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.

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):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Citation Count ◽  
Multivariable Analysis ◽  
Fold Increase ◽  
Impact Factors ◽  
Healthcare Intervention ◽  
Factors Affecting ◽  
Cochrane Database ◽  
Multivariable Regression ◽  
Number Of Citations

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 JIF (JIF).Methods: We searched MEDLINE, Epistemonikos and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR). We included overviews that: (a) synthesised reviews, (b) conducted a systematic search, (c) had a methods section, and (d) examined a healthcare intervention. Multivariable regression was conducted to determine the association between citation density, JIF 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; CDSR (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 JIF of 4.4. In multivariable analysis, overviews with a high number of citations and JIFs 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.

Bibliometric study of ‘overviews of systematic reviews’: 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 ◽  
Impact Factors ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Funding Source ◽  
Sample Sizes ◽  
Number Of Citations ◽  
Journal Impact ◽  
Overviews Of Systematic Reviews

Abstract Background: Overviews synthesizing 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 of systematic reviews’, including their prevalence, number of citations, and factors affecting citation rates and journal impact factor.Methods: We searched MEDLINE, Epistemonikos and the Cochrane library databases. We applied eligibility criteria to identify overviews that: (a) aimed to focus on synthesizing reviews, (b) conducted a systematic search, (c) had a full methods section, and (d) examined a health intervention or clinical treatment effect. A multivariate regression was conducted to determine the association between citation density and impact factor and 6 predictor variables of interest. Results: We found 1218 overviews published from 2000 to 2020; the majority (73%) of which were published in the most recent 5-year period (2016-2020). We extracted a selection of these overviews (n=541; 44%) dated from 2000 to 2018. The 541 overviews were published in 307 journals; the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (8%), PLOS ONE (3%) and the Sao Paulo Medical Journal (2%) being the most prevalent. The majority of overviews (70%) were published in journals with impact factors between 0.05 and 3.97. The average citation rate was 90 (SD ±219.7) over 9 years, or 10 citations per overview per year. In multivariate analysis, overviews with a high number of citations and high journal impact factors tended to have more authors, larger sample sizes, be open access and report funding source. Conclusions: We found an 8 fold increase in the number of overviews from 2009 to 2020; and a representation of one published a day in 2020. Factors driving the increase in overviews include the exponential increase in the number of systematic reviews, the publication of Cochrane guidance on overview of reviews in 2009 and the subsequent publication of the first Cochrane overview in the same year. Our study found a significantly higher mean citation count of 10 overviews per year, published in journals with a mean impact factor of 4.4. These data indicate that, overall, overviews perform above average for the journals in which they publish. We also found that highly cited overviews in high impact factor journals had group authorship, large sample sizes, were openly accessible, and reported funding source.

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 Analyzing the Relationship Between Altmetric Score and Literature Citations in the Dermatology Literature

2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (6) ◽  
pp. 497-505
Author(s):  
Meredith E Thomley ◽  
Ana Preda-Naumescu ◽  
Carter J Boyd ◽  
Tiffany Mayo
Keyword(s):  
Impact Factor ◽  
Pearson Correlation ◽  
Citation Count ◽  
Correlation Coefficients ◽  
Impact Factors ◽  
Microsoft Excel ◽  
Number Of Citations ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Journal Impact ◽  
Article Impact

Background: Standard bibliometric methods used in dermatologic research include impact factor and citations. The Altmetric score is an adjunctive measure of article impact. Objectives: The purpose of this study is to examine the breadth of societal impact made by scientific articles in dermatology and investigate a correlation between an article’s impact factor and citations, with its Altmetric score. Methods: We reviewed 15 dermatology journals with the highest impact factors and analyzed the 10 most cited articles from 2013 and 2016 within those journals. We studied the articles’ Altmetric scores, number of citations, and social media mentions. Using Microsoft Excel, we performed statistical analysis with Pearson correlation coefficients and descriptive statistics. Results: Analysis revealed a significant positive relationship between citation count and Altmetric scores for articles published in 2013 (p=0.0009) and 2016 (p=0.003). Impact factor was also significantly associated with Altmetric scores across both years (p=0.002, p=0.0005). Conclusions: Altmetric score weakly corresponded with citation count and journal impact factor across cohorts. We conclude that Altmetric scores serve as an additional measurement of article impact in dermatology, though they are insufficient as a replacement for traditional measures at this time.

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.

The Natural Bending Vibration of the Continuous Beam and the Impact Factor of Bridge

2011 ◽  
Vol 90-93 ◽  
pp. 1245-1249 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xiang Rong Yuan
Keyword(s):  
Impact Factor ◽  
Impact Force ◽  
Bending Moment ◽  
Highway Bridges ◽  
Mode Shapes ◽  
Impact Factors ◽  
Beam Model ◽  
Continuous Beam ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Selection Of

The natural frequencies and mode shapes of 2, 3 and 4 spans continuous beam with universal cross section are calculated, and these dynamic parameters of 2 spans continuous beam model are measured. From the analysis and the model test, the locations of the maximum curvatures of the mode shapes are determined, and comparing that with the maximum bending moment of the beam under the action of uniformly distributed load, the selection of the natural frequency of the beam is discussed with the General Code for Design of Highway Bridges and Culverts as the impact factors of the beam is calculated. It is shown from the results of the analysis and the test that, for the impact factor, when the effect of positive bending moment caused by impact force is calculated, the fundamental frequency must be used as shown in the General Code, and the 2nd or 3rd frequency must be used when the effect of negative bending moment caused by impact force is calculated. The selection of the frequency should be combined with the mode shape into account for the specific circumstances.

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.

A Note on Maximum Impact Factors

2013 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ronald Rousseau
Keyword(s):  
Impact Factor ◽  
Lognormal Distribution ◽  
Impact Factors ◽  
Number Of Publications ◽  
Number Of Citations

Assuming a Weibull or a lognormal distribution, values tm at which the average number of citations reaches a maximum are tabulated. If, moreover, it is assumed that the number of publications in a journal remains constant over the years, then these tables also give the year in which the value of the generalized impact factor peaks It is show that in practice 2 < tm, which indicates…

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document