Impact factors, citations, and GEOPHYSICS

Geophysics ◽  
2005 ◽  
Vol 70 (2) ◽  
pp. 3MA-17MA ◽  
Author(s):  
Markku Peltoniemi
Keyword(s):  
Impact Factor ◽  
Citation Count ◽  
Threshold Value ◽  
Impact Factors ◽  
Geophysical Prospecting ◽  
Geophysical Research ◽  
Journal Citation Reports ◽  
History Of Geophysics ◽  
Number Of Citations ◽  
The Impact

This review assesses the contributions and impact that GEOPHYSICS journal has made to both the theory and the applications of exploration geophysics during its publication life span. The contributions are evaluated first on the basis of Journal Citation Reports data, which summarize information available since 1975 about the impact factor of our journal. The impact factor for GEOPHYSICS in 1975–2002 has ranged between 1.461 and 0.591, with an average of 0.924 and with a relative ranking between 16 and 45 for all journals in its category. The journal receiving the highest impact factor for the period 2000–2003 in the “Geochemistry and Geophysics” category is Reviews of Geophysics, with an average impact factor of 7.787 and which ranged between 9.226 and 6.083. A second and important criterion is the frequency with which individual papers published in GEOPHYSICS have been cited elsewhere. This information is available for the entire publication history of GEOPHYSICS and supports the choices made for the early classic papers. These were listed in both the Silver and the Golden Anniversary issues of GEOPHYSICS. In August 2004, the five most-cited papers in GEOPHYSICS published in the time period 1936 to February 2003 are Thomsen (1986) with 423 citations, Constable et al. (1987) with 380 citations, Cagniard (1953) with 354 citations, Sen et al. (1981) with 313 citations, and Stolt (1978) with 307 citations. Fifteen more papers exceed a threshold value of 200 citations. During 2000–2002, GEOPHYSICS, Geophysical Prospecting, Geophysical Journal International, and Journal of Applied Geophysics were the four journals with the highest number of citations of papers published in GEOPHYSICS. In the same 2000–2002 period, those journals in which papers published in GEOPHYSICS are cited most are GEOPHYSICS, Geophysical Prospecting, Geophysical Journal International, and Journal of Geophysical Research. During 1985, the total number of citations in all journals in the Science Citation Index database to papers published in GEOPHYSICS was 2657. By 2002, this same citation count for GEOPHYSICS had increased to 4784.

scholarly journals Bibliometric analysis of multi-language veterinary journals

2017 ◽  
Vol 29 (3) ◽  
pp. 343-353
Author(s):  
Erwin KRAUSKOPF ◽  
Fernanda GARCIA ◽  
Robert FUNK
Keyword(s):  
Impact Factor ◽  
Bibliometric Analysis ◽  
Web Of Science ◽  
Country Of Origin ◽  
Citation Distribution ◽  
Journal Citation Reports ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Number Of Citations ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Main Language

Abstract The purpose of this study was to investigate the association between language and total number of citations found among documents in journals written in English and other languages. We selected all the journals clustered together in the Journal Citation Reports 2014 under the subject category “Veterinary Sciences” and downloaded all the data registered between 1994-2013 by Web of Science for the journals that stated publishing documents in languages other than English. We classified each of these journals by quartile and extracted information regarding their impact factor, language(s) stated, country of origin, total number of documents published, total number of reviews published, percentage of documents published in English and the quartile in which each journal ranked. Of the 48,118 documents published by the 28 journals analyzed, 55.8% were published in English. Interestingly, although most of the journals state being multi-language, most documents published in quartile 1 journals were in English (an average of 99.2%), while the percentage was 93.1% in quartile 2 journals, 62.1% in quartile 3 journals and 27.4% in quartile 4 journals. We also confirmed that citation distribution in these journals was highly skewed. The results of this study suggest that journals should consider adopting English as the main language as this will increase citation counts and the impact factor of the journal.

scholarly journals Understanding citation patterns between impact-factor and blacklisted journals

