Thomson Reuters Journal Citation Reports Research Articles

The citation advantage for open access science journals with and without article processing charges

In this study of access models, we compared citation performance in journals that do and do not levy article processing charges (APCs) as part of their business model. We used a sample of journals from the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) science class and its 13 subclasses and recorded four citation metrics: JIF, H-index, citations per publication (CPP) and quartile rank. We examined 1881 science journals indexed in DOAJ. Thomson Reuters Journal Citation Reports and Web of Science were used to extract JIF, H-index, CPP and quartile category. Overall, the JIF, H-index and CPP indicated that APC and non-APC open access (OA) journals had equal impact. Quartile category ranking indicated a difference in favour of APC journals. In each science subclass, we found significant differences between APC and non-APC journals in all citation metrics except for quartile rank. Discipline-related variations were observed in non-APC journals. Differences in the rank positions of scores in different groups identified citation advantages for non-APC journals in physiology, zoology, microbiology and geology, followed by botany, astronomy and general biology. Impact ranged from moderate to low in physics, chemistry, human anatomy, mathematics, general science and natural history. The results suggest that authors should consider field- and discipline-related differences in the OA citation advantage, especially when they are considering non-APC OA journals categorised in two or more subjects. This may encourage OA publishing at least in the science class.

Predatory journals: a major threat in orthopaedic research.

Predatory publishing is a major threat to contemporary publishing, as it offers 'to unaware scientist's',a quick open-access publication against fees without peer-review procedures.. Lack of peer-review leads to unethical practices, as plagiarism, publication of unscientific falsified data, and even unsafe clinical practices. As these journals threaten the credibility of academic publishing, significant work has been done from many scientific teams, in the last years, in establishing discriminating criteria between predatory and legitimate publishing. In the present review, we include mechanisms used by predatory editors to convince eager researchers to submit to their journals. We also provide useful links giving information about potential predatory journals and publishers, as well as scholarly writing. Joining the efforts of different scientific disciplines which compiled "green" lists with journals in their field, we conducted a "green" list with genuine orthopaedic research journals based on the directory of open-access journals (DOAJ) and Thomson Reuters journal citation reports. Ninety-six legitimate orthopaedic journals were identified based on the Thomson Reuters journal citation reports. One hundred thirty hits were found on the DOAJ site using the keywords "orthopaedics, orthopedics, sports medicine, musculoskeletal, trauma, traumatology, osteoarthritis, osteoporosis, cartilage, bone, hand, shoulder, knee, hip, foot, wound." Twenty-one journals on the DOAJ site occurred overlapping with keywords. Researchers and clinicians in the field of orthopaedics are advised to use all available tools in order to recognize predatory practices and avoid publishing in predatory journals.

International Publication Trends of Retinopathy of Prematurity Literature Over 40 Years

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to conduct a bibliometric analysis to evaluate the publication trends of retinopathy of prematurity (ROP) literature over time, focusing on geographic and economic origins. Methods: A search for indexed English abstracts was performed in PubMed using search terms “retinopathy of prematurity” or “retrolental fibroplasia” from 1976 to 2015 and divided into 4 decades. Original research articles involving humans were included. Countries were grouped into high-, middle-, and low-income groups using World Bank criteria, and impact factors (IFs) were gathered from 2014 Thomson Reuters Journal Citation Reports. Results: A total of 5425 publications were identified, of which 2045 met the inclusion criteria. The ratios of publications per decade increased over time: 1976 to 1985 (5.4%), 1986 to 1995 (15.8%), 1996 to 2005 (25%), 2006 to 2015 (53.7%; Pearson r = .93, 95% confidence interval: 0.87-0.96). The rates of publications by income group were high—(82.2%), middle—(17.7%), and low—(0.1%). Respective mean (standard deviation) IFs by income group were 2.79 (4.87), 1.23 (1.17), and 0.42 (0.45). Top producing countries were the United States (37%), the United Kingdom (6.7%), India (4.6%), Japan (3.9%), and Turkey (3.5%). There was a significant difference between the time distribution of publications between high- and middle-income groups, where the latter has produced increasing publications in recent years ( P < .001), but in journals with lower IFs overall ( P < .001). Conclusions: Publications regarding ROP are increasing in number. Investigators from middle-income countries are increasingly contributing to the ROP literature but, overall, may not be recognized yet in journals with high IFs.

