Published online Oct 14, 2022. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v28.i38.5648
Peer-review started: August 9, 2022
First decision: August 25, 2022
Revised: September 4, 2022
Accepted: September 21, 2022
Article in press: September 21, 2022
Published online: October 14, 2022
Processing time: 63 Days and 14.9 Hours
Accurate assessment of the quality of academic journals is of great significance. While Journal Impact Factor (JIF), calculated by Clarivate and based upon the Web of Science literature database, and CiteScore (CS), developed by Elseiver and based upon the Scopus database, have enjoyed high uptake worldwide, efforts continue towards creation of other scientometric indexes that will provide ever-greater qualitative insights into journal impact. Such efforts have yielded the newly-launched Journal Article Influence Index (JAII), which is based on the Reference Citation Analysis (RCA) database, an open multidisciplinary citation analysis database based on artificial intelligence technology.
To evaluate and summarize the similarities and differences between JAII and JIF/CS as journal evaluation indicators, and provide an intuitive method for visual representation of the related data.
We searched the Journal Citation Reports to obtain the 2021 JIF list, downloaded the CS list updated in July on the Scopus website, and collected the comprehensive list of 2022 JAIIs from the RCA database (www.referencecitationana
Our research results revealed that by breaking through the time limit of mainstream journal evaluation methods, the JAII is able to perform well in data reliability, establishing its benefit as a complementary scientometric index to JIF and CS.
JAII provides comprehensive assessment of the quality and performance of journals.
Core Tip: Compared with Journal Impact Factor (JIF) and CiteScore (CS), the newly-launched Journal Article Influence Index (JAII) breaks through the time limit feature of the former indexes. A key benefit of the JAII is that it does not require the temporal path (wait-time) of JIF and CS to accurately evaluate a journal’s impact. As such, JAII is immediately useful for assessing the performance of journals and the drawbacks of time randomness are overcome. Here, we describe the features of JAII as a comprehensive assessment of the quality and performance of journals, in its functionality based upon the Reference Citation Analysis (RCA) database that covers some more specific journals than other literature databases.
- Citation: Li JY, Yan ZH, Xiang Z, Gao C, Wu J. Comparison of evaluation indexes for Gastroenterology and Hepatology journals in different databases. World J Gastroenterol 2022; 28(38): 5648-5657
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/1007-9327/full/v28/i38/5648.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v28.i38.5648
The quality assessment of peer-reviewed published research is important for the reputation, substance and growth of various professional associations, individual scientists, and academic institutions, as well as the funding organizations that evaluate and support them[1]. The quality of scientific contributions is primarily assessed on a temporal basis, with quantitative evaluation of the long-term impact in a field or discipline. The impact of an individual scientific article can be inferred from the citations that it receives. A similar principle is applied to evaluation of the journals that publish these scientific articles[2]. These long-standing efforts have led to researchers proposing various methods that improve the assessment of the quality of scientific journals[3,4]. What most of these methods have in common, though, is the use of complex mathematical algorithms to analyze networks of scientific papers to estimate citation quality.
First proposed by Eugene Garfield in 1955, the Scientific Citation Index, Journal Citation Reports [(JCR); published by the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI)] aims to rank, evaluate, classify, and compare journals[5]. The involved metrics are calculated based on the number of articles published by a journal and the number of times that a journal is cited. Moreover, they have been widely adopted as tools to evaluate researchers and research work in a wide range of scientific settings. One of the most prominent among such indicators is the Journal Impact Factor (JIF).
