scholarly journals Relative Citation Ratio (RCR): A new metric that uses citation rates to measure influence at the article level

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
B. Ian Hutchins ◽  
Xin Yuan ◽  
James M. Anderson ◽  
George M. Santangelo
Keyword(s):  
Citation Network ◽  
Scientific Productivity ◽  
National Institutes Of Health ◽  
Impact Factors ◽  
Subject Matter Experts ◽  
Relative Citation ◽  
Field Independent ◽  
Number Of Citations ◽  
Journal Impact ◽  
Beta Version

AbstractDespite their recognized limitations, bibliometric assessments of scientific productivity have been widely adopted. We describe here an improved method that makes novel use of the co-citation network of each article to field-normalize the number of citations it has received. The resulting Relative Citation Ratio is article-level and field-independent, and provides an alternative to the invalid practice of using Journal Impact Factors to identify influential papers. To illustrate one application of our method, we analyzed 88,835 articles published between 2003 and 2010, and found that the National Institutes of Health awardees who authored those papers occupy relatively stable positions of influence across all disciplines. We demonstrate that the values generated by this method strongly correlate with the opinions of subject matter experts in biomedical research, and suggest that the same approach should be generally applicable to articles published in all areas of science. A beta version of iCite, our web tool for calculating Relative Citation Ratios of articles listed in PubMed, is available at https://icite.od.nih.gov.

Impact of international research fellows in neurosurgery: results from a single academic center

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-11
Author(s):  
Wuyang Yang ◽  
Jordina Rincon-Torroella ◽  
James Feghali ◽  
Adham M. Khalafallah ◽  
Wataru Ishida ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
International Research ◽  
Scientific Productivity ◽  
The United States ◽  
Impact Factors ◽  
Language Differences ◽  
Academic Center ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Doctor Of Philosophy ◽  
Number Of Publications ◽  
Number Of Citations

OBJECTIVE International research fellows have been historically involved in academic neurosurgery in the United States (US). To date, the contribution of international research fellows has been underreported. Herein, the authors aimed to quantify the academic output of international research fellows in the Department of Neurosurgery at The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine. METHODS Research fellows with Doctor of Medicine (MD), Doctor of Philosophy (PhD), or MD/PhD degrees from a non-US institution who worked in the Hopkins Department of Neurosurgery for at least 6 months over the past decade (2010–2020) were included in this study. Publications produced during fellowship, number of citations, and journal impact factors (IFs) were analyzed using ANOVA. A survey was sent to collect information on personal background, demographics, and academic activities. RESULTS Sixty-four international research fellows were included, with 42 (65.6%) having MD degrees, 17 (26.6%) having PhD degrees, and 5 (7.8%) having MD/PhD degrees. During an average 27.9 months of fellowship, 460 publications were produced in 136 unique journals, with 8628 citations and a cumulative journal IF of 1665.73. There was no significant difference in total number of publications, first-author publications, and total citations per person among the different degree holders. Persons holding MD/PhDs had a higher number of citations per publication per person (p = 0.027), whereas those with MDs had higher total IFs per person (p = 0.048). Among the 43 (67.2%) survey responders, 34 (79.1%) had nonimmigrant visas at the start of the fellowship, 16 (37.2%) were self-paid or funded by their country of origin, and 35 (81.4%) had mentored at least one US medical student, nonmedical graduate student, or undergraduate student. CONCLUSIONS International research fellows at the authors’ institution have contributed significantly to academic neurosurgery. Although they have faced major challenges like maintaining nonimmigrant visas, negotiating cultural/language differences, and managing self-sustainability, their scientific productivity has been substantial. Additionally, the majority of fellows have provided reciprocal mentorship to US students.

scholarly journals Top 100 Publications as Measured by Altmetrics in the Field of Central Nervous System Inflammatory Demyelinating Disease

2019 ◽  
Vol 2019 ◽  
pp. 1-12
Author(s):  
Jee-Eun Kim ◽  
Yerim Kim ◽  
Kang Min Park ◽  
Dae Young Yoon ◽  
Jong Seok Bae
Keyword(s):  
Central Nervous System ◽  
Nervous System ◽  
Web Of Science ◽  
Demyelinating Disease ◽  
Impact Factors ◽  
Clinical Neurology ◽  
Novel Treatments ◽  
Number Of Citations ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Journal Impact

