Search

Identifying factors that associate with more cited or higher quality research may be useful to improve science or to support research evaluation. This article reviews evidence for the existence of such factors in article text and metadata. It also reviews studies attempting to estimate article quality or predict long‐term citation counts using statistical regression or machine learning for journal articles or conference papers. Although the primary focus is on document‐level evidence, the related task of estimating the average quality scores of entire departments from bibliometric information is also considered. The review lists a huge range of factors that associate with higher quality or more cited research in some contexts (fields, years, journals) but the strength and direction of association often depends on the set of papers examined, with little systematic pattern and rarely any cause‐and‐effect evidence. The strongest patterns found include the near universal usefulness of journal citation rates, author numbers, reference properties, and international collaboration in predicting (or associating with) higher citation counts, and the greater usefulness of citation‐related information for predicting article quality in the medical, health and physical sciences than in engineering, social sciences, arts, and humanities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The data paper is an emerging academic genre that focuses on the description of research data objects. However, there is a lack of empirical knowledge about this rising genre in quantitative science studies, particularly from the perspective of its linguistic features. To fill this gap, this research aims to offer a first quantitative examination of which rhetorical moves—rhetorical units performing a coherent narrative function—are used in data paper abstracts, as well as how these moves are used. To this end, we developed a new classification scheme for rhetorical moves in data paper abstracts by expanding a well‐received system that focuses on English‐language research article abstracts. We used this expanded scheme to classify and analyze rhetorical moves used in two flagship data journals, Scientific Data and Data in Brief. We found that data papers exhibit a combination of introduction, method, results, and discussion‐ and data‐oriented moves and that the usage differences between the journals can be largely explained by journal policies concerning abstract and paper structure. This research offers a novel examination of how the data paper, a data‐oriented knowledge representation, is composed, which greatly contributes to a deeper understanding of research data and its publication in the scholarly communication system. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To what extent is the destiny of a scientific paper shaped by the cocitation network in which it is involved? What are the social contexts that can explain these structuring? Using bibliometric data, interviews with researchers, and social network analysis, this article proposes a typology based on egocentric cocitation networks that displays a quadruple structuring (before and after publication): polarization, clusterization, atomization, and attrition. It shows that the academic capital of the authors and the intellectual resources of their research are key factors of these destinies, as are the social relations between the authors concerned. The circumstances of the publishing are also correlated with the structuring of the egocentric cocitation networks, showing how socially embedded they are. Finally, the article discusses the contribution of these original networks to the analyze of scientific production and its dynamics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on the importance of quantifying the impact and quality of research articles, discussing traditional metrics such as the Journal Impact Factor (JIF), CiteScore, and the H-index. It also introduces alternative metrics (Altmetrics) like the Altmetric Attention Score (AAS), emphasizing their role in measuring the reach and success of research articles through social media engagement.

In recent years, the relationship of collaboration among scientists and the citation impact of papers have been frequently investigated. Most of the studies show that the two variables are closely related: An increasing collaboration activity (measured in terms of number of authors, number of affiliations, and number of countries) is associated with an increased citation impact. However, it is not clear whether the increased citation impact is based on the higher quality of papers that profit from more than one scientist giving expert input or other (citation-specific) factors. Thus, the current study addresses this question by using two comprehensive data sets with publications (in the biomedical area) including quality assessments by experts (F1000Prime member scores) and citation data for the publications. The study is based on more than 15,000 papers. Robust regression models are used to investigate the relationship between number of authors, number of affiliations, and number of countries, respectively, and citation impact-controlling for the papers' quality (measured by F1000Prime expert ratings). The results point out that the effect of collaboration activities on impact is largely independent of the papers' quality. The citation advantage is apparently not quality related; citation-specific factors (e.g., self-citations) seem to be important here. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents the discussion on announcement of the Clarivate Journal Impact Factors (JIFs). Topics include researchers and their employing institutions go on to misuse this measure in a myriad of ways; and negotiations between Clarivate Analytics and publishers about whether to include editorials and other non‐peer‐ reviewed material in the calculation.

