5-year Impact Factor Research Articles

Sexual and gender minority health research in nursing

BackgroundSexual and gender minorities (SGMs) experience substantial health disparities. Evidence suggests nurses may be unprepared to work with these populations. A previous literature review of top-ranked nursing journals found that 0.16% of published articles addressed SGM health. PurposeTo evaluate changes in coverage of SGM health in the top-ranked nursing journals since the earlier review using a scoping approach. MethodsElectronic search of articles published between December 2009 and December 2017 in 20 nursing journals with the highest 5-year impact factors. FindingsThirty-three articles (0.19%) in the top-ranked nursing journals focused on SGM health. There is increasing attention to SGM health recently, evidenced by the numbers of empirical and nonempirical research articles published, as well as nonresearch articles about SGM health. DiscussionIn light of well-documented health disparities affecting SGM people, it is essential that nurses continue to conduct and disseminate research related to the health of these populations.

Conversion of Skeletal Society of Radiology annual meeting abstracts to publications in 2010–2015

BackgroundMaterial presented at conferences is meant to provide exposure to ongoing research that could affect medical decision making based on future outcomes. It is important then to evaluate the rates of publication from conference presentations as a measure of academic quality as such research has undergone peer review and journal acceptance. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the fate of abstracts presented at the Skeletal Society of Radiology Annual Meetings from 2010–2015.Materials and MethodsConference abstracts were searched using Google, Google Scholar, and PubMed (which includes Medline) to locate the corresponding published reports. The data recorded for published studies included date published online, in print, or both; the journal in which it was published; and the 5-year journal impact factor. When an abstract was not confirmed as published, authors were contacted by email to verify its publication status or, if not published, the reason for nonpublication.ResultsA total of 162 abstracts were published out of 320 presented (50.6%) at the SSR conferences from 2010 to 2015 with 59.9% (85/142) of publications occurring within two years of the conference date (not counting abstracts published prior to conference). Mean time to publication was 19 months and is calculated by excluding the 20 (12.3%) abstracts that were published prior to the conference date. The median time to publication is 13 months (25th–75th percentile: 6.25–21.75). The top two journals publishing research studies from this conference were Skeletal Radiology and The American Journal of Roentgenology. These journals accepted 72 of the 162 (44.4%) studies for publication. Of the 14 authors who responded with 17 reasons for not publishing, the most common reasons were lack of time (7–41.2%), results not important enough (4–23.5%), publication not an aim (3–17.6%), and lack of resources (3–17.6%).DiscussionAt least half of the abstracts presented at the annual meeting for the Society of Skeletal Radiology are accepted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal. The majority (59.9%) of these publications were achieved within two years of the conference presentation. The rate at which presentations are published and the journals that accept the abstracts can potentially be used to compare the importance and quality of information at conferences.

Bibliometric analysis of manuscript characteristics that influence citations: A comparison of six major psychiatry journals

In this study we investigated the characteristics of psychiatry manuscript that influence its citation rate. We conducted a cross-sectional study of published articles (n = 545), from January to June 2007, from 6 major psychiatry journals with the highest 5-year impact-factor. Citation count for these articles was retrieved from Web Of Science (by Clarivate Analytics) and 22 article characteristics were tabulated manually. We then predicted the citation rate by performing univariate analysis, spearman rank-order correlation, and multiple regression model on the collected variables. Using spearman rank-order correlation, we found the following variables to have significant positive correlation with citations: abstract character count (rs and p-value, 0.22 and 0.001 respectively), number of references (0.2, 0.01), abstract word count (0.17, 0.0005), number of pages (0.15, 0.003), open access (0.06, 0.05), study design reported in title (0.04, 0.0001), total number of words (0.03, 0.01) and structured abstract (0.03, 0.0009). In a multivariate linear regression model, the following variables predicted increased citation rates (p < 0.001, R2 = 0.38): reporting of study design in title, structured abstract and open access. Editors and authors of psychiatry journals can improve the impact of their journals and articles by utilizing this bibliometric study when assembling their manuscript.

