Advertisement

Impact factor correlations with Scimago Journal Rank, Source Normalized Impact per Paper, Eigenfactor Score, and the CiteScore in Radiology, Nuclear Medicine & Medical Imaging journals

  • Moises Villaseñor-Almaraz
  • Juan Islas-Serrano
  • Chiharu Murata
  • Ernesto Roldan-ValadezEmail author
COMPUTER APPLICATIONS
  • 13 Downloads

Abstract

Introduction

In the last decade, several journal’s editors decided to publish alternative bibliometric indices parallel to the impact factor (IF): Scimago Journal Rank (SJR), Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP), Eigenfactor Score (ES) and CiteScore™ (CiteScore); however, there is scarce information about the correlations among them. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the associations between this bibliometrics in the Radiology, Nuclear Medicine & Medical Imaging category of the Web of Knowledge. We hypothesized the IF did not show the best correlation with other metrics.

Methods

Retrospective study. We used bibliometrics recorded from the 2017 publicly available versions of the Journal Citation Reports (JCR), SJR (www.scimagojr.com), SNIP (www.journalindicators.com), and CiteScore (www.scopus.com); we also included the Total Cites. We measured the correlations using the Spearman correlation coefficients (RS) for all combinations of the bivariate pair, performed pairwise comparisons of the RS values, and calculated the coefficients of determination. We also tested the statistical significance of the difference between r coefficients between groups. All analyses were conducted with the JMP Pro software.

Results

The stronger bivariate correlations were represented by the ES↔Total Cites RS = 0.968, p < 0.001, R2 = 0.937; and the CiteScore↔SJR RS = 0.911, p < 0.001, R2 = 0.829. From 105 possible combinations of pairwise comparisons, 38 depicted a p value > 0.050 which would suggest interchangeability among bivariate correlations.

Conclusions

Our findings support our hypothesis that the IF does not show the best correlation between other metrics. Radiologists, interventional radiologist, or nuclear medicine doctors should have a clear understanding of the associations among the journal’s bibliometrics for their decision-making during the manuscript submission phase.

Keywords

Journal impact factor Bibliometric analysis Literature-based discovery Algorithms Citation 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Moises Villaseñor-Almaraz, M.D., was a research fellow at Directorate of Research, Hospital General de Mexico “Dr. Eduardo Liceaga”, during 2018. Juan Islas-Serrano, MS-IV, was scholarship recipient and visitor student of the program “Programa Interinstitucional para el Fortalecimiento de la Investigación y el Posgrado del Pacifico” in July 2018.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

Authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical standards

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Human and animal rights

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Supplementary material

11547_2019_996_MOESM1_ESM.docx (16 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 16 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Krauskopf E (2012) The uses and abuses of bibliometrics. Reprod Biomed Online 25(4):434.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2012.07.005 author reply 435 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Thomson_Reuters (2014) Web of knowledge. http://wokinfo.com. Accessed 19 May 2014
  3. 3.
    Roldan-Valadez E, Rios C (2015) Alternative bibliometrics from impact factor improved the esteem of a journal in a 2-year-ahead annual-citation calculation: multivariate analysis of gastroenterology and hepatology journals. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 27(2):115–122.  https://doi.org/10.1097/MEG.0000000000000253 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Diaz-Ruiz A, Orbe-Arteaga U, Rios C, Roldan-Valadez E (2018) Alternative bibliometrics from the web of knowledge surpasses the impact factor in a 2-year ahead annual citation calculation: linear mixed-design models’ analysis of neuroscience journals. Neurol India 66(1):96–104.  https://doi.org/10.4103/0028-3886.222880 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Roldan-Valadez E, Orbe-Arteaga U, Rios C (2018) Eigenfactor score and alternative bibliometrics surpass the impact factor in a 2-years ahead annual-citation calculation: a linear mixed design model analysis of Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Medical Imaging journals. Radiol Med 123(7):524–534.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11547-018-0870-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Oosthuizen JC, Fenton JE (2014) Alternatives to the impact factor. Surgeon 12(5):239–243.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surge.2013.08.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sadeghi R, Sarraf A (2012) Comparison between Impact factor, SCImago journal rank indicator and Eigenfactor score of nuclear medicine journals. Nucl Med Rev 15(2):5.  https://doi.org/10.5603/NMR.2011.00022 Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kianifar H, Sadeghi R, Zarifmahmoudi L (2014) Comparison between Impact Factor, Eigenfactor Metrics, and SCimago Journal Rank Indicator of Pediatric Neurology Journals. Acta Inform Med 22(2):103–106.  https://doi.org/10.5455/aim.2014.22.103-106 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Brown T, Gutman SA (2018) Impact factor, eigenfactor, article influence, scopus SNIP, and SCImage journal rank of occupational therapy journals. Scand J Occup Ther:1–9.  https://doi.org/10.1080/11038128.2018.1473489
  10. 10.
    Fazel S, Wolf A (2017) What is the impact of a research publication? Evid Based Ment Health 20(2):33–34.  https://doi.org/10.1136/eb-2017-102668 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Torrisi AM, Granata A (2016) Bibliometric indicators of nephrology journals: strengths and weaknesses. G Ital Nefrol 33(6):gin/33.6.10Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bradshaw CJ, Brook BW (2016) How to Rank Journals. PloS One 11(3):e0149852.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0149852 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Valdes SG, Perez GF, Reyes BH (2015) An analysis of Chilean biomedical publications in PubMed in the years 2008–2009. Rev Med Chile 143(8):979–986.  https://doi.org/10.4067/S0034-98872015000800003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hale L (2017) Sleep Health receives its first CiteScore. Sleep Health 3(4):225.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sleh.2017.06.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sterbenc A, Ostrbenk A (2017) Elsevier’s CiteScore index values for Acta Dermatovenerologica Alpina, Pannonica et Adriatica: a 2016 update. Acta Dermatovenerol Alp Pannonica Adriat 26(3):53Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Vanden Eynde JJ (2017) Pharmaceuticals: Impact Factor or CiteScore. Pharmaceuticals (Basel) 10(3):61.  https://doi.org/10.3390/ph10030061 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Atayero AA, Popoola SI, Egeonu J, Oludayo O (2018) Citation analytics: data exploration and comparative analyses of CiteScores of Open Access and Subscription-Based publications indexed in Scopus (2014-2016). Data Brief 19:198–213.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dib.2018.05.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    La Torre G, Sciarra I, Chiappetta M, Monteduro A (2017) New bibliometric indicators for the scientific literature: an evolving panorama. Clin Ter 168(2):e65–e71.  https://doi.org/10.7417/CT.2017.1985 Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Avena MJ, Barbosa DA (2017) Bibliometric indicators of the nursing journals according to the index databases. Rev Esc Enferm USP 51:e03262.  https://doi.org/10.1590/s1980-220x2017014603262 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Choudhri AF, Siddiqui A, Khan NR, Cohen HL (2015) Understanding bibliometric parameters and analysis. Radiographics 35(3):736–746.  https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.2015140036 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sardanelli F, Sconfienza LM (2013) Declining impact factor of radiologic journals: a matter for debate. AJR Am J Roentgenol 201(3):W391–W393.  https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.12.10256 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Shanta A, Pradhan AS, Sharma SD (2013) Impact factor of a scientific journal: is it a measure of quality of research? J Med Phys/Assoc Med Phys India 38(4):155–157.  https://doi.org/10.4103/0971-6203.121191 Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Sharma M, Sarin A, Gupta P, Sachdeva S, Desai AV (2014) Journal impact factor: its use, significance and limitations. World J Nucl Med 13(2):146.  https://doi.org/10.4103/1450-1147.139151 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Jackson A (2010) The impact factor game: the rising impact factor of the British Journal of Radiology–a success story? Br J Radiol 83(986):93–98.  https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr/18689409 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Garfield E (1996) How can impact factors be improved? BMJ 313(7054):411–413CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Roldan-Valadez E, Salazar-Ruiz SY, Ibarra-Contreras R, Rios C (2018) 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. Ir J Med Sci.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11845-018-1936-5
  27. 27.
    Bergstrom CT, West JD (2008) Assessing citations with the Eigenfactor metrics. Neurology 71(23):1850–1851.  https://doi.org/10.1212/01.wnl.0000338904.37585.66 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Bergstrom CT, West JD, Wiseman MA (2008) The Eigenfactor metrics. J Neurosci: Off J Soc Neurosci 28(45):11433–11434.  https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0003-08.2008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Van Noorden R (2016) Controversial impact factor gets a heavyweight rival. Nature 540(7633):325–326.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nature.2016.21131 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Browner WS, Newman TB, Hulley SB (2013) Estimating sample size and power: applications and examples. In: Hulley SB, Cummings SR, Browner WS, Grady DG, Newman TB (eds) Designing clinical research, 4th edn. Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia, pp 55–83Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Chan YH (2003) Biostatistics 104: correlational analysis. Singap Med J 44(12):614–619Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Pallant J (2011) Testing the statistical significance of the difference between correlation coefficients. In: Pallant J (ed) SPSS survival manual, 4th edn. Allen & Unwin, Crows Nest, pp 139–141Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Reider B (2017) Brace for impact. Am J Sports Med 45(10):2213–2216.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0363546517721707 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Gutierrez FR, Beall J, Forero DA (2015) Spurious alternative impact factors: the scale of the problem from an academic perspective. BioEssays 37(5):474–476.  https://doi.org/10.1002/bies.201500011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Baethge C (2012) Impact factor—a useful tool, but not for all purposes. Dtsch Arztebl Int 109(15):267–269.  https://doi.org/10.3238/arztebl.2012.0267 Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Rawat S (2014) How is impact factor impacting our research? Biomed J.  https://doi.org/10.4103/2319-4170.131388
  37. 37.
    Elliott DB (2014) The impact factor: a useful indicator of journal quality or fatally flawed? Ophthalmic Physiol Opt: J Br Coll Ophthalmic Opt 34(1):4–7.  https://doi.org/10.1111/opo.12107 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Callaway E (2016) Beat it, impact factor! Publishing elite turns against controversial metric. Nature 535(7611):210–211.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nature.2016.20224 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Sillet A, Katsahian S, Range H, Czernichow S, Bouchard P (2012) The Eigenfactor Score in highly specific medical fields: the dental model. J Dent Res 91(4):329–333.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0022034512437374 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Italian Society of Medical Radiology 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Directorate of ResearchHospital General de Mexico “Dr. Eduardo Liceaga”Mexico CityMexico
  2. 2.Escuela de MedicinaUniversidad de SonoraHermosilloMexico
  3. 3.Departamento de Metodologia de La InvestigacionInstituto Nacional de PediatriaMexico CityMexico
  4. 4.Department of RadiologyI.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University (Sechenov University)MoscowRussia

Personalised recommendations