5-year Journal Impact Factor Research Articles

Transparency and reproducibility in the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development (ABCD) study

BackgroundTransparency can build trust in the scientific process, but scientific findings can be undermined by poor and obscure data use and reporting practices. The purpose of this work is to report how data from the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development (ABCD) Study has been used to date, and to provide practical recommendations on how to improve the transparency and reproducibility of findings. MethodsArticles published from 2017 to 2023 that used ABCD Study data were reviewed using more than 30 data extraction items to gather information on data use practices. Total frequencies were reported for each extraction item, along with computation of a Level of Completeness (LOC) score that represented overall endorsement of extraction items. Univariate linear regression models were used to examine the correlation between LOC scores and individual extraction items. Post hoc analysis included examination of whether LOC scores were correlated with the logged 2-year journal impact factor. ResultsThere were 549 full-length articles included in the main analysis. Analytic scripts were shared in 30 % of full-length articles. The number of participants excluded due to missing data was reported in 60 % of articles, and information on missing data for individual variables (e.g., household income) was provided in 38 % of articles. A table describing the analytic sample was included in 83 % of articles. A race and/or ethnicity variable was included in 78 % of reviewed articles, while its inclusion was justified in only 41 % of these articles. LOC scores were highly correlated with extraction items related to examination of missing data. A bottom 10 % of LOC score was significantly correlated with a lower logged journal impact factor when compared to the top 10 % of LOC scores (β=-0.77, 95 % −1.02, −0.51; p-value < 0.0001). ConclusionThese findings highlight opportunities for improvement in future papers using ABCD Study data to readily adapt analytic practices for better transparency and reproducibility efforts. A list of recommendations is provided to facilitate adherence in future research.

A Comparative Analysis of Otolaryngology Journal Characteristics and Metrics Across World Bank Income Groups.

There are marked barriers to research and publishing for low- and middle- income country (LMIC) ENT researchers. This could be reflected in LMIC journal characteristics and research, which has never been investigated. We aim to characterize differences in the number, geographic distribution, publishing costs, reach, number of articles, citations, and impact factors of high-income country (HIC) journals compared to LMIC journals. We included journals listed under the category "Otorhinolaryngology' in three major journal databases. From journal websites, we collected data related to financial model, waiver policy, access, and distribution. Additionally, from the Clarivate Journal Citation Reports 2022, we collected the following journal metrics: total articles, total citations, journal citation indicator, journal impact factor (JIF), 5-year JIF, and JIF without self cites. 79.7% HIC journals offered English editing services, compared with 25.0% of LMIC journals. Additionally, 40.0% of HIC journals are solely open access compared with 92.0% in LMICs. Lower journal metrics were seen in LMIC journals, including 2022 mean total articles (107 HICs vs. 60 LMICs), total citations (4296 vs. 751), journal citation indicator (0.88 vs. 0.35), and journal impact factor (12.68 vs. 0.82). We have identified substantial differences in the distribution, English editing services, and journal metrics of HIC journals compared to LMIC journals. These may point to potential barriers to publishing and research access for those in LMICs. To support LMIC research, future work should evaluate opportunities to increase the number of ENT journals in LMICs, expand open access publishing, improve access to language services, and increase LMIC research impact.

Transparency and Reproducibility in the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development (ABCD) Study.

Transparency can build trust in the scientific process, but scientific findings can be undermined by poor and obscure data use and reporting practices. The purpose of this work is to report how data from the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development (ABCD) Study has been used to date, and to provide practical recommendations on how to improve the transparency and reproducibility of findings. Articles published from 2017 to 2023 that used ABCD Study data were reviewed using more than 30 data extraction items to gather information on data use practices. Total frequencies were reported for each extraction item, along with computation of a Level of Completeness (LOC) score that represented overall endorsement of extraction items. Univariate linear regression models were used to examine the correlation between LOC scores and individual extraction items. Post hoc analysis included examination of whether LOC scores were correlated with the logged 2-year journal impact factor. There were 549 full-length articles included in the main analysis. Analytic scripts were shared in 30% of full-length articles. The number of participants excluded due to missing data was reported in 60% of articles, and information on missing data for individual variables (e.g., household income) was provided in 38% of articles. A table describing the analytic sample was included in 83% of articles. A race and/or ethnicity variable was included in 78% of reviewed articles, while its inclusion was justified in only 41% of these articles. LOC scores were highly correlated with extraction items related to examination of missing data. A bottom 10% of LOC score was significantly correlated with a lower logged journal impact factor when compared to the top 10% of LOC scores (β=-0.77, 95% -1.02, -0.51; p-value < 0.0001). These findings highlight opportunities for improvement in future papers using ABCD Study data to readily adapt analytic practices for better transparency and reproducibility efforts. A list of recommendations is provided to facilitate adherence in future research.