Ethics reporting practices in randomized controlled trials of physical therapy interventions after stroke

BackgroundAdequate reporting of ethics-related research methods promotes convergence on best ethics practices. In physical therapy, studies on ethics reporting are limited to few aspects, and none focuses on stroke research. Our objectives were to investigate the reporting of multiple ethics-related features and its variation over time, and the characteristics of the studies associated with ethics reporting in Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) of physical therapy interventions after stroke.MethodsA random sample of RCTs published in the years 2004, 2009 and 2014, was extracted from the PubMed database, regardless of the publishing journal. For each trial we investigated year of publication, trial registration, sample size, stroke subtype, phase of the disease, setting, interventions and dosing, outcome measures, outcome of the study, PEDro score and 5-year impact factor of the publishing journal. Reporting of ethics-related issues was analyzed. Differences between groups were examined. Multiple regression was used to evaluate the relationship between ethics-related issues reporting and some studies’ characteristics.ResultsEighty studies were reviewed. Groups differed in the proportion of registered trials (p = .009), 5-year impact factor (p = .011), assessment of cognitive capacity (p = .049), declaration about conflict of interest (p < .001), and number of ethics-related issues reported (p = .009). The proportion of issues reported ranged from 92.5% (consent obtaining) to 0% (eventual follow up care). Post-hoc comparisons showed significantly greater reporting of ethics issues in trials published in the year 2014 compared to 2004 (p = .014, 95%CI = 0.40/4.26). Year of publication and PEDro score were significant predictors of adequate reporting.ConclusionsAuthors, editors, and reviewers should be more rigorous and demanding about the reporting of ethic-related methods in randomized controlled trials of physical therapy interventions after stroke.

Impact factor, eigenfactor, article influence, scopus SNIP, and SCImage journal rank of occupational therapy journals

Background: Journals are currently assessed and ranked using a number of different quantitative performance metrics.Aim: To compare and correlate the publication metrics of English-language occupational therapy journals published in 2015.Method: Bibliometric data was sourced for 14 English-language occupational therapy journals including the Journal Citations Report (JCR) 2-year impact factor (IF), Eigenfactor Score (EFS), Article Influence Score (AIS), Scopus Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP), Scopus Citescore, and SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) score. The JCR, Scopus, and SJR 2015 bibliometric data were correlated.Results: The top six English-language occupational therapy journals in relation to JCR IF, EFS, AIS, SNIP, Citescore, SJR score, and SJR IIF were AJOT, AOTJ, POPT, CJOT, SJOT, and BJOT. JCR IF, EFS, JCR AIS, SNIP, Citescore, SJR score and SJR IIF were all significantly correlated with coefficients ranging from 0.751 to 0.961 (p < 0.05; p < 0.01). The calculated SJR IIF was on average 0.335 larger than the JCR IFs reported.Conclusions: The findings indicate that the range of available bibliometric measures should be used collectively to yield a more comprehensive assessment of journal and article rankings rather than the singular use of IF scores that currently and frequently occurs in many jurisdictions.

Trends in the quality of work presented at the society of british neurological surgeons meetings: 1975 to 2010

Background: The quality of scientific publications in clinical journals is well studied but the quality of work presented at medical conferences less so.Aims: To describe trends in the quality of presentations at the Society of British Neurological Surgeons [SBNS] conference between 1975 and 2010 and the factors associated with higher quality work in order to consider what might improve publication rates.Methods: Analysis was conducted in 5-year time periods (i.e. 1975–1979, 1985–1989, 1995–1999, 2005–2009). Published abstracts were used to identify conference presentations. Quality metrics included level of evidence of the presentation and eventual publication within 5 years. Publication 5-year citation count and destination journal impact factor were further used to assess publication quality. Statistical analysis was carried out using SPSS.Results: Of the 1711 presentations in total, 479 (28%) were published. The British Journal of Neurosurgery (93, 19%) was the favoured destination. Although the total number of publications has increased, given the increase in the number of presentations, the proportion of work published has decreased (80/179; 45% in the 1970s to 113/721; 16% in the 2000s). The growth in the impact factor of published work was better than that found in leading neurosurgical journals, but lower than for leading medical journals. In a multivariate model, presentations using a higher level of evidence increased the likelihood of publication (AOR 6.7 95% CI 3.7, 12.1), whilst presenting at conferences after the 1970s reduced the likelihood of publication; 1985–1989 (AOR 0.3, 95% CI 0.2, 0.4), 1995–1999 (0.4, 95% CI 0.3, 0.7) and 2005–2009 (0.1, 95% CI 0.1, 0.2).Conclusion: SBNS conferences today contain more presentations and yield more publications than ever before. However, the increased volume may dilute the quality of work presented.