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.

”Statistical News” — source of knowledge and information

The article presents a synthetic assessment of ”Statistical News”, as a scientific journal of the Central Statistical Office and the Polish Statistical Association. Considerations provide a specific kind of SWOT analysis: presenting strengths and weaknesses of ”Statistical News” as well as its potential opportunities and probable threats. An attempt is also undertaken to determine the role of ”Statistical News” among Polish statisticians. Questions on prospects of the magazine and the expectations of the community of Polish statisticians are formulated. The discussion includes the role of both the magazine as a forum for exchange of information and as the journal with an impact factor that meets the standards of Thomson Reuters Journal Citation Reports (JCR), SCOPUS or other bases determined mainly by the number of citations.

Altmetrics of South African Journals: Implications for Scholarly Impact of South African Research

The purpose of the study was to investigate and compare the social media (SM) impact of 273 South Africa Post-Secondary Education accredited journals, which are recognised by the Department of Higher Education and Training of South Africa for purposes of financial support. We used multiple sources to extract data for the study, namely, Altmetric.com, Google Scholar (GS), Scopus (through SCImago) and the Thomson Reuters (TR) Journal Citation Reports (JCR). Data was analysed to determine South African journals’ presence in and impact on SM as well as to contrast SM visibility and impact with the citation impact in GS, JCR and Scopus. The Spearman correlation test was performed to compare the impact of the journals on SM and other sources. The results reveal that 2923 articles published in 122 of the 273 South African (SA) journals have received at least one mention in SM; the most commonly used SM platforms were Twitter and Facebook; the journals indexed in the TR’s citation indexes and Scopus performed much better, in terms of their average altmetrics, than non-TR and non-Scopus indexed journals; and there were weak to moderate relationships among different types of altmetrics and citation-based measures, thereby implying different kinds of journal impacts on SM when compared to the scholarly impact reflected in citation databases. In conclusion, South African journals’ impact on SM, just as is the case with countries with similar economies, is minimal but has shown signs of growth.

Journal of Stroke (JoS) Receives High Impact Factor.

I am pleased to inform you that the first impact factor for the “JOURNAL OF STROKE (JoS)” has recently been reported to be high, 4.795 (Thomson Reuters Journal Citation Reports®, 2016). Of the international journals dedicated to clinical stroke research, ours has the highest impact factor, lower only than that of Stroke. Although the impact factor is just one measure of the quality of a journal, this news clearly indicates that JoS has rapidly grown to become a widely cited, international journal. The JoS, now a `Jaws’ in the stroke literature, is an important player in the dissemination of stroke research.

A data envelopment analysis approach for ranking journals

We create a data envelopment analysis (DEA) model to rank business journals, using data from the Thomson Reuters Journal Citation Reports® (JCR). As opposed to previous models that ranked journals in only one field and mostly relied on survey data, this model is used to rank 358 business journals from five different JCR categories according to such citation-based factors as the number of articles, the number of citations, impact factor, five-year impact factor, immediacy index, eigenfactor score, and article influence score. We compute relative efficiencies of the journals and thereby create plausible journal rankings that largely, but not completely, corroborate three widely used business publication journal ranking lists. In addition, we show how the different characteristics of the JCR data impact the DEA ranking model. Finally, we identify journals that are not on the business publication lists but consistently perform very well relative to those benchmark journals, and should possibly be included in the business publication ranking lists. We also identify journals whose inclusion in widely used business publication rankings cannot be justified by our methodology.

