Dataset Information

How well are journal and clinical article characteristics associated with the journal impact factor? a retrospective cohort study.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

Journal impact factor (JIF) is often used as a measure of journal quality. A retrospective cohort study determined the ability of clinical article and journal characteristics, including appraisal measures collected at the time of publication, to predict subsequent JIFs.

Methods

Clinical research articles that passed methods quality criteria were included. Each article was rated for relevance and newsworthiness by 3 to 24 physicians from a panel of more than 4,000 practicing clinicians. The 1,267 articles (from 103 journals) were divided 60?40 into derivation (760 articles) and validation sets (507 articles), representing 99 and 88 journals, respectively. A multiple regression model was produced determining the association of 10 journal and article measures with the 2007 JIF.

Results

Four of the 10 measures were significant in the regression model: number of authors, number of databases indexing the journal, proportion of articles passing methods criteria, and mean clinical newsworthiness scores. With the number of disciplines rating the article, the 5 variables accounted for 61% of the variation in JIF (R(2)?=?0.607, 95% CI 0.444 to 0.706, P<0.001).

Conclusion

For the clinical literature, measures of scientific quality and clinical newsworthiness available at the time of publication can predict JIFs with 60% accuracy.

SUBMITTER: Lokker C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3257484 | biostudies-literature | 2012 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

How well are journal and clinical article characteristics associated with the journal impact factor? a retrospective cohort study.

Lokker Cynthia C Haynes R Brian RB Chu Rong R McKibbon K Ann KA Wilczynski Nancy L NL Walter Stephen D SD

Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA 20120101 1

<h4>Objective</h4>Journal impact factor (JIF) is often used as a measure of journal quality. A retrospective cohort study determined the ability of clinical article and journal characteristics, including appraisal measures collected at the time of publication, to predict subsequent JIFs.<h4>Methods</h4>Clinical research articles that passed methods quality criteria were included. Each article was rated for relevance and newsworthiness by 3 to 24 physicians from a panel of more than 4,000 practic ...[more]

PMID: 22272156

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background. The Journal Citation Reports journal impact factors (JIFs) are widely used to rank and evaluate journals, standing as a proxy for the relative importance of a journal within its field. However, numerous criticisms have been made of use of a JIF to evaluate importance. This problem is exacerbated when the use of JIFs is extended to evaluate not only the journals, but the papers therein. The purpose of this study was therefore to investigate the relationship between the number of citations and journal IF for identical articles published simultaneously in multiple journals. Methods. Eligible articles were consensus research reporting statements listed on the EQUATOR Network website that were published simultaneously in three or more journals. The correlation between the citation count for each article and the median journal JIF over the published period, and between the citation count and number of article accesses was calculated for each reporting statement. Results. Nine research reporting statements were included in this analysis, representing 85 articles published across 58 journals in biomedicine. The number of citations was strongly correlated to the JIF for six of the nine reporting guidelines, with moderate correlation shown for the remaining three guidelines (median r = 0.66, 95% CI [0.45-0.90]). There was also a strong positive correlation between the number of citations and the number of article accesses (median r = 0.71, 95% CI [0.5-0.8]), although the number of data points for this analysis were limited. When adjusted for the individual reporting guidelines, each logarithm unit of JIF predicted a median increase of 0.8 logarithm units of citation counts (95% CI [-0.4-5.2]), and each logarithm unit of article accesses predicted a median increase of 0.1 logarithm units of citation counts (95% CI [-0.9-1.4]). This model explained 26% of the variance in citations (median adjusted r (2) = 0.26, range 0.18-1.0). Conclusion. The impact factor of the journal in which a reporting statement was published was shown to influence the number of citations that statement will gather over time. Similarly, the number of article accesses also influenced the number of citations, although to a lesser extent than the impact factor. This demonstrates that citation counts are not purely a reflection of scientific merit and the impact factor is, in fact, auto-correlated.

Project description:ObjectiveTo determine whether the quality of press releases issued by medical journals can influence the quality of associated newspaper stories.DesignRetrospective cohort study of medical journal press releases and associated news stories.SettingWe reviewed consecutive issues (going backwards from January 2009) of five major medical journals (Annals of Internal Medicine, BMJ, Journal of the National Cancer Institute, JAMA, and New England Journal of Medicine) to identify the first 100 original research articles with quantifiable outcomes and that had generated any newspaper coverage (unique stories ≥100 words long). We identified 759 associated newspaper stories using Lexis Nexis and Factiva searches, and 68 journal press releases using Eurekalert and journal website searches. Two independent research assistants assessed the quality of journal articles, press releases, and a stratified random sample of associated newspaper stories (n=343) by using a structured coding scheme for the presence of specific quality measures: basic study facts, quantification of the main result, harms, and limitations.Main outcomeProportion of newspaper stories with specific quality measures (adjusted for whether the quality measure was present in the journal article's abstract or editor note).ResultsWe recorded a median of three newspaper stories per journal article (range 1-72). Of 343 stories analysed, 71% reported on articles for which medical journals had issued press releases. 9% of stories quantified the main result with absolute risks when this information was not in the press release, 53% did so when it was in the press release (relative risk 6.0, 95% confidence interval 2.3 to 15.4), and 20% when no press release was issued (2.2, 0.83 to 6.1). 133 (39%) stories reported on research describing beneficial interventions. 24% mentioned harms (or specifically declared no harms) when harms were not mentioned in the press release, 68% when mentioned in the press release (2.8, 1.1 to 7.4), and 36% when no press release was issued (1.5, 0.49 to 4.4). 256 (75%) stories reported on research with important limitations. 16% reported any limitations when limitations were not mentioned in the press release, 48% when mentioned in the press release (3.0, 1.5 to 6.2), and 21% if no press release was issued (1.3, 0.50 to 3.6).ConclusionHigh quality press releases issued by medical journals seem to make the quality of associated newspaper stories better, whereas low quality press releases might make them worse.

