5-year Impact Factor Research Articles

Passing the Torch

Passing the Torch

Publication Performance in German Academic Heart Surgery.

This study was designed to evaluate the publication performance of management teams consisting of chief and senior physicians in German university cardiac surgery units over a 10-year period and to facilitate benchmarking. The cutoff date for consideration of staffing from the unit Web site and publications was July 1, 2017. The literature search was based on an evaluation of the PubMed database. The 5-year impact factor (IF) from 2016 was assigned to each journal. Two thousand five hundred thirty-five publications (average IF 3.02) were registered, published in 323 journals. Of a total of 341 management team members, 235 (68.9%) published as first or last author over the 10-year period. The number of publications from the units divided into quintiles varied considerably with the first six units contributing 39.0% of all publications and the last nine units 9.4%. With a cumulative IF total of 3265, the publications of the first six units accounted for 42.7% of the cumulative IF, the last unit quintile amounted to 621 (8.1%) of the cumulative IF. When considering publications per managing member, the first quintile averaged 11.9 publications (29.6 IF) per managing member, the last quintile 3.3 publications (8.0 IF) per member. The six units of the first quintile published on average 3.6 times more per managing member than the nine units in the last quintile and the average cumulative IF per member in the first quintile was almost five times higher. Further investigation must show whether this considerable difference in publication activity between the university units is also observed in other operative fields.

Trends in bibliometric indexes of the main dermatology journals (2009 to 2019)

To the Editor: The 2-year impact factor (IF) from Journal Citation Reports (JCR) is the most commonly used bibliometric index for assessing the influence of a scientific journal. It reproduces the citations of articles within JCR publications over the previous 2 years.1 In 2019, the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology (JAAD) had 4296 citations from 519 citable articles published in 2018 and 2019, resulting in a 2019 IF calculated as 4296/519 = 8.277.

Publication rate of abstracts presented at the annual meetings of the AANS/CNS Section on Disorders of the Spine and Peripheral Nerves.

The objective of this study was to determine the publication rate of abstracts presented at the annual meetings of the AANS/CNS Section on Disorders of the Spine and Peripheral Nerves (Spine Summit). The authors used a search algorithm in PubMed to determine the publication rate of abstracts presented at the Spine Summit from 2007 to 2012. The variables assessed were presentation modality, topic, meeting year, publication year, destiny journal and its 5-year impact factor (IF), country, and citation count (retrieved from the Scopus database). One thousand four hundred thirty-six abstracts were analyzed; 502 were oral presentations and 934 were digital poster presentations. The publication rate was 53.97% (775/1436). The mean time from presentation to publication was 1.35 ± 1.97 years (95% CI 1.21-1.49 years). The mean citation count of published articles was 40.55 ± 55.21 (95% CI 36.66-44.44). Oral presentations had a higher publication rate (71.51%, 359/502) than digital posters (44.54%, 416/934; OR 3.13, 95% CI 2.48-3.95, p < 0.001). Oral presentations had a higher number of citations (55.51 ± 69.00, 95% CI 48.35-62.67) than digital posters (27.64 ± 34.88, 95% CI 24.28-31.00, p < 0.001). The mean IF of published articles was 3.48 ± 2.91 (95% CI 3.27-3.70). JNS: Spine (191/775, 24.64%), Spine (103/775, 13.29%), and Neurosurgery (56/775, 7.23%) had the greatest number of published articles. The US represented the highest number of published articles (616/775, 79.48%). The publication rate of the Spine Summit is among the highest compared to other spine meetings. Many of the abstracts initially presented at the meeting are further published in high-IF journals and had a high citation count. Therefore, the Spine Summit maintains its high standards of scientific papers, which reflects the high quality of the research performed in the spine surgery field in North America.

Expanding the Conversation through ‘Debate Essays’ and ‘Review Methodology’ Papers

Expanding the Conversation through ‘Debate Essays’ and ‘Review Methodology’ Papers

Google Acadêmico: uma opção para análise de citações dos periódicos brasileiros de contabilidade?