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Emanuel Kulczycki ◽  
Marek Hołowiecki ◽  
Zehra Taskin ◽  
Franciszek Krawczyk
Keyword(s):  
Impact Factor ◽  
Web Of Science ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Impact Factors ◽  
Predatory Journals ◽  
Subject Categories ◽  
Citation Indexes ◽  
Predatory Publishing ◽  
Number Of Citations ◽  
The Impact

One of the most fundamental issues in academia today is understanding the differences between legitimate and predatory publishing. While decision-makers and managers consider journals indexed in popular citation indexes such as Web of Science or Scopus as legitimate, they use two blacklists (Beall’s and Cabell’s), one of which has not been updated for a few years, to identify predatory journals. The main aim of our study is to reveal the contribution of the journals accepted as legitimate by the authorities to the visibility of blacklisted journals. For this purpose, 65 blacklisted journals in social sciences and 2,338 Web-of-Science-indexed journals that cited these blacklisted journals were examined in-depth in terms of index coverages, subject categories, impact factors and self-citation patterns. We have analysed 3,234 unique cited papers from blacklisted journals and 5,964 unique citing papers (6,750 citations of cited papers) from Web of Science journals. We found that 13% of the blacklisted papers were cited by WoS journals and 37% of the citations were from impact-factor journals. As a result, although the impact factor is used by decision-makers to determine the levels of the journals, it has been revealed that there is no significant relationship between the impact factor and the number of citations to blacklisted journals. On the other hand, country and author self-citation practices of the journals should be considered. All the findings of this study underline the importance of the second part of this study, which will examine the contents of citations to articles published in predatory journals because understanding the motivations of the authors who cited blacklisted journals is important to correctly understand the citation patterns between impact-factor and blacklisted journals.

Impact factors of psychiatric journals

1997 ◽  
Vol 170 (2) ◽  
pp. 109-112 ◽  
Author(s):  
Louise Howard ◽  
Greg Wilkinson
Keyword(s):  
British Journal ◽  
Impact Factor ◽  
Conflict Of Interest ◽  
Scientific Community ◽  
Impact Factors ◽  
Citation Data ◽  
Journal Citation Reports ◽  
General Psychiatry ◽  
Number Of Citations ◽  
Journal Citation

BackgroundWe examined citation data for the British Journal of Psychiatry (BJP) and four other general psychiatry journals to assess their impact on the scientific community.MethodData on three measures of citations (total number of citations, impact factor and ranking by impact factor) were obtained from Journal Citation Reports for 1985–1994. Rank correlations from year to year were calculated.ResultsThe BJP currently ranks sixth of all psychiatry journals when journals are ranked by impact factor. The journal's impact factor fell between 1985 and 1990 and this was followed by a rise in impact factor after 1991. The BJP did not rank in the top 10 psychiatry journals between 1991 and 1993. Archives of General Psychiatry is cited more frequently than any other psychiatry journal, with the American Journal of Psychiatry usually ranking second. Psychopharmacology journals are replacing more general journals in the top rankings. Rankings of most journals have become less stable in recent years.ConclusionsThe BJP would have to change the nature and number of papers published to improve its impact factor. There are a number of limitations to citation data and such data are only one of several factors useful in evaluating the importance of a journal's contribution to scientific and clinical communities.Conflict of interestThese condauthor is Editor of the British Journal of Psychiatry.

scholarly journals Bibliometric study of ‘overviews of systematic reviews’ of health interventions: evaluation of prevalence, citation and impact factor

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carole Lunny ◽  
Trish Neelakant ◽  
Alyssa Chen ◽  
Gavindeep Shinger ◽  
Adrienne Stevens ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Impact Factor ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Citation Count ◽  
Fold Increase ◽  
Impact Factors ◽  
Healthcare Intervention ◽  
Factors Affecting ◽  
Cochrane Database ◽  
Number Of Citations ◽  
Selection Of

