Differences In Impact Factors Research Articles

The importance of transparency: Declaring the use of generative artificial intelligence (AI) in academic writing.

The integration of generative artificial intelligence (AI) into academic research writing has revolutionized the field, offering powerful tools like ChatGPT and Bard to aid researchers in content generation and idea enhancement. We explore the current state of transparency regarding generative AI use in nursing academic research journals, emphasizing the need for explicitly declaring the use of generative AI by authors in the manuscript. Out of 125 nursing studies journals, 37.6% required explicit statements about generative AI use in their authors' guidelines. No significant differences in impact factors or journal categories were found between journals with and without such requirement. A similar evaluation of medicine, general and internal journals showed a lower percentage (14.5%) including the information about generative AI usage. Declaring generative AI tool usage is crucial for maintaining the transparency and credibility in academic writing. Additionally, extending the requirement for AI usage declarations to journal reviewers can enhance the quality of peer review and combat predatory journals in the academic publishing landscape. Our study highlights the need for active participation from nursing researchers in discussions surrounding standardization of generative AI declaration in academic research writing.

Comparing Japanese University Hospitals' and Community Healthcare Facilities' Research Contributions on PubMed.

Although research in general medicine is important, the contributions and characteristics of general medicine physicians (GMPs) in university hospitals (UH) and community healthcare facilities (CHF) remains unclear. Therefore, this study examines the popularity of research by affiliation, characteristics of journal publication, annual trends, and differences in impact factors (IFs) of journal publications. This study is a secondary bibliometric analysis of articles in international journals published in PubMed over the past six years (2015-2020). The analysis compared English articles published by either UH- or CHF-affiliated GMPs in Japan in terms of, among other things, article type, research field, and IF. Of the 2372 articles analyzed, 1688 (71.2%) were published by physicians affiliated with UHs, 62.6% of which were original. Basic research, international collaboration, and ratio of IFs were significantly higher for such papers. In contrast, the number of CHF articles were significantly higher in the areas of clinical research and practice, with a greater proportion of case reports. There was no significant difference in IF between the disciplines within each affiliation, but the IF was the highest in experimental basic research and the lowest in medical and clinical education. In the six-year time series, the number of original papers by UHs and CHFs increased roughly twofold between 2015 and 2020, but the number of articles in the areas of medical education and healthcare quality and safety remained mostly unchanged. The number of international papers published by Japanese GMPs has increased since 2015, particularly in terms of original papers and clinical research from UHs. However, there was no significant difference in the IF between UH and CHF publications. Our findings can guide the development of indicators, research, and education strategies regarding Japanese GMPs' research performance.

Comparison of the Differences in Impact Factor according to Loading Conditions in the Evaluation of Load Carrying Capacity of a High-speed Railway PSC BOX Girder Bridge

In this study, the load carrying capacity was evaluated using the results of the dynamic load test, instead of the static load test of the field, in the precision safety diagnosis of a high-speed railway PSC BOX girder bridge, and the differences in the impact factor of the bridge according to the load condition of the train and the configuration of the bridge were compared. The impact factor of the bridge was obtained from the measured displacement response via static and dynamic tests for the precision safety diagnosis performed on high-speed railway bridges. The analysis conditions included the location of the sensor, running track of the train, type and span of the bridge, and load condition of the dynamic load test train, test running train, and service train. Consequently, when the impact factor was calculated based on the displacement response of the test running train, instead of the static load test in the load capacity evaluation of the bridge, a difference of -4.96-5.93% was obtained in comparison with the calculation based on the displacement response of the static load test; this corresponds to 0.943-1.053 times the basic load-carrying capacity rate, indicating a difference from the load-carrying capacity rate obtained by the static load test.

The influence of policies limiting author self-citations on journals impact factor and self-citation rate in respiratory system.

To assess the presence of journal policies discouraging inappropriate author’s self-citation (A-SC) in “Respiratory System” journals, we evaluated submission guidelines of “Respiratory System” journals included in Journal-Citation Reports 2020 (Clarivate Analytics®) for the presence of policies on A-SC and its impact on journals’ self-citation (J-SC) rate and impact factor (IF). We found that 14.3% of journals (n=8/56) reported policies on inappropriate A-SC. The median IF was not different in “Respiratory System” journals with (3.6; IQR:2.3) vs without A-SC policies (3.1; IQR:3.0; p=0.41). The J-SC rate was not influenced by the presence of A-SC policies (p=0.83). Fully open-access (n=14) and traditional (n=42) journals had no differences in IF (3.3; IQR:1.5 vs 3.1; IQR:3.4, respectively; p=0.77) and J-SC rate (4.5%; IQR:5.6 vs 6.2%; IQR:8.4, respectively; p=0.38). The majority of “Respiratory System” journals do not have policies discouraging A-SC. The presence of such policies is not associated with changes in IF or J-SC rates.

Oral Presentations Have a Significantly Higher Publication Rate, But Not Impact Factors, Than Poster Presentations at the International Society for Study of Lumbar Spine meeting: Review of 1126 Abstracts From 2010 to 2012 Meetings.

A retrospective study. The aim of this study was to determine the publication rate and impact factors (IFs) among all abstracts presented at the 2010 and 2012 meetings of the International Society for the Study of Lumbar Spine (ISSLS). The publication rate of abstracts presented at overseas meetings was reported to be around 50%. However, the publication rate and IFs of oral and poster presentations made at ISSLS meetings were unclear. Moreover, whether the publication rates and IFs differed for papers associated with oral or poster presentations at ISSLS meetings was unknown. We investigated all 1126 abstracts (oral, special posters, general posters) presented at ISSLS meetings held between 2010 and 2012. PubMed was searched to identify publications and IFs were determined using journal citation reports. We also compared the publication rates and IFs between oral and poster presentations. The overall publication rate was 50.1% for three ISSLS meetings (564 publications/1126 abstracts). The overall publication rate for oral presentations, special posters, and general posters given in the 2010 to 2012 meetings was 62.0%, 48.3, and 46.6%, respectively. Overall, papers related to oral presentations had significantly higher publication rates than those of special and general posters (P = 0.0002). The average IFs of publications associated with abstracts presented at three ISSLS meetings was 2.802 for oral presentations, 2.593 for special posters, and 2.589 for general posters. There were no significant differences in average IFs between oral and poster presentations (P > 0.05). The publication rate for abstracts presented at ISSLS meetings was high and similar to publication rates for abstracts presented at other meetings concerning orthopedic and spine research. However, there was no significant difference in IFs between oral and poster presentations, suggesting that abstract evaluations cannot predict IFs of the eventual publication. 4.

Características de la producción científica de instituciones de Puebla indexada en la Web of Science

En este artículo describimos el ámbito de la investigación en el estado de Puebla, México, cuyos resultados han sido publicados en revistas indizadas en la Web of Science (WoS). El corpus examinado fue recopilado mediante el procedimiento de búsqueda con la palabra “puebla” en los campos organización y dirección, restringido al periodo 2008-2012. Como se desprende de los datos obtenidos la Universidad Autónoma de Puebla y el Instituto Nacional de Astrofísica, Óptica y Electrónica son los organismos más productivos del estado de Puebla. Nos centramos en los 102 artículos más citados del periodo y observamos que la producción científica con participación de instituciones poblanas se concentra en las ciencias físicas y biomédicas. Esta producción, mayoritariamente, proviene de colaboraciones de carácter internacional y las publicaciones más citadas presentan al menos tres autores; mientras que los textos de responsabilidad individual tienen poco impacto, de acuerdo con el número de citas registradas. Asimismo, estudiamos las diferencias por áreas científicas en cuanto a producción e impacto en términos de citas.AbstractThis article describes the scope and characteristics of the research developed in the state of Puebla, Mexico, whose results have been published in journals indexed in the Web of Science. The analyzed corpus was compiled by the search procedure with the word “puebla” in the organization and address fields, restricted to the period 2008-2012. We observed from the data obtained that the Universidad Autónoma de Puebla and the Instituto Nacional de Astrofísica, Óptica y Electrónica are the most productive institutions of Puebla. Our focus was on the 102 most cited articles of the period. Scientific production of Puebla institutions focuses on the physical and biomedical sciences and this production derives mostly from international collaborations. The multiauthor articles (at least three authors) are the most cited publications, while the individual research papers have little impact according to their number of citations. Finally, we analyze the differences in impact factor across scientific fields.

