Impact Factor Of Scientific Journals Research Articles

Evaluation of impact factors of articles in scientific open access journals in Türkiye

In this study, the phonographic view of the acceleration of scientific publishing in Türkiye has been revealed with TÜBİTAK/DergiPark data and the values of the measurements of the impact factors of scientific journals have been sampled with the SOBIAD Index data. SOBIAD Index dataset was used in the study. Using the "full count" research method, the data were analyzed by providing access to the entire mass, which is the research population, based on purpose-oriented descriptive analysis. In the calculation of the impact factors of the articles in the SOBIAD index, multiple parameters such as the total number of citations of the articles in the journal, citation comparison (percentage) and area-weighted citation impact, new metric joint values and the similarity criteria in the content evaluation were determined. In the study, the measurement and evaluation standards of international impact factor measuring institutions (WOS-SSCI, Google Scholar, Eigenfactor Metrix and Elsevier/Scopus Index) were also used. According to the results of the research, while the average value of the impact factors of scientific journals in Türkiye is 0.19, this is seen as 6,19 in WOS-SSCI. With the research, the examination of the impact factors of scientific journals and articles in Türkiye was presented as an original review through the SOBIAD index sample. In order to increase the quality and impact factor of journal/article in academic publishing in Türkiye, qualified growth is required rather than quantitative growth.

Medical Science Potential Predatory Journals in Reputed and Counterfeit Indexing Databases

Getting a journal indexed reflects high-quality scientific integrity, which differentiates it from a non-indexed journal. Quantitative analysis of indexing status of a randomly selected sample of 121 predatory journals listed on https://beallslist.net/standalone-journals/ was carried out to ascertain their presence in various reputed bibliographic databases. The study's findings divulge that the presence of predatory journals in bibliographic databases is not significantly widespread. However, some indexing databases such as Emerging Sources Citation Index (ESCI) and PubMed reflect slightly greater values than anticipated and need to be scrutinized and reviewed regularly. Further, the study found that these journals incorporate many metrics under indexing/abstracting information which are not in a true sense suitable to be categorized as indexing abstracting databases. Further, Index Copernicus, Scientific Journal Impact Factor (SJIF), National Academy of Agricultural Sciences (NAAS), Global Impact Factor (GIF) are the most used counterfeit indexing services by the journals.

Bibliometric analysis of case report citations and their effect on the impact factor: How does publishing case reports impact journals?

IntroductionGiven their low citation rate, case reports may reduce a journal's impact factor (IF), making a journal less likely to accept them for publication. However, this concept has never been proven in a bibliometric study. This led us to carry out a bibliometric analysis to evaluate (1) the exact number of case reports published in orthopedics over a 2-year period, (2) their citation rate, (3) what the journals’ IF would be if they had not published these case reports. HypothesisPublishing case reports reduces a journal's IF, bringing into question whether they should be published. Materials and methodsThis was a retrospective bibliometric study. We focused on all the articles influencing the year 2017. We looked at all the journals in the “Orthopedics” discipline that had published at least one article in the years n−2 (=2015) or n−1 (=2016). ResultsThere were 1925 case reports among the 28,903 articles published in all orthopedics journals in 2015–2016, a 6.7% share of publications. Individually, each case report in 2015–2016 was cited an average of 0.86 times±1.4 [0–13] in 2017. Of all the case reports published in 2015–2016, 571 (30%) had not been cited in 2017. When comparing the individual number of each case report citation to the journal's IF, we found 413 instances (21.5%) where the case report was cited more than expected and 1512 (78.5%) where it was cited less than expected based on the journal's IF. The mean IF was 2.013. If the journals had not published any case reports, the mean IF would have been 2.072 (p<0.0001). For all the SIGAPS categories, the mean IF would have been higher if no case reports had been published. On average, the IF was lower by 0.059 points±0.121 [−0.165–0.537], with the difference being statistically significantly only for SIGAPS C and D journals. In 69 instances, the IF would be higher if the journal had not published any case reports. Conversely, the IF improved in 8 instances by publishing case reports: 3 were tier D journals and 5 were tier E journals. DiscussionOur study brings into question whether case reports should be published. Indeed, the publication of case reports lowers the IF of scientific journals. However, we should not completely stop publishing case reports since they can be useful to clinicians caring for patients with rare diseases or medical conditions. Level of evidenceIV, systematic retrospective study.

