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.

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.

scholarly journals Case Reports in Pediatric Dentistry Journals: A Systematic Review about Their Effect on Impact Factor and Future Investigations

2019 ◽  
Vol 7 (4) ◽  
pp. 103 ◽  
Author(s):  
Romeo Patini ◽  
Edoardo Staderini ◽  
Andrea Camodeca ◽  
Federica Guglielmi ◽  
Patrizia Gallenzi
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Impact Factor ◽  
Journal Impact Factor ◽  
Case Reports ◽  
Citation Rate ◽  
Scientific Information ◽  
Pediatric Dentistry ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Number Percentage ◽  
Journal Impact

Background: The effects of publishing case reports on journal impact factor and their impact on future research in pediatric dentistry has not been clearly evaluated yet. Aim. To assess the relevance and role of case reports in pediatric dentistry. Methods: A systematic review (PROSPERO registration number: CRD42018108621) of all case reports published between 2011 and 2012 in the three major pediatric dentistry journals was performed manually. Data regarding citations of each report were acquired from the Institute for Scientific Information database available online. The authors analyzed information regarding citations (number, percentage, and mean) received by each case report and considered their relation with the 2013 journal impact factor. Results: Case reports accounted for almost sixteen per cent of all articles published between 2011 and 2012. The citation rate of case reports was generally low and the highest mean citation was 0.5. This review revealed that 6 (9.52%) case reports had at least 5 citations and that the majority of the citing articles were also case reports (27.78%) or narrative reviews (25%). Conclusions: The publication of case reports affected the journal impact factor in a negative way, this influence is closely related to the percentage of the published case reports. Case reports about innovative topics, describing rare diseases, syndromes, and pathologies were more frequently cited.

scholarly journals What are the variables associated with Altmetric scores?

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Amanda Costa Araujo ◽  
Adriane Aver Vanin ◽  
Dafne Port Nascimento ◽  
Gabrielle Zoldan Gonzalez ◽  
Leonardo Oliveira Pena Costa
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Open Access ◽  
Impact Factor ◽  
Journal Impact Factor ◽  
Online Media ◽  
Press Releases ◽  
Citation Counts ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Journal Impact ◽  
Publishing Journal

Abstract Background Social media has been used to disseminate the contents of scientific articles. To measure the impact of this, a new tool called Altmetric was created. Altmetric aims to quantify the impact of each article through online media. This systematic review aims to describe the associations between the publishing journal and published article variables and Altmetric scores. Methods Searches on MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, CENTRAL, and Cochrane Library were conducted. We extracted data related to both the publishing article and the publishing journal associated with Altmetric scores. The methodological quality of included articles was analyzed by the Appraisal Tool for Cross-sectional Studies. Results A total of 19 articles were considered eligible. These articles summarized a total of 573,842 studies. Citation counts, journal impact factor, access counts, papers published as open access, and press releases generated by the publishing journal were associated with Altmetric scores. The magnitude of these associations ranged from weak to strong. Conclusion Citation counts and journal impact factor are the most common variables associated with Altmetric scores. Other variables such as access counts, papers published in open access journals, and the use of press releases are also likely to be associated with online media attention. Systematic review registration This review does not contain health-related outcomes. Therefore, it is not eligible for registration.

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 Profile of Brazilian scientific production on A/H1N1 pandemic influenza

2012 ◽  
Vol 17 (6) ◽  
pp. 1629-1634 ◽  
Author(s):  
Adriana Luchs
Keyword(s):  
Impact Factor ◽  
H1n1 Influenza ◽  
Scientific Production ◽  
Similar Amount ◽  
H1n1 Pandemic ◽  
Public Funds ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Journal Impact ◽  
Bibliometric Studies ◽  
Made In

In the last few years, bibliometric studies have proliferated, seeking to provide data on world research. This study analyzes the profile of the Brazilian scientific production in the A (H1N1) influenza field between 2009 and 2011. The research was conducted in MEDLINE, SciELO and LILACS databases, selecting papers in which the term "H1N1" and "Brazil" were defined as the main topics. The data were analyzed taking into consideration the Brazilian state and institution in which the articles were produced, the impact factor of the journal and the language. The research revealed 40 documents (27 from MEDLINE, 16 from SciELO and 24 from LILACS). The journal impact factor ranged from 0.0977 to 8.1230. A similar amount of articles were written in English and Portuguese and São Paulo was the most productive state in the country, with 95% of the Brazilian production originating from the Southern and Southeastern regions. Linguistic data indicate that previous efforts made in order to improve the scientific production of Brazilian researchers making their observations attain a broader scientific audience produced results. It is necessary to assess the scientific studies, especially those conducted with public funds, in order to ensure that the results will benefit society.