Incoming Editor-in-Chief Note

I am honored to be the new editor-in-chief of ASCE’s Journal of Management in Engineering (JME). I would like to thank the search committee for entrusting me with this opportunity. A special thanks goes to the outgoing editor-in-chief, Professor Makarand Hastak at Purdue University, who has demonstrated great leadership for the last seven years to achieve significant milestones for JME. I have been a faculty member at George Washington University School of Business in Washington, DC, since 1999. I joined the JME editorial board in 2008 upon invitation from Professor Irtishad Ahmad at Florida International University, who was the editor-in-chief at the time. During the last couple of years, I have served as an associate editor for JME. In addition to JME, I serve as a specialty editor for the case studies section of ASCE’s Journal of Construction Engineering and Management. I also serve on the editorial boards of IEEE’s Transactions on Engineering Management and International Journal of Project Management, the leading journals in engineering management and project management. Therefore, I am very familiar with the recent research trends in our field. JME has its competitive advantages as one of the few management in engineering journals that are recognized by the community of scholars. It receives a respectable impact factor from the Thomson Reuters journal-citation reports, is listed as a wellregarded journal in the United Kingdom’s Association of Business Schools (ABS) academic journal guide for business and management academics, and was ranked an A* journal by the Australian Research Council’s Excellence in Research for Australia (ERA), just to name a few. I believe that there is room for improvement to raise the visibility and reputation of JME by attracting new readers and contributors who conduct management in engineering research that incorporates economics, technology, innovation, decision sciences, psychology, social and behavioral sciences, leadership, organizational theory, etc., into civil engineering, construction, infrastructure, and the built environment. I am committed to bringing JME to the next level, as the management in engineering field is maturing into an interdisciplinary, vibrant, and dynamic discipline. Exposing JME to various disciplines will bring new insight and great appreciation to the growing field, and I would like to be a facilitator to introduce the latest trends, challenges, and opportunities. My ultimate goal is to see JME become a preferred journal by researchers and practitioners to acquire and disseminate essential ideas, theories, knowledge, and practices in management in engineering. I will work closely with associate editors, editorial board members, and the ASCE journal publications staff to make this possible. Most importantly, I will seek your continued interest, support, and commitment. I look forward to working with all of you to receive high-quality papers as an author and constructive feedback as a reviewer. If you have any suggestions or comments regarding JME, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you very much.

Thanks to our readers

We began publication of our international journal, Air Quality, Atmosphere & Health (AQAH) in 2008. Now, at its ninth year, we are pleased to announce that AQAHwill be publishing eight issues per year rather than six bimonthly issues, starting with this first issue of volume 9. The appropriateness of starting this journal is ever more evident, as air pollution remains a global problem that is worsening in many of the world’s largest cities, and the threat of climate change mounts. We are pleased to receive your submissions on the important topics covered byAQAH and to advise you that the impact of your work continues to rise. The Impact Factor (Thomson Reuters Journal Citation Reports®) of AQAH was 1.804 in 2014, a level of citation that is not generally achieved so quickly. Presently, the rate of acceptance of all submitted manuscripts is 54 % and the quality of submissions continues to increase. We are very much encouraged by these achievements in such a short period. As we write this note, we find reasons for concern about the health of the atmosphere. Alarming levels of air pollution have been reported in Beijing, which posted its first Bred alerts^ as PM2.5 concentrations remained at several hundred micrograms per cubicmeter for days. The need for solutions is clear, but gains in air quality will be made slowly. However, we are optimistic after the United Nations reached its historic climate agreement in December, 2015. Global problems need global solutions and this accord signals recognition of the need for collaborative global efforts. The research findings of the AQAH authors have helped to characterize these and other problems and to point to opportunities for beneficial interventions.We congratulate you on your work and look forward to your continuing contributions. The AQAH is a truly international journal of research findings from all five continents. We thank our reviewers, associate editors and members of the editorial board for their tireless efforts to foster the growth of the journal. Most of all, we thank all our authors, reviewers and readers for choosing AQAH as your global forum for the advancement of air quality and health sciences. We count on your continued support of our mission.

Management Learning: The journal for critical, reflexive scholarship on organization and learning

The journal’s 2-year impact factor currently stands at 1.25 and the 5-year impact factor at 1.89 in the Thomson Reuters Journal Citation Reports (2014). In terms of 5-year trends, the journal’s mean 2-year impact factor stands at a healthy 1.37. As far as journal quality lists go, we await with interest the outcome of the revision to the United Kingdom’s Association of Business School (ABS) journal quality list to see how things stand. Further afield, the Australian Business Dean’s Council (ABDC) Journal Quality List (2013) rated Management Learning as an ‘A’ journal. However, the ABDC is right to remind us that journal lists should be only a starting point for assessing quality, and that there is no substitute for assessing the scholarship of a piece of work on a case-by-case basis. In this latter regard, the outcome of the United Kingdom’s Research Excellence Framework (unknown at the time of writing this Editorial) may also shed light on the quality, impact, and relevance of Management Learning scholarship. Management Learning has a long and respected history, the first issue being published in 1970 under the name of Management Education and Development. In 1994, the journal title changed to Management Learning, and in 2009, we celebrated our 40 th anniversary. We entered our fifth decade with the conviction and optimism that the type of scholarship the journal publishes “continues to be different” from the scholarship to be found in the mainstream management journals or that of the journals we consider our closest “relatives.” Perhaps better known in the UK, Australasia and Europe, we continually seek to expand our reach to North America and Asia to provide a forum for scholars wishing to challenge mainstream work. But we still struggle against the perception that we are a pedagogic teaching and learning journal—which clearly we are not. Rather, we publish innovative critical and reflexive scholarly work around learning, managing, and organizing—a philosophy that can be traced back to Mark Easterby-Smith and Mike Pedler’s 1986 Editorial, when in

