The new Scopus CiteScore formula and the Journal Impact Factor: a look at top ranking journals and middle ranking journals in the Scopus categories of General Physics and Astronomy, Materials Science, General Medicine and Social Sciences

Trapp, Jamie

doi:10.1007/s13246-020-00903-1

Cited by 20 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It is also notable that the CiteScore's method has been modified since June 2020 (after completing the collecting and analysing the data of the present study), and the new method has been extended to retrospectively calculated values for all previous years (2011–2018) (Scopus, 2020) as the CiteScore equation has relied on a longer citation window (4 years). The editorial of Trapp (2020) includes an exploratory study of this change in five disciplines. More comprehensive studies will be required to examine the influence of the new method on the correlation between the IF and CiteScore and to make comparisons with the present study's results.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluating the correlation between different impact indicators for library and information science journals: Comparing the journal citation reports and scopus

Ali

2020

Learned Publishing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Library and information science (LIS) scholars are increasingly aware of the ranking of LIS journals in the Journal Citation Reports (JCR) and Scopus when deciding where to publish, especially scholars who belong to universities that rely on these rankings when making hiring or promotion decisions. However, it is not known which index presents the most appropriate indicator for the LIS discipline and whether Scopus ranking is a possible alternative to the impact factor (IF). This study analysed the 2018 indicators for 58 LIS journals that are included in both Clarivate Analytics' JCR and Elsevier's Scopus databases. The bivariate correlations were calculated using the Spearman correlation coefficient. Then, to examine the interchangeability among the selected indicators, each pair of correlations was compared using Fisher's R to Z transformation formula. The results showed that all bivariate correlations are positive and strong. The highest correlations are between the Total Cites and Eigenfactor Score (ES) (Rs = 0.962, R2 = 0.925) and between the IF and CiteScore (Rs = 0.952, R2 = 0.906). There were 71 combinations with P‐value >0.05, showing that there is no significant difference between the bivariate correlation, indicating interchangeability between those pairs. The best indicator which can be used interchangeably with the IF is the CiteScore. It is evident that, to measure the scientific quality of LIS journals, all stakeholders should take into consideration the correlations among the various indicators. Furthermore, they can rely on the CiteScore as an adequate alternative to the IF.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluating the correlation between different impact indicators for library and information science journals: Comparing the journal citation reports and scopus

Ali

2020

Learned Publishing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Still, it is well recognized that publication metrics alone can be misguided output measures. [41][42][43][44][45] Grant funding is commonly used as a blunt measure of peerreviewed research quality. 46 PhD student numbers are used to measure output and innovation.…”

Section: C2 Metrics Of Successmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This concept of measuring academic research quality is a deep area of exploration, with basic publication metrics such as impact factor, h‐index, and CiteScore being common measures. Still, it is well recognized that publication metrics alone can be misguided output measures 41–45 . Grant funding is commonly used as a blunt measure of peer‐reviewed research quality 46 .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A roadmap for research in medical physics via academic medical centers: The DIVERT Model

