The "impact factor" revisited

Global research trends on the relationship between IBD and CRC: a bibliometric analysis from 2000 to 2023

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to conduct a bibliometric analysis of research articles on the relationship between inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and colorectal cancer (CRC) using CiteSpace to summarize the current research status, hotspots, and trends in this field and present the results visually.

METHOD

Research articles on the relationship between IBD and CRC published from 2000 to 2023 and in English were selected from the Web of Science Core Collection (Woscc) database. The articles were downloaded as "full record and references". CiteSpace was used to conduct cooperative, cluster, co-citation, and burst analyses.

RESULTS

The literature search revealed 4244 articles; of which, 5 duplicates were removed, resulting in the inclusion of 4239 articles in this study. The United States of America had the highest number of publications, with Mayo Clinic and Harvard University being the most active institutions, and Bas Oldenburg being the most active author. Collaboration among core authors was inadequate. JA Eaden was the most cited author, and CRC was the most common keyword. Burst analysis indicated that Sun Yat-sen University might be one of the institutions with a large contribution to this research field in the future. Cluster analysis showed that earlier research focused more on microsatellite instability, whereas "gut microbiota" and "oxidative stress" are considered current research hotspots and trends.

CONCLUSION

At present, the primary focus areas of research are "gut microbiota" and "oxidative stress". With the improvement of healthcare policies and standards, regular endoscopic monitoring of patients with IBD has become an indispensable diagnostic and therapeutic practice. More drugs will be developed to reduce the risk of progression from IBD to CRC. The findings of this study provide valuable insights into the relationship between IBD and CRC for researchers in the same field.

Time to publication for orthopaedic surgery peer-reviewed journals: A cross-sectional bibliometric analysis

Background

The dissemination of research and evidence-based medicine is critical to advancing science and improving clinical practice. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the timing and associated factors of the publication process for the most influential orthopaedic surgery research journals.

Methods

After analyzing 25 orthopaedic surgery journals with the highest impact factors, 14 journals provided the necessary information for data analysis. A minimum of three consecutive issues per journal from 2021 were collected for review. Within each issue, all articles were included except for reviews, commentaries, replies, letters to the editor, and invited articles. The publication times for received to accepted (RA), received to published in press (RP1), and received to published in print (RP2) were retrieved and compared. Journal impact factor, specialty, and article level of evidence were recorded.

Results

A total of 1040 articles were included with a mean number of 74.3 ± 38 (range, 35-182) articles analyzed per journal. The mean impact factor for the 14 journals was 3.6 ± 1 (range, 2.5-5.8). The overall median duration of time for RA, RP1, and RP2 were 119 (IQR, 78-165) days, 157 (IQR, 102-216) days, and 291 (IQR, 243-378) days across all 14 journals, respectively. Journal of Arthroplasty demonstrated the shortest median duration of time for RA and RP1, while International Orthopaedics demonstrated the shortest median duration of time for RP2. Clinical Journal of Sport Medicine demonstrated the longest median duration of time for RA and RP2, while the American Journal of Sports Medicine demonstrated the longest median duration of time for RP1. Level three studies, which included retrospective case-control and cohort study designs, demonstrated the shortest publication times, while sports medicine journals demonstrated the longest publication times for all periods.

Conclusion

There was substantial variation in publication times across orthopaedic surgery journals which may impact accessibility to clinical insights.

Research features between Urology and Nephrology authors in articles regarding UTI related to CKD, HD, PD, and renal transplantation

BACKGROUND

A urinary tract infection (UTI) is one of the most common types of infections affecting the urinary tract. When bacteria enter the bladder or kidney and multiply in the urine, a URI can occur. The urethra is shorter in women than in men, which makes it easier for bacteria to reach the bladder or kidneys and cause infection. A comparison of the research differences between Urology and Nephrology (UN) authors regarding UTI pertaining to the 4 areas (i.e., Chronic Kidney Disease, Hemodialysis, Peritoneal Dialysis, and Renal Transplantation [CHPR]) is thus necessary. We propose and verify 2 hypotheses: CHPR-related articles on UTI have equal journal impact factors (JIFs) in research achievements (RAs) and UN authors have similar research features (RFs).

METHODS

Based on keywords associated with UTI and CHPR in titles, subject areas, and abstracts since 2013, we obtained 1284 abstracts and their associated metadata (e.g., citations, authors, research institutes, departments, countries of origin) from the Web of Science core collection. There were 1030 corresponding and first (co-first) authors with hT-JIF-indices (i.e., JIF was computed using hT-index rather than citations as usual). The following 5 visualizations were used to present the author's RA: radar, Sankey, time-to-event, impact beam plot, and choropleth map. The forest plot was used to distinguish RFs by observing the proportional counts of keyword plus in Web of Science core collection between UN authors.

