Citation Index and Impact factor

Nigam, Anjana; Nigam, Pramod

doi:10.4103/0378-6323.98093

Cited by 25 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 10 publications

(10 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Factors, such as age, citation half-life, cited half-life, comments, bookmarking statistics, immediacy index, provide valuable information in complement to JIF, but do not appear to be comparable functional measures of impact on their own [21,23,24,25]. Citation counts, citations 2011 JCR/WoS, and citations 2011 Scopus, provide information on impact through raw citation counts [21,25,26]. However, these are total citation measures and do not provide article-level information, like JIF [21,25,26].…”

Section: Alternatives To Jifmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Citation counts, citations 2011 JCR/WoS, and citations 2011 Scopus, provide information on impact through raw citation counts [21,25,26]. However, these are total citation measures and do not provide article-level information, like JIF [21,25,26]. Factors that are more similar to the 2-year JIF, include CiteScore [27,28] and the 5-year JIF [23,29,30].…”

Section: Alternatives To Jifmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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

Mech

Ahmed

Tamale

et al. 2020

J. Venom. Anim. Toxins incl. Trop. Dis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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. Purpose Assessing the usefulness of JIF Assessing differential uses of JIF Overview of alternative measures

show abstract

Section: Alternatives To Jifmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Alternatives To Jifmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Mech

Ahmed

Tamale

et al. 2020

J. Venom. Anim. Toxins incl. Trop. Dis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Though citation checking was time-consuming, it was an indepth evaluative method to determine usefulness of collection of libraries supporting education as well as research activity [14][15] . Citation checking of scholarly documents and comparison of those citations against the subscribed materials offered an unnoticeable method of evaluation of the collection and usage of subscribed resources [16][17] .…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Relationship between Online Journal Usage and their Citations in the Academic Publications: A Case Study

Abdul¹,

Rao

Puranik³

2018

DJLIT

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The advancement of science and technology has impacted functioning of the libraries of higher educational institutions, and the mode of providing resources for various academic activities. For many years, libraries attached to educational institutions have been labouring with the question of how to determine the value of journals in their specific library collection. The Health Sciences Library of Manipal Academy of Higher Education at Manipal, subscribed a vast number of online journals for their users. A relation between the usage and citations of subscribed online journals might provide a basis for the collection management in the libraries of academic and research institutions. The current study resolved to identify whether relationship exists between usage of subscribed online journals and their citations in the academic publications of the health science professionals from 2010 to 2015. The study found a statistically significant relationship between subscribed online journal usage and their citations in the publications through the inferential test of Spearman's rank-order correlation. For collection development of online journals, libraries can utilise the usage or citation data of journals as a decision making tool.

show abstract

“…This would enable researchers to work on the quality of their research to match the standards required by top journals in their field. [ 9 10 11 ]…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Impact factor of medical education journals and recently developed indices

Azer

Holen

Wilson

et al. 2016

Journal of Postgraduate Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Journal Impact Factor (JIF) has been used in assessing scientific journals. Other indices, h- and g-indices and Article Influence Score (AIS), have been developed to overcome some limitations of JIF. The aims of this study were, first, to critically assess the use of JIF and other parameters related to medical education research, and second, to discuss the capacity of these indices in assessing research productivity as well as their utility in academic promotion. The JIF of 16 medical education journals from 2000 to 2011 was examined together with the research evidence about JIF in assessing research outcomes of medical educators. The findings were discussed in light of the nonnumerical criteria often used in academic promotion. In conclusion, JIF was not designed for assessing individual or group research performance, and it seems unsuitable for such purposes. Although the g- and h-indices have demonstrated promising outcomes, further developments are needed for their use as academic promotion criteria. For top academic positions, additional criteria could include leadership, evidence of international impact, and contributions to the advancement of knowledge with regard to medical education.

show abstract

Citation Index and Impact factor

Cited by 25 publications

References 10 publications

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

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

Relationship between Online Journal Usage and their Citations in the Academic Publications: A Case Study

Impact factor of medical education journals and recently developed indices

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About