Factors associated with the Journal Impact Factor (JIF) for Urology and Nephrology Journals

Sewell, Joseph M.; Adejoro, Oluwakayode; Fleck, Joseph; Wolfson, Julian; Konety, Badrinath R.

doi:10.1590/s1677-5538.ibju.2014.0497

Cited by 6 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In the same vein, SC was also found by Torabian et al [30] to be significantly related to JIT for open access medical journals and the same was observed for ecology journals [31]. A positive correlation between SC and JIT was also reported in the study of Urology and Nephrology Journals [32]. Readers are also referred to Hartley [33].…”

Section: Opponent Of Self-citationsupporting

confidence: 71%

Modified CiteScore metric for reducing the effect of self-citations

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Elsevier B.V. launched a scholarly metric called CiteScore (CS) on December 8, 2016. Up till then, the journal impact factor (JIF) owned by Clarivate Analytics (Thomson Reuters) was the only trusted metric for journal evaluation. As noted by Teixeira da Silva & Memon (2017), CS offers some observed advantages over JIF. The potentials of CiteScore as a viable metric are still emerging. The paper briefly introduces a variant of the CiteScore that can be used in quantifying the impact of researchers and their institutions. The ultimate aim is to reduce the numerical effect of self-citations (SC) in academic publishing. The reduction is designed to discourage SC but not diminishing it. The reasons for the adopted methodology are discussed extensively. The proposed modified CiteScore metric is simple, transparent and constructed to ensure integrity in academic publication. The result showed that the proposed modified CiteScore is a better option than the traditional CiteScore and hence, can be applied in impact determination, the ranking of authors and their institutions, and evaluation of scientists for a grant award. The approach used in this paper is entirely new in two ways; first, a metric similar to journal ranking is proposed for ranking authors and their institutions and secondly, disproportionate scores are awarded to different sources of citations to reduce perceived dishonesty in academic publications. In conclusion, this research is one of very few to report the effect of SC on CiteScore. Hitherto, the effect of SC has always been on the journal impact factor (IF).

show abstract

Section: Opponent Of Self-citationsupporting

confidence: 71%

Modified CiteScore metric for reducing the effect of self-citations

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Because previous studies of the scientific literature within other medical specialties and the basic sciences have shown that journal self‐citations (and possible promotion of self‐citations) could be a mechanism by which journals raise their IF, 30 , 33 we sought to determine whether this was also the case among otolaryngology journals. We therefore explored this by comparing the IF excluding self‐citations (IFsSC) between otolaryngology journals in the top quartile versus bottom 75th percentile (Table S1 ).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Determinants of impact factor and Eigenfactor score in otolaryngology journals

Ali

Phillips

Sedaghat

2023

Laryngoscope Investig Oto

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective This study aims to identify determinants of high impact, measured by Impact Factor (IF) and Eigenfactor score, among otolaryngology journals. Methods Bibliometric data of “otorhinolaryngology” journals were collected from the Journal Citation Reports (JCR) database. For the years 2009–2020, we collected normalized Eigenfactor score, 5‐year IF, immediacy index, fraction of IF from journal‐self citation, proportion and magnitude of published citable articles, and total citation counts. High‐IF and ‐Eigenfactor journals were considered those within the top‐quartile of that metric each respective year. Results High‐IF and ‐Eigenfactor otolaryngology journals displayed higher 5‐year IFs, immediacy indexes, and IF without self‐citation ( p < .05 for all years) including total citations counts and citable articles when ranked by Eigenfactor ( p < .05 for all years). Otolaryngology IF correlated with 5‐year IF and immediacy index within the same year ( p < .05 for all years) and from previous years ( p < .05 for all years; p < .05 for 2017‐2018; p > .05 for 2009‐2016). Eigenfactor correlated with 5‐year IF, total citation counts, and citable articles within the same year ( p < .05 for all years) and previous years ( p < .05 for 2013–2018). Multilinear regression revealed that 5‐year IF ( p < .05 for 2009–2018) and immediacy index from the prior 2 years ( p < .05 for 2017‐2018; p > .05 for 2009‐2016) predicted 2019 IF. Similarly, 5‐year IF, total citation counts, and citable articles ( p < .05 for 2013–2018) predicted 2019 Eigenfactor score. Conclusion Sustained publication of impactful articles is the dominant driver of high IF and Eigenfactor score. Eigenfactor score reflects a unique evaluation of otolaryngology journals; ranking otolaryngology journals by their Eigenfactor scores significantly alters journal ranking compared to ranking by IF. Level of evidence NA.

show abstract

“…Indexers of Thomson Reuters databases should respond to arguments that point to the need for revising the original formula of the JIF (6263). Remarkably, editorials and letters, the so-called noncitable items, which have long been excluded from the denominator of the JIF, have changed their influence over the past decades.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Journal Impact Factor: Moving Toward an Alternative and Combined Scientometric Approach

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Journal Impact Factor (JIF) is a single citation metric, which is widely employed for ranking journals and choosing target journals, but is also misused as the proxy of the quality of individual articles and academic achievements of authors. This article analyzes Scopus-based publication activity on the JIF and overviews some of the numerous misuses of the JIF, global initiatives to overcome the ‘obsession’ with impact factors, and emerging strategies to revise the concept of the scholarly impact. The growing number of articles on the JIF, most of which are in English, reflects interest of experts in journal editing and scientometrics toward its uses, misuses, and options to overcome related problems. Solely displaying values of the JIFs on the journal websites is criticized by experts as these average metrics do not reflect skewness of citation distribution of individual articles. Emerging strategies suggest to complement the JIFs with citation plots and alternative metrics, reflecting uses of individual articles in terms of downloads and distribution of related information through social media and networking platforms. It is also proposed to revise the original formula of the JIF calculation and embrace the concept of the impact and importance of individual articles. The latter is largely dependent on ethical soundness of the journal instructions, proper editing and structuring of articles, efforts to promote related information through social media, and endorsements of professional societies.

show abstract

Factors associated with the Journal Impact Factor (JIF) for Urology and Nephrology Journals

Cited by 6 publications

References 17 publications

Modified CiteScore metric for reducing the effect of self-citations

Modified CiteScore metric for reducing the effect of self-citations

Determinants of impact factor and Eigenfactor score in otolaryngology journals

The Journal Impact Factor: Moving Toward an Alternative and Combined Scientometric Approach

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About