Secular trends in the impact factors of SLE publications over a 45-year period-a systematic review.

We assessed publication bias in the field of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) by conducting a search of randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) on SLE therapies that had been published over the past 45 years. Our aim was to assess a potential publication bias by determining whether RCTs reporting positive results, RCTs with placebo arms, biologics RCTs, and industry-funded RCTs are more likely to be published in journals with higher impact factors (IFs). We conducted a systematic review of all RCTs registered in PubMed between 1 January 1975 and 1 November 2016. Each RCT was classified as having a positive result (PR) or a negative result (NR). The IF of each journal was determined for the year of publication. Our search yielded 233 relevant RCTs. There was no significant difference in IFs between studies with NRs and those with PRs or between studies that were financially supported by commercial companies compared to studies that were not. However, there was a significant correlation between sample size and the journal's IF. IF scores of RCTs in the field of SLE are influenced by sample size and not biased by either a tendency to report PRs or by being funded by pharmaceutical companies or any other commercial sources.

A Novel Journal Evaluation Metric that Adjusts the Impact Factors across Different Subject Categories

During the last two decades, impact factor has been widely used as a journal evaluation metric that differentiates the influence of a specific journal compared with other journals. However, impact factor does not provide a reliable metric between journals in different subject categories. For example, higher impact factors are given to biology and general sciences than those assigned to other traditional engineering and social sciences. This study initially analyzes the trend of the time series of the impact factors of the journals listed in Journal Citation Reports during the last decade. This study then proposes new journal evaluation metrics that adjust the impact factors across different subject categories. The proposed metrics possibly provides a consistent measure to mitigate the differences in impact factors among subject categories. On the basis of experimental results, we recommend the most reliable and appropriate metric to evaluate journals that are less dependent on the characteristics of subject categories.

Systematic reviews published in higher impact clinical journals were of higher quality

ObjectivesTo compare the methodological quality of systematic reviews (SRs) published in high- and low–impact factor (IF) Core Clinical Journals. In addition, we aimed to record the implementation of aspects of reporting, including Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) flow diagram, reasons for study exclusion, and use of recommendations for interventions such as Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). Study Design and SettingWe searched PubMed for systematic reviews published in Core Clinical Journals between July 1 and December 31, 2012. We evaluated the methodological quality using the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) tool. ResultsOver the 6-month period, 327 interventional systematic reviews were identified with a mean AMSTAR score of 63.3% (standard deviation, 17.1%), when converted to a percentage scale. We identified deficiencies in relation to a number of quality criteria including delineation of excluded studies and assessment of publication bias. We found that SRs published in higher impact journals were undertaken more rigorously with higher percentage AMSTAR scores (per IF unit: β = 0.68%; 95% confidence interval: 0.32, 1.04; P < 0.001), a discrepancy likely to be particularly relevant when differences in IF are large. ConclusionMethodological quality of SRs appears to be better in higher impact journals. The overall quality of SRs published in many Core Clinical Journals remains suboptimal.

Impact Factors

The editors of Epidemiology have suggested that the impact factor does not influence where authors choose to submit papers, based on a before-and-after comparison of the ratio of submissions in the second half of 2011 to those in the first half (impact factors are released in the middle of the year), during which its position in the impact factor league table had improved.1 The analysis was centered around a year with a tiny difference in impact factors among the leading general epidemiology journals (eFigure 1, https://links.lww.com/EDE/A759). We became editors of the International Journal of Epidemiology (IJE) in 20002 and therefore have data on submissions since then. Over that period, the IJE moved from having an impact factor of about half that of EPIDEMIOLOGY and the American Journal of Epidemiology (at that time the two leading general epidemiology journals) to an impact factor 15% and 23% higher, respectively. The Figure presents the impact factor as released in June of each year in relation to the number of submissions in the subsequent 11 months (July of that year to May of the subsequent year) and shows a close relationship, which appears to be more than a simple upward trend. We also tested the hypothesis that the important metric was the impact factor of our journal—initially lower and now higher—compared with the average of Epidemiology and the American Journal of Epidemiology shown in eFigure 2 (https://links.lww.com/EDE/A759), which reveals much the same pattern. We think this long-term monitoring is likely to give a more valid interpretation of the effects of the impact factor on authors’ behavior.FIGURE: The number of submissions to the IJE in relation to the impact factor.Impact factors are highly problematic indicators of the value of material published in journals, as has been widely discussed.3,4 We are in no way arguing that it is in the best interests of the discipline for authors to choose journals on the basis of the impact factor. However, as long as some evaluations of academic merit and funding are based on this metric, it is likely to influence authors’ behavior with respect to where papers are submitted. George Davey Smith Barbara Coatesworth Jane Ferrie International Journal of Epidemiology Editorial Office School of Social and Community Medicine University of Bristol Bristol, United Kingdom [email protected] Shah Ebrahim International Journal of Epidemiology Editorial Office School of Social and Community Medicine University of Bristol Bristol, United Kingdom London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine London, United Kingdom