Priorities in journal selection for authors, reviewers, editors, librarians and science funders

With this Forum contribution I wish to shed light on the problematic developments in scientific publishing resulting from the strong push of science funders towards gold open access (OA). This has given rise to numerous “predatory” journals, that maximise profit at the expense of scientific quality. With a bibliometric analysis in the field of ecology I demonstrate that over the period 2014–2022 the publication numbers in “predatory” OA journals have grown exponentially (+44% annually), while in all other journal types, article numbers were stagnating or even decreasing since a few years. Then I highlight how different OA publication models from society-owned journals to publisher-owned “predatory” journals, differ in the prices authors pay and how the income is split between effective costs, pure profit and money transferred back to science. To help with the recognition of the different journal types, I provide a list journals in the fields of ecology and organismal botany that are owned by academic societies, as well as a list of criteria to recognize “predatory” journals. Authors, reviewers and editors should consider carefully where they submit papers or provide volunteer service. My suggestion is to prioritize society-owned journals, while avoiding cooperation with “predatory” journals. Science funders and libraries have played a major role in the negative developments reviewed in this paper, but at the same time they have the capacity to change the course, mainly by two steps: In the short term they should link the payment of article processing charges (APCs) to strict quality criteria, while in the medium term, they should overcome the gold OA system towards a diamond OA system that would avoid the inflation of low-quality publications and remove barriers not only from readers, but also from authors, while at the same time likely reducing the overall costs. Abbreviations: APC = article processing charge; AVS = Applied Vegetation Science; IAVS = International Association for Vegetation Science; COVID-19 = Coronavirus disease 2019; DOAJ = Directory of Open Access Journals; JIF = 2-year Journal Impact Factor of the Web of Science; JVS = Journal of Vegetation Science; OA = open access; VCS = Vegetation Classification and Survey; WoS = Web of Science Core Collection.

Gender-inclusive research instructions in author submission guidelines: results of a cross-sectional study of obstetrics and gynecology journals

People with marginalized gender identities, including people with transgender and gender-expansive identities, have been historically excluded from research. Professional societies recommend the use of inclusive language in research, but it is uncertain how many obstetrics and gynecology journals mandate the use of gender-inclusive research practices in their author guidelines. This study aimed to evaluate the proportion of "inclusive" journals with specific instructions about gender-inclusive research practices in their author submission guidelines; to compare these journals with "noninclusive" journals based on publisher, country of origin, and several metrics of research influence; and to qualitatively evaluate the components of inclusive research in author submission guidelines. A cross-sectional study of all obstetrics and gynecology journals in the Journal Citation Reports, a scientometric resource, was conducted in April 2022. Of note, One journal was indexed twice (due to a name change), and only the journal with the 2020 Journal Impact Factor was included. Author submission guidelines were reviewed by 2 independent reviewers to identify inclusive vs noninclusive journals based on whether journals had gender-inclusive research instructions. Journal characteristics, including publisher, country of origin, impact metrics (eg, Journal Impact Factor), normalized metrics (eg, Journal Citation Indicator), and source metrics (eg, number of citable items), were evaluated for all journals. The median (interquartile range) and median difference between inclusive and noninclusive journals with bootstrapped 95% confidence interval were calculated for journals with 2020 Journal Impact Factors. In addition, inclusive research instructions were thematically compared to identify trends. Author submission guidelines were reviewed for all 121 active obstetrics and gynecology journals indexed in the Journal Citation Reports. Overall, 41 journals (33.9%) were inclusive, and 34 journals (41.0%) with 2020 Journal Impact Factors were inclusive. Most inclusive journals were English-language publications and originated in the United States and Europe. In an analysis of journals with 2020 Journal Impact Factors, inclusive journals had a higher median Journal Impact Factor (3.4 [interquartile range, 2.2-4.3] vs 2.5 [interquartile range, 1.9-3.0]; median difference, 0.9; 95% confidence interval, 0.2-1.7) and median 5-year Journal Impact Factor (3.6 [interquartile range, 2.8-4.3] vs 2.6 [interquartile range, 2.1-3.2; median difference, 0.9; 95% confidence interval, 0.3-1.6) than noninclusive journals. Inclusive journals had higher normalized metrics, including a median 2020 Journal Citation Indicator (1.1 [interquartile range, 0.7-1.3] vs 0.8 [interquartile range, 0.6-1.0]; median difference, 0.3; 95% confidence interval, 0.1-0.5) and median normalized Eigenfactor (1.4 [interquartile range, 0.7-2.2] vs 0.7 [interquartile range, 0.4-1.5]; median difference, 0.8; 95% confidence interval, 0.2-1.5) than noninclusive journals. Moreover, inclusive journals had higher source metrics, including more citable items, total items, and Open Access Gold subscriptions, than noninclusive journals. The qualitative analysis of gender-inclusive research instructions revealed that most inclusive journals recommend that researchers use gender-neutral language and provide specific examples of inclusive language. Fewer than half of obstetrics and gynecology journals with 2020 Journal Impact Factors have gender-inclusive research practices in their author submission guidelines. This study underscores the urgent need for most obstetrics and gynecology journals to update their author submission guidelines to include specific instructions about gender-inclusive research practices.

