To see the other types of publications on this topic, follow the link: Top Journal.
Journal articles on the topic 'Top Journal'
Create a spot-on reference in APA, MLA, Chicago, Harvard, and other styles
Consult the top 50 journal articles for your research on the topic 'Top Journal.'
Next to every source in the list of references, there is an 'Add to bibliography' button. Press on it, and we will generate automatically the bibliographic reference to the chosen work in the citation style you need: APA, MLA, Harvard, Chicago, Vancouver, etc.
You can also download the full text of the academic publication as pdf and read online its abstract whenever available in the metadata.
Browse journal articles on a wide variety of disciplines and organise your bibliography correctly.
1
Howard, Louise, and Greg Wilkinson. "Impact factors of psychiatric journals." British Journal of Psychiatry 170, no. 2 (1997): 109–12. http://dx.doi.org/10.1192/bjp.170.2.109.
Full textAbstract:
BackgroundWe examined citation data for the British Journal of Psychiatry (BJP) and four other general psychiatry journals to assess their impact on the scientific community.MethodData on three measures of citations (total number of citations, impact factor and ranking by impact factor) were obtained from Journal Citation Reports for 1985–1994. Rank correlations from year to year were calculated.ResultsThe BJP currently ranks sixth of all psychiatry journals when journals are ranked by impact factor. The journal's impact factor fell between 1985 and 1990 and this was followed by a rise in impact factor after 1991. The BJP did not rank in the top 10 psychiatry journals between 1991 and 1993. Archives of General Psychiatry is cited more frequently than any other psychiatry journal, with the American Journal of Psychiatry usually ranking second. Psychopharmacology journals are replacing more general journals in the top rankings. Rankings of most journals have become less stable in recent years.ConclusionsThe BJP would have to change the nature and number of papers published to improve its impact factor. There are a number of limitations to citation data and such data are only one of several factors useful in evaluating the importance of a journal's contribution to scientific and clinical communities.Conflict of interestThese condauthor is Editor of the British Journal of Psychiatry.
2
Kim, Sang-Jun, and Kay Sook Park. "Influence of the top 10 journal publishers listed in Journal Citation Reports based on six indicators." Science Editing 7, no. 2 (2020): 142–48. http://dx.doi.org/10.6087/kcse.209.
Full textAbstract:
Purpose: : An accurate evaluation of the influence of the largest publishers in world journal publishing is a starting point for negotiating journal subscriptions and an important issue for research libraries. This study was conducted to evaluate the influence of the largest publishers based on Journal Citation Reports (JCR) indicators.Methods: From JCR 2014 to 2018 data, a unique journal list by publisher was created in Excel. The top 10 publishers were selected and evaluated in terms of the average share of six JCR indicators including the impact factor, Eigenfactor score, and article influence score, along with the number of journals, articles, and citations.Results: The top three publishers accounted for about 50% of the JCR indicators, the top five for 60%, and the top 10 for 70%. Therefore, the concentration of the top three publishers, with a share exceeding 50% for five indicators, was more intensive than has been reported in previous studies. For the top 10 publishers, not only the number of journals and articles, but also citations and the impact factor, which reflect the practical use of journals, were increasing.Conclusion: These evaluation results will be important to research libraries and librarians in deciding upon journal subscriptions using publisher information, to journal publishers trying to list their journals in JCR, and to consortium operators to negotiate strategically. Using the unique journal list created in this research process, various follow-up studies are possible. However, it is also urgent to build a standardized world journal list with accurate information.
3
Asem, Ebenezer, and Vishaal Baulkaran. "Characteristics of Top Tier Finance Journal Publications." International Journal of Economics and Finance 8, no. 12 (2016): 50. http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/ijef.v8n12p50.
Full textAbstract:
<p>This paper examines the characteristics of “top tier” finance journal publications relative to “second tier” finance publications. We study ten leading finance journals and classify the top four journals as “top tier” and the remaining six as “second tier” journals. Using a sample of 3,156 different articles with 7,103 different authors and a Logit model, the results highlight the following characteristics: papers presented at WFA, AFA, and seminars, and have multiple colleague comments tend to be published in the top tier journals. Also, authors who graduated from or are affiliated with the top business schools tend to publish in the top tier journals.</p>
4
Krueger, Thomas, and Jack Shorter. "Bibliographic measures of top-tier finance and information systems journals." Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education 12, no. 5 (2019): 841–55. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/jarhe-12-2018-0257.
Full textAbstract:
Purpose Pay, tenure and promotion decisions are frequently based upon inferences regarding the value of faculty research. Meanwhile, departmental, college and university reputations are frequently based on perceptions regarding the quality of research being produced by its faculty. Making correct inferences requires accurate measurement of research quality, which is often based upon the journal through which results are shared. This research expands upon the research found elsewhere through its detailed investigation of leading journals in two business disciplines, including examination of four different citation-based measures and four journal characteristics which are exogenous to the quality of any individual piece of research. The paper aims to discuss this issue. Design/methodology/approach This study assists in the development of an accurate perspective regarding research quality, by studying the popular Journal Citation Reports (JCR) impact factor. A further expansion on the past literature is consideration of three newer journal quality metrics: SCImago Journal Rank (SJR), Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) and percentage of articles cited. Top-tier journals in finance and information systems are compared to evaluate the consistency of these measures across disciplines. Differences in journal characteristics and their impact on citation-rate based measures of quality are also examined. The potential impact of discipline-based variation in acceptance rate, issue frequency, the time since journal inception and total reviewers are put forth as additional potential exogenous factors that may impact the perception of journal quality. t-Tests are employed for discipline comparisons, while correlation and multiple regression are used for journal characteristic analysis. Findings There is a significant difference in the JCR impact measures of high-quality finance journals vs high-quality information systems journals, which are correlated with a variety of journal-specific factors including the journal’s acceptance rate and frequency of issue. Information systems journals domination of finance journals persists whether one considers mean, median, minimum or maximum impact factors. SJR measures for finance journals are consistently higher than information systems journals, though the SJR value of any individual journal can be quite volatile. By comparison, the SNIP metric rates premier information systems journals higher. Over 12 percent more of the articles in leading information systems journals are cited during the initial three years. Research limitations/implications Logical extensions of this research include examining journals in other business disciplines. One could also evaluate quality measures reaction to variation in journal characteristics (i.e. changes in acceptance rates). Furthermore, one could include other measures of journal quality, including the recently released CiteScore metric. Such research will build on the present research and improve the accuracy of research quality assessment. Practical implications To the extent that citation-based research measures and journal-specific factors vary across disciplines as demonstrated by our investigation, discipline-specific traits should be considered adjusted for, when making inferences about the long-term value of recently published research. For instance, finance faculty publishing in journals with JCR readings of 2.0 are in journals that are 53 percent above the discipline’s average, while information systems faculty publishing in journals with JCR readings of 2.0 are in journals that are 18 percent below the discipline’s average. Furthermore, discipline-specific differences in journal characteristics, leading to differences in citation-based quality measures, should be considered when making inferences about the long-term value of recently published research in the process of making recommendations regarding salary adjustments, retention and promotion. Social implications Quantity and quality of research are two hallmarks of leading research institutions. Assessing research quality is very problematic because its definition has changed from being based on review process (i.e. blind refereed), to acceptance rates, to impact factors. Furthermore, the impact factor construct has been a lightning rod of controversy as researchers, administrators and journals themselves argue over which metric to employ. This research is attempting to assess how impact factors and journal characteristics may influence the impact factors, and how these interactions vary business discipline. The research is especially important and relevant to the authors which separately chair departments including finance and information systems faculty, and therefore are in roles requiring assessment of faculty research productivity including quality. Originality/value This study is a detailed analysis of bibliographic aspects of the top-tier journals in two quantitative business areas. In addition to the popular JCR, SJR and SNIP measures of performance, the analysis studies the seldom-examined percentage of the article cited metric. A deeper understanding of citation-based measures is obtained though the evaluation of changes in how journals have been rated on these metrics over time. The research shows that there are discipline-related systematic differences in both citation-based research measures and journal-specific factors and that these discipline-specific traits should be considered when making inferences about the long-term value of recently published research. Furthermore, discipline-specific difference in journal characteristics, leading to differences in citation-based quality measures, should be considered when making personnel and remuneration decisions.
