The Journal Impact Factor is under attack - use the CAPCI factor instead.

The uses and misuses of the Journal Impact Factor (JIF) have been thoroughly discussed in the literature. A few years ago, I predicted that JIF would soon be replaced, while another colleague argued the opposite. Over the past few months, attacks on JIF have intensified, with some publishing organizations gradually removing the indicator from their journals' websites. Here, I argue that most, if not all of the misuses of JIF are related to its name. The word "impact" should be removed, since it implies an influential attribute, either for the journals, their published papers, or their authors. I propose instead the use of a new name, the "CAPCI factor", standing for Citation Average Per Citable Item, which accurately describes what is represented by this measure.

Coverage and quality: A comparison of Web of Science and Scopus databases for reporting faculty nursing publication metrics.

BACKGROUND: Web of Science and Scopus are the leading databases of scholarly impact. Recent studies outside the field of nursing report differences in journal coverage and quality. PURPOSE: A comparative analysis of nursing publications reported impact. METHOD: Journal coverage by each database for the field of nursing was compared. Additionally, publications by 2014 nursing faculty were collected in both databases and compared for overall coverage and reported quality, as modeled by Scimajo Journal Rank, peer review status, and MEDLINE inclusion. Individual author impact, modeled by the h-index, was calculated by each database for comparison. DISCUSSION: Scopus offered significantly higher journal coverage. For 2014 faculty publications, 100% of journals were found in Scopus, Web of Science offered 82%. No significant difference was found in the quality of reported journals. Author h-index was found to be higher in Scopus. CONCLUSION: When reporting faculty publications and scholarly impact, academic nursing programs may be better represented by Scopus, without compromising journal quality. Programs with strong interdisciplinary work should examine all areas of strength to ensure appropriate coverage.

Publishing your research work: Updated concepts and nuances of few metrics used to assess journal quality.

Authors have a multitude of options for journals for publishing their research. However, their choice is mostly based on academic credits required for promotion, cost of publication, timeliness of process, etc., The purpose of this narrative review is to enlighten the authors about some other journal metrics used to assess journal ranking and quality in international scenario. The main concepts discussed in this paper are the impact factor and cite score. The paper includes an explanation of terms like web of science, journal citation reports, and how they are related to impact factor. This will help the authors to make the right decision about choosing the right journal for publishing their research. Along with the historic concepts we have included the latest updates about changes being made to the journal citation report and impact factor released in 2023 June. Hopefully with the review paper, we will be able to encourage the inclusion of such concepts and curriculum of post-graduation courses considering publishing a paper and choosing a journal are an integral aspect of a researcher's work life.

Inconsistent quality signals: evidence from the regional journals.

Nowadays many countries and institutions use bibliometric assessment of journal quality in their research evaluation policies. However, bibliometric measures, such as impact factor or quartile, may provide a biased quality assessment for relatively new, regional, or non-mainstream journals, as these outlets usually do not possess a longstanding history, and may not be included into indexing databases. To reduce the information asymmetry between academic community (researchers, editors, policymakers) and journal management, we propose an alternative approach to evaluate journals quality signals using previous publication track record of authors. We explore the difference in the quality signals sent by regional journals. Traditional, journal-level, bibliometric measures are contrasted with generalised measures of authors' publishing records. We used a set of 50,477 articles and reviews in 83 regional journals in Physics and Astronomy (2014-2019) to extract and process data on 73 866 authors and their additional 329,245 publications in other Scopus-indexed journals. We found that traditional journal-level measures (such as journal quartile, CiteScore percentile, Scimago Journal Rank) tend to under-evaluate journal quality, thus contributing to an image of low-quality research venues. Author-level measures (including the share of papers in the Nature Index journals) send positive signals of journal quality and allow us to subdivide regional journals by their publishing strategies. These results suggest that research evaluation policies might consider attributing greater weight to regional journals, not only for the training purposes of doctoral students but also for gaining international visibility and impact.

Ranking Predatory Journals: Solve the Problem Instead of Removing It!

Predatory journals are a well-known issue for scholarly publishing and they are repositories for bogus research. In recent years, the number of predatory journals has risen and it is necessary to present a solution for this challenge. In this paper, we will discuss about a possible ranking of predatory journals. Our ranking approach is based on Beall's criteria for detection of predatory journals and it can help editors to improve their journals or convert their questionable journals to non-predatory ones. Moreover, our approach could help young editors to protect their journals against predatory practice. Finally, we present a case study to clarify our approach.

The cock, the Academy, and the best scientific journal in the world.

The reader is invited to travel to Ancient Greece, contemporary Brazil, and other places in a fantasy search for the best scientific journal. This whimsical search does not rely on the impact factor, the most popular tool used in real life for finding good journals. Instead, it takes advantage of the so-called authority factor, a recently proposed alternative to the impact factor. The authority factor of a particular journal is the mean h-index (Hirsch's index) of the most suitable group of this journal's editors. Having no connection to any major function of scientific journals, and also being arbitrary (which group of editors to select?), this factor is poorly suited for any technical analysis, but it seems to work well for "small-talk" editorials and self-promotion by complacent editors. Interestingly, the highest authority factor we could find belongs to the journal Temperature. This claim, however, should not be taken too seriously.

Factors Affecting Journal Quality Indicator in Scopus (SCImago Journal Rank) in Obstetrics and Gynecology Journals: a Longitudinal Study (1999-2013).

INTRODUCTION: Awareness of the latest scientific research and publishing articles in top journals is one of the major concerns of health researchers. In this study, we first introduced top journals of obstetrics and gynecology field based on their Impact Factor (IF), Eigenfactor Score (ES) and SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) indicator indexed in Scopus databases and then the scientometric features of longitudinal changes of SJR in this field were presented. METHOD AND MATERIAL: In our analytical and bibiliometric study, we included all the journals of obstetrics and gynecology field which were indexed by Scopus from 1999 to 2013. The scientometric features in Scopus were derived from SCImago Institute and IF and ES were obtained from Journal Citation Report through the Institute for Scientific Information. Generalized Estimating Equation was used to assess the scientometric features affecting SJR. RESULT: From 256 journals reviewed, 54.2% and 41.8% were indexed in the Pubmed and the Web of Sciences, respectively. Human Reproduction Update based on the IF (5.924±2.542) and SJR (2.682±1.185), and American Journal of obstetrics and gynecology based on the ES (0.05685±0.00633) obtained the first rank among the other journals. Time, Index in Pubmed, H_index, Citable per Document, Cites per Document, and IF affected changes of SJR in the period of study. DISCUSSION: Our study showed a significant association between SJR and scientometric features in obstetrics and gynecology journals. According to this relationship, SJR may be an appropriate index for assessing journal quality.