Thirty Years of Impact Factor and theJournal

Impact factor JUMPS after the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic: a retrospective study in Dermatology journals

Background

The term “JUMPS” was used to describe the impact factor (IF) in an article published in PubMed in 2021, representing an increase of more than 40% of IF.

Aims

In this study, we aimed to compare the growth rate of IF JUMPS in Dermatology in the last 5 years, and particularly the effect of the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic.

Methods

This study evaluated the growth rate (JUMP) in IF from 2016 to 2020. We used the Friedman and Wilcoxon signed ranks tests. We classified JUMPS in negative growth rate; Q1 to Q4 quartiles; and journals with > 100%. A 76–100% growth rate was observed in five (7%) journals, and twelve journals (17%) depicted a 51–75% percentage of change.

Results

Several journals in the Dermatology category increased their IF by 50%. Repeated measures analyses showed a significant difference (p < .001).

Conclusion

Although we found journals with growth rates in the four quartiles, no journals depicted negative growth rates nor > 100% growth. Knowing the growing trends in this category might supplement the assessment of target journals for authors looking to submit their works.

Impact Factor JUMPS After the 2020 COVID-19 Pandemic: A Retrospective Study in Radiology, Nuclear Medicine & Medical Imaging Journals

ABSTRACT

One of the most widely applied methods for evaluating a research paper's quality is the impact factor (IF). The term JUMPS was applied to the IF in an article published in PubMed in 2021, describing an increase of more than 40% of IF. In this study, we aimed to compare the growth rate of IF JUMPS in Radiology, Nuclear Medicine & Medical Imaging in the last 6 years. This retrospective study calculated the growth rate (JUMP) in IF from 2015 to 2020. We used the Friedman and Wilcoxon signed ranks tests to calculate the statistically significant difference in IF from 2015 to 2020 and the 2019 to 2020 difference. We classified JUMPS in negative growth rate, quartiles, and journals with >100%. Three journals had more than 100% IF growth rate during 2020 ( Zeitschrift fur Medizinische Physik , Journal of the Belgian Society of Radiology , and Ultrasound Quarterly ). A 76% to 100% growth rate was observed in another 4 journals (3.2%), and 8 journals (6.3%) depicted a 51% to 75% percentage of change. Repeated measures analyses showed a significant difference ( P < 0.001). During the COVID-19 pandemic, several journals in the Radiology, Nuclear Medicine & Medical Imaging category increased their IF by 50%. Knowing the growing trends in this category might supplement the assessment of target journals for authors looking to submit their works.

Current concepts on bibliometrics: a brief review about impact factor, Eigenfactor score, CiteScore, SCImago Journal Rank, Source-Normalised Impact per Paper, H-index, and alternative metrics

BACKGROUND

Understanding the impact of a publication by using bibliometric indices becomes an essential activity not only for universities and research institutes but also for individual academicians. This paper aims to provide a brief review of the current bibliometric tools used by authors and editors and proposes an algorithm to assess the relevance of the most common bibliometric tools to help the researchers select the fittest journal and know the trends of published submissions by using self-evaluation.

METHODS

We present a narrative review answering at least two related consecutive questions triggered by the topics mentioned above. How prestigious is a journal based on its most recent bibliometrics, so authors may choose it to submit their next manuscript? And, how can they self-evaluate/understand the impact of their whole publishing scientific life?

RESULTS

We presented the main relevant definitions of each bibliometrics and grouped them in those oriented to evaluated journals or individuals. Also, we share with our readers our algorithm to assess journals before manuscript submission.

CONCLUSIONS

Since there is a journal performance market and an article performance market, each one with its patterns, an integrative use of these metrics, rather than just the impact factor alone, might represent the fairest and most legitimate approach to assess the influence and importance of an acceptable research issue, and not only a sound journal in their respective disciplines.

How well are journal and clinical article characteristics associated with the journal impact factor? a retrospective cohort study

OBJECTIVE

Journal impact factor (JIF) is often used as a measure of journal quality. A retrospective cohort study determined the ability of clinical article and journal characteristics, including appraisal measures collected at the time of publication, to predict subsequent JIFs.

METHODS

Clinical research articles that passed methods quality criteria were included. Each article was rated for relevance and newsworthiness by 3 to 24 physicians from a panel of more than 4,000 practicing clinicians. The 1,267 articles (from 103 journals) were divided 60∶40 into derivation (760 articles) and validation sets (507 articles), representing 99 and 88 journals, respectively. A multiple regression model was produced determining the association of 10 journal and article measures with the 2007 JIF.

RESULTS

Four of the 10 measures were significant in the regression model: number of authors, number of databases indexing the journal, proportion of articles passing methods criteria, and mean clinical newsworthiness scores. With the number of disciplines rating the article, the 5 variables accounted for 61% of the variation in JIF (R(2) = 0.607, 95% CI 0.444 to 0.706, P<0.001).

CONCLUSION

For the clinical literature, measures of scientific quality and clinical newsworthiness available at the time of publication can predict JIFs with 60% accuracy.

Comparison between two five year periods (1998/2002 and 2003/2007) on the production, impact and co-authorship of publications on tobacco and smoking by Spanish authors using the Science Citation Index

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to compare the production, impact and co-authorship of publications by Spanish authors on smoking and tobacco between two time periods (1998/2002 vs 2003/2007) using Science Citation Index (SCI).

