Search

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.

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]

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]

The objective was to compare the impact factor to 2 years of self-citations (IF2Y) with impact factor 2 years without self-citations (IF2YWS) and IF2Y with the impact factor to 5 years (IF5Y) as well as IF2YWS with SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) about journals where they were published articles of excellence in smoking by Spanish authors in the period 2008-2012. The search was conducted in the SCI-E and the SSCI-E on November 25, 2013. Were selected documents that had the h index of the strategy global sample (number of articles that have at least that number of citations) to search using the descriptors "smok *" OR "tobac *". A total of 69 articles by Spanish authors were recovered from 55 journals. We found an almost perfect correlation between IF2Y and IF2YWS, reaching IF2Y the highest values. We also found an almost perfect correlation between IF2Y and IF5Y with good agreement, reaching FI5a highest values with a great variability and heterogeneity between journals. The correlation between IF2YWS and SJR is poor with a low concordance. Systematically, the IF2YWS have always higher values than SJR and both indicators measure, therefore, different aspects, not be extrapolated or interchangeable. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]