Time trends in the impact factor of Public Health journals

The Changing Landscape of Neuroscience Research, 2006-2015: A Bibliometric Study

Background: It is beneficial to evaluate changes in neuroscience research field regarding research directions and topics over a defined period. Such information enables stakeholders to quickly identify the most influential research and incorporate latest evidence into research-informed education. To our knowledge, no study reported changes in neuroscience literature over the last decade. Therefore, the current study determined research terms with highest citation scores, compared publication shares of research areas and contributing countries in this field from 2006 to 2015 and identified the most productive journals.

Methods: Data were extracted from Web of Science and Journal Citation Reports (JCR). Only articles and reviews published in journals classified under the JCR “Neurosciences” category over the period of interest were included. Title and abstract fields of each included publication were extracted and analyzed via VOSviewer to identify recurring terms with high relative citation scores. Two term maps were produced for publications over the study period to illustrate the extent of co-occurrence, and the impact of terms was evaluated based on their relative citation scores. To further describe the recent research priority or “hot spots,” 10 terms with the highest relative citation scores were identified annually. In addition, by applying Bradford's law, we identified 10 journals being the most productive journals per annum over the survey period and evaluated their bilbiometric performances.

Results: From 2006 to 2015, there were 47 terms involved in the annual lists of top 10 terms with highest relative citation scores. The most frequently recurring terms were autism (8), meta-analysis (7), functional connectivity (6), default mode network (4) and neuroimaging (4). Neuroscience research related to psychology and behavioral sciences showed an increase in publication share over the survey period, and China has become one of the major contributors to neuroscience research. Ten journals were frequently identified (≥8 years) as core journals within the survey period.

Discussion: The landscape of neuroscience research has changed recently, and this paper provides contemporary overview for researchers and health care workers interested in this field's research and developments. Brain imaging and brain connectivity terms had high relative citation scores.

The Impact Factor of Radiological Journals: Associations with Journal Content and Other Characteristics Over a Recent 12-Year Period

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to evaluate the trends in the impact factor (IF) of radiological journals over a recent 12-year period, including associations between IF and journal topic.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Journal Citation Reports (JCR) was used to identify all biomedical journals and all radiological journals (assigned a JCR category of "Radiology, Nuclear Medicine, & Medical Imaging"), along with journal IF, in 2003 and 2014. Radiological journals were manually classified by topic. Trends in median IF (mIF) were assessed.

RESULTS

The number of radiological journals increased from 83 (2003) to 125 (2014) (all biomedical journals: 5907 to 8718, respectively). mIF of radiological journals increased from 1.42 (2003) to 1.75 (2014) (all biomedical journals: 0.93 to 1.46, respectively). The most common topic among new radiological journals was general (nonspecialized) radiology (8). Five new radiological journals in 2014 were in topics (cancer imaging and molecular imaging) having no journals in 2003. mIF of general radiological journals was 1.49. Topics having highest mIF were cardiac imaging (2.94), optics (2.86), molecular imaging (2.77), radiation oncology (2.60), and neuroradiology (2.25). Topics with lowest mIF were ultrasound (1.19) and interventional radiology (1.44). Topics with the largest increase in mIF were cardiac imaging (from 1.17 to 2.94) and neuroradiology (from 1.07 to 2.25).

CONCLUSIONS

Radiological journals exhibited higher mIF than biomedical journals overall. Among radiological journals, subspecialty journals had highest mIF. While a considerable number of new radiological journals since 2003 were general radiology journals having relatively low IF, there were also new journal topics representing emerging areas of subspecialized radiological research.

The evolution of dental journals from 2003 to 2012: a bibliometric analysis

Bibliometrics are a set of methods, which can be used to analyze academic literature quantitatively and its changes over time. The objectives of this study were 1) to evaluate trends related to academic performance of dental journals from 2003 to 2012 using bibliometric indices, and 2) monitor the changes of the five dental journals with the highest and lowest impact factor (IF) published in 2003. Data for the subject category "Dentistry, Oral Surgery & Medicine" was retrieved from the Journal Citation Reports (JCR) published from 2003 to 2012. Linear regressions analysis was used to determine statistical trends over the years with each bibliometric indicator as the dependent variable and the JCR year as the predictor variable. Statistically significant rise in the total number of dental journals, the number of all articles with the steepest rise observed for research articles, the number of citations and the aggregate IF was observed from 2003 to 2012. The analysis of the five top and five bottom-tire dental journals revealed a rise in IF however, with a wide variation in relation to the magnitude of this rise. Although the IF of the top five journals remained relatively constant, the percentile ranks of the four lowest ranking journals in 2003 increased significantly with the sharpest rise being noted for the British Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery. This study revealed significant growth of dental literature in absolute terms, as well as upward trends for most of the citation-based bibliometric indices from 2003 to 2012.

Temporal trends in the impact factor of European versus USA biomedical journals

Background

The impact factors of biomedical journals tend to rise over time. We sought to assess the trend in the impact factor, during the past decade, of journals published on behalf of United States (US) and European scientific societies, in four select biomedical subject categories (Biology, Cell Biology, Critical Care Medicine, and Infectious Diseases).

Methods

We identified all journals included in the above-mentioned subject categories of Thomson Reuters Journal Citation Reports® for the years 1999, 2002, 2005, and 2008. We selected those that were published on behalf of US or European scientific societies, as documented in journal websites.