Este artigo tem por objetivo identificar se o Google Acadêmico é uma opção para análise de citações dos artigos publicados nos periódicos brasileiros de contabilidade. Para isto, foram coletadas as citações de 1.810 artigos publicados entre 2007 e 2012 por quinze revistas brasileiras de contabilidade; a coleta foi feita via Google Scholar nos meses de abril anos de 2014, 2015 e 2016. O percentual de artigos não encontrados pelo Google Acadêmico apresentou uma tendência de queda ao longo do período: de 2,8% em abril de 2014 para 0,9% em abril de 2016. A frequência de artigos cuja contagem de citações caiu entre 2014 e 2016 foi de 1,6% da amostra. O coeficiente de correlação de postos de Spearman entre o Fator de Impacto de 5 anos do Spell e a média de citações dos artigos publicados entre 2008 e 2012 por revista é de rs = 0,918, embora o Google Acadêmico tenha recuperado um número de citações de 3 a 9 vezes maior por revista do que o Spell. A contribuição deste artigo permite que os pesquisadores e instituições conheçam as limitações e possibilidades do uso do Google Acadêmico nas pesquisas de análise de citações de artigos brasileiros e na análise do impacto das pesquisas.

Are results from randomized trials in anesthesiology robust or fragile? An analysis using the fragility index.

In anesthesiology, the findings from randomized controlled trials often underpin guidelines influencing clinical decision-making and therefore directly affect patient care. The aim of this study is to evaluate the fragility index and fragility quotient of randomized controlled trials published in the eight highest ranked anesthesiology journals. In addition, we assess the extent to which risk of bias scores, loss to follow-up, Web of Science Citation Index, and journal impact factor influence fragility index and fragility quotient. We included randomized trials published between 2014 and 2016 from the eight highest ranking anesthesiology journals based on Clarivate Analytics' Science Citation Index and Google Scholar Metrics: Anesthesiology subcategory. We included journals that published general anesthesia topics and omitted specialty anesthesia journals. The fragility index and fragility quotient for all included trials were calculated. Risk of bias for each trial was evaluated using the Cochrane 'risk of bias' Tool 2.0. One hundred and thirty one randomized control trials were included in this analysis. The median fragility index was 3 (interquartile range 1.0-5.5) with a fragility quotient of 0.03 (interquartile range 0.01-0.08). In 11% (14/131) of trials, the number of patients lost to follow-up was greater than the corresponding fragility index. Weak correlations were found between fragility index and total sample size (r = 0.13) and between fragility index and event frequency (r = 0.19). A near-negligible correlation was found between 5-year impact factor and fragility index (r = -0.03) and, similarly, between fragility index and Science Citation Index (r = -0.05). Ten trials were at high risk of bias with the randomization process found to be the domain at the highest risk of bias. In assessing the fragility of randomized controlled trials published in the top eight anesthesiology journals, our study suggests that statistically significant results in these journals are disconcertingly fragile. The median fragility index calculated from our 131 primary studies reveals that only three nonevents must be replaced with events to negate statistical significance. Although a current scale does not exist for fragility index ranges, many trials published by the top journals in anesthesiology are based on concerning methodology and highly fragile outcomes. With small median sample sizes and few patient events characterizing a large number of these trials, many of today's current guidelines and clinical practices may be founded on research containing statistical significance but lacking clinical significance.

Share of Articles in the “Dental Implants” Section among the Total Number of Articles in the Journal Focused on All Aspects of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery and 5-Year Impact Factor 1.943: A 3-Year Longitudinal Bibliometric Analysis