5
Barrick, John A., Nathan W. Mecham, Scott L. Summers, and David A. Wood. "Ranking Accounting Journals by Topical Area and Methodology." Journal of Information Systems 33, no. 2 (2017): 1–22. http://dx.doi.org/10.2308/isys-51981.
Full textAbstract:
ABSTRACT This paper presents rankings of accounting journals disaggregated by topical area (AIS, audit, financial, managerial, tax, and other) and methodology (analytical, archival, experimental, and other). We find that only for the financial topical area and archival methodology does the traditional top-3 characterization of the best journals accurately describe what journals publish the most-cited work. For all other topic areas and methodologies, the top-3 characterization does not describe what journals publish the most-cited work. For only analytical research does the traditional top-6 journal characterization accurately describe what journals publish the most-cited work. In AIS, the traditional top-3/-6 journals are even less representative, as only one traditional top-3 journal is listed among the six journals publishing the most-cited AIS work, and only three of the traditional top-6 journals are in this list. In addition to creating journal rankings using citations, we create rankings using a unique measure of the attention given by stakeholders outside of the academy. With this measure we find similar results; the traditional top journals are not publishing the articles that receive the most attention in some topical areas. The results call into question whether individuals and institutions should rely solely on the traditional top-3/-6 journal lists for evaluating research productivity and impact. JEL Classifications: M4; M40; M41; M42; M49. Data Availability: Requests for data may be made to the authors.
6
Kaplan, Robert S. "Reverse the Curse of the Top-5." Accounting Horizons 33, no. 2 (2019): 17–24. http://dx.doi.org/10.2308/acch-10663.
Full textAbstract:
SYNOPSIS Faculty have increased the number of articles submitted to journals ranked in the top-5 of their discipline. This is their rational response to the overweighting of publications in top-5 journals by university promotions and tenure committees. Using journal impact factors, however, to infer the quality of a faculty member's publications incurs a high incidence of both Type 1 errors, when we conclude incorrectly that a paper published in a top-5 journal is a high-impact paper, and Type 2 errors, when we conclude that papers (and books) not published in these journals have low impact. A third type of error occurs when scholars underinvest in research about practice innovations because such research is viewed as unpublishable in top-5 journals. The paper suggests reforms to overcome the dysfunctional fixation on publication in top-5 journals.
7
Lee, Jen-Sin, and Chu-Yun Wei. "Journal features and impact factor." Managerial Finance 42, no. 4 (2016): 354–64. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/mf-04-2015-0130.
Full textAbstract:
Purpose – Journal quality and prestige are the main considerations for researchers, editors, and publishers when submitting manuscripts, citing papers, and developing publishing policies. Journal Citation Reports calculates the impact factor (IF) from journals covered in Social Science Citation Index (SSCI). IF is widely considered as an indicator of journal quality and prestige among business disciplines. Thus, researching what affects the IF is critical. The purpose of this paper is to investigate the relation between journal features and the IF, particularly between “hot issues” and the IF, and categorizes journal rankings into top-ten and other journals. Design/methodology/approach – The research sample encompasses publications from 2003 to 2013, focussing specifically on SSCI journals in the categories of business and finance. The examined journal features are the effect of the newly selected as an SSCI journal, frequency of publication, self-citation ratio, citable items, and whether the journal features articles on relevant international economic topics. Findings – The findings are as follows: increasing the publishing frequencies of top-ten journals will elevate IF significantly, conversely, increasing that of other journals will degrade the expected IF; both top-ten and other journals with a high self-citation ratio have a low IF; and publishing papers on critical topics significantly positively affects the IF; however, the level of significance decreases over time. In summary, publishing research on critical topics significantly increases the IF in short term. Originality/value – The findings offer valuable information for researchers, editors, and publishers.
8
Ortiz, Alberto, and Caroline Vinck. "Farewell from the CKJ Editor-in-Chief: key kidney topics from 2014 to 2021." Clinical Kidney Journal 15, no. 4 (2022): 593–602. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ckj/sfac023.
Full textAbstract:
ABSTRACT The year 2021 was the last full year of Alberto Ortiz’s editorship at Clinical Kidney Journal (CKJ). On May 2022, Maria José Soler will start her term as the Editor-in-Chief. Over these years, CKJ obtained its first journal impact factor and has consolidated its position among the top journals in the field, consistently ranking among the top 25% (first quartile) journals in Urology and Nephrology. The 2020 journal impact factor rose to 4.45, becoming the top open access journal in Nephrology and the ninth ranked Nephrology journal overall. We now review the recent history of the journal and the most highly cited topics which include the epidemiology of kidney disease, chronic kidney disease topics, such as the assessment and treatment of chronic kidney disease, onconephrology, cardionephrology, glomerular disease, transplantation and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).
9
Samuel, Didier. "Journal of Hepatology, an international top rank journal." Journal of Hepatology 60, no. 1 (2014): 3. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhep.2013.10.001.
Full text
10
Shamseer, Larissa, Kelly D. Cobey, Matthew J. Page, et al. "Top health research funders’ guidance on selecting journals for funded research." F1000Research 10 (April 16, 2021): 100. http://dx.doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.27745.2.
