Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32082465›Full record

ReviewThe Journal of clinical and aesthetic dermatology2020

Rethinking the Journal Impact Factor and Publishing in the Digital Age.

Mark S Nestor, Daniel L Fischer, David Arnold, Brian Berman, James Q Del Rosso

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in The Journal of clinical and aesthetic dermatology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Inflation of the journal impact factor.BMJ health & care informatics · 2025
    Article
  2. Environmental Impact and Sustainability Associated with the Practice of Dermatology.The Journal of clinical and aesthetic dermatology · 2025
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Trends in bibliometric indexes of the main dermatology journals (2009 to 2019).Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology · 2021
    Article
  7. Article
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

5 authors.

Mark S NestorDrs. Nestor, Fischer, Arnold, and Berman are with the Center for Clinical and Cosmetic Research in Aventura, Florida.
Daniel L FischerDrs. Nestor, Fischer, Arnold, and Berman are with the Center for Clinical and Cosmetic Research in Aventura, Florida.
David ArnoldDrs. Nestor, Fischer, Arnold, and Berman are with the Center for Clinical and Cosmetic Research in Aventura, Florida.
Brian BermanDrs. Nestor, Fischer, Arnold, and Berman are with the Center for Clinical and Cosmetic Research in Aventura, Florida.
James Q Del RossoDrs. Nestor, Fischer, Arnold, and Berman are with the Center for Clinical and Cosmetic Research in Aventura, Florida.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Clinical and experimental literature search has changed significantly over the past few decades, and with it, the way in which we value information. Today, our need for immediate access to relevant and specific literature, regardless of specialty, has led to a growing demand for open access to publications. The Journal Impact Factor (JIF) has been a long-time standard for representing the quality or "prestige" of a journal, but it appears to be losing its relevance. Here, we define the JIF and deconstruct its validity as a modern measure of a journal's quality, discuss the current models of academic publication, including their advantages and shortcomings, and discuss the benefits and shortcomings of a variety of open-access models, including costs to the author. We have quantified a nonsubscribed physician's access to full articles associated with dermatologic disease and aesthetics cited on PubMed. For some of the most common dermatology conditions, 23.1 percent of citations (ranging from 17.2% for melasma to 31.9% for malignant melanoma) were available as free full articles, and for aesthetic procedures, 18.9 percent of citations (ranging from 11.9% for laser hair removal to 27.9% for botulinum toxin) were available as free full articles. Finally, we discuss existing alternative metrics for measuring journal impact and propose the adoption of a superior publishing model, one that satisfies modern day standards of scholarly knowledge pursuit and dissemination of scholarly publications for dermatology and all of medical science.

Indexed as

hybrid goldhybrid modelIFimpact factorJIFJournal impact factorOA bronzeOA goldOA greenopen accessopen-accesspublishing

Identifiers

PMID32082465
PMCPMC7028381

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.