scholarly journals Tweeting birds: online mentions predict future citations in ornithology

2017 ◽  
Vol 4 (11) ◽  
pp. 171371 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tom Finch ◽  
Nina O'Hanlon ◽  
Steve P. Dudley
Keyword(s):  
Impact Factor ◽  
Citation Count ◽  
Scientific Publication ◽  
Online Activity ◽  
Online Engagement ◽  
Online Tools ◽  
Scholarly Impact ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Increased Activity ◽  
Journal Impact

The rapid growth of online tools to communicate scientific research raises the important question of whether online attention is associated with citations in the scholarly literature. The Altmetric Attention Score (AAS) quantifies the attention received by a scientific publication on various online platforms including news, blogs and social media. It has been advanced as a rapid way of gauging the impact of a piece of research, both in terms of potential future scholarly citations and wider online engagement. Here, we explore variation in the AAS of 2677 research articles published in 10 ornithological journals between 2012 and 2016. On average, AAS increased sevenfold in just five years, primarily due to increased activity on Twitter which contributed 75% of the total score. For a subset of 878 articles published in 2014, including an additional 323 ornithology articles from non-specialist journals, an increase in AAS from 1 to 20 resulted in a predicted 112% increase in citation count from 2.6 to 5.5 citations per article. This effect interacted with journal impact factor, with weaker effects of AAS in higher impact factor journals. Our results suggest that altmetrics (or the online activity they measure), as well as complementing traditional measures of scholarly impact in ornithology such as citations, may also anticipate or even drive them.

scholarly journals Scientific publications in nursing journals from Mainland China, Taiwan, and Hong Kong: a 10-year survey of the literature

PeerJ ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 4 ◽  
pp. e1798 ◽  
Author(s):  
Di Zhang ◽  
Xiaming Wang ◽  
Xueru Yuan ◽  
Li Yang ◽  
Yu Xue ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hong Kong ◽  
Impact Factor ◽  
Journal Impact Factor ◽  
Research Output ◽  
Citation Count ◽  
Mainland China ◽  
Scientific Publications ◽  
The Mean ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Journal Impact

Background:China has witnessed remarkable progress in scientific performance in recent years. However, the quantity and quality of nursing publications from three major regions (Mainland China, Taiwan, and Hong Kong) have not been reported. This study aimed to investigate the characteristics of scientific research productivity from Mainland China, Taiwan, and Hong Kong in the field of nursing.Methods:Articles published in the 110 nursing journals originating from Mainland China, Taiwan, and Hong Kong between 2005 and 2014 were retrieved from the Web of Science. The total number of articles published, the impact factor, and the citation count were analyzed.Results:There were 2,439 publications between 2005 and 2014 from China, including 438 from Mainland China, 1,506 from Taiwan, and 495 from Hong Kong. There was a significant increase in publications for these three regions (p < 0.05), especially for Mainland China, with a 59.50-fold increase experienced. From 2011, the number of publications from Mainland China exceeded that from Hong Kong. Taiwan had the highest total journal impact factor (2,142.81), followed by Hong Kong (720.39) and Mainland China (583.94). The mean journal impact factor from Hong Kong (1.46) was higher than that from Taiwan (1.42) and Mainland China (1.33). Taiwan had the highest total citation count (8,392), followed by Hong Kong (3,785) and Mainland China (1,493). The mean citation count from Hong Kong (7.65) was higher than that from Taiwan (5.57) and Mainland China (3.41). The Journal of Clinical Nursing was the most popular journal in the three regions.Discussion:Chinese contributions to the field of nursing have significantly increased in the past ten years, particularly from Mainland China. Taiwan is the most productive region in China. Hong Kong had the highest-quality research output, according to mean journal impact factor and mean citation count.

scholarly journals Auto-correlation of journal impact factor for consensus research reporting statements: a cohort study

PeerJ ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 4 ◽  
pp. e1887 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel R. Shanahan
Keyword(s):  
Impact Factor ◽  
Citation Count ◽  
Reporting Guidelines ◽  
Strong Positive Correlation ◽  
Research Reporting ◽  
Median Increase ◽  
Citation Counts ◽  
Number Of Citations ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Journal Impact

