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.

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.

Impact factors, citations, and GEOPHYSICS

Geophysics ◽  
2005 ◽  
Vol 70 (2) ◽  
pp. 3MA-17MA ◽  
Author(s):  
Markku Peltoniemi
Keyword(s):  
Impact Factor ◽  
Citation Count ◽  
Threshold Value ◽  
Impact Factors ◽  
Geophysical Prospecting ◽  
Geophysical Research ◽  
Journal Citation Reports ◽  
History Of Geophysics ◽  
Number Of Citations ◽  
The Impact

This review assesses the contributions and impact that GEOPHYSICS journal has made to both the theory and the applications of exploration geophysics during its publication life span. The contributions are evaluated first on the basis of Journal Citation Reports data, which summarize information available since 1975 about the impact factor of our journal. The impact factor for GEOPHYSICS in 1975–2002 has ranged between 1.461 and 0.591, with an average of 0.924 and with a relative ranking between 16 and 45 for all journals in its category. The journal receiving the highest impact factor for the period 2000–2003 in the “Geochemistry and Geophysics” category is Reviews of Geophysics, with an average impact factor of 7.787 and which ranged between 9.226 and 6.083. A second and important criterion is the frequency with which individual papers published in GEOPHYSICS have been cited elsewhere. This information is available for the entire publication history of GEOPHYSICS and supports the choices made for the early classic papers. These were listed in both the Silver and the Golden Anniversary issues of GEOPHYSICS. In August 2004, the five most-cited papers in GEOPHYSICS published in the time period 1936 to February 2003 are Thomsen (1986) with 423 citations, Constable et al. (1987) with 380 citations, Cagniard (1953) with 354 citations, Sen et al. (1981) with 313 citations, and Stolt (1978) with 307 citations. Fifteen more papers exceed a threshold value of 200 citations. During 2000–2002, GEOPHYSICS, Geophysical Prospecting, Geophysical Journal International, and Journal of Applied Geophysics were the four journals with the highest number of citations of papers published in GEOPHYSICS. In the same 2000–2002 period, those journals in which papers published in GEOPHYSICS are cited most are GEOPHYSICS, Geophysical Prospecting, Geophysical Journal International, and Journal of Geophysical Research. During 1985, the total number of citations in all journals in the Science Citation Index database to papers published in GEOPHYSICS was 2657. By 2002, this same citation count for GEOPHYSICS had increased to 4784.

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.

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.

Impact Factors und Publikationszeitspannen kinder- und jugendpsychiatrischer Journals

2009 ◽  
Vol 37 (1) ◽  
pp. 51-56 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Haberhausen ◽  
Christian Bachmann
Keyword(s):  
American Academy ◽  
Impact Factor ◽  
Adolescent Psychiatry ◽  
Child And Adolescent ◽  
Child And Adolescent Psychiatry ◽  
Impact Factors ◽  
Journal Citation Reports ◽  
Journal Citation

Zusammenfassung: Fragestellung: Der Impact Factor (IF) einer wissenschaftlichen Zeitschrift hat eine wichtige Bedeutung für die Überlegung eines Wissenschaftlers, seine Forschungsergebnisse dort zu publizieren. Ebenso ist die Publikationsspanne, d.h. die Zeit, die vom Einreichen eines Artikels bis zur endgültigen Publikation vergeht, für den Autor von Interesse. In der vorliegenden Arbeit wird deshalb eine Übersicht über IF und Publikationsspannen deutscher und internationaler kinder- und jugendpsychiatrischer Zeitschriften gegeben. Methodik: Es wurde eine Datenbankrecherche in den Journal Citation Reports hinsichtlich IF und IF-Entwicklung der einschlägigen kinder- und jugendpsychiatrischen Zeitschriften 2002-2007 sowie eine Per-Hand-Auswertung dieser Zeitschriften hinsichtlich der Publikationsspannen für das Jahr 2007 durchgeführt. Ergebnisse: Aktuell existieren neun kinder- und jugendpsychiatrische Fachzeitschriften, von denen acht über einen IF verfügen. Die Spannbreite der IF bewegt sich von 0,419 (Praxis der Kinderpsychologie und Kinderpsychiatrie) bis 4,655 (Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry). Die Publikationsspannen betrugen zwischen 5,4 und 13,2 Monaten. Schlussfolgerungen: Obwohl die Kinder- und Jugendpsychiatrie als «kleines Fach» gilt, verfügt sie über Zeitschriften mit international konkurrenzfähigem IF. Die beiden deutschsprachigen Zeitschriften zeigen einen eher niedrigen IF. Die Publikationsspannen sind angemessen und könnten durch Online-Vorabpublikationen noch verkürzt werden.

Repräsentanz von Pflegewissenschaftlerinnen und Pflegewissenschaftlern aus dem deutschsprachigen Raum in Zeitschriften mit hohem Impact Factor

Pflege ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 31 (1) ◽  
pp. 31-39 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julian Hirt ◽  
Christian Buhtz ◽  
Benedikt Mersdorf ◽  
Gabriele Meyer
Keyword(s):  
Impact Factor ◽  
High Impact ◽  
Journal Citation Reports ◽  
Journal Citation

