The comparison of impact factor and self citation trend between french and german journals

All French and German journals indexed in the Journal Citation Reports through 2000-2005 were analysed. The study showed that the portion of French journals entering material to the JCR data bank in 2005 counted 1% whereas the portion of German journals at the same time is 4 times higher. From a total number of 6,088 journals in the JCR in 2005, 427 (7%) were published in Germany, 146 (2%) were published in France, The 6,088 journals in the JCR produced 847,114 articles, 50,276 (6%) appeared in the German journals and 13,913 (2%) in French journals. Of the 22,353,992 citations in 2005, 861,190 (4%) came from German journals and 179,585 (1%) came from French journals.Analysis of data showed that there is a correlation between total-citation and Impact Factors of German journals as well as French journals indexed in the JCR. 32.9% of all citation by German journals in the JCR in 2005 belong to the 7% of German journals with IF 3, and 67.1% of total-citation belong to 93% of journals with IF 3. This correlation is even stronger among French journals, 57% of total citation made by French journals belong to 10% of French journals with IFs 2. From a total number of 433 German journals in 2000 indexed in the JCR, 91% of all population has self-citation rate from 1% to 79%, and from all 427 German journals in 2005, 96% of all population has self-citation rate from 1% to 72%.From a total number of 161 French journals indexed in the JCR in 2000, 82% has self-citation rate from 1% to 100%, and from all 146 French journals in 2005, 86% of all population has self-citation rate from 1% to 79%. The study further showed that the self-citation rates of all German journals in 2000 as well as in 2005 stayed at 12%. The self-citation rate of French journals in 2000 and 2005 are respectively 13% and 12%. The mean value of French journals IFs in 2005 stays 0.25 more than 2000 whereas the mean value of German journals IFs in 2005 shows 0.31 increase with compare to the year 200

The "champagne tower" of science publishing

This article discusses the hierarchical nature of science publishing, whereby journals are organized in tiers with the most prestigious elite journals at the top (Cell, Nature, Science), and lowest-ranked journals at the bottom. When rejected from the top-tier journals, authors usually aim for a lower tier of journals, with some choosing smaller, specialist journals for the outlet of their work. Recently, however, a different mechanism of cascading the papers down the hierarchy of journals has become popular, i.e., editors arrange to pass the rejected papers, with the authors’ permission, to their “sister journals” bearing the same brand. These transfer arrangements may be seen beneficial for the authors, as they reduce the publication time, but they also pose difficulties for smaller specialist journals that lose their share of the market and experience a fall in manuscript submissions

The journals of importance to UK clinicians: A questionnaire survey of surgeons

Background: Peer-reviewed journals are seen as a major vehicle in the transmission of research findings to clinicians. Perspectives on the importance of individual journals vary and the use of impact factors to assess research is criticised. Other surveys of clinicians suggest a few key journals within a specialty, and sub-specialties, are widely read. Journals with high impact factors are not always widely read or perceived as important. In order to determine whether UK surgeons consider peer-reviewed journals to be important information sources and which journals they read and consider important to inform their clinical practice, we conducted a postal questionnaire survey and then compared the findings with those from a survey of US surgeons. Methods: A questionnaire survey sent to 2,660 UK surgeons asked which information sources they considered to be important and which peer-reviewed journals they read, and perceived as important, to inform their clinical practice. Comparisons were made with numbers of UK NHSfunded surgery publications, journal impact factors and other similar surveys. Results: Peer-reviewed journals were considered to be the second most important information source for UK surgeons. A mode of four journals read was found with academics reading more than non-academics. Two journals, the BMJ and the Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England, are prominent across all sub-specialties and others within sub-specialties. The British Journal of Surgery plays a key role within three sub-specialties. UK journals are generally preferred and readership patterns are influenced by membership journals. Some of the journals viewed by surgeons as being most important, for example the Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England, do not have high impact factors. Conclusion: Combining the findings from this study with comparable studies highlights the importance of national journals and of membership journals. Our study also illustrates the complexity of the link between the impact factors of journals and the importance of the journals to clinicians. This analysis potentially provides an additional basis on which to assess the role of different journals, and the published output from research

National vs. international journals: views of medical professionals in Croatia

Scholarly journals, especially in non-English-speaking countries, may perform very different functions depending on whether they are published for national or international audiences. Four hundred and sixty-six academic physicians and non-academic general practitioners in Croatia were surveyed on their knowledge about two Croatian medical journals: Liječnički vjesnik (published in Croatian) and Croatian Medical Journal (published in English). The physicians were also surveyed about the importance of all national and international journals published in Croatia, and the types of articles they thought should be published in these journals. More respondents rated national (n = 329, 72.6%) than international journals (n = 275, 63.5%, P < 0.001, Wilcoxon test) as very important for the medical profession. On the other hand, publishing in international journals was more often rated as important than publishing in national journals (n = 184, 42.5% vs. n = 125, 27.8%; P < 0.001, Wilcoxon test). Guidelines for clinical practice were rated as the most important publication item in national journals, and original scientific articles in international journals