Modern Impact of Surgery Journals: Associations Between Impact Factor, H5-Index, and Altmetric Score.

INTRODUCTION: While impact factor (IF) remains the "gold standard" metric for journal quality, newer metrics are gaining popularity. These include the H5-index and journal Altmetric Attention Score (AAS). We explored the relationship between the IF, H5-index, and AAS for core general surgery (GS) and subspecialty journals. METHODS: For all GS and subspecialty journals with a Clarivate IF, H5-index (January 1, 2017, to December 31, 2021) and journal AAS were obtained. Journal Twitter presence and activity was sourced from Twitter and the Twitter application programming interface. Spearman's correlations were assessed for numeric variables. RESULTS: A total of 105 journals were included, around half (49/105; 46.7%) of which were core GS journals. Median IF was 2.48 and median H5-index 19. Journal IF demonstrated a strong correlation with H5-index overall (r = 0.81), though this ranged from r = 0.95 (P < 0.01) for vascular surgery to r = 0.77 (P < 0.01) for plastic surgery journals. AAS was moderately correlated with the IF and H5-index (r = 0.59 and 0.62, respectively; both P < 0.01). R2 values ranging indicated that 66% of the variation in the H5-index and 35% of the variation in AAS was explained by the IF. Just over half the journals had a Twitter account (54/105; 51.4%). Journals with a Twitter account also had a significantly higher IF, H5-index, and AAS than those without a Twitter account (all P < 0.01). AAS was moderately correlated with Twitter activity (r = 0.59) and Twitter followers (r = 0.69). CONCLUSIONS: Across GS and subspecialty journals, journal IF correlates strongly with the H5-index and moderately with AAS. However, only 35% of variation in AAS and 66% of variation in the H5-index is explained by the IF, indicating that these metrics measure unique aspects of journal quality. The future growth of surgical journals should be geared towards improving across multiple metrics, including both the conventional and the contemporary, while leveraging social media to improve readership and eventual academic impact.

Thirty Years of the Journal of Cancer Education: a Review.

Since its foundation in 1986, the Journal of Cancer Education (JCE) has served as an important outlet for myriad aspects of cancer education and currently serves as the official journal of the American and European Associations for Cancer Education. During its history, the JCE has been under the auspices of five publishers, with its first full year under the current publisher, Springer, in 2010. Print and distribution metrics from 2010 to present were obtained from Springer. These were compared to historical data including the first 10 years of the JCE, published by Dr. Bakemeier in 1995. Since its beginning, the JCE has consisted of four issues per year. The original contract for 256 pages per year has increased to an average of 858 pages from 2010 to 2014. In 2015, the JCE received a total of 344 submissions, up from 339 in 2014, and 262 the year before. This is a stark contrast to the roughly 44 submission received in 1994. Over this same period, the overall rejection rate has increased from 30% in 2010 to 45% in 2015. The number of online deals has increased from 347 in 2014 to 361 in 2015 and has been accompanied by a steady increase in the number of full-text article downloads: 19,000 in 2010 to 58,923 in 2015. Accordingly, the JCE has seen a pronounced and steady increase in impact factor, rising from 0.52 in 2009 to 1.368 in 2015. Since moving to Springer, the JCE has seen unprecedented growth, receiving increasing submissions yearly, an increasing number of subscription deals and online full-text downloads, and a corresponding increase in impact factor.

Global Dental Research Productivity and Its Association With Human Development, Gross National Income, and Political Stability.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to examine the associations between country level factors (such as human development, economic productivity, and political stability) and their dental research productivity. METHODS: This study is a cross-sectional analysis of bibliometric data from Scopus search engine. Human Development Index (HDI), Gross National Income per capita (GNI), and Failed State Index measures were the independent variables. Outcomes were "Total number of publications (articles or articles in press) in the field of dentistry" and "Total number of publications in the field of dentistry per million population." Non-parametric tests were used to examine the association between the independent and outcome variables. RESULTS: During the year 2013, a total of 11,952 dental research articles were published across the world. The top 5 publishing countries were United States, Brazil, India, Japan, and United Kingdom. "Very High" HDI countries had significantly higher number of total dental research articles and dental research articles per million population when compared to the "High HDI," "Medium HDI," and "Low HDI" countries (p < 0.0001). There was a significant linear relationship between the GNI quartile income levels and outcome metrics (p ≤ 0.007). Countries which were highly politically stable were associated with significantly higher dental research productivity (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: There appears to be a regional concentration of articles with just five countries contributing to over 50% of all articles. The human development and economic development of a country are linearly correlated with dental research productivity. Dental research productivity also increases with increasing political stability of a country.