Results

We included 167 journals (35 in the subject category of Biology, 79 in Cell Biology, 27 in Critical Care Medicine, and 26 in Infectious Diseases). Between 1999 and 2008, the percentage increase in the impact factor of the European journals was higher than for the US journals (73.7±110.0% compared with 39.7±70.0%, p = 0.049). Regarding specific subject categories, the percentage change in the factor of the European journals tended to be higher than the respective US journals for Cell Biology (61.7% versus 16.3%), Critical Care Medicine (212.4% versus 65.4%), Infectious Diseases (88.3% versus 48.7%), whereas the opposite was observed for journals in Biology (41.0% versus 62.5%).

Conclusion

Journals published on behalf of European scientific societies, in select biomedical fields, may tend to close the “gap” in impact factor compared with those of US societies.

What's Already Known About This Topic?

The impact factors of biomedical journals tend to rise through years. The leading positions in productivity in biomedical research are held by developed countries, including those from North America and Western Europe.

What Does This Article Add?

The journals from European biomedical scientific societies tended, over the past decade, to increase their impact factor more than the respective US journals.

Tobacco abuse relates to significantly reduced survival of patients with oropharyngeal carcinomas

This study represents an in-depth evaluation of the impact of smoking and alcohol consumption on patients' outcome in 809 cases of oropharyngeal carcinoma. Prognostic parameters and additional information such as smoking and drinking habits were evaluated referring to the patients' case notes at the time point of first diagnosis. The overall 10-year survival rate was 45.5%, whereas 33.4% of the patients remained relapse-free. The great majority (92%) of patients had a history of smoking or were current smokers, whereas only 8% of the collective never smoked in their lifetime. Interestingly, we found a significant reduction of 10-year survival rates for smokers (28.8%) in comparison with nonsmokers (43.1%) and ex-smokers (P=0.0007). This study presents data from a large cohort of patients with oropharyngeal carcinoma providing evidence for a relationship between alcohol and tobacco consumption, and significantly worse prognosis.

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.

The Journal of Cancer Education: a retrospective review of quality indicators

The JCE publication history exceeds 600 peer reviewed cancer education articles. Two methodological approaches were used for a retrospective perspective of JCE quality: Journal Impact Factor (JIF) and Citation Analysis (CA). The Journal Impact Factor comparison included only medical or health journals with an educational focus. Citation Analysis was conducted to identify attributes of most cited JCE articles and their cancer education focus. Despite concerns in the literature about the merits of both methods, results provided useful insights about JCE quality. Results will guide quality improvement plans and assist authors interested in publishing their cancer education research results in the JCE.

Public health citation patterns: an analysis of the American Journal of Public Health, 2003-2005

OBJECTIVES

The research sought to determine the publication types cited most often in public health as well as the most heavily cited journal titles.

METHODS

From a pool of 33,449 citations in 934 articles published in the 2003-2005 issues of American Journal of Public Health, 2 random samples were drawn: one (n = 1,034) from the total set of citations and one (n = 1,016) from the citations to journal articles. For each sampled citation, investigators noted publication type, publication date, uniform resource locator (URL) citation (yes/no), and, for the journal article sample, journal titles. The cited journal titles were analyzed using Bradford zones.

RESULTS

The majority of cited items from the overall sample of 1,034 items were journal articles (64.4%, n = 666), followed by government documents (n = 130), books (n = 122), and miscellaneous sources (n = 116). Publication date ranged from 1826-2005 (mean = 1995, mode = 2002). Most cited items were between 0 and 5 years old (50.3%, n = 512). In the sample of 1,016 journal article citations, a total of 387 journal titles were cited.

DISCUSSION

Analysis of cited material types revealed results similar to citation analyses in specific public health disciplines, including use of materials from a wide range of disciplines, reliance on miscellaneous and government documents, and need for older publications.

Regresión logística en la literatura psiquiátrica: evaluación de los artículos publicados entre 2002 y 2005 en una prominente revista

INTRODUCCIÓN: Muchos artículos de revistas especializadas en psiquiatría usan la regresión logística para identificar el efecto de variables independientes sobre la probabilidad de ocurrencia de un evento. Evaluaciones de artículos publicados en otras especialidades médicas han mostrado que el reporte de la regresión logística es incompleto en muchos casos, lo cual implica dificultades para su interpretación. OBJETIVO: Evaluar la calidad, en cuanto al análisis de regresión logística y a al cumplimiento de criterios de validez interna de los artículos publicados en una revista de alto factor de impacto en psiquiatría. METODOLOGÍA: Dos revisores independientes seleccionaron (búsqueda manual) los artículos publicados en Archives of General Psychiatry (2002-2005) que usaran regresión logística y los evaluaron con criterios de validez interna del Journal of American Medical Association (JAMA) y un instrumento diseñado para valorar la calidad de los modelos logísticos (CML). RESULTADOS: De 121 artículos evaluados, 85 (70,2%) cumplían criterios de validez interna de JAMA. En relación con el instrumento CML, el criterio más reportado fue la codificación de las variables independientes (90,9%), seguido por el reporte del proceso de selección de variables independientes incluidas al inicio del estudio (87,6%) y por la inclusión del RR u OR del modelo con su respectivo IC (82,6%). El criterio menos reportado fue la evaluación de la bondad del ajuste (9,1%), seguido por el reporte del proceso de ajuste del modelo (24,8%). CONCLUSIONES: Aunque la mayoría de los artículos cumplen con altos estándares editoriales, la forma en que se reporta la regresión logística debe ser mejorada.