Imbalances of the Impact Factor

Impact Factors and Other Measures of a Journal's Influence

Comprehensive decade-long analysis of point-of-care resources reveals insights into how clinical research makes its way into practice across different medical specialties and through time to enable us to identify potential translational bottlenecks in the pathway from research to practice.

The Impact Factor (IF) is one of the most reliable methods for evaluating the quality of scientific journals. To date, no one has studied the IF of geriatric journals over time. Our aims were 1) to evaluate the IF trend of geriatric journals in general, and with respect to internal medicine, which is the nearest discipline, and 2) to assess the proportion of papers on common geriatric topics published in geriatric journals, with respect to other general periodicals. The current literature was studied to define what IF is and describe its good points and deficiencies. We then analyzed the situation regarding geriatric journals. A bibliometric analysis addressed the kind of journal interested in important geriatric themes (syncope, falls, hip fractures, delirium). Geriatric journals have a low IF, but their importance has been growing over the years. Despite this, papers regarding geriatric themes are published mainly in non-specific journals, and the number of publications regarding syncope, falls, hip fractures, and delirium has not increased during the period in question. In conclusion, it is difficult to use the IF for comparisons between different disciplines, in particular when the one under consideration (geriatrics and gerontology) is spread over a wide range of medical fields. The increase in IF of geriatric journals over time is the most important result of our analysis; this finding will encourage geriatric scientists to submit their papers to geriatric periodicals and will increase the specificity of the gerontological discipline.

Impact factor, which is a measure of the frequency of citation of articles published in a journal over a specified time, measures the rank or importance of a journal. There is a trend towards publication of high quality research in journals with high impact factor. This paper has outlined the importance, method of calculation, clinical implications, pitfalls and financial issues related to the impact factor of medical journals.

The Journal Impact Factor is often used as a proxy measure for journal quality, but the empirical evidence is scarce. In particular, it is unclear how peer review characteristics for a journal relate to its impact factor. We analysed 10,000 peer review reports submitted to 1,644 biomedical journals with impact factors ranging from 0.21 to 74.7. Two researchers hand-coded sentences using categories of content related to the thoroughness of the review (Materials and Methods, Presentation and Reporting, Results and Discussion, Importance and Relevance) and helpfulness (Suggestion and Solution, Examples, Praise, Criticism). We fine-tuned and validated transformer machine learning language models to classify sentences. We then examined the association between the number and percentage of sentences addressing different content categories and 10 groups defined by the Journal Impact Factor. The median length of reviews increased with higher impact factor, from 185 words (group 1) to 387 words (group 10). The percentage of sentences addressing Materials and Methods was greater in the highest Journal Impact Factor journals than in the lowest Journal Impact Factor group. The results for Presentation and Reporting went in the opposite direction, with the highest Journal Impact Factor journals giving less emphasis to such content. For helpfulness, reviews for higher impact factor journals devoted relatively less attention to Suggestion and Solution than lower impact factor journals. In conclusion, peer review in journals with higher impact factors tends to be more thorough, particularly in addressing study methods while giving relatively less emphasis to presentation or suggesting solutions. Differences were modest and variability high, indicating that the Journal Impact Factor is a bad predictor of the quality of peer review of an individual manuscript.

Blockbuster effect of COVID-19 on the impact factor of infectious disease journals

Hard Impact: Journal Impact Factor and JMT

The role of impact factor in evaluating the value of scientific publications is critically reviewed.
\nOther possible criteria for evaluation are assessed and proposed.