Each section header of an article has its distinct communicative function. Citations from distinct sections may be different regarding citing motivation. In this paper, we grouped section headers with similar functions as a structural function and defined the distribution of citations from structural functions for a paper as its citation structure. We aim to explore the relationship between citation structure and the future impact of a publication and disclose the relative importance among citations from different structural functions. Specifically, we proposed two citation counting methods and a citation life cycle identification method, by which the regression data were built. Subsequently, we employed a ridge regression model to predict the future impact of the paper and analyzed the relative weights of regressors. Based on documents collected from the Association for Computational Linguistics Anthology website, our empirical experiments disclosed that functional structure features improve the prediction accuracy of citation count prediction and that there exist differences among citations from different structural functions. Specifically, at the early stage of citation lifetime, citations from Introduction and Method are particularly important for perceiving future impact of papers, and citations from Result and Conclusion are also vital. However, early accumulation of citations from the Background seems less important. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Citation data for institutes are generally provided as numbers of citations or as relative citation rates (as, for example, in the Leiden Ranking). These numbers can then be compared between the institutes. This study aims to present a new approach for the evaluation of citation data at the institutional level, based on regression models. As example data, the study includes all articles and reviews from the Web of Science for the publication year 2003 ( n = 886,416 papers). The study is based on an in-house database of the Max Planck Society. The study investigates how much the expected number of citations for a publication changes if it contains the address of an institute. The calculation of the expected values allows, on the one hand, investigating how the citation impact of the papers of an institute appears in comparison with the total of all papers. On the other hand, the expected values for several institutes can be compared with one another or with a set of randomly selected publications. Besides the institutes, the regression models include factors which can be assumed to have a general influence on citation counts (e.g., the number of authors). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: The aim of this review is to assess study design and risk of bias related to primary outcome in recently published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in periodontology. Method: An electronic (Medline, EMBASE and Cochrane library) and a manual search were completed to detect RCTs in humans, with an outcome in the field of periodontology and published in English from January 2018 up to March 2020. Results: Data extraction of 318 publications meeting the inclusion criteria was performed by two reviewers. Most studies adopted a parallel‐group superiority design in a university setting. Overall, 54% of papers reported the primary outcome and relative sample size calculation, while only 37% also included reproducibility estimates relative to the primary outcome. Papers published in journals with higher impact factors had better compliance with primary outcome reporting and lower overall risk of bias scores. Conclusion: Improvements in the quality of RCTs in periodontology are still needed. The importance of defining a clinically relevant study primary outcome and building the study around it needs to be emphasized. Furthermore, RCTs in periodontology could consider, when appropriate, some of the study design options which facilitate application of the principles of personalized medicine. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Important emerging measures of academic impact are article download and citation rates. Yet little is known about the influences on these and ways in which academics might manage this approach to dissemination. Three groups of papers by academics in a center for speech-language-science (available through a university repository) were compared. The first group of target papers were blogged, and the blogs were systematically tweeted. The second group of connected control papers were nonblogged papers that we carefully matched for author, topic, and year of publication. The third group were papers by different staff members on a variety of topics-Unrelated Control Papers. The results suggest an effect of social media on download rate, which was limited not just to Target Papers but also generalized to Connected Control Papers. Unrelated Control Papers showed no increase over the same amount of time (main effect of time, F(1,27) = 55.6, p < .001); Significant Group×Time Interaction, F(2,27) = 7.9, p = .002). The effect on citation rates was less clear but followed the same trend. The only predictor of the 2015 citation rate was downloads after blogging ( r = 0.450, p = .012). These preliminary results suggest that promotion of academic articles via social media may enhance download and citation rate and that this has implications for impact strategies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Peer review is the backbone of modern science. F1000Prime is a postpublication peer review system of the biomedical literature (papers from medical and biological journals). This study is concerned with the interrater reliability and convergent validity of the peer recommendations formulated in the F1000Prime peer review system. The study is based on about 100,000 papers with recommendations from faculty members. Even if intersubjectivity plays a fundamental role in science, the analyses of the reliability of the F1000Prime peer review system show a rather low level of agreement between faculty members. This result is in agreement with most other studies that have been published on the journal peer review system. Logistic regression