scholarly journals Az Orvosi Hetilap idézetelemzése mutatószámok alapján 2012 és 2016 között

2018 ◽  
Vol 159 (30) ◽  
pp. 1226-1234
Author(s):  
Anna Berhidi ◽  
Péter Szluka ◽  
Lívia Vasas
Keyword(s):  
Impact Factor ◽  
Web Of Science ◽  
Case Reports ◽  
Citation Rate ◽  
Bibliometric Indicators ◽  
Scientific Performance ◽  
Journal Citation Reports ◽  
Short Period ◽  
Scopus Database ◽  
Number Of Citations

Abstract: Introduction: After getting indexed by scientific databases – Web of Science, Journal Citation Reports – the obtained scientific performance of the journal needs to be kept up. Aim: The aim of this article is to analyse citation numbers based on different bibliometric indicators between 2012 and 2016 comparing data with an article published in 2012. Method: Authors evaluated issues of Orvosi Hetilap published in 2013–2015 and searched data in various international databases. Number of citations, quality of citing journals were analysed based on the official 2015–2016 impact factor of Orvosi Hetilap. Scientific performance of the journal was evaluated according to data of SCImago webpage and Scopus database as well. Results: The official 2016 impact factor of Orvosi Hetilap is 0,349 which is the highest value compared with the previous factors. The articles of Orvosi Hetilap are cited by international authors and high impact factor journals, too. Further, more than half of the publications cited are open access. The most frequently cited categories are original and review articles, and case reports. Scientific performance of Orvosi Hetilap is promising according to indicators of SCImago webpage and Scopus database. Mean self-citation rate of the journal is about 30%. Its h-index is 7 in Web of Science Core Collection, and 19 in Scopus database. Conclusions: Citation analysis of this article shows that citation numbers and various bibliometric indicators can increase in a short period, but drastic changes can only happen in a long period with keeping and pushing the obtained values, and focusing on the further development of the journal. Orv Hetil. 2018; 159(30): 1226–1234.

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 Author self-citation in orthodontics is associated with author origin and gender

2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Christos Livas ◽  
Konstantina Delli ◽  
Nikolaos Pandis
Keyword(s):  
Negative Binomial ◽  
Case Reports ◽  
Citation Rate ◽  
Multivariable Analysis ◽  
Negative Binomial Regression ◽  
Original Research ◽  
Journal Citation Reports ◽  
Citation Counts ◽  
And Gender ◽  
Study Type

Abstract Background The aims of this bibliometric study were to determine author self-citation trends in high-impact orthodontic literature and to investigate possible association between self-citation and publication characteristics. Methods Six orthodontic journals with the highest impact factor as ranked by 2017 Journal Citation Reports were screened for a full publication year (2018) for original research articles, reviews, and case reports. Eligible articles were scrutinized for article and author characteristics and citation metrics. Univariable and multivariable negative binomial regression was used to examine associations between self-citation incidence and publication characteristics. Results Medians for author self-citation rate of the most self-citing authors and self-citations were 3.03% (range 0–50) and 1 (range 0–19), respectively. In the univariable analysis, there was no association between self-citation counts and study type (P = 0.41), article topic (P = 0.61), number of authors (P = 0.62), and rank of authors (P = 0.56). Author origin (P = 0.001), gender (P = 0.001) and journal (P = 0.05) were associated with self-citation counts and in the multivariable analysis only origin and gender remained strong self-citation predictors. Asian authors and females self-cited significantly less often than all other regions and male authors. Conclusions Authors in orthodontics do not self-cite at a frequency that suggests potential citation manipulation. Author origin and gender were the only variables associated with citations counts. More bibliometric research is necessary to draw solid conclusions about author self-citation trends in orthodontic literature.

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.

Citation Skew in Plastic Surgery Journals: Does the Journal Impact Factor Predict Individual Article Citation Rate?

2019 ◽  
Vol 40 (10) ◽  
pp. 1136-1142 ◽  
Author(s):  
Malke Asaad ◽  
Austin Paul Kallarackal ◽  
Jesse Meaike ◽  
Aashish Rajesh ◽  
Rafael U de Azevedo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Impact Factor ◽  
Plastic Surgery ◽  
Journal Impact Factor ◽  
Citation Rate ◽  
Scientific Work ◽  
Biomedical Science ◽  
Unequal Distribution ◽  
Number Of Citations ◽  
Journal Impact ◽  
Surgery Journals