RESULTS

It was observed that CHPR-related articles had unequal JIFs (χ2 = 13.08, P = .004, df = 3, n = 1030) and UN departments had different RFs (Q = 53.24, df = 29, P = .004). In terms of countries, institutes, departments, and authors, the United States (hT-JIF = 38.30), Mayo Clinic (12.9), Nephrology (19.14), and Diana Karpman (10.34) from Sweden had the highest hT-JIF index.

CONCLUSION

With the aid of visualizations, the hT-JIF-index and keyword plus were demonstrated to assess RAs and distinguish RFs between UN authors. A replication of this study under other topics and in other disciplines is recommended in the future, rather than limiting it to UN authors only, as we did in this study.

Does the journal impact factor predict individual article citation rate in otolaryngology journals?

OBJECTIVE

Citation skew is a phenomenon that refers to the unequal citation distribution of articles in a journal. The objective of this study was to establish whether citation skew exists in Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery (OHNS) journals and to elucidate whether journal impact factor (JIF) was an accurate indicator of citation rate of individual articles.

METHODS

Journals in the field of OHNS were identified using Journal Citation Reports. After extraction of the number of citations in 2020 for all primary research articles and review articles published in 2018 and 2019, a detailed citation analysis was performed to determine citation distribution. The main outcome of this study was to establish whether citation skew exists within OHNS literature and whether JIF was an accurate prediction of individual article citation rate.

RESULTS

Thirty-one OHNS journals were identified. Citation skew was prevalent across OHNS literature with 65% of publications achieving citation rates below the JIF. Furthermore, 48% of publications gathered either zero or one citation. The mean and median citations for review articles, 3.66 and 2, respectively, were higher than the mean and median number of citations for primary research articles, 1 and 2.35, respectively (P < .001). A statistically significant correlation was found between citation rate and JIF (r = 0.394, P = 0.028).

CONCLUSIONS

The current results demonstrate a citation skew among OHNS journals, which is in keeping with findings from other surgical subspecialties. The majority of publications did not achieve citation rates equal to the JIF. Thus, the JIF should not be used to measure the quality of individual articles. Otolaryngologists should assess the quality of research through the use of other metrics, such as the evaluation of sound scientific methodology, and the relevance of the articles.

Ranking of addiction journals in eight widely used impact metrics

Background and aims

Journal metrics assess impact upon the research literature, and are now used to assess individual researchers in hiring and promotion decisions. This study compared the ranking of addiction journals according to eight widely used metrics; assessed the correlations between journal rankings; and assessed changes over time in metric scores.

Methods

Data pertaining to the 2020 scores on eight metrics for 43 journals were obtained and the top 20 ranking in each compared and the correlations between rankings assessed. The Impact Factor was employed to assess changes over time.

Results

Ignoring the two categorization systems used by some metrics, 31 journals appeared in at least one metric top 20 and 11 in all eight. The top rank in each was occupied by one of three journals. Three-quarters of the correlations between rankings were above 6.0. The number of journals with an Impact Factor rose from 23 in 1997 to 38 in 2020, and the journals added tended to focus on addictions other than alcohol and drugs or have a specific focus.

Conclusions and discussion

The results indicate a concentration of journals at the top of the metrics and moderate to strong agreement between them, but almost three-quarters of journals appeared in at least one metric. The longitudinal data reflect both a broadening and specialization of the addiction field. The study limitations include exclusion of some journals and metrics.

Characteristics and Research Techniques Associated with the Journal Impact Factor and Other Key Metrics in Pharmacology Journals

In the present age, there is intense pressure on researchers to publish their research in ‘high-impact factor’ journals. It would be interesting to understand the trend of research publications in the field of pharmacology by exploring the characteristics of research articles, including research techniques, in relation to the journal’s key bibliometrics, particularly journal impact factor (JIF), the seemingly most mentioned metric. This study aimed to determine the characteristics and research techniques in relation to research articles in pharmacology journals with higher or lower JIF values. A cross-sectional study was conducted on primary research journals under the ‘Pharmacology and Pharmacy’ category. Analysis of 768 original research articles across 32 journals (with an average JIF of 2.565 ± 0.887) demonstrated that research studies involving molecular techniques, in vivo experiments on animals, and bioinformatics and computational modeling were significantly associated with a higher JIF value of the journal in which such contributions were published. Our analysis suggests that research studies involving such techniques/approaches are more likely to be published in higher-ranked pharmacology journals.