models are used to investigate the convergent validity of the F1000Prime peer review system. As the results show, the proportion of highly cited papers among those selected by the faculty members is significantly higher than expected. In addition, better recommendation scores are also associated with higher performing papers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Adequate blood supply, a prerequisite for flap survival after grafting, makes angiogenesis of the flap the biggest problem to be solved. Researches have been conducted around vascularisation in correlation with flap grafting. However, bibliometric analyses systematically examining this research field are lacking. As such, we herein sought to conduct comprehensive comparative analyses of the contributions of different researchers, institutions, and countries to this research space in an effort to identify trends and hotspots in angiogenesis and vascularisation in the context of flap grafting. Publications pertaining to angiogenesis and vascularisation in the context of flap grafting were retrieved from the Web of Science Core Collection. References were then analysed and plotted using Microsoft Excel 2019, VOSviewer, and CiteSpace V. In total, 2234 papers that were cited 40 048 times (17.63 citations/paper) were included in this analysis. The greatest number of studies were from the United States, with these studies exhibiting both the highest number of citations (13 577) and the greatest overall H‐index (60). For The institutions that published the greatest number of studies were WENZHOU MEDICAL UNIVERSITY (681), while UNIVERSITY OF ERLANGEN NUREMBERG has the highest number of citations (1458), and SHANGHAI JIAO TONG UNIVERSITY holds the greatest overall H‐index (20). The greatest number of studies in this research space were published by Gao WY, while Horch RE was the most commonly cited researcher in the field. The VOS viewer software clustered relevant keywords into three clusters, with clusters 1, 2, 3, and 4 corresponding to studies in which the keywords 'anatomy', 'survival', 'transplantation', 'therapy' most frequently appeared. The most promising research hotspot‐related terms in this field included 'autophagy', 'oxidative stress', 'ischemia/reperfusion injury', which exhibited a most recent average appearing year (AAY) of 2017 and after. Generally speaking, the results of this analysis indicate that the number of articles exploring angiogenesis and flap‐related research has risen steadily, with the United States and China being the two countries publishing the greatest proportion of studies in this field. The overall focus of these studies has shifted away from 'infratest and tissue engineering' towards 'mechanisms'. In the future, particular attention should be paid to emerging research hotspots, which include 'ischemia/reperfusion injury' and treatments for promoting vascularization, such as 'platelet‐rich plasma'. In light of these findings, funding agencies should continue increasing their investment in the exploration of the concrete mechanisms and interventional therapeutic relevance of angiogenesis during flap transplantation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The present study aims to review the quality of open-access nursing journals listed in the Directory of Open Access Journals that published papers in 2013 with a nursing focus, written in English, and were freely accessible. Each journal was reviewed in relation to their publisher, year of commencement, number of papers published in 2013, fee for publication, indexing, impact factor, and evidence of requirements for ethics and disclosure statements. The quality of the journals was assessed by impact factors and the requirements for indexing in Pub Med. A total of 552 were published in 2013 in the 19 open-access nursing journals that met the inclusion criteria. No journals had impact factors listed in Web of Knowledge, but three had low Scopus impact factors. Only five journals were indexed with PubMed. The quality of the 19 journals included in the review was evaluated as inferior to most subscription-fee journals. Mental health nursing has some responsibility to the general public, and in particular, consumers of mental health services and their families, for the quality of papers published in open-access journals. The way forward might involve dual-platform publication or a process that enables assessment of how research has improved clinical outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives To analyse the contributions of authors from three major regions of China - the Mainland ( ML), Hong Kong ( HK) and Taiwan ( TW) - in the field of health care sciences and services. Methods Articles published by Chinese authors between 1998 and 2012 in the category of health care sciences and services were retrieved from the Science Citation Index Expanded ( scie) database. The numbers of total articles, impact factors, citations, articles included in the top 10 highest impact journals and the 10 journals that published the most papers were recorded. Results ML, HK and TW published 615, 415 and 1162, respectively, with accumulated impact factors of 1281.65, 904.29 and 2361.44; average impact factor of 2.08, 2.18 and 2.03; and total citation times of 2313, 2652, and 4818. Regarding the top 10 high-impact journals, ML, HK and TW accounted for 28.25%, 27.68% and 44.07%, respectively. Total impact factors of the most popular 10 journals for ML, HK and TW were 20.86, 22.08 and 18.92, respectively. Discussion and Conclusions Both the quality and quantity of papers published in health care sciences and services journals from ML, HK and TW have greatly improved. ML and HK have different strong points, while the gap with TW diminished. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses various citation metrics as well as the most appropriate metrics for a clinical journal such as "Ophthalmic & Physiological Optics" (OPO). Topics include the available citation metrics and its impact factors, the most appropriate citation period, and the weighting of citations. The best citation metric for a clinical journal is tackled which refers to be Scopus' SCImago Journal Ranking Indicator or CIteScore.

