How is impact factor impacting our research?

Rawat, Seema

doi:10.4103/2319-4170.131388

Cited by 26 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…[1] Impact factor, since its inception has been criticized for umpteen number of reasons. What sounded interesting from the title was that the author was touching on the issue of the effect of impact factor on our research.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Questioning the impact of journal impact factor on research?

Kanchan¹,

Krishan²

2015

Biomed J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Questioning the impact of journal impact factor on research?

Kanchan¹,

Krishan²

2015

Biomed J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Researchers have pointed out various problems with measuring journals based on the JIF. 31,32 Many of these arguments are valid in that they point to this single number as an "outdated artifact" that improperly impacts how we view research. The most important underlying problem with the JIF, in our opinion, is that it measures popularity (number of citations) and not the quality of the work.…”

Section: Analysis Of Reporting Trendsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Rigor and Transparency Index, a new metric of quality for assessing biological and medical science methods

Menke¹,

Roelandse²,

Özyurt

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The reproducibility crisis in science is a multifaceted problem involving practices and incentives, both in the laboratory and in publication. Fortunately, some of the root causes are known and can be addressed by scientists and authors alike. After careful consideration of the available literature, the National Institutes of Health identified several key problems with the way that scientists conduct and report their research and introduced guidelines to improve the rigor and reproducibility of pre-clinical studies. Many journals have implemented policies addressing these same criteria. We currently have, however, no comprehensive data on how these guidelines are impacting the reporting of research. Using SciScore, an automated tool developed to review the methods sections of manuscripts for the presence of criteria associated with the NIH and other reporting guidelines, e.g., ARRIVE, RRIDs, we have analyzed ~1.6 million PubMed Central papers to determine the degree to which articles were addressing these criteria. The tool scores each paper on a ten point scale identifying sentences that are associated with compliance with criteria associated with increased rigor (5 pts) and those associated with key resource identification and authentication (5 pts). From these data, we have built the Rigor and Transparency Index, which is the average score for analyzed papers in a particular journal. Our analyses show that the average score over all journals has increased since 1997, but remains below five, indicating that less than half of the rigor and reproducibility criteria are routinely addressed by authors. To analyze the data further, we examined the prevalence of individual criteria across the literature, e.g., the reporting of a subject's sex (21-37% of studies between 1997 and 2019), the inclusion of sample size calculations (2-10%), whether the study addressed blinding (3-9%), or the identifiability of key biological resources such as antibodies (11-43%), transgenic organisms (14-22%), and cell lines (33-39%). The greatest increase in prevalence for rigor criteria was seen in the use of randomization of subjects (10-30%), while software tool identifiability improved the most among key resource types (42-87%). We further analyzed individual journals over time that had implemented specific author guidelines covering rigor criteria, and found that in some journals, they had a big impact, whereas in others they did not. We speculate that unless they are enforced, author guidelines alone do little to improve the number of criteria addressed by authors. Our Rigor and Transparency Index did not correlate with the impact factors of journals.

show abstract

“…As a consequence, some researchers aim to publish in journals with high IF instead of those with suitable audiences (Rawat, 2014). Scholars see articles as investments which could lead to better job positions, and continuous funding, among other benefits.…”

Section: The Relevance Of Impact Factor (If)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Uneven Writing Spaces in Academic Publishing: A Case Study on Internationalisation in the Disciplines of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology

Rivera-López¹

2019

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

More than 70% of the output of the highest impact international journals is produced by American and British scholars in the disciplines of Human Geography and Marketing (Gutierrez and Lopez-Nieva, 2001;Rosenstreich and Wooliscroft, 2006;Bański and Ferenc, 2013). Additionally, 85.3% of the editorial board members of international Marketing journals are based in the US (Rosenstreich and Wooliscroft, 2006). Furthermore, 95% of the journals in the Web of Science database use English as their language of publication (Paasi, 2015). These empirical data seem to indicate that international publication spaces are dominated by US and UK-based research (Paasi, 2015). In this context, this research seeks to deepen the debate by focusing on a new research unit: references. Through case studies on the referencing of the three higher impact journals in the disciplines of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology (PLoS Biology, Cell, and Reviews of Biochemistry) it was possible to identify, describe and visually represent the spatial patterns of knowledge production. The main findings support previous literature; 74.9% of the references surveyed had at least one author from either the US or the UK. Moreover, there was a notable predominance of authors from the US (69.9%). Furthermore, there was a high preponderance of authors from Englishspeaking countries (88.32%). Finally, it was determined that there is an uneven writing space created by three factors: marginalization, governmental and institutional evaluation practices and the use of English. As a conclusion, a series of managerial and linguistic suggestions for academic publishers is provided in order to promote ethnic diversity and genuinely global journal publishing spaces.

show abstract

How is impact factor impacting our research?

Cited by 26 publications

References 0 publications

Questioning the impact of journal impact factor on research?

Questioning the impact of journal impact factor on research?

Rigor and Transparency Index, a new metric of quality for assessing biological and medical science methods

Uneven Writing Spaces in Academic Publishing: A Case Study on Internationalisation in the Disciplines of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About