Publication Times in Ophthalmology Journals: The Story of Accepted Manuscripts

Introduction: The process of scientific publishing changed greatly in the past decades. The authors aimed to get insight into the time required for articles to be accepted and released online in high-impacted ophthalmology journals.

Methods: Comprehensive review of all original articles published by eight ophthalmology journals during a one-year period was performed for 2020 and 2005. Time taken from submission to acceptance and the first online release of the article was abstracted and analyzed.

Results: A total of 3110 articles were reviewed. In 2020, the overall median time from submission to acceptance (AT) was 119 days (IQR 83-168) and 30 days (10-71) from acceptance to the first online release of the article (OP). AT increased by 7.3% from 2005 to 2020, whereas OP reduced by 73%. Publications, which the corresponding author was affiliated with US-located institution had shorter both AT and OP in 2005 and 2020. The author’s specialty in ophthalmology had an inconclusive impact on AT and OP. Papers with multiple affiliated institutions had shorter AT and OP in both 2005 and 2020; however, these differences were not statistically significant.

Conclusion: This study demonstrated that increasing pressure on authors, editors, and reviewers to publish articles and journals with high impact factor (IF) significantly influenced publication times in ophthalmology journals. Inflation of research papers was associated with rising AT time. A significant decrease in OP time was potentially explained by the editor’s demand to achieve decent journal IF. This article brings to light relative publication times in the ophthalmology scientific journals.

The Evolving Trends in the Impact Factor of Plastic Surgery Journals: A 22-Year Analysis

BACKGROUND

The journal impact factor (IF) is one of the most widely adopted metrics to assess journal value. We aimed to investigate the trends in the IF and ranking of plastic surgery journals (PSJs) over a 22-year period.

METHODS

The Journal Citation Report 2018 was used to identify all journals within the field of plastic surgery from 1997 to 2018. We analyzed the IF of PSJs and that of the category surgery.

RESULTS

A total of 34 PSJs were identified. The mean IF increased from 0.584 (median, 0.533) in 1997 to 1.58 (median, 1.399) in 2018 (P < 0.0001). Over the same time, the median IF of the journals in the category surgery increased from 0.914 to 1.883. The mean journal IF percentile of PSJs within surgery remained fairly stable (P = 0.999). A strong positive correlation was identified between the IF of PSJs and both the 5-year IF (r = 0.943, P < 0.0001) and the immediacy index (r = 0.736, P < 0.0001). The percentage of self-citations across the study period was fairly stable at a mean of 19.2%. A weak positive correlation was found between the IF and the percentage of self-citations (r = 0.171, P < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

The mean journal IF in PSJs has been trending upward over the last 22 years. Ranking of PSJs IF within the category surgery has remained unchanged. The self-citation rate has been fairly stable and correlated weakly with the IF. A strong positive correlation exists between the IF and both the immediacy index and the 5-year IF.

Filling the Space: A Framework for Coordinated Global Actions To Diminish Academic Bullying

Academic bullying is a serious issue that affects all disciplines and people of all levels of experience. To create a truly safe, productive, and vibrant environment in academia requires coordinated and collaborative input as well as the action of a variety of stakeholders, including scholarly communities, funding agencies, and institutions. In this Viewpoint, we focus on a framework of integrated responding, in which stakeholders as responsible and response-able parties could proactively collaborate and coordinate to reduce the incidence and consequences of academic bullying while at the same time building constructive academic cultures. The outcome of such a framework would be to create novel entities (e.g. centre of excellence in academic ethics and civility) and actions (e.g. incorporating bullying records into institutional rankings) that accelerate successful responses to academic bullying.

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

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.

Ten quick tips for getting the most scientific value out of numerical data

Most studies in the life sciences and other disciplines involve generating and analyzing numerical data of some type as the foundation for scientific findings. Working with numerical data involves multiple challenges. These include reproducible data acquisition, appropriate data storage, computationally correct data analysis, appropriate reporting and presentation of the results, and suitable data interpretation. Finding and correcting mistakes when analyzing and interpreting data can be frustrating and time-consuming. Presenting or publishing incorrect results is embarrassing but not uncommon. Particular sources of errors are inappropriate use of statistical methods and incorrect interpretation of data by software. To detect mistakes as early as possible, one should frequently check intermediate and final results for plausibility. Clearly documenting how quantities and results were obtained facilitates correcting mistakes. Properly understanding data is indispensable for reaching well-founded conclusions from experimental results. Units are needed to make sense of numbers, and uncertainty should be estimated to know how meaningful results are. Descriptive statistics and significance testing are useful tools for interpreting numerical results if applied correctly. However, blindly trusting in computed numbers can also be misleading, so it is worth thinking about how data should be summarized quantitatively to properly answer the question at hand. Finally, a suitable form of presentation is needed so that the data can properly support the interpretation and findings. By additionally sharing the relevant data, others can access, understand, and ultimately make use of the results. These quick tips are intended to provide guidelines for correctly interpreting, efficiently analyzing, and presenting numerical data in a useful way.

Television Is Still "Easy" and Print Is Still "Tough"? More Than 30 Years of Research on the Amount of Invested Mental Effort

We provide a literature overview of 30 years of research on the amount of invested mental effort (AIME, Salomon, 1984), illuminating relevant literature in this field. Since the introduction of AIME, this concept appears to have vanished. To obtain a clearer picture of where the theory of AIME has diffused, we conducted a literature search focusing on the period 1985-2015. We examined scientific articles (N = 244) that cite Salomon (1984) and content-analyzed their keywords. Based on these keywords, we identified seven content clusters: affect and motivation, application fields, cognition and learning, education and teaching, media technology, learning with media technology, and methods. We present selected works of each content cluster and describe in which research field the articles had been published. Results indicate that AIME was most commonly (but not exclusively) referred to in the area of educational psychology indicating its importance regarding learning and education, thereby investigating print and TV, as well as new media. From a methodological perspective, research applied various research methods (e.g., longitudinal studies, experimental designs, theoretical analysis) and samples (e.g., children, college students, low income families). From these findings, the importance of AIME for further research is discussed.

WASP (Write a Scientific Paper): Understanding research metrics

Research metrics are quantitative measurements that identify and acknowledge research output while enhancing article, author and journal impact within the academic community. The article impact depends on the number of times that same article is cited by other authors, while an author's impact depends on the number of citations received on the total number of published articles by the same author. With the advancement in technology and the increased availability of open access journals, article-level metrics has become a popular metric. This is the aggregation of the traditional article citations and the article online presence through blogs, tweets and newspapers, which further enhances the author's impact within the academic community. A journal's impact will depend on the average number of citations received by the articles published within the journal over a period of time. The academic reputation within the academic community will therefore depend on both article and author metrics and is further enhanced by publishing in high impact journals.

The Journal Impact Factor of Orthopaedic Journals Does not Predict Individual Paper Citation Rate

BACKGROUND

The journal impact factor (JIF) is thought to reflect the average number of citations an article will receive and therefore can influence study impact and clinical decision making. However, analysis of citation rates across multiple scientific and research domains has shown that most articles will not reach this expected number of citations. This phenomenon is known as citation skew and it has not previously been examined in the orthopaedic literature. The objective of this study was to determine the extent to which citation skew exists within orthopaedic journals and thus to determine whether the JIF in the orthopaedic literature reflects individual study citation rates.

METHODS

We used data from the Thomson Reuters (now Clarivate Analytics) Web of Science to determine the 2015 JIF and citation distribution for all orthopaedic journals listed in the database. We calculated the percentage of articles with fewer citations than the JIF for each journal. Finally, we analyzed the citation distribution within groups of orthopaedic subspecialty publications.

RESULTS

We identified a total of 74 orthopaedic journals and 29,296 publications for the years 2013 and 2014. Across all orthopaedic journals, 85% of published articles are cited fewer times than the JIF would indicate. The median number of citations of all articles was zero for all journals (interquartile range = 0-0) except for seven journals, for which the median number of citations per article was 1.

CONCLUSION

Citation skew is prevalent across the orthopaedic literature. Most published work is not cited in the first 2 years following publication, and the JIFs are the result of a few highly cited articles. The assessment of an individual orthopaedic study's quality should not be determined by the JIF but rather by direct evaluation of the methodology, relevance, and appropriateness of the study's conclusions.

Is advanced neuroimaging for neuroradiologists? A systematic review of the scientific literature of the last decade

INTRODUCTION

To evaluate if advanced neuroimaging research is mainly conducted by imaging specialists, we investigated the number of first authorships by radiologists and non-radiologist scientists in articles published in the field of advanced neuroimaging in the past 10 years.

METHODS

Articles in the field of advanced neuroimaging identified in this retrospective bibliometric analysis were divided in four groups, depending on the imaging technique used. For all included studies, educational background of the first authors was recorded (based on available online curriculum vitae) and classified in subgroups, depending on their specialty. Finally, journal impact factors were recorded and comparatively assessed among subgroups as a metric of research quality.

