Home About us Contact
|
Home About us Contact | ||
|
|
||
Impact Factor (impact + factor)
Kinds of Impact Factor Selected AbstractsWorld dental research production: an ISI database approach (1999,2003)EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ORAL SCIENCES, Issue 2 2006Jose Antonio Gil-Montoya The objective of this study was to obtain a geographic world map of scientific production in dentistry by analysing published papers. Articles and reviews in the Dentistry, Oral Surgery & Medicine category published from 1999 to 2003 were accessed through the ISI database. The data were analyzed quantitatively (number of documents, number of researchers, productivity, interannual variation rate and relative specialization index), qualitatively (weighted impact factor, relative impact factor, citation rate per document and top 5 publications) and socioeconomically (number of documents per inhabitant and per dentist and in relation to the country's GDP). The USA, UK, Japan and Scandinavian countries were found to be the most productive countries (number of publications). Publications from Scandinavian countries were also of high quality as measured by Impact Factor and Citation Rate, while the UK had one of the highest productivity rates (number of documents per researcher). [source] First Impact Factor for Fuel Cells , From Fundamentals to Systems: 3.273!FUEL CELLS, Issue 3-4 2008Ulrich Stimming No abstract is available for this article. [source] Health Information and Libraries Journal embarks on having and Impact FactorHEALTH INFORMATION & LIBRARIES JOURNAL, Issue 1 2006Article first published online: 8 FEB 200 No abstract is available for this article. [source] Advanced Synthesis & Catalysis Enters Its 10th YearADVANCED SYNTHESIS & CATALYSIS (PREVIOUSLY: JOURNAL FUER PRAKTISCHE CHEMIE), Issue 1 2010As Advanced Synthesis & Catalysis (ASC) enters its 10th year, it is enjoying unprecedented success: with 5.619, the highest Impact Factor ever for a primary organic chemistry journal and a jump of 13% over the previous year; an increase in the number of pages of 11% from 3028 to 3340; an increase in the number of unsolicited articles published of 11% from 327 to 362; an increase in the number of submissions of 11% from 819 to 909. China increased its lead in the country statistics, in both submissions and published articles. As the quality standard of the journal increases, so does the rejection rate: from 55% in 2008 to 59% in 2009. [source] First Impact Factor of 2.991 for Advanced Synthesis & Catalysis: One of the most highly cited journals in chemistryADVANCED SYNTHESIS & CATALYSIS (PREVIOUSLY: JOURNAL FUER PRAKTISCHE CHEMIE), Issue 8 2003No abstract is available for this article. [source] An Increase in Impact Factor for JFS for 2007!JOURNAL OF FOOD SCIENCE, Issue 7 2008Daryl Lund Editor in Chief No abstract is available for this article. [source] Impact Factor: What Is Its Impact?JOURNAL OF SEPARATION SCIENCE, JSS, Issue 11 2003Tyge Greibrokk [source] The effects of Impact FactorJOURNAL OF SMALL ANIMAL PRACTICE, Issue 4 2006Katie Dunn JSAP Editor No abstract is available for this article. [source] Distributional differences of the impact factor in the sciences versus the social sciences: An analysis of the probabilistic structure of the 2005 journal citation reportsJOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, Issue 9 2008Stephen J. Bensman This paper examines the probability structure of the 2005 Science Citation Index (SCI) and Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI) Journal Citation Reports (JCR) by analyzing the Impact Factor distributions of their journals. The distribution of the SCI journals corresponded with a distribution generally modeled by the negative binomial distribution, whereas the SSCI distribution fit the Poisson distribution modeling random, rare events. Both Impact Factor distributions were positively skewed,the SCI much more so than the SSCI,indicating excess variance. One of the causes of this excess variance was that the journals highest in the Impact Factor in both JCRs tended to class in subject categories well funded by the National Institutes of Health. The main reason for the SCI Impact Factor distribution being more skewed than the SSCI one was that review journals defining disciplinary paradigms play a much more important role in the sciences than in the social sciences. [source] Usage impact factor: The effects of sample characteristics on usage-based impact metricsJOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, Issue 1 2008Johan Bollen There exist ample demonstrations that indicators of scholarly impact analogous to the citation-based ISI Impact Factor can be derived from usage data; however, so far, usage can practically be recorded only at the level of distinct information services. This leads to community-specific assessments of scholarly impact that are difficult to generalize to the global scholarly community. In contrast, the ISI Impact Factor is based on citation data and thereby represents the global community of scholarly authors. The objective of this study is to examine the effects of community