scholarly journals The relationship between the number of authors of a publication, its citations and the impact factor of the publishing journal: Evidence from Italy

2015 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
pp. 746-761 ◽  
Author(s):  
Giovanni Abramo ◽  
Ciriaco Andrea D’Angelo
Keyword(s):  
Impact Factor ◽  
The Impact ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Publishing Journal ◽  
Number Of Authors

scholarly journals Research groups: how big should they be?

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Isabelle Cook ◽  
Sam Grange ◽  
Adam Eyre-Walker
Keyword(s):  
Impact Factor ◽  
Group Size ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Average Group ◽  
Using Data ◽  
Number Of Publications ◽  
Number Of Citations ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Large Groups ◽  
The Relationship

We have investigated the relationship between research group size and productivity in the life sciences in the United Kingdom using data from 398 principle investigators (PIs). We show that the number of publications increases linearly with group size, but that the slope is modest relative to the intercept, and that the relationship explains little of the variance in productivity. A comparison of the slope and intercept suggests that PIs contribute on average 5-times more productivity than an average group member and using multiple regression we estimate that post-doctoral researchers are approximately 3–times more productive than PhD students. We also find that the impact factor and the number of citations are both non-linearly related to group size such that there is a maximum. However, the relationships explain little of the variance and the curvatures are shallow so the impact factor and the number of citations do not greatly depend upon group size. The intercept is large relative to curvature suggesting that the PI is largely responsible for the impact factor and the number of citations from their group. Surprisingly we find this non-linear relationship for post-docs, but for PhD students we observe a slight but significant decrease in the impact factor. The results have important implications for the funding of research. Given a set number of Pis there is no evidence of diminishing returns in terms of the number of papers published and only a very weak cost to very large groups in terms of where those papers are published and the number of citations they receive. However, the results do suggest that it might be more productive to invest in new permanent members of faculty rather than additional post-docs and PhD students.

Publication Specific Impact of Articles Published by Rheological Journals

2005 ◽  
Vol 15 (6) ◽  
pp. 406-409 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martin Kröger
Keyword(s):  
Impact Factor ◽  
Academic Community ◽  
Research Assessment ◽  
Original Research ◽  
Formal Basis ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Specific Impact ◽  
Number Of Authors

Abstract The Impact Factor of a journal is a quantitative way of assessing its worth and relevance to the academic community it serves. Many librarians see the ratio between Impact Factor and price as a suitable yardstick by which to measure the value of their collections. In addition, the research assessment exercises which, in many countries, are now being carried out on a more formal basis mean that authors submitting original research must publish it in a journal with the highest perceived worth possible in order to secure future funding, job promotions and peer recognition. It has been suspected [T. Opthof, Cardiovasc. Res. 33 (1997) 1; J. Stegmann, Nature 390 (1990) 550], however, that a particular author’s impact is not much related to the journals in which her/he publishes. As will be demonstrated in this letter, the impact of articles published in rheological journals is largely influenced by criteria such as length of article, number of authors, number of cited references.

scholarly journals Impact of Low Back Pain Clinical Trials Measured by the Altmetric Score: Cross-Sectional Study (Preprint)

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amanda Costa Araujo ◽  
Dafne Port Nascimento ◽  
Gabrielle Zoldan Gonzalez ◽  
Christopher G Maher ◽  
Leonardo Oliveira Pena Costa
Keyword(s):  
Low Back Pain ◽  
Back Pain ◽  
Impact Factor ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
Low Back ◽  
Sectional Study ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Number Of Citations ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Publishing Journal

BACKGROUND There is interest from authors and publishers in sharing the results of their studies over the Internet in order to increase their readership. In this way, articles tend to be discussed and the impact of these articles tends to be increased. In order to measure this type of impact, a new score (named Altmetric) was created. Altmetric aims to understand the individual impact of each article through the attention attracted online. OBJECTIVE The primary objective of this study was to analyze potential factors related with the publishing journal and the publishing trial that could be associated with Altmetric scores on a random sample of low back pain randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The secondary objective of this study was to describe the characteristics of these trials and their Altmetric scores. METHODS We searched for all low back pain RCTs indexed on the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro; www.pedro.org.au) published between 2010 and 2015. A total of 200 articles were randomly selected, and we extracted data related to the publishing trial, the publishing journal, methodological quality of the trials (measured by the 0-10 item PEDro scale), and total and individual scores of Altmetric mentioned and Altmetric reader. The study was a cross-sectional study, and multivariate regression models and descriptive statistics were used. RESULTS A total of four variables were associated with Altmetric mentioned score: impact factor (β-coefficient=3.4 points), number of years since publication (β-coefficient=–4.9 points), number of citations divided by years since publication (β-coefficient=5.2 points), and descriptive title (β-coefficient=–29.4 points). Only one independent variable was associated with Altmetric reader score: number of citations divided by years since publication (β-coefficient=10.1 points, 95% CI 7.74-12.46). We also found that the majority of articles were published in English, with a descriptive title, and published in open access journals endorsing the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement. CONCLUSIONS Researchers should preferably select high impact factor journals for submission and use declarative or interrogative titles, as these factors are likely to increase the visibility of their studies in social media.