Ranking journals using social choice theory methods: A novel approach in bibliometrics

Abstract We use data on economic, management and political science journals to produce quantitative estimates of (in)consistency of the evaluations based on six popular bibliometric indicators (impact factor, 5-year impact factor, immediacy index, article influence score, SNIP and SJR). We advocate a new approach to the aggregation of journal rankings. Since the rank aggregation is a multicriteria decision problem, ranking methods from social choice theory may solve it. We apply either a direct ranking method based on the majority rule (the Copeland rule, the Markovian method) or a sorting procedure based on a tournament solution, such as the uncovered set and the minimal externally stable set. We demonstrate that the aggregate rankings reduce the number of contradictions and represent the set of the single-indicator-based rankings better than any of the six rankings themselves.

A Bibliometric History of the Journal of Psychology Between 1936 and 2015

ABSTRACTThe Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied is a leading international journal in psychology dating back to 1935. This study examines its publications since its creation utilizing a bibliometric analysis. The primary objective is to provide a complete overview of the key factors affecting the journal. This analysis includes such key issues as the publication and citation structure of the journal, its most cited articles, and the leading authors, institutions, and countries referenced in the journal. The work uses the Scopus database to classify the bibliographic material. Additionally, the analysis provides a graphical mapping of the bibliographic data by using visualization of similarities viewer software. This software uses several bibliometric techniques including co-citation, bibliographic coupling and co-occurrence of keywords. The Journal of Psychology is strongly connected to most of the current leading journals in psychology, and currently has a 5-year impact factor of 1.77 (Thomson Reuters, 2015 Journal Citation Reports).

Are methodological quality and completeness of reporting associated with citation-based measures of publication impact? A secondary analysis of a systematic review of dementia biomarker studies

ObjectiveTo determine whether methodological and reporting quality are associated with surrogate measures of publication impact in the field of dementia biomarker studies.MethodsWe assessed dementia biomarker studies included in a previous...

"Are you gonna publish that?" Peer-reviewed publication outcomes of doctoral dissertations in psychology.

If a doctoral dissertation represents an original investigation that makes a contribution to one’s field, then dissertation research could, and arguably should, be disseminated into the scientific literature. However, the extent and nature of dissertation publication remains largely unknown within psychology. The present study investigated the peer-reviewed publication outcomes of psychology dissertation research in the United States. Additionally, we examined publication lag, scientific impact, and variations across subfields. To investigate these questions, we first drew a stratified random cohort sample of 910 psychology Ph.D. dissertations from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses. Next, we conducted comprehensive literature searches for peer-reviewed journal articles derived from these dissertations published 0–7 years thereafter. Published dissertation articles were coded for their bibliographic details, citation rates, and journal impact metrics. Results showed that only one-quarter (25.6% [95% CI: 23.0, 28.4]) of dissertations were ultimately published in peer-reviewed journals, with significant variations across subfields (range: 10.1 to 59.4%). Rates of dissertation publication were lower in professional/applied subfields (e.g., clinical, counseling) compared to research/academic subfields (e.g., experimental, cognitive). When dissertations were published, however, they often appeared in influential journals (e.g., Thomson Reuters Impact Factor M = 2.84 [2.45, 3.23], 5-year Impact Factor M = 3.49 [3.07, 3.90]) and were cited numerous times (Web of Science citations per year M = 3.65 [2.88, 4.42]). Publication typically occurred within 2–3 years after the dissertation year. Overall, these results indicate that the large majority of Ph.D. dissertation research in psychology does not get disseminated into the peer-reviewed literature. The non-publication of dissertation research appears to be a systemic problem affecting both research and training in psychology. Efforts to improve the quality and “publishability” of doctoral dissertation research could benefit psychological science on multiple fronts.