Full textAbstract:
Background: Funded health research is being published in journals that many regard as “predatory”, deceptive, and non-credible. We do not currently know whether funders provide guidance on how to select a journal in which to publish funded health research. Methods: We identified the largest 46 philanthropic, public, development assistance, public-private partnership, and multilateral funders of health research by expenditure, globally as well as four public funders from lower-middle income countries, from the list at https://healthresearchfunders.org. One of us identified guidance on disseminating funded research from each funders’ website (August/September 2017), then extracted information about selecting journals, which was verified by another assessor. Discrepancies were resolved by discussion. Results were summarized descriptively. This research used publicly available information; we did not seek verification with funding bodies. Results: The majority (44/50) of sampled funders indicated funding health research. 38 (of 44, 86%) had publicly available information about disseminating funded research, typically called “policies” (29, 76%). Of these 38, 36 (95%) mentioned journal publication for dissemination of which 13 (36.11%) offer variable guidance on selecting a journal, all of which relate to the funder’s open access mandate. Six funders (17%) outlined publisher requirements or features by which to select a journal. One funder linked to a document providing features of journals to look for (e.g. listed in the Directory of Open Access Journals) and to be wary of (e.g., no journal scope statement, uses direct and unsolicited marketing). Conclusions: Few funders provided guidance on how to select a journal in which to publish funded research. Funders have a duty to ensure that the research they fund is discoverable by others. This research is a benchmark for funder guidance on journal selection prior to the January 2021 implementation of Plan S (a global, funder-led initiative to ensure immediate, open access to funded, published research).
11
Shamseer, Larissa, Kelly D. Cobey, Matthew J. Page, et al. "Top health research funders’ guidance on selecting journals for funded research." F1000Research 10 (February 11, 2021): 100. http://dx.doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.27745.1.
Full textAbstract:
Background: Funded health research is being published in journals that many regard as “predatory”, deceptive, and non-credible. We do not currently know whether funders provide guidance on how to select a journal in which to publish funded health research. Methods: We identified the largest 46 philanthropic, public, development assistance, public-private partnership, and multilateral funders of health research by expenditure, globally as well as four public funders from lower-middle income countries, from the list at https://healthresearchfunders.org. One of us identified guidance on disseminating funded research from each funders’ website (August/September 2017), then extracted information about selecting journals, which was verified by another assessor. Discrepancies were resolved by discussion. Results were summarized descriptively. This research used publicly available information; we did not seek verification with funding bodies. Results: The majority (44/50) of sampled funders indicated funding health research. 38 (of 44, 86%) had publicly available information about disseminating funded research, typically called “policies” (29, 76%). Of these 38, 36 (95%) mentioned journal publication for dissemination of which 13 (36.11%) offer variable guidance on selecting a journal, all of which relate to the funder’s open access mandate. Six funders (17%) outlined publisher requirements or features by which to select a journal. One funder linked to a document providing features of journals to look for (e.g. listed in the Directory of Open Access Journals) and to be wary of (e.g., no journal scope statement, uses direct and unsolicited marketing). Conclusions: Few funders provided guidance on how to select a journal in which to publish funded research. Funders have a duty to ensure that the research they fund is discoverable by others. This research is a benchmark for funder guidance on journal selection prior to the January 2021 implementation of Plan S (a global, funder-led initiative to ensure immediate, open access to funded, published research).
12
Costa, Leonardo Oliveira Pena, Anne M. Moseley, Catherine Sherrington, Christopher G. Maher, Robert D. Herbert, and Mark R. Elkins. "Core Journals That Publish Clinical Trials of Physical Therapy Interventions." Physical Therapy 90, no. 11 (2010): 1631–40. http://dx.doi.org/10.2522/ptj.20090419.
Full textAbstract:
Objective The objective of this study was to identify core journals in physical therapy by identifying those that publish the most randomized controlled trials of physical therapy interventions, provide the highest-quality reports of randomized controlled trials, and have the highest journal impact factors. Design This study was an audit of a bibliographic database. Methods All trials indexed in the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) were analyzed. Journals that had published at least 80 trials were selected. The journals were ranked in 4 ways: number of trials published; mean total PEDro score of the trials published in the journal, regardless of publication year; mean total PEDro score of the trials published in the journal from 2000 to 2009; and 2008 journal impact factor. Results The top 5 core journals in physical therapy, ranked by the total number of trials published, were Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Clinical Rehabilitation, Spine, British Medical Journal (BMJ), and Chest. When the mean total PEDro score was used as the ranking criterion, the top 5 journals were Journal of Physiotherapy, Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), Stroke, Spine, and Clinical Rehabilitation. When the mean total PEDro score of the trials published from 2000 to 2009 was used as the ranking criterion, the top 5 journals were Journal of Physiotherapy, JAMA, Lancet, BMJ, and Pain. The most highly ranked physical therapy–specific journals were Physical Therapy (ranked eighth on the basis of the number of trials published) and Journal of Physiotherapy (ranked first on the basis of the quality of trials). Finally, when the 2008 impact factor was used for ranking, the top 5 journals were JAMA, Lancet, BMJ, American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, and Thorax. There were no significant relationships among the rankings on the basis of trial quality, number of trials, or journal impact factor. Conclusions Physical therapists who are trying to keep up-to-date by reading the best available evidence on the effects of physical therapy interventions have to read more broadly than just physical therapy–specific journals. Readers of articles on physical therapy trials should be aware that high-quality trials are not necessarily published in journals with high impact factors.
13
Reece, Kaeleigh, and Kathryn Setzer. "The Tip Top Ice Cream Shop." Teaching Children Mathematics 22, no. 8 (2016): 466–67. http://dx.doi.org/10.5951/teacchilmath.22.8.0466.
Full textAbstract:
Math by the Month is a regular department of the journal that features collections of short activities focused on a monthly theme. These articles aim for an inquiry or problem-solving orientation that includes at four activities each for grade bands K–2, 3–4, and 5–6. In this issue, students learn about mathematics by focusing on ice cream.
14
Bancong, Hartono, Nurazmi Nurazmi, Tri Hastiti Fiskawarni, and Jisun Park. "Trending Research Topics in the Field of Physics Education from 2017 to 2019 in Highly Reputable International Journals." Jurnal Ilmiah Pendidikan Fisika Al-Biruni 10, no. 1 (2021): 29–36. http://dx.doi.org/10.24042/jipfalbiruni.v10i1.8341.
Full textAbstract:
This study aims to map the physics education research topics trending in the last three years in highly reputable international journals. This is a descriptive study that analyzed 511 articles using content analysis. All articles were selected from the top 3 academic journals: International Journal of Science Education (IJSE), Research in Science Education (RISE), and Science Education (SE). All three journals have JSRs above 0.8 with a quartile of Q1. Data collection and analysis were carried out from April to September 2020. The results showed that the top research topics in the IJSE journal were science learning: contexts, characteristics, and interactions with a percentage of 15.05%. Likewise, in the RISE journal, the topics of science learning: contexts, characteristics, and interactions also ranked first with a percentage of 16.30%. Meanwhile, the top research topics in the SE journal were STEM/STEAM, with a percentage of 13.28%. Based on the results, it can be concluded that overall, the top three research topics highlighted by physics researchers in highly reputable international journals from 2017 to 2019 period were science learning: contexts, characteristics and interactions, STEM/STEAM, and curriculum and assessment.
