Indicators and factors related to one‐year improved SCImago journal rank in nursing journals: A bibliometric analysis
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Srisawad S
PROVIDER: S-EPMC11347613 | biostudies-literature | 2024 Aug
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundJournal impact factor (IF) is the leading method of scholarly assessment in today's research world, influencing where scholars submit their research and where funders distribute their resources. COVID-19, one of the most serious health crises, resulted in an unprecedented surge of publications across all areas of knowledge. An important question is whether COVID-19 affected the gold standard of scholarly assessment.ObjectiveIn this paper, we aimed to comprehensively compare the productivity trends of COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 literature as well as track their evolution and scholarly impact across 3 consecutive calendar years.MethodsWe took as an example 6 high-impact medical journals (Annals of Internal Medicine [Annals], The British Medical Journal [The BMJ], Journal of the American Medical Association [JAMA], The Lancet, Nature Medicine [NatMed], and The New England Journal of Medicine [NEJM]) and searched the literature using the Web of Science database for manuscripts published between January 1, 2019, and December 31, 2021. To assess the effect of COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 literature in their scholarly impact, we calculated their annual IFs and percentage changes. Thereafter, we estimated the citation probability of COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 publications along with their rates of publication and citation by journal.ResultsA significant increase in IF change for manuscripts including COVID-19 published from 2019 to 2020 (P=.002; Annals: 283%; The BMJ: 199%; JAMA: 208%; The Lancet: 392%; NatMed: 111%; and NEJM: 196%) and to 2021 (P=.007; Annals: 41%; The BMJ: 90%; JAMA: 6%; The Lancet: 22%; NatMed: 53%; and NEJM: 72%) was seen, against non-COVID-19 ones. The likelihood of highly cited publications was significantly increased in COVID-19 manuscripts between 2019 and 2021 (Annals: z=3.4, P<.001; The BMJ: z=4.0, P<.001; JAMA: z=3.8, P<.001; The Lancet: z=3.5, P<.001; NatMed: z=5.2, P<.001; and NEJM: z=4.7, P<.001). The publication and citation rates of COVID-19 publications followed a positive trajectory, as opposed to non-COVID-19. The citation rate for COVID-19 publications peaked by the second quarter of 2020 while that of the publication rate approximately a year later.ConclusionsThe rapid surge of COVID-19 publications emphasized the capacity of scientific communities to respond against a global health emergency, yet inflated IFs create ambiguity as benchmark tools for assessing scholarly impact. The immediate implication is a loss in value of and trust in journal IFs as metrics of research and scientific rigor perceived by academia and society. Loss of confidence toward procedures employed by highly reputable publishers may incentivize authors to exploit the publication process by monopolizing their research on COVID-19 and encourage them to publish in journals of predatory behavior.
| S-EPMC9778719 | biostudies-literature
Project description:There are now many methods available to assess the relative citation performance of peer-reviewed journals. Regardless of their individual faults and advantages, citation-based metrics are used by researchers to maximize the citation potential of their articles, and by employers to rank academic track records. The absolute value of any particular index is arguably meaningless unless compared to other journals, and different metrics result in divergent rankings. To provide a simple yet more objective way to rank journals within and among disciplines, we developed a κ-resampled composite journal rank incorporating five popular citation indices: Impact Factor, Immediacy Index, Source-Normalized Impact Per Paper, SCImago Journal Rank and Google 5-year h-index; this approach provides an index of relative rank uncertainty. We applied the approach to six sample sets of scientific journals from Ecology (n = 100 journals), Medicine (n = 100), Multidisciplinary (n = 50); Ecology + Multidisciplinary (n = 25), Obstetrics & Gynaecology (n = 25) and Marine Biology & Fisheries (n = 25). We then cross-compared the κ-resampled ranking for the Ecology + Multidisciplinary journal set to the results of a survey of 188 publishing ecologists who were asked to rank the same journals, and found a 0.68-0.84 Spearman's ρ correlation between the two rankings datasets. Our composite index approach therefore approximates relative journal reputation, at least for that discipline. Agglomerative and divisive clustering and multi-dimensional scaling techniques applied to the Ecology + Multidisciplinary journal set identified specific clusters of similarly ranked journals, with only Nature & Science separating out from the others. When comparing a selection of journals within or among disciplines, we recommend collecting multiple citation-based metrics for a sample of relevant and realistic journals to calculate the composite rankings and their relative uncertainty windows.
