Psychiatry and the Hirsch h-index: The relationship between journal impact factors and accrued citations.
TL;DR: Despite certain flaws and weaknesses, the h‐index provides a better way to assess long‐term performance of articles or authors than using a journal's impact factor, and it provides an alternative way to assessment a journal’s long-term ranking.
Abstract: There is considerable debate on the use and abuse of journal impact factors and on selecting the most appropriate indicator to assess research outcome for an individual or group of scientists. Internet searches using Web of Science and Scopus were conducted to retrieve citation data for an individual in order to calculate nine variants of Hirsch's h-index. Citations to articles published in a wide range of psychiatric journals in the periods 1995-99 and 2000-05 were analyzed using Web of Science. Comparisons were made between journal impact factor, h-index of citations from publication to 2008, and the proportion of articles cited at least 30 or 50 times. For up to 14 years post-publication, there was a strong positive relationship between journal impact factor and h-index for citations received. Journal impact factor was also compared to the percentage of articles cited at least 30 or 50 times-a comparison that showed wide variations between journals with similar impact factors. This study found that 40%-50% of the articles published in the top ten psychiatry journals ranked by impact factor acquire 30 to 50 citations within ten to fifteen years. Despite certain flaws and weaknesses, the h-index provides a better way to assess long-term performance of articles or authors than using a journal's impact factor, and it provides an alternative way to assess a journal's long-term ranking.
Citations
More filters
TL;DR: Probably some factors such as the quality of the paper, journal impact factor, number of authors, visibility and international cooperation are stronger predictors for citations, than authors’ gender, age and race; characteristics of results and discussion and so on.
Abstract: The majority of academic papers are scarcely cited while a few others are highly cited. A large number of studies indicate that there are many factors influencing the number of citations. An actual review is missing that provides a comprehensive review of the factors predicting the frequency of citations. In this review, we performed a search in WoS, Scopus, PubMed and Medline to retrieve relevant papers. In overall, 2087 papers were retrieved among which 198 relevant papers were included in the study. Three general categories with twenty eight factors were identified to be related to the number of citations: Category one: "paper related factors": quality of paper; novelty and interest of subject; characteristics of fields and study topics; methodology; document type; study design; characteristics of results and discussion; use of figures and appendix in papers; characteristics of the titles and abstracts; characteristics of references; length of paper; age of paper; early citation and speed of citation; accessibility and visibility of papers. Category two: "journal related factors": journal impact factor; language of journal; scope of journal; form of publication. Category three: "author(s) related factors": number of authors; author's reputation; author's academic rank; self-citations; international and national collaboration of authors; authors' country; gender, age and race of authors; author's productivity; organizational features; and funding. Probably some factors such as the quality of the paper, journal impact factor, number of authors, visibility and international cooperation are stronger predictors for citations, than authors' gender, age and race; characteristics of results and discussion and so on.
477 citations
Cites background from "Psychiatry and the Hirsch h-index: ..."
...Characteristics of the title, abstract and keywords The features of the title, abstract and keywords of a paper are factors that may influence citations; while these are not identified as determinant factors for citations in some other papers....
[...]
...…Chung 2007; Didegah and Thelwall 2013; Falagas et al. 2013; Fu and Aliferis 2010; Garner et al. 2014; Gomes and Vieira 2009; Haslam and Koval 2010; Hunt et al. 2010; Jiang et al. 2013; Kulkarni et al. 2007; Lokker et al. 2008; Padial et al. 2010; Patsopoulos et al. 2005; Peng and Zhu 2012;…...
[...]
TL;DR: There are indications that the scientific community seeks and needs better certification of journal procedures to improve the quality of published science and comprehensive certified editorial and review procedures could help ensure adequate procedures to detect duplicate and fraudulent submissions.
Abstract: A review of Garfield's journal impact factor and its specific implementation as the Thomson Reuters impact factor reveals several weaknesses in this commonly-used indicator of journal standing Key limitations include the mismatch between citing and cited documents, the deceptive display of three decimals that belies the real precision, and the absence of confidence intervals These are minor issues that are easily amended and should be corrected, but more substantive improvements are needed There are indications that the scientific community seeks and needs better certification of journal procedures to improve the quality of published science Comprehensive certification of editorial and review procedures could help ensure adequate procedures to detect duplicate and fraudulent submissions
306 citations
TL;DR: Women were grossly underrepresented at the level of chairpersons in this sample of 1052 academic neurological surgeons, likely a result of the low proportion of females in this specialty.
