scholarly journals Bibliometric Study of Family Studies Journals Using Journal Impact Factors, CiteScore and H-index

2021 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-12
Author(s):  
Zao Liu
Keyword(s):  
Family Studies ◽  
Bibliometric Study ◽  
Impact Factors ◽  
Strong Correlations ◽  
Citation Data ◽  
H Index ◽  
Journal Citation Reports ◽  
Journal Impact ◽  
Bibliometric Studies ◽  
Representative Family

Although there are bibliometric studies of journals in various fields, the field of family studies remains unexplored. Using the bibliometric metrics of the two-year and five-year Journal Impact Factors, the H-index, and the newly revised CiteScore, this paper examines the relationships among these metrics in a bibliometric study of forty-four representative family studies journals. The citation data were drawn from Journal Citation Reports, Scopus, and Google Scholar. The correlation analysis found strong positive relationships on the metrics. Despite the strong correlations, discrepancies in rank orders of the journals were found. A possible explanation of noticeable discrepancy in rankings was provided, and the implications of the study for stakeholders were discussed.

scholarly journals Level 1 COUNTER Compliant Vendor Statistics are a Reliable Measure of Journal Usage

2007 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 84
Author(s):  
Gaby Haddow
Keyword(s):  
Impact Factors ◽  
Electronic Journal ◽  
Citation Data ◽  
Journal Citation Reports ◽  
Print Journal ◽  
Level 1 ◽  
The University ◽  
Number Of Citations ◽  
Journal Impact ◽  
Usage Data

A review of: Duy, Joanna and Liwen Vaughan. “Can Electronic Journal Usage Data Replace Citation Data as a Measure of Journal Use? An Empirical Examination.” The Journal of Academic Librarianship 32.5 (Sept. 2006): 512-17. Abstract Objective – To identify valid measures of journal usage by comparing citation data with print and electronic journal use data. Design – Bibliometric study. Setting – Large academic library in Canada. Subjects – Instances of use were collected from 11 print journals of the American Chemical Society (ACS), 9 print journals of the Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC), and electronic journals in chemistry and biochemistry from four publishers – ACS, RSC, Elsevier, and Wiley. ACS, Elsevier, and Wiley journals in chemistry-related subject areas were sampled for Journal Impact Factors and citations data from the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI). Methods – Journal usage data were collected to determine if an association existed between: (1) print and electronic journal use; (2) electronic journal use and citations to journals by authors from the university; and (3) electronic journal use and Journal Impact Factors. Between June 2000 and September 2003, library staff recorded the re-shelving of bound volumes and loose issues of 20 journal titles published by the ACS and the RSC. Electronic journal usage data were collected for journals published by ACS, RSC, Elsevier, and Wiley within the ISI-defined chemistry and biochemistry subject area. Data were drawn from the publishers’ Level 1 COUNTER compliant usage statistics. These data equate 1 instance of use with a user viewing an HTML or PDF full text article. The period of data collection varied, but at least 2.5 years of data were collected for each publisher. Journal Impact Factors were collected for all ISI chemistry-related journals published by ACS, Elsevier, and Wiley for the year 2001. Library Journal Utilization Reports (purchased from ISI) were used to determine the number of times researchers at the university cited journals in the same set of chemistry-related journals over the period 1998 to 2002. The authors call this “local citation data.” (512) The results from electronic journal use were also analysed for correlation with the total number of citations, as reported in the Journal Citation Reports, for each journal in the sample. Main results – The study found a significant correlation between the results for print journal and electronic journal usage. A similar finding was reported for correlation between electronic journal usage data and local citation data. No significant association was found between Journal Impact Factors and electronic journal usage data. However, when an analysis was conducted for the total number of citations to the journals (drawn from the Journal Impact Factor calculations in Journal Citation Reports) and electronic journal use, significant correlations were found for all publishers’ journals. Conclusion – Within the fields of chemistry and biochemistry, electronic journal usage data provided by publishers are an equally valid method of determining journal usage as print journal re-shelving data. The results of the study indicate this association is valid even when print journal subscriptions have ceased. Local citation data (the citations made by researchers at the institution being studied) also provide a valid measure of journal use when compared with electronic journal usage results. Journal Impact Factors should be used with caution when libraries are making journal collection decisions.

The integrated interventional radiology match: a bibliometric analysis of matched first-year residents

2019 ◽  
Vol 3 ◽  
pp. 13 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vishnu Chandra ◽  
Neil Jain ◽  
Pratik Shukla ◽  
Ethan Wajswol ◽  
Sohail Contractor ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Interventional Radiology ◽  
Bibliometric Analysis ◽  
Statistical Significance ◽  
Univariate Analysis ◽  
Impact Factors ◽  
Index Number ◽  
Research Information ◽  
H Index ◽  
Scopus Database ◽  
Journal Impact

Objectives: The integrated interventional radiology (IR) residency has only been established relatively recently as compared to other specialties. Although some preliminary information is available based on survey data five, no comprehensive bibliometric analysis documenting the importance of the quantity and quality of research in applying to an integrated-IR program currently exists. As the first bibliometric analysis of matched IR residents, the data obtained from this study fills a gap in the literature. Materials and Methods: A list of matched residents from the 2018 integrated-IR match were identified by contacting program directors. The Scopus database was used to search for resident research information, including total publications, first-author publications, radiology-related publications, and h-indices. Each matriculating program was categorized into one of five tiers based on the average faculty Hirsch index (h-index). Results: Sixty-three programs and 117 matched residents were identified and reviewed on the Scopus database. For the 2018 cycle, 274 total publications were produced by matched applicants, with a mean of 2.34 ± 0.41 publication per matched applicant. The average h-index for matched applicants was 0.96 ± 0.13. On univariate analysis, the number of radiology-related publications, highest journal impact factor, and h-index were all associated with an increased likelihood of matching into a higher tier program (P < 0.05). Other research variables displayed no statistical significance. All applicants with PhDs matched into tier one programs. Conclusions: Research serves as an important element in successfully matching into an integrated-IR residency. h-index, number of radiology-related manuscripts, and highest journal impact factors are all positively associated with matching into a higher tier program.