characteristics on assessments of scholarly impact from usage. We define a journal Usage Impact Factor that mimics the definition of the Thomson Scientific ISI Impact Factor. Usage Impact Factor rankings are calculated on the basis of a large-scale usage dataset recorded by the linking servers of the California State University system from 2003 to 2005. The resulting journal rankings are then compared to the Thomson Scientific ISI Impact Factor that is used as a reference indicator of general impact. Our results indicate that the particular scientific and demographic characteristics of a discipline have a strong effect on resulting usage-based assessments of scholarly impact. In particular, we observed that as the number of graduate students and faculty increases in a particular discipline, Usage Impact Factor rankings will converge more strongly with the ISI Impact Factor. [source] Higher 2009 Impact Factor for pss (RRL)PHYSICA STATUS SOLIDI - RAPID RESEARCH LETTERS, Issue 7 2010Managing Editor pss Stefan Hildebrandt No abstract is available for this article. [source] Update on the JSM Impact FactorTHE JOURNAL OF SEXUAL MEDICINE, Issue 9 2010Irwin Goldstein MD Editor-in-Chief No abstract is available for this article. [source] Ein guter Start: Der Journal Impact Factor 2009 von "Bautechnik" liegt vorBAUTECHNIK, Issue 8 2010Article first published online: 5 AUG 2010 No abstract is available for this article. [source] Ein guter Start: Der Journal Impact Factor 2009 von "Beton- und Stahlbetonbau" liegt vorBETON- UND STAHLBETONBAU, Issue 8 2010Karl-Eugen Kurrer Dr.-Ing. No abstract is available for this article. [source] Wie misst man wissenschaftliche Leistung?BIOLOGIE IN UNSERER ZEIT (BIUZ), Issue 4 2010Erwin Beck Der Journal Impact Factor (JIF) ist in aller Munde, wenn es darum geht, den vermeintlichen Wert eines wissenschaftlichen Publikationsorganes zu messen. Das einfache Berechnungsverfahren zur Ermittlung des JIF gibt jedoch kein klares Bild über den wirklichen Einfluss der Beiträge dieser Zeitschrift für die Entwicklung oder den Fortschritt der Wissenschaft. Alternativen werden diskutiert , und die DFG hat die Anzahl der in Anträgen genannten Veröffentlichungen drastisch auf fünf reduziert, die dann nicht mehr am JIF gemessen werden dürfen, sondern von den Gutachtern auch wirklich gelesen werden müssen. [source] Ophthalmology journals and the ether: considering Journal Impact Factor and citation analysis in contextCLINICAL & EXPERIMENTAL OPHTHALMOLOGY, Issue 9 2009Victoria A Cartwright BA No abstract is available for this article. [source] Impact Factors and the Journal of Travel MedicineJOURNAL OF TRAVEL MEDICINE, Issue 6 2008Derek R. Smith PhD, DrMedSc, FACTM, FRSPH No abstract is available for this article. [source] Martin Stutzmann: Editor, Teacher, Scientist and FriendPHYSICA STATUS SOLIDI (C) - CURRENT TOPICS IN SOLID STATE PHYSICS, Issue 2 2005Manuel Cardona On 2 January 1995 Martin Stutzmann became Editor-in-Chief of physica status solidi, replacing Professor E. Gutsche, who had led the journal through the stormy period involving the fall of the Iron Curtain, the unification of Germany and the change in its Eastern part, where physica status solidi was based, from "socialism as found in the real world" (a German concept) to real world capitalism. In 1995 it was thought that the process had been completed (we should have known better!) and after the retirement of Prof. Gutsche the new owners of physica status solidi (Wiley-VCH) decided that a change in scientific management was desirable to adapt to the new socio-political facts and to insure the scientific continuity of the journal. Martin had moved in 1993 from my department at the Max-Planck-Institute to Munich where he soon displayed a tremendous amount of science man- agement ability during the build-up of the Walter Schottky Institute. The search for a successor as Edi- tor-in-Chief was not easy: the job was not very glamorous after the upheavals which had taken place in the editorial world following the political changes. Somebody in the Editorial Boards must have suggested Martin Stutzmann. I am sure that there was opposition: one usually looks for a well-established person ready to leave his direct involvement in science and take up a new endeavor of a more administrative nature. Nevertheless, the powers that be soon realized that Martin was an excellent, if somewhat unconventional candidate who had enough energy to remain a topnotch scientist and to lead the journal in the difficult times ahead: he was offered the job. In the negotiations that followed, he insisted in getting the administrative structures that would allow him to improve the battered quality of the journal and to continue his scientific productivity. Today we are happy to see that he succeeded in both endeavors. The journal has since grown in size and considerably improved its quality. Martin Stutzmann's scientific output has continued and today he can be found listed among the 400 most cited physicists worldwide. According to the Institute of Scientific Information (ISI) he has published nearly 400 articles in source journals; they have been cited over 4600 times. His scientific visibility has been partly responsible for the success of the journal under his leadership. When he took over in 1995 the Impact Factors of physica status solidi (a) and (b) were about 0.5. Now they oscillate around 1.0. The journals occupy places 30 (a) and 29 (b) among the 57 condensed matter publications listed in the ISI. Six years ago these places were 34 (a) and 30 (b). The journal is even better placed with respect to the so-called cited half-life which is 8.2 years for pss (a) (place 16 among 57) and 6.7 years for pss (b) (place 20 among 57). Martin, of course, has contributed with his original publications to the success of the journal, having published 36 articles in pss(a) and 32 in pss(b). I would like to some of the editorial decisions implemented under Martin's leadership. They have been largely responsible for the quantitative improvements just described. Martin introduced international standards of peer review, usually involving two anonymous referees: The increase of the rejection rate from ca. 20% to 60% followed. He discontinued the Short Notes, which had become nearly irrelevant, and replaced them, in 1997 by Rapid Research Notes (today Rapid Research Letters) with especially strict reviewing rules and a rather attractive layout. Martin's participation in many international conferences and their organization gave him a handle to acquire the publication of conference proceedings. Organizing committees usually prefer publication in international journals rather than special books because of their guaranteed future availability in libraries and the partaking in the reviewing procedure. The journal became increasingly popular along these lines, a fact which moved Martin to launch in 2002 part (c) of the journal, devoted mainly, but not exclusively, to conference articles. Martin also introduced the publication of Feature Articles, topical issues, and the instrument of the Editor's Choice to highlight articles deemed to be especially interesting. He appointed Regional Editors (6 at this point) which represent the journal in important geographic regions. He also brought the journal online, a must these days. The upheavals that followed the collapse of most of the communist world, the rapid development of science in many emerging nations and the enhanced competitiveness, even in the developed countries, have not ebbed out. Some of them are particular damaging to the reputation of science in a world increasingly skeptical of its values. I am thinking of scientific misconduct and outright fraud, in the form of plagiarism and data fabrication. physica status solidi was also afflicted by this plague: after all, it happened in the best of families. Two of the most notorious offenders of the past decade, J. H. Schön and Y. Park, also visited physica status solidi. In two courageous editorials Martin Stutzmann and Stefan Hildebrandt (Managing Editor of the journal) rapidly exposed these cases of misconduct together with other cases in which there was also good reason to suspect misconduct. Some of the articles involved were rapidly retracted by the authors, others were not. It is reassuring to say that none of them had any impact worth mentioning (1,3 citations, mostly by the authors themselves or in the editorials just mentioned). Only few journal editors dared to convey to the readers a warning that some work of those authors may be faulty even if no air-tight proof was available. However, Martin and Stefan did. We wish that Martin will remain at the helm at least another decade, before he switches to research on the liquid state as practiced in Southern France. [source] Impact factor: certainly a factor, but just whom does it impact?JOURNAL OF CUTANEOUS PATHOLOGY, Issue 6 2006Important lessons from another discipline [source] RE: Impact factor for Australasian RadiologyJOURNAL OF MEDICAL IMAGING AND RADIATION ONCOLOGY, Issue 3 2006MJ McKay No abstract is available for this article. [source] Scopus's source normalized impact per paper (SNIP) versus a journal impact factor based on fractional counting of citationsJOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, Issue 11 2010Loet Leydesdorff Impact factors (and similar measures such as the Scimago Journal Rankings) suffer from two problems: (a) citation behavior varies among fields of science and, therefore, leads to systematic differences, and (b) there are no statistics to inform us whether differences are significant. The recently introduced "source normalized impact per paper" indicator of Scopus tries to remedy the first of these two problems, but a number of normalization decisions are involved, which makes it impossible to test for significance. Using fractional counting of citations,based on the assumption that impact is proportionate to the number of references in the citing documents,citations can be contextualized at the paper level and aggregated impacts of sets can be tested for their significance. It can be shown that the weighted impact of Annals of Mathematics (0.247) is not so much lower than that of Molecular Cell (0.386) despite a five-f old difference between