Levels of evidence and journal impact factor in oral and maxillofacial surgery: a 15-year follow-up

Author(s):  
S. Nabil ◽  
N. Samman
NEMESIS ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 18
Author(s):  
Aleksandra Hebda ◽  
Guillaume A Odri ◽  
Raphael Olszewski

Objective: to develop and test inter-observer reproducibility of instructions for authors quality rating (IAQR) tool measuring the quality of instructions for authors at journal level for a possible improvement of editorial guidelines.Material and methods: instructions for authors of 75 dental and maxillofacial surgery journals were assessed by two independent observers using assessment tool inspired from AGREE with 16 questions and 1 to 4 points scale per answer. Two observers evaluated the instructions of authors independently and blind to impact factor of a given journal. Scores obtained from our tool were compared with “journal impact factor 2013”. Results: IAQR presented with an excellent interobserver reproducibility (κ= 0.81) despite a difference in data distribution between observers. There existed a weak positive correlation between IAQR and “journal impact factor 2013”. Conclusions: The IAQR is a reproducible quality assessment tool at the journal level. The IAQR assess the quality of instruction for authors and it is a goodstarting point for possible improvements of the instructions for authors, especially when it comes to their completeness. Nemesis relevance: 28% of dental and maxillofacial journals might revise their instructions for authors to provide more up-to-date version.


2021 ◽  
pp. 1-22
Author(s):  
Metin Orbay ◽  
Orhan Karamustafaoğlu ◽  
Ruben Miranda

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.


2020 ◽  
Vol 13 (3) ◽  
pp. 328-333
Author(s):  
Sven Kepes ◽  
George C. Banks ◽  
Sheila K. Keener

Author(s):  
Susie Allard ◽  
Ali Andalibi ◽  
Patty Baskin ◽  
Marilyn Billings ◽  
Eric Brown ◽  
...  

Following up on recommendations from OSI 2016, this team will dig deeper into the question of developing and recommending new tools to repair or replace the journal impact factor (and/or how it is used), and propose actions the OSI community can take between now and the next meeting. What’s needed? What change is realistic and how will we get there from here?


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document