Background. Altmetrics analyze the visibility of articles in social media and estimate their impact on the general population. We performed an altmetric analysis of articles on central nervous system inflammatory demyelinating disease (CIDD) and investigated its correlation with citation analysis. Methods. Articles in the 91 journals comprising the “clinical neurology,” “neuroscience,” and “medicine, general, and internal” Web of Science categories were searched for their relevance to the CIDD topic. The Altmetric Explorer database was used to determine the Altmetric.com Attention Score (AAS) values of the selected articles. The papers with the top 100 AAS values were characterized. Results. Articles most frequently mentioned online were primarily published after 2014 and were published in journals with high impact factors. All articles except one were dealt with the issue of multiple sclerosis. Most were original articles, but editorials were also common. Novel treatments and risk factors are the most frequent topics. The AAS was weakly correlated with journal impact factors; however, no link was found between the AAS and the number of citations. Conclusions. We present the top 100 most frequently mentioned CIDD articles in online media using an altmetric approach. Altmetrics can rapidly offer alternative information on the impact of research based on a broader audience and can complement traditional metrics.

scholarly journals Level 1 COUNTER Compliant Vendor Statistics are a Reliable Measure of Journal Usage

2007 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 84
Author(s):  
Gaby Haddow
Keyword(s):  
Impact Factors ◽  
Electronic Journal ◽  
Citation Data ◽  
Journal Citation Reports ◽  
Print Journal ◽  
Level 1 ◽  
The University ◽  
Number Of Citations ◽  
Journal Impact ◽  
Usage Data

A review of: Duy, Joanna and Liwen Vaughan. “Can Electronic Journal Usage Data Replace Citation Data as a Measure of Journal Use? An Empirical Examination.” The Journal of Academic Librarianship 32.5 (Sept. 2006): 512-17. Abstract Objective – To identify valid measures of journal usage by comparing citation data with print and electronic journal use data. Design – Bibliometric study. Setting – Large academic library in Canada. Subjects – Instances of use were collected from 11 print journals of the American Chemical Society (ACS), 9 print journals of the Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC), and electronic journals in chemistry and biochemistry from four publishers – ACS, RSC, Elsevier, and Wiley. ACS, Elsevier, and Wiley journals in chemistry-related subject areas were sampled for Journal Impact Factors and citations data from the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI). Methods – Journal usage data were collected to determine if an association existed between: (1) print and electronic journal use; (2) electronic journal use and citations to journals by authors from the university; and (3) electronic journal use and Journal Impact Factors. Between June 2000 and September 2003, library staff recorded the re-shelving of bound volumes and loose issues of 20 journal titles published by the ACS and the RSC. Electronic journal usage data were collected for journals published by ACS, RSC, Elsevier, and Wiley within the ISI-defined chemistry and biochemistry subject area. Data were drawn from the publishers’ Level 1 COUNTER compliant usage statistics. These data equate 1 instance of use with a user viewing an HTML or PDF full text article. The period of data collection varied, but at least 2.5 years of data were collected for each publisher. Journal Impact Factors were collected for all ISI chemistry-related journals published by ACS, Elsevier, and Wiley for the year 2001. Library Journal Utilization Reports (purchased from ISI) were used to determine the number of times researchers at the university cited journals in the same set of chemistry-related journals over the period 1998 to 2002. The authors call this “local citation data.” (512) The results from electronic journal use were also analysed for correlation with the total number of citations, as reported in the Journal Citation Reports, for each journal in the sample. Main results – The study found a significant correlation between the results for print journal and electronic journal usage. A similar finding was reported for correlation between electronic journal usage data and local citation data. No significant association was found between Journal Impact Factors and electronic journal usage data. However, when an analysis was conducted for the total number of citations to the journals (drawn from the Journal Impact Factor calculations in Journal Citation Reports) and electronic journal use, significant correlations were found for all publishers’ journals. Conclusion – Within the fields of chemistry and biochemistry, electronic journal usage data provided by publishers are an equally valid method of determining journal usage as print journal re-shelving data. The results of the study indicate this association is valid even when print journal subscriptions have ceased. Local citation data (the citations made by researchers at the institution being studied) also provide a valid measure of journal use when compared with electronic journal usage results. Journal Impact Factors should be used with caution when libraries are making journal collection decisions.

scholarly journals Citation distribution profile in Brazilian journals of general medicine

2012 ◽  
Vol 130 (5) ◽  
pp. 314-317 ◽  
Author(s):  
Luiggi Araujo Lustosa ◽  
Mario Edmundo Pastrana Chalco ◽  
Cecília de Melo Borba ◽  
André Eizo Higa ◽  
Renan Moritz Varnier Rodrigues Almeida
Keyword(s):  
Scientific Information ◽  
General Medicine ◽  
Specific Pattern ◽  
Impact Factors ◽  
Citation Distribution ◽  
Distribution Profile ◽  
Estimate Reliability ◽  
Number Of Citations ◽  
Journal Impact ◽  
Bibliometric Index

