scholarly journals Social influence and peer review — impact factor and citation

EMBO Reports ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 17 (4) ◽  
pp. 473-473 ◽  
Author(s):  
Haitham Sobhy
Keyword(s):  
Social Influence ◽  
Impact Factor ◽  
Peer Review

scholarly journals Peer review practices by medical imaging journals

2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas C. Kwee ◽  
Hugo J. A. Adams ◽  
Robert M. Kwee
Keyword(s):  
Nuclear Medicine ◽  
Medical Imaging ◽  
Impact Factor ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Correlation Coefficient ◽  
Manuscript Submission ◽  
Peer Reviews ◽  
Journal Citation Reports ◽  
Review Model ◽  
Double Blinded

Abstract Objective To investigate peer review practices by medical imaging journals. Methods Journals in the category "radiology, nuclear medicine and medical imaging" of the 2018 Journal Citation Reports were included. Results Of 119 included journals, 62 (52.1%) used single-blinded peer review, 49 (41.2%) used double-blinded peer review, two (1.7%) used open peer review and one (0.8%) used both single-blinded and double-blinded peer reviews, while the peer review model of five journals (4.2%) remained unclear. The use of single-blinded peer review was significantly associated with a journal’s impact factor (correlation coefficient of 0.218, P = 0.022). On subgroup analysis, only subspecialty medical imaging journals had a significant association between the use of single-blinded peer review and a journal’s impact factor (correlation coefficient of 0.354, P = 0.025). Forty-eight journals (40.3%) had a reviewer preference option, 48 journals (40.3%) did not have a reviewer recommendation option, and 23 journals (19.3%) obliged authors to indicate reviewers on their manuscript submission systems. Sixty-four journals (53.8%) did not provide an explicit option on their manuscript submission Web site to indicate nonpreferred reviewers, whereas 55 (46.2%) did. There were no significant associations between the option or obligation to indicate preferred or nonpreferred reviewers and a journal’s impact factor. Conclusion Single-blinded peer review and the option or obligation to indicate preferred or nonpreferred reviewers are frequently employed by medical imaging journals. Single-blinded review is (weakly) associated with a higher impact factor, also for subspecialty journals. The option or obligation to indicate preferred or nonpreferred reviewers is evenly distributed among journals, regardless of impact factor.

Peer Review Metrics and their influence on the Journal Impact

2021 ◽  
pp. 016555152110597
Author(s):  
Sumeer Gul ◽  
Aasif Ahmad Mir ◽  
Sheikh Shueb ◽  
Nahida Tun Nisa ◽  
Salma Nisar
Keyword(s):  
Impact Factor ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Research Performance ◽  
Early Access ◽  
Editorial Decision ◽  
Article Influence Score ◽  
Impact Data ◽  
Journal Impact ◽  
Immediacy Index ◽  
Article Influence

The manuscript processing timeline, a necessary facet of the publishing process, varies from journal to journal, and its influence on the journal impact needs to be studied. The current research looks into the correlation between the ‘Peer Review Metrics’ (submission to first editorial decision; submission to first post-review decision and submission to accept) and the ‘Journal Impact Data’ (2-year Impact Factor; 5-year Impact Factor; Immediacy Index; Eigenfactor Score and Article Influence Score). The data related to ‘Peer Review Metrics’ (submission to first editorial decision; submission to first post-review decision and submission to accept) and ‘Journal Impact Data’ (2-year Impact Factor; 5-year Impact Factor; Immediacy Index; Eigenfactor Score and Article Influence Score) were downloaded from the ‘Nature Research’ journals website https://www.nature.com/nature-portfolio/about/journal-metrics . Accordingly, correlations were drawn between the ‘Peer Review Metrics’ and the ‘Journal Impact Data’. If the time from ‘submission to first editorial decision’ decreases, the ‘Journal Impact Data’ increases and vice versa. However, an increase or decrease in the time from ‘submission to first editorial decision’ does not affect the ‘Eigenfactor Score’ of the journal and vice versa. An increase or decrease in the time from ‘submission to first post-review decision’ does not affect any ‘Journal Impact Data’ and vice versa. If the time from ‘submission to acceptance’ increases, the ‘Journal Impact Data’ (2-year Impact Factor, 5-year Impact Factor, Immediacy Index and Article Influence Score) also increases, and if the time from ‘submission to acceptance’ decreases, so will the ‘Journal Impact Data’. However, an increase or decrease in the time from ‘submission to acceptance’ does not affect the ‘Eigenfactor Score’ of the journal and vice versa. The study will act as a ready reference tool for the scholars to select the most appropriate submitting platforms for their scholarly endeavours. Furthermore, the performance and evaluative indicators responsible for a journal’s overall research performance can also be understood from a micro-analytical view, which will help the researchers select appropriate journals for their future scholarly submissions. Lengthy publication timelines are a big problem for the researchers because they are not able to get the credit for their research on time. Since the study validates a relationship between the ‘Peer Review Metrics’ and ‘Journal Impact Data’, the findings will be of great help in making an appropriate journal’s choice. The study can be an eye opener for the journal administrators who vocalise a speed-up publication process by enhancing certain areas of publication timeline. The study is the first of its kind that correlates the ‘Peer Review Metrics’ of the journals and the ‘Journal Impact Data’. The study’s findings are limited to the data retrieved from the ‘Nature Research’ journals and cannot be generalised to the full score of journals. The study can be extended across other publishers to generalise the findings. Even the articles’ early access availability concerning ‘Peer Review Metrics’ of the journals and the ‘Journal Impact Data’ can be studied.

