The unknown acquaintance, or the impact factor and others

2007 ◽  
Vol 148 (4) ◽  
pp. 165-171
Author(s):  
Anna Berhidi ◽  
Edit Csajbók ◽  
Lívia Vasas
Keyword(s):  
Impact Factor ◽  
Citation Analysis ◽  
Index Number ◽  
Scientific Performance ◽  
H Index ◽  
Master List ◽  
The Many ◽  
The Impact

Nobody doubts the importance of the scientific performance’s evaluation. At the same time its way divides the group of experts. The present study mostly deals with the models of citation-analysis based evaluation. The aim of the authors is to present the background of the best known tool – Impact factor – since, according to the authors’ experience, to the many people use without knowing it well. In addition to the „nonofficial impact factor” and Euro-factor, the most promising index-number, h-index is presented. Finally new initiation – Index Copernicus Master List – is delineated, which is suitable to rank journals. Studying different indexes the authors make a proposal and complete the method of long standing for the evaluation of scientific performance.

scholarly journals Impact Factor, h-Index, and Alternative Metrics: How Should We Measure the Impact of Publications in Plastic Surgery?

2020 ◽  
Vol 146 (2) ◽  
pp. 247e-248e
Author(s):  
Matthew J. Davis ◽  
Amjed Abu-Ghname ◽  
Nikhil Agrawal ◽  
Edward M. Reece ◽  
Sebastian J. Winocour
Keyword(s):  
Impact Factor ◽  
Plastic Surgery ◽  
Factor H ◽  
H Index ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Alternative Metrics

scholarly journals Reply: Impact Factor, h-Index, and Alternative Metrics: How Should We Measure the Impact of Publications in Plastic Surgery?

2021 ◽  
Vol Publish Ahead of Print ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew J. Davis ◽  
Amjed Abu-Ghname ◽  
Nikhil Agrawal ◽  
Edward M. Reece ◽  
Sebastian J. Winocour
Keyword(s):  
Impact Factor ◽  
Plastic Surgery ◽  
Factor H ◽  
H Index ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Alternative Metrics

scholarly journals THEMATIC DIRECTIONS OF DOMESTIC HISTORY OF PSYCHOLOGY AS INTERNAL FACTORS OF THE INDUSTRY DEVELOPMENT: SCIENTOMETRIC ANALYSIS BASED ON THE RSCI MATERIAL

2021 ◽  
pp. 219-251
Author(s):  
А.Н. Моргун ◽  
Ю.Н. Олейник ◽  
А.Л. Журавлев
Keyword(s):  
Impact Factor ◽  
History Of Psychology ◽  
Scientometric Analysis ◽  
Russian Science ◽  
Scientific Performance ◽  
Internal Factors ◽  
Formal Assessment ◽  
Russian Science Citation Index ◽  
History Of ◽  
The Impact

Работа является продолжением исследования влиятельности отечественной истории психологии на материале массива публикаций, представленных в Российском индексе научного цитирования. В работе реализуются методы формальной оценки научной результативности. Анализируются внутренние факторы развития истории психологии как отрасли науки. Путем отбора и категоризации историко-психологических публикаций, индексированных в РИНЦ, выделяются тематические направления в истории психологии. Анализируются их библиометрические и наукометрические показатели. При помощи формальной оценки научной результативности и публикационной активности исследуется влияние отдельных тематических направлений истории психологии на развитие отрасли в целом. Рассчитывается агрегированный импакт-фактор по отрасли по годам за период с 2014 по 2019 годы. Рассчитывается двухлетний импакт-фактор для каждого из тематических направлений отрасли по годам за тот же период. Сопоставляется значение импакт-фактора за год каждого тематического направления со значением агрегированного импакт-фактора по отрасли того же года. Делается вывод о вкладе того или иного направления в восходящие и нисходящие тенденции тренда импактности отрасли. Сравниваются показатели импактности тематических направлений по годам. Выделяются наиболее результативные годы среди расчетных в отношении каждого из выделенных тематических направлений. На основе показателей продуктивности/востребованности тематических направлений истории психологии делаются выводы о сравнительной их проработанности. Рассматривается воспроизводимость историко-психологического знания в публикациях непсихологической тематики. Фиксируется формальное значение плато показателя влиятельности (импактности) отрасли. The work is a continuation of the study of the influence of the Russian history of psychology on the material of an array of publications indexed in the Russian Science Citation Index. The work implements methods of formal assessment of scientific performance. The internal factors of the development of the history of psychology as a branch of science are analyzed. By selecting and categorizing historical and psychological publications indexed in the RSCI, thematic directions in the history of psychology are distinguished. Their bibliometric and scientometric indicators are analyzed. Using a formal assessment of scientific performance and publication activity, the influence of certain thematic areas of the history of psychology on the development of the industry in general is investigated. The aggregated impact factor for the industry is calculated by year for the period from 2014 to 2019. A two-year impact factor is calculated for each of the thematic areas of the industry by years for the same period. The value of the impact factor for the year of each thematic area is compared with the value of the aggregated impact factor for the industry of the same year. A conclusion is made about the contribution of one direction or another to the upward and downward trends of the industry impact trend. The indicators of the impact of thematic areas are compared by year. The most productive years are distinguished among the calculated ones in relation to each of the selected thematic areas. Based on the indicators of productivity / relevance of thematic areas of the history of psychology, conclusions are drawn about their comparative elaboration. Reproducibility of historical and psychological knowledge in publications in non-psychological sources is considered. The formal value of the plateau of the indicator of the influence (impact) of the industry is fixed.