scholarly journals Does Success Breed Success? A Study on the Correlation between Impact Factor and Quantity in Chinese Academic Journals

2021 ◽  
Vol 0 (0) ◽  
Author(s):  
Kun Chen ◽  
Xian-tong Ren ◽  
Guo-liang Yang ◽  
Ailifeire Abudouguli
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Impact Factor ◽  
Natural Sciences ◽  
Growth Trend ◽  
Chinese Publishing ◽  
International Publishing ◽  
Fierce Competition ◽  
The Impact ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Journal Papers

Abstract Purpose This paper studies the relationship between the impact factor (IF) and the number of journal papers in Chinese publishing system. Design/methodology/approach The method proposed by Huang (2016) is used whereas to analysis the data of Chinese journals in this study. Findings Based on the analysis, we find the following. (1) The average impact factor (AIF) of journals in all disciplines maintained a growth trend from 2007 to 2017. Whether before or after removing outlier journals that may garner publication fees, the IF and its growth rate for most social sciences disciplines are larger than those of most natural sciences disciplines, and the number of journal papers on social sciences disciplines decreased while that of natural sciences disciplines increased from 2007 to 2017. (2) The removal of outlier journals has a greater impact on the relationship between the IF and the number of journal papers in some disciplines such as Geosciences because there may be journals that publish many papers to garner publication fees. (3) The success-breeds-success (SBS) principle is applicable in Chinese journals on natural sciences disciplines but not in Chinese journals on social sciences disciplines, and the relationship is the reverse of the SBS principle in Economics and Education & Educational Research. (4) Based on interviews and surveys, the difference in the relationship between the IF and the number of journal papers for Chinese natural sciences disciplines and Chinese social sciences disciplines may be due to the influence of the international publishing system. Chinese natural sciences journals are losing their academic power while Chinese social sciences journals that are less influenced by the international publishing system are in fierce competition. Research limitation More implications could be found if long-term tracking and comparing the international publishing system with Chinese publishing system are taken. Practical implications It is suggested that researchers from different countries study natural science and social sciences journals in their languages and observe the influence of the international publishing system. Originality/value This paper presents an overview of the relationship between IF and the number of journal papers in Chinese publishing system from 2007 to 2017, provides insights into the relationship in different disciplines in Chinese publishing system, and points out the similarities and differences between Chinese publishing system and international publishing system.

What are the variables associated with Altmetric scores? – An overview of methodological reviews (Preprint)

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amanda Costa Araujo Sr ◽  
Adriane Aver Vanin Sr ◽  
Dafne Port Nascimento Sr ◽  
Gabrielle Zoldan Gonzalez Sr ◽  
Leonardo Oliveira Pena Costa Sr
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Impact Factor ◽  
Journal Impact Factor ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Open Access Journals ◽  
Citation Counts ◽  
Number Of Citations ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Journal Impact ◽  
Publishing Journal

BACKGROUND The most common way to assess the impact of an article is based upon the number of citations. However, the number of citations do not precisely reflect if the message of the paper is reaching a wider audience. Currently, social media has been used to disseminate contents of scientific articles. In order to measure this type of impact a new tool named Altmetric was created. Altmetric aims to quantify the impact of each article through the media online. OBJECTIVE This overview of methodological reviews aims to describe the associations between the publishing journal and the publishing articles variables with Altmetric scores. METHODS Search strategies on MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, CENTRAL and Cochrane Library including publications since the inception until July 2018 were conducted. We extracted data related to the publishing trial and the publishing journal associated with Altmetric scores. RESULTS A total of 11 studies were considered eligible. These studies summarized a total of 565,352 articles. The variables citation counts, journal impact factor, access counts (i.e. considered as the sum of HTML views and PDF downloads), papers published as open access and press release generated by the publishing journal were associated with Altmetric scores. The magnitudes of these correlations ranged from weak to moderate. CONCLUSIONS Citation counts and journal impact factor are the most common associators of high Altmetric scores. Other variables such as access counts, papers published in open access journals and the use of press releases are also likely to influence online media attention. CLINICALTRIAL N/A

scholarly journals Prospective registration and reporting of trial number in randomised clinical trials: global cross sectional study of the adoption of ICMJE and Declaration of Helsinki recommendations