Project description:BackgroundClinical trials are one of the most important sources of evidence for guiding evidence-based practice and the design of new trials. However, most of this information is available only in free text - e.g., in journal publications - which is labour intensive to process for systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and other evidence synthesis studies. This paper presents an automatic information extraction system, called ExaCT, that assists users with locating and extracting key trial characteristics (e.g., eligibility criteria, sample size, drug dosage, primary outcomes) from full-text journal articles reporting on randomized controlled trials (RCTs).MethodsExaCT consists of two parts: an information extraction (IE) engine that searches the article for text fragments that best describe the trial characteristics, and a web browser-based user interface that allows human reviewers to assess and modify the suggested selections. The IE engine uses a statistical text classifier to locate those sentences that have the highest probability of describing a trial characteristic. Then, the IE engine's second stage applies simple rules to these sentences to extract text fragments containing the target answer. The same approach is used for all 21 trial characteristics selected for this study.ResultsWe evaluated ExaCT using 50 previously unseen articles describing RCTs. The text classifier (first stage) was able to recover 88% of relevant sentences among its top five candidates (top5 recall) with the topmost candidate being relevant in 80% of cases (top1 precision). Precision and recall of the extraction rules (second stage) were 93% and 91%, respectively. Together, the two stages of the extraction engine were able to provide (partially) correct solutions in 992 out of 1050 test tasks (94%), with a majority of these (696) representing fully correct and complete answers.ConclusionsOur experiments confirmed the applicability and efficacy of ExaCT. Furthermore, they demonstrated that combining a statistical method with 'weak' extraction rules can identify a variety of study characteristics. The system is flexible and can be extended to handle other characteristics and document types (e.g., study protocols).

Project description:BackgroundIn a significant proportion of pregnant women, elevated blood pressure may first present during the intrapartum period. This phenomenon, intrapartum hypertension, is often overlooked as blood pressure during delivery is attributed to labour pain, analgesic agents and haemodynamic changes. Thus the true prevalence and clinical significance of intrapartum hypertension remains unknown. This study sought to define the prevalence of intrapartum hypertension in previously normotensive women, identify associated clinical characteristics, and its impact on maternal and fetal outcomes.MethodsIn this single-center retrospective cohort study, all available partograms were reviewed over a 1-month period at an outer metropolitan hospital in Sydney (Campbelltown Hospital). Women with diagnosed hypertensive disorders of pregnancy during the incident pregnancy were excluded. A total of 229 deliveries were included in the final analysis. Intrapatum hypertension (IH) was defined as two or more systolic blood pressure (SBP)⩾140 mmHg or diastolic blood pressure (DBP)⩾90 mmHg during the intrapartum. Demographic data at the time of the first antenatal visit for the incident pregnancy as well as final maternal outcomes (intrapartum and post-partum) and fetal outcomes were collected. Statistical analyses were carried out using SPSSv27 with adjustments for baseline variables.ResultsAmongst 229 deliveries, 32 women (14%) had intrapartum hypertension. Older maternal age (p = 0.02), higher body mass index (p < 0.01) and higher diastolic blood pressure at the first antenatal visit (p = 0.03) were associated with intrapartum hypertension. A longer second stage of labour (p = 0.03), intrapartum non-steroidal anti-inflammatory medications (p < 0.01) and epidural anaesthesia (p = 0.03) were associated with intrapartum hypertension, while IV syntocin for labour induction was not. Women with intrapartum hypertension had a longer inpatient admission following delivery (p < 0.01), and elevated postpartum BP (p = 0.02) with discharge on antihypertensive medications (p < 0.01). Intrapartum hypertension was not associated with poor fetal outcomes, though subgroup analyses showed that women who had at least a single elevated blood pressure reading during the intrapartum experienced poorer fetal outcomes.ConclusionIn previously normotensive women, 14% developed intrapartum hypertension during delivery. This was associated with postpartum hypertension, longer maternal admission and discharge with antihypertensive medications. There was no difference in fetal outcomes.

Dataset Information

How well are journal and clinical article characteristics associated with the journal impact factor? a retrospective cohort study.

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

How well are journal and clinical article characteristics associated with the journal impact factor? a retrospective cohort study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets