Basic bibliometrics for dummies and others: an overview of some journal-level indicators in physical and rehabilitation medicine

Abstract

This report aims to complement and update a series of papers published in the last decade on bibliometrics regarding journals related to physical and rehabilitation medicine (PRM). It targets clinicians and researchers (academic and non-academic) in our discipline who would like to use bibliometric indicators as a complementary "tool" to integrate into their expert practice of journal evaluation. Different journal-based metrics are analysed in order to provide a wide (albeit general) view of the performance of top PRM journals. First, we provide some brief preliminary remarks useful for an informed understanding of our results: 1) an update on bibliometric indicators and multidisciplinary databases of peer-reviewed literature; 2) the meaning of some bibliometric indicators; 3) the practical message related to this report: "keep it simple." Then, we profile the performance of 22 PRM core journals, according to six widely used bibliometric indicators. Indicators are grouped into three categories defined by their quartile classification (Three Star: top quartile; Two Star: second upper quartile; One Star: under the median). In conclusion, bibliometrics is just one of the key methods used for measuring the (supposed) 'impact' of scholarly publications and it represents only a raw proxy for the real impact or value of the research. This report wishes to add a small contribution for a simplified understanding of journal-level indicators in PRM, to support informed decisions on which high-level journals merit special attention by clinicians and researchers working in our discipline.

Cite this work

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

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 20 citations exist upstream.

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