Transdermal Drug Delivery

American Journal of Advanced Drug Delivery (IPAAD) has become multidisciplinary in nature and yielding a great benefit to the medical community and the society. The Journal is having wide indexing in: NLM ID: 101731920; Google Scholar, ICMJE, SHEPRA/ROMEO, Genamics, International Society of Universal Research in Sciences, academia.edu, Pak Directory of Open Access Journals, Research Bible, Scientific Journal Impact Factor, Open Academic Journal Index, Jour Informatics, Index Copernicus, Cite SeerX, Gold Rush and Global Impact Factor.

Editorial

As is widely known, in recent years the impact factor of scientific journals has been the main indicator of their quality, based on the premise that a citation is a quality reference. Expressly, given the unfeasibility of another type of qualitative analysis, more easily quantifiable criteria are used. In order to contribute to this debate, Jason Priem et al. published in 2010 the Altmetrics manifesto, questioning the current framework (Impact Factor), and visualizing some available options to measure other indicators [1]. Thus, rooted in the hashtag affordance, they initiate a debate that could help improve the scope of the impact factor and incorporate the scope of new alternative metrics or Altmetrics. The term Altmetrics refers to a set of indicators that attempt to accurately describe the interaction and impact of an article within the scientific community and is proposed as an alternative to the impact factor generating a better indicator than the relationship established with the journals publishing the article [2]. Another definition of Altmetrics considers the mechanisms of quantitative evaluation, in real time, of the social and academic impact of scientific publications and researcher influence. They represent a new method of measuring the impact of scientific research, based on new indicators that attempt to quantify the presence and dissemination of scientific activity on the social networks [3]. Lin and Fenner propose a set of alternative metrics, in which they also establish a logical evolution according to the degree of engagement between users and scholarly objects, considering five parameters [4]:

How to increase the Impact Factor of a Scientific Journal?

ABSTRACT In this review article, the nature and uncertainties of the impact factor (IF) of scientific journals is discussed. Based on the citations of articles published in a journal during a given number of years, the impact factor has been used for purposes as different as that of evaluating the scientific journal, to helping to evaluate individual scientists, and as a tool for librarians to select journals for their collections. Many factors have been described which can influence the numerical value of the IF. Since the variability of the citation patterns in various scientific disciplines varies very much, caution is advised when using the IF for interdisciplinary comparisons or evaluations. As for the attempts to increase the IF, the opinion of the author is that the increase in quality of a scientific journal is the only true way for increasing the IF. How to cite this article Silobrcic V. How to increase the Impact Factor of a Scientific Journal? Donald School J Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2015;9(4):357-360.

Journal impact factors and the influence of age and number of citations.

Journal impact factors and the influence of age and number of citations.

The impact factor of the Netherlands Heart Journal in 2013

The impact factor of the Netherlands Heart Journal in 2013

Annals of Occupational Hygiene Performance, 2012

Submission and publication. In 2012, we had 234 submissions, an almost 7% decrease from the record in 2011. However, the overall trend in recent years has been a significant increase in submissions, and in response to this, our rejection rate has also increased to ~55%. A high rejection rate is needed to ensure the continued high level of scholarship in the published product, although the journal will continue to consider a possible expansion of the number of issues from the current 9 per year to 10 or possibly 12. In 2012, we published 95 research papers, reviews, and commentaries. Handling time. For papers received between October 2011 and September 2012, the median time to send a first decision to authors, including peer review, was 42 days, and 85% of first decisions were sent within 72 days. The median time from acceptance to publication online is ~6 weeks. Access. The provisional figure for the number of institutions paying for access to the whole journal has decreased by ~3.5% compared with the same figure in 2011. However, 1602 institutions in developing countries have registered for free or deeply discounted access. The number of downloads of full texts of papers downloaded from the online edition is the equivalent of >1300 each working day. This continues to increase as people generally convert to online access. Sources. The leading sources of submissions, by address of first author, were USA (45 papers), UK (22), Germany (21), France (14), Canada (13), Sweden (12), and Italy (11). US submissions were substantially down from 2011, whereas a marked increase was seen from Germany. The regional distributions were Europe 54% (12% up on 2011), North America 25% (8% down from 2011), East Asia and Australasia 12%, and the rest of the world 9%. At 21%, the fraction of papers submitted from outside Europe and North America was slightly down since the mid-2000s, but still showing increased interest in publication from the developing economies. Journal impact. The Thomson Scientific Journal Impact Factor (JIF) has many limitations as a true indicator of impact in the real world, as discussed in a commentary in 2008 (Ogden and Bartley, 2008). It is, however, widely used. Our JIF for 2011 (announced in the middle of 2012) was 1.95, slightly lower than the record level for the previous year. Processing. The Chief Editor and team of 13 Assistant Editors coordinated the collection of ~450 reviews from ~325 reviewers. Corresponding information for 2011 is given by Ogden (2012).

