Citation analysis of orthopaedic literature; 18 major orthopaedic journals compared for Impact Factor and SCImago

M. Siebelt · Teun Siebelt · Peter Pilot · Rolf M. Bloem · Mohit Bhandari · Rudolf Wilhelm Poolman

77 citations0/0 files storedBMC Musculoskeletal Disorders

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

scientometrics and bibliometrics research Psychology Research and Bibliometrics Web visibility and informetrics

Abstract

BACKGROUND: One of the disadvantages of the Impact Factor (IF) is self-citation. The SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) indicator excludes self-citations and considers the quality, rather than absolute numbers, of citations of a journal by other journals. The present study re-evaluated the influence of self-citation on the 2007 IF for 18 major orthopaedic journals and investigated the difference in ranking between IF and SJR. METHODS: The journals were analysed for self-citation both overall and divided into a general group (n = 8) and a specialized group (n = 10). Self-cited and self-citing rates, as well as citation densities and IFs corrected for self-citation (cIF), were calculated. The rankings of the 18 journals by IF and by SJR were compared and the absolute difference between these rankings (DeltaR) was determined. RESULTS: Specialized journals had higher self-citing rates (p = 0.01, Deltamedian = 9.50, 95%CI -19.42 to 0.42), higher self-cited rates (p = 0.0004, Deltamedian = -10.50, 95%CI -15.28 to -5.72) and greater differences between IF and cIF (p = 0.003, Deltamedian = 3.50, 95%CI -6.1 to 13.1). There was no significant correlation between self-citing rate and IF for both groups (general: r = 0.46, p = 0.27; specialized: r = 0.21, p = 0.56). When the difference in ranking between IF and SJR was compared between both groups, sub-specialist journals were ranked lower compared to their general counterparts (DeltaR: p = 0.006, Deltamedian = 2.0, 95%CI -0.39 to 4.39). CONCLUSIONS: Citation analysis shows that specialized orthopaedic journals have specific self-citation tendencies. The correlation between self-cited rate and IF in our sample was large but, due to small sample size, not significant. The SJR excludes self-citations in its calculation and therefore enhances the underestimation in ranking of specialized journals.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 77 citations exist upstream.

References

2006The History and Meaning of the Journal Impact Factor 1997Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research 2008Comparison of SCImago journal rank indicator with journal impact factor 2008SCImago Journal & Country Rank 2000Self-citations in six anaesthesia journals and their significance in determining the impact factor 2007Factors associated with citation rates in the orthopedic literature.

Cited by

2018Comparison of Impact Factor, Eigenfactor Metrics, and SCImago Journal Rank Indicator and h-index for Neurosurgical and Spinal Surgical Journals 2015What Effect Does Self-Citation Have on Bibliometric Measures in Academic Plastic Surgery?2011Journal Quality Metrics: Options to Consider Other Than Impact Factors 2010Comparison of journal impact rankings in the SCImago Journal & Country Rank and the Journal Citation Reports databases 2011A systematic survey of the quality of research reporting in general orthopaedic journals 2015Impact and alternative metrics for medical publishing: our experience with International Orthopaedics 2013

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.