RESULTS

A total number of 3831 articles were included in the study. Radiologists accounted as first authors for only 12.8 % of these publications, while 56.9 % of first authors were researchers without a medical degree. Mean impact factor (IF) of journals with non-MD researchers as first authors was significantly higher than the MD subgroup (p < 10^-20), while mean IF of journals with radiologists as first authors was significantly lower than articles authored by other MD specialists (p < 10^-11).

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of the studies in the field of advanced neuroimaging in the last decade is conducted by professional figures other than radiologists, who account for less than the 13 % of the publications. Furthermore, the mean IF value of radiologists-authored articles was the lowest among all subgroups. These results, taken together, should question the radiology community about its future role in the development of advanced neuroimaging.

Bibliometrics: tracking research impact by selecting the appropriate metrics

Traditionally, the success of a researcher is assessed by the number of publications he or she publishes in peer-reviewed, indexed, high impact journals. This essential yardstick, often referred to as the impact of a specific researcher, is assessed through the use of various metrics. While researchers may be acquainted with such matrices, many do not know how to use them to enhance their careers. In addition to these metrics, a number of other factors should be taken into consideration to objectively evaluate a scientist's profile as a researcher and academician. Moreover, each metric has its own limitations that need to be considered when selecting an appropriate metric for evaluation. This paper provides a broad overview of the wide array of metrics currently in use in academia and research. Popular metrics are discussed and defined, including traditional metrics and article-level metrics, some of which are applied to researchers for a greater understanding of a particular concept, including varicocele that is the thematic area of this Special Issue of Asian Journal of Andrology. We recommend the combined use of quantitative and qualitative evaluation using judiciously selected metrics for a more objective assessment of scholarly output and research impact.

Impact factor: Universalism and reliability of assessment

In 1955, Eugene Garfield (1925-1917) published a paper in Science where for the first time he advocated the necessity of introducing parameters to assess the quality of scientific journals. Underlying this necessity was an observation of a trend where the whole area of influence in academic publishing was dominated by a narrow group of large interdisciplinary research journals. For this reason, along with Irving H. Sher, they created the impact factor (IF), also called the Garfield impact factor, journal citation rate, journal influence, and journal impact factor. The concept of IF concerns a research discipline called bibliometrics, which uses mathematical and statistical methods to analyze scientific publications. Established by Garfield in 1963, the Science Citation Index, a record of scientific publications and citations therein, contributed directly to the increased importance of this method. Since the 1960s, the register of scientific publications has expanded and their evaluation by the IF has become a fundamental and universal measure of the journal's value. Contrary to the authors' intentions in the creation of the index (IF), it is often used to assess the quality of contributions, simultaneously assessing the authors' achievements or academic career and academic institutions' funding possibilities.

Retracted Publications Within Radiology Journals

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to characterize trends related to retracted publications within radiology journals.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

PubMed was queried to identify all articles with the publication type "retracted publication" or "notification of retraction." Articles published within radiology journals were identified using Journal Citation Reports' journal categories. Available versions of original articles and publication notices were accessed from journal websites. Citations to retracted publications were identified using Web of Science. Overall trends were assessed.

RESULTS

Forty-eight retracted original research articles were identified within radiology journals since 1983, which included 1.1% of all PubMed "retracted publication" entries. Distinct PubMed entries were available for the retracted publication and retraction notification in 39 of 48 articles. The original PDF was available for 37 articles, although the articles were not watermarked as retracted in 23 cases. In six cases with a watermarked PDF, further searches identified nonwatermarked versions. Original HTML versions were available for 13 articles but 11 were not watermarked. The mean (± SD) delay between publication and retraction was 2.7 ± 2.8 years (range, 0-16 years). The mean number of citations to retracted articles was 10.9 ± 17.1 (range, 0-94 citations). Reasons for retraction included problematic or incorrect methods or results (although it typically was unclear whether these represented honest errors or misconduct) in 33.3% of cases, complete or partial duplicate publication in 33.3% of cases, plagiarism in 14.6% of cases, a permission issue in 8.3% of cases, the publisher's error in 6.3% of cases, and no identified reason in 6.3% of cases. One or no retractions occurred annually from 1986 to 2001, although two or more retractions occurred annually in nine of the 12 years from 2002 through 2013.

CONCLUSION

Retraction represents an uncommon, yet potentially increasing, issue within radiology journals that publishers have inconsistently and insufficiently addressed. Greater awareness and training in proper biomedical research conduct, as well as establishment and enforcement of standardized publishers' policies, are warranted.

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.

Most Common Publication Types in Radiology Journals:: What is the Level of Evidence?