92 citations
TL;DR: This review critically analyzes indices that are currently available to evaluate the academic impact of scientists and physicians, and focuses on their use in the field of academic neurosurgery, and discusses means to implement them in current review processes.
70 citations
TL;DR: The Italian Research Evaluation Assessment for the period 2004-10 (VQR 2004 -10) has analyzed almost 185,000 articles, books, patents, and other scientific outcomes submitted for evaluation by Italian universities and other public research bodies as mentioned in this paper.
Abstract: The Italian Research Evaluation assessment for the period 2004–10 (VQR 2004–10) has analyzed almost 185,000 articles, books, patents, and other scientific outcomes submitted for evaluation by Italian universities and other public research bodies. This article describes the main features of this exercise, introducing its legal framework and the criteria used for evaluation. The innovative methodology that has been used for evaluation, based on a combination of peer review and bibliometric methods, is discussed and indicators for assessing the quality of participating research bodies are derived accordingly. The article also presents the main results obtained at the University level, trying to understand the existing relationship among research quality and University characteristics such as location, dimension, age, scientific specialization, and funding.
70 citations
References
More filters
TL;DR: Progress in estimating age-at-onset distributions, cohort effects, and the conditional probabilities of PTSD from different types of trauma will require future epidemiologic studies to assess PTSD for all lifetime traumas rather than for only a small number of retrospectively reported "most serious" traumAs.
Abstract: Background: Data were obtained on the general population epidemiology of DSM-III-R posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), including information on estimated lifetime prevalence, the kinds of traumas most often associated with PTSD, sociodemographic correlates, the comorbidity of PTSD with other lifetime psychiatric disorders, and the duration of an index episode. Methods: Modified versions of the DSM-III-R PTSD module from the Diagnostic Interview Schedule and of the Composite International Diagnostic Interview were administered to a representative national sample of 5877 persons aged 15 to 54 years in the part II subsample of the National Comorbidity Survey. Results: The estimated lifetime prevalence of PTSD is 7.8%. Prevalence is elevated among women and the previously married. The traumas most commonly associated with PTSD are combat exposure and witnessing among men and rape and sexual molestation among women. Posttraumatic stress disorder is strongly comorbid with other lifetime DSM-III-R disorders. Survival analysis shows that more than one third of people with an index episode of PTSD fail to recover even after many years. Conclusions: Posttraumatic stress disorder is more prevalent than previously believed, and is often persistent. Progress in estimating age-at-onset distributions, cohort effects, and the conditional probabilities of PTSD from different types of trauma will require future epidemiologic studies to assess PTSD for all lifetime traumas rather than for only a small number of retrospectively reported "most serious" traumas. (Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1995;52:1048-1060)
9,690 citations
TL;DR: The index h, defined as the number of papers with citation number ≥h, is proposed as a useful index to characterize the scientific output of a researcher.
Abstract: I propose the index h, defined as the number of papers with citation number ≥h, as a useful index to characterize the scientific output of a researcher.
8,996 citations
TL;DR: Verbal memory and vigilance appear to be necessary for adequate functional outcome in schizophrenic patients and may prevent patients from attaining optimal adaptation and hence act as "neurocognitive rate-limiting factors."
Abstract: Objective : It has been well established that schizophrenic patients have neurocognitive deficits, but it is not known how these deficits influence the daily lives of patients. The goal of this review was to determine which, if any, neurocognitive deficits restrict the functioning of schizophrenic patients in the outside world. Method : The author reviewed studies that have evaluated neurocognitive measures as predictors and correlates of functional outcome for schizophrenic patients. The review included 1) studies that have prospectively evaluated specific aspects of neurocognition and community (e.g., social and vocational) functioning (six studies), 2) all known studies of neurocognitive correlates of social problem solving (five studies), and 3) all known studies of the neurocognitive correlates and predictors of psychosocial skill acquisition (six studies). Results : Despite wide variation among studies in the selection of neurocognitive measures, some consistencies emerged. The most consistent finding was that verbal memory was associated with all types of functional outcome. Vigilance was related to social problem solving and skill acquisition. Card sorting predicted community functioning but not social problem solving. Negative symptoms were associated with social problem solving but not skill acquisition. Notably, psychotic symptoms were not significantly associated with outcome measures in any of the studies reviewed. Conclusions : Verbal memory and vigilance appear to be necessary for adequate functional outcome. Deficiencies in these areas may prevent patients from attaining optimal adaptation and hence act as neurocognitive rate-limiting factors. On the basis of this review of the literature, a series of hypotheses are offered for follow-up studies.