Publication rates of podium and poster abstract presentations at the 2010 and 2011 society of gynecologic oncology conferences

ObjectiveThis study aimed to determine the publication rate of oral and poster abstracts presented at the 2010 and 2011 Society of Gynecologic Oncology (SGO) conferences as well as the journals that most commonly published these studies, their 5-year impact factor, the time to publication, and the reasons for nonpublication. MethodsAbstracts presented at the 2010–2011 SGO conferences were included in this study. We searched Google, Google Scholar, and PubMed to locate published reports of these abstracts. If an abstract's full-text manuscript could not be located, an author of the conference abstract was contacted via email to inquire whether the research was published. If the research was unpublished, the authors were asked to provide the reason for nonpublication. The time to publication, journal, and journal impact factor were noted for abstracts that reached full-text publication. ResultsA total of 725 abstracts were identified, of which 386 (53%) reached publication in a peer-reviewed journal. Oral presentations were published at a higher rate than poster presentations. Most (70%) reached publication within 2 years of abstract presentation. Abstracts were published in 89 journals, but most (39%) were published in Gynecologic Oncology. The mean time to publication was 15.7 months, with a mean 5-year impact factor of 4.956. ConclusionsA 53% publication rate indicates that the SGO conference selection process favors research likely to be published and, thus, presumably of high quality. The overall publication rate is higher than that reported for many other biomedical conferences.

Fuel Cells in a Changing Energy World

AbstractNo abstract.

Alternative bibliometrics from the web of knowledge surpasses the impact factor in a 2-year ahead annual citation calculation: Linear mixed-design models' analysis of neuroscience journals.

The decision about which journal to choose for the publication of research deserves further investigation. In this study, we evaluate the predictive ability of seven bibliometrics in the Web of Knowledge to calculate total cites over a 7-year period in neuroscience journals. Coincidental bibliometrics appearing during 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011, along with their corresponding cites in 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013, were recorded from the journal citation reports (JCR) Science Edition. This was a retrospective study. This was a bibliographic research using data from the Web of Knowledge in the neuroscience category. A linear-mixed effects design using random slopes and intercepts was performed on 275 journals in the neuroscience category. We found that Eigenfactor score, cited half-life, immediacy index, and number of articles are significant predictors of 2-year-ahead total cites (P ≤ 0.010 for all variables). The impact factor, 5-year impact factor, and article influence score were not significant predictors; the global effect size was significant (R2= 0.999; P < 0.001) with a total variance of 99.9%. An integrative model using a set of several metrics could represent a new standard to assess the influence and importance of scientific journals, and may simultaneously help researchers to rank journals in their decision-making during the manuscript submission phase.

Reporting Quality of Randomized Controlled Trials of Periodontal Diseases in Journal Abstracts—A Cross-sectional Survey and Bibliometric Analysis

Reporting Quality of Randomized Controlled Trials of Periodontal Diseases in Journal Abstracts—A Cross-sectional Survey and Bibliometric Analysis

Measuring Time-Dynamics and Time-Stability of Journal Rankings in Mathematics and Physics by Means of Fractional p-Variations

Journal rankings of specific research fields are often used for evaluation purposes, both of authors and institutions. These rankings can be defined by means of several methods, as expert assessment, scholarly-based agreements, or by the ordering induced by a numeric index associated to the prestige of the journals. In order to be efficient and accepted by the research community, it must preserve the ordering over time, at least up to a point. Otherwise, the procedure for defining the ranking must be revised to assure that it reflects the presumably stable characteristic “prestige” that it claims to be quantifying. A mathematical model based on fractional p-variations of the values of the order number of each journal in a time series of journal rankings is explained, and its main properties are shown. As an example, we study the evolution of two given ordered lists of journals through an eleven-year series. These journal ranks are defined by using the 2-year Impact Factor of Thomson-Reuters (nowadays Clarivate Analytics) lists for MATHEMATICS and PHYSICS, APPLIED from 2002 to 2013. As an application of our model, we define an index that precludes the use of journal ranks for evaluation purposes when some minimal requirements on the associated fractional p-variations are not satisfied. The final conclusion is that the list of mathematics does not satisfy the requirements on the p-variations, while the list of applied physics does.