| S-EPMC4773013 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC10565526 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Bibliometric indicators increasingly affect careers, funding, and reputation of individuals, their institutions and journals themselves. In contrast to author self-citations, little is known about kinetics of journal self-citations. Here we hypothesized that they may show a generalizable pattern within particular research fields or across multiple fields. We thus analyzed self-cites to 60 journals from three research fields (multidisciplinary sciences, parasitology, and information science). We also hypothesized that the kinetics of journal self-citations and citations received from other journals of the same publisher may differ from foreign citations. We analyzed the journals published the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Nature Publishing Group, and Editura Academiei Române. We found that although the kinetics of journal self-cites is generally faster compared to foreign cites, it shows some field-specific characteristics. Particularly in information science journals, the initial increase in a share of journal self-citations during post-publication year 0 was completely absent. Self-promoting journal self-citations of top-tier journals have rather indirect but negligible direct effects on bibliometric indicators, affecting just the immediacy index and marginally increasing the impact factor itself as long as the affected journals are well established in their fields. In contrast, other forms of journal self-citations and citation stacking may severely affect the impact factor, or other citation-based indices. We identified here a network consisting of three Romanian physics journals Proceedings of the Romanian Academy, Series A, Romanian Journal of Physics, and Romanian Reports in Physics, which displayed low to moderate ratio of journal self-citations, but which multiplied recently their impact factors, and were mutually responsible for 55.9%, 64.7% and 63.3% of citations within the impact factor calculation window to the three journals, respectively. They did not receive nearly any network self-cites prior impact factor calculation window, and their network self-cites decreased sharply after the impact factor calculation window. Journal self-citations and citation stacking requires increased attention and elimination from citation indices.
| S-EPMC4835057 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveThe research assessed nursing faculty awareness and knowledge of the journal impact factor (JIF) and its impact on their publication choices.MethodsA qualitative cross-sectional questionnaire was developed using Fluid Survey and distributed electronically to nursing faculty and instructors at three post-secondary institutions in Saskatchewan. Data were collected on place and status of employment, knowledge and awareness of JIFs, and criteria used to choose journals for publication.ResultsA total of forty-four nursing faculty and instructors completed the questionnaire. The authors found that faculty lack awareness or complete understanding of JIFs and that JIFs are not the most important or only criterion used when they choose a journal for publication.ConclusionsThere are various reasons for choosing a journal for publication. It is important for librarians to understand faculty views of JIFs and their criteria for choosing journals for publication, so that librarians are better equipped to guide researchers in considering their academic goals, needs, and personal values.
| S-EPMC5370604 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The aim of this study was to measure the growth of scientific research, authors' productivity, affiliation with the institute and geographic locations published in the Pakistan Journal of Medical Sciences during the period of 2001 - 2010.This numerical analysis was conducted during mid-August 2016 to mid-October, 2016. The data for the study was downloaded from websites of e-journal of Pakistan Journal of Medical Sciences (PJMS) and Pak Medi-Net Com.A total number of 1199 articled were covered by PJMS in 10 volumes and 40 issues with contribution of 3798 (3%) authors during 2001 - 2010. The average number of papers per issue is 30%. A gender wise contribution of males was higher 3050 (80%) than the females 748 (20%). A majority of articles were multi-authored 1052 (87%) as opposed to single author contribution 147 (13%). All 1199 articles were covered under four major disciplines i.e Basic medical sciences, medicine & allied, surgery & allied and radiological sciences and 39 sub-specialties according to medical subject headings (MeSH). It observed that 467 (39%) articles were published in Pakistan and 732 (61%) articles produced by other 32 countries. The Karachi city of Pakistan has produced 199 (16%) articles as highest as its national level and followed by Tehran (Iran) 77 (6%) as followed internationally.This study reveals that the participation of 32 countries in the PJMS publications proves it to be an internationally circulated journal to support research with the constant approach of publishing articles to each volume in basic medical sciences, biomedical, clinical and public health sciences. Abbreviations: DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals IMEMR: Index Medicus Eastern Mediterranean Region HEC: Higher Education Commission (Pakistan) PJMS: Pakistan Journal of Medical Sciences MeSH: Medical Subject Headings PMDC: Pakistan Medical & Dental Council SCIE: Science Citation Index Expanded.