scholarly journals Uncertainty Measures for Economics Journal Impact Factors

2013 ◽  
Vol 51 (1) ◽  
pp. 173-189 ◽  
Author(s):  
David I Stern
Keyword(s):  
Impact Factor ◽  
Confidence Intervals ◽  
Standard Error ◽  
Impact Factors ◽  
Elite Group ◽  
Economics Journal ◽  
Uncertainty Measures ◽  
Economics Journals ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Journal Impact

Academic economists appear to be intensely interested in rankings of journals, institutions, and individuals. Yet there is little discussion of the uncertainty associated with these rankings. To illustrate the uncertainty associated with citations-based rankings, I compute the standard error of the impact factor for all economics journals with a five-year impact factor in the 2011 Journal Citations Report. I use these to derive confidence intervals for the impact factors as well as ranges of possible rank for a subset of thirty journals. I find that the impact factors of the top two journals are well defined and set these journals apart in a clearly defined group. An elite group of 9–11 mainstream journals can also be fairly reliably distinguished. The four bottom ranked journals are also fairly clearly set apart. For the remainder of the distribution, confidence intervals overlap and rankings are quite uncertain. (JEL A14)

Citation Skew in Plastic Surgery Journals: Does the Journal Impact Factor Predict Individual Article Citation Rate?

2019 ◽  
Vol 40 (10) ◽  
pp. 1136-1142 ◽  
Author(s):  
Malke Asaad ◽  
Austin Paul Kallarackal ◽  
Jesse Meaike ◽  
Aashish Rajesh ◽  
Rafael U de Azevedo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Impact Factor ◽  
Plastic Surgery ◽  
Journal Impact Factor ◽  
Citation Rate ◽  
Scientific Work ◽  
Biomedical Science ◽  
Unequal Distribution ◽  
Number Of Citations ◽  
Journal Impact ◽  
Surgery Journals

Abstract Background Citation skew refers to the unequal distribution of citations to articles published in a particular journal. Objectives We aimed to assess whether citation skew exists within plastic surgery journals and to determine whether the journal impact factor (JIF) is an accurate indicator of the citation rates of individual articles. Methods We used Journal Citation Reports to identify all journals within the field of plastic and reconstructive surgery. The number of citations in 2018 for all individual articles published in 2016 and 2017 was abstracted. Results Thirty-three plastic surgery journals were identified, publishing 9823 articles. The citation distribution showed right skew, with the majority of articles having either 0 or 1 citation (40% and 25%, respectively). A total of 3374 (34%) articles achieved citation rates similar to or higher than their journal’s IF, whereas 66% of articles failed to achieve a citation rate equal to the JIF. Review articles achieved higher citation rates (median, 2) than original articles (median, 1) (P < 0.0001). Overall, 50% of articles contributed to 93.7% of citations and 12.6% of articles contributed to 50% of citations. A weak positive correlation was found between the number of citations and the JIF (r = 0.327, P < 0.0001). Conclusions Citation skew exists within plastic surgery journals as in other fields of biomedical science. Most articles did not achieve citation rates equal to the JIF with a small percentage of articles having a disproportionate influence on citations and the JIF. Therefore, the JIF should not be used to assess the quality and impact of individual scientific work.

scholarly journals Comparison of the Impact Factors of the Most-Cited Cardiovascular Journals

2019 ◽  
Vol 124 (12) ◽  
pp. 1718-1724 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tobias Opthof
Keyword(s):  
Impact Factor ◽  
Journal Impact Factor ◽  
European Heart Journal ◽  
The Other ◽  
Impact Factors ◽  
Additional Advantage ◽  
The Right ◽  
Number Of Classes ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Journal Impact

