scholarly journals The Journal Impact Factor: A Threat or Opportunity?

Aquichan ◽  
2011 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 245-255 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cayetano Fernández-Sola ◽  
José Granero-Molina ◽  
José Manuel Hernández-Padilla ◽  
Gabriel Aguilera-Manrique ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Impact Factor ◽  
Journal Impact Factor ◽  
Journal Citation Reports ◽  
Journal Impact ◽  
Journal Citation

Este artículo contiene un resumen de las críticas a la utilización del factor de impacto (FI) como indicador de calidad de las publicaciones y de producción de investigadores. Tales críticas alcanzan a los autores que intentan publicar en revistas con FI, argumentando que así renuncian a la propia identidad, primando su currículum sobre la utilidad de su investigación. En oposición a esas críticas se afirma que unos criterios de evaluación exigentes sirven de estímulo para la internacionalización del sistema científico. Existe consenso en la comunidad académica sobre las imperfecciones del FI y su aceptación como recurso válido y necesario para la evaluación científica, como también en que el debate identitario contribuye poco a resolver la invisibilidad internacional de la investigación de enfermería en español. Se esbozan propuestas que apuestan por aprovechar las fortalezas para incrementar y visibilizar dicha investigación, desarrollar estrategias para incluir y mantener a las revistas en español en el Journal Citation Reports (JCR), fomentar la formación y cooperación interdisciplinar, promover la publicación de investigaciones desarrolladas en los programas de posgrado, y reclamar la apuesta editorial por la indexación de sus revistas en el JCR. Se concluye que, aunque difícil, es posible aumentar la visibilidad de la producción científica de enfermería en español.

A Journal-Level Analysis of Progress in Transplantation

2017 ◽  
Vol 28 (1) ◽  
pp. 19-23
Author(s):  
Thomas Feeley ◽  
Seyoung Lee ◽  
Shin-Il Moon
Keyword(s):  
Impact Factor ◽  
Journal Impact Factor ◽  
Kidney Diseases ◽  
Journal Article ◽  
Impact Factors ◽  
Journal Citation Reports ◽  
Journal Impact ◽  
Surgery Journals ◽  
Over Time ◽  
Journal Citation

Context: Citations to articles published in academic journals represent a proxy for influence in bibliometrics. Objective: To measure the journal impact factor for Progress in Transplantation over time and to also identify related journals indexed in transplantation and surgery. Design: Data from Journal Citation Reports (ISI web of science) were used to rank Progress in Transplantation compared to peer journals using journal impact and journal relatedness measures. Social network analysis was used to measure relationships between pairs of journals in Progress in Transplantation’s relatedness network. Main Outcome Measures: Journal impact factor and journal relatedness. Results: Data from 2010 through 2015 indicate the average journal article in PIT was cited 0.87 times (standard deviation [SD] = 0.12) and this estimate was stable over time. Progress in Transplantation most often cited American Journal of Transplantation, Transplantation, American Journal of Kidney Diseases, and Liver Transplantation. In terms of cited data, the journal was most often referenced by Clinical Transplantation, Transplant International, and Current Opinion in Organ Transplantation. Conclusion: The journal is listed both in surgery and transplantation categories of Journal Citation Reports and its impact factors over time fare better with surgery journals than with transplant journals. Network data using betweenness centrality indicate Progress in Transplantation links transplantation-focused journals and journals indexed in health sciences categories.

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.

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 A simple proposal for the publication of journal citation distributions

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vincent Larivière ◽  
Véronique Kiermer ◽  
Catriona J. MacCallum ◽  
Marcia McNutt ◽  
Mark Patterson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Impact Factor ◽  
Journal Impact Factor ◽  
Research Assessment ◽  
Scientific Journals ◽  
Simple Method ◽  
Full Extent ◽  
Poor Indicator ◽  
Journal Impact ◽  
Journal Citation