In the humanities and social sciences, bibliometric methods for the assessment of research performance are (so far) less common. This study uses a concrete example in an attempt to evaluate a research institute from the area of social sciences and humanities with the help of data from Google Scholar ( GS). In order to use GS for a bibliometric study, we developed procedures for the normalization of citation impact, building on the procedures of classical bibliometrics. In order to test the convergent validity of the normalized citation impact scores, we calculated normalized scores for a subset of the publications based on data from the Web of Science ( WoS) and Scopus. Even if scores calculated with the help of GS and the WoS/ Scopus are not identical for the different publication types (considered here), they are so similar that they result in the same assessment of the institute investigated in this study: For example, the institute's papers whose journals are covered in the WoS are cited at about an average rate (compared with the other papers in the journals). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The publication performance of 30 scientometricians is studied. The individuals are classified into 3 cohorts according to their manifested professional recognition, as Price medalists ( Pm), members of the editorial board of S cientometrics and the J ournal of I nformetrics ( Rw), and session chairs ( Sc) at an International Society of Scientometrics and Informetrics ( ISSI) conference. Several core impact indicators are calculated: h, g, π, citation distribution score ( CDS), percentage rank position ( PRP), and weight of influence of papers ( WIP 10). The indices significantly correlate with each other. The mean value of the indices of the cohorts decreases parallel with the decrease in professional recognition: Pm > Rw > Sc. The 30 scientometricians studied were clustered according to the core impact indices. The members in the clusters so obtained overlap only partly with the members in the cohorts made by professional recognition. The Total Overlap is calculated by dividing the sum of the diagonal elements in the cohorts-clusters matrix with the total number of elements, times 100. The highest overlap (76.6%) was obtained with the g-index. Accordingly, the g-index seems to have the greatest discriminative power in the system studied. The cohorts-clusters method may be used for validating scientometric indicators. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents brief information on a bimonthly academic journal Acta Geologica Sinica, produced by the Geological Society of China. It states that the impact factor of the journal range from 1.5 to 2.5. It further enlists several measures for author to follow guidelines such as a review paper for an article, information on scope of articles and style of presentation of paper.

Academic publishers purport to be arbiters of knowledge, aiming to publish studies that advance the frontiers of their research domain. Yet the effectiveness of journal editors at identifying novel and important research is generally unknown, in part because of the confidential nature of the editorial and peer review process. Using questionnaires, we evaluated the degree to which journals are effective arbiters of scientific impact on the domain of Ecology, quantified by three key criteria. First, journals discriminated against low‐impact manuscripts: The probability of rejection increased as the number of citations gained by the published paper decreased. Second, journals were more likely to publish high‐impact manuscripts (those that obtained citations in 90th percentile for their journal) than run‐of‐the‐mill manuscripts; editors were only 23% and 41% as likely to reject an eventual high‐impact paper (pre‐ versus postreview rejection) compared to a run‐of‐the‐mill paper. Third, editors did occasionally reject papers that went on to be highly cited. Error rates were low, however: Only 3.8% of rejected papers gained more citations than the median article in the journal that rejected them, and only 9.2% of rejected manuscripts went on to be high‐impact papers in the (generally lower impact factor) publishing journal. The effectiveness of scientific arbitration increased with journal prominence, although some highly prominent journals were no more effective than much less prominent ones. We conclude that the academic publishing system, founded on peer review, appropriately recognizes the significance of research contained in manuscripts, as measured by the number of citations that manuscripts obtain after publication, even though some errors are made. We therefore recommend that authors reduce publication delays by choosing journals appropriate to the significance of their research. Using a unique dataset of 10,580 questionnaire responses, we show that journals in the domain of ecology are effective gatekeepers, disproportionately rejecting low‐impact studies and publishing high‐impact ones. Rejected studies, once they are published in a different journal, tend to be poorly cited, and articles that obtain citation counts above the 90th percentile in their journal are far less likely to have been previously rejected than quotidian articles. Moreover, more prominent journals tend to be more stringent gatekeepers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Citation counts are widely used as indicators of research quality to support or replace human peer review and for lists of top cited papers, researchers, and institutions. Nevertheless, the relationship between citations and research quality is poorly evidenced. We report the first large‐scale science‐wide academic evaluation of the relationship between research quality and citations (field normalized citation counts), correlating them for 87,739 journal articles in 34 field‐based UK Units of Assessment (UoA). The two correlate positively in all academic fields, from very weak (0.1) to strong (0.5), reflecting broadly linear relationships in all fields. We give the first evidence that the correlations are positive even across the arts and humanities. The patterns are similar for the field classification schemes of Scopus and Dimensions.ai, although varying for some individual subjects and therefore more uncertain for these. We also show for the first time that no field has a citation threshold beyond which all articles are excellent quality, so lists of top cited articles are not pure collections of excellence, and neither is any top citation percentile indicator. Thus, while appropriately field normalized citations associate positively with research quality in all fields, they never perfectly reflect it, even at high values. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As in life generally, so in scholarly publishing, the turn of the year inevitably encourages editors to reflect soberly and take honest stock of the progress their journals have made over the previous 12 months. In this frame of mind, my own thoughts turned to our beloved Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry. Of course I say ours because we who currently work at the journal, know it actually belongs to you, the world-wide community of child and adolescent psychologists and psychiatrists: We are only its stewards. We hold it in trust for the whole field. We understand the important role that it has served, in shaping the field of scientific child psychology and psychiatry. We know it has a special place in both your intellectual and working lives. We are aware how important it is to you that the journal continues, on your behalf, to help drive the promotion of science-driven and evidence-based solutions to the great, and, in some aspects, growing, burden of suffering imposed by childhood mental and neuro-developmental disorders. It is vital that we have your confidence that we do this in a transparent and fair way - without fear or favour - not letting our own preconceptions, prejudices or vested interests influence the content of what we publish - unless it is our prejudice towards, and vested interest in, finding out 'the truth of the matter'. We are acutely aware of the responsibility that all this places on our shoulders - a yoke we feel privileged to bear. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The author focuses on significance of published research papers and cites pertinence of impact factors associated with the papers. Topics discussed include definition of impact factor (IF), increase numbers of published papers and journals, the term search engine optimization related to published articles, several article published in the periodical on topics including biosand filter for safe drinking water and remediation of pollutants and articles that will be published in the journal.

Introduction: Research impact and influence are commonly measured quantitatively by citation count received by research articles. Many institutes also use citation count as one of the factors in faculty performance appraisal and candidate selection of academic positions. Various strategies were recommended to amplify and accelerate research influence, particularly citation counts, by bringing research articles to a wider reach for potential readers. However, no prior empirical study was conducted to examine and valid effects of those strategies on nursing studies. This study examines and verifies the direct effects and mediation effects of some strategies, namely, the use of Twitter, international collaboration, the use of ResearchGate, and open access publishing, for amplifying the citation of research and review articles in nursing studies. Design: Cross‐sectional study design. Methods: Articles published in top nursing journals in 2016 were identified in PUBMED and the citation metrics for individual articles until 2021 were extracted from Scopus. The primary outcome was the citation count of the article, while the tweet count on Twitter of the article was considered a mediator. The predictors included paper type, the total number of authors, the proportion of authors with a ResearchGate account in the article, funding support, open‐accessed article, and the number of different countries stated in the authors' affiliation. A mediation analysis was conducted to examine the predictors' direct and indirect effects (i.e., via tweet count) on the citation count of the article. Results: A total of 2210 articles were included in this study, of which 223 (10.1%) were review articles. The median (IQR) number of Scopus citations, tweets, countries, and percentage of authors with ResearchGate accounts were 12 (6–21), 2 (0–6), 1 (1–1), and 75% (50%–100%) respectively. In the mediation analysis, tweet count, article type, number of countries, percentage of authors with a ResearchGate account, and journal impact factors in 2014 were positively associated with the Scopus citation count. The effects of article type, open access, and journals' impact factors in 2014 on Scopus citation count were mediated by the tweet count. Conclusion: This study provides empirical support for some strategies researchers may employ to amplify the citation count of their research articles. The methodology of our study can be extended to compare research influence between entities (e.g., across countries or institutes). Clinical Relevance: The citation refers to the research work cited by peers and is one of the indicators for research impact. Higher citations implied the research work is read and used by others, therefore, understanding the associated factors with higher citations is critical. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An introduction is presented in which the editor discusses the importance of appreciating editors and reviewers for their work on a paper, the growth of the impact factor (IF) of the journal "Earth Surface Processes and Landforms" (ESPL), and the personnel changes in the journal.