scholarly journals Navigating the Publication Process: An ASABE Journals’ Perspective

2019 ◽  
Vol 62 (5) ◽  
pp. 1147-1153
Author(s):  
Garey A. Fox ◽  
Kyle R. Douglas-Mankin ◽  
Kasiviswanathan Muthukumarappan ◽  
Jun Zhu ◽  
Joseph C. Walker
Keyword(s):  
Impact Factor ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Subject Matter ◽  
Research Articles ◽  
Subject Matter Experts ◽  
Review Time ◽  
Publication Process ◽  
Quality Review

Abstract. HighlightsASABE journals publish impactful research in multiple article types in addition to research articles. Prospective authors should consider a journal’s peer-review quality, readership, metrics, and page charges. An article’s impact should be measured based on citations instead of predicted based on the journal’s impact factor. Always recommend subject matter experts as reviewers so that a manuscript can benefit from their suggestions. Publishing in ASABE journals offers opportunities for contributing to and being recognized by the profession. Keywords: Impact factor, Page charges, Peer-reviewed journals, Review quality, Review time

Ergebnisse einer Umfrage zur Publikation wissenschaftlicher Studienergebnisse im deutschsprachigen Raum

2013 ◽  
Vol 41 (05) ◽  
pp. 304-310 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. Arlt ◽  
P. Haimerl ◽  
A. Wehrend ◽  
J. Reinhardt ◽  
W. Heuwieser
Keyword(s):  
Impact Factor ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Klinische Relevanz

Zusammenfassung Gegenstand: Damit der tierärztliche Beruf auf Basis aktueller wissenschaftlicher Erkenntnisse ausgeübt werden kann, ist ein zügiger und effektiver Transfer von Wissen aus der Forschung in die Praxis erforderlich. Artikel in veterinärmedizinischen Fachzeitschriften stellen ein wesentliches Bindeglied für diesen Wissenstransfer dar. Die Arbeitsleistung von Wissenschaftlern wird heutzutage oft daran gemessen, wie viele Artikel sie in anerkannten Fachzeitschriften veröffentlicht haben. Da der größte Teil dieser Fachzeitschriften in englischer Sprache erscheint, kann davon ausgegangen werden, dass viele im deutschsprachigen Raum erarbeiteten Resultate nicht oder verzögert die deutschsprachige Tierärzteschaft erreichen. Material und Methoden: Mithilfe einer Online-Umfrage wurden Professoren und wissenschaftliche Mitarbeiter der veterinärmedizinischen Hochschulen bzw. Fakultäten in Deutschland, Österreich und der Schweiz befragt. Die Teilnehmer sollten angeben, über welche Wege sie ihre Ergebnisse veröffentlichen (z. B. Fachartikel oder Kongressvorträge) und welche Faktoren für sie bei der Auswahl einer Fachzeitschrift wichtig sind. Ergebnisse: An der Umfrage nahmen 118 Personen teil. Fast zwei Drittel der Teilnehmer gaben an, in den letzten 5 Jahren mehr als 10 Artikel veröffentlicht zu haben. Über die Hälfte dieser Artikel wurden in englischer Sprache publiziert. Der überwiegende Anteil der Befragten sieht das Peer-Review-Verfahren als geeignet an, die Qualität von Zeitschriftenbeiträgen zu erhöhen. Der Impact Factor der Zeitschrift wird als mäßiger Indikator für die Qualität eines Artikels bewertet, ist jedoch ein wesentliches Entscheidungskriterium bei der Auswahl einer Zeitschrift für eine Publikation. Schlussfolgerung und klinische Relevanz: Die Angaben der Teilnehmer zeigen, dass diese ihre wissenschaftlichen Ergebnisse bevorzugt in englischsprachigen Zeitschriften mit hohem Impact Factor veröffentlichen. Es ist daher zu befürchten, dass Tierärzte über deutschsprachige Zeitschriften Informationen zum aktuellen Forschungsstand nicht oder verspätet erhalten. Eine zeitnahe, gezielte Aufbereitung gewonnener wissenschaftlicher Ergebnisse für die tierärztliche Praxis ist daher sinnvoll.