Publication Metrics of Dental Journals - What is the Role of Self Citations in Determining the Impact Factor of Journals?

OBJECTIVES: The objectives of the present study are to examine the publication metrics of dental journals and to delineate the role of self citations in determining the impact factor of journals. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The Journal Citation Reports database was used. All dental journals that had an impact factor assigned for year 2013 were selected. The outcomes were Impact Factor (IF), Eigenfactor™ (EF), article influence score (AIS), and proportion of self-citations to total citations. Independent variables were geographic region of journal and ranking of journal (based on IF). Non-parametric tests were used to examine the associations between outcomes and independent variables. RESULTS: During the year 2013, 82 journals in dentistry had an IF. Mean IF was 1.489 and mean IF without including self-citations was 1.231. Mean EF scores and AIS were .00458 and .5141 respectively. Mean percentage of self cites to total citations for all dental journals was 12.24%. Higher ranking journals were associated with significantly higher EF and AIS. Journals published in USA/Canada or Europe were associated with higher IF and EF compared to those published in other regions. There were no differences in percentages of self citations to total citations either across journal rankings or geographic region. CONCLUSIONS: Top ranking journals tend to have higher IFs due to higher EF and AIS rather than by self-citations. Self-citations increase the impact factors of dental journals by 21%. There was no geographic influence in the percentage of self-citations to total citations thus indicating a healthy dental scientific publishing environment.

Novel Journal Metrics in Cardiothoracic Surgery: How Different Are Contemporary Metrics From the Impact Factor?

OBJECTIVE: Despite shortcomings, impact factor (IF) remains the "gold standard" metric for journal quality. However, novel metrics including the h-index, g-index, and Altmetric Attention Score (AAS; mentions in mainstream/social media) are gaining traction. We assessed correlations between these metrics among cardiothoracic surgery journals. METHODS: For all cardiothoracic surgery journals with a 2021 Clarivate IF (N = 20), the 2-year IF (2019 to 2020) and 5-year IF (2016 to 2020), h-index, and g-index were obtained. Two-year journal-level AAS (2019 to 2020) was also calculated. Journal Twitter presence and activity was sourced from Twitter and the Twitter application programming interface. Correlations were assessed using Spearman correlation, and coefficients of determination were calculated. RESULTS: IF demonstrated a moderate-strong positive correlation with the h-index (rs = 0.48 to 0.77) and g-index (rs = 0.49 to 0.79) and a moderate correlation with AAS (rs = 0.53 to 0.58). The 2-year IF accounted for 25% to 49% of variability in the h-index, 27% to 55% of variability in the g-index, and 32% of variability in the AAS. Among journals with a Twitter account (N = 10), IF was strongly correlated with Twitter following (rs = 0.81 to 0.86), which was in turn strongly correlated with journal AAS (rs = 0.79). Article-level AAS was moderately correlated with citation count (rs = 0.47). CONCLUSIONS: IF accounted for only between 25% and 55% of variability in the h-index and g-index, indicating that these newer metrics measure unique dimensions of citation-based impact. Thus, the academic community must familiarize itself with these newer journal metrics. Social media attention may be associated with scholarly impact, although further work is needed to understand these relationships.

Ranking of addiction journals in eight widely used impact metrics.

Background and aims: Journal metrics assess impact upon the research literature, and are now used to assess individual researchers in hiring and promotion decisions. This study compared the ranking of addiction journals according to eight widely used metrics; assessed the correlations between journal rankings; and assessed changes over time in metric scores. Methods: Data pertaining to the 2020 scores on eight metrics for 43 journals were obtained and the top 20 ranking in each compared and the correlations between rankings assessed. The Impact Factor was employed to assess changes over time. Results: Ignoring the two categorization systems used by some metrics, 31 journals appeared in at least one metric top 20 and 11 in all eight. The top rank in each was occupied by one of three journals. Three-quarters of the correlations between rankings were above 6.0. The number of journals with an Impact Factor rose from 23 in 1997 to 38 in 2020, and the journals added tended to focus on addictions other than alcohol and drugs or have a specific focus. Conclusions and discussion: The results indicate a concentration of journals at the top of the metrics and moderate to strong agreement between them, but almost three-quarters of journals appeared in at least one metric. The longitudinal data reflect both a broadening and specialization of the addiction field. The study limitations include exclusion of some journals and metrics.