Bibliometric evaluation of Forensic Science International as a scholarly journal within the subject category legal medicine

This article presents a bibliometric evaluation of Forensic Science International (FSI) as a scholarly journal within the “legal medicine” subject category. Citation data were retrieved from Science Citation Index (SCI) and Journal Citation Reports (JCR), both of which are part of the Web-of-Science (WOS) database. The most cited articles in FSI were identified along with the most prolific authors. The current journal impact factor (JIF) of FSI is 2.2, which was in good agreement with the 5-year JIF of 2.3. FSI was ranked fourth among 17 journals within the legal medicine subject category. Since 1979, a total of 209 FSI articles were cited over 100 times and the H-index for times cited was 125. Although widely used in academia, bibliometric methods might also prove useful in jurisprudence, such as when evaluating the research and publications of people proposed as expert witnesses.

Is there a need for a new journal metric? Correlations between JCR Impact Factor metrics and the Journal Citation Indicator—JCI

• The JCI has similar properties to the JIF and the 5-Year JIF. • The JCI indicator has very significant correlations with the JIF and the 5-year JIF. • The JCI can be very useful for ESCI and arts and humanities journals. In 2021, Clarivate published a new version of the Journal Citation Reports (JCR) including a new indicator. The Journal Citation Indicator (JCI) is a new field-normalized metric at journal-level, which is calculated by averaging the Category Normalized Citation Impact (CNCI) of the journal's articles and reviews published in the preceding three-year period. Unlike the Journal Impact Factor (JIF), it is also calculated for the journals of the Arts & Humanities Citation Index (AHCI) and the Emerging Sources Citation Index (ESCI), which are now included in the JCR. To better understand this new indicator, this article analyses its main statistical characteristics in comparison with the other JCR indicators using all JCR journals and categories. The results highlight the similarities between the JCI and JIF, with a high Pearson correlation (0.853) and a similar distribution. This correlation is also high and homogeneous in the different categories, both for Science and Social Sciences. The JCI is therefore a perfect complement to the JIF, as well as representing an alternative to resolve the well-known problems of the JCR.

Research During Foot and Ankle Orthopaedic Fellowship and Association with Careers Following Fellowship

Category:OtherIntroduction/Purpose:Performing research during fellowship continues to develop vital critical thinking skills for orthopaedic surgeons as they move into their careers. As fellowships and academic careers become more competitive, research plays an important role in fellow selection and future academic appointments. The purpose of this study was to assess if research during fellowship, measured through journal publications, was associated with careers in academic medicine and if those who published early in their training continued to do so into their careers.Methods:A list of foot and ankle fellows, from 2008-2013, were collected from the AOFAS website. In February 2021, all collected fellows were searched on pubmed.gov to generate all orthopaedic publications with a PubMed identifier published before residency, during residency, during fellowship and after fellowship. Each publication's 2020 Thomson Reuters 5-Year Journal Impact Factor and fellows first authorship were noted. The collected fellows were searched through Doximity.com for the name of their medical school, residency and fellowship. The fellows were further searched for their current location of employment and whether it was academic or not. An employment location was considered academic if they were listed on a department website that also was involved in teaching residents. The number of publications, journal Impact Factor and number of first authorships were compared between the academic and non-academic groups during their time before residency, during residency, during fellowship and after fellowship.Results:A total of 246 fellows were included, with a mean (+- SD) of 0.8 +- 1.4 publications per fellow during fellowship. During the years in review, 27% (67/246) of fellows entered a career in academics. Before residency, there was no difference in the number of publications between those that went into academic and those that did not [academics 0.54 +- 1.85, non-academic 0.27 +- 1.05 (p=0.154)]. During residency and fellowship, those that went into academics were statistically significantly more likely to publish than those that did not go into academics [during residency: academic 2.82 +- 4.53, non-academic 1.24 +- 2.00 (p=0.0002); during fellowship: academic 1.10 +- 1.57, non-academic 0.69 +- 1.34 (p=0.038)] as well as more first authorships and in journals with higher impact factors.Conclusion:As fellowships and academic positions become more competitive, the quality and number of journal publications are likely to become increasingly more important. This study noted that an interest in academics likely develops during orthopaedic residency. This study may help improve mentorship earlier on to those who are more likely to pursue a career in academics.