CONTEXT AND OBJECTIVE: Impact factors are currently the bibliometric index most used for evaluating scientific journals. However, the way in which they are used, for instance concerning the study or journal types analyzed, can markedly interfere with estimate reliability. This study aimed to analyze the citation distribution pattern in three Brazilian journals of general medicine. DESIGN AND SETTING: This was a descriptive study based on numbers of citations of scientific studies published by three Brazilian journals of general medicine. METHODS: The journals analyzed were São Paulo Medical Journal, Clinics and Revista da Associação Médica Brasileira. This survey used data available from the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) platform, from which the total number of papers published in each journal in 2007-2008 and the number of citations of these papers in 2009 were obtained. From these data, the citation distribution was derived and journal impact factors (average number of citations) were estimated. These factors were then compared with those directly available from the ISI Journal of Citation Reports (JCR). RESULTS: Respectively, 134, 203 and 192 papers were published by these journals during the period analyzed. The observed citation distributions were highly skewed, such that many papers had few citations and a small percentage had many citations. It was not possible to identify any specific pattern for the most cited papers or to exactly reproduce the JCR impact factors. CONCLUSION: Use of measures like "impact factors", which characterize citations through averages, does not adequately represent the citation distribution in the journals analyzed.

scholarly journals Analyzing the Relationship Between Altmetric Score and Literature Citations in the Dermatology Literature

2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (6) ◽  
pp. 497-505
Author(s):  
Meredith E Thomley ◽  
Ana Preda-Naumescu ◽  
Carter J Boyd ◽  
Tiffany Mayo
Keyword(s):  
Impact Factor ◽  
Pearson Correlation ◽  
Citation Count ◽  
Correlation Coefficients ◽  
Impact Factors ◽  
Microsoft Excel ◽  
Number Of Citations ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Journal Impact ◽  
Article Impact

Background: Standard bibliometric methods used in dermatologic research include impact factor and citations. The Altmetric score is an adjunctive measure of article impact. Objectives: The purpose of this study is to examine the breadth of societal impact made by scientific articles in dermatology and investigate a correlation between an article’s impact factor and citations, with its Altmetric score. Methods: We reviewed 15 dermatology journals with the highest impact factors and analyzed the 10 most cited articles from 2013 and 2016 within those journals. We studied the articles’ Altmetric scores, number of citations, and social media mentions. Using Microsoft Excel, we performed statistical analysis with Pearson correlation coefficients and descriptive statistics. Results: Analysis revealed a significant positive relationship between citation count and Altmetric scores for articles published in 2013 (p=0.0009) and 2016 (p=0.003). Impact factor was also significantly associated with Altmetric scores across both years (p=0.002, p=0.0005). Conclusions: Altmetric score weakly corresponded with citation count and journal impact factor across cohorts. We conclude that Altmetric scores serve as an additional measurement of article impact in dermatology, though they are insufficient as a replacement for traditional measures at this time.

scholarly journals Journal impact factors and the influence of age and number of citations

2014 ◽  
Vol 15 (3) ◽  
pp. 223-225 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christian Nansen ◽  
William G. Meikle
Keyword(s):  
Impact Factors ◽  
Number Of Citations ◽  
Journal Impact

Bibliometric study of ‘overviews of systematic reviews’: evaluation of prevalence, citation and impact factor

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carole Lunny ◽  
Trish Neelakant ◽  
Alyssa Chen ◽  
Gavindeep Shinger ◽  
Adrienne Stevens ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Impact Factor ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Citation Count ◽  
Impact Factors ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Funding Source ◽  
Sample Sizes ◽  
Number Of Citations ◽  
Journal Impact ◽  
Overviews Of Systematic Reviews

Abstract Background: Overviews synthesizing the results of multiple systematic reviews help inform evidence-based clinical practice. In this first of two companion papers, we evaluate the bibliometrics of ‘overviews of systematic reviews’, including their prevalence, number of citations, and factors affecting citation rates and journal impact factor.Methods: We searched MEDLINE, Epistemonikos and the Cochrane library databases. We applied eligibility criteria to identify overviews that: (a) aimed to focus on synthesizing reviews, (b) conducted a systematic search, (c) had a full methods section, and (d) examined a health intervention or clinical treatment effect. A multivariate regression was conducted to determine the association between citation density and impact factor and 6 predictor variables of interest. Results: We found 1218 overviews published from 2000 to 2020; the majority (73%) of which were published in the most recent 5-year period (2016-2020). We extracted a selection of these overviews (n=541; 44%) dated from 2000 to 2018. The 541 overviews were published in 307 journals; the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (8%), PLOS ONE (3%) and the Sao Paulo Medical Journal (2%) being the most prevalent. The majority of overviews (70%) were published in journals with impact factors between 0.05 and 3.97. The average citation rate was 90 (SD ±219.7) over 9 years, or 10 citations per overview per year. In multivariate analysis, overviews with a high number of citations and high journal impact factors tended to have more authors, larger sample sizes, be open access and report funding source. Conclusions: We found an 8 fold increase in the number of overviews from 2009 to 2020; and a representation of one published a day in 2020. Factors driving the increase in overviews include the exponential increase in the number of systematic reviews, the publication of Cochrane guidance on overview of reviews in 2009 and the subsequent publication of the first Cochrane overview in the same year. Our study found a significantly higher mean citation count of 10 overviews per year, published in journals with a mean impact factor of 4.4. These data indicate that, overall, overviews perform above average for the journals in which they publish. We also found that highly cited overviews in high impact factor journals had group authorship, large sample sizes, were openly accessible, and reported funding source.