Journal Impact Factor Strongly Correlates with the Citedness of the Median Journal Paper

The authors test the validity of the claim that the journal IF reflects the citedness of the majority of a journal's papers or, otherwise, try to disprove the widely reported myth that the IF depends on only a few highly cited papers. To show this the coefficients of correlation between the journal IF and the citation score of the median paper (by citation score) of the journals in five JCR specialty categories are calculated. The data for the analysis were collected from Thomson-Reuters Journal Citation Reports and Web of Science. About 500 journals in 5 different subject categories are considered. It was found that the coefficients of correlation, r, are very high -- close to 1. The authors believe that their finding of very high correlation of IF values and the median citation rates provides convincing evidence that IF values are not due to a few highly cited papers but rather characterizes the majority of the journal's papers.

Highly Cited Works in Radiology: The Top 100 Cited Articles in Radiologic Journals

The number of citations a publication receives can be used to show its impact on a field of study. It may indicate the educational interest in a given population or underline a perceived or real educational gap. This article identifies and characterizes the 100 top cited publications in radiologic journals as of May2013. All clinical radiologic journals listed by Thomson Reuters Journal Citation Reports in 2011 were identified. A total of 46 journals were identified, and all articles published within these journals were analyzed for citation counts. The top 100 highly cited articles were recorded. The most frequently cited radiologic articles appeared in 9 of the 46 journals. These included 59 articles in Radiology, 17 in Journal of Nuclear Medicine, 9 in the American Journal of Roentgenology, 5 in the British Journal of Radiology, 4 in Investigative Radiology, 2 in American Journal of Neuroradiology, 2 in European Radiology, 2 in Radiologic Clinics of North America, 1 in the Seminars in Nuclear Medicine, and 1 in Pediatric Radiology. The citation values ranged from 422 to 7506 with a mean of 751. Publication dates ranged from 1967 to 2006 with the 5-year period between 1986 and 1990 accounting for the largest percentage of articles. The most frequently studied radiologic modality was magnetic resonance imaging (MRI; 28 articles), followed by vascular/interventional (19 articles) and nuclear medicine (13 articles). The central nervous system was the most frequently studied organ system (22 articles), followed by mixed organ systems (14 articles) and liver (12 articles). The top cited articles in radiologic journals span a wide range of imaging modalities, subspecialties, and organ systems. Topics that occurred frequently in the top 100 cited articles included contrast and radiopharmaceutical characterization, MRI of motion, percutaneous radiofrequency ablation in the liver and percutaneous vertebroplasty. We present a methodology that uses citation analysis to identify and characterize these articles. Its use may aid radiologists, academic organization, and editorial staff in determining areas of imaging interest or perceived educational gap. It also highlights the importance of including classic articles in current imaging education.

References that anyone can edit: review of Wikipedia citations in peer reviewed health science literature

Objectives To examine indexed health science journals to evaluate the prevalence of Wikipedia citations, identify the journals that publish articles with Wikipedia citations, and determine how Wikipedia is being cited.Design...