15
Card, David, and Stefano DellaVigna. "Nine Facts about Top Journals in Economics." Journal of Economic Literature 51, no. 1 (2013): 144–61. http://dx.doi.org/10.1257/jel.51.1.144.
Full textAbstract:
How has publishing in top economics journals changed since 1970? Using a data set that combines information on all articles published in the top-five journals from 1970 to 2012 with their Google Scholar citations, we identify nine key trends. First, annual submissions to the top-five journals nearly doubled from 1990 to 2012. Second, the total number of articles published in these journals actually declined from 400 per year in the late 1970s to 300 per year most recently. As a result, the acceptance rate has fallen from 15 percent to 6 percent, with potential implications for the career progression of young scholars. Third, one journal, the American Economic Review, now accounts for 40 percent of top-five publications, up from 25 percent in the 1970s. Fourth, recently published papers are on average three times longer than they were in the 1970s, contributing to the relative shortage of journal space. Fifth, the number of authors per paper has increased from 1.3 in 1970 to 2.3 in 2012, partly offsetting the fall in the number of articles per year. Sixth, citations for top-five publications are high: among papers published in the late 1990s, the median number of Google Scholar citations is 200. Seventh, the ranking of journals by citations has remained relatively stable, with the notable exception of the Quarterly Journal of Economics, which climbed from fourth place to first place over the past three decades. Eighth, citation counts are significantly higher for longer papers and those written by more coauthors. Ninth, although the fraction of articles from different fields published in the top five has remained relatively stable, there are important cohort trends in the citations received by papers from different fields, with rising citations to more recent papers in Development and International, and declining citations to recent papers in Econometrics and Theory. (JEL A14)
16
Shanahan, Thomas Alexander Gerrard, Laura Cottey, Daniel Darbyshire, et al. "Journal update monthly top five." Emergency Medicine Journal 39, no. 8 (2022): 643–44. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/emermed-2022-212672.
Full text
17
Saxena, Monica, Jonathan Altamirano, Christian Rose, et al. "Journal update monthly top five." Emergency Medicine Journal 39, no. 7 (2022): 561–62. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/emermed-2022-212603.
Full text
18
Leech, Caroline, Imogen Virgo, Arun George, et al. "Journal update monthly top five." Emergency Medicine Journal 39, no. 9 (2022): 721–22. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/emermed-2022-212725.
Full text
19
Knight, Thomas, Sanat Kulkarni, Catherine Atkins, et al. "Journal update monthly top five." Emergency Medicine Journal 39, no. 6 (2022): 486–87. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/emermed-2022-212547.
Full text
20
Chatha, Rajesh, Rory Anderson, Hridesh Chatha, et al. "Journal update monthly top five." Emergency Medicine Journal 39, no. 5 (2022): 415–16. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/emermed-2022-212470.
Full text
21
Hamza, Mohammed, Bassey Ndoma-Egba, David Herlihy, et al. "Journal update monthly top five." Emergency Medicine Journal 39, no. 3 (2022): 235–36. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/emermed-2022-212349.
Full text
22
Jenner, Lara, Ysabelle Thackray, Fraser Birse, et al. "Journal update monthly top five." Emergency Medicine Journal 38, no. 12 (2021): 936–37. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/emermed-2021-212117.
Full text
23
Reynard, Charles, Gabriella Prager, Govind Oliver, et al. "Journal update monthly top five." Emergency Medicine Journal 38, no. 11 (2021): 858–59. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/emermed-2021-212053.
Full text
24
Barrett, Liam, Thomas Adams, Daniel P. Whitehouse, Sophie Richter, Adrian A. Boyle, and Virginia Newcombe. "Journal update monthly top five." Emergency Medicine Journal 39, no. 1 (2021): 80–82. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/emermed-2021-212197.
Full text
25
Horner, Daniel, Anthony Kelly, Jemima Heap, et al. "Journal update monthly top five." Emergency Medicine Journal 39, no. 4 (2022): 339–40. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/emermed-2022-212414.
Full text
26
Barham, Ffion, Robert Hywel James, Christopher Humphries, et al. "Journal update monthly top five." Emergency Medicine Journal 39, no. 2 (2022): 161–62. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/emermed-2021-212273.
Full text
27
Prager, Gabrielle, Govind Oliver, Anisa Jabeen Nasir Jafar, Daniel Darbyshire, Richard Body, and Simon David Carley. "Journal update monthly top five." Emergency Medicine Journal 39, no. 10 (2022): 795–96. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/emermed-2022-212807.
Full text
28
Barrett, Liam, Owen Hibberd, Daniel P. Whitehouse, et al. "Journal update monthly top five." Emergency Medicine Journal 39, no. 12 (2022): 954–55. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/emermed-2022-212922.
Full text
29
Hirst, Robert, Hannah Courtney, Irene Grossi, Catherine Hill, Alexander T. Maidwell-Smith, and Edward Stuart. "Journal update monthly top five." Emergency Medicine Journal 39, no. 11 (2022): 871–72. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/emermed-2022-212865.
Full text
30
Cottey, Laura, Felix Wood, Christopher Humphries, et al. "Journal update monthly top five." Emergency Medicine Journal 40, no. 1 (2022): 79–80. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/emermed-2022-212993.
Full text
31
van Oppen, James David, Connor Putnam, Navin Leanage, et al. "Journal update monthly top five." Emergency Medicine Journal 40, no. 2 (2023): 153–54. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/emermed-2022-213036.
Full text
32
Wang, Peiling, Joshua Williams, Nan Zhang, and Qiang Wu. "F1000Prime recommended articles and their citations: an exploratory study of four journals." Scientometrics 122, no. 2 (2019): 933–55. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11192-019-03302-w.