AbstractAlthough the Journal Impact Factor (JIF) is widely acknowledged to be a poor indicator of the quality of individual papers, it is used routinely to evaluate research and researchers. Here, we present a simple method for generating the citation distributions that underlie JIFs. Application of this straightforward protocol reveals the full extent of the skew of these distributions and the variation in citations received by published papers that is characteristic of all scientific journals. Although there are differences among journals across the spectrum of JIFs, the citation distributions overlap extensively, demonstrating that the citation performance of individual papers cannot be inferred from the JIF. We propose that this methodology be adopted by all journals as a move to greater transparency, one that should help to refocus attention on individual pieces of work and counter the inappropriate usage of JIFs during the process of research assessment.

scholarly journals Speed of Online and Print Peer-Reviewed Ophthalmology Publications and Correlation to Journal Bibliometric Measures

2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (02) ◽  
pp. e284-e291
Author(s):  
Ronaldo Nuesi ◽  
John Y. Lee ◽  
Ajay E. Kuriyan ◽  
Jayanth Sridhar
Keyword(s):  
Impact Factor ◽  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Study Design ◽  
Online Publication ◽  
Journal Impact Factor ◽  
Experimental Studies ◽  
Print Publication ◽  
Journal Citation Reports ◽  
Journal Impact ◽  
Bibliometric Measures

Abstract Objective This study aimed to explore the relationship between publishing speeds and peer-reviewed journal bibliometric measures in ophthalmology. Methods Journal Citation Reports and Scopus Database were accessed for identification of journal bibliometric measures in ophthalmology. Twelve randomly selected articles from 2018 for all identified journals were studied. All outcome measures were extracted from the full text of articles and correlated with journal bibliometric measures. Statistical analysis was performed on measured parameters in comparison to a previous study. Main Outcomes and Measures Journal impact factor, Eigenfactor score, and CiteScore were correlated with time from submission or acceptance of manuscripts to online and print publication. The correlation between study design and publishing speeds was also assessed. Results A total of 55 journals were included for a total of 657 articles. Online publications were significantly faster than print publications for almost every journal (p < 0.001). Laboratory experimental studies had significantly shorter times from submission to online publication (p = 0.002) and acceptance to online publication (p < 0.001) compared with observational and interventional studies. Journal impact factor was positively correlated to publishing speed from acceptance to online publication (p = 0.034). CiteScore was positively correlated to speed from submission to print publication (p = 0.04), acceptance to print publication (p = 0.013), and acceptance to online publication (p = 0.003). Eigenfactor score was not statistically significant when correlated with any outcome measures. Conclusion Online publication has increased speed of dissemination of knowledge in the ophthalmology literature. Despite reporting higher numbers of submissions every year, ophthalmology journals with higher bibliometric measures of impact tend to publish peer-reviewed articles faster than journals with lower impact scores. Study design of an article may affect its speed to publication.

Correlation between the Journal Impact Factor and three other journal citation indices

2010 ◽  
Vol 85 (1) ◽  
pp. 81-93 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark R. Elkins ◽  
Christopher G. Maher ◽  
Robert D. Herbert ◽  
Anne M. Moseley ◽  
Catherine Sherrington
Keyword(s):  
Impact Factor ◽  
Journal Impact Factor ◽  
Journal Impact ◽  
Journal Citation

scholarly journals Scrambling for higher metrics in the Journal Impact Factor bubble period: a real-world problem in science management and its implications

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Trung Tran ◽  
Hoang Khanh Linh ◽  
Viet-Phuong La ◽  
Toan Manh Ho ◽  
Quan-Hoang Vuong
Keyword(s):  
Impact Factor ◽  
Journal Impact Factor ◽  
Research Evaluation ◽  
Scientific Quality ◽  
Fund Managers ◽  
Journal Citation Reports ◽  
Statistical Representation ◽  
Real World Problem ◽  
Science Management ◽  
Journal Impact

Universities and funders in many countries have been using Journal Impact Factor (JIF) as an indicator for research and grant assessment despite its controversial nature as a statistical representation of scientific quality. This study investigates how the changes of JIF over the years can affect its role in research evaluation and science management by using JIF data from annual Journal Citation Reports (JCR) to illustrate the changes. The descriptive statistics find out an increase in the median JIF for the top 50 journals in the JCR, from 29.300 in 2017 to 33.162 in 2019. Moreover, on average, elite journal families have up to 27 journals in the top 50. In the group of journals with a JIF of lower than 1, the proportion has shrunk by 14.53% in the 2015–2019 period. The findings suggest a potential ‘JIF bubble period’ that science policymaker, university, public fund managers, and other stakeholders should pay more attention to JIF as a criterion for quality assessment to ensure more efficient science management.