The characterization of scholarly communication is dominated by citation-based measures. In this paper we propose several metrics to describe different facets of open access and open research. We discuss measures to represent the public availability of articles along with their archival location, licenses, access costs, and supporting information. Calculations illustrating these new metrics are presented using the authors' publications. We argue that explicit measurement of openness is necessary for a holistic description of research outputs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Public administration is a discipline with considerable history, and is also a diverse, interdisciplinary field in social science. To analyze its evolution, discover the present research foci, and predict future development trends, this study applied scientometrics visualization technology to evaluate over 72,000 scientific articles from the 1920s to 2020s. This research referred to the SSCI and JCR databases to gather scientific data of the discipline and the journals' impact factor. Consequently, paper citations, cited journals, journal co‐citations, author co‐citations, authoritative papers, top countries, productive institutes, average references, and research collaboration trends were analyzed on the bases of the published literature. This study found top productive journals in the discipline, discovered productive countries and institutes, present the research foci, and predicted future development trends. Through this study, scientific production, international cooperation, and knowledge evolution mode of public administration research offers a clear knowledge map of the public administration discipline. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Rationale and aim Clear and logical eligibility criteria are fundamental to the design and conduct of a systematic review. This methodological review examined the quality of reporting and application of eligibility criteria in systematic reviews published in three leading medical journals. Methods All systematic reviews in the BMJ, JAMA and T he L ancet in the years 2013 and 2014 were extracted. These were assessed using a refined version of a checklist previously designed by the authors. Results A total of 113 papers were eligible, of which 65 were in BMJ, 17 in T he L ancet and 31 in JAMA. Although a generally high level of reporting was found, eligibility criteria were often problematic. In 67% of papers, eligibility was specified after the search sources or terms. Unjustified time restrictions were used in 21% of reviews, and unpublished or unspecified data in 27%. Inconsistency between journals was apparent in the requirements for systematic reviews. Conclusions The quality of reviews in these leading medical journals was high; however, there were issues that reduce the clarity and replicability of the review process. As well as providing a useful checklist, this methodological review informs the continued development of standards for systematic reviews. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article summarizes the editorial reports of "Vadose Zone Journal" for 2020. The Editor's Report highlighted the virtual board meeting held on November 5 with topics that include promotions, news presence, and social media. The Managing Editor's Report includes production, and social media and promotion. The Director of Publications' Report includes editor changes, Wiley partnership update, and impact factors and metrics.

Critics often characterise the study of educational technology as under‐theorised. To test this assertion and to determine the extent of this criticism, the present paper reports an in‐depth analysis of the 503 most recent empirical articles published in three selected education‐technology‐related journals (Computers & Education; Learning, Media and Technology; and British Journal of Educational Technology). These journals were selected because they publish studies related to all education settings rather than focusing on only a certain segment such as higher education; they have broad geographical catchment; and they were the most highly ranked journals in terms of their 2017 journal citation impact factor. The present paper examines how explicitly existing theory was identified in previous research, how theories were applied and how often these theories were advanced in education technology research. In the majority of cases, explicit engagement with theory was absent. Many studies either were wholly bereft of theories or made vague use of theory. Where theory was explicit, the articles were more likely to use theory to conceptualise the research, to inform the data collection or analysis process and to discuss the results. Very few articles reported findings that help us to learn something new about a particular theory (ie, little evidence of theory advancement). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Citation analysis, as a tool for quantitative studies of science, has long emphasized direct citation relations, leaving indirect or high‐order citations overlooked. However, a series of early and recent studies demonstrate the existence of indirect and continuous citation impact across generations. Adding to the literature on high‐order citations, we introduce the concept of a citation cascade: the constitution of a series of subsequent citing events initiated by a certain publication. We investigate this citation structure by analyzing more than 450,000 articles and over 6 million citation relations. We show that citation impact exists not only within the three generations documented in prior research but also in much further generations. Still, our experimental results indicate that two to four generations are generally adequate to trace a work's scientific impact. We also explore specific structural properties—such as depth, width, structural virality, and size—which account for differences among individual citation cascades. Finally, we find evidence that it is more important for a scientific work to inspire trans‐domain (or indirectly related domain) works than to receive only intradomain recognition in order to achieve high impact. Our methods and findings can serve as a new tool for scientific evaluation and the modeling of scientific history. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article reflects on the status of the "British Journal of Educational Technology (BJET)" amid the continued global disruption due to the Covid-19 pandemic. Topics include the difficulty in securing reviewers faced by the journal during the pandemic, a significant increase in its impact factor in the new year 2022, and information on its one-year BJET Early Career International Fellowship.