Abstract Background: Overviews synthesising the results of multiple systematic reviews help inform evidence-based clinical practice. In this first of two companion papers, we evaluate the bibliometrics of overviews, including their prevalence and factors affecting citation rates and journal impact factor.Methods: We searched MEDLINE, Epistemonikos and Cochrane databases. We included overviews that: (a) synthesised reviews, (b) conducted a systematic search, (c) had a methods section, and (d) examined a healthcare intervention. Multivariate regression was conducted to determine the association between citation density, impact factor and 6 predictor variables. Results: We found 1218 overviews published from 2000 to 2020; the majority (73%) were published in the most recent 5-year period. We extracted a selection of these overviews (n=541; 44%) dated from 2000 to 2018. The 541 overviews were published in 307 journals; Cochrane Database (8%), PLOS ONE (3%) and Sao Paulo Medical Journal (2%) were the most prevalent. The majority (70%) were published in journals with impact factors between 0.05 and 3.97. We found a mean citation count of 10 overviews per year, published in journals with a mean impact factor of 4.4. In multivariate analysis, overviews with a high number of citations and impact factors had more authors, larger sample sizes, were open access and reported the funding source. Conclusions: An 8-fold increase in the number of overviews was found between 2009 and 2020. We identified 332 overviews published in 2020, which is equivalent to 1 overview published per day. Overviews perform above average for the journals in which they publish.

Significant impact of developing countries and emerging markets in Systematic and Applied Acarology

2019 ◽  
Vol 24 (7) ◽  
pp. 1121-1123
Author(s):  
Zhi-Qiang Zhang
Keyword(s):  
Developing Countries ◽  
Emerging Markets ◽  
Impact Factor ◽  
Impact Factors ◽  
Journal Citation Reports ◽  
Number Of Publications ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Journal Impact ◽  
Journal Citation

Journal impact factors for 2018 were recently announced by Clarivate Analytics in the June 2019 edition of Journal Citation Reports (JCR). In this editorial, I compared the impact factor of Systematic and Applied Acarology (SAA) with those of other main acarological journals as I did in Zhang (2017). Following Zhang (2018a), I also highlighted the top 10 SAA papers from 2016/2017 with the highest numbers of citations in 2018 (according to JCR June 2019 edition). In addition, I remarked on the increasing impact of developing countries and emerging markets in systematic and applied acarology, both in the number of publications and citations, and also include announcements of meetings on applied acarology.

Observation studies vs therapeutic trials in three journals over three decades of pediatric critical care: a systematic review.

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Scott Baird
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Critical Care ◽  
Impact Factor ◽  
Citation Count ◽  
Impact Factors ◽  
Pediatric Critical Care ◽  
Therapeutic Trials ◽  
Pubmed Search ◽  
Medical Subspecialty ◽  
The Impact

Abstract Background: Pediatric critical care developed rapidly as a medical subspecialty over the three decades since 1987, concurrent with a decline in Pediatric ICU mortality rates. It would be interesting to know if research characterized as observation studies or therapeutic trials had a greater impact on this subspecialty during this time. Methods: Three journals with a broad range of impact factors which published pediatric critical care research between 1988 and 2017 were chosen for a systematic review, including a PubMed search for all pediatric critical care studies in these journals during the study period. Studies were characterized as either observation studies or therapeutic trials. Each study’s impact was assessed using citation counts collected from Google Scholar. Results: Therapeutic trials as a percentage of research studies increased with a journal’s impact factor; in addition, therapeutic trials were cited more frequently than observation studies. However, there were more observation studies than therapeutic trials, the citation count increased for both observation studies and therapeutic trials as a journal’s impact factor increased, and the citation count was similar for some or all observation studies and therapeutic trials in two of the study journals. The 10 most cited studies included 7 observation studies and 3 therapeutic trials. Conclusions: This systematic review of three journals suggests that both observation studies and therapeutic trials contributed to the impact of research in pediatric critical care during the three decades following 1987.

