scholarly journals Relationship Between the Journal Self-Citation and Author Self-Citation and the Impact Factor in Iranian, American ,and European ISI Indexed Medical Journals in 2014-2021

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 ◽  
pp. 2156
Author(s):  
Sheida Jamalnia ◽  
Nasrin Shokrpour
Keyword(s):  
Impact Factor ◽  
Clinical Medicine ◽  
Citation Rate ◽  
Citation Count ◽  
Journal Citation Report ◽  
P Value ◽  
Medical Journals ◽  
Iranian American ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Spearman’S Correlation

Background: Author and journal self-citation contributes to the overall citation count of an article and the impact factor of the journal in which it appears. Little is known, however, about the extent of self-citation in the general clinical medicine literature. The objective of this study was to determine the effect of self-citation (Journal and Author) on the impact factor of Iranian, American, and European English medical journals. Methods: IF (Impact Factor), IF without self-citations (corrected IF), journal self-citation rate, and author self-citation rate for medical journals were investigated from 2014–2021, by reviewing the Journal Citation Report. Twenty Iranian English medical journals in WoS indexed were selected and compared with twenty American and twenty European English medical journals. The correlation between the journal self-citation and author self-citation with IF was obtained. We used Spearman’s correlation coefficient for correlation of self-citation and IF. A P. value of0.05 was considered as significant in all the tests. Results: The overall journal citations were higher in the American and European journals compared to the Iranian ones between 2014 and 2021. There was a significant relationship between journal self-citation rates and impact factor (P

A communication strategy based on Twitter improves article citation rate and impact factor of medical journals

2020 ◽  
Vol 39 (6) ◽  
pp. 745-746
Author(s):  
Thomas Clavier ◽  
Emmanuel Besnier ◽  
Alice Blet ◽  
Matthieu Boisson ◽  
Stéphanie Sigaut ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Impact Factor ◽  
Citation Rate ◽  
Communication Strategy ◽  
Medical Journals ◽  
Article Citation

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.

scholarly journals Open Access Works are as Reliable as Other Publishing Models at Retracting Flawed Articles from the Biomedical Literature

2014 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 86
Author(s):  
Elizabeth Margaret Stovold
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Impact Factor ◽  
Information Science ◽  
Citation Rate ◽  
Biomedical Literature ◽  
Free Access ◽  
Pubmed Database ◽  
American Society ◽  
Number Of Citations ◽  
The Impact

A Review of: Peterson, G.M. (2013). Characteristics of retracted open access biomedical literature: a bibliographic analysis. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 64(12), 2428-2436. doi: 10.1002/asi.22944 Abstract Objective – To investigate whether the rate of retracted articles and citation rates post-retraction in the biomedical literature are comparable across open access, free-to-access, or pay-to-access journals. Design – Citation analysis. Setting – Biomedical literature. Subjects – 160 retracted papers published between 1st January 2001 and 31st December 2010. Methods – For the retracted papers, 100 records were retrieved from the PubMed database and 100 records from the PubMed Central (PMC) open access subset. Records were selected at random, based on the PubMed identifier. Each article was assigned a number based on its accessibility using the specific criteria. Articles published in the PMC open access subset were assigned a 2; articles retrieved from PubMed that were freely accessible, but did not meet the criteria for open access were assigned a 1; and articles retrieved through PubMed which were pay-to-access were assigned a 0. This allowed articles to be grouped and compared by accessibility. Citation information was collected primarily from the Science Citation Index. Articles for which no citation information was available, and those with a lifetime citation of 0 (or 1 where the citation came from the retraction statement) were excluded, leaving 160 articles for analysis. Information on the impact factor of the journals was retrieved and the analysis was performed twice; first with the entire set, and second after excluding articles published in journals with an impact factor of 10 or above (14% of the total). The average number of citations per month was used to compare citation rates, and the percentage change in citation rate pre- and post-retraction was calculated. Information was also collected on the time between the date the original article was published and the date of retraction, and the availability of information on the reason for the retraction. Main results – The overall rate of retracted articles in the PMC open access subset compared with the wider PubMed dataset was similar (0.049% and 0.028% respectively). In the group with an accessibility rating of 0, the change in citation rate pre- and post-retraction was -41%. For the group with an accessibility rating of 1, the change was -47% and in those with a rating of 2, the change in citation rate was -59%. Removing articles published in high impact factor journals did not change the results significantly. Retractions were issued more slowly for free access papers compared with open or fee-based articles. The bibliographic records for open access articles disclosed details of the reason for the retraction more frequently than free, non-open papers (91% compared to 53%). Conclusion – Open access literature is similar in its rate of retraction and the reduction in post-retraction citations to the rest of the biomedical literature, and is actually more reliable at reporting the reason for the retraction.

