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.

Impact of Consensus Papers versus Randomized Trials in Critical Care Nephrology

2020 ◽  
Vol 49 (6) ◽  
pp. 708-712
Author(s):  
John A. Kellum
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Critical Care ◽  
Impact Factor ◽  
Randomized Trials ◽  
Secondary Analysis ◽  
Consensus Conference ◽  
Impact Factors ◽  
Publication Type ◽  
Consensus Conferences ◽  
The Impact

<b><i>Introduction:</i></b> Reports of consensus conferences are usually valued less than reports of clinical trials even when rigorous methodology is used. However, limited data are available comparing the impact of these 2 methods of shaping clinical practice. <b><i>Objective:</i></b> Compare the publication impact of consensus conferences and clinical trials. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> Consensus publications from the Acute Disease Quality Initiative (ADQI) from 2002 through 2017 were identified and classified by subject matter. Randomized trials were identified in the same publication year and subject in journals, starting with the highest impact factor. Both publication types were matched, and total citations were determined for each using Google Scholar. A secondary analysis compared total costs for each publication type. <b><i>Results and Conclusions:</i></b> Seventeen ADQI consensus conference reports and 17 randomized trials were identified. ADQI reports received a similar number of citations per paper (median, interquartile range) compared to randomized trials (132, 54–228; vs. 159, 60–340, <i>p</i> = ns). Similarly, 10 (58.8%) ADQI reports and 10 randomized trials were cited &#x3e;100 times. On average, ADQI reports appeared in journals with lower impact factors compared to clinical trials (5.4 ± 4.6 vs. 25.4 ± 27.1; <i>p</i> &#x3c; 0.01). The median cost per citation (USD 2017) for ADQI reports was USD 606.01 compared to almost twice this figure, USD 1,182.59, for clinical trials on the same topics (<i>p</i> = 0.09). Despite being published in lower impact factor journals, consensus reports on topics in critical care nephrology, received similar citations to randomized controlled trials published the same year.

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.

Unwrap citation count, Altmetric Attention Score and Mendeley readership status of highly cited articles in the top-tier LIS journals

2020 ◽  
Vol 69 (8/9) ◽  
pp. 653-664
Author(s):  
Yingqi Tang ◽  
Hungwei Tseng ◽  
Charlcie Vann
Keyword(s):  
Impact Factor ◽  
Information Science ◽  
Citation Count ◽  
Science Research ◽  
Research Impact ◽  
Impact Factors ◽  
Library And Information Science ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Arts And Humanities ◽  
The Impact

Purpose The purpose of the study is to use a multidimensional perspective on the analysis of scholarly articles published in the top-tier Library and Information Science (LIS) journals. The relationships between the impact factors (Altmetric attention score [AAS], citation count and Mendeley readership) were analyzed, and reader profiles were characterized and studied. Design/methodology/approach This paper examined citation count, AAS and Mendeley readership of the most cited articles published in the top-tier LIS journals – The Journal of Academic Librarianship, Government Information Quarterly and Library and Information Science Research. A total of 61 articles were analyzed. Data were recorded on an Excel spreadsheet and exported to the statistical software package SPSS 18.0 for Windows to perform the descriptive and correlation analysis. Findings This study suggests that Mendeley readership and AAS could be used as supplemental measurements for assessing the impact of a publication or author in the LIS. AAS and Mendeley readership are positively correlated with citation count, and the correlation between Mendeley readership and citation count was stronger than AAS and citation count. Librarians are dominant readers of the top-tier LIS journals, followed by social sciences, computer science and arts and humanities professions. Originality/value This study introduces two newly launched metrics for measuring the research impact factor and discusses how they correlated with citation count. Moreover, the study details the spectrum of Altmetric for discovering readership of LIS top-tier journals. To the best of authors’ knowledge, this is the first study that presents the spectrum of AAS and Mendeley readership of the most cited articles published in top-tier of LIS journals. The study reveals an alternative way of measuring LIS publication’s impact factor that enables researchers, librarians, administrators, publishers and other stakeholders in LIS to assess the influence of a publication from another angle.

Examining Organizational, Cultural, and Individual-Level Factors Related to Workplace Safety and Health Awareness and Risks: A Systematic Review and Metric Analysis (Preprint)

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Edmund W. J. Lee ◽  
Han Zheng ◽  
Htet Htet Aung ◽  
Megha Rani Aroor ◽  
Chen Li ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Citation Count ◽  
Workplace Safety ◽  
Key Factors ◽  
Health Awareness ◽  
Individual Level ◽  
Metric Analysis ◽  
Safety And Health ◽  
The Impact ◽  
The Relationship