Annals of Occupational Hygiene Performance, 2011

Submission and publication. In 2011, we had 251 submissions, a 10% increase on our previous record in 2010. The number of submissions has trebled in the last 15 years. Our rejection rate was 51%. We published 96 research papers and commentaries, an 11% increase on 2010. Handling time. For papers received between October 2010 and September 2011, the median time to send a first decision to authors, including peer review, was 45 days, and 85% of first decisions were sent within 69 days. Publication time. The median time from acceptance to publication online is 7 weeks. Access. The provisional figure for the number of institutions paying for access to the whole journal increased by 8% compared with the same figure in 2010. In addition, 1430 institutions in developing countries have registered for free or deeply discounted access. The number of full texts of papers downloaded from the online edition is the equivalent of 1200 each working day. Sources. The leading sources of submissions, by address of first author, were USA (64 papers), UK (21), Canada (19), China (15), France (14), Netherlands (13), and Germany (12). There is always variation from year to year, but this is the first time that China has been in the top seven. The regional distributions were stable at Europe 42%, North America 33%, East Asia and Australasia 17%, and the rest of the world 8%. Ogden (2010) gave a fuller review of the sources of occupational hygiene papers in 16 journals in five languages. Journal impact. No single numerical indicator properly measures journal impact, and this is a subject of much research. The Thomson Scientific Journal Impact Factor (JIF) has many shortcomings and for journals in our field is on average rising at a few per cent a year (Ogden and Bartley, 2008). It is, however, widely used. Our JIF for 2010 (announced in the middle of 2011) was 2.04, a record. Processing. The success of the journal depends on many people. Twelve assistant editors share the work—their names are on the title page and website—and in 2011, we received 466 reviews from 343 different peer reviewers. Their anonymous help freely given is central to the publishing process. Corresponding information for 2010 is given by Ogden (2011).

The expansion of a measure: what is a scientific journal impact factor and how important is it for academic Brazilian dermatologists

The expansion of a measure: what is a scientific journal impact factor and how important is it for academic Brazilian dermatologists

Benford’s law and citations, articles and impact factors of scientific journals

First order digits in data sets of natural and social data often follow a distribution called Benford's law. We studied the number of articles published, citations received and impact factors of all journals indexed in the Science Citation Index from 1998 to 2007. We tested their compliance with Benford's law. Citations data followed Benford's law remarkably well in all years studied. However, for the data on the numbers of articles, the differences between the values predicted by Benford's law and the observed values were always statistically significant. This was also the case for most data for impact factors.

Annals of Occupational Hygiene Performance, 2010

Submission and publication: In 2010, we had 227 submissions, 16% up on the previous record, and our rejection rate was 55%. We increased the number of research papers and commentaries published to 86. In 2011, we have increased the number of issues to 9, and we are considering a further increase in 2012. Since 1997, the number of submissions has been increasing at 7% a year. Handling time: For papers received between October 2009 and September 2010, the median time to send a first decision to authors, including peer review, was 42 days, and 85% of first decisions were sent within 75 days. This is a marked improvement on 2009 and much faster than most journals in our field. Publication time: Papers are usually published online 6 weeks after acceptance. Circulation: The provisional figure for the number of institutions paying for access to the whole journal in 2010 was very slightly down, following a 16% increase in the previous year. No doubt that this is a consequence of the recession. In addition, 1280 institutions in developing countries have registered for free or deeply discounted access. The number of full texts of papers downloaded from the online edition in 2010 was 1000 a day, 7% up on 2009. Sources: The leading sources of submissions, by address of first author, were USA (72 papers), UK (23), Germany (13), Sweden (13), Italy (12), and France (10). The regional distributions were Europe 44%, North America 34%, East Asia and Australasia 15%, and the rest of the world 7%. Journal Impact: No single numerical indicator properly measures journal impact, and this is a subject of much research. The Thomson Scientific Journal Impact Factor (JIF) has many shortcomings and in our field is rising at a few percent a year (Ogden and Bartley, 2008) but is widely used. Our JIF for 2009 (announced in the middle of 2010) was 1.91, about equal to our previous record. Corresponding information for 2009 is given by Ogden (2010).

The Inflation of Impact Factors of Scientific Journals

Keeping an overview: Nowadays, we are confronted with a multitude of different impact indicators. This essay discusses some of the problems of citation analysis—and of indicators claiming to give a measure of the standing of a scholarly periodical. Incomplete data sets and the (mostly forgotten) highly skewed distribution of papers by cites (see figure) are two of the most critical points of the journal impact calculation.