scholarly journals Global psychology: a bibliometric analysis of Web of Science publications

2010 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 553-567 ◽  
Author(s):  
José Navarrete-Cortés ◽  
Juan Antonio Fernández-López ◽  
Alfonso López-Baena ◽  
Raúl Quevedo-Blasco ◽  
Gualberto Buela-Casal
Keyword(s):  
Impact Factor ◽  
Latin American ◽  
Web Of Science ◽  
Citation Rate ◽  
Journal Citation Report ◽  
Scientific Production ◽  
Spanish Speaking ◽  
Latin American Spanish ◽  
American Spanish ◽  
The Web

In this study, we carried a classification by country based on the analysis of the scientific production of psychology journals. We analyzed a total of 108,741 documents, published in the Web of Science. The indicators used were the Weighted Impact Factor, the Relative Impact Factor, the Citation Rate per article and the articles published in the top five journals of the Journal Citation Report (JCR). The results indicate that Spain has the highest percentage of articles in the top five journals in the JCR and Colombia is the second latin-american, Spanish-speaking country that has more citations per article. Countries like Hungary, Italy and USA, had a higher Impact Factor and Citation Rate.

scholarly journals Tweeting birds: online mentions predict future citations in ornithology

2017 ◽  
Vol 4 (11) ◽  
pp. 171371 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tom Finch ◽  
Nina O'Hanlon ◽  
Steve P. Dudley
Keyword(s):  
Impact Factor ◽  
Citation Count ◽  
Scientific Publication ◽  
Online Activity ◽  
Online Engagement ◽  
Online Tools ◽  
Scholarly Impact ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Increased Activity ◽  
Journal Impact

The rapid growth of online tools to communicate scientific research raises the important question of whether online attention is associated with citations in the scholarly literature. The Altmetric Attention Score (AAS) quantifies the attention received by a scientific publication on various online platforms including news, blogs and social media. It has been advanced as a rapid way of gauging the impact of a piece of research, both in terms of potential future scholarly citations and wider online engagement. Here, we explore variation in the AAS of 2677 research articles published in 10 ornithological journals between 2012 and 2016. On average, AAS increased sevenfold in just five years, primarily due to increased activity on Twitter which contributed 75% of the total score. For a subset of 878 articles published in 2014, including an additional 323 ornithology articles from non-specialist journals, an increase in AAS from 1 to 20 resulted in a predicted 112% increase in citation count from 2.6 to 5.5 citations per article. This effect interacted with journal impact factor, with weaker effects of AAS in higher impact factor journals. Our results suggest that altmetrics (or the online activity they measure), as well as complementing traditional measures of scholarly impact in ornithology such as citations, may also anticipate or even drive them.

scholarly journals The impact of non-accessible library and information science journals on research productivity in Pakistan

2016 ◽  
pp. 40-57
Author(s):  
Shamshad Ahmed ◽  
Awais Uzair
Keyword(s):  
Social Networking Sites ◽  
Research Productivity ◽  
Information Science ◽  
Citation Rate ◽  
Journal Citation Report ◽  
Library And Information Science ◽  
Second Phase ◽  
Mixed Method Research ◽  
Two Phases ◽  
The Impact

