Dynamics of Journal Impact Factors and Limits to Their Inflation

2018 ◽  
Vol 50 (1) ◽  
pp. 26-36 ◽  
Author(s):  
Igor Fischer ◽  
Hans-Jakob Steiger
Keyword(s):  
Impact Factors ◽  
Journal Impact

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.

The Socio-economic Context of Journal Impact Factors

2013 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brendan Luyt
Keyword(s):  
Perceived Value ◽  
Modern Society ◽  
Impact Factors ◽  
Economic Context ◽  
Perte D’Autonomie ◽  
Journal Impact

This paper argues that the rise of the JIF is a result of the perceived value of quantification measures in modern society and the restructuring of capitalism. Two key implications of this acceptance are explored: an increase in global academic dependency and a lessening of autonomy in the scientific field.Cet article défend la thèse que la montée du FIRS est le résultat de la valeur perçue des mesures de quantification de la société moderne et de la restructuration du capitalisme. Seront explorées deux conséquences importantes de cette acceptation : une augmentation de la dépendance globale du milieu universitaire et une perte d'autonomie du milieu de la science. 

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 Journal impact factors: a ‘bioequivalence’ issue?

2001 ◽  
Vol 51 (2) ◽  
pp. 111-117 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. Rostami-Hodjegan ◽  
G.T. Tucker
Keyword(s):  
Impact Factors ◽  
Journal Impact

scholarly journals Conflicts of Interest at Medical Journals: The Influence of Industry-Supported Randomised Trials on Journal Impact Factors and Revenue – Cohort Study

PLoS Medicine ◽  
2010 ◽  
Vol 7 (10) ◽  
pp. e1000354 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andreas Lundh ◽  
Marija Barbateskovic ◽  
Asbjørn Hróbjartsson ◽  
Peter C. Gøtzsche
Keyword(s):  
Cohort Study ◽  
Conflicts Of Interest ◽  
Impact Factors ◽  
Randomised Trials ◽  
Medical Journals ◽  
Journal Impact

Quantifying publication rates and time to publication for urologic oncology podium presentations.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (6_suppl) ◽  
pp. 357-357
Author(s):  
Mark Mikhail ◽  
Kevin Chua ◽  
Hiren V. Patel ◽  
Alexandra L. Tabakin ◽  
Sai Krishnaraya Doppalapudi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Impact Factors ◽  
Urologic Oncology ◽  
Publication Rates ◽  
Subsequent Publication ◽  
Large Platform ◽  
Large Audience ◽  
Pubmed Search ◽  
American Urological Association ◽  
Key Terms ◽  
Journal Impact

357 Background: The American Urological Association (AUA) annual meetings serve as a large platform for unpublished research. Among the selected abstracts, podium presentations represent the most impactful submissions. Furthermore, between large meeting attendance and social media promotion, authors can disseminate their findings to a potentially large audience prior to final manuscript publication. While all AUA abstracts do undergo peer review, it is not with the same level of scrutiny that full-length manuscripts receive. Thus, we investigated the publication rates, impact factors, and time to publication of urologic oncology podium presentations at the AUA. Methods: Of 875 podium presentation abstracts from the 2017 AUA Annual meeting, 394 (45.0%) were classified as urologic oncology. We chose 2017 to allow for a three-year window for publication. Abstracts were assessed for subsequent publication between January 1, 2015 and May 31, 2020 with a pre-determined PubMed search protocol. Abstract authors were searched for individually, with key terms being added sequentially until <30 results were generated in PubMed. Each search result was then reviewed until a matching publication was found. Abstracts were deemed published if at least one author of the presented abstract was a manuscript author and/or at least one conclusion in the presented abstract was included in the conclusions of the publication. Publication rates, time to publication, and 2019 journal impact factors were collected. Results: Of 394 urologic oncology podium presentations at the 2017 AUA, 228 (57.9%) focused on prostate cancer, while 81 (20.6%) and 58 (14.7%) presentations focused on kidney and bladder cancer, respectively (table). Overall, 211 (53.6%) podium presentations were published. Median time from presentation to publication was 13.6 months (IQR: 7.5-21.5). There were 9 (2.3%) publications that were published prior to the submission deadline and 57 (14.5%) podium presentations that were published prior to the 2017 AUA meeting. The number of articles published at one, two and three years after the meeting was 90, 170 and 202, respectively. The median journal impact factor of all published works was 3.4 (IQR: 2.7-5.9). Conclusions: While AUA podium presentations disseminate valuable data, approximately half of these presentations were not published in peer-reviewed journals within three years. Therefore, care must be taken when promoting data or adopting new practices based on these presentations alone. [Table: see text]