METHODS

The literature search was performed in the SCI-Expanded on 20 November 2008. All types of documents by Spanish authors were selected. The search was restricted to the title, and the key words used were "smok*" and "tobac*". The statistical analysis was descriptive (95% CI).

RESULTS

A total of 588 documents were obtained, with 399 (67.85%) original papers, 54 (9.18%) letters to the editor, and 35 (5.95%) editorials. Productivity increased between the 98/02 to 03/07 periods: 234 (39.8%) documents versus 354 (60.2%). We have found significant differences between the two periods (98/02 vs 03/07) in total mean annual documents (47 ± 8 vs 71 ± 16 [p=0.024]) and total mean annual original papers (34 ± 6 vs 46 ± 9 [p=0.041]). The mean number of citations per document was 14.1 ± 2.1 for 98/02 period and 5.6 ± 2.5 for 03/07 period (p=0.003). The co-authorship annual index had increased; with a mean of 6.77 signatures/document for 98/02 period to a mean of 6.87 for 03/07 period. Authors and institution networks collaborations had increased between the two periods.

CONCLUSIONS

Spanish production and co-authorship of documents on smoking and tobacco have increased between these two periods. The earlier period documents received more citations.

Integrative approach to quality assessment of medical journals using impact factor, eigenfactor, and article influence scores

Background

Impact factor (IF) is a commonly used surrogate for assessing the scientific quality of journals and articles. There is growing discontent in the medical community with the use of this quality assessment tool because of its many inherent limitations. To help address such concerns, Eigenfactor (ES) and Article Influence scores (AIS) have been devised to assess scientific impact of journals. The principal aim was to compare the temporal trends in IF, ES, and AIS on the rank order of leading medical journals over time.

Methods

The 2001 to 2008 IF, ES, AIS, and number of citable items (CI) of 35 leading medical journals were collected from the Institute of Scientific Information (ISI) and the http://www.eigenfactor.org databases. The journals were ranked based on the published 2008 ES, AIS, and IF scores. Temporal score trends and variations were analyzed.

Results

In general, the AIS and IF values provided similar rank orders. Using ES values resulted in large changes in the rank orders with higher ranking being assigned to journals that publish a large volume of articles. Since 2001, the IF and AIS of most journals increased significantly; however the ES increased in only 51% of the journals in the analysis. Conversely, 26% of journals experienced a downward trend in their ES, while the rest experienced no significant changes (23%). This discordance between temporal trends in IF and ES was largely driven by temporal changes in the number of CI published by the journals.

Conclusion

The rank order of medical journals changes depending on whether IF, AIS or ES is used. All of these metrics are sensitive to the number of citable items published by journals. Consumers should thus consider all of these metrics rather than just IF alone in assessing the influence and importance of medical journals in their respective disciplines.

[Network of international scientific collaboration on smoking: analysis of coauthorship through the Science Citation Index (1999-2003)]

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to analyze patterns of scientific collaboration and the visibility generated by coauthorship of articles on smoking among different countries on a world-wide basis through the Science Citation Index-Expanded (SCI-expanded) from 1999 to 2003.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We selected articles on smoking resulting from collaboration among different countries in the SCI-Expanded (1999-2003). The underlying networks of collaboration among countries were analyzed by comparing production (number of articles published), visibility (number of citations received) and centrality (node degree, intermediation and proximity).

RESULTS

A total of 3,484 articles were obtained, in which 5,008 institutions from 79 countries participated. The most productive country was the United Kingdom, with Germany and France in the second and third places. The United Kingdom also published the largest number of articles with inter-institutional collaboration (570 articles), with the USA and Germany in second and third places. The USA published the largest number of articles with international collaboration with the United Kingdom and France in the second and third places. All countries received a greater number of citations for articles resulting from international and inter-institutional collaboration than for those performed without collaboration. Networks of collaboration were completely connected through a single component and the annual increase in size of these inter-country networks was due to new countries joining the periphery of the network.

CONCLUSIONS

We found a positive correlation between international and inter-institutional collaboration and the number of citations received by articles on smoking research. The number of citations per year remained constant throughout the 5-year study period.

A 30-year citation analysis of bibliometric trends at the Archives Of Environmental Health, 1975-2004

This article describes a 30-year citation analysis of the Archives of Environmental Health (AEH), from the earliest available data in 1975, to 2004, when it became the Archives of Environmental & Occupational Health (AEOH). Longitudinal trends were examined regarding the number of items published, the number of citations received, the immediacy index, and the journal's impact factor. A list of the 5 most highly cited articles was also established, including citation frequency and citation lag times. Overall, this study demonstrates that citation analysis can provide an interesting look at the development of a journal over time. The examination of what articles, themes, and topics were being published, cited, or ignored also offers a unique insight into the direction of not only a particular journal, but also the discipline within which it exists.

Fertility and Sterility: an evaluation

The Science Citation Index of the Institute for Scientific Information was searched to identify the 102 most frequently cited articles in the Fertility and Sterility journal for the past 30 years. Identification of the citation classic articles provides resourceful perspectives on the evolution of Fertility and Sterility and reproductive medicine.