Full textAbstract:
AbstractThis study examined F1000Prime recommended research and review articles published in Cell, JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association, The Lancet, and The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) in 2010. The analyses included (1) the classifications assigned to the articles; (2) differences in Web of Science (WoS) citation counts over 9 years between the articles with F1000Prime recommendations and the other articles of the same journal; (3) correlations between the F1000Prime rating scores and WoS citation counts; (4) scaled graphic comparisons of the two measures; (5) content analysis of the top 5 WoS cited and top 5 F1000Prime scored NEJM articles. The results show that most of the recommended articles were classified as New Finding, Clinical Trial, Conformation, Interesting Hypothesis, and Technical Advance. The top classifications differred between the medical journals (JAMA, The Lancet, and NEJM) and the biology journal (Cell); for the latter, both New Finding and Interesting Hypothesis occurred more frequently than the three medical journals. The articles recommended by F1000 Faculty members were cited significantly more than other articles of the same journal for the three medical journals, but no significance was found between the two sets of articles in Cell. The correlations between the F1000Prime rating scores and WoS citation counts of the articles in the same journal were significant for the two medical journals (The Lancet and NEJM) and the biology journal (Cell). NEJM showed significances in both the upper quantile (top 50%), and the upper quartile (top 25%) sets. One of the medical journals, JAMA, did not show any significant correlation between the two measures. Despite the significant correlations of the three journals, Min–Max scaled graphic comparisons of the two measures did not reveal any patterns for predicting citation trends by F1000Prime rating scores. The peak citation year of the articles ranged from 2 to 8 years after the publication year for NEJM. Content analysis of the top-cited and top-scored NEJM articles found that highly commendable papers with comments such as “exceptional,” “landmark study,” or “paradigm shift” received varied rating scores. In comparison, some of the results corroborate with previous studies. Further studies are suggested to include additional journals and different years as well as alternative methods. Studies are needed to understand how F1000 Faculty assign ratings and what criteria they use. In addition, it is also worth investigating how F1000Prime users perceive the meanings of the ratings.
33
Sau, Koushik, and Yogendra Nayak. "Scopus based bibliometric and scientometric analysis of occupational therapy publications from 2001 to 2020." F1000Research 11 (February 8, 2022): 155. http://dx.doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.108772.1.
Full textAbstract:
Background: Occupational therapy (OT) is one of the allied health professions that had its first journals way back in 1920. The main objective of this study was to find out the publication trend in the field of OT research for the period of 2001-2020 using the principles of bibliometrics and scientometrics. Methods: The data was retrieved from Scopus from the past 20-years (2001-2020). VOSviewer software was used to find year-wise publications in OT-specific and non-OT-specific Journals along with top journals, countries, organisations, authors, cited articles, and highly used keywords. Results: There was a steady growth of OT articles from the past 20-years. Scopus indexes 16 OT-specific journals are identified. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, British Journal of Occupational Therapy Journal, Australian Occupational Therapy Journal, Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy and Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy are the leading publications and citations. Comparison of OT-specific and non-OT journals inferred that the OT-specific papers are three times more published in non-OT journals. There is a trend in publishing multidisciplinary medical journals than OT journals. The US publishes the highest number of articles, followed by the UK, Australia, Canada, and Germany. Though the US alone produced a considerable number of articles (9517), only five organisations are listed in the top-20, compared to Canada (n=6) and Australia (n=5). Australia represents the highest published authors (n=11/20), and Canada represents a highly cited author from the top-cited publications. The “occupational therapy”, “rehabilitation”, “stroke”, “physical therapy,” and “activities of daily living” are the five common keywords used by OT authors. This study lists top-20 journals along with their CiteScore and Journal Impact Factor. Conclusions: This study will help the budding researchers in OT to select a suitable quality journal for publication and, further, helpful for research promotion, researcher incentivising, grant allocations, and policymakers in the OT field.
34
Singson, Mangkhollen, S. Thiyagarajan, and M. Leeladharan. "Relationship between electronic journal downloads and citations in library consortia." Library Review 65, no. 6/7 (2016): 429–44. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/lr-02-2016-0019.
Full textAbstract:
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to examine the relationship between electronic journal downloads and citations and whether online electronic resource usage can be adopted as an alternative to citation for evaluation of scholarly discourse. Design/methodology/approach A consolidated 16 publishers’ COUNTER usage data of UGC-Infonet members was collected from INFLIBNET Centre. The usage was meticulously filtered from UGC-subscribed journals and institutional subscriptions. The quantitative data were analysed to establish the relationship between download, impact factor (IF) and price. Multiple regression analysis was used to assess the influence of price and IF on usage and to predict the usage when they are known and the threshold for significance was set at p < 0.05. Findings There exists a relationship between IF and downloads of journals in UGC-Infonet. Journal IF and price significantly influence usage, where journal IF plays an important role in the intensity of the use. Also, the top 25 hottest downloaded papers were journals with IF; hence, no journal without IF featured in the top 25 most downloaded journals in the consortia. The relationship between the top 25 IF journals in the consortia and download is strong (r = 0.368537). Originality/value The only account that reports on the relationship between journal IFs and downloads for UGC-Infonet consortia. Also, the influence of usage behaviour with respect to citation and price of a journal.
35
Lehmann, Sebastian, and Paul Bengart. "Replications hardly possible: reporting practice in top-tier marketing journals." Journal of Modelling in Management 11, no. 2 (2016): 427–45. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/jm2-04-2014-0030.
Full textAbstract:
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to highlight the role of replications for science, and in particular the knowledge development process. Design/methodology/approach Descriptive research on the disclosure of sample parameters which are needed for replication was conducted. The analysis includes 2,982 studies from four top-tier marketing journals. Findings Published parameters are insufficient for replication and, therefore, impede knowledge development. Originality/value The paper offers a unique data set for further investigation. In total, 2,982 studies from the defined journals (Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Marketing, Journal of Marketing Research and Marketing Science) were analyzed. Hereby this paper enables insights into reporting practices of current marketing research and highlights the role of replication research in validating earlier research. It empirically shows, to the authors' best knowledge for the first time, that the insufficient reporting is one of the major reasons for the lack of replications.
36
CHANG, CHIA-LIN, and MICHAEL MCALEER. "JUST HOW GOOD ARE THE TOP THREE JOURNALS IN FINANCE? AN ASSESSMENT BASED ON QUANTITY AND QUALITY CITATIONS." Annals of Financial Economics 09, no. 01 (2014): 1450005. http://dx.doi.org/10.1142/s2010495214500055.
Full textAbstract:
The paper is concerned with ranking academic journal quality and research impact in Finance, based on the widely-used Thomson Reuters ISI (2013) Web of Science citations database (hereafter ISI). The paper analyses the 89 leading international journals in the ISI category of "Business–Finance" using quantifiable Research Assessment Measures (RAMs). The analysis highlights the similarities and differences in various RAMs, all of which are based on alternative transformations of journal citations and impact. Alternative RAMs may be calculated annually or updated daily to determine the citations frequency of published papers that are cited in journals listed in ISI. The RAMs include the classic 2-year impact factor including journal self citations (2YIF), 2-year impact factor excluding journal self citations (2YIF*), 5-year impact factor including journal self citations (5YIF), Immediacy including journal self citations, Eigenfactor (or Journal Influence), Article Influence (AI), h-index, Papers Ignored-By Even The Authors (PI-BETA), Self-citation Threshold Approval Rating (STAR), 5YD2 (namely, 5YIF divided by 2YIF), Escalating Self Citations (ESC) and Index of Citation Quality (ICQ). The paper calculates the harmonic mean (HM) of the ranks of up to 16 RAMs. It is shown that emphasizing 2YIF to the exclusion of other informative RAMs can lead to a misleading evaluation of journal quality and impact relative to the HM of the ranks. The analysis of the 89 ISI journals in Finance makes it clear that there are three leading journals in Finance, namely Journal of Finance, Journal of Financial Economics and Review of Financial Studies, which form an exclusive club in terms of the RAMs that measure journal quality and impact based on alternative measures of journal citations. The next two journals in Finance in terms of overall quality and impact are Journal of Accounting and Economics and Journal of Monetary Economics. As Accounting does not have a separate classification in ISI, the tables of rankings given in the paper are also used to rank the top 3 journals in the sub-category of Accounting in the ISI category of "Business – Finance", namely Journal of Accounting and Economics, Accounting Review, and Journal of Accounting Research.