Psychiatry and the Hirsch h-index: The Relationship Between Journal Impact Factors and Accrued Citations

2010 ◽  
Vol 18 (4) ◽  
pp. 207-219 ◽  
Author(s):  
Glenn E. Hunt ◽  
Michelle Cleary ◽  
Garry Walter
Keyword(s):  
Impact Factors ◽  
H Index ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Journal Impact

scholarly journals Impact Factors Workgroup Report

2017 ◽  
Vol 1 ◽  
Author(s):  
Susie Allard ◽  
Ali Andalibi ◽  
Patty Baskin ◽  
Marilyn Billings ◽  
Eric Brown ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Impact Factor ◽  
Journal Impact Factor ◽  
Impact Factors ◽  
Journal Impact

Following up on recommendations from OSI 2016, this team will dig deeper into the question of developing and recommending new tools to repair or replace the journal impact factor (and/or how it is used), and propose actions the OSI community can take between now and the next meeting. What’s needed? What change is realistic and how will we get there from here?

scholarly journals The Journal Impact Factor and its discontents: steps toward responsible metrics and better research assessment

2016 ◽  
Vol 1 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. Roberto F. Arruda ◽  
Robin Champieux ◽  
Colleen Cook ◽  
Mary Ellen K. Davis ◽  
Richard Gedye ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Impact Factor ◽  
San Francisco ◽  
Journal Impact Factor ◽  
Impact Factors ◽  
Research Assessment ◽  
Sufficient Information ◽  
Alternative System ◽  
Practical Support ◽  
Journal Impact

A small, self-selected discussion group was convened to consider issues surrounding impact factors at the first meeting of the Open Scholarship Initiative in Fairfax, Virginia, USA, in April 2016, and focused on the uses and misuses of the Journal Impact Factor (JIF), with a particular focus on research assessment. The group’s report notes that the widespread use, or perceived use, of the JIF in research assessment processes lends the metric a degree of influence that is not justified on the basis of its validity for those purposes, and retards moves to open scholarship in a number of ways. The report concludes that indicators, including those based on citation counts, can be combined with peer review to inform research assessment, but that the JIF is not one of those indicators. It also concludes that there is already sufficient information about the shortcomings of the JIF, and that instead actions should be pursued to build broad momentum away from its use in research assessment. These actions include practical support for the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA) by research funders, higher education institutions, national academies, publishers and learned societies. They also include the creation of an international “metrics lab” to explore the potential of new indicators, and the wide sharing of information on this topic among stakeholders. Finally, the report acknowledges that the JIF may continue to be used as one indicator of the quality of journals, and makes recommendations how this should be improved.OSI2016 Workshop Question: Impact FactorsTracking the metrics of a more open publishing world will be key to selling “open” and encouraging broader adoption of open solutions. Will more openness mean lower impact, though (for whatever reason—less visibility, less readability, less press, etc.)? Why or why not? Perhaps more fundamentally, how useful are impact factors anyway? What are they really tracking, and what do they mean? What are the pros and cons of our current reliance on these measures? Would faculty be satisfied with an alternative system as long as it is recognized as reflecting meaningfully on the quality of their scholarship? What might such an alternative system look like?

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document