Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30511320›Full record

ReviewIrish journal of medical science2019

Current concepts on bibliometrics: a brief review about impact factor, Eigenfactor score, CiteScore, SCImago Journal Rank, Source-Normalised Impact per Paper, H-index, and alternative metrics.

Ernesto Roldan-Valadez, Shirley Yoselin Salazar-Ruiz, Rafael Ibarra-Contreras, Camilo Rios

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Irish journal of medical science, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 180 papers, 24 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
180citing papers in PubMed, 24 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

180 citing papers in PubMed, 24 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. Pooled it
  17. Pooled it
  18. Pooled it
  19. Pooled it
  20. Pooled it

120 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

4 authors.

Ernesto Roldan-ValadezDirectorate of Research, Hospital General de Mexico "Dr Eduardo Liceaga", Dr Balmis 148 street, Col. Doctores, Del. Cuauhtemoc, 06726, Mexico City, Mexico. ernest.roldan@usa.net.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7116-5289
Shirley Yoselin Salazar-RuizDirectorate of Research, Hospital General de Mexico "Dr Eduardo Liceaga", Dr Balmis 148 street, Col. Doctores, Del. Cuauhtemoc, 06726, Mexico City, Mexico.
Rafael Ibarra-ContrerasGeneral Directorate of Libraries, National Autonomous University of Mexico, Mexico City, Mexico.
Camilo RiosDepartment of Neurochemistry, National Institute of Neurology and Neurosurgery, Mexico City, Mexico.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundUnderstanding the impact of a publication by using bibliometric indices becomes an essential activity not only for universities and research institutes but also for individual academicians. This paper aims to provide a brief review of the current bibliometric tools used by authors and editors and proposes an algorithm to assess the relevance of the most common bibliometric tools to help the researchers select the fittest journal and know the trends of published submissions by using self-evaluation.

methodsWe present a narrative review answering at least two related consecutive questions triggered by the topics mentioned above. How prestigious is a journal based on its most recent bibliometrics, so authors may choose it to submit their next manuscript? And, how can they self-evaluate/understand the impact of their whole publishing scientific life?

resultsWe presented the main relevant definitions of each bibliometrics and grouped them in those oriented to evaluated journals or individuals. Also, we share with our readers our algorithm to assess journals before manuscript submission.

conclusionsSince there is a journal performance market and an article performance market, each one with its patterns, an integrative use of these metrics, rather than just the impact factor alone, might represent the fairest and most legitimate approach to assess the influence and importance of an acceptable research issue, and not only a sound journal in their respective disciplines.

Indexed as

BibliometricsJournal Impact FactorAlgorithmsHumansPublicationsAlgorithmsBibliometricsCitationJournal impact factorSelf-evaluation

Identifiers

PMID30511320

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.