BACKGROUND Promoting safety and health awareness and mitigating risks are of paramount importance to companies in high-risk industries. Yet, there are very few studies that have synthesized findings from existing online workplace safety and health literature to identify what are the key factors that are related to (a) safety awareness, (b) safety risks, (c) health awareness, and (d) health risks. OBJECTIVE As one of the first systematic reviews in the area of workplace health and safety, this study aims to identify the factors related to safety and health awareness as well as risks, and systematically map these factors within three levels: organizational, cultural, and individual level. Also, this review aims to assess the impact of these workplace safety and health publications in both academic (e.g., academic databases, Mendeley, and PlumX) and non-academic settings (e.g., social media platform). METHODS The systematic review was conducted in line with procedures recommended by Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA). First, Proquest, ScienceDirect and Scopus were identified as suitable databases for the systematic review. Second, after inputting search queries related to safety and health awareness and risks, the articles were evaluated based on a set of inclusion and exclusion criteria. Third, the factors identified in the included articles were coded systematically. Fourth, the research team assessed the impact of the articles through a combination of traditional and new metric analysis methods: citation count, Altmetric Attention Score, Mendeley readers count, usage count, and capture count. RESULTS Out of a total of 4,831 articles retrieved from the three databases, 51 articles were included in the final sample and were systematically coded. The results revealed six categories of organizational (management commitment, management support, organizational safety communication, safety management systems, physical work environment, and organizational environment), two cultural (interpersonal support and organizational culture), and four individual (perception, motivation, attitude and behavior) level factors that relate to safety and health awareness and risk. In terms of impact, the relationship between citation count and the various metrics measuring academic activity (e.g., Mendeley readers, usage count, and capture count) were mostly significant while the relationship between citation count and Altmetric Attention Score was non-significant. CONCLUSIONS This study provides a macro view of the current state of workplace safety and health research and gives scholars an indication on some of the key factors of safety and health awareness and risks. Researchers should also be cognizant that while their work may receive attention from the scholarly community, it is important to tailor their communication messages for the respective industries they are studying to maximize the receptivity and impact of their findings. CLINICALTRIAL N.A.

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 Editorial from the Editor in Chief: Impact factors and open access publishing

2006 ◽  
Vol 24 (4) ◽  
pp. 467-468
Author(s):  
Dieter H.H. Hoffmann
Keyword(s):  
Impact Factor ◽  
Ultrashort Pulses ◽  
Dense Matter ◽  
High Energy ◽  
Research Field ◽  
High Energy Density ◽  
Open Access Publishing ◽  
Impact Factors ◽  
Particle Beams ◽  
The Impact

The primary goal of Laser and Particle Beams as part of the Cambridge University Press is the dissemination of knowledge in our research field. How effective we are in this respect is not easy to determine. But the impact factor published annually in June by Thomson ISI® 2005 Journal Citation Reports (JCR), gives at least an indication and a method to compare other journals in the field. In this respect, Laser and Particle Beams is a journal with a very high ranking in the field of applied physics, but it also compares very well to journals in other field of physics. The impact factor of a journal gives an account of how often an average paper in the journal is referred to, in a two year time span after publication. The current impact factor of 2.59 is based on an evaluation conducted in 2005 of Laser and Particle Beams publications of 2003 and 2004. During the evaluation period (2005), Laser and Particle Beams publications were cited about 1000 times. The topics that attracted most attention were Fast Ignition (Deutsch, 2004; Mulser & Schneider, 2004a; Hora, 2004; Mulser & Bauer, 2004b), Inertial Fusion Targets (Borisenko et al., 2003), and Ion and Electron Acceleration in laser plasma and Ultrashort Pulses (Shorokhov & Pukhov, 2004; Osman et al., 2004; Malka & Fritzler, 2004; Limpouch et al., 2004; Pegoraro et al., 2004). However, the editorial boards of Laser and Particle Beams strongly encourage authors to submit their results in High Energy Density Physics, the emerging field of Warm Dense Matter, Pulsed Power and Accelerator Physics and Technology.

scholarly journals The impact of governance on the outcomes of contracting out

2017 ◽  
Vol 3 (4) ◽  
pp. 215-233
Author(s):  
Jacob Torfing ◽  
Eva Sørensen ◽  
Lena Brogaard
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Economic Efficiency ◽  
Local Governance ◽  
Impact Factors ◽  
International Studies ◽  
Value For Money ◽  
Public Authorities ◽  
Contracting Out ◽  
Private Actors ◽  
The Impact

Whether contracting out to private actors results in value for money depends on how public authorities govern, organize and manage service contracting. However, only a few studies have attempted to investigate how local governing practices can help to ensure that the contracting out of public services enhances economic efficiency and service quality. To further advance our knowledge on this topic, we present the results of a systematic review of 21 international studies, published between 2000 and 2018, on the impact of governance on the outcomes of contracting out. We combine insights from the reviewed studies to develop a theoretical framework of use to both practitioners and researchers that posits how eight impact factors mediate the influence of local governance on the outcomes of contracting out.

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.

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)

Facebook and Subjective Well-Being Among College Students: A Systematic Review

2018 ◽  
Vol 33 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul D. Loprinzi ◽  
Emily Frith
Keyword(s):  
College Students ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Experimental Studies ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Preliminary Evidence ◽  
Subjective Well Being ◽  
Innovative Strategies ◽  
Facebook Use ◽  
Pubmed Search ◽  
The Impact

This systematic review evaluates various theoretical underpinnings, which may contribute to abetter understanding of the effects of Facebook use on subjective well-being among college students. Theauthor conducted a PubMed search of experimental studies conducted within a young adult population.Eligible participant data was delimited to undergraduate or graduate students, who were required to becurrent Facebook users. Six studies were chosen for the review. The findings suggest that Facebook usagemay be positively associated with subjective well-being via several theoretical mechanisms founded in socialpsychology. These findings provide preliminary evidence that Facebook may offer its users unique opportu-nities to tailor their online self-presentation to assuage the impact of negative psychosocial stimuli presentedin real-world environments. Innovative strategies should be conceived to assess the possible relationshipbetween Facebook use and enhanced subjective well-being.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document