The Altmetric Score Has a Stronger Relationship With Article Citations Than Journal Impact Factor and Open Access Status: A Cross-sectional Analysis of 4022 Sport Sciences Articles.

To assess the relationship of individual article citations in the sport sciences field with (1) Journal Impact Factor, (2) each article's open access status, and (3) Altmetric score components. Cross-sectional. We searched the Web of Science Journal Citation Reports database in the sport sciences category for the 20 journals with the highest 2-year Journal Impact Factor in 2018. We extracted the impact factor for each journal and each article's open access status (yes or no). Between September 2019 and February 2020, we obtained individual citations, Altmetric scores, and details of Altmetric components (eg, number of tweets, Facebook posts, etc) for each article published in 2017. Linear and multiple regression models were used to assess the relationship between the dependent variable (citation number) and the independent variables (article Altmetric score and open access status and Journal Impact Factor). Of the 4022 articles included, the total Altmetric score, Journal Impact Factor, and open access status respectively explained 32%, 14%, and 1% of the variance in article citations (when combined, the variables explained 40% of the variance in article citations). The number of tweets related to an article was the Altmetric component that explained the highest proportion of article citations (37%). Altmetric scores in sport sciences journals have a stronger relationship with number of citations than Journal Impact Factor and open access status do. Twitter may be the best social media platform for promoting a research article. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2021;51(11):536-541. Epub 1 Jul 2021. doi:10.2519/jospt.2021.10598.

You are what you read: bias, journal prestige and manipulation

Researchers aim to publish in the highest-ranking journal possible to enable wider dissemination and for career advancement. Journals are ranked in many ways (table 1), but scientific quality is not...

Effect of Common Extraneous Citation Optimizing Factors on Journal Impact Indicators

Influence of a research journal is usually assessed in contemporary academia by Journal Impact Factor (JIF) given by Journal Citation Reports (JCR) published annually by Clarivate Analytics. JCR also provides Journal Immediacy Index (JII), an additional citation parameter which indicates current impact of journals. These citation based measures are simple arithmetic mean of raw citation counts to source publications. It is opined and empirically tested that three major extraneous citation optimizing factors i.e., Author self-citation (ASC), Journal self-citation (JSC) and Recitation (RC) can inflate these popular citation based metrics. This study examines nineteen Scopus index Library and Information Science (LIS) journals to understand individual as well as unified effects of these three optimizing factors on three popular impact indicators i.e., 2-year JIF, 3-year JIF and JII. It is found that ASC and JSC have noticeable effects on these impact indicators. Further, it is observed that these impact indicators exhibit very poor correlation among them when their values are deduced from raw citation counts, though all of them express simple arithmetic mean values. However, modified impact indicators calculated after excluding citations due to these optimizing factors, exhibit moderate to strong correlation among them. It is therefore concluded that more refined method that can automatically exclude the effect of these optimizing factors in their derivation may be needed for fair assessment of a journal’s relative impact in scholarly communication.

Bibliometric analysis and evaluation of the journal Medicina Oral Patología Oral y Cirugía Bucal (2008-2018).

