ArticleLangenbeck's archives of surgery2010
The impact factor ranking--a challenge for scientists and publishers.
Article in Langenbeck's archives of surgery, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Impact of article language in multi-language medical journals--a bibliometric analysis of self-citations and impact factor.PloS one · 2013Article
- Diversity, value and limitations of the journal impact factor and alternative metrics.Rheumatology international · 2012Review
- Scientific evaluation of modern clinical research: we need a new currency!Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2011Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe Impact Factor (IF) has originally been designed as a bibliometric tool to estimate the relevance of a scientific journal and has as such gained widespread acceptance in the scientific community. It denominates the ratio of all citations received by a particular journal within 1 year and all original research or review articles published by that journal during the preceding 2 years. DISCUSSION: Recently, the IF is more and more frequently used to judge the importance of single articles or the scientific achievement of researchers themselves. These approaches are associated with a number of backlashes such as the inability of the IF to reflect citation rates of single articles, the lack of elimination of self-citations and the time frame within which the IF is calculated (i.e., the two preceding years). Thus, for the evaluation of single articles, citation rankings would be-though time consuming in their compilation-more adequate. For the assessment of the scientific output of individual researchers, the h-index is emerging as a valuable tool which reflects both the citation rate as well as the number of publications of a given researcher.
conclusionAlthough the IF is suitable for judging the overall importance of journals, IF rankings should be made solely within the respective subspecialty categorizations to avoid overrepresentation of larger research areas. In conclusion, the IF remains the widest accepted qualitative tool for the benchmarking of journals, though the assessment of individual scientific quality remains a challenging endeavor.
Indexed as
Identifiers
20306337What 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.