Do Neuroscience Journals Accept Replications? A Survey of Literature.

Background: Recent reports in neuroscience, especially those concerning brain-injury and neuroimaging, have revealed low reproducibility of results within the field and urged for more replication studies. However, it is unclear if the neuroscience journals welcome or discourage the submission of reports on replication studies. Therefore, the current study assessed the explicit position of neuroscience journals on replications.Methods: A list of active neuroscience journals publishing in English was compiled from Scopus database. These journal websites were accessed to read their aims and scope and instructions to authors, and to assess if they: (1) explicitly stated that they accept replications; (2) did not state their position on replications; (3) implicitly discouraged replications by emphasizing on the novelty of the manuscripts; or (4) explicitly stated that they reject replications. For journals that explicitly stated they accept or reject replications, their subcategory within neuroscience and their 5-year impact factor were recorded. The distribution of neuroscience replication studies published was also recorded by searching and extracting data from Scopus.Results: Of the 465 journals reviewed, 28 (6.0%) explicitly stated that they accept replications, 394 (84.7%) did not state their position on replications, 40 (8.6%) implicitly discouraged replications by emphasizing on the novelty of the manuscripts, and 3 (0.6%) explicitly stated that they reject replications. For the 28 journals that explicitly welcomed replications, three (10.7%) stated their position in the aims and scope, whereas 25 (89.3%) stated in within the detailed instructions to authors. The five-year impact factor (2015) of these journals ranged from 1.655 to 10.799, and nine of them (32.1%) did not receive a 5-year or annual impact factor in 2015. There was no significant difference in the proportions of journals explicitly welcomed replications (journals with vs. without impact factors, or high vs. low impact factors). All sub-categories of neuroscience had at least a journal that welcomed replications.Discussion: The neuroscience journals that welcomed replications and published replications were reported. These pieces of information may provide descriptive information on the current journal practices regarding replication so the evidence-based recommendations to journal publishers can be made.

Bibliometric assessment of national library information journals

Findings of the bibliometric analysis of national library and information journals are highlighted. The range of publications for comparative analysis is reviewed. The key bibliometric indicators for journals assessment are defined; the choice of the data source, namely RSCI database is substantiated. Among the indicators selected for analysis are: number of publications and citations, two-year impact factor, 5-year impact factor, five-year self-citation coefficient, 5-year Herfindahl index - by citation journals and by author’s institutions. On the basis of average factors, the citation dynamics for 2013 - 2015 is determined. Other factors of journals’ authority are also discussed: Inclusion into the HAC (Highest Attestation Commission), world abstract databases and Web of Science and Scopus citation systems.

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses on psoriasis: role of funding sources, conflict of interest and bibliometric indices as predictors of methodological quality.

The quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses on psoriasis, a chronic inflammatory skin disease that severely impairs quality of life and is associated with high costs, remains unknown. To assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews published on psoriasis. After a comprehensive search in MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Database (PROSPERO: CDR42016041611), the quality of studies was assessed by two raters using the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) tool. Article metadata and journal-related bibliometric indices were also obtained. Systematic reviews were classified as low (0-4), moderate (5-8) or high (9-11) quality. A prediction model for methodological quality was fitted using principal component and multivariate ordinal logistic regression analyses. We classified 220 studies as high (17·2%), moderate (55·0%) or low (27·8%) quality. Lower compliance rates were found for AMSTAR question (Q)5 (list of studies provided, 11·4%), Q10 (publication bias assessed, 27·7%), Q4 (status of publication included, 39·5%) and Q1 (a priori design provided, 40·9%). Factors such as meta-analysis inclusion [odds ratio (OR) 6·22; 95% confidence interval (CI) 2·78-14·86], funding by academic institutions (OR 2·90, 95% CI 1·11-7·89), Article Influence score (OR 2·14, 95% CI 1·05-6·67), 5-year impact factor (OR 1·34, 95% CI 1·02-1·40) and article page count (OR 1·08, 95% CI 1·02-1·15) significantly predicted higher quality. A high number of authors with a conflict of interest (OR 0·90, 95% CI 0·82-0·99) was significantly associated with lower quality. The methodological quality of systematic reviews published about psoriasis remains suboptimal. The type of funding sources and author conflicts may compromise study quality, increasing the risk of bias.

Use of Bibliometric Analysis to Assess the Scientific Productivity and Impact of the Global Emerging Infections Surveillance and Response System Program, 2006-2012.

Scientific publication in academic literature is a key venue in which the U.S. Department of Defense's Global Emerging Infections Surveillance and Response System (GEIS) program disseminates infectious disease surveillance data. Bibliometric analyses are tools to evaluate scientific productivity and impact of published research, yet are not routinely used for disease surveillance. Our objective was to incorporate bibliometric indicators to measure scientific productivity and impact of GEIS-funded infectious disease surveillance, and assess their utility in the management of the GEIS surveillance program. Metrics on GEIS program scientific publications, project funding, and countries of collaborating institutions from project years 2006 to 2012 were abstracted from annual reports and program databases and organized by the six surveillance priority focus areas: respiratory infections, gastrointestinal infections, febrile and vector-borne infections, antimicrobial resistance, sexually transmitted infections, and capacity building and outbreak response. Scientific productivity was defined as the number of scientific publications in peer-reviewed literature derived from GEIS-funded projects. Impact was defined as the number of citations of a GEIS-funded publication by other peer-reviewed publications, and the Thomson Reuters 2-year journal impact factor. Indicators were retrieved from the Web of Science and Journal Citation Report. To determine the global network of international collaborations between GEIS partners, countries were organized by the locations of collaborating institutions. Between 2006 and 2012, GEIS distributed approximately US $330 million to support 921 total projects. On average, GEIS funded 132 projects (range 96-160) with $47 million (range $43 million-$53 million), annually. The predominant surveillance focus areas were respiratory infections with 317 (34.4%) projects and $225 million, and febrile and vector-borne infections with 274 (29.8%) projects and $45 million. The number of annual respiratory infections-related projects peaked in 2006 and 2009. The number of febrile and vector-borne infections projects increased from 29 projects in 2006 to 58 in 2012. There were 651 articles published in 147 different peer-reviewed journals, with an average Thomson Reuters 2-year journal impact factor of 4.2 (range 0.3-53.5). On average, 93 articles were published per year (range 67-117) with $510,000 per publication. Febrile and vector-borne, respiratory, and gastrointestinal infections had 287, 167, and 73 articles published, respectively. Of the 651 articles published, 585 (89.9%) articles were cited at least once (range 1-1,045). Institutions from 90 countries located in all six World Health Organization regions collaborated with surveillance projects. These findings summarize the GEIS-funded surveillance portfolio between 2006 and 2012, and demonstrate the scientific productivity and impact of the program in each of the six disease surveillance priority focus areas. GEIS might benefit from further financial investment in both the febrile and vector-borne and sexually transmitted infections surveillance priority focus areas and increasing peer-reviewed publications of surveillance data derived from respiratory infections projects. Bibliometric indicators are useful to measure scientific productivity and impact in surveillance systems; and this methodology can be utilized as a management tool to assess future changes to GEIS surveillance priorities. Additional metrics should be developed when peer-reviewed literature is not used to disseminate noteworthy accomplishments.

What is the impact of a research publication?

An increasing number of metrics are used to measure the impact of research papers. Despite being the most commonly used, the 2-year impact factor is limited by a lack of...