In this article, I show that the distribution of citations to papers published by the top 30 journals in the category Cardiac & Cardiovascular Systems of the Web of Science is extremely skewed. This skewness is to the right, which means that there is a long tail of papers that are cited much more frequently than the other papers of the same journal. The consequence is that there is a large difference between the mean and the median of the citation of the papers published by the journals. I further found that there are no differences between the citation distributions of the top 4 journals European Heart Journal , Circulation , Journal of the American College of Cardiology , and Circulation Research . Despite the fact that the journal impact factor (IF) varied between 23.425 for Eur Heart J and 15.211 for Circ Res with the other 2 journals in between, the median citation of their articles plus reviews (IF Median) was 10 for all 4 journals. Given the fact that their citation distributions were similar, it is obvious that an indicator (IF Median) that reflects this similarity must be superior to the classical journal impact factor, which may indicate a nonexisting difference. It is underscored that the IF Median is substantially lower than the journal impact factor for all 30 journals under consideration in this article. Finally, the IF Median has the additional advantage that there is no artificial ranking of 128 journals in the category but rather an attribution of journals to a limited number of classes with comparable impact.

scholarly journals Impact of antenatal care on neonatal mortality among neonates in Ethiopia: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 78 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Tadesse Tolossa ◽  
Ginenus Fekadu ◽  
Belayneh Mengist ◽  
Diriba Mulisa ◽  
Getahun Fetensa ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Antenatal Care ◽  
Neonatal Mortality ◽  
Neonatal Death ◽  
Statistical Tests ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Sub Saharan Africa ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
The Impact

Abstract Background As compared to other regions of the world, Sub Saharan Africa (SSA) is the region with the highest neonatal mortality and is the region showing the least progress in the reduction of newborn death. Despite better progress made in reducing neonatal mortality, Ethiopia contributes the highest rate of neonatal death in Africa. In Ethiopia, findings from few studies were inconsistent and there is a need to systematically pool existing data to determine the impact of antenatal care on neonatal mortality among mother-neonate pairs in Ethiopia. Methods Published articles from various electronic databases such as Medline, Hinari, Pub Med, Cochrane library, the Web of Science, and Google Scholar were accessed. Also, unpublished studies from library catalogs were identified. All observational studies that were conducted on the association between antenatal care follow-up and neonatal mortality among neonates in Ethiopia were included. Data were extracted on the Microsoft Excel spreadsheet and analyzed using STATA 14.1 version. A random-effects model was used to estimate the pooled estimate with a 95% confidence interval (CI). Forest plots were used to visualize the presence of heterogeneity and estimate the pooled impact on antenatal care on neonatal mortality. The presence of publication bias was assessed by funnel plots and Egger’s statistical tests. Results Initially, a total of 345 studies were accessed. Finally, 28 full-text studies were reviewed and fourteen studies fulfilled inclusion criteria and included in the final meta-analysis. The overall pooled estimate indicates the odds of neonatal death among neonates from women with antenatal care were 65% lower than those neonates from women who had no antenatal care follow-up (OR: 0.35, 95% CI: 0.24, 0.51). Conclusions In this systematic review and meta-analysis, lack of ANC follow-up increase the probability of neonatal mortality as compared to having ANC follow-up. Thus, we will recommend for more coverages of appropriate antenatal care where risk groups can best be identified and managed.

scholarly journals Ckj consolidation among Q1 Urology and Nephrology journals

2020 ◽  
Vol 13 (5) ◽  
pp. 723-727
Author(s):  
Alberto Ortiz
Keyword(s):  
Chronic Kidney Disease ◽  
Kidney Disease ◽  
Impact Factor ◽  
Cost Efficiency ◽  
Journal Impact Factor ◽  
Outcome Prediction ◽  
Web Of Science ◽  
Sglt2 Inhibitors ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Journal Impact

Abstract The Clinical Kidney Journal (ckj) impact factor from Clarivate’s Web of Science for 2019 was 3.388. This consolidates ckj among journals in the top 25% (first quartile, Q1) in the Urology and Nephrology field according to the journal impact factor. The manuscripts contributing the most to the impact factor focused on chronic kidney disease (CKD) epidemiology and evaluation, CKD complications and their management, cost-efficiency of renal replacement therapy, pathogenesis of CKD, familial kidney disease and the environment–genetics interface, onconephrology, technology, SGLT2 inhibitors and outcome prediction. We provide here an overview of the hottest and most impactful topics for 2017–19.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document