The Impact of Anglicizing Former German-Language Psychology Journals on Authorship and Citation Frequencies

2012 ◽  
Vol 17 (3) ◽  
pp. 190-198 ◽  
Author(s):  
Günter Krampen ◽  
Thomas Huckert ◽  
Gabriel Schui
Keyword(s):  
Side Effects ◽  
English Language ◽  
General Trend ◽  
Native Language ◽  
Impact Factors ◽  
German Language ◽  
Journal Articles ◽  
Number Of Citations ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Number Of Authors

Exemplary for other than English-language psychology journals, the impact of recent Anglicization of five former German-language psychology journals on (1) authorship (nationality, i.e., native language, and number of authors, i.e., single or multiple authorships), (2) formal characteristics of the journal (number of articles per volume and length of articles), and (3) number of citations of the articles in other journal articles, the language of the citing publications, and the impact factors (IF) is analyzed. Scientometric data on these variables are gathered for all articles published in the four years before anglicizing and in the four years after anglicizing the same journal. Results reveal rather quick changes: Citations per year since original articles’ publication increase significantly, and the IF of the journals go up markedly. Frequencies of citing in German-language journals decrease, citing in English-language journals increase significantly after the Anglicization of former German-language psychology journals, and there is a general trend of increasing citations in other languages as well. Side effects of anglicizing former German-language psychology journals include the publication of shorter papers, their availability to a more international authorship, and a slight, but significant increase in multiple authorships.

The integrated interventional radiology match: a bibliometric analysis of matched first-year residents

2019 ◽  
Vol 3 ◽  
pp. 13 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vishnu Chandra ◽  
Neil Jain ◽  
Pratik Shukla ◽  
Ethan Wajswol ◽  
Sohail Contractor ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Interventional Radiology ◽  
Bibliometric Analysis ◽  
Statistical Significance ◽  
Univariate Analysis ◽  
Impact Factors ◽  
Index Number ◽  
Research Information ◽  
H Index ◽  
Scopus Database ◽  
Journal Impact

Objectives: The integrated interventional radiology (IR) residency has only been established relatively recently as compared to other specialties. Although some preliminary information is available based on survey data five, no comprehensive bibliometric analysis documenting the importance of the quantity and quality of research in applying to an integrated-IR program currently exists. As the first bibliometric analysis of matched IR residents, the data obtained from this study fills a gap in the literature. Materials and Methods: A list of matched residents from the 2018 integrated-IR match were identified by contacting program directors. The Scopus database was used to search for resident research information, including total publications, first-author publications, radiology-related publications, and h-indices. Each matriculating program was categorized into one of five tiers based on the average faculty Hirsch index (h-index). Results: Sixty-three programs and 117 matched residents were identified and reviewed on the Scopus database. For the 2018 cycle, 274 total publications were produced by matched applicants, with a mean of 2.34 ± 0.41 publication per matched applicant. The average h-index for matched applicants was 0.96 ± 0.13. On univariate analysis, the number of radiology-related publications, highest journal impact factor, and h-index were all associated with an increased likelihood of matching into a higher tier program (P < 0.05). Other research variables displayed no statistical significance. All applicants with PhDs matched into tier one programs. Conclusions: Research serves as an important element in successfully matching into an integrated-IR residency. h-index, number of radiology-related manuscripts, and highest journal impact factors are all positively associated with matching into a higher tier program.

The Socio-economic Context of Journal Impact Factors

2013 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brendan Luyt
Keyword(s):  
Perceived Value ◽  
Modern Society ◽  
Impact Factors ◽  
Economic Context ◽  
Perte D’Autonomie ◽  
Journal Impact

This paper argues that the rise of the JIF is a result of the perceived value of quantification measures in modern society and the restructuring of capitalism. Two key implications of this acceptance are explored: an increase in global academic dependency and a lessening of autonomy in the scientific field.Cet article défend la thèse que la montée du FIRS est le résultat de la valeur perçue des mesures de quantification de la société moderne et de la restructuration du capitalisme. Seront explorées deux conséquences importantes de cette acceptation : une augmentation de la dépendance globale du milieu universitaire et une perte d'autonomie du milieu de la science. 

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document