Background.The Journal Citation Reports journal impact factors (JIFs) are widely used to rank and evaluate journals, standing as a proxy for the relative importance of a journal within its field. However, numerous criticisms have been made of use of a JIF to evaluate importance. This problem is exacerbated when the use of JIFs is extended to evaluate not only the journals, but the papers therein. The purpose of this study was therefore to investigate the relationship between the number of citations and journal IF for identical articles published simultaneously in multiple journals.Methods.Eligible articles were consensus research reporting statements listed on the EQUATOR Network website that were published simultaneously in three or more journals. The correlation between the citation count for each article and the median journal JIF over the published period, and between the citation count and number of article accesses was calculated for each reporting statement.Results.Nine research reporting statements were included in this analysis, representing 85 articles published across 58 journals in biomedicine. The number of citations was strongly correlated to the JIF for six of the nine reporting guidelines, with moderate correlation shown for the remaining three guidelines (medianr= 0.66, 95% CI [0.45–0.90]). There was also a strong positive correlation between the number of citations and the number of article accesses (medianr= 0.71, 95% CI [0.5–0.8]), although the number of data points for this analysis were limited. When adjusted for the individual reporting guidelines, each logarithm unit of JIF predicted a median increase of 0.8 logarithm units of citation counts (95% CI [−0.4–5.2]), and each logarithm unit of article accesses predicted a median increase of 0.1 logarithm units of citation counts (95% CI [−0.9–1.4]). This model explained 26% of the variance in citations (median adjustedr2= 0.26, range 0.18–1.0).Conclusion.The impact factor of the journal in which a reporting statement was published was shown to influence the number of citations that statement will gather over time. Similarly, the number of article accesses also influenced the number of citations, although to a lesser extent than the impact factor. This demonstrates that citation counts are not purely a reflection of scientific merit and the impact factor is, in fact, auto-correlated.

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.

scholarly journals Profile of Brazilian scientific production on A/H1N1 pandemic influenza

2012 ◽  
Vol 17 (6) ◽  
pp. 1629-1634 ◽  
Author(s):  
Adriana Luchs
Keyword(s):  
Impact Factor ◽  
H1n1 Influenza ◽  
Scientific Production ◽  
Similar Amount ◽  
H1n1 Pandemic ◽  
Public Funds ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Journal Impact ◽  
Bibliometric Studies ◽  
Made In

In the last few years, bibliometric studies have proliferated, seeking to provide data on world research. This study analyzes the profile of the Brazilian scientific production in the A (H1N1) influenza field between 2009 and 2011. The research was conducted in MEDLINE, SciELO and LILACS databases, selecting papers in which the term "H1N1" and "Brazil" were defined as the main topics. The data were analyzed taking into consideration the Brazilian state and institution in which the articles were produced, the impact factor of the journal and the language. The research revealed 40 documents (27 from MEDLINE, 16 from SciELO and 24 from LILACS). The journal impact factor ranged from 0.0977 to 8.1230. A similar amount of articles were written in English and Portuguese and São Paulo was the most productive state in the country, with 95% of the Brazilian production originating from the Southern and Southeastern regions. Linguistic data indicate that previous efforts made in order to improve the scientific production of Brazilian researchers making their observations attain a broader scientific audience produced results. It is necessary to assess the scientific studies, especially those conducted with public funds, in order to ensure that the results will benefit society.

scholarly journals Uncertainty Measures for Economics Journal Impact Factors

2013 ◽  
Vol 51 (1) ◽  
pp. 173-189 ◽  
Author(s):  
David I Stern
Keyword(s):  
Impact Factor ◽  
Confidence Intervals ◽  
Standard Error ◽  
Impact Factors ◽  
Elite Group ◽  
Economics Journal ◽  
Uncertainty Measures ◽  
Economics Journals ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Journal Impact

Academic economists appear to be intensely interested in rankings of journals, institutions, and individuals. Yet there is little discussion of the uncertainty associated with these rankings. To illustrate the uncertainty associated with citations-based rankings, I compute the standard error of the impact factor for all economics journals with a five-year impact factor in the 2011 Journal Citations Report. I use these to derive confidence intervals for the impact factors as well as ranges of possible rank for a subset of thirty journals. I find that the impact factors of the top two journals are well defined and set these journals apart in a clearly defined group. An elite group of 9–11 mainstream journals can also be fairly reliably distinguished. The four bottom ranked journals are also fairly clearly set apart. For the remainder of the distribution, confidence intervals overlap and rankings are quite uncertain. (JEL A14)

scholarly journals Comparison of the Impact Factors of the Most-Cited Cardiovascular Journals

2019 ◽  
Vol 124 (12) ◽  
pp. 1718-1724 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tobias Opthof
Keyword(s):  
Impact Factor ◽  
Journal Impact Factor ◽  
European Heart Journal ◽  
The Other ◽  
Impact Factors ◽  
Additional Advantage ◽  
The Right ◽  
Number Of Classes ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Journal Impact