In addition to the JIF, other metrics provided by the ISI include total citation frequency, immediacy index, number of source entries published in the current year, frequency of citations in the previous 2 years, cited half-life, and the ratio of different citations for each article. The ISI introduced a simplified system in 1974, along with a list of topic categories and an accompanying catalog of the total 176 JCR journals. In recent decades, the different journal categories have been subjected to many holistic analyses. The resultant definitions of the common characteristics that underpin particular types of journals and relate to the JIF have served as a useful tool for researchers, both in the scientometric field and in general as contributing authors, to better evaluate journal impact[6,7]. To this day, journals are ranked by JIF within their assigned category. The journals listed in the JCR are further subgrouped by the ranking of JIF-related indicators (i.e. JIF variation coefficient, etc); this greater detailed categorization has allowed scholars to perlustrate the impact factor values more intuitively from a holistic and comprehensive perspective.
JIF has been the most widely used indicator of quality of scientific journals over the past decades[8]. However, in accordance with the 1999 announcement by the ISI/JCR that the accuracy of JIF is not fully guaranteed[9], it is important to note that the methodological considerations in the JIF calculation still include a lack of assessment of the quality of citations, the inclusion of self-citations, poor comparability between different scientific fields, and an analysis of publications mainly in English[10]. This is in addition to the fact that JIFs of journals representing different disciplines are not comparable to each other.
On December 8, 2016, Scopus launched the CiteScore (CS) quality metric, in direct competition of JIF but which was developed specifically for journals indexed by Scopus. Over the past few years, the number of journals assigned a CS has increased dramatically, especially for journals that are not included in the JIF annual assignments. Scientometric studies evaluating the relationship between CS and JIF have revealed that although there is a strong correlation between the two metrics, there are also obvious complex differences[11,12]. While CS may be more balanced and most certainly is more transparent[13], it also shares some key limitations with the JIF[14,15].
Reference Citation Analysis (RCA) is a very recently launched open multidisciplinary citation analysis database based on artificial intelligence technology. This database covers a wide array of seemingly disparate disciplines such as business, economics and management, chemistry and materials science, engineering and computer science, health and medical sciences, humanities, literature and arts, life sciences and earth sciences, physics and mathematics, and social sciences. Users can search the collective literature based on fields such as author, category, DOI, ISSN, keyword, ORCID number, publication name, PubMed ID, and title to track original innovative research results and cutting-edge progress; they can also sort results by an article impact index metric. Importantly, the results analysis functionality culminates in a comprehensive and customizable report of the retrieved results.
Based on the RCA database, the Journal Article Influence Index (JAII) metric is officially available as a new indicator of journal quality that is calculated via the normal approach of quantifiable citations. Systematically comparing this new metric to traditional journal evaluation metrics will help ensure the accuracy of JAII. With acknowledgement of the continuous deepening of research in the field of Gastroenterology and Hepatology of recent years[16], we performed such a comparative analysis to determine the similarities and differences between JAII and JIF/CS as journal evaluation indicators, with the ultimate aim of providing an intuitive method for visual representation of the related data.
The raw data for this study was obtained in July 2022 from the official websites of the institutions that released each metric under consideration. We searched the JCR to obtain the 2021 JIF list, downloaded the CS list updated in July from the Scopus website, and collected the 2022 JAII list from the RCA database (www.referencecitationanalysis.com). In addition, we also searched for information related to the characteristics of these scientific journal quality indexes for reference.
Besides, based on the results of RCA search by the Gastroenterology and Hepatology category, we compared JAII to JIF and CS respectively. The resultant data from the RCA database were used as the matching benchmark, and the matching method was based on ISSN, EISSN, and journal name.
The Gastroenterology and Hepatology-categorized journals identified in each database are presented in Table 1 (grouped by the evaluation indicator and in descending order according to the respective quality metric value). In total, 102 journals carried a JAII, 81 carried a JIF, and 76 carried a CS (all assigned in 2021).
| Journal name | 2022 JAII | 2021 JIF | 2021 CS |
| Seminars in Liver Disease | 48.011 | 6.512 | 9.4 |
| Hepatology | 43.087 | 17.298 | 25.8 |
| Gastroenterology | 37.347 | 33.883 | 33 |
| Gut | 36.77 | 31.793 | 40.1 |
| Nature Reviews Gastroenterology & Hepatology | 35.564 | 73.082 | - |
| Gut Microbes | 31.922 | 9.434 | 9.4 |
| Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics | 28.815 | 9.524 | - |
| Journal of Hepatology | 28.63 | 30.083 | 39.2 |
| Best Practice & Research Clinical Gastroenterology | 28.443 | 2.695 | - |
| Diseases of the Colon & Rectum | 26.986 | 4.412 | - |
| Liver Transplantation | 26.916 | 6.112 | 8 |
| Gastric Cancer | 24.132 | 7.701 | 12.5 |
| Lancet Gastroenterology & Hepatology | 23.661 | 45.042 | - |
| The American Journal of Gastroenterology | 23.599 | 12.045 | - |
| Journal of Gastroenterology | 22.863 | 6.772 | 13.7 |
| Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology | 22.413 | 13.576 | 12.2 |
| Neurogastroenterology and Motility | 22.381 | 3.96 | 6.5 |
| World Journal of Gastroenterology | 21.897 | 5.374 | 8.1 |
| American Journal of Physiology-Gastrointestinal and Liver Physiology | 21.407 | 4.871 | - |
| Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery: Official Journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract | 20.787 | 3.267 | - |
| Liver International | 19.971 | 8.754 | 11.2 |
| Clinics in Liver Disease | 19.939 | 6.265 | 8 |
| Journal of Viral Hepatitis | 19.545 | 3.517 | 6.1 |
| Digestive Diseases and Sciences | 19.37 | 3.487 | 5.5 |
| World Journal of Gastrointestinal Pathophysiology | 18.735 | - | - |
| Scandinavian Journal of Gastroenterology | 18.364 | 3.027 | 3.6 |
| Gastrointestinal Endoscopy | 18.175 | 10.396 | 9.8 |
| Helicobacter | 18.162 | 5.182 | 8.6 |
| Inflammatory Bowel Diseases | 17.936 | 7.29 | 9.8 |
| Gastroenterology Clinics of North America | 17.833 | 3.867 | 6.1 |
| Journal of Pediatric Gastroenterology and Nutrition | 17.742 | 3.288 | 4.8 |
| Hepatology International | 17.664 | 9.029 | 8.9 |
| Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology | 16.888 | 3.174 | 5.5 |
| Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology | 16.793 | 4.369 | 6 |
| World Journal of Hepatology | 16.007 | - | 3.6 |
| International Journal of Colorectal Disease | 15.433 | 2.796 | 3.9 |
| Gut Pathogens | 15.39 | 5.324 | 6.5 |
| World Journal of Gastrointestinal Pharmacology and Therapeutics | 14.797 | - | - |
| Pancreas | 14.71 | 3.243 | 4.4 |
| HPB: The Official Journal of the International Hepato Pancreato Biliary Association | 14.453 | 3.842 | - |
| International Journal of Hepatology | 14.249 | - | 6.1 |
| European Journal of Gastroenterology & Hepatology | 14.227 | 2.586 | - |
| Therapeutic Advances in Gastroenterology | 13.823 | 4.802 | 5.8 |
| Journal of Neurogastroenterology and Motility | 13.594 | 4.725 | 7.4 |
| Pancreatology | 13.497 | 3.977 | 5.8 |
| Hepatology Research | 13.332 | 4.942 | 7.8 |
| Gut and Liver | 13.193 | 4.321 | 6.6 |
| Digestive Diseases | 13.081 | 3.421 | 4.2 |
| BMC Gastroenterology | 12.991 | 2.847 | 3.3 |
| Endoscopy | 12.541 | 9.776 | 11 |
| Journal of Crohn’s & Colitis | 12.432 | 10.02 | |
| Colorectal Disease | 12.341 | 3.917 | 4.4 |
| Liver Cancer | 12.174 | 12.43 | 12.6 |
| Digestive and Liver Disease: Official Journal of the Italian Society of Gastroenterology and the Italian Association for the Study of the Liver | 12.096 | 5.165 | - |
| Diseases of the Esophagus: Official Journal of the International Society for Diseases of the Esophagus | 11.969 | 2.822 | - |
| Current Opinion in Gastroenterology | 11.929 | 2.741 | 4.9 |
| World Journal of Gastrointestinal Oncology | 11.552 | 3.404 | 3.6 |
| United European Gastroenterology Journal | 11.453 | 6.866 | 7.9 |
| Clinical and Molecular Hepatology | 11.251 | 8.337 | 8.9 |
| Digestive Surgery | 11.226 | 2.459 | 4.2 |
| Expert Review of Gastroenterology & Hepatology | 10.885 | 4.095 | - |
| World Journal of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy | 10.598 | - | - |
| World Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery | 10.579 | 2.505 | - |
| Clinical and Translational Gastroenterology | 10.45 | 4.396 | 5.2 |
| Clinical and Experimental Gastroenterology | 10.149 | - | 5 |
| Gastroenterology Research and Practice | 9.902 | 1.919 | 3.7 |
| Journal of Digestive Diseases | 9.302 | 3.366 | 4.2 |
| Cellular and Molecular Gastroenterology and Hepatology | 9.277 | 8.797 | - |
| Digestion | 9.189 | 3.672 | 5.1 |
| Clinics in Colon and Rectal Surgery | 9.059 | 2.403 | 3.5 |
| Techniques in Coloproctology | 9.056 | 3.699 | 4.6 |
| Journal of Gastric Cancer | 9.031 | 3.197 | 4.4 |
| Hepatic Medicine: Evidence and Research | 8.847 | - | - |
| Annals of Hepatology | 8.782 | 3.388 | 4.7 |
| JHEP Reports | 8.693 | 9.917 | 8.1 |
| BMJ Open Gastroenterology | 7.884 | - | 3.5 |
| Clinical Endoscopy | 7.72 | - | 3.5 |
| Intestinal Research | 7.651 | - | 6 |
| Canadian Journal of Gastroenterology & Hepatology | 7.615 | 2.605 | - |
| Digestive Endoscopy | 7.111 | 6.337 | 7.5 |
| Hepatobiliary & Pancreatic Diseases International | 7.052 | 3.355 | - |
| Esophagus: Official Journal of the Japan Esophageal Society | 6.775 | 3.671 | - |
| Endoscopy International Open | 6.725 | - | - |
| Gastroenterology Report | 6.685 | 4.063 | 4.9 |
| Clinics and Research in Hepatology and Gastroenterology | 6.59 | 3.189 | 3.1 |
| Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hepatology | 6.236 | - | 5.3 |
| Saudi Journal of Gastroenterology | 6.205 | 3.214 | 4.3 |
| Hepatitis Monthly | 6.037 | 1.214 | 1.1 |
| Hepatology Communications | 6.006 | 5.701 | 7.7 |
| Liver Research | 5.941 | - | 6.3 |
| Endoscopic Ultrasound | 5.932 | 5.275 | 5.9 |
| Gastrointestinal Tumors | 5.556 | - | - |
| Indian Journal of Gastroenterology: Official Journal of the Indian Society of Gastroenterology | 5.311 | - | - |
| Frontline Gastroenterology | 4.933 | - | 3.8 |
| Journal of Clinical and Translational Hepatology | 4.562 | 5.065 | 6.4 |
| Inflammatory Intestinal Diseases | 4.474 | - | 0.2 |
| Annals of Gastroenterological Surgery | 4.427 | 3.583 | 5.5 |
| Case Reports in Gastroenterology | 4.117 | - | 1 |
| Annals of Coloproctology | 3.946 | - | 2.4 |
| Translational Gastroenterology and Hepatology | 3.945 | - | 5.5 |
| Clinical Liver Disease | 3.934 | - | 2.4 |
| Journal of Gastrointestinal Oncology | 3.029 | 2.587 | 3.3 |
Next, in order to make an intuitive comparison between the three evaluation indicators, we drew a scatter distribution plot for JIF-JAII (Figure 1A) and CS-JAII (Figure 1B), and plotted a single-timepoint uniform curve using the least squares method[17]. In this case, we took an intersection, considering that some journals with JAII have no JIF or CS. It can be seen from the figure that in the evaluation of lower-quality journals, the linearity of JAII and JIF/CS has greater overlap, but in the evaluation of higher-quality journals, the randomness of the data is greater. Journals with a large deviation between JIF and JAII include Nature Reviews Gastroenterology & Hepatology, Lancet Gastroenterology & Hepatology, Seminars in Liver Disease, and so on. Journals with a large deviation between CS and JAII include Gut, Journal of Hepatology, Gastroenterology, and so on.
The results of the combined analysis of the three journal evaluation indicators are visualized in Figure 2A-C[18]. Figure 2A gives a comparison of the values between the three evaluation indicators of the same journal (73 in total, taking the intersection). Figure 2B gives the JIF-JAII ratio and CS-JAII ratio for each journal. Figure 2C gives the values of JIF and CS in descending JAII order.
Finally, we combined the three journal evaluation indicators together, and through a histogram (Figure 2D), we can more clearly see the impact of the joint evaluation of the three on the ranking of journals without weight. This can also be used as a reference evaluation method.
JIF: JIFs are obtained through the Web of Knowledge database using the Science Edition of JCR which collects citation data from more than 7300 science and technology journals worldwide. The IF of a T-year journal is defined as the number of times that the journal has been cited in years T-1 and T-2 divided by the number of documents that can be cited in the journal in years T-1 and T-2[19].
CS: CSs are calculated using data from the Scopus database. CS has a publication window of 3 years before the 1-year reference window and counts the references from one document type to another[20]. In other words, CS calculates the average number of citations of papers published in a journal for 3 consecutive years in the 4th year. In a given year, CS is calculated as the amount of times that documents published in the previous 3 years were cited in that year divided by the number of documents published in those 3 years that were included in the Scopus database.
JAII: JAIIs, calculated as total citations divided by total articles, are based on journals and their citations included in the RCA database.
It is undeniable that the JAII metric has its merits as a journal evaluation indicator. (1) Compared with JIF and CS, JAII is able to break through the time limit disadvantage of the first two. Journals do not need to meet the waiting-time thresholds of JIF and CS to be accurately evaluated. As such, JAII is able to evaluate more journals accurately in a near-real time manner, which explains why there are more journals with a JAII than those with a JIF/CS. (2) Compared with JIF and CS, JAII is useful for assessing the performance of journals immediately upon its creation. Moreover, since a small number of articles in journals will result in a high JIF and CS at a given time, JAII relieves the chance of biased evaluation of journals. JAII is also more conducive to a comprehensive assessment of the quality and performance of journals. And (3), compared with JIF and CS, JAII is more conducive to high-quality journal evaluation. In addition to these advantages, JAII has a high degree of compliance with JIF and CS in the evaluation of journals with a lower impact.
Another important feature related to the JAII is that the RCA database, upon which it is based, can enable queries to journals by category, such as focused query of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, representing a ready convenience to researchers.
There exist disadvantages in the JAII. These include the lack of statistical timeliness, a feature by which JAII is slightly inferior to JIF and CS, and the lack of consideration to different developments of the same journal in different periods. JAII also shares some of the drawbacks of both JIF and CS, such as the lack of evaluation of citation quality and the inclusion of self-citations.
As we have shown in Figure 1 and described textually in the “Results” section above, the linearity of JAII-JIF-CS was clear for lower-quality journals but failed to match each other perfectly for higher-quality journals.
Our explanation is that JIF and CS are subject to changes in citation frequency and number of published articles in different years, and their correlation with time exacerbates the influence of human manipulability[21]. JAII reduces this time randomness. In addition, the JIF and CS of high-quality journals may be more susceptible to this effect, and their fluctuations can be effectively explained.