Purpose: To analyze the share of articles (total number and percent) in the “Dental Implants” section and the total number of articles during a 3-year period of publishing in the journal which had the highest total number of dental implant articles in the 1966-2016 period among other journals focused on all aspects of oral and maxillofacial surgery. Materials and Methods: Our study included the calculations in the consecutive 36 issues (from January 2017 to December 2019) of the Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery (JOMS): 1) the total number of articles and 2) the number of articles in the “Dental Implant” section. Results: Articles focused on pre-implant and implant surgery continue to stay in the focus of interest of the leading OMS journal reaching 5.43% (2.02 papers per 1 issue) of its total amount of publications. The mean total number of articles per 1 issue during a 3-year period became 37.33 papers. Despite the fact that the total number of articles in 2018 increased to 452, the number in 2017 and 2019 was mirrored and totaled 446 articles. Conclusions: The articles focused on implantology continue to stay in the focus of interest of the leading OMS journal. The very high total number of articles (446) per year in 2017 and 2018 can indicate a very strong journal`s reputation among authors and submission levels. Also, as the mean of total number of articles per 1 issue is 37.33; it gives a possibility to increase the publishing frequency in two times (biweekly journal) what can lead to the multiple advantages for the authors, readers, and editorial office.

Developing Insights through Reviews: Reflecting on the 20th Anniversary of theInternational Journal of Management Reviews

This year marks a change in the editorial team at the International Journal of Management Reviews (IJMR). We bid farewell to Caroline Gatrell, who steps down as Co Editor-in-Chief, having been in post since January 2014. In turn, we welcome Katie Bailey who joins Dermot Breslin as Co Editor-in-Chief of the journal. Since becoming Editor-in-Chief, Caroline has overseen a dramatic increase in the journal’s reach and impact. Downloads of IJMR papers have increased from 204,403 in 2014, to 428,600 in 2018. At the same the journal’s 2-year impact factor (IF) has almost doubled from 3.857 in 2014 to 7.6 in 2018. As IJMR reaches its 20th anniversary, it is good time to reflect on the evolution of the journal, and examine key turning points with regards its positioning, aims and scope. IJMR was founded in 1999 by Cary Cooper and Alan Pearson, as a much-needed outlet for literature reviews in the field of management and organisation studies (MOS). In the early days, authors included both early career/doctoral students publishing literature reviews from their PhD theses, and established scholars taking stock of changes in a specific domain of study. The journal’s positioning has evolved over the past 20 years, and its journey has been particularly shaped by three key changes in editorial strategy.

Consideration of confounding was suboptimal in the reporting of observational studies in psychiatry: a meta-epidemiological study

ObjectivesWhen reporting observational studies, authors should explicitly discuss the potential for confounding and other biases, but it is unclear to what extent this is carried out within the psychiatric field. Study Design and SettingWe reviewed a random sample of 120 articles in the five psychiatric specialty journals with the highest 5-year impact factor in 2015–2018. We evaluated how confounding and bias was considered in the reporting of the discussion and abstract and assessed the relationship with yearly citations. ResultsThe term “confounding” was explicitly mentioned in the abstract or discussion in 66 articles (55.0%; 95% confidence interval (CI): 46.1–63.6) and the term “bias” in 68 articles (56.7%; 95% CI: 47.7–65.2). The authors of 25 articles (20.8%; 95% CI: 14.5–28.9) acknowledged unadjusted confounders. With one exception (0.8%, 95% CI: 0.0–4.6), authors never expressed any caution, limitation, or uncertainty in relation to confounding or other bias in their conclusions or in the abstract. Articles acknowledging nonadjusted confounders were not less frequently cited than articles that did not (median 7.9 vs. 5.6 citations per year, P = 0.03). ConclusionConfounding is overall inadequately addressed in the reporting and bias is often ignored in the interpretation of high-impact observational research in psychiatry.

Where Should I Submit My Work for Publication? An Asymmetrical Classification Model to Optimize Choice

Choosing a journal to publish a work is a task that involves many variables. Usually, the authors’ experience allows them to classify journals into categories, according to their suitability and the characteristics of the article. However, there are certain aspects in the choice that are probabilistic in nature, whose modelling may provide some help. Suppose an author has to choose a journal from a preference list to publish an article. The researcher is interested in publishing the paper in a journal with a rank number less than or equal to k. For this purpose, a simple classification model is presented in order to choose the best journal from the list, from which some fundamental consequences can be deduced and simple rules derived. For example, if the list contains 100 journals and is ordered using 2-year impact factor, the rule “send to the journal at the k − 10 position” is adequate.