RBP and Brazilian science

We have received with great satisfaction and enthusiasm the news about our latest impact factor in Thomson Reuters Journal Citation Reports (JCR). The 2012 impact factor of 1.856 represents an increase of 55% over the previous year, and places RBP as the Brazilian journal with the highest impact factor among all scientific publications in the country in any field of knowledge. The impact factor measures the frequency with which the average article in a journal is cited in the two years following its publication; it is one of the most influential indexes used to evaluate scientific journals worldwide, providing an objective tool to compare the influence of different journals within a discipline area. The steady growth of our impact factor over the years highlights the increasing visibility of the articles published in RBP and the high reputation the journal holds in the scientific community. This leading position is the end result of the dedicated work and commitment of several eminent psychiatrists who over the years have spared no efforts to promote the excellence of our journal. The high standards and the rigorous scientific polices set by previous editors have been determinant to this success. As we move forward, we aim at further increasing our editorial quality, international visibility, and strict adherence to ethical regulations. We are also working hard to speed up the publication process by providing early online access to articles ahead of print. We are sincerely grateful to the Brazilian Psychiatric Association (Associacao Brasileira de Psiquiatria, ABP), to all authors, reviewers, and editors whose contributions to RBP have helped to improve even more the level of excellence in our field.

Journal of Real-Time Image Processing: fourth issue of volume 8

The fourth issue of volume 8 completes another successful year of JRTIP publication by having received and reviewed a high volume of manuscript submissions. This trend exhibits a steady increase of real-time importance as related to image and video processing. Real-time image and video processing technologies demand co-designs of software with reduced complexity and their adaptation to appropriate hardware platforms which normally possess limited resources. JRTIP continues to be the only journal that is solely dedicated to the real-time aspects of image and video processing spanning a wide range of industrial and R&D applications. The special issues organized thus far have also greatly demonstrated the real-time focus of JRTIP through offering modern topics of interest to the real-time image and video processing community. The ongoing success of JRTIP is reflected by an increase in its 2012 impact factor to 1.156 (Thomson Reuters Journal Citation Reports 2012). Many have contributed to this increase. First and foremost, we would like to express our appreciation to the JRTIP dedicated team of associate editors for their handling of manuscripts. Our thanks extend to authors and reviewers for submitting manuscripts and for reviewing manuscripts, respectively. In addition, we wish to acknowledge our growing community of readers who have downloaded 25,000? JRTIP articles. Of course with success come challenges. One of the challenges has been coping with the increasing number of submitted manuscripts. To address this challenge, we invited the guest editors of the recent special issues as well as experienced researchers to join the editorial board. These colleagues have become familiar with the quality standards practiced by the journal, and the issues associated with its reviewing process through their successful offerings of special issues and other interactions with the journal. As a result, we are delighted to welcome the following colleagues to the JRTIP editorial board: Luis Alvarez, Daniel Chillet, Marco Diani, Michael Hubner, Bogdan Smolka, Leonel Sousa, and Juan Wachs. Another challenge accompanying the success of JRTIP has been the relatively long list of accepted manuscripts on Online First that are to appear in print format. To address this challenge, we are pleased to indicate that the number of pages will be increased from 320 to 640 pages per year. That is to say starting with volume 9 in 2014, on average, twice as many papers will appear in the four annual volumes of JRTIP. We are thankful to Springer for providing the required resources to double the number of print pages. Before providing an overview of papers appearing in this issue, it is worth reminding our readers of the upcoming SPIE Conference on Real-Time Image and Video Processing that is going to be held as part of the SPIE Photonics Europe in April 2014 in Brussels, Belgium. Similar to the previous years, the JRTIP editorial board will be meeting and discussing the status of the journal at this conference. The conference details are available at http://www.spie.org/epe115 and its call for papers appears as an appendix to this issue. This issue presents seven original research papers that reflect the real-time thrust of the journal indicating different ways real-time image and video processing can be achieved, where three papers address algorithmic real-time solutions and four papers address hardware real-time solutions. N. Kehtarnavaz (&) University of Texas at Dallas, Dallas, TX, USA e-mail: kehtar@utdallas.edu

Impact factor 2012 for cardiovascular journals: true impact?

