ReviewMedical journal, Armed Forces India2017
Bibliometric Indices of Scientific Journals: Time to overcome the obsession and think beyond the Impact Factor.
Review in Medical journal, Armed Forces India, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- A bibliometric assessment of theIndian journal of psychiatry · 2026Review
- Article
- Time to publish? Turnaround times, acceptance rates, and impact factors of journals in fisheries science.PloS one · 2021Article
- Changing paradigm in the scientific publication process: Are we encouraging Science or Pseudoscience? Urgent need for introspection and self regulation.Medical journal, Armed Forces India · 2017Article
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
Journal Impact Factor (JIF) has been widely used for a long time as a proxy marker of journal prestige. However, off late, accuracy and reliability of JIF for evaluation of scientific journals has been increasingly questioned by numerous stakeholders in the field of scholarly publications. Having realized the perils and pitfalls of JIF, there is an increasing understanding among academia to develop and consider alternatives to the traditional JIF. It is possibly time for all concerned to understand the pros and cons of JIF to overcome this obsession. Limitations of JIF and possible alternative and emerging bibliometric indicators are being discussed in this article for the benefit of the readers of MJAFI.
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.