Monetary Equivalent Value (MEV) of a Published Article in Psychology.

Publishing one’s research in peer-reviewed journals is generally acknowledged to be a valuable enterprise. This is particularly the case for academic and research psychologists who rely on publications for career status, stability, and advancement. Psychological researchers can devote extensive amounts of time to planning, conducting, writing up, and getting their research published in respected psychology journals, yet their work efforts in this regard have heretofore never been quantified monetarily. This article introduces the concept of a monetary equivalent value (MEV) of a published article in psychology. An initial basic linear equation is introduced that sets the dollar (or Euro) value of an article based on the median number of hours involved in publishing an article, the mean hourly wage of psychologists, and the 5-year Impact Factor (IF) of the journal in which the article is published. MEVs were calculated for the full range of journals published by the American Psychological Association (APA) that have IF ratings. MEV values varied widely, from a low of $4,562 for an article published in the journal "Dreaming", to a high of $131,613 for an article appearing in "Psychological Bulletin". This article represents the first to explore the MEV as an additional metric to understand the impact of published articles, and as such this exploratory study has numerous limitations. Chief among these is the study’s reliance on the controversial Journal Citation Reports (JCR) journal impact factor metric, as well as its extrapolation from a limited medical literature on the average number of hours involved in publishing a study.

Studying document information flow on the information safety problems

The national document flow in the area of information safety is analyzed based on the Russian Science Citation Index database for 1993–2017. Its volume makes over 18,000 entries including up to 59% articles and conference proceeding (28%). The flow dynamics demonstrates its annual growth – it is ahead of other science information flows in the number of documents. The dispersion of publications in periodicals in 2016 is characterized; the dependence of the information flow completeness from the number of sources is considered. The findings of microflow study have proved the provision of S. Bradford’s law of the periodicals division into three zones. The “core” comprises 52 journals, primarily in the related sectors rather than those specializing in the mentioned area which evidences on the vibrant interdisciplinary character of the problem. The authors characterize information significance of the most productive journals using such indicators as the 2-year impact-factor and the number of article loads. It was found that the impact-factor as a criteria of journal influence was in the range 0.040–1.435, while the number of loads was from 252 to 56,041. The accessibility of the “core” journals in the RSCI as related to the availability of full texts and the open access and their coverage by RSCI, WoS and Scopus databases are discussed.

Randomized Controlled Trials and Quasi-Experimental Studies Published in Nursing Journals: Findings From a Scoping Review With Implications for Further Research.

Experimental studies are considered capable of generating substantial evidence; therefore, their production and diffusion are continuously encouraged. However, their trends as publication outputs in nursing journals have rarely been evaluated to date. To describe experimental study design features among the highest indexed nursing journals. A scoping review was performed by retrieving and analyzing experimental studies published between 2009 and 2016 in nursing journals with a 5-year impact factor >1.5 according to Thomson's Journal Citation Reports. A total of 602 studies were reviewed and 340 (56%) were included; in all, 298/340 (87.6%) were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 37/340 (10.9%) pilot studies. The publication trend exhibited a fluctuating pattern with a slight decrease over time (from 54 studies in 2009 to 32 in 2016). Researchers working in Asia and Europe have published more frequently in the selected journals. Published studies most often involved oncological (n = 69, 20%), surgical (n=41, 12%), and elderly patients (n=38, 11%). Educational and supportive (n=119, 35%) interventions were mainly tested for effectiveness. Approximately half of studies enrolled <100 patients, and only two-thirds had included an a priori sample size calculation. Less than one quarter (n=76) of the research teams were multiprofessional, and 70% of studies were funded, generally, by public institutions. A broad range of research questions has been investigated to date by using experimental study designs. However, study methods and multidisciplinary collaborations must be enhanced with the intent of producing large-scale and methodologically sound studies. Furthermore, reasons for limited funding and, particularly, the lack of support from private funding should be further investigated.