In June 2013, the impact factors for the year 2012 were released (Thomson Reuters Journal Citation Reports® 2012, ISI Web of Knowledge). The impact factor is defined as the average number of citations received per paper divided by the published articles in a specific journal during the preceding 2 years [1–3]. The 2012 impact factor of the Netherlands Heart Journal (NHJ) was 1.411. The 2012 NHJ impact factor was calculated as follows: in 2012, the total number of citations to articles published in the years 2010 and 2011 was 207. The number of articles published in 2010 and 2011 was 146. As a result, the 2012 impact factor was 206 citations divided by 144 articles: 206/146 = 1.411. The NHJ impact factor has therefore remained rather constant over the past 4 years: 1.392 in 2009, 1.447 in 2010, 1.438 in 2011, and 1.411 in 2012. Of course, we are striving to increase our impact factor over the forthcoming years (see the article by Tobias Opthof in the July/August edition of NHJ this year) [4]. From a European perspective, the impact factors of 2012 show the following interesting facts: Out of a total number of 122 cardiovascular journals (subject category Cardiac & Cardiovascular Systems), the European Heart Journal (EHJ) moved to the second place with a 2012 impact factor of 14.097, directly behind Circulation (2012 impact factor of 15.202) and ahead of the Journal of the American College of Cardiology (JACC) with a 2012 impact factor of 14.086. Last year, the EHJ already ranked in the third place behind JACC (second) and Circulation (first). As a result, the EHJ Editor-in-Chief Thomas Luscher (Zurich, Switzerland) and the EHJ Editorial Board should be complimented. First place is within reach! For the cardiovascular journals directed by Dutch Editors-in-Chief, the following remarkable results for the 2012 impact factors were observed: The European Journal of Heart Failure (EJHF), fitting in the family of journals belonging to the European Society of Cardiology (ESC), received a 2012 impact factor of 5.247 versus a 2011 impact factor of 4.896, a rewarding increase. The Editorial Board of the EHJF is chaired by Dirk Jan van Veldhuisen (Groningen, the Netherlands) with Wiek van Gilst and Adriaan Voors as Deputy Editors. For the journal Eurointervention, also part of the ESC journal family, with Patrick Serruys (Rotterdam, the Netherlands) as Editor-in-Chief, the 2012 impact factor was rather similar to the 2011 impact factor (3.285 in 2011 versus 3.173 in 2012) The impact factor of the European Journal of Preventive Cardiology (another member of the ESC journal family), with Diederick Grobbee (Utrecht, the Netherlands) as Editor-in-Chief, moved from 2.634 in 2011 to 3.903 in 2012, a considerable increase! The impact factor of the European Journal of Cardiovascular Nursing (also part of the ESC journal family), chaired by Tiny Jaarsma (currently residing in Norrkoping, Sweden) as Editor-in-Chief, increased significantly from 1.711 in 2011 to 2.042 in 2012 Finally, the impact factor of the International Journal of Cardiovascular Imaging (CAIM), supervised by Hans Reiber (Leiden, the Netherlands) as Editor-in-Chief, moved from 2.285 in 2011 to 2.648 in 2012, also an obvious increase The above-mentioned Editors-in-Chief should be congratulated on attaining a fine 2012 impact factor. This can be viewed as a major accomplishment, especially when recognising that there are currently more than 40,000 scientific journals worldwide. Over time, impact factors have become the holy grail in the scientific journal domain [5]. Many authors wish to publish in the journals with the highest impact factors because this will increase their scientific image, their professional profile, and their academic career perspectives. As a result, every journal editor works hard to improve the journal’s impact factor because it is viewed by publishers as an index of journal quality and success, determining the extent to which the journal is resourced by its sponsoring organisation or publisher [6–8]. However, there are many confounders that may influence the impact factor, at least challenging the scientific significance of an impact factor [9–12]. Nallomothu and Luscher recently suggested that medical journals should move from the concept of ‘impact’ to ‘influence’ [12]. To that purpose, article-level metrics will probably play a more prominent role in the near future. As opposed to the impact factor, article-level metrics provide a major step forward in evaluating the performance of individual articles published in (cardiovascular) journals [13]. The Public Library of Science (PLoS) has been instrumental in developing several article-level metrics that integrate traditional approaches such as the impact factor which measures scientific impact with overall interest and readership. Pertinent questions are: 1) How often do others comment on articles and how do peers ‘rank’ these articles? 2) How many of the articles are being downloaded, and for how long? 3) How often are text, tables, and figures from the article ‘cut-and-pasted’? 4) How often are articles being selected by blogs, twitter, and lay media outlets? [12–15]. The concept of using article-level metrics, as a more objective and reliable way of measuring journal influence, may provide the true impact of a scientific journal. In summary, the impact factor is still considered to be the nec plus ultra for authors, editors, publishers, and academic institutions. Although it is not very likely that a valid substitute for the impact factor will soon be implemented, the use of article-level metrics sounds noteworthy and hopeful. Until this approach has been accepted as a solid, reliable, and objective bibliometric index, we remain dependent on the impact factor for a journal quality index.

