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)

RESISTÊNCIAANTIMICROBIANA EMBACTÉRIAS ISOLADAS DE INFECÇÕESEMPEQUENOSANIMAISNAREGIÃODEUMUARAMA, PARANÁ

A resistência bacteriana, mostra-se como um efeito colateral inevitável pelo intenso uso de antibióticos, tornando-se alvo de grande preocupação mundial. O conhecimento dos perfis de resistência bacteriana regionais possibilita o desenvolvimento de práticas de controle de infecções específicas para cada localidade, fazendo uso consciente e moderado dos antibióticos disponíveis no mercado. O presente trabalho objetivou avaliar retrospectivamente o perfil de resistência antimicrobiana das bactérias isoladas de infecções em animais de companhia na região de Umuarama-PR, no período de 2013 a 2017. Foram pesquisados e comparados os perfis de resistência das bactérias isoladas de infecções em pequenos animais; provenientes de diferentes focos de infecções e por período. Esta pesquisa foi realizada por meio da análise do banco de dados pertencente ao Laboratório de Microbiologia Animal da Universidade Estadual de Maringá (UEM). Os padrões de resistência/susceptibilidade antimicrobiana utilizados foram o CLSI (2018) e BrCAST (2018). Os Staphylococcus spp. representaram 45,53% das bactérias isoladas de infecções clínicas em pequenos animais no período e local avaliado, seguido pela ordem Enterobacterales em 34,04%, BGNNF em 11,06% e Streptococcus/Enterococcus em 9,36%. A flutuação da resistência antimicrobiana encontrou três padrões semelhantes, compostos por cloranfenicol, enrofloxacina, sulfametoxazol e tetraciclinas; por gentamicina, levofloxacina e penicilina; e por amicacina e rifampicina. Os melhores resultados de susceptibilidade a fármacos usados na veterinária foram encontrados para amicacina, seguido de gentamicina, cloranfenicol e tobramicina, segundo cálculo do fator de impacto. Os resultados mais insatisfatórios foram para azitromicina, estreptomicina e penicilina, utilizados na medicina veterinária e rifampicina, cefotaxima, ceftazidima e cefepima, não utilizados na medicina veterinária. Neste estudo foram identificados 64,26% (151/235) dos isolados como multirresistentes pelo índice MAR e 68,94% (162/235) para MDR. 49,79% (117/235) de isolados foram considerados multidroga-resistentes (MDR), 14,89% (35/235) extensivamente resistentes (XDR) e 4,26% (10/235) pandroga-resistentes (PDR). Os valores de MAR dos isolados caracterizados como PDR variaram entre 0,79 e 0,95. Verificando os índices de multirresistência MDR e MAR, e avaliando o perfil de resistência geral das bactérias, no período estudado independente da origem da infecção, percebe-se que o índice MDR, para todos os grupos bacterianos apresenta valores superiores ao índice MAR, exceto em BGNNF. Por meio dos resultados encontrados e de literatura pertinente, percebe-se que há um aumento crescente no número de agentes multirresistentes entre os animais domésticos o que torna-se um grave risco à saúde pública. Pode-se perceber também que o arsenal terapêutico está se tornando cada vez mais diminuto e há mais dificuldade na seleção empírica de drogas a serem instituídas no tratamento clínico. Tornando essencial a realização de testes para identificação bacteriana e a ciência da sua sensibilidade para uma seleção mais específica dos fármacos a serem utilizados e medidas educativas sobre o uso consciente dos antibióticos, controle de infecções e prevenção de zoonoses específicas para as localidades, precisam ser instituídas para conhecimento dos profissionais do setor da saúde e acesso geral da população.

