it does have the advantage of immediacy.     

《临床心电学杂志》学术影响力的再分析

目的:从文献引证的角度分析<临床心电学杂志>的学术影响力.方法:依据<中国科技期刊引证报告>(CJCR),采用文献计量学的方法,对2004年至2009年<临床心电学杂志>载文被中国科技论文与引文数据库(CSTPCD)来源期刊引用的情况进行分析及评价.结论:该刊从2004年被评为中国科技核心期刊以来,影响因子、即年指标在...     

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.     

The shaping,making and baking of a pancreatologist

The European Pancreatic Club Lifetime Achievement award is a distinction awarded for research on the pancreas. It comes with the obligation to submit a review article to the society's journal, Pancreatology. Since the research topics of my group have recently been covered in reviews and book chapters I want to use this opportunity to appraise the stations of my clinical and research education, the projects that I pursued and abandoned, the lessons I have learned from them, and the women and men who influenced my training and development as a physician scientist. Some crossed my path, some become collaborators and friends, and some turned into role models and had a lasting impact on my life.     

Building Materials Made of Wood Waste a Solution to Achieve the Sustainable Development Goals

In order to reduce the impact of human activities on the environment, in 2015, the United Nations launched the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, proposing 17 Sustainable Development Goals with 169 associated targets. It is well-known that the construction industry is a major contributor to global CO₂ emissions, and if a solution to reduce construction activity is not possible, considering the increasing population, then other solutions must be developed to decrease their negative environmental impact. In this context, the purpose of this paper is to investigate whether the use of wood waste as a building material can be a solution to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals. The research procedure included a bibliometric literature search, a scientometric analysis and an in-depth discussion. The analysis was done with the help of the software VOSviewer and Bibliometrix; the data were extracted mainly from the ISI Web of Science database. The extraction of data was done using the PRISMA method, and thus a sample of 212 peer-reviewed journal articles was established. The main results indicate an increasing interest in this topic in the last several years, as well as a switch from considering wood waste as just a source to generate heat and energy to the use of wood waste as a building material. The main uses of wood waste as a building material are in the composition of particleboards and in various mortar and concrete mixtures. The field of wood waste has many potential directions towards future development, and if the immense treasure represented by the forests, and implicitly the wood, is used efficiently, it can be a good solution to the problem of sustainable development of society.     

The journal impact factor: judging a book by its cover

Journal impact factors have been used to evaluate the quality of the work of an individual author and as a guide to the quality of a given study. Despite a rough correlation between the quality of an article and the impact factor of the journal it is published in, the reader cannot be sure of the value of an individual article without a careful appraisal of its content.     

For the times they are a-changin'

It is now one year since the new editorial team took charge.There have been considerable strides made towards achievingour key goal, which is to provide a high quality journal withrapid decision making and publication. We received in excess of 800 submissions during the year, andwe have achieved our target of making a first decision in 90%of cases within 6 weeks of submission, with the majority ofsubmissions receiving a decision within 4 weeks. This targethas only been reached with     

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.     

Mechanistic insight into polysaccharide use within the intestinal microbiota

It is becoming increasingly clear that diet is one of the major factors that drives the function and composition of the intestinal microbiota. The diet of humans is highly diverse when considering different populations or even a single individual over a relatively short period of time. However, we are just beginning to understand the mechanisms that connect dietary change to intestinal microbiota dynamics. The community of microbes within our distal digestive tract influences numerous aspects of our biology, and aberrant shifts in its composition appear to be associated with several diseases. It is, therefore, necessary to understand how our behaviour and environmental factors, such as changes in diet, impact our intestinal residents. Here we look to recent work to highlight some of the major questions on the horizon for understanding the key role that the Bacteroidetes play in the commerce of dietary polysaccharides within the intestine.     

《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?