Correlation between Self-Citation and Impact Factor in Iranian English Medical Journals in WoS and ISC: A Comparative Approach.

Seyed Javad Ghazi Mirsaeid, Nadia Motamedi, Nahid Ramezan Ghorbani

Open access · greenAbstract read

In one paragraph

Article in Iranian journal of public health, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it

0cells of the map it votes in

0citing papers in PubMed

0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 22% of its field

1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Seyed Javad Ghazi MirsaeidDept. of Medical Library & Information Sciences, School of Allied Medicine & Health Information Management Research Center, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.

Nadia MotamediDept. of Medical Library & information Sciences, School of Allied Medicine, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.

Nahid Ramezan GhorbaniDept. of Development & Coordination Scientific Information & Publication, Deputy of Research & Technology, Ministry of Health, Treatment and Medical Education, Tehran, Iran.

Health Information Management · BEIran University of Medical Sciences · IRMinistry of Health and Medical Education · IR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn this study, the impact of self-citation (Journal and Author) on impact factor of Iranian English Medical journals in two international citation databases, Web of Science (WoS) and Islamic world science citation center (ISC), were compared by citation analysis.

methodsTwelve journals in WoS and 26 journals in ISC databases indexed between the years (2006-2009) were selected and compared. For comparison of self-citation rate in two databases, we used Wilcoxon and Mann-whitney tests. We used Pearson test for correlation of self-citation and IF in WoS, and the Spearman's correlation coefficient for the ISC database. Covariance analysis was used for comparison of two correlation tests. P. value was 0.05 in all of tests.

resultsThere was no significant difference between self-citation rates in two databases (P>0.05). Findings also showed no significant difference between the correlation of Journal self-citation and impact factor in two databases (P=0.526) however, there was significant difference between the author's self-citation and impact factor in these databases (P<0.001).

conclusionThe impact of Author's self-citation in the Impact Factor of WoS was higher than the ISC.

Indexed as

Journal impact factorPeriodicalsSelf-CitationWeb of science

Identifiers

PMID26587498

PMCPMC4645781

OpenAlexW1938573398

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata

Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.