Analysis of regional difference on impact factors of China’s energy – Related CO2 emissions

With the intensification of global warming, the issue of carbon emissions causes more and more attention in recent years. In this paper, China’s 30 provincial-level administrative units are divided into five emission regions according to the annual average value of provincial CO2 emissions per capita during 1990 and 2010. The regional differences in impact factors on CO2 emissions are discussed using STIRPAT (stochastic impacts by regression on population, affluence, and technology) model. The results indicate that although GDP (Gross domestic product) per capita, industrial structure, population, urbanization and technology level have different impacts on CO2 emissions in different emission regions, they are almost always the main factors in all emission regions. In most emission regions, urbanization and GDP per capita has a bigger impact on CO2 emissions than other factors. Improving technology level produces a small reduction in CO2 emissions in most emission regions, but it is still a primary way for CO2 reduction in China. It’s noteworthy that industrial structure isn’t the main factor and improving technology level increases CO2 emissions in high emission region. Different measures should be adopted for CO2 reductions according to local conditions in different regions.

Differences in impact factor across fields and over time

AbstractThe bibliometric measure impact factor is a leading indicator of journal influence, and impact factors are routinely used in making decisions ranging from selecting journal subscriptions to allocating research funding to deciding tenure cases. Yet journal impact factors have increased gradually over time, and moreover impact factors vary widely across academic disciplines. Here we quantify inflation over time and differences across fields in impact factor scores and determine the sources of these differences. We find that the average number of citations in reference lists has increased gradually, and this is the predominant factor responsible for the inflation of impact factor scores over time. Field‐specific variation in the fraction of citations to literature indexed by Thomson Scientific's Journal Citation Reports is the single greatest contributor to differences among the impact factors of journals in different fields. The growth rate of the scientific literature as a whole, and cross‐field differences in net size and growth rate of individual fields, have had very little influence on impact factor inflation or on cross‐field differences in impact factor.

How to use bibliometric methods in evaluation of scientific research? An example from Finnish schizophrenia research

We present bibliometric methods that can be utilized in evaluation processes of scientific work. In this paper, we present some practical clues using Finnish schizophrenia research as an example and comparing the research output of different institutions. Bibliometric data and indicators including publication counts, impact factors and received citations were used as tools for evaluating research performance in Finnish schizophrenia research. The articles and citations were searched from the Web of Science database. We used schizophrenia as a keyword and defined address Finland, and limited years to 1996–2005. When we analysed Finnish schizophrenia research, altogether 265 articles met our criteria. There were differences in impact factors and received citations between institutions. The number of annually published Finnish schizophrenia articles has tripled since the mid-1990s. International co-operation was common (43%). Bibliometric methods revealed differences between institutions, indicating that the methods can be applied in research evaluation. The coverage of databases as well as the precision of their search engines can be seen as limitations. Bibliometric methods offer a practical and impartial way to estimate publication profiles of researchers and research groups. According to our experience, these methods can be used as an evaluation instrument in research together with other methods, such as expert opinions and panels.