The use of citation indicators to identify and support high-quality research in Poland

In large, mostly English-speaking countries, where the "critical mass" of scientists working in different subfields of science is achieved, the peer review system may be sufficient to assess the quality of scientific research. However, in smaller countries, outside the Anglo-American circle, it is important to introduce different systems to identify research of high quality. In Poland, a parametric system for assessing the quality of research has been introduced. It was largely based on the impact factor of scientific journals. While the use of this indicator to assess research quality is highly questionable, the implementation of the system in the Polish reality is even worse. Therefore it is important to change and improve the system currently used by the Ministry of Science and Higher Education to both evaluate and, more importantly, finance science in Poland. Here, a system based on three factors, i.e. the impact factor, the institutional h-index, and the institutional number of citations, is proposed. The scientific quality of institutions in Division VI: Medical Sciences of the Polish Academy of Sciences were evaluated and the results were compared with the existing system. Moreover, a method to identify high-quality researchers and institutions at the national level based on the quantity of highly cited papers is shown. Additionally, an attempt to identify the highest quality Polish research on an international level is proposed. This is based on the number of individual citations, the individual h-index, the number of publications, and the priority of the discovery.

Strengths and weaknesses of the impact factor of scientific journals

The impact factor is a bibliometric tool used to estimate the importance of scientific journals. It is calculated and published annually for journals indexed by the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) and is a reflex of the average number of citations that each journal receives during a certain period of time. Since its creation it has been used as criteria in several decision-making processes such as buying journals subscriptions and submitting articles for publication. Operating under the hypothesis "the greater the impact factor, the greater the quality of a journal", it has been subject of numerous controversies, especially due to certain biases around its calculation. The present article describes the Impact Factor and analyses the most important aspects in relation to its calculation, strengths, limitations and common errors on its application.

Some considerations on the use of the impact factor of scientific journals as a tool to evaluate research in psychology

This paper identifies and presents some characteristics of the psychology journals included in each of the Journal Citation Reports (JCR) categories in 2002. The study shows that most of the journals belong to the categories of Multidisciplinary Psychology (102) and Clinical Psychology (83). Their ranking is seen to vary depending on the category, and the same journal may occupy different positions in different JCR categories. Journals included in the categories of Biological Psychology, Experimental Psychology and Multidisciplinary Psychology had the highest impact factor (IF).

Academic anesthesiologists' views on the importance of the impact factor of scientific journals: a North American and European survey.

To investigate the views of North American and European anesthesiologists on the value of the impact factor (IF). Four hundred thirty-eight anesthesiologists in Canada, the United States of America (USA), and Europe were polled about the importance of the IF regarding hiring, promotions, funding of research and to express their personal views. IF of a candidate's publications is a criterion in 38% of academic appointments in Canada and USA vs 81% in Europe (P <0.0001). The importance of IF to obtain funding is greater in Europe (46%) than in North America (17%) (P <0.0001). Twenty-three percent and 50% of Canadian and American anesthesiologists respectively believe that IF affects financial support (P=0.0389). European anesthesiologists value the IF more than the North Americans (67% vs 31%, P <0.0001). Forty-five percent, 67%, and 56% of the Canadian, American and European anesthesiologists respectively estimate that IF reflects journal quality. Sixty-four percent of anesthesiologists in North America vs 81% in Europe (P=0.0175) pursue to publish in high IF journals. Eighty-six percent, 85% and 90% of the Canadian, American and European anesthesiologists believe that the IF of a journal can be manipulated. Finally, 79%, 67%, and 81% of the Canadian, American, and European anesthesiologists believe that IF should be improved but 33%, 35%, and 30% believe that it should be abandoned. IF for academic appointments and funding is more important in Europe than in North America. More than 50% of anesthesiologists agree that IF needs to be improved.

Impact factors of dermatological journals for 1991 - 2000.

BackgroundThe impact factors of scientific journals are interesting but not unproblematic. It is speculated that the number of journals in which citations can be made correlates with the impact factors in any given speciality.MethodsUsing the Journal Citation Report (JCR) for 1997, a bibliometric analysis was made to assess the correlation between the number of journals available in different fields of clinical medicine and the top impact factor. A detailed study was made of dermatological journals listed in the JCR 1991–2000, to assess the relevance of this general survey.ResultsUsing the 1997 JCR definitions of speciality journals, a significant linear correlation was found between the number of journals in a given field and the top impact factor of that field (rs = 0.612, p < 0.05).Studying the trend for dermatological journals 1991 to 2000 a similar pattern was found. Significant correlations were also found between total number of journals and mean impact factor (rs = 0.793, p = 0.006), between the total number of journals and the top impact factor (rs = 0.759, p = 0.011) and between the mean and the top impact factor (rs = 0.827, p = 0.003).ConclusionsThe observations suggest that the number of journals available predict the top impact factor. For dermatology journals the top and the mean impact factor are predicted. This is in good agreement with theoretical expectations as more journals make more print-space available for more papers containing citations. It is suggested that new journals in dermatology should be encouraged, as this will most likely increase the impact factor of dermatological journals generally.

