Current concepts on bibliometrics: a brief review about impact factor, Eigenfactor score, CiteScore, SCImago Journal Rank, Source-Normalised Impact per Paper, H-index, and alternative metrics

Roldan-Valadez, Ernesto; Salazar-Ruiz, Shirley Yoselin; Ibarra-Contreras, Rafael; Rı́os, Camilo

doi:10.1007/s11845-018-1936-5

Cited by 284 publications

(240 citation statements)

References 66 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

196

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“… Five-year journal impact factor: this indicator represents the citation counts received by a journal, in one year, of the citable papers published in the last 5 years. Its calculation follows the following formula: citations from journal citation report (JCR) year of documents published in the last 5 years, divided by the total number of citable documents [ 56 ]. CiteScore (CS): this is a newly introduced indicator adopted to assess the impact of journals so that more rigorous results can be obtained.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“… CiteScore (CS): this is a newly introduced indicator adopted to assess the impact of journals so that more rigorous results can be obtained. Its calculation follows the following formula: the ratio of citation counts from all items in 1 year to all items published over the past 3 years for a journal [ 56 ]. Eigenfactor Score (ES): this is regarded as an indicator of the global repercussions or impact of documents published online in JCR.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Applications of Bone Morphogenetic Proteins in Dentistry: A Bibliometric Analysis

Ahmad

Bella

Stoddart

2020

BioMed Research International

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background. Many articles on bone morphogenetic proteins (BMPs) have been published. Bibliometric analysis is helpful to determine the most influential studies in a specific field. This bibliometric analysis is aimed at identifying and analyzing the top 50 most-cited articles on the dental applications of BMPs. Methods. An electronic search was conducted using the Web of Science (WoS) “All Databases” without any restriction of language, study design, or publication year. Of 1341 publications, the top 50 were included based on their citation count. After downloading the full texts, their bibliometric data including publication title, authorship, citation count, current citation index 2019, citation density, year of publication, country and institution of origin, journal of publication, type of BMP, study design, evidence level of publication, and keywords were extracted and analyzed. Results. The citation counts for the top 50 publications ranged from 81 to 557 (median 113.5). The most prolific year was 1997 ( n = 7 ). Wikesjö UM ( n = 12 ) and Wozney JM ( n = 11 ) were the major contributors in this study. Most of the articles were generated primarily from the USA ( n = 24 ), with Loma Linda University Medical Center, USA being the most prolific institution ( n = 5 ). Majority of the articles were published in the Clinical Oral Implants Research and Journal of Periodontology, with nine publications each. Most of the publications were animal studies ( n = 30 ) and focused on BMP-2 ( n = 39 ). Most of the articles were within evidence level V ( n = 36 ). The most frequently used keyword in the top articles was “bone regeneration” ( n = 23 ). Conclusion. The present study presents insights into the past and recent trends in the applications of BMPs in dentistry. A statistically significant association was observed between citation count, citation density, and age of publication.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Applications of Bone Morphogenetic Proteins in Dentistry: A Bibliometric Analysis

Ahmad

Bella

Stoddart

2020

BioMed Research International

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The ranking uses a weighted algorithm that is largely informed by the team's expertise and knowledge of authorship rules and regulations, publication standards, and the publishing industry. Results are displayed in two columns, with one column showing the default results ranking and a second column with citation-based impact metrics added to the weighting, because impact metrics are often used by authors as a criterion for journal selection but have known limitations as indicators of journal quality [47][48][49]. Once results are returned, users can view the record of each journal or, alternatively, select up to three journals for a comparison view.…”

Section: Spi-hub: Scholarly Publishing Information Hub™ Featuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

SPI-Hub™: a gateway to scholarly publishing information

Koonce

Blasingame

Zhao

et al. 2020

jmla

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Advances in the health sciences rely on sharing research and data through publication. As information professionals are often asked to contribute their knowledge to assist clinicians and researchers in selecting journals for publication, the authors recognized an opportunity to build a decision support tool, SPI-Hub: Scholarly Publishing Information Hub™, to capture the team’s collective publishing industry knowledge, while carefully retaining the quality of service.Case Presentation: SPI-Hub’s decision support functionality relies on a data framework that describes journal publication policies and practices through a newly designed metadata structure, the Knowledge Management Journal Record™. Metadata fields are populated through a semi-automated process that uses custom programming to access content from multiple sources. Each record includes 25 metadata fields representing best publishing practices. Currently, the database includes more than 24,000 health sciences journal records. To correctly capture the resources needed for both completion and future maintenance of the project, the team conducted an internal study to assess time requirements for completing records through different stages of automation.Conclusions: The journal decision support tool, SPI-Hub, provides an opportunity to assess publication practices by compiling data from a variety of sources in a single location. Automated and semi-automated approaches have effectively reduced the time needed for data collection. Through a comprehensive knowledge management framework and the incorporation of multiple quality points specific to each journal, SPI-Hub provides prospective users with both recommendations for publication and holistic assessment of the trustworthiness of journals in which to publish research and acquire trusted knowledge.

show abstract

“…These bibliometric measures attempt to better quantify the real impact of publications, for example, rating citations based on the influence/prestige of a Journal and eliminating the problem of selfcitation (SCImago journal rank, AIS, etc), whereas others tend to focus more on a researcher's output.(eg. H-index) [18] . In the future, combinations of bibliometric parameters each focusing on different aspects of a Journal's or researcher's impact would be helpful.…”

Section: Editorialmentioning

confidence: 99%

The future of medical publication as we move towards the second half of the 21st century

Chloros

Civil

Giannoudis

2020

Injury

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Current concepts on bibliometrics: a brief review about impact factor, Eigenfactor score, CiteScore, SCImago Journal Rank, Source-Normalised Impact per Paper, H-index, and alternative metrics

Cited by 284 publications

References 66 publications

Applications of Bone Morphogenetic Proteins in Dentistry: A Bibliometric Analysis

Applications of Bone Morphogenetic Proteins in Dentistry: A Bibliometric Analysis

SPI-Hub™: a gateway to scholarly publishing information

The future of medical publication as we move towards the second half of the 21st century

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About