A communication strategy based on Twitter improves article citation rate and impact factor of medical journals

2020 ◽  
Vol 39 (6) ◽  
pp. 745-746
Author(s):  
Thomas Clavier ◽  
Emmanuel Besnier ◽  
Alice Blet ◽  
Matthieu Boisson ◽  
Stéphanie Sigaut ◽  
...  
2021 ◽  
Vol 10 ◽  
pp. 2156
Author(s):  
Sheida Jamalnia ◽  
Nasrin Shokrpour

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


2019 ◽  
Vol 40 (10) ◽  
pp. 1136-1142 ◽  
Author(s):  
Malke Asaad ◽  
Austin Paul Kallarackal ◽  
Jesse Meaike ◽  
Aashish Rajesh ◽  
Rafael U de Azevedo ◽  
...  

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.


2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ferrán Catalá-López ◽  
Rafael Aleixandre-Benavent ◽  
Lisa Caulley ◽  
Brian Hutton ◽  
Rafael Tabarés-Seisdedos ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) provide the most reliable information to inform clinical practice and patient care. We aimed to map the global clinical research publication activity through RCTs related articles in high-impact factor medical journals over the past five decades. Methods Cross-sectional analysis of articles published in the highest ranked medical journals with an impact factor > 10 (according to Journal Citation Reports published in 2017). We searched PubMed/MEDLINE (from inception to December 31, 2017) for all RCTs related articles (e.g. primary RCTs, secondary analyses and methodology papers) published in high-impact factor medical journals. For each included article, raw metadata were abstracted from the Web of Science. A process of standardization was conducted to unify different terms and grammatical variants and to remove typographical, transcription, and/or indexing errors. Descriptive analyses were conducted (including the number of articles, citations, most prolific authors, countries, journals, funding sources and keywords). Network analyses of collaborations between countries and co-words were presented. Results We included 39305 articles (period 1965-2017) published in forty journals. The Lancet (n=3593; 9.1%), the Journal of Clinical Oncology (n=3343; 8.5%), and The New England Journal of Medicine (n=3275 articles; 8.3%) published the largest number of RCTs. 154 countries were involved in the production of articles. The global productivity ranking was led by the United States (n=18393 articles), followed by the United Kingdom (n=8028 articles), Canada (n=4548 articles) and Germany (n=4415 articles). Seventeen authors who published 100 or more articles were identified; the most prolific authors were affiliated with Duke University (United States), Harvard University (United States), and McMaster University (Canada). Main funding institutions were the National Institutes of Health (United States), Hoffmann-La Roche (Switzerland), Pfizer (United States), Merck Sharp & Dohme (United States) and Novartis (Switzerland). The 100 most cited RCTs were published in 9 journals, led by The New England Journal of Medicine (n=78 articles), The Lancet (n=9 articles) and JAMA (n=7 articles). These landmark contributions focused on novel methodological approaches (e.g. “Bland-Altman method”) and trials on the management of chronic conditions (e.g. diabetes control, hormone replacement therapy in postmenopausal women, multiple therapies for diverse cancers, cardiovascular therapies such as lipid-lowering statins, antihypertensive medications, antiplatelet and antithrombotic therapy). Conclusions Our analysis identified authors, countries, funding institutions, landmark contributions and high-impact factor medical journals publishing RCTs. Over the last 50 years, publication production in leading medical journals has increased with research leadership of Western countries, but with very limited representation from low and middle-income countries.


PLoS ONE ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 15 (11) ◽  
pp. e0241826 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marko Zdravkovic ◽  
Joana Berger-Estilita ◽  
Bogdan Zdravkovic ◽  
David Berger

Background A debate about the scientific quality of COVID-19 themed research has emerged. We explored whether the quality of evidence of COVID-19 publications is lower when compared to nonCOVID-19 publications in the three highest ranked scientific medical journals. Methods We searched the PubMed Database from March 12 to April 12, 2020 and identified 559 publications in the New England Journal of Medicine, the Journal of the American Medical Association, and The Lancet which were divided into COVID-19 (cases, n = 204) and nonCOVID-19 (controls, n = 355) associated content. After exclusion of secondary, unauthored, response letters and non-matching article types, 155 COVID-19 publications (including 13 original articles) and 130 nonCOVID-19 publications (including 52 original articles) were included in the comparative analysis. The hierarchical level of evidence was determined for each publication included and compared between cases and controls as the main outcome. A quantitative scoring of quality was carried out for the subgroup of original articles. The numbers of authors and citation rates were also compared between groups. Results The 130 nonCOVID-19 publications were associated with higher levels of evidence on the level of evidence pyramid, with a strong association measure (Cramer’s V: 0.452, P <0.001). The 155 COVID-19 publications were 186-fold more likely to be of lower evidence (95% confidence interval [CI] for odds ratio, 7.0–47; P <0.001). The quantitative quality score (maximum possible score, 28) was significantly different in favor of nonCOVID-19 (mean difference, 11.1; 95% CI, 8.5–13.7; P <0.001). There was a significant difference in the early citation rate of the original articles that favored the COVID-19 original articles (median [interquartile range], 45 [30–244] vs. 2 [1–4] citations; P <0.001). Conclusions We conclude that the quality of COVID-19 publications in the three highest ranked scientific medical journals is below the quality average of these journals. These findings need to be verified at a later stage of the pandemic.


2005 ◽  
Vol 33 (5) ◽  
pp. 567-570 ◽  
Author(s):  
C. R. Bain ◽  
P. S. Myles

Evidence-based medicine uses a hierarchy of publication types according to their vulnerability to bias. A widely used measure of journal “quality” is its impact factor, which describes the citation rate of its publications. We investigated the relationship between impact factor for eight anaesthesia journals and publication type with respect to their level of evidence 1-4 using Spearman rank correlation (rho). There were 1418 original publications during 2001 included in the analysis. The number (%) of publication types according to evidence-based medicine level were: level 1: 6 (0.4%), level 2: 533 (38%) level 3: 329 (23%), level 4: 550 (39%). There was no correlation between journal ranking according to impact factor and publication type (rho=–0.03, P=0.25). The correlation between journal rank and the proportion of publications that were randomized trials was –0.35 (P<0.001). The correlation between journal rank and number of publications was 0.65 (P<0.001). The correlation between journal rank and number of level 1 or 2 studies was 0.58 (P<0.001). The overall level of evidence published in anaesthesia journals was high. Journal rank according to impact factor is related to the number of publications, but not the proportion of publications that are evidence-based medicine level 1 or 2.


2014 ◽  
Vol 52 (3) ◽  
pp. 136-140 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Mimouni ◽  
Ori Segal
Keyword(s):  

2014 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 86
Author(s):  
Elizabeth Margaret Stovold

A Review of: Peterson, G.M. (2013). Characteristics of retracted open access biomedical literature: a bibliographic analysis. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 64(12), 2428-2436. doi: 10.1002/asi.22944 Abstract Objective – To investigate whether the rate of retracted articles and citation rates post-retraction in the biomedical literature are comparable across open access, free-to-access, or pay-to-access journals. Design – Citation analysis. Setting – Biomedical literature. Subjects – 160 retracted papers published between 1st January 2001 and 31st December 2010. Methods – For the retracted papers, 100 records were retrieved from the PubMed database and 100 records from the PubMed Central (PMC) open access subset. Records were selected at random, based on the PubMed identifier. Each article was assigned a number based on its accessibility using the specific criteria. Articles published in the PMC open access subset were assigned a 2; articles retrieved from PubMed that were freely accessible, but did not meet the criteria for open access were assigned a 1; and articles retrieved through PubMed which were pay-to-access were assigned a 0. This allowed articles to be grouped and compared by accessibility. Citation information was collected primarily from the Science Citation Index. Articles for which no citation information was available, and those with a lifetime citation of 0 (or 1 where the citation came from the retraction statement) were excluded, leaving 160 articles for analysis. Information on the impact factor of the journals was retrieved and the analysis was performed twice; first with the entire set, and second after excluding articles published in journals with an impact factor of 10 or above (14% of the total). The average number of citations per month was used to compare citation rates, and the percentage change in citation rate pre- and post-retraction was calculated. Information was also collected on the time between the date the original article was published and the date of retraction, and the availability of information on the reason for the retraction. Main results – The overall rate of retracted articles in the PMC open access subset compared with the wider PubMed dataset was similar (0.049% and 0.028% respectively). In the group with an accessibility rating of 0, the change in citation rate pre- and post-retraction was -41%. For the group with an accessibility rating of 1, the change was -47% and in those with a rating of 2, the change in citation rate was -59%. Removing articles published in high impact factor journals did not change the results significantly. Retractions were issued more slowly for free access papers compared with open or fee-based articles. The bibliographic records for open access articles disclosed details of the reason for the retraction more frequently than free, non-open papers (91% compared to 53%). Conclusion – Open access literature is similar in its rate of retraction and the reduction in post-retraction citations to the rest of the biomedical literature, and is actually more reliable at reporting the reason for the retraction.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document