Citation Skew in Plastic Surgery Journals: Does the Journal Impact Factor Predict Individual Article Citation Rate?

2019 ◽  
Vol 40 (10) ◽  
pp. 1136-1142 ◽  
Author(s):  
Malke Asaad ◽  
Austin Paul Kallarackal ◽  
Jesse Meaike ◽  
Aashish Rajesh ◽  
Rafael U de Azevedo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Impact Factor ◽  
Plastic Surgery ◽  
Journal Impact Factor ◽  
Citation Rate ◽  
Scientific Work ◽  
Biomedical Science ◽  
Unequal Distribution ◽  
Number Of Citations ◽  
Journal Impact ◽  
Surgery Journals

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.

Journal Impact Factor versus the Evidence Level of Articles Published in Plastic Surgery Journals

2014 ◽  
Vol 133 (6) ◽  
pp. 1502-1507 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maria A. Rodrigues ◽  
Ana C. B. Tedesco ◽  
Fabio X. Nahas ◽  
Lydia M. Ferreira
Keyword(s):  
Impact Factor ◽  
Plastic Surgery ◽  
Journal Impact Factor ◽  
Factor Versus ◽  
Evidence Level ◽  
Journal Impact ◽  
Surgery Journals

scholarly journals In praise of the impact factor

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Antonakis ◽  
Nicolas Bastardoz ◽  
Philippe Jacquart
Keyword(s):  
Impact Factor ◽  
Journal Impact Factor ◽  
Journal Articles ◽  
Good Proxy ◽  
Number Of Citations ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Journal Impact ◽  
Article Quality

The impact factor has been criticized on several fronts, including that the distribution of citations to journal articles is heavily skewed. We nuance these critiques and show that the number of citations an article receives is significantly predicted by journal impact factor. Thus, impact factor can be used as a reasonably good proxy of article quality.

scholarly journals Quality assessment of instructions for authors in dental, oral and maxillofacial journals

NEMESIS ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 18
Author(s):  
Aleksandra Hebda ◽  
Guillaume A Odri ◽  
Raphael Olszewski
Keyword(s):  
Impact Factor ◽  
Quality Assessment ◽  
Journal Impact Factor ◽  
Assessment Tool ◽  
Maxillofacial Surgery ◽  
Interobserver Reproducibility ◽  
Quality Rating ◽  
Journal Impact ◽  
Surgery Journals

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.

scholarly journals “Worth(less) papers” – are journal impact factor and number of citations suitable indicators to evaluate quality of scientists?

2018 ◽  
Vol XVI (2) ◽  
pp. 369-388 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aleksandar Racz ◽  
Suzana Marković
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Impact Factor ◽  
Journal Impact Factor ◽  
Academic Publishing ◽  
Digital Repository ◽  
Open Access Journals ◽  
On Line ◽  
Number Of Citations ◽  
Journal Impact

Technology driven changings with consecutive increase in the on-line availability and accessibility of journals and papers rapidly changes patterns of academic communication and publishing. The dissemination of important research findings through the academic and scientific community begins with publication in peer-reviewed journals. Aim of this article is to identify, critically evaluate and integrate the findings of relevant, high-quality individual studies addressing the trends of enhancement of visibility and accessibility of academic publishing in digital era. The number of citations a paper receives is often used as a measure of its impact and by extension, of its quality. Many aberrations of the citation practices have been reported in the attempt to increase impact of someone’s paper through manipulation with self-citation, inter-citation and citation cartels. Authors revenues to legally extend visibility, awareness and accessibility of their research outputs with uprising in citation and amplifying measurable personal scientist impact has strongly been enhanced by on line communication tools like networking (LinkedIn, Research Gate, Academia.edu, Google Scholar), sharing (Facebook, Blogs, Twitter, Google Plus) media sharing (Slide Share), data sharing (Dryad Digital Repository, Mendeley database, PubMed, PubChem), code sharing, impact tracking. Publishing in Open Access journals. Many studies and review articles in last decade have examined whether open access articles receive more citations than equivalent subscription toll access) articles and most of them lead to conclusion that there might be high probability that open access articles have the open access citation advantage over generally equivalent payfor-access articles in many, if not most disciplines. But it is still questionable are those never cited papers indeed “Worth(less) papers” and should journal impact factor and number of citations be considered as only suitable indicators to evaluate quality of scientists? “Publish or perish” phrase usually used to describe the pressure in academia to rapidly and continually publish academic work to sustain or further one’s career can now in 21. Century be reformulate into “Publish, be cited and maybe will not Perish”.

scholarly journals Use of the journal impact factor for assessing individual articles: Statistically flawed or not?

F1000Research ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 9 ◽  
pp. 366
Author(s):  
Ludo Waltman ◽  
Vincent A. Traag
Keyword(s):  
Impact Factor ◽  
San Francisco ◽  
Journal Impact Factor ◽  
Dominant Role ◽  
Research Assessment ◽  
Primary Focus ◽  
Number Of Citations ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Journal Impact ◽  
Accurate Indicator

