Ranking of orthopaedic journals: A challenge to the citation-based metrics

Abstract

Summary Citation-based metrics for journal ranking may provide objective measures to quantitate a journal's contribution to scientific progress as reflected by citation, but comparison of journals solely based on citation-metrics is unjustified. There are two major types of citation-based metrics: the count of cites per paper and the count of papers with significant citations, as exemplified by the h -index. Orthopaedic journals are more likely to be underrated by most citation-based metrics, and this is accounted for by the lower citation potentials. Ranking of orthopaedic journals based on different citation metrics demonstrated a reasonably suitable accordance, but numerous orthopaedic journals experienced greater discrepancies in the measures of the journal's popularity and prestige. Citation-based ranking should not be equated with the scholarly performance of a journal; other criteria to evaluate the “impacts” of journals should be explored as well, such as clinical impacts rated by clinicians. Journal rankings and citation metrics are often used by universities, hospitals, research institutions, and granting agencies for performance assessment and resource allocation. The clinical impact and, to a certain extent, the emphasis on the quality of patient care, are not given the deserved recognition and are not priority considerations. This article sets the tone for a comprehensive review of the journal ranking system in orthopaedics.