Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Researchers" and users" perceptions of the relative standing of biomedical papers in different journals

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Journal citation impact factors, which are frequently used as a surrogate measure of research quality, do not correlate well with UK researchers" subjective views of the relative importance of journals as media for communicating important biomedical research results. The correlation varies with the sub-field: it is almost zero in nursing research but is moderate in more “scientific” sub-fields such as multiple sclerosis research, characterised by many authors per paper and appreciable foreign co-authorship. If research evaluation is to be based on journal-specific indicators, then these must cover different aspects of the process whereby research impacts on other researchers and on healthcare improvement.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Bonitz, M., Journal ranking by selective impact-new method based on SDI results and journal impact factors, Scientometrics, 7 (1985) 471-485.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Banos, J.E., Casanovas, L., Guardiola, E., Bosch, F., Analysis of Spanish biomedical journals by impact factor, Medicina Clinica, 99 (1992) 96-99.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Davis, G., Royle, P., A comparison of Australian university output using journal impact factors, Scientometrics, 35 (1996) 45-58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Garfield, E., Journal impact factor: a brief review, Canadian Medical Association Journal, 161 (1999) 979-980.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Butler, D., France sets high targets for impact factors and patents, Nature, 394 (1998) 309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Boor, M., The citation impact factor-another dubious index of journal quality, American Psychologist, 37 (1982) 975-977.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Edwards, R. G., Van Steirtegham, A. C., Richardson, M. J., Impact factors-more misleading than ever, Human Reproduction, 8 (1993) 983-985.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Hansson, S., Impact factor as a misleading tool in evaluation of medical journals, Lancet, 346 (1995) 906.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Moed, H. F., Van Leeuwen, TH. N., Impact factors can mislead, Nature, 381 (1996) 186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Seglen, P. O., Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research, BMJ, 314 (1997) 498-502.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Smith, R., Unscientific practice flourishes in science, BMJ, 316 (1998) 1036.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Moed, H. F., Van Leeuwen, T. N., Reedijk, J., A critical analysis of the journal impact factors of Angewandte Chemie and the Journal of the American Chemical Society-inaccuracies in published impact factors based on overall citations only, Scientometrics, 47 (1996) 105-116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Van Leeuwen, T. N., Moed, H. F., Reedijk, J., Critical comments on Institute for Scientific Information impact factors-a sample of inorganic molecular chemistry journals, Journal of Information Science, 25 (1999) 489-498.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Lewison, G., The quantity and quality of female researchers: a bibliometric study of Iceland, Scientometrics, 52 (2001) 29-43. See Figure 7, p. 41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Jacobs, D., Ingwersen, P., A bibliometric study of the publication patterns in the sciences of South African scholars 1981–96, Scientometrics, 47 (2000) 75-93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Luwel, M., A bibliometric profile of Flemish research in natural, life and technical sciences, Scientometrics, 47 (2000) 281-302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Nederhof, A. J., Van Wijk, E., Profiling institutes: identifying high research performance and social relevance in the social and behavioural sciences, Scientometrics, 44 (1999) 487-506.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Chi Research Inc., private communication.

  19. Grant, J., Cottrell, R., Cluzeau, F., Fawcett, G., Evaluating “payback” on biomedical research from papers cited in clinical guidelines: applied bibliometric study, BMJ, 320 (2000) 1107-1111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Anderson, J., Williams, N., Seemungal, D., Narin, F., Olivastro, D., Human genetic technology: exploring the links between science and innovation, Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 8 (1996) 135-156.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Narin, F., Patent bibliometrics, Scientometrics, 30 (1994) 147-155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Lewison, G., The definition and calibration of biomedical subfields, Scientometrics, 46 (1999) 529-537.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Dawson, G., Lucocq, B., Cottrell, R., Lewison, G., Mapping the Landscape–National Biomedical Research Outputs 1988–95. Wellcome Trust policy report, 9, (1998) See section A3.8, pp. 58-59.

  24. Lewison, G., Grant, J., Jansen, P., International gastroenterology research: subject areas, impact and funding, Gut, 49 (2001) 295-302. See Figure 2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Lewison, G., New bibliometric techniques for the evaluation of medical schools, Scientometrics, 41 (1998) 5-16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Lewison, G., Van Rooyen, S., Reviewers' and editors' perceptions of submitted manuscripts with different numbers of authors, addresses and funding sources, Journal of Information Science, 25 (1999) 509-511.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Martin, B., The use of multiple indicators in the assessment of basic research, Scientometrics, 36 (1996) 343-362.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Information Science, E Northampton Square City University, Bibliometrics Research Group, C1V 0HB, London, room A223

    Grant Lewison

Authors
  1. Grant Lewison
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lewison, G. Researchers" and users" perceptions of the relative standing of biomedical papers in different journals. Scientometrics 53, 229–240 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014804608785

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014804608785

Keywords

Search

Navigation