their impact factors (2.793 and 13.156, respectively). [source] The continuing rise of contact dermatitis, Part 2: The scientific journalCONTACT DERMATITIS, Issue 4 2009Derek R. Smith Background: Although citation analysis represents an increasingly common method for examining the performance of scientific journals, few longitudinal studies have been conducted in the specialist fields of dermatology. Objectives: The objective of this study was to provide the first comprehensive bibliometric analysis of Contact Dermatitis for the 30-year period between 1977 and 2006. Materials and Methods: Detailed historical data were extracted from the Thomson Reuters Journal Citation Reports® and systematically analysed. The most highly cited articles published in the journal were also identified and then examined for citation frequency and lag time. Results: Citation analysis showed that the impact factor of Contact Dermatitis has increased significantly over the past 30 years, experiencing a sixfold improvement between 1977 and 2006. Conclusions: Bibliometric trends as identified in the current study clearly demonstrate the ongoing rise of Contact Dermatitis, from early beginnings in the mid-1970s, into the leading scientific periodical we know today. [source] Statistics and impact factor for Contact Dermatitis 2005CONTACT DERMATITIS, Issue 3 2006T. Menné No abstract is available for this article. [source] World dental research production: an ISI database approach (1999,2003)EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ORAL SCIENCES, Issue 2 2006Jose Antonio Gil-Montoya The objective of this study was to obtain a geographic world map of scientific production in dentistry by analysing published papers. Articles and reviews in the Dentistry, Oral Surgery & Medicine category published from 1999 to 2003 were accessed through the ISI database. The data were analyzed quantitatively (number of documents, number of researchers, productivity, interannual variation rate and relative specialization index), qualitatively (weighted impact factor, relative impact factor, citation rate per document and top 5 publications) and socioeconomically (number of documents per inhabitant and per dentist and in relation to the country's GDP). The USA, UK, Japan and Scandinavian countries were found to be the most productive countries (number of publications). Publications from Scandinavian countries were also of high quality as measured by Impact Factor and Citation Rate, while the UK had one of the highest productivity rates (number of documents per researcher). [source] Quality, quantity, and impact in academic publicationEUROPEAN JOURNAL OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY, Issue 2 2010Nick Haslam Publication records of 85 social-personality psychologists were tracked from the time of their doctoral studies until 10 years post-PhD. Associations between publication quantity (number of articles), quality (mean journal impact factor and article influence score), and impact (citations, h -index, g -index, webpage visits) were examined. Publication quantity and quality were only modestly related, and there was evidence of a quality-quantity trade-off. Impact was more strongly associated with quantity than quality. Authors whose records weighed quality over quantity tended to be associated with more prestigious institutions, but had lesser impact. Quantity- and quality-favoring publication strategies may have important implications for the shape and success of scientific careers. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [source] Electronic journal provision in a health-care library: insights from a consultation with NHS workersHEALTH INFORMATION & LIBRARIES JOURNAL, Issue 2 2006Sarah E. Crudge Objective:, This study determines the current awareness journal reading requirements of the users of Stockport National Health Service (NHS) Trust's library. The overlap between requirements and the provision of the NHS Core Content resources, four major electronic journal bundles, and the holdings of North West health libraries is also investigated. Methods:, A survey of both hospital and Primary Care Trust staff was conducted, and respondents were required to provide a list of their favourite journal titles. Each requested title was assigned a subject code, and the impact factor was noted. Results:, From 135 survey responses, 217 journal titles were identified and 33 category codes were utilized. There was little overlap between the request list and the NHS Core Content titles, but substantial correspondence existed between the request list and the print holdings of North West health libraries. Conclusions:, Current awareness journal reading requirements will not be met by the Core Content provision alone. Bundles of titles offer value-for-money solutions, but may be at the expense of popular titles. Furthermore, the success of regional document supply schemes may be compromised if large numbers of health-care libraries replace print holdings with similar electronic journal bundles. [source] Approaches for derivation of environmental quality criteria for substances applied in risk assessment