ArticleBMC medical research methodology2007
Reliability of journal impact factor rankings.
Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Robotic-assisted versus standard unicompartmental knee arthroplasty-evaluation of manuscript conflict of interests, funding, scientific quality and bibliometrics.International orthopaedics · 2019Pooled it
- Bibliometric Analysis of Granger Causality Studies.Entropy (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Current Issues on Research Conducted to Improve Women's Health.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Comment on: Oncology research in Saudi Arabia over a 10-year period. A synopsis.Saudi medical journal · 2020Article
- Assessing Impact of Biomedical Scholarship in the Information Age: Observations on the Evolution of Biomedical Publishing and a Proposal for a New Metric.The Permanente journal · 2019Article
- The hidden factors in impact factors: a perspective from Brazilian science.Frontiers in genetics · 2013Article
- Statistical profiling of hospital performance using acute coronary syndrome mortality.Cardiovascular journal of Africa · 2012Article
- The journal in PubMed and the lessons of the SciELO/Fapesp seminar on journal performance.Revista brasileira de hematologia e hemoterapia · 2012Article
- A five-year review of publication productivity among Irish orthopaedic units.Irish journal of medical science · 2011Article
- Publishing a master's thesis: a guide for novice authors.Journal of genetic counseling · 2010Article
- Citation of non-English peer review publications--some Chinese examples.Emerging themes in epidemiology · 2008Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundJournal impact factors and their ranks are used widely by journals, researchers, and research assessment exercises.
methodsBased on citations to journals in research and experimental medicine in 2005, Bayesian Markov chain Monte Carlo methods were used to estimate the uncertainty associated with these journal performance indicators.
resultsIntervals representing plausible ranges of values for journal impact factor ranks indicated that most journals cannot be ranked with great precision. Only the top and bottom few journals could place any confidence in their rank position. Intervals were wider and overlapping for most journals.
conclusionDecisions placed on journal impact factors are potentially misleading where the uncertainty associated with the measure is ignored. This article proposes that caution should be exercised in the interpretation of journal impact factors and their ranks, and specifically that a measure of uncertainty should be routinely presented alongside the point estimate.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.