Background In 2008 the journal Medicina Oral Patología Oral y Cirugía Bucal was included in Journal Citation Reports. To appraise its evolution and current status, this study carried out a bibliometric analysis and evaluation of the journal for the period 2008-2018. Material and Methods From the Web of Science, Journal Citation Reports we obtained the indicators Journal Impact Factor (JIF), 5-year JIF, JIF without self-cites, Eigenfactor score and Article Influence score (2010-2017); and from the Core Collection database the following variables: number and article types, institutions and countries of origin of the authors (2008-2018), and the variable cited and citing journal data in 2017. Twelve articles/year (n=132) were randomly selected to gather: the time between submittal and acceptance of an article, number of authors/article, representation of each section, gender of first author, and funding. Results The journal occupied the third quartile of the JCR from 2010 to 2017, when it moved up to the second quartile. From 2008 to 2018 it published a total of 1,518 documents, 90% articles and 9.5% reviews. Sixty countries were represented, 48.68% of the documents coming from Spain, and overall 1,293 institutions were involved. Between submittal and acceptance of articles, the average time was 134.42 days, without differences between years. The mean of authors/article was 5.15, increasing over time. The sections most represented were Oral Medicine and Pathology, and Oral Surgery. There were no differences regarding the gender of the first author, and in general the authors did not provide information about funding received. Conclusions The bibliometric results indicate a steadily improving position of this journal, along with a tendency to reduce self-citation. The time between reception of an article and its acceptance was very stable, the number of authors per article showed an increase, and there was a nearly equal representation of males and females as the first author. Key words:Bibliometrics, Journal Impact Factor, Web of Science, gender.

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.

Exploring the Hjif-Index, an Analogue to the H-Like Index for Journal Impact Factors

We used the Journal Impact Factor (JIF) to develop the hjif-index, calculated in a similar way to h-like indices. To this end, we mapped the JIFs of one JCR group to natural numbers, and evaluated the degree of correspondence between the interval from zero to the highest JIF in the group and a set of natural numbers. Next, we plotted the straight line y = x to obtain the group’s hjif-index as the JIF corresponding to the journal immediately above the straight line. We call the set of journals above the straight line the hjif-core. We calculated hjif-indices corresponding to the 2-year JIF (hjif2-index) and 5-year JIF (hjif5-index) windows for all 176 JCR groups listed in the 2014 Science edition. We also studied derived indicators such as the distribution of journals in JCR groups according to their hjif-indices, the distribution of journals and JIFs in the hjif-core, and other variables and indicators. We found that the hjif2- and hjif5-index behaved in a similar way, and that in general their distribution showed a peak followed by a relatively long tail. The hjif-index can be used as a tool to rank journals in a manner that better reflects the variable number of journals within a given JCR group and in each group’s hjif-core as an alternative to the more arbitrary JCR-based percentile ranking.

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...

Protected Time for Research During Orthopaedic Residency Correlates with an Increased Number of Resident Publications.

The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) requires orthopaedic residency programs to promote scholarship and research, which manifest differently among programs. We assess the impact of protected research time during orthopaedic residency on the number of resident publications. Rotation schedules and resident names were collected from 125 ACGME-accredited U.S. orthopaedic residency programs. Protected research time was classified as 1 of 3 types: (1) block time, (2) longitudinal time, or (3) no dedicated time. In April 2016, we searched residents in postgraduate year (PGY)-3 to PGY-5 on pubmed.gov to generate all orthopaedic publications with a PubMed identifier published during residency. Each publication's 2015 Thomson Reuters Journal Citation Reports 5-Year Journal Impact Factor and resident first authorship were noted. The number of PubMed identifiers for each program was summed and was divided by the number of residents in PGY-3 to PGY-5, giving a mean number of publications per resident. The relationship between output and program research time was compared using t tests and analysis of variance (ANOVA). A total of 1,690 residents were included, with an overall mean number (and standard deviation) of 1.2 ± 2.4 publications per resident. Eighty-seven programs reported block time, 14 programs reported longitudinal time, and 24 programs reported no time. There was a significant difference (p = 0.02) in the mean number of publications per resident when compared between programs with protected time (1.1 ± 1.2 publications) and programs with no protected time (0.6 ± 0.5 publication). One-way ANOVA demonstrated a significant mean difference across the 3 groups (p < 0.001), with longitudinal time correlating with significantly greater output at 1.9 ± 1.8 publications than block time at 1.0 ± 1.0 publication or no time at 0.6 ± 0.5 publication, a difference that persisted when adjusted to include only impact factors of >0 and exclude case reports (p = 0.0015). Both the presence of and the type of dedicated research time correlate with residents' research productivity; further consideration of protected research time during residency is warranted. This article provides objective data with regard to research strategies in training orthopaedic surgeons.

