Dataset Information

Evaluating Journal Impact Factor: a systematic survey of the pros and cons, and overview of alternative measures.

ABSTRACT: Background:Journal Impact Factor (JIF) has several intrinsic flaws, which highlight its inability to adequately measure citation distributions or indicate journal quality. Despite these flaws, JIF is still widely used within the academic community, resulting in the propagation of potentially misleading information. A critical review of the usefulness of JIF is needed including an overview of the literature to identify viable alternative metrics. The objectives of this study are: (1) to assess the usefulness of JIF by compiling and comparing its advantages and disadvantages; (2) to record the differential uses of JIF within research environments; and (3) to summarize and compare viable alternative measures to JIF. Methods:Three separate literature search strategies using MEDLINE and Web of Science were completed to address the three study objectives. Each search was completed in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Results were compiled in tabular format and analyzed based on reporting frequency. Results:For objective (1), 84 studies were included in qualitative analysis. It was found that the recorded advantages of JIF were outweighed by disadvantages (18 disadvantages vs. 9 advantages). For objective (2), 653 records were included in a qualitative analysis. JIF was found to be most commonly used in journal ranking (n = 653, 100%) and calculation of scientific research productivity (n = 367, 56.2%). For objective (3), 65 works were included in qualitative analysis. These articles revealed 45 alternatives, which includes 18 alternatives that improve on highly reported disadvantages of JIF. Conclusion:JIF has many disadvantages and is applied beyond its original intent, leading to inaccurate information. Several metrics have been identified to improve on certain disadvantages of JIF. Integrated Impact Indicator (I3) shows great promise as an alternative to JIF. However, further scientometric analysis is needed to assess its properties.

SUBMITTER: Mech E

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7458102 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Evaluating Journal Impact Factor: a systematic survey of the pros and cons, and overview of alternative measures.

Mech Eugene E Ahmed Muhammad Muneeb MM Tamale Edward E Holek Matthew M Li Guowei G Thabane Lehana L

The journal of venomous animals and toxins including tropical diseases 20200831

<h4>Background</h4>Journal Impact Factor (JIF) has several intrinsic flaws, which highlight its inability to adequately measure citation distributions or indicate journal quality. Despite these flaws, JIF is still widely used within the academic community, resulting in the propagation of potentially misleading information. A critical review of the usefulness of JIF is needed including an overview of the literature to identify viable alternative metrics. The objectives of this study are: <i>(1)</ ...[more]

PMID: 32944018

Similar Datasets

Project description:Macroalgae stand out for their high content of dietary fiber (30-75%) that include soluble, sulfated (fucoidan, agaran, carrageenan, and ulvan) and non-sulfated (laminaran and alginate) polysaccharides. Many studies indicate that these compounds exert varied biological activities and health-promoting effects and for this reason, there is a growing interest for using them in food products. The aim of this review was to critically evaluate prebiotic properties of algal polysaccharides, i.e., their ability to exert biological activities by modulating the composition and/or diversity of gut microbiota (GM). Pre-clinical studies show that the non-sulfated alginate and laminaran are well-fermented by GM, promoting the formation of short chain fatty acids (SCFAs) including butyrate, and preventing that of harmful putrefactive compounds (NH3, phenol, p-cresol, indole and H2S). Alginate increases Bacteroides, Bifidobacterium, and Lactobacillus species while laminaran mostly stimulates Bacteroides sp. Results with sulfated polysaccharides are more questionable. Agarans are poorly fermentable but agarose-oligosaccharides exhibit an interesting prebiotic potential, increasing butyrate-producing bacteria and SCFAs. Though carrageenan-oligosaccharides are also fermented, their use is currently limited due to safety concerns. Regarding fucoidan, only one study reports SCFAs production, suggesting that it is poorly fermented. Its effect on GM does not indicate a clear pattern, making difficult to conclude whether it is beneficial or not. Notably, fucoidan impact on H2S production has not been evaluated, though some studies report it increases sulfate-reducing bacteria. Ulvan is badly fermented by GM and some studies show that part of its sulfate is dissimilated to H2S, which could affect colonic mitochondrial function. Accordingly, these results support the use of laminaran, alginate and agaro-oligosaccharides as prebiotics while more studies are necessary regarding that of fucoidan, carrageenan and ulvan. However, the realization of clinical trials is necessary to confirm such prebiotic properties in humans.

Dataset Information

Evaluating Journal Impact Factor: a systematic survey of the pros and cons, and overview of alternative measures.

Publications

Evaluating Journal Impact Factor: a systematic survey of the pros and cons, and overview of alternative measures.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets