Bibliometrics of systematic reviews : analysis of citation rates and journal impact factors

Background: Systematic reviews are important for informing clinical practice and health policy. The aim of this study was to examine the bibliometrics of systematic reviews and to determine the amount of variance in citations predicted by the journal impact factor (JIF) alone and combined with several other characteristics. Methods: We conducted a bibliometric analysis of 1,261 systematic reviews published in 2008 and the citations to them in the Scopus database from 2008 to June 2012. Potential predictors of the citation impact of the reviews were examined using descriptive, univariate and multiple regression analysis. Results: The mean number of citations per review over four years was 26.5 (SD +/-29.9) or 6.6 citations per review per year. The mean JIF of the journals in which the reviews were published was 4.3 (SD +/-4.2). We found that 17% of the reviews accounted for 50% of the total citations and 1.6% of the reviews were not cited. The number of authors was correlated with the number of citations (r = 0.215, P =5.16) received citations in the bottom quartile (eight or fewer), whereas 9% of reviews published in the lowest JIF quartile (<=2.06) received citations in the top quartile (34 or more). Six percent of reviews in journals with no JIF were also in the first quartile of citations. Conclusions: The JIF predicted over half of the variation in citations to the systematic reviews. However, the distribution of citations was markedly skewed. Some reviews in journals with low JIFs were well-cited and others in higher JIF journals received relatively few citations; hence the JIF did not accurately represent the number of citations to individual systematic reviews

Impact Factor: outdated artefact or stepping-stone to journal certification?

A review of Garfield's journal impact factor and its specific implementation as the Thomson Reuters Impact Factor reveals several weaknesses in this commonly-used indicator of journal standing. Key limitations include the mismatch between citing and cited documents, the deceptive display of three decimals that belies the real precision, and the absence of confidence intervals. These are minor issues that are easily amended and should be corrected, but more substantive improvements are needed. There are indications that the scientific community seeks and needs better certification of journal procedures to improve the quality of published science. Comprehensive certification of editorial and review procedures could help ensure adequate procedures to detect duplicate and fraudulent submissions.Comment: 25 pages, 12 figures, 6 table

A call for transparent reporting to optimize the predictive value of preclinical research

The US National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke convened major stakeholders in June 2012 to discuss how to improve the methodological reporting of animal studies in grant applications and publications. The main workshop recommendation is that at a minimum studies should report on sample-size estimation, whether and how animals were randomized, whether investigators were blind to the treatment, and the handling of data. We recognize that achieving a meaningful improvement in the quality of reporting will require a concerted effort by investigators, reviewers, funding agencies and journal editors. Requiring better reporting of animal studies will raise awareness of the importance of rigorous study design to accelerate scientific progress

Deep Ion Torrent sequencing identifies soil fungal community shifts after frequent prescribed fires in a southeastern US forest ecosystem

Prescribed burning is a common management tool to control fuel loads, ground vegetation, and facilitate desirable game species. We evaluated soil fungal community responses to long-term prescribed fire treatments in a loblolly pine forest on the Piedmont of Georgia and utilized deep Internal Transcribed Spacer Region 1 (ITS1) amplicon sequencing afforded by the recent Ion Torrent Personal Genome Machine (PGM). These deep sequence data (19,000+ reads per sample after subsampling) indicate that frequent fires (3 year fire interval) shift soil fungus communities whereas infrequent fires (6 year fire interval) permit system resetting to a state similar to that without prescribed fire. Furthermore, in nonmetric multidimensional scaling analyses, primarily ectomycorrhizal taxa were correlated with axes associated with long fire intervals whereas soil saprobes tended to be correlated with the frequent fire recurrence. We conclude that 1) multiplexed Ion Torrent PGM analyses allow deep cost effective sequencing of fungal communities, but may suffer from short read lengths and inconsistent sequence quality adjacent to the sequencing adaptor; 2) frequent prescribed fires elicit a shift in soil fungal communities; and, 3) such shifts do not occur when fire intervals are longer. Our results emphasize the general responsiveness of these forests to management, and the importance of fire return intervals in meeting management objectives