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.

Twitter Predicts Citation Rates of Ecological Research.

The relationship between traditional metrics of research impact (e.g., number of citations) and alternative metrics (altmetrics) such as Twitter activity are of great interest, but remain imprecisely quantified. We used generalized linear mixed modeling to estimate the relative effects of Twitter activity, journal impact factor, and time since publication on Web of Science citation rates of 1,599 primary research articles from 20 ecology journals published from 2012–2014. We found a strong positive relationship between Twitter activity (i.e., the number of unique tweets about an article) and number of citations. Twitter activity was a more important predictor of citation rates than 5-year journal impact factor. Moreover, Twitter activity was not driven by journal impact factor; the ‘highest-impact’ journals were not necessarily the most discussed online. The effect of Twitter activity was only about a fifth as strong as time since publication; accounting for this confounding factor was critical for estimating the true effects of Twitter use. Articles in impactful journals can become heavily cited, but articles in journals with lower impact factors can generate considerable Twitter activity and also become heavily cited. Authors may benefit from establishing a strong social media presence, but should not expect research to become highly cited solely through social media promotion. Our research demonstrates that altmetrics and traditional metrics can be closely related, but not identical. We suggest that both altmetrics and traditional citation rates can be useful metrics of research impact.

The effect of journal impact factor, reporting conflicts, and reporting funding sources, on standardized effect sizes in back pain trials: a systematic review and meta-regression.

BackgroundLow back pain is a common and costly health complaint for which there are several moderately effective treatments. In some fields there is evidence that funder and financial conflicts are associated with trial outcomes. It is not clear whether effect sizes in back pain trials relate to journal impact factor, reporting conflicts of interest, or reporting funding.MethodsWe performed a systematic review of English-language papers reporting randomised controlled trials of treatments for non-specific low back pain, published between 2006-2012. We modelled the relationship using 5-year journal impact factor, and categories of reported of conflicts of interest, and categories of reported funding (reported none and reported some, compared to not reporting these) using meta-regression, adjusting for sample size, and publication year. We also considered whether impact factor could be predicted by the direction of outcome, or trial sample size.ResultsWe could abstract data to calculate effect size in 99 of 146 trials that met our inclusion criteria. Effect size is not associated with impact factor, reporting of funding source, or reporting of conflicts of interest. However, explicitly reporting ‘no trial funding’ is strongly associated with larger absolute values of effect size (adjusted β=1.02 (95 % CI 0.44 to 1.59), P=0.001). Impact factor increases by 0.008 (0.004 to 0.012) per unit increase in trial sample size (P<0.001), but does not differ by reported direction of the LBP trial outcome (P=0.270).ConclusionsThe absence of associations between effect size and impact factor, reporting sources of funding, and conflicts of interest reflects positively on research and publisher conduct in the field. Strong evidence of a large association between absolute magnitude of effect size and explicit reporting of ‘no funding’ suggests authors of unfunded trials are likely to report larger effect sizes, notwithstanding direction. This could relate in part to quality, resources, and/or how pragmatic a trial is.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12891-015-0825-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Bibliometric trends in ophthalmology 1997-2009.

Aims:To track citation patterns in ophthalmic journals and contrast them with major medical and surgical journals from 1997 to 2009. In addition, we want to familiarize the ophthalmic community with bibliometrics indices.Materials and Methods:Data retrieved from Institute for Scientific Information and related websites include 2-year journal impact factor JIF, 5-year impact, Eigenfactor score, H-factor, Article Influence score, and SCImago factor.Results:JIF rose steadily around 10% annually in ophthalmic journals, and likewise for major medical and surgical journals. JIF correlated with recent bibliometric indicators like 5-year impact, H index, and SCImago factor but not with Eigenfactor. Ophthalmic journals publishing reviews, basic science, or large volume on broad range of topics ranked at the top for JIF, while subspecialty journals tended to have low JIF. JIF of subspecialty journal Retina rose from 0.740 (rank 23) in 2000 to 3.088 in 2007 (rank 6).Conclusions:JIF tends to rise annually by 10% in medical, surgical, and ophthalmic fields. Journals publishing reviews, basic science, or large volume on broad range of topics rank at the top for JIF. The rapid rise of JIF for Retina unlike other subspecialties that stayed status quo is multifactorial: Change in editorial policies (introduction of review articles and omission of case reports) and technological advances in the retinal field.