We assessed the relationship between the size of the 39 Journal Citation Reports (JCR) medical categories and impact factor (IF) of journals in these categories, and the implications that it might have for emergency medicine (EM) journals. Using the 2010 JCR database, we calculated the mean IF, 5-year IF (5y-IF), Eigenfactor (EF), and Article Influence (AI) scores including all journals for each category. We also calculated a 'weighted IF' for all journals by dividing each journal IF by the mean IF of its category. We ranked EM journals according to IF and 'weighted IF' into all the journals included in the 39 categories. We assessed the relationship between category size and bibliometric scores by linear regression. Category size varied from 252 journals (Pharmacology and Pharmacy) to 14 (Primary Healthcare), EM category occupying the 36th position (23 journals). The mean IF of EM category ranked in 34th position, 5-yIF in 32nd, EF in 34th, and AI in 34th position. Category size had a direct and significant association with mean IF, 5y-IF, and AI but not with mean EF. When the EM journals were ranked among all the journals according to their IF, only two (9%) were placed into the first quartile and raised up to eight (35%) when 'weighted IF' was considered. There is a negative relationship between JCR size category and IF achieved by the journals. This places EM journals at a clear disadvantage because they represent one of the smallest clinical medical research disciplines.

Goodbye <i>International Journal of Andrology</i>, welcome <i>Andrology</i>!

Journals' impact and pecking order: tyranny and tyrannosaurs

No difference in abstract publication rates between the open and closed American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons meetings from 2013 to 2019.

Recent Outcomes Research in Helicopter Emergency Medical Services: A Scoping Review of Publication Year 2023 Additions to the Helicopter Outcomes Assessment Research Database

The Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) publishes annually listings of impact factors of scientific journals, based upon data extracted from the Science Citation Index (SCI). The impact factor of a journal is defined as the average number of citations given in a specific year to documents published in that journal in the two preceding years, divided by the number of “citable” documents published in that journal in those 2 years. This article presents evidence that for a considerable number of journals the values of the impact factors published in ISI's Journal Citation Reports (JCR) are inaccurate, particularly for several journals having a high impact factor. The inaccuracies are due to an inappropriate definition of citable documents. Document types not defined by ISI as citable (particularly letters and editorials) are actually cited and do contribute to the citation counts of a journal. We present empirical data in order to assess the degree of inaccuracy due to this phenomenon. For several journals the results are striking. We propose to calculate for a journal impact factors per type of document rather than one single impact factor as given currently in the JCR. © 1995 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

The journal impact factor (JIF) is a measure that provides a ratio of citations to a journal in a given year to the citable items in the prior two years. The JIF has become a symbol and measure of a journal's prestige in the modern world of peer-reviewed publications. The difficulty and importance for a peer-reviewed journal to obtain an impact factor has been highlighted in numerous medical journals. Irving H. Sher and Eugene Garfield were the first to create the concept of the impact factor of a peer-reviewed journal. According to Eugene Garfield (2006), the JIF is based on two elements: the numerator, which is the number of citations in the current year to items published in the previous two years, and the denominator, which is the number of substantive articles and reviews published in the same two years. Scientists around the world may notice that as of 2024, the JIF is calculated not only by Clarivate, but also by exaly. Clarivate is known for being the company that calculates the JIF, using data from its Web of Science product family, that also includes services/applications such as Publons, etc. In this editorial, we will explain in more detail why the JIF is important both for the peer-reviewed journals published in Ukraine and for Ukrainian authors. Also, let's also explain how both the impact factor calculated by Web of Science and the impact factor calculated by exaly can be useful. The article presents the experience of the Journal of Diagnostics and Treatment of Oral and Maxillofacial Pathology in assigning it an impact factor calculated by the exaly. The advantages for Ukrainian authors of publishing articles in the journals with an impact factor are presented. According to the Order of the Ministry of Healthcare of Ukraine of February 22, 2019, No. 446, publication of an article or review in a journal with an impact factor allows an oral and maxillofacial surgeon to be awarded 20 or 30 continuing professional development (CPD) points. The CPD points obtained are necessary for doctors to the annual review of their personal educational portfolio with CPD points, certification, confirmation or obtaining a new doctor’s category. In summary, the peer-reviewed journal that has received an impact factor automatically becomes a kind of provider of CPD activities for healthcare professionals, for which CPD points are awarded.