Significant impact of developing countries and emerging markets in Systematic and Applied Acarology

2019 ◽  
Vol 24 (7) ◽  
pp. 1121-1123
Author(s):  
Zhi-Qiang Zhang
Keyword(s):  
Developing Countries ◽  
Emerging Markets ◽  
Impact Factor ◽  
Impact Factors ◽  
Journal Citation Reports ◽  
Number Of Publications ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Journal Impact ◽  
Journal Citation

Journal impact factors for 2018 were recently announced by Clarivate Analytics in the June 2019 edition of Journal Citation Reports (JCR). In this editorial, I compared the impact factor of Systematic and Applied Acarology (SAA) with those of other main acarological journals as I did in Zhang (2017). Following Zhang (2018a), I also highlighted the top 10 SAA papers from 2016/2017 with the highest numbers of citations in 2018 (according to JCR June 2019 edition). In addition, I remarked on the increasing impact of developing countries and emerging markets in systematic and applied acarology, both in the number of publications and citations, and also include announcements of meetings on applied acarology.

Citation analysis of otorhinolaryngology journals: follow-up study

2015 ◽  
Vol 129 (5) ◽  
pp. 489-493 ◽  
Author(s):  
D H Coelho ◽  
L W Edelmayer ◽  
J E Fenton
Keyword(s):  
Impact Factor ◽  
Impact Factors ◽  
The Internet ◽  
Follow Up Study ◽  
The Past ◽  
Journal Citation Reports ◽  
Online Edition ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Journal Impact

AbstractObjective:This study aimed to evaluate the changes in impact factors of otorhinolaryngology journals over the past 15 years.Method:Using the online edition of Journal Citation Reports, standard (2-year) and 5-year impact factors were calculated for the leading 15 journals.Results:The results were compared with the impact factors for 1998. The average standard impact factor and 5-year impact factor increased by 2.72 and 2.05 fold respectively when compared with 1998. The average 2012 standard impact factor and 5-year impact factor were 1.82 and 1.99 respectively, reflecting a 9.3 per cent difference. The average 1998 standard impact factor and 5-year impact factor were 0.67 and 0.97 respectively, reflecting a 44.8 per cent difference. The Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology had the highest standard and five-year impact factors.Conclusion:These data may indicate changing clinical and research interests within our field, as well as increased speed and ease with which the internet has allowed citation. As a result, five-year intervals may no longer be necessary to adequately gauge journal impact.

A Journal-Level Analysis of Progress in Transplantation

2017 ◽  
Vol 28 (1) ◽  
pp. 19-23
Author(s):  
Thomas Feeley ◽  
Seyoung Lee ◽  
Shin-Il Moon
Keyword(s):  
Impact Factor ◽  
Journal Impact Factor ◽  
Kidney Diseases ◽  
Journal Article ◽  
Impact Factors ◽  
Journal Citation Reports ◽  
Journal Impact ◽  
Surgery Journals ◽  
Over Time ◽  
Journal Citation

Context: Citations to articles published in academic journals represent a proxy for influence in bibliometrics. Objective: To measure the journal impact factor for Progress in Transplantation over time and to also identify related journals indexed in transplantation and surgery. Design: Data from Journal Citation Reports (ISI web of science) were used to rank Progress in Transplantation compared to peer journals using journal impact and journal relatedness measures. Social network analysis was used to measure relationships between pairs of journals in Progress in Transplantation’s relatedness network. Main Outcome Measures: Journal impact factor and journal relatedness. Results: Data from 2010 through 2015 indicate the average journal article in PIT was cited 0.87 times (standard deviation [SD] = 0.12) and this estimate was stable over time. Progress in Transplantation most often cited American Journal of Transplantation, Transplantation, American Journal of Kidney Diseases, and Liver Transplantation. In terms of cited data, the journal was most often referenced by Clinical Transplantation, Transplant International, and Current Opinion in Organ Transplantation. Conclusion: The journal is listed both in surgery and transplantation categories of Journal Citation Reports and its impact factors over time fare better with surgery journals than with transplant journals. Network data using betweenness centrality indicate Progress in Transplantation links transplantation-focused journals and journals indexed in health sciences categories.