In addition to the lack of evaluation of citation quality and self-citation, other factors may threaten the effectiveness of the evaluation parameters in use. Research on JIF, CS and other statistical standards for journal quality has shown that there are still many statistical violations at play, including those related to and arising from reliability, incomplete reporting of validity, insignificant results, insignificant effect sizes, and hypothesis checking, as well as uncorrected inferences and multiple comparisons from descriptive statistics[22]. JAII is also inevitably affected by the same, to at least some extent, and this limitation cannot be ignored.
The main differences between JAII and JIF/CS come from the differences in the scientific databases used as the cited sources, as well as the differences in the evaluation methods underpinning each of these indicators. Due to the JIF/CS time factor limitation, the JAII method based on the RCA database is able to evaluate more journals. Besides, JAII provides more focused quantitative insight by considering categories of journal papers. In terms of practicality, the novelty introduced by the JAII indicator is its open-accessibility to users (as opposed to a subscription service to select users). To summarize, JAII is a reliable index to evaluate the quality of journals in near-real time.
In the future, scientometric researchers can focus on the differences of the different journal evaluation indexes to aid in their studies on the origin of nonlinear characteristics in order to put forward a more perfect journal evaluation standard. Meanwhile, researchers in general can exploit the distinct advantages of each as they currently stand to better understand journal quality and promote the impact of their own scientific communications.
The evaluation of journal quality is very important for researchers. Journal Impact Factor (JIF) and CiteScore (CS) are two of the most popular and authoritative journal evaluation indicators. With the ongoing scientometric research into their advantages and disadvantages, there is a consequent emergence of new journal evaluation indicators. The logical next-step is comparative judgement of the reliability and innovative novelty of such new journal evaluation indexes.
The recently-launched Reference Citation Analysis database of Baishideng Publishing Group is an open multidisciplinary citation analysis database founded in artificial intelligence technology. Based on this database, Journal Article Influence Index (JAII) has been proposed as a new journal evaluation indicator.
To compare the advantages and disadvantages of JAII with those of JIF and CS.
For comparisons between JAII and 2021 JIF/2021 CS, we conducted statistical analyses and provided an intuitive method for visual representation of the related data.
For lower-quality journals, JAII, 2021 JIF, and 2021 CS had a good linear correlation. However, their results of assessments of higher-quality journals varied widely. These three evaluation indexes have their own advantages and disadvantages, including the avoidance of time randomness and ability for near-real time evaluation of the JAII.
JAII is a comprehensive assessment tool to assess the quality and performance of journals.
In the future, we hope to better explain the current existent nonlinear relationship among the three evaluation indexes, and combine a variety of journal evaluation indicators to allow for more comprehensive evaluation of journal quality by scientometric-focused and general researchers.
Provenance and peer review: Invited article; Externally peer reviewed.
Peer-review model: Single blind
Specialty type: Scientific journal
Country/Territory of origin: China
Peer-review report’s scientific quality classification
Grade A (Excellent): A
Grade B (Very good): B
Grade C (Good): 0
Grade D (Fair): 0
Grade E (Poor): 0
P-Reviewer: Mansour AM, Lebanon; Santos BS, Brazil S-Editor: Chen YL L-Editor: Wang TQ P-Editor: Chen YL
| 1. | Azer SA, Holen A, Wilson I, Skokauskas N. Impact factor of medical education journals and recently developed indices: Can any of them support academic promotion criteria? J Postgrad Med. 2016;62:32-39. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 27] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 31] [Article Influence: 3.9] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 2. | Brezgov S. Misleading Metrics. Sch. 2022. Available from: https://scholarlyoa.com/misleading-metrics/. [Cited in This Article: ] |
| 3. | Valderrama P, Jiménez-Contreras E, Escabias M, Valderrama MJ. Introducing a bibliometric index based on factor analysis. Scientometrics. 2022;127:509-522. [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 1] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 2] [Article Influence: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 4. | Abramo G, D’Angelo CA, Felici G. Predicting publication long-term impact through a combination of early citations and journal impact factor. J Informetr. 2019;13:32-49. [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 52] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 54] [Article Influence: 10.8] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 5. | Garfield E. The history and meaning of the journal impact factor. JAMA. 2006;295:90-93. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 1474] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 1135] [Article Influence: 63.1] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 6. | Solari A, Magri M-H. A New Approach to the SCI Journal Citation Reports, a System for Evaluating Scientific Journals. Scientometrics. 2000;47:605-625. [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] |
| 7. | Pichappan P. Identification of mainstream journals of science speciality: A method using the discipline-contribution score. Scientometrics. 1993;27:179-193. [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 3] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 4] [Article Influence: 0.1] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 8. | Callaway E. Beat it, impact factor! Nature. 2016;535:210-211. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 128] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 101] [Article Influence: 12.6] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 9. | Moed H, Leeuwen TV, Reedijk J. Towards appropriate indicators of journal impact. Scientometrics. 2006;46:575-589. [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 51] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 53] [Article Influence: 2.1] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 10. | Falagas ME, Kouranos VD, Arencibia-Jorge R, Karageorgopoulos DE. Comparison of SCImago journal rank indicator with journal impact factor. FASEB J. 2008;22:2623-2628. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 284] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 217] [Article Influence: 13.6] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 11. | Okagbue HI, Teixeira da Silva JA. Correlation between the CiteScore and Journal Impact Factor of top-ranked library and information science journals. Scientometrics. 2020;124:797-801. [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 15] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 11] [Article Influence: 2.8] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 12. | Fu BS, Yu Z, Tiwari K. New Release of 2020 Impact Factor (Web of Science) and Cite Score (Scopus). J Orthop Translat. 2021;29:A3. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 13. | Teixeira da Silva JA, Memon AR. CiteScore: A cite for sore eyes, or a valuable, transparent metric? Scientometrics. 2017;111:553-556. [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 52] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 32] [Article Influence: 4.6] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 14. | Teixeira da Silva JA. CiteScore: Advances, Evolution, Applications, and Limitations. Publ Res Q. 2020;36:459-468. [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 12] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 16] [Article Influence: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 15. | Teixeira da Silva JA. CiteScore: Risk of copy-cat, fake and misleading metrics. Scientometrics. 2021;126:1859-1862. [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 2] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 3] [Article Influence: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 16. | Zhao Z, Tang H, Li F. Measles-Associated Severe Pneumonia in a Patient with HBeAg-Negative Chronic Hepatitis B: A Case Report. Zoonoses. 2022;2:3. [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] |
| 17. | Axelsson O. A generalized conjugate gradient, least square method. Numer Math. 1987;51:209-227. [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] |
| 18. | Gleicher M, Albers D, Walker R, Jusufi I, Hansen CD, Roberts JC. Visual comparison for information visualization. Inf Vis. 2011;10:289-309. [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] |
| 19. | McGinnis R. Research tool. Science. 1980;207:972. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 1] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 20. | James C, Colledge L, Meester W, Azoulay N, Plume A. CiteScore metrics: Creating journal metrics from the Scopus citation index. ArXiv Prepr ArXiv181206871. 2018;. [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 22] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 24] [Article Influence: 4.8] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 21. | Kiesslich T, Weineck SB, Koelblinger D. Reasons for Journal Impact Factor Changes: Influence of Changing Source Items. PLoS One. 2016;11:e0154199. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 29] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 32] [Article Influence: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 22. | Al-Hoorie AH, Vitta JP. The seven sins of L2 research: A review of 30 journals’ statistical quality and their CiteScore, SJR, SNIP, JCR Impact Factors. Lang Teach Res. 2019;23:727-744. [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] |