37
Hui, Jifang, Zongkai Han, Guannan Geng, Weijun Yan, and Ping Shao. "The 100 top-cited articles in orthodontics from 1975 to 2011." Angle Orthodontist 83, no. 3 (2012): 491–99. http://dx.doi.org/10.2319/040512-284.1.
Full textAbstract:
ABSTRACT Objective: To identify the 100 top-cited articles published in orthodontics journals and to analyze their characteristics to investigate the achievement and development of orthodontics research in past decades. Methods and Materials: The Institute for Scientific Information Web of Knowledge Database and the 2011 Journal Citation Report Science Editions were used to retrieve the 100 top-cited articles published in orthodontics journals since 1975. Some basic information was collected by the Analyze Tool on the Web of Science, including citation time, publication title, journal name, publication year, and country and institution of origin. A further study was then performed to determine authorship, article type, field of study, study design, and level of evidence. Results: The 100 target articles were retrieved from three journals: American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics (n = 74), The Angle Orthodontist (n = 15), and European Journal of Orthodontics (n = 11). Since 1975, the articles cited 89 to 545 times mainly originated from the United States, and the overwhelming majority of articles were clinical. The most common study design was case series; 40 articles were classified as level IV and 12 as level V evidence. Conclusions: The 100 top-cited articles in orthodontics are generally old articles, rarely possessing high-level evidence.
38
Chen, Lingmin, Mutong Yang, Nian Li, Ying He, and Yonggang Zhang. "The Correlation between Altmetric Attention Score and Traditional Bibliometrics in Top Nursing Journal Articles." Journal of Nursing Management 2023 (February 22, 2023): 1–9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2023/2789960.
Full textAbstract:
Background. Altmetric Attention Score (AAS) is a quantitative measurement of the online impact of research and has a potential correlation with traditional bibliometrics. However, the correlation for nursing journal articles is still unknown. The objective of the study was to analyze the correlation between AAS and traditional bibliometrics in the top nursing journal articles. Materials and Methods. Articles published in top nursing journals (the journals with the top 20 5-year impact factors) from 2010 to 2019 were included. The correlations between AAS and citations, AAS and Relative Citation Ratio (RCR) score, AAS and Category Normalized Citation Impact (CNCI) value, and AAS and impact factors were analyzed. Statistical analyses were performed using Stata 25.0 software. Results. A total of 15,212 journal articles were included in the study. Very weak correlations were found between AASs and citations [0.124 (95% CI, 0.108–0.14)], AASs and RCRs [0.26 (95% CI, 0.244–0.275)], and AASs and CNCIs [0.207 (95% CI, 0.192–0.223)]. The weak correlations were also found between AASs and impact factors in several journals. The weak correlations between AASs and citations, AASs and CNCIs, and AASs and RCRs were also found for most journals based on subgroup analysis. Conclusions. There is very weak correlations between AASs and traditional bibliometrics in top nursing journal articles. More studies should be conducted to assess how AAS influence bibliometrics, and how they can help manage nursing journal articles and research.
39
Mazov, N. A., and V. N. Gureev. "Publications by editorial board of science journals as translated into bibliometric indicators (library and information science)." Scientific and Technical Libraries, no. 11 (January 16, 2021): 33–58. http://dx.doi.org/10.33186/1027-3689-2020-11-33-58.
Full textAbstract:
The authors attempt to determine publishing contribution of editorial board members (EBM) into the rating of their parent journals as exemplified by Russian journals in library and information sciences divided into low-, middle-, and top-rank groups. To determine this contribution, we studied EBM scholarly input to their parent journals vs. to other sources; besides, the scholarly input by EBM and other authors in each journal was compared. No correlation between the journal rank and share of EBM’s publications in their parent journals and/or EBM’s citations of their journal, or correlation between the journal rank and share of EBM papers in the respective journal were detected. However, the positive correlation was revealed between the journal rank and share of foreign EBM, regardless of their scholarly input in their parent journal. The analysis of citation of EBM papers in their journals, as well as the analyses of their journal citations provided by EBM in other sources, demonstrates significant impact of EBM on bibliometric indices of top- and low-rank journals implying active involvement of EBM in the development of their parent serials. The lowest or even negative impact of EBM on journal rank was identified among the middle-rank group of journals since their papers were poorly (if ever) cited. Thus, formal inclusion of experts into editorial boards of those journals and low interest they take in their journal may be assumed. Our findings contribute to scientometric studies of editorial boards and may be of interest to editors-in-chief and founders of journals.
40
Hou, Zhi Ping, and Yong Yi Li. "A Bibliometric Analysis of Electronic Commerce Research from 1996 to 2012." Applied Mechanics and Materials 644-650 (September 2014): 5777–80. http://dx.doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/amm.644-650.5777.
Full textAbstract:
This study identified 19,831 publications to explore global trends of electronic commerce research during 1996-2012, based on all the subject categories of the SCIE and SSCI. A few significant global trends of EC research were revealed. First, proceedings papers and journal articles were the primary document types, contributing 12,200 and 6,707 publications respectively. Journal articles showed stable upward trends from 1996 to 2012. Second, the top three conferences contributed a 10.6% share of total proceedings papers and the top 20 journals published a 31.1% share of total journal articles. Third, “Computer Science Information Systems”, “Business” and “Computer Science Theory Methods” were the top three most popular subject categories.
41
Horan, Stephen M. "Is an Article in a Top Journal a Top Article?" CFA Digest 35, no. 3 (2005): 78–79. http://dx.doi.org/10.2469/dig.v35.n3.1738.
Full text
42
Gardener, Antoni D., Ellen J. Hick, Chloe Jacklin, et al. "Open science and conflict of interest policies of medical and health sciences journals before and during the COVID-19 pandemic: A repeat cross-sectional study." JRSM Open 13, no. 11 (2022): 205427042211321. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/20542704221132139.