scholarly journals International co-authorship in Kazakhstan’s authors publications in medicine

2020 ◽  
Vol 30 (Supplement_5) ◽  
Author(s):  
A Umbetzhanova ◽  
G Derbissalina ◽  
V Koikov ◽  
Z Bekbergenova
Keyword(s):  
Developing Countries ◽  
Impact Factor ◽  
International Cooperation ◽  
Publishing Research ◽  
Poor Quality ◽  
Scientific Performance ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
The Matthew Effect ◽  
Group 2 ◽  
The Impact

Abstract Background Starting in 2013, the rating of medical universities Republic of Kazakhstan(RK) on scientific and innovational activities was introduced. Various characteristics that can influence on scientific performance were investigated. We assessed the impact of national and international collaboration on the scientific performance of medical universities of RK. Methods Publications metrics such as impact factor (IF) of journals, quartile of the journal and the number of citations of RK authors in the field of medicine published in 2013-2018 in Web of Science database were analyzed, according to the level of co-authorship. Results Authors affiliated with one organization (group 1) average impact factor of journals was (0.391(CI = ±0.04), in national co-authorship (group 2) (0.648(CI = ±0,04), in international co-authorship (group 3) 3.703 (CI = ±0.08) There is no statistically significant difference between IF of journals in which authors are from one organization or in national co-authorship, and there is a statistically significant difference between 3 (international co-authorship) and the 1 and 2 groups. Further, the journals were distributed depending on the quartile of the journal (Q1,Q2,Q3,Q4) and an analysis was carried out depending on citations and the level of co-authorship (one organization, national, international). The highest percentage of co-authorship was found in the journals of the first quartile (92.8%), in the journals Q2-80.1%,Q3-74%,Q4-28.6%). 95.9% of citations come from publications in international co-authorship. Conclusions International cooperation expands the possibilities of obtaining an interest in the study. Not the poor quality of research of local authors, but the difficulty of publishing the results of research in top journals for authors from developing countries without the support of international co-authors, also due to the 'Matthew effect' for some countries. It is recommended that medical researchers should expand international cooperation Key messages When presenting the results of their research, researchers should consider the impact and possibilities of international co-authorship to expand the audience. The difficulty of publishing research results in leading journals for authors from developing countries without the support of international co-authors.

scholarly journals Quantifying the Impact of Research on Matching into Ophthalmology Residency

2018 ◽  
Vol 10 (01) ◽  
pp. e133-e139 ◽  
Author(s):  
Albert Bargoud ◽  
Loka Thangamathesvaran ◽  
Varesh Patel ◽  
Robert Henseler ◽  
William Kass ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Multivariate Analysis ◽  
Impact Factor ◽  
Residency Program ◽  
Research Output ◽  
The United States ◽  
H Index ◽  
Residency Programs ◽  
Factor Type ◽  
Number Of Publications ◽  
The Impact

Purpose This article aims to quantify the impact of research on matching into various tiers of ophthalmology residency programs. Design In this study, 340 applicants who matriculated into ophthalmology residency programs in the United States from the class of 2019 were included. Data variables collected for each applicant composed of the following: Hirsch's index (h-index), total number of publications, journal impact factor, type of publication, and number of publications relating to ophthalmology. The primary outcome was tier of ophthalmology program that each applicant matched into, which was determined by two metrics: (1) the h-index of the department's faculty and (2) overall reputation of the residency program as characterized by the U.S. News and World Report Ophthalmology Rankings. Results After multivariate analysis, only the h-index was found to be associated with an increased likelihood of matching at a higher tier program when measuring tier based on the metric of institutional research output (p < 0.0001). However, no research variable was found to be significant on multivariate analysis when assessing the impact of research on matching into a certain tier program based on reputation. The h-index was noted to increase by 1 for every 3.1 papers as the first author, every 4.9 years since the first publication, every 6.4 ophthalmology-related publications, and every publication in a journal with an impact factor of 5.2. Conclusion A higher applicant h-index is associated with matching at an ophthalmology program with greater research output; however, it is not associated with reputation of residency program.

scholarly journals HOW TO EVALUATE SCIENTIFIC PRODUCTION

2015 ◽  
Vol 42 (suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 17-19
Author(s):  
Alberto Azoubel Antunes
Keyword(s):  
Impact Factor ◽  
Critical Analysis ◽  
Scientific Production ◽  
Index Method ◽  
H Index ◽  
Scientific Papers ◽  
Evaluation Of Teaching ◽  
Number Of Citations ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Over Time

