Impact factors and publication times for plastic surgery journals.

Apostolos P Labanaris, Agapi P Vassiliadu, Elias Polykandriotis, Jimmy Tjiawi, Andreas Arkudas, Raymund E Horch
Author Information
  1. Apostolos P Labanaris: Erlangen, Germany From the Department of Plastic and Hand Surgery, University of Erlangen Medical Center, and Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Europakanal Medical Center.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The purposes of the authors' analysis were to assess the values that plastic surgical journals demonstrate in terms of the standardized measures created by the Institute for Scientific Information's Journal Citation Report, and to assess the relationship between these values and the turnaround time of these journals.
METHODS: The overall indexes of surgical journals were compared with those of journals in other fields of medicine using the following parameters: highest impact factor, average impact factor, cited half-life, immediacy index, and number of journals. Similarly, plastic surgery journals were compared with the highest ranking journals from various fields of surgery. In addition, an evaluation of all original articles published in 2005, assessing the time intervals from submission to publication, submission to acceptance, and acceptance to publication, was conducted for all plastic surgical journals and the highest ranking journals from various surgical fields listed in the Journal Citation Report.
RESULTS: Plastic surgical journals demonstrated low overall index values and a greater elongation of their turnaround time in comparison to journals in other fields of surgery and medicine.
CONCLUSIONS: The fact that the field of plastic surgery targets a rather specific and limited medical audience, and that plastic surgical articles usually get quoted by this audience, partly explains these values. Furthermore, the elongated turnaround time contributes to their endurance. Since plastic surgical journals cannot attract a broader medical audience, journals should speed up their publication times to help these values rise.

References

  1. Garfield, E. Fortnightly review: How can impact factors be improved? Br. Med. J. 313: 411, 1996.
  2. Jemec, G. B. Impact factors of dermatological journals for 1991 to 2000 B.M.C. Dermatol. 1: 7, 2001.
  3. Metron, R. K. The Matthew effect in science. Science 159: 56, 1968.
  4. Jacsó, P. A deficiency in the algorithm for calculating the impact factor of scholarly journals: The journal impact factor. Cortex 37: 590, 2001.
  5. van Leeuwen, T. N., and Moed, H. F. Development and application of journal impact measures in the Dutch science system. Scientometrics 53: 249, 2002.
  6. Seglen, P. O. Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research. B.M.J. 314: 498, 1997.
  7. Torgerson, D. J., Adamson, J., Cockayne, S., Dumville, J., and Petherick, E. Submission to multiple journals: A method of reducing time to publication? B.M.J. 330: 305, 2005.
  8. Dong, P., Loh, M., and Mondry, A. The “impact factor” revisited. Biomed. Digit. Libr. 2: 7, 2005.

MeSH Term

Bibliometrics
Journalism, Medical
Medicine
Periodicals as Topic
Publishing
Specialization
Surgery, Plastic
Time Factors

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0journalsplasticsurgicalvaluessurgerytimefieldspublicationturnaroundhighestaudienceassessJournalCitationReportoverallcomparedmedicineimpactfactorindexrankingvariousarticlessubmissionacceptancemedicaltimesBACKGROUND:purposesauthors'analysisdemonstratetermsstandardizedmeasurescreatedInstituteScientificInformation'srelationshipMETHODS:indexesusingfollowingparameters:averagecitedhalf-lifeimmediacynumberSimilarlyadditionevaluationoriginalpublished2005assessingintervalsconductedlistedRESULTS:PlasticdemonstratedlowgreaterelongationcomparisonCONCLUSIONS:factfieldtargetsratherspecificlimitedusuallygetquotedpartlyexplainsFurthermoreelongatedcontributesenduranceSinceattractbroaderspeedhelpriseImpactfactors

Similar Articles

Cited By