In 2014, the Heart Failure Association (HFA) of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) founded the first open access journal focusing on heart failure, called ESC Heart Failure (ESC‐HF). In the first 5 years, in ESC‐HF we published more than 450 articles. Through ESC‐HF, the HFA gives room for heart failure research output from around the world. A transfer process from the European Journal of Heart Failure to ESC‐HF has also been installed. As a consequence, in 2018 ESC‐HF received 289 submissions, and published 148 items (acceptance rate 51%). The journal is listed in Scopus since 2014 and on the PubMed website since 2015. In 2019, we received our first impact factor from ISI Web of Knowledge / Thomson‐Reuters, which is 3.407 for 2018. This report reviews which papers get best cited. Not surprisingly, many of the best cited papers are reviews and facts & numbers mini reviews, but original research is also well cited. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Objective: We examined whether the use of visual abstracts on social media platforms can improve comprehensive social media and conventional metrics such as total altmetric attention score, full text page views and citation counts (study outcomes) through retrospective cohort study. Methods: We included all original research articles (Total 307 articles: N = 69 in visual abstract group and N = 238 in control group) published between July 2018 and January 2019 in the JAMA, BMJ and the NEJM and used negative binomial regression to adjust for article characteristics. Results: Adjusted analysis showed no significant differences between articles with and without visual abstracts in the altmetric attention score (p = 0.37) and in number of page views (p = 0.44). Citations in the Web of Science core collection were found to be statistically significant favouring control group (p = 0.028). We also found no significant differences in altmetric attention score and page views after stratification for article type [randomised controlled trial (RCT) vs. non‐RCT]. Citations counts were found to be borderline significant for RCT (p = 0.04) and non‐significant for non‐RCT. Conclusion: Visual abstracts might not be effective in disseminating scientific research. We should look at other innovative ways to improve the visibility of the research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: In recent years, the academic medicine community has produced numerous statements and calls to action condemning racism. Though health equity work examining health disparities has expanded, few studies specifically name racism as an operational construct. As emergency departments serve a high proportion of patients with social and economic disadvantage rooted in structural racism, it is critically important that racism be a focus of our academic discourse. This study examines the frequency at which four prominent emergency medicine journals, Annals of Emergency Medicine, Academic Emergency Medicine, the American Journal of Emergency Medicine, and the Western Journal of Emergency Medicine, publish on health disparities and racism. Methods: This is a descriptive analysis measuring the frequency of publications on health disparities and racism in U.S.‐based emergency medicine journals from 2014 to 2021. The search strategies for the concepts of "racism" and "health disparities" used a combination of MeSH and keywords. These search strategies were developed based on prior literature and the MEDLINE/PubMed Health Disparities and Minority Health Search Strategy. Articles identified through the PubMed search were then reviewed by two authors for final inclusion. Results: Since 2014, a total of 6248 articles were published by the four emergency medicine journals over the 8‐year study period. Of those, 82 research papers that focused on health disparities were identified and only 16 that focused on racism. Most emergency medicine publications on racism and health disparities were in 2021. Conclusions: Our findings suggest that the national discourse on racism and calls to action within emergency medicine were followed by an increase in publications on health disparities and racism. Continued investigation is needed to evaluate these trends moving forward. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents a report from the editors of the journal about the changes and developments concerning the publication in 2016 including a change of its editorial team, an increase in the 2-year and 5-year Impact Factors for the journal, and positive submission and subscription rates.

This paper investigates different uses of the Journal Impact Factor (JIF) in national journal rankings and discusses the merits of supplementing metrics with expert assessment. Our focus is national journal rankings used as evidence to support decisions about the distribution of institutional funding or career advancement. The seven countries under comparison are China, Denmark, Finland, Italy, Norway, Poland, and Turkey—and the region of Flanders in Belgium. With the exception of Italy, top‐tier journals used in national rankings include those classified at the highest level, or according to tier, or points implemented. A total of 3,565 (75.8%) out of 4,701 unique top‐tier journals were identified as having a JIF, with 55.7% belonging to the first Journal Impact Factor quartile. Journal rankings in China, Flanders, Poland, and Turkey classify journals with a JIF as being top‐tier, but only when they are in the first quartile of the Average Journal Impact Factor Percentile. Journal rankings that result from expert assessment in Denmark, Finland, and Norway regularly classify journals as top‐tier outside the first quartile, particularly in the social sciences and humanities. We conclude that experts, when tasked with metric‐informed journal rankings, take into account quality dimensions that are not covered by JIFs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The articles in the present issue show in an impressive way the width and the depth of the works of D.R.T. Zahn. In this epilogue some bibliometric data are compiled in order to provide quantitative measures of the author's work. Traditional indicators like the numbers of publications and received citations are discussed. Web of Science and Google Scholar search results are compared. The index h proposed by Hirsch and several variants of h are determined for Zahn's oeuvre. The claimed predictive power of h is traced to its inert evolution. Bibliometric data are compiled providing quantitative measures of D.R.T. Zahn's work. Traditional indicators like the numbers of publications and citations are discussed. Web of Science and Google Scholar search results are compared. The index h proposed by Hirsch and several variants of h are determined for Zahn's oeuvre. The predictive power of h is traced to its inert evolution. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The author reflects on the "Internal Medicine Journal" "IMJ" in 2021, including the submission of papers on COVID-19, changes in the IMJ Editorial Board, and the growth in their social media presence.