| S-EPMC5510133 | biostudies-other
Project description:In this paper we present the first comprehensive bibliometric analysis of eleven open-access mega-journals (OAMJs). OAMJs are a relatively recent phenomenon, and have been characterised as having four key characteristics: large size; broad disciplinary scope; a Gold-OA business model; and a peer-review policy that seeks to determine only the scientific soundness of the research rather than evaluate the novelty or significance of the work. Our investigation focuses on four key modes of analysis: journal outputs (the number of articles published and changes in output over time); OAMJ author characteristics (nationalities and institutional affiliations); subject areas (the disciplinary scope of OAMJs, and variations in sub-disciplinary output); and citation profiles (the citation distributions of each OAMJ, and the impact of citing journals). We found that while the total output of the eleven mega-journals grew by 14.9% between 2014 and 2015, this growth is largely attributable to the increased output of Scientific Reports and Medicine. We also found substantial variation in the geographical distribution of authors. Several journals have a relatively high proportion of Chinese authors, and we suggest this may be linked to these journals' high Journal Impact Factors (JIFs). The mega-journals were also found to vary in subject scope, with several journals publishing disproportionately high numbers of articles in certain sub-disciplines. Our citation analsysis offers support for Björk & Catani's suggestion that OAMJs's citation distributions can be similar to those of traditional journals, while noting considerable variation in citation rates across the eleven titles. We conclude that while the OAMJ term is useful as a means of grouping journals which share a set of key characteristics, there is no such thing as a "typical" mega-journal, and we suggest several areas for additional research that might help us better understand the current and future role of OAMJs in scholarly communication.
| S-EPMC5115662 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesTo adapt the Assessing Care of Vulnerable Elders Quality Indicators (ACOVE QIs) for use in Italy, to assess the adherence to these indicators as reported in the medical records of residents in a nursing home (NH), to compare this adherence for general medical and geriatric conditions, and eventually, to identify the relationships between patients' characteristics and reported processes of care.MethodsTwo physicians collected the data by reviewing medical records of all NH residents in the previous 5 years, for a period of one year. Patients aged <65 years were excluded. A total of 245 patients were reviewed during the study period. The ACOVE QIs set, developed for NH processes of care, was used to assess the quality of care. Multivariate analysis was performed to identify and to assess the role of patients' characteristics on quality of processes of care by several domains of care in general medical and geriatric conditions.ResultsWith the exception of diabetes management, quality of processes of care for general medical conditions approached adequate adherence. Care falls substantially short of acceptable levels for geriatric conditions (pressure ulcers, falls, dementia). On the contrary, the recommended interventions for urinary incontinence were commonly performed. Adherence to indicators varied for the different domains of care and was proven worse for the screening and prevention indicators both for geriatric and general medical conditions. Statistical analysis showed disparities in provision of appropriate processes of care associated with gender, age, co-morbidities, level of function and mobility, length of stay and modality of discharge by NHs.ConclusionsAdherence to recommended processes of care delivered in NH is inadequate. Substantial work lies ahead for the improvement of care. Efforts should focus particularly on management of geriatric conditions and on preventive healthcare.
| S-EPMC3968054 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeTo examine a series of papers from top ranked orthopaedic journals with respect to the number of citations over a 10-year observation period to identify factors that lead to high citation rates.MethodsThe Web of Science database was consulted to identify all published papers from the first-year term of 2010 (January-May) from four top orthopaedic journals: AJSM, Arthroscopy, JBJS Am and KSSTA. The database was used to analyze and compare the papers with respect to their characteristics and citations up to 2019. Basic information for each paper was collected including the author, country, study type and average citations per year (ACY). The most (Top20%) and least (Bottom20%) frequently cited papers were identified and differences were extracted.ResultsFive hundred sixteen papers were included with a total of 19,261 citations. Most of the published papers were from the United States (n = 245). On average, a paper received 37.3 citations over the 10-year observation period. The most cited paper was cited 322 times. The most cited study type was randomized controlled trial (RCT) (Ø80.8). The Top20% papers were cited 37 times more often than the Bottom20%. Among the Top20%, the largest group was cohort study (n = 20) followed by case series (n = 19). Among others, the number of authors, the number of keywords and the number of references significantly correlated with the number of citations (p < 0.001).ConclusionsFactors influencing citation frequency were identified.
| S-EPMC10403482 | biostudies-literature
Project description:First and last authorship are important metrics of productivity and scholarly success for trainees and professors. For 11 drug delivery-related journals in 2021, the percentage of female first (39.5%) and last (25.7%) authorship was reported. A strong negative correlation, with female first (rp = -0.73) and female last authorship (rp = -0.66), was observed with respect to journal impact factor. In contrast, there was a strong positive correlation with male first and last authorship (rp = 0.71). Papers were ∼1.5 times more likely to have a male first author, and ∼3 times more likely to have a male last author, than females. A female was 22% more likely to have first authorship if the last author was female, although there is an ∼1% increase per year in female authorship with male last authorship, which equates to equality in first authorship by 2044. Considering that drug delivery is composed of engineering, chemistry, and pharmaceutical science disciplines, the observed 25.7% female last authorship does not represent the approximately 35.5% to 50% of professors that are female in these disciplines, internationally. Overall, female authorship in drug delivery-related journals should improve to better represent the work of female senior authors.
| S-EPMC10410662 | biostudies-literature