A proposal for a novel impact factor as an alternative to the JCR impact factor

Bibliometric analysis of global performance and trends of research on combined sewer overflows (CSOs) from 1990 to 2022

Combined sewer overflows (CSOs) are one of the main sources of pollution in urban water systems and significantly impede the restoration of water body functionalities within urban rivers and lakes. To understand the research and frontier trends of CSOs comprehensively and systematically, a visual statistical analysis of the literature related to CSOs in the Web of Science core database from 1990 to 2022 was conducted using the bibliometric method using HistCite Pro and VOSviewer. The results reveal a total of 1,209 pertinent publications related to CSOs from 1990 to 2022, and the quantity of CSOs-related publications indicated an increasing trend. Investigations of the distribution and fate of typical pollutants in CSOs and their ecological effects on receiving waters and studies on pollution control technologies (source reduction, process control, and end-of-pipe treatment) are the current focus of CSOs research. CSOs pollution control technologies based on source reduction and the monitoring and control of emerging contaminants are at the forefront of scientific investigations on CSOs. This study systematically and comprehensively summarized current research topics and future research directions of CSOs, thus providing a reference for CSOs control and water environment management research.

Bibliometric analysis of global research on bioretention from 2007 to 2021

Bioretention is a typical low impact development (LID) practice that helps reduce peak urban stormwater runoff and runoff pollutant concentrations (e.g., heavy metals, suspended solids, organic pollutants), which has become an important part of urban stormwater management over the past 15 years. To understand the research hotspots and frontiers in the field of bioretention facility research and provide a reference for research into bioretention facilities, we conduct a statistical analysis of global bioretention literature published during 2007-2021 using the Web of Science core database and the data visualization and analysis software VOSviewer and HistCite. The number of published articles related to bioretention facilities shows a rising trend over the study period, with research from China contributing greatly to global research on bioretention facilities. However, the influence of articles needs to be increased. Recent studies mainly focus on the hydrologic effect and water purification effect of bioretention facilities and on the removal of nitrogen and phosphorus nutrients from runoff rainwater. Further studies should focus on the interaction of fillers, microorganisms, and plants in bioretention facilities and its impact on the migration, transformation, and concentrations of nitrogen and phosphorus; the purification effect and mechanism of specific emerging contaminants in runoff; the selection and configuration optimization of filler materials and plant species; and the optimization of the design parameters of the model for bioretention systems.

The Emergence of Technology in Physical Education: A General Bibliometric Analysis with a Focus on Virtual and Augmented Reality

Technology has been gradually introduced into our society, and the field of education is no exception due to technology’s ability to improve the teaching–learning process. Furthermore, within the area of physical education (PE), its importance has been highlighted by the existence of specific apps for physical activity that can be used inside and outside the classroom to assess physical condition, as well as through the potential that virtual and augmented reality can have in such assessment. Therefore, the main objectives for this study were (1) to perform a bibliometric analysis of the articles published in the Web of Science (WoS) on technology in PE and (2) to analyze the articles published on augmented or virtual reality in PE found through this search. The results show that although studies on technology in PE (461 articles) have begun to consolidate over the last five years (there was a turning point in 2015), with the USA being the most influential country in this area, specific research on the use of augmented reality (AR) and virtual reality (VR) is still at a very early stage (22 articles with a small growth in 2017), with Spain being the most influential country; much more research is needed to achieve its consolidation.

Journal impact factor: a bumpy ride in an open space

The journal impact factor (IF) is the leading method of scholarly assessment in today’s research world. An important question is whether or not this is still a constructive method. For a specific journal, the IF is the number of citations for publications over the previous 2 years divided by the number of total citable publications in these years (the citation window). Although this simplicity works to an advantage of this method, complications arise when answers to questions such as ‘What is included in the citation window’ or ‘What makes a good journal impact factor’ contain ambiguity. In this review, we discuss whether or not the IF should still be considered the gold standard of scholarly assessment in view of the many recent changes and the emergence of new publication models. We will outline its advantages and disadvantages. The advantages of the IF include promoting the author meanwhile giving the readers a visualization of the magnitude of review. On the other hand, its disadvantages include reflecting the journal’s quality more than the author’s work, the fact that it cannot be compared across different research disciplines, and the struggles it faces in the world of open access. Recently, alternatives to the IF have been emerging, such as the SCImago Journal & Country Rank, the Source Normalized Impact per Paper and the Eigenfactor Score, among others. However, all alternatives proposed thus far are associated with their own limitations as well. In conclusion, although IF contains its cons, until there are better proposed alternative methods, IF remains one of the most effective methods for assessing scholarly activity.