We’re on the Right Path…

as you know, the impact factor is an objective method for assessing the importance of a journal. lists of current impact factors appear at regular intervals, about half way through the year. We have got good news for all authors who published in our journal last year and wish to do so in the future: the 2012 impact Factor for the journal has just been released (thomson reuters Journal Citation reports 2012) and is 1.379. in 2011, the impact Factor was 1.091. We received the first impact factor for our journal 3 years ago and it has been continually increasing ever since. Clinical Neuroradiology (CNR) is listed in two subject categories. in the prestigious Clinical Neurology category led by lancet Neurology, CNR was ranked 138th out of 191 journals, thus placing it in the immediate vicinity of reputable journals like the Journal of Neuroimaging or the Journal of Clinical Neuroscience. of the 120 journals in the radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Medical imaging category, which was led by Human Brain Mapping, CNR was placed 74th and ranked above long-established journals such as Acta Radiologica. Compared to 2011, CNR has moved up the ranking in both categories, demonstrating that its importance relative to other journals has also increased. in the Clinical Neurology category, CNR climbed 16 places and in the radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Medical imaging category—it moved up by 15! these improvements demonstrate that the articles published in CNR are of value to the neuroradiology community and that the journal is held in increasingly high regard. this is of course primarily attributable to the quality of the submitted manuscripts and thus represents your achievement! We, the editorial board and the publishers, want to thank you for your support and hope that we can continue to reckon with it in the future. We also take this to be confirmation of the success of our concept for the journal and ensure you that we will continue doing all we can to take CNR even further. Clin Neuroradiol (2013) 23:173 DOI 10.1007/s00062-013-0244-8

Reporting and Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews in the Orthopaedic Literature

Properly designed and conducted systematic reviews can reliably produce valid pooled treatment-effect estimates and are an important resource for clinical decision-making. The purpose of this report was to assess the reporting and methodological quality of systematic reviews in orthopaedic journals. With use of the 2010 Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) Thomson Reuters Journal Citation Reports, the five orthopaedic surgery journals with the highest impact factors were searched by one individual over a five-year period (from 2006 to 2010) for systematic reviews and meta-analyses. The two authors separately and independently assessed the included studies. The reporting quality was assessed with use of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, and the methodological quality was assessed with use of the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) guidelines, both of which are accepted instruments. We calculated the proportions of each item reported within and across journals. Seventy-six systematic reviews and meta-analyses were included. Of the five journals that were examined, articles from The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (American Volume) had the best reporting. Articles from The American Journal of Sports Medicine fulfilled the most methodological quality items. The papers from all of the journals reported an average of only 68% of the PRISMA items and only 54% of the AMSTAR quality items. Both reporting and methodological quality in the top five orthopaedic journals were poor; the reporting quality was slightly superior to the methodological quality. Although there was a wide range of reporting quality and methodological quality scores across the journals, the included articles demonstrated inadequate adherence to accepted standards of quality. The use of PRISMA and AMSTAR guidelines in designing, implementing, and writing systematic reviews is recommended to improve the quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in orthopaedic journals. The validity of published systematic reviews in orthopaedics is questionable, and their contribution to clinical decision-making is suboptimal. Clinicians should be careful when interpreting and applying findings of current orthopaedic systematic reviews.

Tracing the size, reach, impact, and breadth of positive psychology

This study quantitatively assessed the size, disciplinary reach, impact, and topic breadth of positive psychology (PP), in order to provide a comprehensive evaluation of the growth and significance of the field. Over 1.7 million documents in 700 PsycINFO ® journals covering the fields of psychology, psychiatry, neuroscience, management, business, public health, and sport science were analyzed using semantic and bibliographic methods. Results indicate that PP covers many different research topics from a diverse range of disciplines, and that PP literature has been growing rapidly in significance. Over 18,000 documents were identified as belonging to PP, with 2300 published in 2011. These documents represent over 4% of PsycINFO ® documents within the data-set published that year, and make PP close to the median size of all disciplines listed in the Thomson Reuters Journal Citation Reports ®, Social Sciences Edition. The aggregate impact factor for PP in 2011 was 2.64.