Bacterial resistance proves to be an unavoidable side effect due to the intense use of antibiotics, making it a major worldwide concern. Knowledge of regional bacterial resistance profiles allows the development of infection control practices specific to each locality, making conscious and moderate use of antibiotics available in the market. The present study aimed to retrospectively evaluate the antimicrobial resistance profile of the bacteria isolated from infections in companion animals in the region of Umuarama-PR, from 2013 to 2017. The resistance profiles of bacteria isolated from infections in small animals were investigated and compared from different outbreaks of infection and per period. This research was carried out through the analysis of the database belonging to the Laboratory of Animal Microbiology of the State University of Maringá (UEM). The resistance/susceptibility antimicrobial patterns used were CLSI (2018) and BrCAST (2018). Staphylococcus spp. were 45.53% of the bacteria isolated from clinical infections in small animals in the evaluated period and place, followed by enterobacteria in 34.04%, BGNNF in 11.06% and Streptococcus / Enterococcus in 9.36%. The fluctuation of antimicrobial resistance found three similar patterns, composed by chloramphenicol, enrofloxacin, sulfamethoxazole and tetracyclines; by gentamicin, levofloxacin and penicillin; and by amikacin and rifampicin. The best drug susceptibility results were found for amikacin, followed by gentamicin, chloramphenicol and tobramycin, according to the impact factor calculation. The most unsatisfactory results were for azithromycin, streptomycin and penicillin, used in veterinary medicine and rifampicin, cefotaxime, ceftazidime and cefepime, not used in veterinary medicine. In this study 64.26% (151/235) of the isolates were identified as multiresistant by the MAR index and 68.94% (162/235) for MDR. 49,79% (117/235) of isolates were considered multidrugresistant (MDR), 14,89% (35/235) extensively resistant (XDR) and 4.26% (10/235) pandrug-resistant (PDR). The MAR values of the isolates characterized as PDR ranged from 0.79 to 0.95. By checking MDR and MAR index of multidrug resistance, and evaluating the general resistance profile of the bacteria, in the studied period independent of the origin of the infection, it can be seen that the MDR index for all bacterial groups shows values higher than the MAR index, except in BGNNF. By means of the results found and relevant literature, it is noticed that there is a growing increase in the number of multiresistant agents among domestic animals, which becomes a serious risk to public health. It can also be perceived that the therapeutic arsenal is becoming more diminutive and there is more difficulty in the empirical selection of drugs to be instituted in the clinical treatment. Making it essential to carry out tests for bacterial identification and the awareness of their sensitivity for a more specific selection of the drugs to be used and educational measures on the conscious use of antibiotics, infection control and the prevention of site-specific zoonoses need to be instituted for the knowledge of health professionals and general accessof thepopulation.

Neotropical Ichthyology: trajectory and bibliometric index (2003 - 2010)

The Neotropical Ichthyology journal was created in 2003 and soon became one of the main publications in its field as it is reflected in the number of articles submitted every year and the fact that it has been indexed by both SciELO and ISI. In order to understand the reasons for its trajectory, the journal history was recovered and bibliometric indices on author, citation and impact factor were mapped for the period between 2003 and 2010. A descriptive study on journal information source and a bibliometric study of the 388 articles published by the journal and the 642 articles that cite it have been carried out. Bibliometric analyses showed that 75.8 percent of the articles had been written by Brazilian authors and 91.3 percent had been published in collaboration. The journal was cited by 171 different publications from 28 countries, including renowned journals in the field. Self-citation accounted for 26.8 percent of journal citation. Analyses have been able to show that strict evaluation control and editing of the articles have contributed towards its success and internationalization.(AU)

O periódico Neotropical Ichthyology foi criado em 2003 e rapidamente despontou como uma das principais publicações em sua área, fato refletido no número de submissões de artigos anuais e na sua inclusão na SciELO e no ISI. Com o objetivo de entender os motivos desta trajetória, resgata-se a história da revista e mapeiam-se indicadores bibliométricos de autoria, citação e fator de impacto no período de 2003 a 2010. Para isso, procede-se a um estudo descritivo de fontes de informação sobre o periódico e a um estudo bibliométrico dos 388 artigos publicados e dos 642 artigos citantes. Os resultados das análises bibliométricas revelam que 75,8 por cento dos artigos foram escritos por autores brasileiros e 91,3 por cento foram publicados em colaboração. O periódico foi citado até agora por 171 diferentes publicações provenientes de 28 países, incluindo periódicos de renome na área. A auto-citação perfez 26,8 por cento das citações ao periódico. As análises realizadas permitiram identificar que rígidos controles de avaliação de artigos e de edição contribuíram para o sucesso e a internacionalização da revista.(AU)