Abstract Background Citation skew refers to the unequal distribution of citations to articles published in a particular journal. Objectives We aimed to assess whether citation skew exists within plastic surgery journals and to determine whether the journal impact factor (JIF) is an accurate indicator of the citation rates of individual articles. Methods We used Journal Citation Reports to identify all journals within the field of plastic and reconstructive surgery. The number of citations in 2018 for all individual articles published in 2016 and 2017 was abstracted. Results Thirty-three plastic surgery journals were identified, publishing 9823 articles. The citation distribution showed right skew, with the majority of articles having either 0 or 1 citation (40% and 25%, respectively). A total of 3374 (34%) articles achieved citation rates similar to or higher than their journal’s IF, whereas 66% of articles failed to achieve a citation rate equal to the JIF. Review articles achieved higher citation rates (median, 2) than original articles (median, 1) (P < 0.0001). Overall, 50% of articles contributed to 93.7% of citations and 12.6% of articles contributed to 50% of citations. A weak positive correlation was found between the number of citations and the JIF (r = 0.327, P < 0.0001). Conclusions Citation skew exists within plastic surgery journals as in other fields of biomedical science. Most articles did not achieve citation rates equal to the JIF with a small percentage of articles having a disproportionate influence on citations and the JIF. Therefore, the JIF should not be used to assess the quality and impact of individual scientific work.

scholarly journals Visceral Origin: An Underestimated Source of Neck Pain. A Systematic Scoping Review

Diagnostics ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
pp. 186 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ángel Oliva-Pascual-Vaca ◽  
Carlos González-González ◽  
Jesús Oliva-Pascual-Vaca ◽  
Fernando Piña-Pozo ◽  
Alejandro Ferragut-Garcías ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Neck Pain ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Web Of Science ◽  
Final Diagnosis ◽  
Clinical Settings ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Journal Citation Reports ◽  
Number Of Citations ◽  
Number Of Authors

The diagnosis of neck pain is challenging. Many visceral disorders are known to cause it, and clinical practice guidelines recommend to rule them out during neck pain diagnosis. However, the absence of suspicion of any cause impedes one from establishing that specific aetiology as the final diagnosis. To investigate the degree of consideration given to visceral aetiology, a systematic search of trials about neck pain was carried out to evaluate their selection criteria. The search yielded 309 eligible articles, which were screened by two independent reviewers. The PEDro scale score was used to assess the methodological quality of the studies. The following information was retrieved: number of authors affiliated to a clinical or non-clinical institution, number of citations in the Web of Science, study aims, characteristics of participants, and eligibility criteria. The top 15 most cited trials, and the 15 most recent studies about treatment efficacy in neck pain, published in first quartile journals of the Journal Citation Reports, were selected. Females represented 67.5% of participants. A single study was of poor methodological quality (4/10). Based on the eligibility criteria of the articles that were systematically reviewed, it would appear that visceral aetiology was not considered in eighty percent of the trials on neck pain, showing a low level of suspicion both in research and clinical settings.

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 A Bibliometric Analysis on Blockchain Technology Literature in Academic Journals

2019 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 107
Author(s):  
Riska Nur Rosyidiana ◽  
Prinintha Nanda Soemarsono ◽  
Dani Egi Raharjo
Keyword(s):  
Bibliometric Analysis ◽  
Implementation Process ◽  
Future Trend ◽  
Single Server ◽  
Bibliometric Indicators ◽  
Blockchain Technology ◽  
Research Publications ◽  
Author Keywords ◽  
Scopus Database ◽  
Number Of Citations

A blockchain is a revolutionary system that connects computer networks in a decentralized and distributed manner. Blockchain allows the process of current transactions to be peer-to-peer (P2P) without relying on a single server. Once entered, information can never be erased. The blockchain contains a certain and verifiable record of every single transaction ever made. This study evaluated the development of research publications in the implementation process and future trend of Blockchain Technology. The aim of this study is to assist researchers in creating a theoretical framework and to provide a preliminary source of references in research mapping in this field. All research publications related to the implementation and future trend of Blockchain Technology in the Scopus database were analyzed using several bibliometric indicators. The authorship, number of citations, journal sources, publishers, institutions, and countries, year of publication, categories, and author keywords were examined.

scholarly journals Bibliometric analysis in the evaluation of journals published by the Forest Research Institute: Forest Research Papers and Folia Forestalia Polonica Series A – Forestry

2017 ◽  
Vol 78 (3) ◽  
pp. 218-225
Author(s):  
Joanna Szewczykiewicz ◽  
Iwona Skrzecz ◽  
Katarzyna Materska
Keyword(s):  
Impact Factor ◽  
Bibliometric Analysis ◽  
Forest Research Institute ◽  
Bibliometric Indicators ◽  
Forest Research ◽  
Research Papers ◽  
Journal Citation Reports ◽  
Advisory Boards ◽  
Journal Citation ◽  
Research Institute

Abstract In recent years, there has been a significant increase in interest in publishing articles in journals recorded by global databases, in particular the Web of Science ™ Core Collection, which indexes journals found in the Journal Citation Reports. The publication of results in these journals has a significant impact on the assessment of the achievements of researchers and scientific institutions. Our study focused on the bibliometric analysis of two journals published by the Forest Research Institute: Forest Research Papers (Leśne Prace Badawcze) and Folia Forestalia Polonica Series A – Forestry. The results of these analyses were used to develop theoretical indices for the editorial boards of these journals in terms of requirements for including both periodicals in the Journal Citation Reports. The analysis covered the volumes published in 2000–2015 and the publication activity of the journals was evaluated on the basis of the numbers of articles, references, authors and journal citations. Bibliometric indicators such as the predicted Impact Factor, the Hirsch index, the Scimago Journal Rank and the Index Copernicus Value were used to evaluate the rank of the journals within the databases. In the examined period, 65 volumes of Forest Research Papers were published, with an average of 31 articles per year containing about 14,000 references and almost 900 contributing authors. During the same time frame, 30 volumes of Folia Forestalia Polonica Series A – Forestry were published, with an average of 14 articles per year. These articles included approximately 5,000 references and 600 authors. An increase in the bibliometric indicators for both journals was observed with the Impact Factor predicted to rise to 0.192 (Forest Research Papers) and 0.178 (Folia Forestalia Polonica Series A – Forestry). In order for the two examined journals to be included in the Journal Citation Reports the following requirements need to be met: (1) an increased number of articles published by authors with significant international authority in their field, (2) a greater number of researchers, especially from developed countries, in advisory boards, (3) more articles published in individual volumes to reach higher citation numbers in databases, and (4) promotion of the most cited articles.

scholarly journals Open Access Works are as Reliable as Other Publishing Models at Retracting Flawed Articles from the Biomedical Literature

2014 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 86
Author(s):  
Elizabeth Margaret Stovold
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Impact Factor ◽  
Information Science ◽  
Citation Rate ◽  
Biomedical Literature ◽  
Free Access ◽  
Pubmed Database ◽  
American Society ◽  
Number Of Citations ◽  
The Impact

A Review of: Peterson, G.M. (2013). Characteristics of retracted open access biomedical literature: a bibliographic analysis. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 64(12), 2428-2436. doi: 10.1002/asi.22944 Abstract Objective – To investigate whether the rate of retracted articles and citation rates post-retraction in the biomedical literature are comparable across open access, free-to-access, or pay-to-access journals. Design – Citation analysis. Setting – Biomedical literature. Subjects – 160 retracted papers published between 1st January 2001 and 31st December 2010. Methods – For the retracted papers, 100 records were retrieved from the PubMed database and 100 records from the PubMed Central (PMC) open access subset. Records were selected at random, based on the PubMed identifier. Each article was assigned a number based on its accessibility using the specific criteria. Articles published in the PMC open access subset were assigned a 2; articles retrieved from PubMed that were freely accessible, but did not meet the criteria for open access were assigned a 1; and articles retrieved through PubMed which were pay-to-access were assigned a 0. This allowed articles to be grouped and compared by accessibility. Citation information was collected primarily from the Science Citation Index. Articles for which no citation information was available, and those with a lifetime citation of 0 (or 1 where the citation came from the retraction statement) were excluded, leaving 160 articles for analysis. Information on the impact factor of the journals was retrieved and the analysis was performed twice; first with the entire set, and second after excluding articles published in journals with an impact factor of 10 or above (14% of the total). The average number of citations per month was used to compare citation rates, and the percentage change in citation rate pre- and post-retraction was calculated. Information was also collected on the time between the date the original article was published and the date of retraction, and the availability of information on the reason for the retraction. Main results – The overall rate of retracted articles in the PMC open access subset compared with the wider PubMed dataset was similar (0.049% and 0.028% respectively). In the group with an accessibility rating of 0, the change in citation rate pre- and post-retraction was -41%. For the group with an accessibility rating of 1, the change was -47% and in those with a rating of 2, the change in citation rate was -59%. Removing articles published in high impact factor journals did not change the results significantly. Retractions were issued more slowly for free access papers compared with open or fee-based articles. The bibliographic records for open access articles disclosed details of the reason for the retraction more frequently than free, non-open papers (91% compared to 53%). Conclusion – Open access literature is similar in its rate of retraction and the reduction in post-retraction citations to the rest of the biomedical literature, and is actually more reliable at reporting the reason for the retraction.

scholarly journals Global psychology: a bibliometric analysis of Web of Science publications

2010 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 553-567 ◽  
Author(s):  
José Navarrete-Cortés ◽  
Juan Antonio Fernández-López ◽  
Alfonso López-Baena ◽  
Raúl Quevedo-Blasco ◽  
Gualberto Buela-Casal
Keyword(s):  
Impact Factor ◽  
Latin American ◽  
Web Of Science ◽  
Citation Rate ◽  
Journal Citation Report ◽  
Scientific Production ◽  
Spanish Speaking ◽  
Latin American Spanish ◽  
American Spanish ◽  
The Web

In this study, we carried a classification by country based on the analysis of the scientific production of psychology journals. We analyzed a total of 108,741 documents, published in the Web of Science. The indicators used were the Weighted Impact Factor, the Relative Impact Factor, the Citation Rate per article and the articles published in the top five journals of the Journal Citation Report (JCR). The results indicate that Spain has the highest percentage of articles in the top five journals in the JCR and Colombia is the second latin-american, Spanish-speaking country that has more citations per article. Countries like Hungary, Italy and USA, had a higher Impact Factor and Citation Rate.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document