Impact factors and the competitive nature of journal publishing

EDITORIALImpact factors and the competitive nature of journal publishingDavid R. Harder, David R. Harder 1 American Journal of Physiology, EditorPublished Online:01 Aug 2000https://doi.org/10.1152/ajpheart.2000.279.2.H457MoreSectionsPDF (42 KB)Download PDF ToolsExport citationAdd to favoritesGet permissionsTrack citations ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInEmail Several years ago the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) established the “impact factor” as an interesting way to compare journals by the number of times their articles are cited elsewhere. Although even those at ISI will contest that this is only one criterion that should be reviewed when discussing the quality of a journal [H. Atkins, personal communication], it has become an important benchmark by which journals are compared. Journal impact factors are published every year and basically reflect the number of citations to that journal in the previous 2 years in relation to the number of articles published by that journal (i.e., the 1998 impact factor for any journal is calculated by dividing the number of citations to articles published in 1996–1997 that appear in 1998 articles divided by the number of papers published in 1996–1997). Thus highly cited articles will increase the impact factor of a journal, and journals that publish a lot of articles need to publish many highly cited articles to keep the proportion (essentially, the impact factor) high. AJP-Heart & Circulation is an excellent journal, and it is not our intention to focus entirely on competing with other journals; however, we cannot ignore impact factors either. Currently, rank and tenure committees, departmental funding, and other decisions are including the impact factor of the journals in which faculty publish as a part of the equation in making decisions.What can we do? We can continue to strive to make AJP-Heart & Circulation the premiere cardiovascular journal in the world. In this regard, we will do the following: 1) publish more short, focused review articles; 2) continue the Special Topic calls; 3) put more emphasis on translational reviews to expand our reader base into more traditional medical communities; and 4) publish only high-quality articles. To stimulate more submissions and increase the pool of manuscripts to accept from, we must make known what is attractive about publishing in AJP-Heart & Circulation. Currently, we are one of only a few cardiovascular journals that have no page limit on manuscripts, thereby allowing publication of “complete works.” Within a few months, the peer review of AJP-Heart & Circulation will become completely electronic, which will speed up the review process. APS is also exploring ways to publish articles online upon acceptance, essentially eliminating the delay between acceptance and the ability to be cited. We will also be changing the figure on the cover every month to highlight important or interesting research found in that issue.The nature of AJP journals is to publish complete works, while leaving room for breaking findings. This and the changes outlined above will enhance the quality of AJP-Heart & Circulation – the purpose of such is evolution. The fallout will be an increase in our impact factor as well. In addition, we occasionally add Associate Editors and Editorial Board Members to meet the changing needs of our readership.This article has no references to display. Back to Top Next FiguresReferencesRelatedInformationCited ByHow to increase the Impact Factor of a Scientific Journal?1 January 2015 | Donald School Journal of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology, Vol. 9, No. 4Neuronal nitric oxide synthase-derived hydrogen peroxide is a major endothelium-dependent relaxing factorL. S. A. Capettini, S. F. Cortes, M. A. Gomes, G. A. B. Silva, J. L. Pesquero, M. J. Lopes, M. M. Teixeira, and V. S. Lemos1 December 2008 | American Journal of Physiology-Heart and Circulatory Physiology, Vol. 295, No. 6Impact Factor, Impact, and Smoke and MirrorsAmerican Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, Vol. 171, No. 4Impact Factor and the JournalAmerican Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, Vol. 168, No. 6Academic anesthesiologists’ views on the importance of the impact factor of scientific journals: a North American and European surveyCanadian Journal of Anesthesia/Journal canadien d'anesthésie, Vol. 48, No. 10 More from this issue > Volume 279Issue 2August 2000Pages H457-H458 Copyright & PermissionsCopyright © 2000 the American Physiological Societyhttps://doi.org/10.1152/ajpheart.2000.279.2.H457History Published online 1 August 2000 Published in print 1 August 2000 PDF download Metrics Downloaded 171 times