In this article, I show that the distribution of citations to papers published by the top 30 journals in the category Cardiac & Cardiovascular Systems of the Web of Science is extremely skewed. This skewness is to the right, which means that there is a long tail of papers that are cited much more frequently than the other papers of the same journal. The consequence is that there is a large difference between the mean and the median of the citation of the papers published by the journals. I further found that there are no differences between the citation distributions of the top 4 journals European Heart Journal , Circulation , Journal of the American College of Cardiology , and Circulation Research . Despite the fact that the journal impact factor (IF) varied between 23.425 for Eur Heart J and 15.211 for Circ Res with the other 2 journals in between, the median citation of their articles plus reviews (IF Median) was 10 for all 4 journals. Given the fact that their citation distributions were similar, it is obvious that an indicator (IF Median) that reflects this similarity must be superior to the classical journal impact factor, which may indicate a nonexisting difference. It is underscored that the IF Median is substantially lower than the journal impact factor for all 30 journals under consideration in this article. Finally, the IF Median has the additional advantage that there is no artificial ranking of 128 journals in the category but rather an attribution of journals to a limited number of classes with comparable impact.

scholarly journals Ckj consolidation among Q1 Urology and Nephrology journals

2020 ◽  
Vol 13 (5) ◽  
pp. 723-727
Author(s):  
Alberto Ortiz
Keyword(s):  
Chronic Kidney Disease ◽  
Kidney Disease ◽  
Impact Factor ◽  
Cost Efficiency ◽  
Journal Impact Factor ◽  
Outcome Prediction ◽  
Web Of Science ◽  
Sglt2 Inhibitors ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Journal Impact

Abstract The Clinical Kidney Journal (ckj) impact factor from Clarivate’s Web of Science for 2019 was 3.388. This consolidates ckj among journals in the top 25% (first quartile, Q1) in the Urology and Nephrology field according to the journal impact factor. The manuscripts contributing the most to the impact factor focused on chronic kidney disease (CKD) epidemiology and evaluation, CKD complications and their management, cost-efficiency of renal replacement therapy, pathogenesis of CKD, familial kidney disease and the environment–genetics interface, onconephrology, technology, SGLT2 inhibitors and outcome prediction. We provide here an overview of the hottest and most impactful topics for 2017–19.

The Eigenfactor™ Score in Highly Specific Medical Fields

2012 ◽  
Vol 91 (4) ◽  
pp. 329-333 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. Sillet ◽  
S. Katsahian ◽  
H. Rangé ◽  
S. Czernichow ◽  
P. Bouchard
Keyword(s):  
Impact Factor ◽  
Web Sites ◽  
Medical Specialty ◽  
Original Research ◽  
Poor Agreement ◽  
Altman Plot ◽  
Scientific Impact ◽  
Thomson Reuters ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Journal Impact

We sought to compare the Eigenfactor Score™ journal rank with the journal Impact Factor over five years, and to identify variables that may influence the ranking differences between the two metrics. Datasets were retrieved from the Thomson Reuters® and Eigenfactor Score™ Web sites. Dentistry was identified as the most specific medical specialty. Variables were retrieved from the selected journals to be included in a regression linear model. Among the 46 dental journals included in the analysis, striking variations in ranks were observed according to the metric used. The Bland-Altman plot showed a poor agreement between the metrics. The multivariate analysis indicates that the number of original research articles, the number of reviews, the self-citations, and the citing time may explain the differences between ranks. The Eigenfactor Score™ seems to better capture the prestige of a journal than the Impact Factor. In medicine, the bibliometric indicators should focus not only on the overall medical field but also on specialized disciplinary fields. Distinct measures are needed to better describe the scientific impact of specialized medical publications.

Predicting Long-Term Citation Impact of Articles in Social and Personality Psychology

2010 ◽  
Vol 106 (3) ◽  
pp. 891-900 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nick Haslam ◽  
Peter Koval
Keyword(s):  
Impact Factor ◽  
Citation Impact ◽  
The United States ◽  
Personality Psychology ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Number Of Citations ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Journal Impact ◽  
Citation Advantage

The citation impact of a comprehensive sample of articles published in social and personality psychology journals in 1998 was evaluated. Potential predictors of the 10-yr. citation impact of 1,580 articles from 37 journals were investigated, including number of authors, number of references, journal impact factor, author nationality, and article length, using linear regression. The impact factor of the journal in which articles appeared was the primary predictor of the citations that they accrued, accounting for 30% of the total variance. Articles with greater length, more references, and more authors were cited relatively often, although the citation advantage of longer articles was not proportionate to their length. A citation advantage was also enjoyed by authors from the United States of America, Canada, and the United Kingdom. 37% of the variance in the total number of citations was accounted for by the study variables.

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document