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to assess the most common publication types in radiology journals, as well as temporal trends and association with citation frequency.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

PubMed was searched to extract all published articles having the following "Publication Type" indices: "validation studies," "meta-analysis," "clinical trial," "comparative study," "evaluation study," "guideline," "multicenter study," "randomized study," "review," "editorial," "case report," and "technical report." The percentage of articles within each category published within clinical radiology journals was computed. Normalized percentages for each category were also computed on an annual basis. Citation counts within a 2-year window following publication were obtained using Web of Science. Overall trends were assessed.

RESULTS

Publication types with the highest fraction in radiology journals were technical reports, evaluation studies, and case reports (4.8% to 5.8%). Publication types with the lowest fraction in radiology journals were randomized trials, multicenter studies, and meta-analyses (0.8% to 1.5%). Case reports showed a significant decrease since 1999, with accelerating decline since 2007 (P = 0.002). Publication types with highest citation counts were meta-analyses, guidelines, and multicenter studies (8.1 ± 10.7 to 12.9 ± 5.1). Publication types with lowest citation counts were case reports, editorials, and technical reports (1.4 ± 2.4 to 2.9 ± 4.3). The representation in radiology journals and citation frequency of the publication types showed weak inverse correlation (r = -0.372).

CONCLUSIONS

Radiology journals have historically had relatively greater representation of less frequently cited publication types. Various strategies, including methodological training, multidisciplinary collaboration, national support networks, as well as encouragement of higher level of evidence by funding agencies and radiology journals themselves, are warranted to improve the impact of radiological research.

Factors associated with the Journal Impact Factor (JIF) for Urology and Nephrology Journals

PURPOSE

The Journal Impact Factor (JIF) is an index used to compare a journal's quality among academic journals and it is commonly used as a proxy for journal quality. We sought to examine the JIF in order to elucidate the main predictors of the index while generating awareness among scientific community regarding need to modify the index calculation in the attempt to turn it more accurate.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Under the Urology and Nephrology category in the Journal Citations Report Website, the top 17 Journals by JIF in 2011 were chosen for the study. All manuscripts' abstracts published from 2009-2010 were reviewed; each article was categorized based on its research design (Retrospective, Review, etc). T and correlation tests were performed for categorical and continuous variables respectively. The JIF was the dependent variable. All variables were then included in a multivariate model.

RESULTS

23,012 articles from seventeen journals were evaluated with a median of 1,048 (range=78-6,342) articles per journal. Journals with a society affiliation were associated with a higher JIF (p=0.05). Self-citations (rho=0.57, p=0.02), citations for citable articles (rho=0.73,p=0.001), citations to non-citable articles (rho=0.65,p=0.0046), and retrospective studies (rho=-0.51,p=0.03) showed a strong correlation. Slight modifications to include the non-citable articles in the denominator yield drastic changes in the JIF and the ranking of the journals.

CONCLUSION

The JIF appears to be closely associated with the number of citable articles published. A change in the formula for calculating JIF to include all types of published articles in the denominator would result in a more accurate representation.

Impact of the transparent reporting of evaluations with nonrandomized designs reporting guideline: ten years on

OBJECTIVES

We assessed how the Transparent Reporting of Evaluations with Nonrandomized Designs (TREND) reporting guideline was used by authors and journal editors in journals' instructions to authors. We also evaluated its impact on reporting completeness and study quality.

METHODS

We extracted data from publications that cited TREND on how TREND was used in those reports; we also extracted information on journals' instructions to authors. We then undertook a case-control study of relevant publications to evaluate the impact of using TREND.

RESULTS

Between 2004 and 2013, TREND was cited 412 times, but it was only evidently applied to study reports 47 times. TREND was specifically mentioned 14 times in the sample of 61 instructions to authors. Some evidence suggested that use of TREND was associated with more comprehensive reporting and higher study quality ratings.

CONCLUSIONS

TREND appeared to be underutilized by authors and journal editors despite its potential application and benefits. We found evidence that suggested that using TREND could contribute to more transparent and complete study reports. Even when authors reported using TREND, reporting completeness was still suboptimal.

Citation Analysis of Keratoconus 1900-2013: The Most Influential Publications, Authors, Institutions, and Journals

PURPOSE

The objectives of this study were to identify the 250 most highly cited publications on keratoconus and to identify trends in topics and distinguish the most influential authors, journals, and institutions in the field.

DESIGN

This was a database study.

METHODS

The authors searched the Web of Science database using the keyword "keratoconus." The results were refined to articles and reviews only, years 1900 to 2013, and sorted by citation count. The 250 most cited, relevant publications to keratoconus were identified, and citation analysis of the authors, topics, journals, institutions, and countries was performed.