Full textAbstract:
Objectives To audit the transparent and open science standards of health and medical sciences journal policies and explore the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. Design Repeat cross-sectional study. Setting 19 journals listed in Google Scholar's Top Publications for health and medical sciences. Participants Blood, Cell, Circulation, European Heart Journal, Gastroenterology, Journal of Clinical Oncology, Journal of the American College of Cardiology, Nature Genetics, Nature Medicine, Nature Neuroscience, Neuron, PLoS ONE, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Science Translational Medicine, The British Medical Journal, The Journal of the American Medical Association, The Lancet, The Lancet Oncology, and The New England Journal of Medicine. Main outcome measures We used the Transparency and Openness Promotion (TOP) guideline and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) requirements for disclosing conflicts of interest (COIs) to evaluate journals standards. Results TOP scores slightly improved during the COVID-19 pandemic, from a median of 5 (IQR: 2–12.5) out of a possible 24 points in February 2020 to 7 (IQR: 4–12) in May 2021, but overall, scores were very low at both time points. Journal policies scored highest for their adherence to data transparency and scored lowest for preregistration of study protocols and analysis plans and the submission of replication studies. Most journals fulfilled all ICMJE provisions for reporting COIs before (84%; n = 16) and during (95%; n = 18) the COVID-19 pandemic. Conclusions The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the importance of practising open science. However, requirements for open science practices in audited policies were overall low, which may impede progress in health and medical research. As key stakeholders in disseminating research, journals should promote a research culture of greater transparency and more robust open science practices.
43
Nason, Gregory J., Farhan Tareen, and Alan Mortell. "The top 100 cited articles in urology: An update." Canadian Urological Association Journal 7, no. 1-2 (2013): 16. http://dx.doi.org/10.5489/cuaj.189.
Full textAbstract:
Background: In this paper, we identify and analyze the top 100 cited articles in urology since 1965 and assess changes in the top 100 since 2007.Methods: We selected highest impact journals in both urological and general medicine journals from the 2011 edition of Journal Citation Reports: Science edition. We identified and analyzed the 100 most cited articles using the Science Citation Index Expanded (1965-present).Results: The top 100 articles were cited a mean of 892 times (range: 529-2088) and published between 1966 and 2009, with 21 published since 2000. In 2012, 19 new articles appeared in the updated top 100 cited articles. Also, 16 journals were represented, led by the New England Journal of Medicine (n=36), the Journal of Urology (n=16) and the Lancet (n=12). In total, 81 articles were published from North America (USA=77, Canada=4). From the United States, the following institutes were among the top 5 represented: Johns Hopkins University (n=12), Harvard University, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Centre, National Institute of Health and Washington University (all 5). Only one institute outside the United States published more than one article in the top 100 (Institut Gustave Roussy, France). Nine urologists were first authors of 2 or more articles. Oncology (n=54) and transplantation (n=22) were the most common subspecialties represented.Conclusion: It is important to acknowledge the top cited articles as they mark key topics and advances in urology. There has been a 19% change in the top 100 cited articles in the past 5 years. Oncology and transplantation remain the most highly cited topics.
44
Sankar, Vishakha, and Sarangapani Ramaswamy. "Global Scientific Productivity of Top Four Journals of Virology Over Three Decades: A Scientometrics Study." Asian Journal of Information Science and Technology 12, no. 2 (2022): 29–40. http://dx.doi.org/10.51983/ajist-2022.12.2.3345.
Full textAbstract:
Trends in Virology research have been inclined after outbreak of COVID 19 pandemic. The main objective of this study is to identifying and visualizing the scientometric indicators of top four highly productive journals publishing papers on area related to Virology research. The data collected on 5 January 2022 from Web of Science all relevant global publications of Virology research. Then, publications were restricted to top 4 highly productive journals in this field. An Exploratory and descriptive analysis of bibliographic data (number of publication/citations yearly output, growth rate, authorship and collaborative pattern, productive countries) by using Bibexcel, MS Excel and VOS viewer software packages were used. The top ranked journals of virology ranked as Journal of Virology (N= 37205, 51.50%), Virology Journal (N= 15052, 20.83%), Journal of General Virology (N= 10745, 14.87%) and Archives of Virology (N= 9238, 12.79%) respectively. Cross-country comparison reveals that the USA is currently taking the leading role, followed by the UK, Germany & Japan and China is a newcomer with potential contributions to make in this research area. The present study offers important quantitative information on top journals of Virology. In addition, researchers are increasingly investigating the intellectual structures of disciplines by using various bibliometric techniques.
45
Cooke, Robert, and Neil Jain. "Open access journals are as likely to be referenced by the Orthopaedic literature, despite having a lower impact factor than subscription-based journals." SICOT-J 7 (2021): 64. http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/sicotj/2021062.
Full textAbstract:
Background: The internet has changed the way we access and publish Orthopaedic literature. Traditional subscription journals have been challenged by the open access method of publication which permits the author to make their article available to all readers for free, often at a cost to the author. This has also been adopted in part by traditional subscription journals forming hybrid journals. One of the criticisms of open access publications is that it provides the author with a “pay to publish” opportunity. We aimed to determine if access to the journals impacts their influence. Methods: We selected the top 40 Trauma and Orthopaedic Journals as ranked by the SCImago Rank. Each journal was reviewed and assessed for the journal quality, defined by reviewing the journal impact factor and SCImago rank; influence, defined by reviewing the top 10 articles provided by the journal for the number of citations; and cost of open access publication. Results: Of the top 40 journals, 10 were subscription, 10 were open access, and 20 were hybrid journals. Subscription journals had the highest mean impact factor, and SCImago rank with a significant difference in the impact factor (p = 0.001) and SCImago rank (p = 0.021) observed between subscription and open access journals. No significant difference was seen between citation numbers of articles published in subscription and open access journals (p = 0.168). There was a positive correlation between the cost of publishing in an open access journal and the impact factor (r = 0.404) but a negative correlation between cost and the number of citations (r = 0.319). Conclusion: Open access journals have significantly lower quality measures in comparison to subscription journals. Despite this, we found no difference between the number of citations, suggestive of there being no difference in the influence of these journals in spite of the observed difference in quality.
46
Haddad, Kamal, Gangaram Singh, Don Sciglimpaglia, and Hung Chan. "To what extent do articles published in other than “top journals” have impact on marketing?" European Journal of Marketing 48, no. 1/2 (2014): 271–87. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/ejm-11-2010-0592.
