ArticlePloS one2016
Journal Impact Factor: Do the Numerator and Denominator Need Correction?
Article in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 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
15 citing papers in PubMed.
- Improving the quality of publications in and advancing the paradigms of clinical and social pharmacy practice research: the Granada Statements.European journal of hospital pharmacy : science and practice · 2024Article
- Critical questions in the evaluation of scientific production for the "Abilitazione scientifica nazionale" (ASN) for academic enrollment in italy.Updates in surgery · 2024Article
- [Improving the Quality of Publications in and Advancing the Paradigms of Clinical and Social Pharmacy Practice Research: The Granada Statements].Farmaceuticos comunitarios · 2023Article
- Global trends and prospects in research of artificial cornea over past 20 years: a bibliometric and visualized analysis.International ophthalmology · 2023Article
- Improving the quality of publications in and advancing the paradigms of clinical and social pharmacy practice research: the Granada Statements.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2023Article
- Improving the quality of publications in and advancing the paradigms of clinical and social pharmacy practice research: The Granada statements.Journal of pharmaceutical policy and practice · 2023Article
- Improving the quality of publications in and advancing the paradigms of clinical and social pharmacy practice research: The Granada Statements.Exploratory research in clinical and social pharmacy · 2023Article
- The Leading Transplantation Journals: A Trend Analysis, 2011-2021.Journal of transplantation · 2023Review
- Bibliometric and visual analysis of cerebral revascularization from 1999 to 2022.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2022Article
- Relationship between an editor in chief's commentary publications and the impact factor of cardiovascular medicine journals.Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · 2021Article
- The Journal Impact Factor: Moving Toward an Alternative and Combined Scientometric Approach.Journal of Korean medical science · 2017Article
- Institute for Scientific Information-indexed biomedical journals of Saudi Arabia. Their performance from 2007-2014.Saudi medical journal · 2016Article
- Analysis of ten years of publishing in Pharmacy Practice.Pharmacy practiceArticle
- Article
- Bradford's law, the long tail principle, and transparency in Journal Impact Factor calculations.Pharmacy practiceArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To correct the incongruence of document types between the numerator and denominator in the traditional impact factor (IF), we make a corresponding adjustment to its formula and present five corrective IFs: IFTotal/Total, IFTotal/AREL, IFAR/AR, IFAREL/AR, and IFAREL/AREL. Based on a survey of researchers in the fields of ophthalmology and mathematics, we obtained the real impact ranking of sample journals in the minds of peer experts. The correlations between various IFs and questionnaire score were analyzed to verify their journal evaluation effects. The results show that it is scientific and reasonable to use five corrective IFs for journal evaluation for both ophthalmology and mathematics. For ophthalmology, the journal evaluation effects of the five corrective IFs are superior than those of traditional IF: the corrective effect of IFAR/AR is the best, IFAREL/AR is better than IFTotal/Total, followed by IFTotal/AREL, and IFAREL/AREL. For mathematics, the journal evaluation effect of traditional IF is superior than those of the five corrective IFs: the corrective effect of IFTotal/Total is best, IFAREL/AR is better than IFTotal/AREL and IFAREL/AREL, and the corrective effect of IFAR/AR is the worst. In conclusion, not all disciplinary journal IF need correction. The results in the current paper show that to correct the IF of ophthalmologic journals may be valuable, but it seems to be meaningless for mathematic journals.
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.