Most scientometricians reject the use of the journal impact factor for assessing individual articles and their authors. The well-known San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment also strongly objects against this way of using the impact factor. Arguments against the use of the impact factor at the level of individual articles are often based on statistical considerations. The skewness of journal citation distributions typically plays a central role in these arguments. We present a theoretical analysis of statistical arguments against the use of the impact factor at the level of individual articles. Our analysis shows that these arguments do not support the conclusion that the impact factor should not be used for assessing individual articles. Using computer simulations, we demonstrate that under certain conditions the number of citations an article has received is a more accurate indicator of the value of the article than the impact factor. However, under other conditions, the impact factor is a more accurate indicator. It is important to critically discuss the dominant role of the impact factor in research evaluations, but the discussion should not be based on misplaced statistical arguments. Instead, the primary focus should be on the socio-technical implications of the use of the impact factor.

scholarly journals Scholarly Activity of Radiation Oncologists in High-Income Developing Countries: Saudi Arabia as an Example

2021 ◽  
pp. 378-383
Author(s):  
Majed A. Alghamdi ◽  
Suliman M. Alghamdi ◽  
Yasir A. Bahadur ◽  
Mushabbab A. Asiri ◽  
Hussain A. AlHussain ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Saudi Arabia ◽  
Impact Factor ◽  
International Collaboration ◽  
Journal Impact Factor ◽  
Scholarly Activity ◽  
Oncology Research ◽  
Radiation Oncologists ◽  
Number Of Citations ◽  
Second Period ◽  
Journal Impact

PURPOSE To examine the trends and quality metrics of publications by radiation oncologists in Saudi Arabia. METHODS PubMed was searched using names of all Saudi radiation oncologists to retrieve published articles between January 2010 and December 2019. International collaboration, journal impact factor and country of origin, and number of citations were collected. Each article was assessed for epidemiologic type and independently assigned a level of evidence (LOE) by two authors. The trend in publications was examined and compared in the first and second 5-year periods (2010-2014 and 2015-2019) using relevant parameters. RESULTS A total of 186 publications were found and included. The most common type of research was cohort studies followed by case reports and case series in 24%, 14%, and 13% of all publications, respectively. Dosimetry, clinical, and preclinical studies formed 7%, 8.6%, and 7.5% of the total publications, respectively. The LOE was I, II, III, IV, and not applicable in 8.6%, 22%, 25.8%, 29%, and 14.5% of the included publications, respectively. Comparing the first and second 5-year periods, there was an increase in international collaboration ( P < .001) in the second period. The number of citations ( P < .001) and journal impact factor ( P = .028) were lower in the second period. LOE and publications in international journals were not statistically different between the two periods. CONCLUSION Although radiation oncology research activity in Saudi Arabia has gained momentum in terms of volume and international collaboration over time, the LOE has not improved. This calls for a national effort to make the contribution to the literature a priority, allocate adequate resources, and apply appropriate measures to enhance research productivity and quality.

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 Case Reports in Pediatric Dentistry Journals: A Systematic Review about Their Effect on Impact Factor and Future Investigations

2019 ◽  
Vol 7 (4) ◽  
pp. 103 ◽  
Author(s):  
Romeo Patini ◽  
Edoardo Staderini ◽  
Andrea Camodeca ◽  
Federica Guglielmi ◽  
Patrizia Gallenzi
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Impact Factor ◽  
Journal Impact Factor ◽  
Case Reports ◽  
Citation Rate ◽  
Scientific Information ◽  
Pediatric Dentistry ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Number Percentage ◽  
Journal Impact

Background: The effects of publishing case reports on journal impact factor and their impact on future research in pediatric dentistry has not been clearly evaluated yet. Aim. To assess the relevance and role of case reports in pediatric dentistry. Methods: A systematic review (PROSPERO registration number: CRD42018108621) of all case reports published between 2011 and 2012 in the three major pediatric dentistry journals was performed manually. Data regarding citations of each report were acquired from the Institute for Scientific Information database available online. The authors analyzed information regarding citations (number, percentage, and mean) received by each case report and considered their relation with the 2013 journal impact factor. Results: Case reports accounted for almost sixteen per cent of all articles published between 2011 and 2012. The citation rate of case reports was generally low and the highest mean citation was 0.5. This review revealed that 6 (9.52%) case reports had at least 5 citations and that the majority of the citing articles were also case reports (27.78%) or narrative reviews (25%). Conclusions: The publication of case reports affected the journal impact factor in a negative way, this influence is closely related to the percentage of the published case reports. Case reports about innovative topics, describing rare diseases, syndromes, and pathologies were more frequently cited.

scholarly journals Use of the journal impact factor for assessing individual articles need not be statistically wrong

F1000Research ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 9 ◽  
pp. 366
Author(s):  
Ludo Waltman ◽  
Vincent A. Traag
Keyword(s):  
Impact Factor ◽  
San Francisco ◽  
Journal Impact Factor ◽  
Dominant Role ◽  
Research Assessment ◽  
Primary Focus ◽  
Number Of Citations ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Journal Impact

Most scientometricians reject the use of the journal impact factor for assessing individual articles and their authors. The well-known San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment also strongly objects against this way of using the impact factor. Arguments against the use of the impact factor at the level of individual articles are often based on statistical considerations. The skewness of journal citation distributions typically plays a central role in these arguments. We present a theoretical analysis of statistical arguments against the use of the impact factor at the level of individual articles. Our analysis shows that these arguments do not support the conclusion that the impact factor should not be used for assessing individual articles. In fact, our computer simulations demonstrate the possibility that the impact factor is a more accurate indicator of the value of an article than the number of citations the article has received. It is important to critically discuss the dominant role of the impact factor in research evaluations, but the discussion should not be based on misplaced statistical arguments. Instead, the primary focus should be on the socio-technical implications of the use of the impact factor.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document