Full textAbstract:
Purpose – The purpose of this study is to examine the relevance and limitations of using a top journal approach as a proxy for an article's value or contribution. Design/methodology/approach – The authors determined the citations for all articles published in 2001 and 2003 in 26 key marketing journals included in the Social Science Citation Index and 50 journals included in Google Scholar to rate the impact of a specific article. They also assessed these articles to examine the source of citations, as a way of measuring impact. Findings – This study indicates that articles published in the journals most often considered the top three or four in marketing are cited by others significantly more often than the ones published in the other journals. However, the authors found substantial misclassification errors from using publications in these “top” journals to infer a top article status across three different criteria for defining a top article. Originality/value – These findings strongly support the need to evaluate each article on its own merits, rather than abdicating this responsibility by using journal ranking as a proxy for an article's value or contribution.
47
Sun, Jie, and Bao-Zhong Yuan. "Bibliometric mapping of top papers in Library and Information Science based on the Essential Science Indicators Database." Malaysian Journal of Library & Information Science 25, no. 2 (2020): 61–76. http://dx.doi.org/10.22452/mjlis.vol25no2.4.
Full textAbstract:
This study analyzed top papers published in the field of Library and Information Science (LIS) published between 2009 and 2019 and included in the Web of Science (WoS) subject category “Information Science & Library Science”. Data of the 501 top papers were extracted from the Essential Science Indicators (ESI) database comprising 499 highly cited papers and 16 hot papers in the field. The distributions of document type, language of publication, scientific output, and publication of journals are reported in this paper. The co-authorship network visualization of authors, organizations and countries, co-occurrence network visualization of all keywords are visualized using VOSviewer software. The 501 papers, all written in English language, were from 1,579 authors employed at 680 organizations based in 59 countries/territories. The papers were published in 40 journals in the field. The top 5 core journals ranked based on the impact factor (IF) were MIS Quarterly, Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, International Journal of Information Management, Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, and Information Management. The top 5 organizations were University of Maryland (USA), University of Wolverhampton (UK), Vanderbilt University (USA), Indiana University (USA), and Wuhan University (China). Authors from the following countries contributed the most - USA, People’s Republic of China, England, Canada and Netherlands. Based on network map using VOSviewer, there were micro, meso and macro level collaborations based on common interests in a specific topics. Analysis of all keywords showed that the research were distributed into 6 clusters. This study concludes that one important characteristic of top papers is the journal reputation, therefore authors can choose their ideal journal with a high JIF and quartile to publish papers in the English language related to this research field.
48
Cortés-Tomás, María-Teresa, José-Antonio Giménez-Costa, Beatriz Martín-del-Río, Consolación Gómez-Íñiguez, and Ángel Solanes-Puchol. "Binge Drinking: The Top 100 Cited Papers." International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 18, no. 17 (2021): 9203. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18179203.
Full textAbstract:
We conducted a review to analyze the 100 most-cited studies on binge drinking (BD) in the Web of Science (WoS) database to determine their current status and the aspects that require further attention. We carried out a retrospective bibliometric analysis in January 2021. The year of publication, authors, design, subject, journal, institution and lead author’s country, as well as the definition of BD, were extracted from the articles. The data on the country, year, thematic category of the journals and their rank were obtained from the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) Journal Citation Reports 2020. The number of citations was collected from the WoS, and the h index was collected from the Scopus database. The citation density and Bradford’s law were calculated. The majority of the articles were empirical quantitative studies with a cross-sectional design published between 1992 and 2013 in 49 journals. There were 306 authors, mostly English-speaking and from the USA. The definitions used to describe BD are not homogeneous. The most-cited topics were the analysis of consequences, determinants and epidemiology. There is a need to unify the definitions of BD and base them on scientific evidence. The multidisciplinary nature of BD is not well reflected in each of the thematic areas discussed in this work.
49
Woods, Stephen, Kathleen Phillips, and Andrew Dudash. "Dissertations and Theses in Top Nursing Publications: A Bibliometric Study." Evidence Based Library and Information Practice 15, no. 4 (2020): 68–82. http://dx.doi.org/10.18438/eblip29764.
Full textAbstract:
Objective - To investigate the overall prevalence of citations to theses and dissertations, as well as their prevalence in feature articles, editorials, and review articles in top research nursing journals. To evaluate differences between journals and to determine whether there was a change in use over time. Methods - Journals were selected from the Medical Library Association’s Nursing and Allied Health Resource Section’s 2012 Selected List of Nursing Journals. An evaluation was conducted of citations from 3,711 articles published in 2011 and 2018 in 7 top nursing journals. Thesis and dissertation citations were identified and categorized by type of scholarly communication: feature articles, reviews, and editorials. Analysis was conducted for the prevalence of citations for theses and dissertations based on percentage of overall citations and the percentage of articles with a thesis and dissertation citation. Results - Thesis and dissertation citations accounted for 0.41% of all citations. However, 9.43% of the articles contained at least one thesis and dissertation citation. Feature articles contained more thesis and dissertation citations than review articles and editorials. The Journal of Advanced Nursing, Journal of Clinical Nursing, and the Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences published a higher percentage of articles with at least one thesis and dissertation citation. Conclusion - The overall use of theses and dissertations in nursing scholarship is comparatively low compared to other forms of scholarly communication. However, this unique form of scholarship viewed from its impact on the percentage of scholarly articles in nursing demonstrates that theses and dissertations have made more of a contribution than previously reported. Our research provides libraries and the nursing academy with empirical evidence for the value of theses and dissertations. It provides librarians and the nursing academy justification for continuing efforts to preserve, enhance access through digital repositories, and to continue to explore strategies to promote the use of theses and dissertations in research.
50
Cochrane, Logan. "Foreign Fictions: ‘Research’ about Ethiopian Legal Reform in a Top-Tier Academic Journal." Journal of Sustainable Development Law and Policy (The) 13, no. 1 (2022): 64–84. http://dx.doi.org/10.4314/jsdlp.v13i1.3.
Full textAbstract:
Top tier academic journals claim to publish the most rigorous, peer reviewed research. This evidence based found therein is utilized to support decision making for sustainable development. In parallel, many journals that are published in the Global South are accused of being lower quality or disregarded as ‘predatory’. This article explores an example of a ‘foreign fiction’ written about Ethiopia and published in a top tier academic journal. The narratives and evidence from that top tier journal are contrasted with research published in Ethiopian journals. This case study shows that Ethiopian scholars have produced important research and contributed evidence, but have largely been ignored, or silenced, perpetuating foreign fictions. This is important because policy and law seeking to enable development are informed and influenced by the research produced in top tier journals. Based upon this, this article critiques assumptions about “top tier” journals as well as those about Ethiopian journals, and further about the continued colonial power imbalances that exist within knowledge production systems. This has implications for universities and scholars, which continue to privilege a particular set of journals that are largely based in the Global North and wherein contributing authors are also largely based in the Global North. The reproduction of colonial relationships within global knowledge production systems calls for much broader critical reflection about whose voices are privileged as authentic conveyors of knowledge and how these privileges are institutionalized.
 Keywords: Ethiopia; Foreign Fictions; Knowledge Production; Power; Narrative; Sustainable Development; SDGs