BMJ ◽  
2020 ◽  
pp. m982 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mustafa Al-Durra ◽  
Robert P Nolan ◽  
Emily Seto ◽  
Joseph A Cafazzo
Keyword(s):  
Impact Factor ◽  
Prospective Trial ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
International Committee ◽  
Trial Registration ◽  
World Health ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Journal Citation Reports ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Publishing Journal

Abstract Objectives To evaluate the compliance with prospective registration and inclusion of the trial registration number (TRN) in published randomised controlled trials (RCTs), and to analyse the rationale behind, and detect selective registration bias in, retrospective trial registration. Design Cross sectional analysis. Data sources PubMed, the 17 World Health Organization’s trial registries, University of Toronto library, International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) list of member journals, and the InCites Journal Citation Reports. Study selection criteria RCTs registered in any WHO trial registry and published in any PubMed indexed journal in 2018. Results This study included 10 500 manuscripts published in 2105 journals. Overall, 71.2% (7473/10500) reported the TRN and 41.7% (3013/7218) complied with prospective trial registration. The univariable and multivariable analyses reported significant relations (P<0.05) between reporting the TRN and the impact factor and ICMJE membership of the publishing journal. A significant relation (P<0.05) was also observed between prospective trial registration and the registry, region, condition, funding, trial size, interval between paper registration and submission dates, impact factor, and ICMJE membership of the publishing journal. A manuscript published in an ICMJE member journal was 5.8 times more likely to include the TRN (odds ratio 5.8, 95% confidence interval 4.0 to 8.2), and a published trial was 1.8 times more likely to be registered prospectively (1.8, 1.5 to 2.2) when published in an ICMJE member journal compared with other journals. This study detected a new form of bias, selective registration bias, with a higher proportion (85.2% (616/723)) of trials registered retrospectively within a year of submission for publication. Higher rates of retrospective registrations were observed within the first three to eight weeks after enrolment of study participants. Within the 286 RCTs registered retrospectively and published in an ICMJE member journal, only 2.8% (8/286) of the authors included a statement justifying the delayed registration. Reasons included lack of awareness, error of omission, and the registration process taking longer than anticipated. Conclusions This study found a high compliance in reporting of the TRN for trial papers published in ICMJE member journals, but prospective trial registration was low.

scholarly journals Research groups: how big should they be?

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Isabelle Cook ◽  
Sam Grange ◽  
Adam Eyre-Walker
Keyword(s):  
Impact Factor ◽  
Group Size ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Average Group ◽  
Using Data ◽  
Number Of Publications ◽  
Number Of Citations ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Large Groups ◽  
The Relationship

We have investigated the relationship between research group size and productivity in the life sciences in the United Kingdom using data from 398 principle investigators (PIs). We show that the number of publications increases linearly with group size, but that the slope is modest relative to the intercept, and that the relationship explains little of the variance in productivity. A comparison of the slope and intercept suggests that PIs contribute on average 5-times more productivity than an average group member and using multiple regression we estimate that post-doctoral researchers are approximately 3–times more productive than PhD students. We also find that the impact factor and the number of citations are both non-linearly related to group size such that there is a maximum. However, the relationships explain little of the variance and the curvatures are shallow so the impact factor and the number of citations do not greatly depend upon group size. The intercept is large relative to curvature suggesting that the PI is largely responsible for the impact factor and the number of citations from their group. Surprisingly we find this non-linear relationship for post-docs, but for PhD students we observe a slight but significant decrease in the impact factor. The results have important implications for the funding of research. Given a set number of Pis there is no evidence of diminishing returns in terms of the number of papers published and only a very weak cost to very large groups in terms of where those papers are published and the number of citations they receive. However, the results do suggest that it might be more productive to invest in new permanent members of faculty rather than additional post-docs and PhD students.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document