Deviations from adequate use and reporting of PROMs may be problematic and misleading. The aim of this study was to investigate the extent of such problems in randomized clinical trials (RCTs). RCTs involving sports medicine research that used PROMs as primary outcomes were identified in 13 preselected journals. The articles were reviewed for nine potential problems related to how the PROM was used and how the data had been reported. The potential problems were as follows: aggregating subscale scores; combining patient‐reported scores with physical, clinical, or para‐clinical measures; using a PROM to diagnose or evaluate the individual patient; using a PROM for one leg or arm; selectively excluding domains or items; constructing a PROM for the specific occasion; mixing PROM formats (ie, digital, paper, telephone, e‐mail, in person); ambiguous instructions for how the PROM should be completed; and recall bias. As covariates, we registered journal impact factor, year of publication, and existence of a registered protocol. In 29 (53.7%) of 54 identified RCTs, at least one potential problem was identified, the most common being aggregation of domain scores. This was not different with a published protocol or dependent on journal rankings, except for exclusion of domains, which was most common in high‐ranking journals. Aggregation of domain scores was significantly less common in recently published articles compared with older articles (P =.03). Potential problematic use of PROMs and reporting of PROM data are common in RCTs, also in high‐ranking journals, but less so in more recent articles. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An introduction is presented that discusses the management of the journal, noting the journal's impact factor (IF) score, the peer review process for submitted articles, and plans for special issues.

Background: Even though considered as studies with high methodological power, many RCTs in paediatric dentistry do not have essential quality items in their design, development, and report, making results' reliability questionable, replication challenging to conduct, wasting time, money, and efforts, and even exposing the participants to research for no benefit. Aim: We addressed the main topics related to transparency in clinical research, with an emphasis in paediatric dentistry. Design: We searched for all controlled clinical trials published from January 2019 up to July 2020 in the three paediatric dentistry journals with high journal Impact Factor, indexed on Medline. These papers were assessed for transparency according to Open Science practices and regarding reporting accuracy using some items required by CONSORT. Results: 53.6% of the studies declared registration, 75% had sample size calculation, 98.2% reported randomisation, and from those, 65.4% explained the randomisation method. Besides that, no study shared their data, and 6.8% were published in open access format. Conclusions: Unfortunately, a large proportion of RCTs in paediatric dental research show a lack of transparency and reproducibility. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study examines a range of factors associated with future citation and altmetric counts to a paper. The factors include journal impact factor, individual collaboration, international collaboration, institution prestige, country prestige, research funding, abstract readability, abstract length, title length, number of cited references, field size, and field type and will be modeled in association with citation counts, Mendeley readers, Twitter posts, Facebook posts, blog posts, and news posts. The results demonstrate that eight factors are important for increased citation counts, seven different factors are important for increased Mendeley readers, eight factors are important for increased Twitter posts, three factors are important for increased Facebook posts, six factors are important for increased blog posts, and five factors are important for increased news posts. Journal impact factor and international collaboration are the two factors that significantly associate with increased citation counts and with all altmetric scores. Moreover, it seems that the factors driving Mendeley readership are similar to those driving citation counts. However, the altmetric events differ from each other in terms of a small number of factors; for instance, institution prestige and country prestige associate with increased Mendeley readers and blog and news posts, but it is an insignificant factor for Twitter and Facebook posts. The findings contribute to the continued development of theoretical models and methodological developments associated with capturing, interpreting, and understanding altmetric events. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on developments related to the British Journal of Psychology. It highlights current data for submission activities and publications in the more recent period between 2013 and 2016. It refers to target articles on psychological models of aesthetic perception published by the journal in recent years.

An introduction is presented which discusses increase in impact factor of the journal, increase in readership and citations, and papers published in symposia on neurogastroenterology and motility.