scholarly journals Determinants of Citation in Epidemiological Studies on Phthalates: A Citation Analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 26 (6) ◽  
pp. 3053-3067
Author(s):  
Miriam J. E. Urlings ◽  
Bram Duyx ◽  
Gerard M. H. Swaen ◽  
Lex M. Bouter ◽  
Maurice P. A. Zeegers
Keyword(s):  
Impact Factor ◽  
Journal Impact Factor ◽  
Health Effect ◽  
Random Effect ◽  
Citation Network ◽  
Epidemiological Studies ◽  
Point Estimate ◽  
Citation Bias ◽  
Journal Impact ◽  
Selection Of

AbstractCiting of previous publications is an important factor in knowledge development. Because of the great amount of publications available, only a selection of studies gets cited, for varying reasons. If the selection of citations is associated with study outcome this is called citation bias. We will study determinants of citation in a broader sense, including e.g. study design, journal impact factor or the funding source of the publication. As a case study we assess which factors drive citation in the human literature on phthalates, specifically the metabolite mono(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (MEHP). A systematic literature search identified all relevant publications on human health effect of MEHP. Data on potential determinants of citation were extracted in duplo. Specialized software was used to create a citation network, including all potential citation pathways. Random effect logistic regression was used to assess whether these determinants influence the likelihood of citation. 112 Publications on MEHP were identified, with 5684 potential citation pathways of which 551 were actual citations. Reporting of a harmful point estimate, journal impact factor, authority of the author, a male corresponding author, research performed in North America and self-citation were positively associated with the likelihood of being cited. In the literature on MEHP, citation is mostly driven by a number of factors that are not related to study outcome. Although the identified determinants do not necessarily give strong indications of bias, it shows selective use of published literature for a variety of reasons.

scholarly journals Low-energy sweeteners and body weight: a citation network analysis

2021 ◽  
pp. bmjnph-2020-000210
Author(s):  
Mie Normand ◽  
Christian Ritz ◽  
David Mela ◽  
Anne Raben
Keyword(s):  
Body Weight ◽  
Network Analysis ◽  
Impact Factor ◽  
Journal Impact Factor ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Citation Network ◽  
Low Energy ◽  
Citation Bias ◽  
Relationship Of ◽  
Journal Impact

ObjectiveReviews on the relationship of low-energy sweeteners (LES) with body weight (BW) have reached widely differing conclusions. To assess possible citation bias, citation analysis was used to quantify the relevant characteristics of cited articles, and explore citation patterns in relation to review conclusions.DesignA systematic search identified reviews published from January 2010 to March 2020. Different characteristics (for example, type of review or research, journal impact factor, conclusions) were extracted from the reviews and cited articles. Logistic regression was used to estimate likelihood of articles with particular characteristics being cited in reviews. A qualitative network analysis linked reviews sub-grouped by conclusions with the types of articles they cited.Main outcome measures(OR; 95% CI) for likelihood that articles with particular characteristics were cited as evidence in reviews.ResultsFrom 33 reviews identified, 183 different articles were cited (including other reviews). Narrative reviews were 62% less likely to be cited than systematic reviews with meta-analysis (OR 0.38; 0.16 to 0.86; p=0.03). Likelihood of being cited was higher for evidence on children than adults (OR 2.27; 1.59 to 3.25; p<0.0001), and with increased journal impact factor (OR 1.15; 1.00 to 1.31; p=0.04). No other factors were statistically significant in the main analysis, and few factors were significant in subgroup analyses. Network analysis showed that reviews concluding a beneficial relationship of LES with BW cited mainly randomised controlled trials, whereas reviews concluding an adverse relationship cited mainly observational studies.ConclusionsOverall reference to the available evidence across reviews appears largely arbitrary, making citation bias likely. Differences in the conclusions of individual reviews map onto different types of evidence cited. Overall, inconsistent and selective use of the available evidence may account for the diversity of conclusions in reviews on LES and BW.Trial registration numberPrior to data analysis, the protocol was registered with the Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/9ghws).