The purpose of this paper is to identify: (a) Non-accessible library and information science journals from HEC National Digital Library (DL) Subscribed databases, (b) Approaches adopted by the LIS researchers to acquire non-accessible articles, and (c) The impact of non-accessible articles on their research endeavor. A sequential exploratory strategy of mixed method research was applied to identify the impact of non-accessible LIS journals on research. This study was completed in two phases. In the first phase, an online surfing of all HEC subscribed databases was conducted and a list of openly accessible, partially accessible and non-accessible LIS journals was prepared. Impact factor of journals was checked from the list of Journal Citation Report by Thomson Reuter, 2013. In the second phase, a structured questionnaire was prepared to identify the approaches adopted by the researchers to acquire non-accessible articles and their impact on research productivity. Findings of the study show that (a) Emerald, (b) Science Direct, (c) JSTOR, (d) Project Muse, (e) Taylor & Francis, (f) Wiley-Blackwell Journals, and (g) University of Chicago Press, are the HEC subscribed databases which have LIS journals. Study reveals that there are 18 % non-accessible and 37 % partially accessible LIS journals on the HEC subscribed databases. Researchers tried to acquire non-accessible articles through friends, social networking sites (SNS) Groups, BDD and by requesting to authors etc. Respondents agreed that non-accessible journals do impact on research productivity. As a result, citations of non-accessible articles decreases, which negatively impact the quality and quantity of both authors and researchers' work. The outcomes of this study are significant for LIS researchers to become aware of the current situation of non-accessible journals and its impact on their research endeavors. It will also guide the HEC and research institutions to redesign their policy for the subscription of relevant databases that will enable complete access to journals on LIS discipline. It will also help to increase the quality of researchers' work and citation rate of authors' articles. This study may then be replicated in other fields and countries also. There is not enough work analyzing the impact of non-accessible journals on research productivity.

scholarly journals Esetek és tanulmányok

2015 ◽  
Vol 156 (46) ◽  
pp. 1871-1874
Author(s):  
András Schubert
Keyword(s):  
Impact Factor ◽  
Case Studies ◽  
Case Reports ◽  
Citation Rate ◽  
Scholarly Literature ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Excessive Number

Case studies and case reports form an important and ever growing part of scientific and scholarly literature. The paper deals with the share and citation rate of these publication types on different fields of research. In general, evidence seems to support the opinion that an excessive number of such publications may negatively influence the impact factor of the journal. In the literature of scientometrics, case studies (at least the presence of the term “case study” in the titles of the papers) have a moderate share, but their citation rate is practically equal to that of other publication types. Orv. Hetil., 2015, 156(46), 1871–1874.

scholarly journals A systematic review of the statistical scope of restoration ecology of invaded grassland ecosystems

2014 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amanda R Liczner
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Impact Factor ◽  
Sample Size ◽  
Restoration Ecology ◽  
Statistical Tests ◽  
Citation Rate ◽  
Statistical Test ◽  
Experimental Designs ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Journal Impact

Restoration ecology is a rapidly growing field of research. The statistical analyses and experimental designs used in this field have likely also expanded. In this review, the statistical scope of the restoration ecology of invaded grasslands will be investigated. A systematic review was conducted on 103 articles to examine the types of statistical tests used and how they changed over time, if assumptions are tested, and how the number of statistical tests and the experimental design influence both the citation rate of articles and the impact factor of journals where these articles are published. ANOVAs have consistently been the dominant test. Statistical test diversity has increased since the year 2000. Most articles did test the assumptions of statistical analyses. The number of tests, and sample size of experiments are both positively correlated with the average citation rate of articles and the impact factor of the journal while the number of factors was negatively correlated. GLMs are recommended as a statistical test to be used more frequently in the future over ANOVAs. There is room for improvement in terms of reporting statistics accurately, including testing assumptions. When possible, sample sizes should be increased to both increase the quality of data, and the citation rate and the journal impact where articles are published. When possible and appropriate, sample sizes and the number of statistical tests should be increased. Adding factors in experimental designs should only be done so without compromising sample size as it has been shown to hinder the citation rate and journal impact.

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document