Analysis of the journal impact factor and related bibliometric indicators in education and educational research category

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-22
Author(s):  
Metin Orbay ◽  
Orhan Karamustafaoğlu ◽  
Ruben Miranda
Keyword(s):  
Impact Factor ◽  
Educational Research ◽  
Journal Impact Factor ◽  
Impact Factors ◽  
Bibliometric Indicators ◽  
Strongly Correlated ◽  
Starting Point ◽  
Consistent Assessment ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Journal Impact

This study analyzes the journal impact factor and related bibliometric indicators in Education and Educational Research (E&ER) category, highlighting the main differences among journal quartiles, using Web of Science (Social Sciences Citation Index, SSCI) as the data source. High impact journals (Q1) publish only slightly more papers than expected, which is different to other areas. The papers published in Q1 journal have greater average citations and lower uncitedness rates compared to other quartiles, although the differences among quartiles are lower than in other areas. The impact factor is only weakly negative correlated (r=-0.184) with the journal self-citation but strongly correlated with the citedness of the median journal paper (r= 0.864). Although this strong correlation exists, the impact factor is still far to be the perfect indicator for expected citations of a paper due to the high skewness of the citations distribution. This skewness was moderately correlated with the citations received by the most cited paper of the journal (r= 0.649) and the number of papers published by the journal (r= 0.484), but no important differences by journal quartiles were observed. In the period 2013–2018, the average journal impact factor in the E&ER has increased largely from 0.908 to 1.638, which is justified by the field growth but also by the increase in international collaboration and the share of papers published in open access. Despite their inherent limitations, the use of impact factors and related indicators is a starting point for introducing the use of bibliometric tools for objective and consistent assessment of researcher.

The Impact Factor and APAQ

2001 ◽  
Vol 18 (2) ◽  
pp. 119-126
Author(s):  
Greg Reid ◽  
Dale A. Ulrich
Keyword(s):  
Special Education ◽  
Impact Factor ◽  
Objective Measure ◽  
Sport Science ◽  
Journal Citation Reports ◽  
Time Period ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Journal Citation

The impact factor is a measure of the frequency with which the “average article” in a journal has been cited in a particular year or period (Journal Citation Reports; http://jcr.isihost.com). Specifically, it is the ratio of the number of articles from the journal cited over a given time period to the number of articles published by that journal during the same period. It is an objective measure of the journal’s importance, especially when compared to others in the same field. The purpose of the present study was to compare the impact factor of APAQ to 11 other journals in sport science, special education, and rehabilitation. The impact factor of APAQ compares quite favorably to most other journals in sport science, special education, and rehabilitation. However, it is strikingly different in 1998 and 1999, and therefore scholars should monitor it closely in the next few years while remembering it is only one estimate of journal prestige.

scholarly journals Uncertainty Measures for Economics Journal Impact Factors

2013 ◽  
Vol 51 (1) ◽  
pp. 173-189 ◽  
Author(s):  
David I Stern
Keyword(s):  
Impact Factor ◽  
Confidence Intervals ◽  
Standard Error ◽  
Impact Factors ◽  
Elite Group ◽  
Economics Journal ◽  
Uncertainty Measures ◽  
Economics Journals ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Journal Impact

Academic economists appear to be intensely interested in rankings of journals, institutions, and individuals. Yet there is little discussion of the uncertainty associated with these rankings. To illustrate the uncertainty associated with citations-based rankings, I compute the standard error of the impact factor for all economics journals with a five-year impact factor in the 2011 Journal Citations Report. I use these to derive confidence intervals for the impact factors as well as ranges of possible rank for a subset of thirty journals. I find that the impact factors of the top two journals are well defined and set these journals apart in a clearly defined group. An elite group of 9–11 mainstream journals can also be fairly reliably distinguished. The four bottom ranked journals are also fairly clearly set apart. For the remainder of the distribution, confidence intervals overlap and rankings are quite uncertain. (JEL A14)

scholarly journals Comparison of the Impact Factors of the Most-Cited Cardiovascular Journals

