ArticleRevista espanola de salud publica2020
[Impact and prestige indicators of SciELO network health sciences journals: comparative study.]
Article in Revista espanola de salud publica, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe use of bibliometric indicators to measure the quality of scientific journals is a general practice in all areas of science. The WoS and Scopus databases continue to be the reference sources to obtain bibliographic indicators. Others such as SciELO network offer indicators about Ibero-American science, which are scarcely collected in WoS and Scopus. The aim of this work was to analyze the association of the indicators proposed by SciELO for health sciences journals, with the most widely used impact and indicators and to study the complementarity of the existing prestige indicators.
methodsAnalytical correlational study between SciELO indicators, with impact and prestige indicators from Journal Citation Report, Scopus and Web of Science. The results refer to 2018, the most recent and complete data available. Association between the qualitative variables was analyzed using the chi-square test, and the analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed for the quantitative variables using the Tukey method as a post hoc test. To obtain the relationship between quantitative variables, Pearson's correlation coefficient was used and Spearman's coefficient for ordinal variables. The level of significance used in all the hypothesis tests was α≤0.05.
resultsThe SciELO Impact Factor showed a weak correlation both, with Journal Citation Report (R=0.36; p=0.003), and Scopus Cite Score (R=0.39; p=0.001). The association between the H index of the Web of Science andthe H index of Scopus with the H index of SciELO was weak in both cases (R=0.45; p<0.001 and R=0.340; p=0.003).
conclusionsIndicators proposed by SciELO, for health journals, did not show an association with those of WoS or Scopus. The weak correlation between Impact Factor and Cite Score with SciELO Impact Factor, converts the latter into a necessary "metrics" to assess journals excluded from the "mainstream" and fundamentally those from the Latin American region. The need of using the prestige indicators to fill in the impact indicators, has not been proven in this study.
Indexed as
Identifiers
32900988PMC11582893What 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.