Concept: Citation impact
We previously demonstrated absence of association between peer-review-derived percentile ranking and raw citation impact in a large cohort of National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute cardiovascular R01 grants, but we did not consider pregrant investigator publication productivity. We also did not normalize citation counts for scientific field, type of article, and year of publication.
- Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology
- Published almost 6 years ago
We investigated whether the impact of conservation science is greater for research conducted in countries with more pressing conservation problems. We quantified research impact for 231 countries based on 2 citation metrics (mean cites per paper and h index) and fitted models predicting research impact based on number of threatened bird and mammal species (as a measure of conservation importance of a country) and a range of demographic variables. Citation rates of conservation research increased as a country’s conservation need increased and as human population, quality of governance, and wealth increased. Even after accounting for these factors, citation rates among regions and countries within regions varied significantly. The conservation research community needs to consider ways to begin addressing the entrenched disadvantages some countries have when it comes to initiating projects and producing high-quality research.
- Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine
- Published over 6 years ago
This article provides a broad overview of widely available measures of academic productivity and impact using publication data and highlights uses of these metrics for various purposes. Metrics based on publication data include measures such as number of publications, number of citations, the journal impact factor score, and the h-index, as well as emerging metrics based on document-level metrics. Publication metrics can be used for a variety of purposes for tenure and promotion, grant applications and renewal reports, benchmarking, recruiting efforts, and administrative purposes for departmental or university performance reports. The authors also highlight practical applications of measuring and reporting academic productivity and impact to emphasize and promote individual investigators, grant applications, or department output.
Article retraction in research is rising, yet retracted articles continue to be cited at a disturbing rate. This paper presents an analysis of recent retraction patterns, with a unique emphasis on the role author self-cites play, to assist the scientific community in creating counter-strategies. This was accomplished by examining the following: (1) A categorization of retracted articles more complete than previously published work. (2) The relationship between citation counts and after-retraction self-cites from the authors of the work, and the distribution of self-cites across our retraction categories. (3) The distribution of retractions written by both the author and the editor across our retraction categories. (4) The trends for seven of our nine defined retraction categories over a 6-year period. (5) The average journal impact factor by category, and the relationship between impact factor, author self-cites, and overall citations. Our findings indicate new reasons for retractions have emerged in recent years, and more editors are penning retractions. The rates of increase for retraction varies by category, and there is statistically significant difference of average impact factor between many categories. 18 % of authors self-cite retracted work post retraction with only 10 % of those authors also citing the retraction notice. Further, there is a positive correlation between self-cites and after retraction citations.
The decision about which journal to choose for the publication of research deserves further investigation.
- Nursing standard (Royal College of Nursing (Great Britain) : 1987)
- Published almost 4 years ago
A vast and increasing scientific literature is published each year, including books, journals, research articles and reviews. One approach to determining the value of an academic publication involves measuring how often other academic writers or researchers refer to or cite it. This is the essence of bibliometrics. This article examines how bibliometrics has developed. It describes how analysing citations provides a measure of the influence of specific articles (individual article citations), to compare different journals (journal impact factor) and to examine the output and impact of individual academics (the h-index). Particular reference is made to nursing. Using citations should not be the only way that the value of scholarly work is judged, because there are limitations in using this method. However, bibliometrics provides an important, feasible and systematic means of reaching judgments about the importance of published works. As a result, it can be useful for examining the productivity and influence of individuals and institutions and for comparing different disciplines and journals.
Bibliometrics play an increasingly critical role in the assessment of faculty for promotion and merit increases. Bibliometrics is the statistical analysis of publications, aimed at evaluating their impact. The objective of this study is to describe h-index and citation benchmarks in academic psychiatry.
Academic productivity is measured under many domains: number of high impact publications, objective bibliometrics, securing extra-mural funding, etc. Citation impact is measured by an objective bibliometric called h-index. Securing funding from the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) is considered prestigious in the field of psychiatry. It is unknown if NIMH takes into consideration the author’s h-index during the grant review process. The goal of this study was to determine the correlation between a principal investigator’s (PI’s) h-index and the NIMH funding.
Even though an increasing portion of biomedical research today relies on the use of bioresources, at present biobankers are not able to trace this use in scientific literature and measure its impact with a variety of citation metrics. The “BRIF (Bioresource Research Impact Factor) and journal editors” subgroup was created precisely with the aim to study this issue and to build a standardized system to cite bioresources in journal articles. This report aims at presenting a guideline for Citation of BioResources in journal Articles (CoBRA). The guideline offers for the first time a standard for citing bioresources (including biobanks) within journal articles. It will increase their visibility and promote their sharing.
This article is aimed at providing evidence of increased international recognition of Clinics in Orthopedic Surgery (CiOS) based on journal metrics. Since 7 years have passed since its launch in 2009, it is time to reflect on the journal’s efforts to be recognized as a top-notch journal. The following journal metrics were analyzed from the journal’s homepage and Web of Science Core Collection database: number of citable and noncitable articles; number of original articles supported by grants; editorial board members' countries; authors' countries; citing authors' countries; source titles of citing articles; impact factor; total citations; comparison of impact factor with 3 Science Citation Index Expanded journals; and Hirsch index (H-index). Of the total 392 articles, 378 were citable articles (96.4%). Of the total 282 original articles, 52 (18.4%) were supported by research grants. The editorial board members were from 13 countries. Authors were from 20 countries. The number of countries of citing authors was 66. The number of source titles of citing articles was more than 100. The total citations of CiOS have increased from 0 in 2009 to 374 in 2015. The impact factors without self-citations of CiOS were the greatest among 4 Asian journals in 2013 and 2014. The 2015 impact factor was calculated as 0.79 in January 2016. The H-index was 13. CiOS can be considered to have reached the level of top-notch journal in the orthopedic field based on journal metrics. The inclusion of the journal in PubMed Central appears to have increased international relevance of the journal.