Questioning the Impact of the Impact Factor. A Brief Review and Future Directions.

PURPOSE: To provide a brief review of literature on the journal impact factors (JIF) and the newer research metrics being proposed or implemented. METHODS: The authors performed a PubMed search of articles published in the English language on the journal impact factors. Data captured include historical perspectives, evolution, calculation, criticisms of JIF and their rebuttals, and organized efforts to address JIF issues, alternate research metrics, and future directions. Specific emphasis was laid on evaluating the criticisms, current lacunae, and the changing practice patterns. RESULTS: One of the measures to assess the research impact of an article is the number of citations it receives. Hence, citation-based metrics are commonly used for such purposes. While editors and well-known scholars refrain from attributing article success to the journal's prominence, the same is not true for most authors. JIF is still one of the top factors when deciding on an article submission. JIF is today an acceptable objective and quantifiable measure of knowledge dissemination. However, JIF should not be used as a surrogate measure to assess an individual researcher or an individual article. The reverence to JIF in this regard needs to be questioned. While alternate metrics or altmetrics have their advantages and limitations, they nevertheless augur well an era where scientometrics are complementary to one another without undue reliance on a sole parameter. CONCLUSION: While there is no need to demonize the JIF, its role in the scholarly assessment should be scaled down. The over-reliance and undue hype surrounding it should be discouraged at multiple scientific levels.

Do journals raise their impact factor or SCImago ranking by self-citing in editorials? A bibliometric analysis of trauma and orthopaedic journals.

BACKGROUND: Impact factor (IF) is widely accepted as a measure of a journal's quality but it can be influenced by self-citation. However, the SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) is based on journal prestige, excludes self-citation and considers quality of citations of a journal. This study aimed to investigate journal editors' use of self-citation and whether this correlated with IFs or SJR in trauma and orthopaedic (T&O) journals. METHODS: T&O journals on the SJR database were identified. From each journal, data including country of publication, number of annual issues, IF, SJR indicator and citable articles were extracted. The editorial(s) of each issue in 2018 were reviewed. The total number of times the editors cited their own previous work or their journal (in the preceding 2 years, 2016-2017) were identified. Regression analyses were performed to investigate the association of editorial self-citation with journal IF or SJR indicator. RESULTS: Of the 270 journals identified, 43 T&O journals with 151 editorials were included in the final analysis. A positive correlation between journal self-citation in the editorial and IF (P = 0.02) and SJR indicator (P = 0.02) was found. Citation by editors of their own publications within editorials also positively correlated with IF (P = 0.04) but not for SJR indicator (P = 0.19). There was a positive linear relationship between journal IF and SJR indicators (P < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Editor self-citation influences the IF and SJR indicators in T&O journals. Therefore, these metrics should be considered in conjunction with other factors such as audience, topics included and international presence when evaluating journals.

How to choose a journal and write a cover letter.

Selecting a suitable journal for submitting a manuscript can be a complex and confusing task, and end in disappointment when a paper is rejected quickly for reasons that may not be clear to the author. There have been several articles written offering advice on journal selection, but this article is the most thorough of its kind, using recent evidence to inform the strategies presented. This article provides details on the factors involved in optimal journal selection, giving insights into how to identify suitable journals, why particular criteria are important and ideal methods to approach this task. The article also includes a spreadsheet tool for tracking information about potential titles of interest and submission details, and finally, provides notes on supporting your submission with an effective cover letter.

Reprint of "Citation analysis as a measure of article quality, journal influence and individual researcher performance".

The research-related performance of universities, as well as that of individual researchers, is increasingly evaluated through the use of objective measures, or metrics, which seek to support or in some cases even replace more traditional methods of peer review. In particular there is a growing awareness in research communities, government organisations and funding bodies around the concept of using evaluation metrics to analyse research citations. The tools available for 'citation analysis' are many and varied, enabling a quantification of scientific quality, academic impact and prestige. However there is increasing concern regarding the potential misuse of such tools, which have limitations in certain research disciplines.This article uses 'real world' examples from radiography research and scholarship to illustrate the range of currently available citation analysis tools. It explores the academic debate surrounding their strengths and limitations, and identifies the potential impact of citation analysis on the radiography research community.The article concludes that citation analysis is a valuable tool for researchers to use for personal reflection and research planning, yet there are inherent dangers if it is used inappropriately. Whilst citation analysis can give objective information regarding an individual, research group, journal or higher education institution, it should not be used as a total substitute for traditional qualitative review and peer assessment.