Who Is Citing Your Work? Journals With Impact Factor and h-Index in Social Work and Related Fields

2020 ◽  
pp. 104973152096377
Author(s):  
Monit Cheung ◽  
Patrick Leung
Keyword(s):  
Social Work ◽  
Impact Factor ◽  
Doctoral Students ◽  
Scientific Knowledge ◽  
Journal Impact Factor ◽  
H Index ◽  
Journal Publishing ◽  
Social Work Faculty ◽  
Journal Citation Reports ◽  
Journal Impact

Purpose: With journal publishing being an important task for academicians, this article aims to help faculty and researchers increase their productivity by identifying journals with influential impacts on producing scientific knowledge. Method: Since 2004, the authors compiled and updated a journal list annually for social work faculty to use. This list aims to help faculty and researchers, including doctoral students, identify journals with significant scholarly impacts in social work and related fields for national and international recognition. Results: A total of 221 journals are included in the study, covering 44 social work journals with two indexes reported in the Journal Citation Reports® with Journal Impact Factor® and the h-index. Discussion: This list aims to help scholars find appropriate journals for article submissions. The criteria for the authors to select journals to be included in the publication list are also discussed.

Journal impact factor: A valid symbol of journal quality?

2019 ◽  
Vol 26 (5) ◽  
pp. 734-742
Author(s):  
Rob Law ◽  
Daniel Leung
Keyword(s):  
Impact Factor ◽  
Journal Impact Factor ◽  
Impact Factors ◽  
Citation Data ◽  
Journal Quality ◽  
Citation Frequency ◽  
Journal Impact

As the citation frequency of a journal is a representation of how many people have read and acknowledged their works, academia generally shares the notion that impact factor and citation data signify the quality and importance of a journal to the discipline. Although this notion is well-entrenched, is it reasonable to deduce that a journal is not of good quality due to its lower impact factor? Do journal impact factors truly symbolize the quality of a journal? What must be noted when we interpret journal impact factors? This commentary article discusses these questions and their answers thoroughly.

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.

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.

scholarly journals Citation counts and journal impact factors do not capture research quality in the behavioral and brain sciences

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael R Dougherty ◽  
Zachary Horne
Keyword(s):  
Large Scale ◽  
Research Evaluation ◽  
Research Quality ◽  
Experimental Result ◽  
Reproducible Research ◽  
Impact Factors ◽  
Citation Data ◽  
Citation Counts ◽  
Reported Data ◽  
Journal Impact

Citation data and journal impact factors are important components of faculty dossiers and figure prominently in both promotion decisions and assessments of a researcher's broader societal impact. Although these metrics play a large role in high-stakes decisions, the evidence is mixed regarding whether they are valid proxies for key aspects of research quality. We use data from three large scale studies to assess whether citation counts and impact factors predict four indicators of aspects of research quality: (1) the number of statistical reporting errors in a paper, (2) the evidential value of the reported data, (3) the expected replicability of reported research findings in peer reviewed journals, and (4) the actual replicability of a given experimental result. Both citation counts and impact factors were weak and inconsistent predictors of research quality, so defined, and sometimes negatively related to quality. Our findings impugn the validity of citation data and impact factors as indices of research quality and call into question their usefulness in evaluating scientists and their research. In light of these results, we argue that research evaluation should instead focus on the process of how research is conducted and incentivize behaviors that support open, transparent, and reproducible research.

scholarly journals Games academics play and their consequences: how authorship, h -index and journal impact factors are shaping the future of academia

2019 ◽  
Vol 286 (1916) ◽  
pp. 20192047 ◽  
Author(s):  
Colin A. Chapman ◽  
Júlio César Bicca-Marques ◽  
Sébastien Calvignac-Spencer ◽  
Pengfei Fan ◽  
Peter J. Fashing ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Evaluation Criteria ◽  
Impact Factors ◽  
Incentive Structure ◽  
Senior Faculty ◽  
Positive Direction ◽  
H Index ◽  
Cultural Perspectives ◽  
Mentoring Practices ◽  
Publication Number ◽  
Journal Impact

Research is a highly competitive profession where evaluation plays a central role; journals are ranked and individuals are evaluated based on their publication number, the number of times they are cited and their h -index. Yet such evaluations are often done in inappropriate ways that are damaging to individual careers, particularly for young scholars, and to the profession. Furthermore, as with all indices, people can play games to better their scores. This has resulted in the incentive structure of science increasingly mimicking economic principles, but rather than a monetary gain, the incentive is a higher score. To ensure a diversity of cultural perspectives and individual experiences, we gathered a team of academics in the fields of ecology and evolution from around the world and at different career stages. We first examine how authorship, h -index of individuals and journal impact factors are being used and abused. Second, we speculate on the consequences of the continued use of these metrics with the hope of sparking discussions that will help our fields move in a positive direction. We would like to see changes in the incentive systems, rewarding quality research and guaranteeing transparency. Senior faculty should establish the ethical standards, mentoring practices and institutional evaluation criteria to create the needed changes.

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document