Citation analysis of otorhinolaryngology journals: follow-up study

2015 ◽  
Vol 129 (5) ◽  
pp. 489-493 ◽  
Author(s):  
D H Coelho ◽  
L W Edelmayer ◽  
J E Fenton
Keyword(s):  
Impact Factor ◽  
Impact Factors ◽  
The Internet ◽  
Follow Up Study ◽  
The Past ◽  
Journal Citation Reports ◽  
Online Edition ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Journal Impact

AbstractObjective:This study aimed to evaluate the changes in impact factors of otorhinolaryngology journals over the past 15 years.Method:Using the online edition of Journal Citation Reports, standard (2-year) and 5-year impact factors were calculated for the leading 15 journals.Results:The results were compared with the impact factors for 1998. The average standard impact factor and 5-year impact factor increased by 2.72 and 2.05 fold respectively when compared with 1998. The average 2012 standard impact factor and 5-year impact factor were 1.82 and 1.99 respectively, reflecting a 9.3 per cent difference. The average 1998 standard impact factor and 5-year impact factor were 0.67 and 0.97 respectively, reflecting a 44.8 per cent difference. The Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology had the highest standard and five-year impact factors.Conclusion:These data may indicate changing clinical and research interests within our field, as well as increased speed and ease with which the internet has allowed citation. As a result, five-year intervals may no longer be necessary to adequately gauge journal impact.

scholarly journals ANALYSIS OF OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY, ORTHOPEDICS AND THORACIC SURGERY JOURNALS

2015 ◽  
Vol 42 (suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 62-64
Author(s):  
Wilma Terezinha Anselmo Lima
Keyword(s):  
Thoracic Surgery ◽  
Impact Factor ◽  
Google Scholar ◽  
Impact Factors ◽  
Active Search ◽  
Journal Citation Reports ◽  
Extensive Analysis ◽  
Chest Surgery ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Surgery Journals

Objectives: To perform an extensive analysis of journals in Medicine III - CAPES, and specifically those in the areas of Otorhinolaryngology, Orthopedics and Traumatology and Chest Surgery. Method: An active search for the impact factors in the Journal Citation Reports, Scimago, their indexation in Scielo, Lilacs, Scopus and Google Scholar, and their stratification in WebQualis was done. Results: Forty-four journals with measured impact factors ranging from 3.006 to 0.128 were detected in the area of Otorhinolaryngology; however, only 26 of them (60%) had a Qualis measured by CAPES; in the stratification, no journal was detected in A1, three were A2 and nine B1. Three journals were located for Chest Surgery, with only one of them having a measured Qualis (A2) with a mean of 3.61. Sixty-seven journals were detected for Orthopedics and Traumatology, with an impact factor ranging from 4.699 to 0.156; Qualis was measured in only 38 of them (60%); there were three journal stratified as A1, seven as A2 and 25 as B1. Conclusion: The search for journals of higher impact induces authors to not publish in journals related to their area and facing more difficulties than investigators from other areas.

scholarly journals Citation patterns between impact-factor and questionable journals

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Emanuel Kulczycki ◽  
Marek Hołowiecki ◽  
Zehra Taşkın ◽  
Franciszek Krawczyk
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Impact Factor ◽  
Web Of Science ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Impact Factors ◽  
Predatory Journals ◽  
Subject Categories ◽  
Citation Indexes ◽  
Number Of Citations ◽  
The Impact

AbstractOne of the most fundamental issues in academia today is understanding the differences between legitimate and questionable publishing. While decision-makers and managers consider journals indexed in popular citation indexes such as Web of Science or Scopus as legitimate, they use two lists of questionable journals (Beall’s and Cabell’s), one of which has not been updated for a few years, to identify the so-called predatory journals. The main aim of our study is to reveal the contribution of the journals accepted as legitimate by the authorities to the visibility of questionable journals. For this purpose, 65 questionable journals from social sciences and 2338 Web-of-Science-indexed journals that cited these questionable journals were examined in-depth in terms of index coverages, subject categories, impact factors and self-citation patterns. We have analysed 3234 unique cited papers from questionable journals and 5964 unique citing papers (6750 citations of cited papers) from Web of Science journals. We found that 13% of the questionable papers were cited by WoS journals and 37% of the citations were from impact-factor journals. The findings show that neither the impact factor of citing journals nor the size of cited journals is a good predictor of the number of citations to the questionable journals.

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document