Navigating manuscript assessment: The new practitioner's guide to primary literature peer review

For pharmacists, the first years after graduation are spent developing their knowledge base, advancing as a practitioner, and honing their abilities as healthcare providers and drug information experts. New practitioners encounter many challenges during this time, which for many include publishing original research or reviewing manuscripts for colleagues and medical journals. Inexperience navigating the publication process, from submission to receipt of (and response to) peer review commentary, is often cited as a major barrier to timely publication of resident and new practitioner research. Serving as a peer reviewer in turn provides the new practitioner with insight on this process and can be an enlightening experience used to garner confidence in subsequently submitting their own formal manuscripts. A number of publications describing steps for peer review are available, however, many of these articles address more experienced reviewers or critique the peer review process itself. No definitive resource exists for new pharmacy practitioners interested in developing their peer review skills. The information presented in this summative guide should be used in conjunction with practice opportunities to help new practitioners develop proficiency at peer review.

Bibliometric Indices of Scientific Journals: Time to overcome the obsession and think beyond the Impact Factor

Journal Impact Factor (JIF) has been widely used for a long time as a proxy marker of journal prestige. However, off late, accuracy and reliability of JIF for evaluation of scientific journals has been increasingly questioned by numerous stakeholders in the field of scholarly publications. Having realized the perils and pitfalls of JIF, there is an increasing understanding among academia to develop and consider alternatives to the traditional JIF. It is possibly time for all concerned to understand the pros and cons of JIF to overcome this obsession. Limitations of JIF and possible alternative and emerging bibliometric indicators are being discussed in this article for the benefit of the readers of MJAFI.

Ascertaining the standard of journal using quality indices

In the modern era, most of the researchers want to share their work on a global platform so that they not only receive the due recognition but even their findings can be utilized by other professionals working in the same arena. In order to achieve this, the most common approach is to publish the research findings in an appropriate journal. However, the indicators which eventually determine the overall quality of a journal are variable and there is a great need that the contributors should understand the meaning and scope of each of these indicators. In conclusion, in order to establish the journal's quality, the researchers should obtain the information about the various indices from the journals' website or editorial board and then only submit their research work for publishing.

Alternative bibliometrics from impact factor improved the esteem of a journal in a 2-year-ahead annual-citation calculation: multivariate analysis of gastroenterology and hepatology journals

INTRODUCTION

A deeper understanding of supplementary bibliometrics beyond the impact factor might provide researchers with a better understanding of the citation process. This study presents a multivariate analysis of gastroenterology and hepatology journals to evaluate the predictive ability of seven bibliometrics in the Web of Science to calculate total cites over a 2-year period.

METHODS

Coincidentally, bibliometrics appearing during 2008, 2009, and 2010, with their corresponding cites in 2010, 2011, and 2012, were recorded from the Journal Citation Reports Science Edition. A linear mixed-effects design using random slopes and intercepts was performed on 51 out of 74 journals in the Gastroenterology and Hepatology category.

RESULT

There was a significant global effect size (R(2) = 0.992; P < 0.001), which yielded a total variance of 99.2%. The strongest predictors in the model were the Eigenfactor Score and Cited Half-life (P < 0.001), followed by the Number of Articles (P = 0.011) and the Immediacy Index (P = 0.021). The impact factor was not a significant predictor.

CONCLUSION

The Eigenfactor Score and Cited Half-life predictors might be the new standards to assess the influence and importance of scientific journals; this approach may help researchers select journals in which to publish their work.