scholarly journals From Meeting Presentation to Peer-Review Publication – a UK Review

2006 ◽  
Vol 88 (1) ◽  
pp. 52-56 ◽  
Author(s):  
AR Weale ◽  
AG Edwards ◽  
PA Lear ◽  
JDT Morgan
Keyword(s):  
Great Britain ◽  
Impact Factor ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Significant Variation ◽  
Similar Rate ◽  
Publication Rate ◽  
Impact Factors ◽  
Wide Spread ◽  
Transplantation Society

INTRODUCTION Annual academic surgical meetings provide a forum for the discussion of research. For the wide-spread dissemination of this information, peer-reviewed publication is required. The aim of this study was to compare the amount of presentations which go on to publication from 4 UK-based surgical meetings. MATERIALS AND METHODS We determined whether a presentation had led to a successful publication using PubMed, a median of 28 months following each meeting. We compared the ASGBI publication rate with the meetings of the Vascular Surgical Society (VSSGBI), the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland (ACPGBI) and the British Transplantation Society (BTS). We also compared the median impact factor of journals used. RESULTS The ASGBI and BTS had a similar rate of presentations resulting in publication, with 35% and 36% at 2 years, respectively. The VSS had a significantly greater proportion of presentations resulting in publication (54% at 2 years; P = 0.004), whilst the ACPGBI had significant fewer (24% at 2 years; P = 0.006). There was no difference in the median impact factors of the journals used between the meetings (Kruskal Wallis P = 0.883). CONCLUSIONS There is a significant variation between meetings in terms of turning presentations into publications. However, the majority of abstracts have still not been fully published within 2 years of presentation at the meeting.

scholarly journals An Overview of Retraction Status and Reasons of Non-Cochrane Systematic Reviews in Medicine

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Qianling Shi ◽  
Zijun Wang ◽  
Qi Zhou ◽  
Ruizhen Hou ◽  
Xia Gao ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Data Analysis ◽  
Impact Factor ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Median Time ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Research Misconduct ◽  
The Third ◽  
Study Selection ◽  
The Status ◽  
Language Restriction

AbstractBackgroundMany previous studies have analyzed the status of retracted publications from different perspectives, but so far no study has focused on systematic reviews (SRs). The purpose of this study is to analyze the retraction status and reasons of non-Cochrane SRs in the field of medicine.MethodsWe searched MEDLINE and Embase from their inception to April 18, 2020, as well as Retraction Watch Database and Google Scholar with no language restriction to find non-Cochrane SRs that were retracted for any reason. Two reviewers independently screened and extracted data. We describe the characteristic and reasons of retraction and the duration from publication to retraction.ResultsWe identified 150 non-Cochrane SRs in medicine retracted between 2004 and 2020. The majority of retracted SRs were led by authors from China and affiliated with hospitals. Most SRs were published in journals with an impact factor ≤3, and in journal ranked in the third quarter. The largest proportion of retraction notices were issued by the publisher and editor(s) jointly; seven did not report this information. Fraudulent peer-review was the most common reason for retraction, followed by unreliable data meaning errors in study selection or data analysis. The median time between publication and retraction was 14.0 months. SRs retracted due to research misconduct took longer to retract than SRs retracted because of honest error.ConclusionsThe situation with retracted SRs is critical globally, and in particular in China. The most common reasons for retraction are fraudulent peer-review and unreliable data, and in most cases the study is retracted more than a year after publication. Efforts should be made to improve the process of peer review and adherence to the COPE retraction guidance, while at the same time authors should strengthen their skills in SR methodology.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document