The integrated impact indicator revisited\xa0(I3*): a non-parametric alternative to the journal impact factor

We propose the I3* indicator as a non-parametric alternative to the journal impact factor (JIF) and h-index. We apply I3* to more than 10,000 journals. The results can be compared with other journal metrics. I3* is a promising variant within the general scheme of non-parametric I3 indicators introduced previously: I3* provides a single metric which correlates with both impact in terms of citations (c) and output in terms of publications (p). We argue for weighting using four percentile classes: the top-1% and top-10% as excellence indicators; the top-50% and bottom-50% as output indicators. Like the h-index, which also incorporates both c and p, I3*-values are size-dependent; however, division of I3* by the number of publications (I3*/N) provides a size-independent indicator which correlates strongly with the 2- and 5-year journal impact factors (JIF2 and JIF5). Unlike the h-index, I3* correlates significantly with both the total number of citations and publications. The values of I3* and I3*/N can be statistically tested against the expectation or against one another using chi-squared tests or effect sizes. A template (in Excel) is provided online for relevant tests.

An investigation of impact of research collaboration on academic performance in Italy

The aim of this paper is to investigate theoretically and empirically the impact of research collaborations on the scientific performance of Italian academic institutions. Data are derived from the international Scopus and Web of Science databases. We consider both quantity (the number of publications made in collaboration) and quality indicators from different databases (using indexes such as IF5Y (5-year impact factor of the journal, Web of Science), SJR (SCImago Journal Rank—key integral indicator of the quality of journals, Scopus), IPP (Impact per Publication, Scopus), AIS (Article Influence Scores, Web of Science), H-index (Google Scholar Hirsch-index metric) to evaluate the Italian case of scientific research. To this end, we develop a theoretical and empirical model to consider endogeneity of explanatory variables, the generalized method of moment estimation. The results suggest that international collaborations have a higher impact on the research quality index in Italy.

3104 Characterizing the top 100 articles in benign prostatic hyperplasia literature using bibliometric analysis

OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: The prevalence of BPH, coupled with associated disability ranging from quality of life impairments to hospitalization, has spurred decades of research into its pathophysiology, diagnosis, treatment, and outcomes. For these reasons, we conducted a study to characterize the current landscape of BPH literature, including the most commonly cited articles impacting the field. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: We used the Web of ScienceTM databases to conduct a bibliometric analysis of the top 100 leading BPH articles. Bibliometric analyses are quantitative approaches examining the impact of academic literature. We used the following search terms: ‘benign prostatic hyperplasia’ and ‘benign prostatic enlargement.’ We identified and characterized the 100 most-cited BPH articles including their citations, journal, author, year, and country through September 2018. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: The top 100 BPH articles were published between 1978 and 2012. The number of citations ranged from 143 to 2,158 across 26 different journals, including 9 urology-specific journals. The Journal of Urology (5-year impact factor: 4.91) was the most published journal with 26 articles, followed by European Urology (5-year impact factor: 15.66) with 16, and Urology (5-year impact factor: 2.39) with 13. The oldest 10 articles in the top 100 mainly focused on BPH etiology/pathogenesis, while the newest 10 articles mainly focused on medical treatment. The 1990’s was the most productive decade accounting for nearly half of the top 100 articles (n=46). Eight authors had two or more first author publications, and 8 institutions had five or more publications in the top 100. Thirteen different countries were represented in the top 100 articles, with the US (n = 64), Italy (n=7), and Germany (n=5) being the most common. The articles were published in the following Web of Science Categories: Urology &amp; Nephrology (n=68), Medicine, General &amp; Internal (n=15), and Endocrinology &amp; Metabolism (n=7). DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: This study represents the first bibliometric analysis of the leading 100 BPH articles impacting the academic literature. The literature focus has evolved from BPH pathogenesis/etiology to treatment, and was primarily published in 3 specialty journals. Our findings highlight the most impactful BPH literature, and may be used to guide research and funding priorities for this increasingly common condition.

