The impact factor of rheumatology journals: an analysis of 2008 and the recent 10 years.

Renal Division, Department of Medicine, Peking University First Hospital, 100034 Beijing, China.
Rheumatology International (Impact Factor: 2.21). 12/2011; 31(12):1611-5. DOI: 10.1007/s00296-010-1541-z
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Despite various weaknesses, the impact factor (IF) is still used as an important indictor for scientific quality in specific subject categories. In the current study, the IFs of rheumatology journals over the past 10 years were serially analyzed and compared with that from other fields. For the past 10 years (1999-2008), the IFs published by the Institute for Scientific Information in the Science Citation Index-Journal Citation Report were analyzed. For the majority of rheumatology journals, the IF shows a gradually increasing trend. The mean and median level of increase of IF from 1999 to 2008 is 233.9 and 66.5%, respectively. The increase in IF from 1999 or the first year with IF documentation to that in 2008 was higher for European journals than for the USA journals. The aggregate IF and the median IF of rheumatology journals remained within the top 30% and top 15% in clinical medical and all the scientific categories, respectively. Over the past 10 years, rheumatology journals showed a general increase in IF and rheumatology remained a leading discipline. For journals in the English language, those from Europe had an even higher increase than those from USA.

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In the first part of this study we analysed the temporal stability of Garfield's Impact Factor (IF) over the last decade (2001-2010). The analyses were performed for two Web of Science (WoS) categories of the JCR Science Edition ("Polymer Science" and "Nanoscience & Nano-technology") and two of the Social Sciences Edition ("Political Science" and "Information Science & Library Science") at journal category level. Furthermore, we tried to identify the most characteristic patterns of IF timelines at journal level and analysed the reasons for strong IF fluctuations. Additionally, we checked if alternative journal impact measures like the Article Influence Score, SJR or SNIP are as sensitive to short-term fluctuations in the citation frequencies as Garfield's Impact Factor. In the second part, we explored if one often mentioned weakness of the IF, its short citation window, can be used to identify hot papers, i.e. papers that are cited clearly above-average in the first two years after publication, by means of IF fluctuations. By analysing the citation distributions at article level we show that abrupt and large short-term variations of the IF can, in principle, offer a very simple and intuitive method to identify "unexpected" hot papers and hot topics at journal level. Background and introduction Apart from simplicity one of the key strengths of Garfield's impact factor (IF) is its assumed relative temporal stability (Glanzel & Moed, 2002, 174). However, as exemplified by the journal "Acta Crystallographica A" there might at least be a few exceptions. The impact factor of this journal increased from approximately 2 to 50 and beyond within only 2 years simply because of one single extremely highly-cited paper. This paper also provoked considerable changes in other bibliometric indicators that are based on arithmetic means like the crown indicator.
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: PURPOSE: The impact factors (IF) of orthopaedic journals is an important component in determining the future of orthopaedic research funding. We aim to characterise the trend in journal IF over the last decade and draw comparisons with other surgical specialties. METHODS: We conducted an analysis of impact factors from Journal Citation Reports between 2000 and 2010. RESULTS: Between 2000 and 2010 the number of orthopaedic journals increased from 24 to 41, more than any other surgical specialty and the mean IF increased from 0.842 to 1.400. Journals printed in the English language had a significantly higher IF in the year 2010 (1.64 vs. 0.33, p = 0.01) than those printed in other languages. English language journals published in the US had significantly higher mean 2010 IF (1.932 vs. 1.243, p = 0.025) than those published in Europe, and this had changed compared with 2000 mean IF (0.978 Vs. 0.704, p = 0.360). Orthopaedics was ranked sixth out of 11 surgical subspecialties in 2000 but dropped to seventh out of 11 in 2010. CONCLUSIONS: The quality of orthopaedic journals has significantly increased over the last decade and this has been accompanied by a rise in mean IF. It is important that orthopaedics continues to improve the quality of research, which may help orthopaedic researchers secure funding in the future.
    International Orthopaedics 01/2013; · 2.32 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The impact factor (IF) is a common citation metric used for evaluating and comparing scientific journals within a certain field. Previous studies have shown that IFs are increasing. However, rates may depend on journal publication language. The aim of this study was to determine IF values and trends for general medical journals, comparing non-English-language with English-language journals. For all journals categorised as "medicine, general and internal" (n = 150) in the Journal Citation Reports (JCR), publication language, country of origin and IFs for the last 10 years were recorded (2001-2010). Data were classified, analysed descriptively and compared using non-parametric tests. From 2001 to 2010, IFs increased for English-language and non-English-language journals (p <0.001). During the 10-year study period, IFs were higher for English-language than for non-English-language journals (p <0.001). The proportion of non-English-language journals included in the JCR was 12.2% in 2001 and 18.0% in 2010 (p = 0.28). From 2001 to 2010, IFs increased significantly for English-language and non-English-language journals. When comparing IF values year-by-year (2001-2010), IFs were significantly higher for English-language than for non-English-language journals. In an international scientific community with English as the universal language of science, non-English-language journals should consider changing publication language, and adopt either a bi- or a monolingual approach. Publishing in English will increase citation counts and thus IFs, but, more importantly, scientific findings will be accessible to a much wider audience.
    Schweizerische medizinische Wochenschrift 01/2012; 142. · 1.88 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

Available from
Jun 4, 2014