Zusammenfassung.Hintergrund: Die Häufigkeit pflegewissenschaftlicher Beiträge aus dem deutschsprachigen Raum in Zeitschriften mit hohem Impact Factor gibt Hinweise auf die Teilhabe der Disziplin am internationalen Diskurs. Bisherige Analysen beschränken sich auf pflegewissenschaftliche Zeitschriften. Diese konstatieren eine Unterrepräsentanz experimenteller Studien und klinischer Themen. Ziel: Identifikation und Analyse der Publikationen von im deutschsprachigen Raum ansässigen Pflegewissenschaftlerinnen/Pflegewissenschaftlern in internationalen pflegerelevanten High Impact Journals. Methode: Mittels Journal Citation Reports wurden pflegerelevante Zeitschriftenkategorien identifiziert, in denen die nach dem 5-Jahres-Impact-Factor höchsten 10 % der Zeitschriften der Jahre 2010 bis 2014 ausgewählt wurden. Der Einschluss der Publikationen und die Datenextraktion erfolgten durch zwei unabhängige Personen. Ergebnisse: Durchsucht wurden 106939 Publikationen aus 126 Zeitschriften. Eingeschlossen wurden 100 Publikationen, an denen 114 Pflegewissenschaftler/-innen aus dem deutschsprachigen Raum insgesamt 229 Mal beteiligt sind. Insgesamt 42 % sind Beobachtungsstudien, 11 % sind experimentelle Studien. Die berichteten Themen sind mehrheitlich klinisch orientiert (55 %). Über 50 % sind in den letzten zwei Jahren publiziert worden. Schlussfolgerungen: Das pflegewissenschaftliche Publikationsaufkommen aus dem deutschsprachigen Raum in High Impact Journals ist gering. Eine Zunahme über den Beobachtungszeitraum ist zu verzeichnen. Im Gegensatz zu früheren Analysen zeigt sich ein höherer Anteil klinischer Forschung.

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 Bibliometric analysis of multi-language veterinary journals

2017 ◽  
Vol 29 (3) ◽  
pp. 343-353
Author(s):  
Erwin KRAUSKOPF ◽  
Fernanda GARCIA ◽  
Robert FUNK
Keyword(s):  
Impact Factor ◽  
Bibliometric Analysis ◽  
Web Of Science ◽  
Country Of Origin ◽  
Citation Distribution ◽  
Journal Citation Reports ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Number Of Citations ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Main Language

Abstract The purpose of this study was to investigate the association between language and total number of citations found among documents in journals written in English and other languages. We selected all the journals clustered together in the Journal Citation Reports 2014 under the subject category “Veterinary Sciences” and downloaded all the data registered between 1994-2013 by Web of Science for the journals that stated publishing documents in languages other than English. We classified each of these journals by quartile and extracted information regarding their impact factor, language(s) stated, country of origin, total number of documents published, total number of reviews published, percentage of documents published in English and the quartile in which each journal ranked. Of the 48,118 documents published by the 28 journals analyzed, 55.8% were published in English. Interestingly, although most of the journals state being multi-language, most documents published in quartile 1 journals were in English (an average of 99.2%), while the percentage was 93.1% in quartile 2 journals, 62.1% in quartile 3 journals and 27.4% in quartile 4 journals. We also confirmed that citation distribution in these journals was highly skewed. The results of this study suggest that journals should consider adopting English as the main language as this will increase citation counts and the impact factor of the journal.

scholarly journals Understanding citation patterns between impact-factor and blacklisted journals

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Emanuel Kulczycki ◽  
Marek Hołowiecki ◽  
Zehra Taskin ◽  
Franciszek Krawczyk
Keyword(s):  
Impact Factor ◽  
Web Of Science ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Impact Factors ◽  
Predatory Journals ◽  
Subject Categories ◽  
Citation Indexes ◽  
Predatory Publishing ◽  
Number Of Citations ◽  
The Impact

One of the most fundamental issues in academia today is understanding the differences between legitimate and predatory publishing. While decision-makers and managers consider journals indexed in popular citation indexes such as Web of Science or Scopus as legitimate, they use two blacklists (Beall’s and Cabell’s), one of which has not been updated for a few years, to identify predatory journals. The main aim of our study is to reveal the contribution of the journals accepted as legitimate by the authorities to the visibility of blacklisted journals. For this purpose, 65 blacklisted journals in social sciences and 2,338 Web-of-Science-indexed journals that cited these blacklisted journals were examined in-depth in terms of index coverages, subject categories, impact factors and self-citation patterns. We have analysed 3,234 unique cited papers from blacklisted journals and 5,964 unique citing papers (6,750 citations of cited papers) from Web of Science journals. We found that 13% of the blacklisted papers were cited by WoS journals and 37% of the citations were from impact-factor journals. As a result, although the impact factor is used by decision-makers to determine the levels of the journals, it has been revealed that there is no significant relationship between the impact factor and the number of citations to blacklisted journals. On the other hand, country and author self-citation practices of the journals should be considered. All the findings of this study underline the importance of the second part of this study, which will examine the contents of citations to articles published in predatory journals because understanding the motivations of the authors who cited blacklisted journals is important to correctly understand the citation patterns between impact-factor and blacklisted journals.

Landmark Paper Index: Definition and Application to Rheological (η-) Journals

2006 ◽  
Vol 16 (6) ◽  
pp. 329-333 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. Kröger
Keyword(s):  
Impact Factor ◽  
Scientific Community ◽  
Impact Factor Journal ◽  
Number Of Citations ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Highly Cited Articles ◽  
Highly Cited

Abstract We define a Landmark Paper Index (LPI), calculate and analyze indices for all papers published in rheological journals (‘η-journals’) between 1990 and 2006. This paper offers some information about the criteria influencing the impact of publications on the (scientific) community. In opposite to the well known Impact Factor (journal sensitive) or the number of citations (article sensitive, publication year insensitive) the LPI helps to identify established and potential breakthrough contributions by considering the number of citations per year after publication, in a way which does not overestimate the few, highly cited, articles when performing averages. We discuss the effect of formal criteria on the LPI.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document