Search

The (2-year) Impact Factor of Thomson-Reuters (IF) has become the fundamental tool for analysing the scientific production of academic researchers in a lot of countries. In this article we show that this index and the ordering criterion obtained by using it are highly unstable in the case of mathematics, to the extent that sometimes no reliability can be assigned to its use. We explain the reasons of this behaviour by the specific properties of the mathematical journals and publications, attending mainly the point of view of the researchers in pure mathematics. Using the Journal Citation Report list of journals as a source of information, we analyse the stability in the position of the mathematical journals--the so-called rank-normalized impact factor--compared with journals in applied physics and microbiology during the period 2002-12. Due to the lack of stability of the position of the journals of mathematics in these lists, we propose a 'cumulative index' that fits better the characteristics of mathematical journals. The computation of this index uses the values of the IF of the journals in previous years, providing in this way a more stable indicator. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Anales de Documentación is the property of Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad de Murcia and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The article presents a scientific research on patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) by analyzing data on the bibliographic analysis of articles published from 2003 to 2012. Mentioned is the use of Science Citation Index-Expanded (SCI-E) database from online Web of Science (WOS) platform. Data from "Multiple Sclerosis and Multiple Sclerosis Journal" is also evaluated.

Copyright of Revista Española de Cardiología (18855857) is the property of Elsevier B.V. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Objective To study the most important metrics of publication in the field of reproductive medicine over the decade 2003–2012 to aid in discerning the clinical, social, and epidemiologic implications of this relatively new but rapidly emerging area in medical sciences. Design Bibliometric analysis of most-cited publications from Web of Science databases. Setting Not applicable. Patient(s) None. Intervention(s) None. Main Outcome Measure(s) Most productive and frequently cited investigators, institutions, and countries and specific areas of research, scientific collaborations, and comparison of the growth of reproductive medicine research compared with other areas of medical investigation such as obstetrics and gynecology and related science categories. Result(s) We found that 90 investigators with more than 1,000 citations had jointly published 4,010 articles. A continued rise in the impact factor of reproductive medicine journals was seen. The number of publications in reproductive medicine grew more rapidly compared with other science categories. Presently 22% of highly cited articles in reproductive medicine research are published in journals belonging to science categories outside reproductive medicine. The most-cited study groups are situated in the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, the United States, and the United Kingdom, and collaborative studies have been increasing. Conclusion(s) Reproductive medicine research and subsequent clinical development have attained scientific growth and maturity. High-quality research is increasingly being published in high-impact journals. The increase in (inter)national collaborations seems to be key to the field's success. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]