Objective: To conduct a critical analysis of the two main bibliometric indexes used by science: the impact factor and the H index. Method: Research was conducted on PubMed using the keywords: impact factor, Bibliometrics and H index. Results: The citations of articles tend to follow a curve in which the articles published in a given year increase sharply to a peak occurring between two and six years after its publication. From this peak citations decline over time. Conclusion: The analysis of the scientific merit should not be based on only in bibliometric measure, but in the association of various parameters. The impact factor and the H index is mainly based on the number of citations of scientific papers, and this parameter, although important, should not be used alone, nor overvalued in the evaluation of teaching merit.

scholarly journals A profile of the impact of Acta Botanica Brasilica: reflections on how to improve visibility and recognition of a scientific journal

2009 ◽  
Vol 23 (2) ◽  
pp. 606-611 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fabio Rubio Scarano ◽  
Karen De Toni ◽  
Cristiana Vasconcellos Goulart Amarante
Keyword(s):  
Impact Factor ◽  
Scientific Journal ◽  
H Index ◽  
The Past ◽  
Steep Rise ◽  
International Visibility ◽  
Citation Frequency ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Journal Visibility ◽  
Acta Botanica

We have estimated the ISI-impact factor of Acta Botanica Brasilica for the past six years, calculated the journal's h-index, calculated the journal's self-citation, examined country and institutions of origin of the papers that cite Acta papers, and examined scope and profile of the most-cited papers published by the journal. Results demonstrated a steep rise in impact factor and citation frequency in 2008, which is most encouraging, but also revealed that the journal is below the level of maturity expected of a 20-year old journal. Visibility of the journal is mostly national although, surprisingly, journal's self-citation of 12% is fairly low. We use Acta as an example to discuss possible strategies to enhance the international visibility of botanical journals that are newcomers to ISI.

scholarly journals Effect of Number of Versions on Receiving High Citations

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nader Ale Ebrahim ◽  
Hadi Salehi
Keyword(s):  
Impact Factor ◽  
Google Scholar ◽  
H Index ◽  
Journal Quality ◽  
Scopus Database ◽  
Number Of Citations ◽  
The Impact ◽  
The Web

Nowadays, the h-index is an index that attempts to measure both the productivity and impact of the published work of a scientist or scholar. The index is based upon the set of the scientist's most cited papers and the number of citations that they have received in other publications. Besides, the most commonly used measure of journal quality is Impact Factor. This is a number which attempts to measure the impact of a journal in terms of the average number of citations to recent articles published in the journal. So, receiving more citation is very important for authors and journals to get high h-index and impact factor. In this paper, we tried to analyses the effect of the number of available version from the web on receive more citations. We analyzed 10162 papers which are published in Scopus database in year 2010. Then we developed a software to collect the number of citations and versions of each paper from Google Scholar automatically.

scholarly journals The h-Index of Editorial Board Members Correlates Positively With the Impact Factor of Sports Medicine Journals

2017 ◽  
Vol 5 (3) ◽  
pp. 232596711769402 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeffrey Kay ◽  
Muzammil Memon ◽  
Darren de SA ◽  
Nicole Simunovic ◽  
Andrew Duong ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Impact Factor ◽  
Sports Medicine ◽  
Regression Models ◽  
Web Of Science ◽  
Scientific Publication ◽  
Board Members ◽  
Faculty Position ◽  
H Index ◽  
The Impact

Background: The h-index is a metric widely used to present both the productivity and impact of an author’s previous publications. Purpose: To evaluate and observe any correlations among the h-indices of 2015 editorial board members from 8 top sports medicine journals. Study Design: Systematic review. Methods: The sex, country of residence, degree, and faculty position of the editorial board members were identified using their respective scientific publication profiles. The h-index and other bibliometric indicators of these editorial board members were obtained using both the Web of Science (WoS) and Google Scholar (GS) databases. Nonparametric statistics were used to analyze differences in h-index values, and regression models were used to assess the ability of the editorial board member’s h-index to predict their journal’s impact factor (IF). Results: A total of 422 editorial board members were evaluated. The median h-index of all editors was 20 (interquartile range [IQR], 19) using GS and 15 (IQR, 15) using WoS. GS h-index values were 1.19 times higher than WoS, with significant correlation between these values ( r2 = 0.88, P = .0001). Editorial board members with a PhD had significantly higher h-indices than those without (GS, P = .0007; WoS, P = .0002), and full professors had higher h-indices than associate and assistant professors (GS, P = .0001; WoS, P = .0001). Overall, there were significant differences in the distribution of the GS ( P < .0001) and WoS ( P < .0001) h-indices of the editorial board members by 2014 IF of the journals. Both the GS h-index (β coefficient, 0.01228; 95% CI, 0.01035-0.01423; P < .0001) as well as the WoS h-index (β coefficient, 0.01507; 95% CI, 0.01265-0.01749; P < .0001) of editorial board members were significant predictors of the 2014 IF of their journal. Conclusion: The h-indices of editorial board members of top sports medicine journals are significant predictors of the IF of their respective journals.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document