Impact Factor of Medical Journals

Impact Factors and Other Measures of a Journal's Influence

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

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.

Hard Impact: Journal Impact Factor and JMT

Ziemann and Oestmann showed that the impact factor of medical publications resulting from doctoral theses at the Charite University Hospital rose by 50% over a decade (4). Mooreover, the number of publications per doctoral candidate rose from 0.8 to 1.4.. These data have to be appreciated. Nevertheless, they should also prompt a discussion about the validity of the impact factor in comparison within faculties. Submitted manuscripts are carefully reviewed by editors/publishers and peer reviewers in order to determine a priority for publication. As a rule, suggestions are implemented aiming for improving the quality of the presentation and thus citations of the publication (1). In view of the current discussions on plagiarism, these hidden “external services” by reviewers that have not been involved in the study are not trivial. The impact factor of medical journals correlates with the number of journals publishing in this domain and the seize of the audience; this results in differences in cross-sectional fields, organ specialties, and subspecialties (2). This is facilitated by modern technologies and several scientific on-line services. Furthermore, formal rules are relevant for citation numbers (1). In general, excellent studies with a presumed scientific and medical impact are preferably published in top journals that do not belong to any particular medical specialty. As a result, the impact factor of journals publishing in a specific domain does not necessarily reflect the scientific potential of that specialty. This statement can be illustrated by current experience in pediatric oncology and hematology. In 2012, five researchers recently received prizes and honors, while their corresponding publications were all published in non-pediatric journals (3). The allocation by specialty for each individual publication is hardly able to abolish such imbalances (2) and appears unrealistic. However, a score that assigns points for the quartile-ranking of a journal within a discipline-specific list is easy to perform and should be considered. If such a score were used across disciplines to compare scientific achievements, the top journal still would retain their influence – however outside of discipline specific lists. Formal biases could be marginalized and disciplines that are currently at a disadvantage could win. This would then enable a valid comparison both within medical faculties and between faculties with different profiles.

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.

Influence of Article Type on the Impact Factor of Dermatology Journals

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.

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

When choosing where to submit their research for publication, most ecologists are concerned with journal impact factor, but they are also concerned with the likelihood that their manuscripts will be accepted. Based on a survey of ecologists, we found different degrees of relative concern for these journal attributes depending on author experience and gender. However, the ability of authors to choose among journals based on these journal attributes is limited: while journal impact factors are published regularly, journal rejection rates are not. We obtained, by permission, rejection rate data for a sample of 60 ecology journals for the year 2004. As expected, journals with higher impact factors also have higher rejection rates, but the ratio of (rejection rate) / (impact factor) increases sharply with decreasing impact factor below 1.76. Journals with impact factors below this value therefore provide relatively low payback in terms of impact against cost as estimated by rejection rate. We discuss alternative possible interpretations of this relationship and alternative criteria that might affect an author's decision about journal choice. Most importantly, our analysis indicates that the ability to make informed choices requires that journals publish their rejection rates annually. PREAMBLE How does an author decide where to submit a paper for publication? This important decision is made routinely throughout the career of a typical researching scientist/academic. The choices made can profoundly affect the trajectory, rate of progress, and status of one's research career. Necessarily, the subject category of the journals under consideration must be concordant with the research topic of the paper. However after this, most authors in the field of ecology at least, are usually still presented with more than one choice of a topically suitable subset of candidate journals. And, when the paper is rejected (an experience that few if any manage to avoid completely), the author is commonly inclined to iteratively select alternative journals.

Does the Journal Impact Factor Help Make a Good Indicator of Academic Performance?

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

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

Journey from conference presentation to peer-reviewed publication: Do ends really meet?

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.