3,446 citations
ALFA1
TL;DR: The content coverage and practical utility of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar are compared and PubMed remains an optimal tool in biomedical electronic research.
Abstract: The evolution of the electronic age has led to the development of numerous medical databases on the World Wide Web, offering search facilities on a particular subject and the ability to perform citation analysis. We compared the content coverage and practical utility of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar. The official Web pages of the databases were used to extract information on the range of journals covered, search facilities and restrictions, and update frequency. We used the example of a keyword search to evaluate the usefulness of these databases in biomedical information retrieval and a specific published article to evaluate their utility in performing citation analysis. All databases were practical in use and offered numerous search facilities. PubMed and Google Scholar are accessed for free. The keyword search with PubMed offers optimal update frequency and includes online early articles; other databases can rate articles by number of citations, as an index of importance. For citation analysis, Scopus offers about 20% more coverage than Web of Science, whereas Google Scholar offers results of inconsistent accuracy. PubMed remains an optimal tool in biomedical electronic research. Scopus covers a wider journal range, of help both in keyword searching and citation analysis, but it is currently limited to recent articles (published after 1995) compared with Web of Science. Google Scholar, as for the Web in general, can help in the retrieval of even the most obscure information but its use is marred by inadequate, less often updated, citation information.
2,696 citations
TL;DR: The journal impact factor was created to help select additional source journals and is based on the number of citations in the current year to items published in the previous 2 years, which allows for the inclusion of many small but influential journals.
Abstract: IFIRST MENTIONED THE IDEA OF AN IMPACT FACTOR IN Science in 1955. With support from the National Institutes of Health, the experimental Genetics Citation Index was published, and that led to the 1961 publication of the Science Citation Index. Irving H. Sher and I created the journal impact factor to help select additional source journals. To do this we simply re-sorted the author citation index into the journal citation index. From this simple exercise, we learned that initially a core group of large and highly cited journals needed to be covered in the new Science Citation Index (SCI). Consider that, in 2004, the Journal of Biological Chemistry published 6500 articles, whereas articles from the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences were cited more than 300 000 times that year. Smaller journals might not be selected if we rely solely on publication count, so we created the journal impact factor (JIF). The TABLE provides a selective list of journals ranked by impact factor for 2004. The Table also includes the total number of articles published in 2004, the total number of articles published in 2002 plus 2003 (the JIF denominator), the citations to everything published in 2002 plus 2003 (the JIF numerator), and the total citations in 2004 for all articles ever published in a given journal. Sorting by impact factor allows for the inclusion of many small (in terms of total number of articles published) but influential journals. Obviously, sorting by total citations or other provided data would result in a different ranking. The term “impact factor” has gradually evolved to describe both journal and author impact. Journal impact factors generally involve relatively large populations of articles and citations. Individual authors generally produce smaller numbers of articles, although some have published a phenomenal number. For example, transplant surgeon Tom Starzl has coauthored more than 2000 articles, while Carl Djerassi, inventor of the modern oral contraceptive, has published more than 1300. Even before the Journal Citation Reports (JCR) appeared, we sampled the 1969 SCI to create the first published ranking by impact factor. Today, the JCR includes every journal citation in more than 5000 journals—about 15 million citations from 1 million source items per year. The precision of impact factors is questionable, but reporting to 3 decimal places reduces the number of journals with the identical impact rank. However, it matters very little whether, for example, the impact of JAMA is quoted as 24.8 rather than 24.831. A journal’s impact factor is based on 2 elements: the numerator, which is the number of citations in the current year to items published in the previous 2 years, and the denominator, which is the number of substantive articles and reviews published in the same 2 years. The impact factor could just as easily be based on the previous year’s articles alone, which would give even greater weight to rapidly changing fields. An impact factor could also take into account longer periods of citations and sources, but then the measure would be less current.
2,345 citations