Evaluating Journal Impact Factor: a systematic survey of the pros and cons, and overview of alternative measures

Journal Impact Factor (JIF) has several intrinsic flaws, which highlight its inability to adequately measure citation distributions or indicate journal quality. Despite these flaws, JIF is still widely used within the academic community, resulting in the propagation of potentially misleading information. A critical review of the usefulness of JIF is needed including an overview of the literature to identify viable alternative metrics. The objectives of this study are: (1) to assess the usefulness of JIF by compiling and comparing its advantages and disadvantages; (2) to record the differential uses of JIF within research environments; and (3) to summarize and compare viable alternative measures to JIF. Methods: Three separate literature search strategies using MEDLINE and Web of Science were completed to address the three study objectives. Each search was completed in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Results were compiled in tabular format and analyzed based on reporting frequency. Results: For objective (1), 84 studies were included in qualitative analysis. It was found that the recorded advantages of JIF were outweighed by disadvantages (18 disadvantages vs. 9 advantages). For objective (2), 653 records were included in a qualitative analysis. JIF was found to be most commonly used in journal ranking (n = 653, 100%) and calculation of scientific research productivity (n = 367, 56.2%). For objective (3), 65 works were included in qualitative analysis. These articles revealed 45 alternatives, which includes 18 alternatives that improve on highly reported disadvantages of JIF. Conclusion: JIF has many disadvantages and is applied beyond its original intent, leading to inaccurate information. Several metrics have been identified to improve on certain disadvantages of JIF. Integrated Impact Indicator (I3) shows great promise as an alternative to JIF. However, further scientometric analysis is needed to assess its properties.(AU)

Evaluating Journal Impact Factor: a systematic survey of the pros and cons, and overview of alternative measures

Journal Impact Factor (JIF) has several intrinsic flaws, which highlight its inability to adequately measure citation distributions or indicate journal quality. Despite these flaws, JIF is still widely used within the academic community, resulting in the propagation of potentially misleading information. A critical review of the usefulness of JIF is needed including an overview of the literature to identify viable alternative metrics. The objectives of this study are: (1) to assess the usefulness of JIF by compiling and comparing its advantages and disadvantages; (2) to record the differential uses of JIF within research environments; and (3) to summarize and compare viable alternative measures to JIF. Methods: Three separate literature search strategies using MEDLINE and Web of Science were completed to address the three study objectives. Each search was completed in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Results were compiled in tabular format and analyzed based on reporting frequency. Results: For objective (1), 84 studies were included in qualitative analysis. It was found that the recorded advantages of JIF were outweighed by disadvantages (18 disadvantages vs. 9 advantages). For objective (2), 653 records were included in a qualitative analysis. JIF was found to be most commonly used in journal ranking (n = 653, 100%) and calculation of scientific research productivity (n = 367, 56.2%). For objective (3), 65 works were included in qualitative analysis. These articles revealed 45 alternatives, which includes 18 alternatives that improve on highly reported disadvantages of JIF. Conclusion: JIF has many disadvantages and is applied beyond its original intent, leading to inaccurate information. Several metrics have been identified to improve on certain disadvantages of JIF. Integrated Impact Indicator (I3) shows great promise as an alternative to JIF. However, further scientometric analysis is needed to assess its properties.(AU)

Key factors of clinical research network capacity building

In general, clinical research network capacity building refers to programs aimed at enhancing networks of researchers to conduct clinical research. Although in the literature there is a large body of research on how to develop and build capacity in clinical research networks, the conceptualizations and implementations remain controversial and challenging. Moreover, the experiences learnt from the past accomplishments and failures can assist in the future capacity building efforts to be more practical, effective and efficient. In this paper, we aim to provide an overview of capacity building in clinical research network by (1) identifying the key barriers to clinical research network capacity building, (2) providing insights into how to overcome those obstacles, and (3) sharing our experiences in collaborating with national and international partners to build capacity in clinical research networks. In conclusion, we have provided some insight into how to address the key factors of clinical research network capacity building and shared some empirical experiences. A successful capacity building practice requires a joint endeavor to procure sufficient resources and support from the relevant stakeholders, to ensure its efficiency, cost-effectiveness, and sustainability.(AU)

Introducing the CONSORT extension to pilot trials: enhancing the design, conduct and reporting of pilot or feasibility trials

This editorial provides a brief overview of the importance of pilot or feasibility trials or studies, the challenges with current practices in their conduct and reporting, an introduction to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) extension to pilot trials aimed at improving their reporting, along with some key resources on aspects related to pilot and feasibility studies.(AU)

Introducing the CONSORT extension to pilot trials: enhancing the design, conduct and reporting of pilot or feasibility trials

This editorial provides a brief overview of the importance of pilot or feasibility trials or studies, the challenges with current practices in their conduct and reporting, an introduction to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) extension to pilot trials aimed at improving their reporting, along with some key resources on aspects related to pilot and feasibility studies.

Key factors of clinical research network capacity building

In general, clinical research network capacity building refers to programs aimed at enhancing networks of researchers to conduct clinical research. Although in the literature there is a large body of research on how to develop and build capacity in clinical research networks, the conceptualizations and implementations remain controversial and challenging. Moreover, the experiences learnt from the past accomplishments and failures can assist in the future capacity building efforts to be more practical, effective and efficient. In this paper, we aim to provide an overview of capacity building in clinical research network by (1) identifying the key barriers to clinical research network capacity building, (2) providing insights into how to overcome those obstacles, and (3) sharing our experiences in collaborating with national and international partners to build capacity in clinical research networks. In conclusion, we have provided some insight into how to address the key factors of clinical research network capacity building and shared some empirical experiences. A successful capacity building practice requires a joint endeavor to procure sufficient resources and support from the relevant stakeholders, to ensure its efficiency, cost-effectiveness, and sustainability.