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The field of medical physics has struggled with the role of research in recent years, as professional interests have dominated its growth toward clinical service. This article focuses on the subset of medical physics programs within academic medical centers and how a refocused academic mission within these centers should drive and support Discovery and Invention with Ventures and Engineering for Research Translation (DIVERT). A roadmap to a DIVERT‐based scholarly research program is discussed here around the core building blocks of: (a) creativity in research and team building, (b) improved quality metrics to assess activity, (c) strategic partnerships and spinoff directions that extend capabilities, and (d) future directions driven by faculty‐led initiatives. Within academia, it is the unique discoveries and inventions of faculty that lead to their recognition as scholars, and leads to financial support for their research programs and reconition of their intellectual contributions. Innovation must also be coupled to translation to demonstrate outcome successes. These ingredients are critical for research funding, and the two‐decade growth in biomedical engineering research funding is an illustration of this, where technology invention has been the goal. This record can be contrasted with flat funding within radiation oncology and radiology, where a growing fraction of research is more procedure‐based. However, some centers are leading the change of the definition of medical physics, by the inclusion or assimilation of researchers in fields such as biomedical engineering, machine learning, or data science, thereby widening the scope for new discoveries and inventions. New approaches to the assessment of research quality can help realize this model, revisiting the measures of success and impact. While research partnerships with large industry are productive, newer efforts that foster enterprise startups are changing how institutions see the benefits of the connection between academic innovation and affiliated startup company formation. This innovation‐to‐enterprise focus can help to cultivate a broader bandwidth of donor‐to‐investor networks. There are many predictions on future directions in medical physics, yet the actual inventive and discovery steps come from individual research faculty creativity. All success through a DIVERT model requires that faculty‐led initiatives span the gap from invention to translation, with support from institutional leadership at all steps in the process. Institutional investment in faculty through endowments or clinical revenues will likely need to increase in the coming years due to the relative decreasing size of grants. Yet, radiology and radiation oncology are both high‐revenue, translational fields, with the capacity to synergistically support clinical and research operations through large infrastructures that are mutually beneficial. These roadmap principles can provide a pathway for committed academic medical physics programs in scholarly leadership that will preserve medic...

show abstract

“…[40][41][42][43] IFs represent the average number of times an article published in a journal is cited per year. 44 In general, journals with higher IF values are more likely to be considered critical and have intrinsic prestige than journals with lower values. By extension, the IF is often used in the evaluation of university faculty members and researchers in some countries (including Japan).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Research Trends and Impact Factor on PubMed Among General Medicine Physicians in Japan: A Cross-Sectional Bibliometric Analysis

Watari¹,

Nakano²,

Gupta³

et al. 2022

IJGM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Japan created a specialty system for general medicine in 2018. However, Japanese academic generalists’ contribution to research remains unclear. This study examines the popularity of Japanese general medicine research, the characteristics of journal publications, annual trends, and the characteristics/differences among publications in journals with an impact factor (IF). Methods This bibliometric analysis extracted international, English-language, journal articles published on PubMed between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2020. Analysis included articles with either the first, second, or last author in general medicine. We classified articles according to publication or article type and field of research. We obtained standard descriptive statistics for each publication type. Chi-squared test or Fisher’s exact test was used to compare nominal variables. For continuous variables, t -tests or Wilcoxon rank-sum tests were used, as appropriate. Results Of the 2372 articles analyzed, original articles were most common (56.3%), followed by case reports (30.1%), reviews (7.63%), and letters/others (5.9%). Publication volume increased 2.64-fold annually over 5 years. Clinical research (60.5%) was most common among original articles, followed by basic experimental research (17.5%) and public health/epidemiology (12.7%). Medical quality and safety (4.1%), medical and clinical education (3.1%), and health services (1.42%) received comparatively little attention. Eighty percent of articles were published in journals with IF; however, these journals rarely published case reports. Among original articles, the likelihood of publishing in journals with IF was high for basic laboratory medicine articles with higher IF (median IF 3.83, OR 1.71, 95% CI 2.20–5.95, p=0.044) and lower for clinical education research with the lowest IF (median IF 1.83, OR 0.56, 95% CI 01.8–0.75, p<0.001). Discussion General medicine physicians’ international research output is increasing in Japan; however, research achievements have not been generalized, but rather much influenced by clinical subspecialty backgrounds. This will likely continue unless an academic generalist discipline is established.

show abstract

The new Scopus CiteScore formula and the Journal Impact Factor: a look at top ranking journals and middle ranking journals in the Scopus categories of General Physics and Astronomy, Materials Science, General Medicine and Social Sciences

Cited by 20 publications

References 8 publications

Evaluating the correlation between different impact indicators for library and information science journals: Comparing the journal citation reports and scopus

Evaluating the correlation between different impact indicators for library and information science journals: Comparing the journal citation reports and scopus

A roadmap for research in medical physics via academic medical centers: The DIVERT Model

Research Trends and Impact Factor on PubMed Among General Medicine Physicians in Japan: A Cross-Sectional Bibliometric Analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About