RESULTS

From the 3030 records identified, the most cited 250 publications were all published in the last 60 years. Publication numbers rose exponentially from the early 1960s, and citation rates have mirrored this. For the 250 most cited publications, the top 25 authors contributed to 60.2% (mean, 6.1 ± 2.3 publications per author), and the top 25 institutions contributed to 57.6%. The mean citation count per article was 80.7 ± 62.4. Twelve journal titles contained 89.2% of the 250 most cited articles, and greater than 47.6% of publications originated from the United States. The major subtopics were corneal transplantation (31.2%), diagnostic instruments (17.6%), and structural and molecular analyses (17.6%).

CONCLUSIONS

There has been an exponential increase in the body of knowledge on keratoconus in the last 60 years. This interest has been driven by refractive surgery related keratectasia, the emergence of better imaging technologies, and effective treatments.

Publication of research article: an art or science?

The publication process is a shared responsibility. Besides the writing, reviewing, publishing, and editorial teams, readers are one of the most important pillars of this process. Readers and authors cannot be dealt with separately, because most of the readers are authors. The varieties of articles and improvement in presentations reflect the rising interest and enthusiasm of writers and readers. Increasing number in critical comments and author's reply can be considered as a post-publication peer review process. Impact Factor, which was used as a proxy for the relative importance of a journal, is now being considered a misleading tool in assessing the quality of a paper or the researcher. Here, we are trying to discuss in brief the points which should be kept in mind before manuscript preparation and submission, so that our research should reach to maximum readers in an unbiased form.

An analysis of radiological research publications in high impact general medical journals between 1996 and 2010

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate scientific papers published by radiologists in high impact general medical journals between 1996 and 2010.

METHODS

A MEDLINE search was performed in five high impact general medical journals (AIM, BMJ, JAMA, Lancet, and NEJM) for all articles of which a radiologist was the first author between 1996 and 2010. The following information was abstracted from the original articles: radiological subspecialty, imaging technique used, type of research, sample size, study design, statistical analysis, study outcome, declared funding, number of authors, collaboration, and country of the first author.

RESULTS

Of 216 (0.19%) articles were published by radiologists in five general medical journals between 1996 and 2010, 83 were original articles. Fifteen (18.1%) original articles were concerned with the field of vascular/interventional radiology, 24 (28.9%) used combined imaging techniques, 76 (91.6%) were clinical research, 63 (75.9%) had a sample size of >50, 65 (78.3%) were prospective, 78 (94.0%) performed statistical analysis, 83 (100%) showed positive study outcomes, 57 (68.7%) were funded, 49 (59.0%) had from four to seven authors, and 79 (95.2%) were collaborative studies.

CONCLUSIONS

A very small number (0.19%) in five high impact general medical journals was published by radiologists between 1996 and 2010.

Designing next-generation platforms for evaluating scientific output: what scientists can learn from the social web

Traditional pre-publication peer review of scientific output is a slow, inefficient, and unreliable process. Efforts to replace or supplement traditional evaluation models with open evaluation platforms that leverage advances in information technology are slowly gaining traction, but remain in the early stages of design and implementation. Here I discuss a number of considerations relevant to the development of such platforms. I focus particular attention on three core elements that next-generation evaluation platforms should strive to emphasize, including (1) open and transparent access to accumulated evaluation data, (2) personalized and highly customizable performance metrics, and (3) appropriate short-term incentivization of the userbase. Because all of these elements have already been successfully implemented on a large scale in hundreds of existing social web applications, I argue that development of new scientific evaluation platforms should proceed largely by adapting existing techniques rather than engineering entirely new evaluation mechanisms. Successful implementation of open evaluation platforms has the potential to substantially advance both the pace and the quality of scientific publication and evaluation, and the scientific community has a vested interest in shifting toward such models as soon as possible.

How to select a journal to submit and publish your biomedical paper?

INTRODUCTION

journal selection for publication purposes is one of the concerns of biomedi-cal researchers. They apply various criteria for choosing appropriate journal. Here, we have tried to collect main criteria biomedical researchers use to select a journal to submit their works.

METHODS

we collected these criteria through focus group conversations with researchers during our careers, feedbacks from participants of our scientific writing work-shops and non-systematic review of some related literature.

RESULTS

we have presented a summative and informative guidance in the selection of journals for biomedical paper submission and publication.

CONCLUSION

Categorized criteria as a mnemonic tool for au-thors may help the authors in journal selection process.

A more comprehensive index in the evaluation of scientific research: the single researcher impact factor proposal

Good alternatives to the Impact Factor (IF) algorithm are needed. The Thomson IF represents a limited measure of the importance of an individual article because 80% of a journal's IF is determined by only the 20% of the papers published. In the past few years, several new indexes has been created to provide alternatives to the IF algorithm. These include the removal of self citations from the calculation of the IF using the Adjusted IF, Index Copernicus initiative and other modifications such as the Cited Half-Life IF, Median IF, Disciplinary IF, and Prestige Factor. There is also the Euro-Factor, born in Europe to avoid the strong US centrality, and the English language basis of the Thomson database. One possible strategy to avoid "IF supremacy" is to create a new index, the Single Researcher Impact Factor (SRIF), that would move the evaluation from the power of scientific journals to the quality of single researchers. This measure can take into account the number and quality of the traditional publications and other activities usually associated with being a researcher, such as reviewing manuscripts, writing books, and attending scientific meetings. Also, in funding policy, it might be more useful to consider the merits, contributions, and real impact of all the scientific activities of a single researcher instead of adding only the journals' IF numbers. The major aim of this paper is to propose and describe the SRIF index that could represent a novel option to evaluate scientific research and researchers.

Is there an association between the quality of hospitals’ research and their quality of care?

Objective:

It is often claimed that hospitals that are leaders in biomedical research provide higher health care quality, or vice versa. Although several studies have shown a relationship between teaching status and quality of care, none has analysed the association between research output and hospital outcomes. Our aim was to determine whether there is a relationship between bibliometric measures of research output in acute hospitals and hospital mortality for two common cardiac conditions.

Methods:

A cross-sectional analysis of secondary data of in-hospital risk-adjusted mortality for congestive heart failure and acute myocardial infarction (2002-2004) and several bibliometric measures of publications (1996- 2004) in cardiovascular disease. The setting was 50 acute Spanish public hospitals, voluntarily participating in an external quality initiative, with more than 30 medical cases of congestive heart failure and acute myocardial infarction per year, and more than five citable papers in the field of heart disease. Spearman's rho non-parametric correlation coefficient was used to assess association.

Results:

There was a low-to-moderate negative correlation between the risk-adjusted mortality ratio and the weighted citations ratio: 20.43 (95% CI 20.17 to 20.63) for congestive heart failure and 20.37 (20.10 to 20.59) for acute myocardial infarction. Teaching status and the technological level of the hospital had a stronger correlation with hospital mortality.

Conclusions:

Measures of research output could be considered for incorporation into comparisons of the quality of hospitals. A weighted citations ratio is the most suitable measure of research output, but more research is needed on the interplay between research and practice as complementary ways of developing medical knowledge.

Psychiatry and the Hirsch h-index: The relationship between journal impact factors and accrued citations

There is considerable debate on the use and abuse of journal impact factors and on selecting the most appropriate indicator to assess research outcome for an individual or group of scientists. Internet searches using Web of Science and Scopus were conducted to retrieve citation data for an individual in order to calculate nine variants of Hirsch's h-index. Citations to articles published in a wide range of psychiatric journals in the periods 1995-99 and 2000-05 were analyzed using Web of Science. Comparisons were made between journal impact factor, h-index of citations from publication to 2008, and the proportion of articles cited at least 30 or 50 times. For up to 14 years post-publication, there was a strong positive relationship between journal impact factor and h-index for citations received. Journal impact factor was also compared to the percentage of articles cited at least 30 or 50 times-a comparison that showed wide variations between journals with similar impact factors. This study found that 40%-50% of the articles published in the top ten psychiatry journals ranked by impact factor acquire 30 to 50 citations within ten to fifteen years. Despite certain flaws and weaknesses, the h-index provides a better way to assess long-term performance of articles or authors than using a journal's impact factor, and it provides an alternative way to assess a journal's long-term ranking.

The impact factor of rheumatology journals: an analysis of 2008 and the recent 10 years

Despite various weaknesses, the impact factor (IF) is still used as an important indictor for scientific quality in specific subject categories. In the current study, the IFs of rheumatology journals over the past 10 years were serially analyzed and compared with that from other fields. For the past 10 years (1999–2008), the IFs published by the Institute for Scientific Information in the Science Citation Index—Journal Citation Report were analyzed. For the majority of rheumatology journals, the IF shows a gradually increasing trend. The mean and median level of increase of IF from 1999 to 2008 is 233.9 and 66.5%, respectively. The increase in IF from 1999 or the first year with IF documentation to that in 2008 was higher for European journals than for the USA journals. The aggregate IF and the median IF of rheumatology journals remained within the top 30% and top 15% in clinical medical and all the scientific categories, respectively. Over the past 10 years, rheumatology journals showed a general increase in IF and rheumatology remained a leading discipline. For journals in the English language, those from Europe had an even higher increase than those from USA.