Half a century of ANALES DE PEDIATRÍA. Evolution of its main bibliometric indicators in the Web of Science and Scopus international databases

To analyse the coverage and main bibliometric indicators of ANALES DE PEDIATRÍA in Scopus and Science Citation Index Expanded of the Web of Science (SCIE) databases. The evolution of the journal production was identified according to the document types, collaboration indexes between authors and institutions, and citations, and impact indicators (number of citations, impact factor, 5-years impact factor and without self-citations, Scimago Journal Rank, quartile, h index and most cited works). A total of 10,128 papers were included in Scopus (a mean of around 225 per year) and 1,861 in SCIE (a mean of around 207 per year). The index of collaboration was 4.4 for authors and 2 for institutions. There was international collaboration in 4.2% of the papers. The number of citations received in Scopus (619) exceeded the number of citations received in SCIE (385) by 234. The mean number of citations per paper was lower in SCIE (2.27 in Scopus compared to 1.5 in SCIE). The h index was 18 in Scopus and 14 in SCIE. Discrepancies were observed in the indicators obtained in both databases due to the different indexation policies, coverage, and classification methods of the papers. The number of citations, the mean number of citations per work, and the h index were higher in Scopus due to the longer life of the journal in that database. There is a positive evolution of the impact factor in SCIE, of the impact factor excluding self-citations, and of the 5-year impact factor.

Quality of reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in emergency medicine based on the PRISMA statement

BackgroundEmergency department utilization has increased tremendously over the past years, which is accompanied by an increased necessity for emergency medicine research to support clinical practice. Important sources of evidence are systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MAs), but these can only be informative provided their quality is sufficiently high, which can only be assessed if reporting is adequate. The purpose of this study was to assess the quality of reporting of SRs and MAs in emergency medicine using the PRISMA statement.MethodsThe top five emergency medicine related journals were selected using the 5-year impact factor of the ISI Web of Knowledge of 2015. All SRs and MAs published in these journals between 2015 and 2016 were extracted and assessed independently by two reviewers on compliance with each item of the PRISMA statement.ResultsThe included reviews (n = 112) reported a mean of 18 ± 4 items of the PRISMA statement adequately. Reviews mentioning PRISMA adherence did not show better reporting than review without mention of adherence (mean 18.6 (SE 0.4) vs. mean 17.8 (SE 0.5); p = 0.214). Reviews published in journals recommending or requiring adherence to a reporting guideline showed better quality of reporting than journals without such instructions (mean 19.2 (SE 0.4) vs. mean 17.2 (SE 0.5); p = 0.001).ConclusionThere is room for improvement of the quality of reporting of SRs and MAs within the emergency medicine literature. Therefore, authors should use a reporting guideline such as the PRISMA statement. Active journal implementation, by requiring PRISMA endorsement, enhances quality of reporting.

Half a century of Anales de Pediatría. Evolution of its main bibliometric indicators in the Web of Science and Scopus international databases

PurposeTo analyze the coverage and main bibliometric indicators of Anales de Pediatría in Scopus and Science Citation Index Expanded of the Web of Science (SCIE) databases. Material and methodThe evolution of the journal production was identified according to the document types, collaboration indexes between authors and institutions, and citations, and impact indicators (number of citations, impact factor, 5-years impact factor and without self-citations, Scimago Journal Rank, quartile, h-index and most cited works). ResultsA total of 10,128 papers were included in Scopus (a mean of around 225 per year) and 1861 in SCIE (a mean of around 207 per year). The index of collaboration was 4.4 for authors and 2 for institutions. There was international collaboration in 4.2% of the papers. The number of citations received in Scopus (619) exceeded the number of citations received in SCIE (385) by 234. The mean number of citations per paper was lower in SCIE (2.27 in Scopus compared to 1.5 in SCIE). The h-index was 18 in Scopus and 14 in SCIE. ConclusionsDiscrepancies were observed in the indicators obtained in both databases due to the different indexation policies, coverage, and classification methods of the papers. The number of citations, the mean number of citations per work, and the h-index were higher in Scopus due to the longer life of the journal in that database. There is a positive evolution of the impact factor in SCIE, of the impact factor excluding self-citations, and of the 5-year impact factor.