scholarly journals Scrambling for higher metrics in the Journal Impact Factor bubble period: a real-world problem in science management and its implications

2020 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 48-56
Author(s):  
Trung Tran ◽  
Khanh-Linh Hoang ◽  
Viet-Phuong La ◽  
Manh-Toan Ho ◽  
Quan-Hoang Vuong
Keyword(s):  
Impact Factor ◽  
Journal Impact Factor ◽  
Research Evaluation ◽  
Scientific Quality ◽  
Fund Managers ◽  
Journal Citation Reports ◽  
Statistical Representation ◽  
Real World Problem ◽  
Science Management ◽  
Journal Impact

Universities and funders in many countries have been using Journal Impact Factor (JIF) as an indicator for research and grant assessment despite its controversial nature as a statistical representation of scientific quality. This study investigates how the changes of JIF over the years can affect its role in research evaluation and science management by using JIF data from annual Journal Citation Reports (JCR) to illustrate the changes. The descriptive statistics find out an increase in the median JIF for the top 50 journals in the JCR, from 29.300 in 2017 to 33.162 in 2019. Moreover, on average, elite journal families have up to 27 journals in the top 50. In the group of journals with a JIF of lower than 1, the proportion has shrunk by 14.53% in the 2015–2019 period. The findings suggest a potential ‘JIF bubble period’ that science policymaker, university, public fund managers, and other stakeholders should pay more attention to JIF as a criterion for quality assessment to ensure more efficient science management.

Repräsentanz von Pflegewissenschaftlerinnen und Pflegewissenschaftlern aus dem deutschsprachigen Raum in Zeitschriften mit hohem Impact Factor

Pflege ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 31 (1) ◽  
pp. 31-39 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julian Hirt ◽  
Christian Buhtz ◽  
Benedikt Mersdorf ◽  
Gabriele Meyer
Keyword(s):  
Impact Factor ◽  
High Impact ◽  
Journal Citation Reports ◽  
Journal Citation

Zusammenfassung.Hintergrund: Die Häufigkeit pflegewissenschaftlicher Beiträge aus dem deutschsprachigen Raum in Zeitschriften mit hohem Impact Factor gibt Hinweise auf die Teilhabe der Disziplin am internationalen Diskurs. Bisherige Analysen beschränken sich auf pflegewissenschaftliche Zeitschriften. Diese konstatieren eine Unterrepräsentanz experimenteller Studien und klinischer Themen. Ziel: Identifikation und Analyse der Publikationen von im deutschsprachigen Raum ansässigen Pflegewissenschaftlerinnen/Pflegewissenschaftlern in internationalen pflegerelevanten High Impact Journals. Methode: Mittels Journal Citation Reports wurden pflegerelevante Zeitschriftenkategorien identifiziert, in denen die nach dem 5-Jahres-Impact-Factor höchsten 10 % der Zeitschriften der Jahre 2010 bis 2014 ausgewählt wurden. Der Einschluss der Publikationen und die Datenextraktion erfolgten durch zwei unabhängige Personen. Ergebnisse: Durchsucht wurden 106939 Publikationen aus 126 Zeitschriften. Eingeschlossen wurden 100 Publikationen, an denen 114 Pflegewissenschaftler/-innen aus dem deutschsprachigen Raum insgesamt 229 Mal beteiligt sind. Insgesamt 42 % sind Beobachtungsstudien, 11 % sind experimentelle Studien. Die berichteten Themen sind mehrheitlich klinisch orientiert (55 %). Über 50 % sind in den letzten zwei Jahren publiziert worden. Schlussfolgerungen: Das pflegewissenschaftliche Publikationsaufkommen aus dem deutschsprachigen Raum in High Impact Journals ist gering. Eine Zunahme über den Beobachtungszeitraum ist zu verzeichnen. Im Gegensatz zu früheren Analysen zeigt sich ein höherer Anteil klinischer Forschung.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document