Inflated Impact Factors? The True Impact of Evolutionary Papers in Non-Evolutionary Journals

Amongst the numerous problems associated with the use of impact factors as a measure of quality are the systematic differences in impact factors that exist among scientific fields. While in theory this can be circumvented by limiting comparisons to journals within the same field, for a diverse and multidisciplinary field like evolutionary biology, in which the majority of papers are published in journals that publish both evolutionary and non-evolutionary papers, this is impossible. However, a journal's overall impact factor may well be a poor predictor for the impact of its evolutionary papers. The extremely high impact factors of some multidisciplinary journals, for example, are by many believed to be driven mostly by publications from other fields. Despite plenty of speculation, however, we know as yet very little about the true impact of evolutionary papers in journals not specifically classified as evolutionary. Here I present, for a wide range of journals, an analysis of the number of evolutionary papers they publish and their average impact. I show that there are large differences in impact among evolutionary and non-evolutionary papers within journals; while the impact of evolutionary papers published in multidisciplinary journals is substantially overestimated by their overall impact factor, the impact of evolutionary papers in many of the more specialized, non-evolutionary journals is significantly underestimated. This suggests that, for evolutionary biologists, publishing in high-impact multidisciplinary journals should not receive as much weight as it does now, while evolutionary papers in more narrowly defined journals are currently undervalued. Importantly, however, their ranking remains largely unaffected. While journal impact factors may thus indeed provide a meaningful qualitative measure of impact, a fair quantitative comparison requires a more sophisticated journal classification system, together with multiple field-specific impact statistics per journal.

Evolutionary Theory in Cognitive Neuroscience: A 20-Year Quantitative Review of Publication Trends

Evolutionary cognitive neuroscience is an emerging and promising new scientific field that combines the meta-theoretical strengths of an evolutionary perspective with the methodological rigor of neuroscience. The purpose of the present research was to quantify and test evolution's influence in neuroscience and cognitive neuroscience journals over time (1987–2006). In Study 1, analyses from a convenience sample of 10 neuroscience journals revealed that the proportion of neuroscience articles mentioning evolution grew significantly over the last 20 years. Moreover, beginning as early as 1990, the average proportion of neuroscience articles mentioning evolution was significantly different from zero. These effects were not moderated by between-journals differences in impact factor (a citation rate index), suggesting that the observed growth was fairly consistent across journals. In Study 2, analyses from a convenience sample of 4 cognitive neuroscience journals revealed that the proportion of cognitive neuroscience articles mentioning evolution neither differed from zero nor grew significantly over time (1987–2006); however, the change-over-time effect size was large. Compared to other research areas, evolution's penetration into cognitive neuroscience articles grew faster than anthropology, economics, and sociology, but not psychology. The implications of evolutionary psychology's increasing role in science in general, and in cognitive neuroscience in particular, are discussed.

An evaluation of research performance for different subject categories using Impact Factor Point Average (IFPA) index: Thailand case study

The research performance of Thai researchers in various subject categories was evaluated using a new mathematical index entitled “Impact Factor Point Average” (IFPA), by considering the number of published papers in journals listed in the Science Citation Index (SCI) database held by the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) for the years 1998-2002, and the results compared with the direct publication number (PN) and publication credit (PC) methods. The results suggested that the PN and PC indicators cannot be used for comparison between fields or countries because of the strong field-dependence. The IFPA index, based on a normalization of differences in impact factors, rankings, and number of journal titles in different subject categories, was found to be simple and could be used with equality for accurate assessment of the quality of research work in different subject categories. The results of research performance were found to be dependent on the method used for the evaluations. All evaluation methods indicated that Clinical Medicine was ranked first in terms of the research performance of Thai scholars listed in the SCI database, but exhibited the lowest improvement of performance. Chemistry was shown to be the most improved subject category.

Making an equality of ISI impact factors for different subject fields

AbstractThe journal impact factors, published by the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI; Philadelphia, PA), are widely known and are used to evaluate overall journal quality and the quality of the papers published therein. However, when making comparisons between subject fields, the work of individual scientists and their research institutions as reflected in their articles' ISI impact factors can become meaningless. This inequality will remain as long as ISI impact factors are employed as an instrument to assess the quality of international research. Here we propose a new mathematical index entitled Impact Factor Point Average (IFPA) for assessment of the quality of individual research work in different subject fields. The index is established based on a normalization of differences in impact factors, rankings, and number of journal titles in different subject fields. The proposed index is simple and enables the ISI impact factors to be used with equality, especially when evaluating the quality of research work in different subject fields.