Abstract
Purpose
– This paper aims to look at two well-respected cardiothoracic journals and one general medical journal over the period of a decade to find out any major differences in content and referencing to warrant the fact that the general journal should be ranked far higher than the specialist journals.
Design/methodology/approach
– The paper conducted citation analysis and comparison with impact factors (IFs) of two cardiothoracic journals, one American and one European, and one general medical journal over the period.
Findings
– The study concludes that although there was a significant amount of self-referenced non-citable material in the general medical journal, this probably did not alone account for its higher ranking.
Research limitations/implications
– The original articles were actually very highly cited, and perhaps, the visibility of the general medical journal could possibly be the main factor contributing to its high IF.
Practical implications
– In terms of citation, all contribution in an issue of a journal is not equal, and therefore, to evaluate work by looking at the IF of the journal in which it is published is not reliable.
Originality/value
– The study is based on an original citation and IF analysis, and the results should be of interest and value to all those concerned with the use of the IF to evaluate journals.
– This paper aims to look at two well-respected cardiothoracic journals and one general medical journal over the period of a decade to find out any major differences in content and referencing to warrant the fact that the general journal should be ranked far higher than the specialist journals.
Design/methodology/approach
– The paper conducted citation analysis and comparison with impact factors (IFs) of two cardiothoracic journals, one American and one European, and one general medical journal over the period.
Findings
– The study concludes that although there was a significant amount of self-referenced non-citable material in the general medical journal, this probably did not alone account for its higher ranking.
Research limitations/implications
– The original articles were actually very highly cited, and perhaps, the visibility of the general medical journal could possibly be the main factor contributing to its high IF.
Practical implications
– In terms of citation, all contribution in an issue of a journal is not equal, and therefore, to evaluate work by looking at the IF of the journal in which it is published is not reliable.
Originality/value
– The study is based on an original citation and IF analysis, and the results should be of interest and value to all those concerned with the use of the IF to evaluate journals.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 413-427 |
| Number of pages | 15 |
| Journal | Library Review |
| Volume | 64 |
| Issue number | 6-7 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 2015 |
Keywords
- Impact factor
- medical journals
- citation analysis
- scientific journals