of discharges from offshore drilling operationsINTEGRATED ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND MANAGEMENT, Issue 2 2008Dag Altin Abstract In order to achieve the offshore petroleum industries "zero harm" goal to the environment, the environmental impact factor for drilling discharges was developed as a tool to identify and quantify the environmental risks associated with disposal of drilling discharges to the marine environment. As an initial step in this work the main categories of substances associated with drilling discharges and assumed to contribute to toxic or nontoxic stress were identified and evaluated for inclusion in the risk assessment. The selection were based on the known toxicological properties of the substances, or the total amount discharged together with their potential for accumulation in the water column or sediments to levels that could be expected to cause toxic or nontoxic stress to the biota. Based on these criteria 3 categories of chemicals were identified for risk assessment the water column and sediments: Natural organic substances, metals, and drilling fluid chemicals. Several approaches for deriving the environmentally safe threshold concentrations as predicted no effect concentrations were evaluated in the process. For the water column consensus were reached for using the species sensitivity distribution approach for metals and the assessment factor approach for natural organic substances and added drilling chemicals. For the sediments the equilibrium partitioning approach was selected for all three categories of chemicals. The theoretically derived sediment quality criteria were compared to field-derived threshold effect values based on statistical approaches applied on sediment monitoring data from the Norwegian Continental Shelf. The basis for derivation of predicted no effect concentration values for drilling discharges should be consistent with the principles of environmental risk assessment as described in the Technical Guidance Document on Risk Assessment issued by the European Union. [source] Reporting practices of dropouts in psychological research using a wait-list control: current state and suggestions for improvementINTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF METHODS IN PSYCHIATRIC RESEARCH, Issue 1 2007Josh M. Cisler M.A. Abstract Reporting practices regarding dropouts in wait-list control studies hold great importance for the ability to replicate, generalize, and draw conclusions from research. This concern is applicable to all psychological research utilizing wait-list controls, regardless of purpose of research (e.g., treatment outcome). The current study assessed the present state of reporting practices in this type of experimental design and discussed the limitations and implications of the insufficient reporting found. 171 articles from psychology journals utilizing wait-list control design were surveyed regarding the reporting of the number of dropouts from the wait-list control and experimental conditions, characteristics and assessment scores of the dropouts, and total dropouts. Variables that are crucial to interpreting research findings are not consistently reported. Additionally, journal impact factor and year of publication were positively correlated with the adequacy of reporting. Consistencies with previous findings were noted, and suggestions for remedying the reporting inadequacies were discussed. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [source] A true impact factor: N. Scott McNutt, MDJOURNAL OF CUTANEOUS PATHOLOGY, Issue 2008Bruce R. Smoller N. Scott McNutt has recently retired from his long-standing position as a Professor in Pathology and Internal Medicine (Dermatology) at Weill Medical College at Cornell University. He leaves behind a legacy that includes trainees throughout the world, many of whom continue to contribute to the world of academic dermatopathology. His obvious love for true scholarship is reflected as much by his indirect influence on hundreds of trainees as by his already impressive personal bibliography. [source] On the Review Process and Journal DevelopmentJOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT STUDIES, Issue 3 2006Timothy Clark abstract This paper describes the editorial and review process currently operating at JMS and offers the Editors' perspective on the journal's growth over the past three years. We first outline what we think is the essence of a JMS article. Then, we describe the review process from the editor's initial decision, to the reviewers' comments, to the editor's final editorial decisions, and including the process of accepting a paper. We suggest four main reasons for rejecting a paper: lack of contribution, failure to develop a theoretical contribution, fatal flaws in methods and deficiencies in analysis. With respect to the journal's progress, we show that JMS has significantly increased its position in the ISI rankings to 19th and its impact factor to 1.180. In addition, the journal experienced a 222 per cent increase in submissions from 2003 to 2005. [source] | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||