2019 ◽  
Vol 124 (12) ◽  
pp. 1718-1724 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tobias Opthof
Keyword(s):  
Impact Factor ◽  
Journal Impact Factor ◽  
European Heart Journal ◽  
The Other ◽  
Impact Factors ◽  
Additional Advantage ◽  
The Right ◽  
Number Of Classes ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Journal Impact

In this article, I show that the distribution of citations to papers published by the top 30 journals in the category Cardiac & Cardiovascular Systems of the Web of Science is extremely skewed. This skewness is to the right, which means that there is a long tail of papers that are cited much more frequently than the other papers of the same journal. The consequence is that there is a large difference between the mean and the median of the citation of the papers published by the journals. I further found that there are no differences between the citation distributions of the top 4 journals European Heart Journal , Circulation , Journal of the American College of Cardiology , and Circulation Research . Despite the fact that the journal impact factor (IF) varied between 23.425 for Eur Heart J and 15.211 for Circ Res with the other 2 journals in between, the median citation of their articles plus reviews (IF Median) was 10 for all 4 journals. Given the fact that their citation distributions were similar, it is obvious that an indicator (IF Median) that reflects this similarity must be superior to the classical journal impact factor, which may indicate a nonexisting difference. It is underscored that the IF Median is substantially lower than the journal impact factor for all 30 journals under consideration in this article. Finally, the IF Median has the additional advantage that there is no artificial ranking of 128 journals in the category but rather an attribution of journals to a limited number of classes with comparable impact.

Impact factors of psychiatric journals

1997 ◽  
Vol 170 (2) ◽  
pp. 109-112 ◽  
Author(s):  
Louise Howard ◽  
Greg Wilkinson
Keyword(s):  
British Journal ◽  
Impact Factor ◽  
Conflict Of Interest ◽  
Scientific Community ◽  
Impact Factors ◽  
Citation Data ◽  
Journal Citation Reports ◽  
General Psychiatry ◽  
Number Of Citations ◽  
Journal Citation

BackgroundWe examined citation data for the British Journal of Psychiatry (BJP) and four other general psychiatry journals to assess their impact on the scientific community.MethodData on three measures of citations (total number of citations, impact factor and ranking by impact factor) were obtained from Journal Citation Reports for 1985–1994. Rank correlations from year to year were calculated.ResultsThe BJP currently ranks sixth of all psychiatry journals when journals are ranked by impact factor. The journal's impact factor fell between 1985 and 1990 and this was followed by a rise in impact factor after 1991. The BJP did not rank in the top 10 psychiatry journals between 1991 and 1993. Archives of General Psychiatry is cited more frequently than any other psychiatry journal, with the American Journal of Psychiatry usually ranking second. Psychopharmacology journals are replacing more general journals in the top rankings. Rankings of most journals have become less stable in recent years.ConclusionsThe BJP would have to change the nature and number of papers published to improve its impact factor. There are a number of limitations to citation data and such data are only one of several factors useful in evaluating the importance of a journal's contribution to scientific and clinical communities.Conflict of interestThese condauthor is Editor of the British Journal of Psychiatry.

scholarly journals Modeling and Simulation Analysis of Journal Impact Factor Dynamics Based on Submission and Citation Rules

Complexity ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 2020 ◽  
pp. 1-17
Author(s):  
Jian Zhou ◽  
Lin Feng ◽  
Ning Cai ◽  
Jie Yang
Keyword(s):  
Impact Factor ◽  
Journal Impact Factor ◽  
Simulation Analysis ◽  
Impact Factors ◽  
Model Parameters ◽  
Review Time ◽  
Citation Window ◽  
Sociological Factors ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Journal Impact

The variation of the journal impact factor is affected by many statistical and sociological factors such as the size of citation window and subject difference. In this work, we develop an impact factor dynamics model based on the parallel system, which can be used to analyze the correlation between the impact factor and certain elements. The parallel model aims to simulate the submission and citation behaviors of the papers in journals belonging to a similar subject, in a distributed manner. We perform Monte Carlo simulations to show how the model parameters influence the impact factor dynamics. Through extensive simulations, we reveal the important role that certain statistics elements and behaviors play to affect impact factors. The experimental results and analysis on actual data demonstrate that the value of the JIF is comprehensively influenced by the average review time, average number of references, and aging distribution of citation.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document