scholarly journals Authors’ Selection of Target Journals and Their Attitudes to Emerging Journals: A survey from two developing regions

2019 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. 51
Author(s):  
Salem A. Beshyah
Keyword(s):  
Impact Factor ◽  
United Arab Emirates ◽  
Journal Impact Factor ◽  
Editorial Policy ◽  
Open Access Publishing ◽  
Convenience Sample ◽  
Diverse Range ◽  
Attitudes And Practices ◽  
Journal Impact ◽  
Selection Of

Objectives: This study aimed to assess the factors that influence authors' decision when choosing a journal for publication and to assess authors' attitudes and practices regarding emerging journals. Methods:cross-sectional questionnaire-based study was conducted between April and July 2017 at Dubai Medical College, Dubai, United Arab Emirates, on a convenience sample of 2,764 healthcare professionals. Results: A total of 250 responses were received (response rate: 9%) and 152 valid respondents were included in this study (5.6%), of which the majority were male (61.2%) and aged 41–60 years (68%) from the Middle East and Africa. Most respondents (88.8%) had medical and/or dental qualifications and the majority were in senior clinical (55%) and academic (71.5%) positions. More than half of the respondents (62.5%) had published at least one article in the previous five years. Results showed that journal impact factor (JIF), indexation status, free submission and being international were important among respondents. Based on the respondents that shared their encounters with emerging journals (n = 114), 62 respondents (54.4%) regularly read certain emerging journals, 51 (44.7%) had been a peer-reviewer, 48 (42.1%) had cited content from an emerging journal at least once and 45 (39.5%) had published in emerging journals. Only 18 respondents (14.2%) were not convinced with the need for emerging journals and believed that all researchers should compete for publication in the same international journals. Conclusion: Selection of target journals is driven mainly by JIF, indexation status, free submission and a journal’s international status. A diverse range of opinions and attitudes regarding emerging journals were observed in this study. Keywords: Journal Impact Factor; Open Access Publishing; Editorial Policy; Peer Review; Indexing; Publications; Attitude; United Arab Emirates.

Analysis of the journal impact factor and related bibliometric indicators in education and educational research category

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-22
Author(s):  
Metin Orbay ◽  
Orhan Karamustafaoğlu ◽  
Ruben Miranda
Keyword(s):  
Impact Factor ◽  
Educational Research ◽  
Journal Impact Factor ◽  
Impact Factors ◽  
Bibliometric Indicators ◽  
Strongly Correlated ◽  
Starting Point ◽  
Consistent Assessment ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Journal Impact

This study analyzes the journal impact factor and related bibliometric indicators in Education and Educational Research (E&ER) category, highlighting the main differences among journal quartiles, using Web of Science (Social Sciences Citation Index, SSCI) as the data source. High impact journals (Q1) publish only slightly more papers than expected, which is different to other areas. The papers published in Q1 journal have greater average citations and lower uncitedness rates compared to other quartiles, although the differences among quartiles are lower than in other areas. The impact factor is only weakly negative correlated (r=-0.184) with the journal self-citation but strongly correlated with the citedness of the median journal paper (r= 0.864). Although this strong correlation exists, the impact factor is still far to be the perfect indicator for expected citations of a paper due to the high skewness of the citations distribution. This skewness was moderately correlated with the citations received by the most cited paper of the journal (r= 0.649) and the number of papers published by the journal (r= 0.484), but no important differences by journal quartiles were observed. In the period 2013–2018, the average journal impact factor in the E&ER has increased largely from 0.908 to 1.638, which is justified by the field growth but also by the increase in international collaboration and the share of papers published in open access. Despite their inherent limitations, the use of impact factors and related indicators is a starting point for introducing the use of bibliometric tools for objective and consistent assessment of researcher.

The TOP factor: An indicator of quality to complement journal impact factor

2020 ◽  
Vol 13 (3) ◽  
pp. 328-333
Author(s):  
Sven Kepes ◽  
George C. Banks ◽  
Sheila K. Keener
Keyword(s):  
Impact Factor ◽  
Journal Impact Factor ◽  
Journal Impact
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document