Citation distribution profile in Brazilian journals of general medicine

Authors

  • Luiggi Araujo Lustosa Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro
  • Mario Edmundo Pastrana Chalco Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro
  • Cecília de Melo Borba Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro
  • André Eizo Higa Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro
  • Renan Moritz Varnier Rodrigues Almeida Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro

Keywords:

Journal impact factor, Bibliometrics, Peer review, Systems for evaluation of publications, Health research evaluation

Abstract

CONTEXT AND OBJECTIVE: Impact factors are currently the bibliometric index most used for evaluating scientific journals. However, the way in which they are used, for instance concerning the study or journal types analyzed, can markedly interfere with estimate reliability. This study aimed to analyze the citation distribution pattern in three Brazilian journals of general medicine. DESIGN AND SETTING: This was a descriptive study based on numbers of citations of scientific studies published by three Brazilian journals of general medicine. METHODS: The journals analyzed were São Paulo Medical Journal, Clinics and Revista da Associação Médica Brasileira. This survey used data available from the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) platform, from which the total number of papers published in each journal in 2007-2008 and the number of citations of these papers in 2009 were obtained. From these data, the citation distribution was derived and journal impact factors (average number of citations) were estimated. These factors were then compared with those directly available from the ISI Journal of Citation Reports (JCR). RESULTS: Respectively, 134, 203 and 192 papers were published by these journals during the period analyzed. The observed citation distributions were highly skewed, such that many papers had few citations and a small percentage had many citations. It was not possible to identify any specific pattern for the most cited papers or to exactly reproduce the JCR impact factors. CONCLUSION: Use of measures like “impact factors”, which characterize citations through averages, does not adequately represent the citation distribution in the journals analyzed.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biographies

Luiggi Araujo Lustosa, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro

BSc. Master’s Student, Biomedical Engineering Program (Coppe), Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.

Mario Edmundo Pastrana Chalco, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro

BSc. Master’s Student, Biomedical Engineering Program (Coppe), Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.

Cecília de Melo Borba, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro

BSc. Master’s Student, Biomedical Engineering Program (Coppe), Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.

André Eizo Higa, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro

BSc. Master’s Student, Biomedical Engineering Program (Coppe), Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.

Renan Moritz Varnier Rodrigues Almeida, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro

PhD. Associate Professor, Biomedical Engineering Program (Coppe), Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.

References

Garfield E. Journal impact factor: a brief review. CMAJ. 1999;161(8):979-80.

Garfield E. Citation indexes for science. A new dimension in documentation through association of ideas. 1955. Int J Epidemiol. 2006;35(5):1123-7; discussion 1127-8.

Hernán MA. Epidemiologists (of all people) should question journal impact factors. Epidemiology. 2008;19(3):366-8.

Seglen PO. Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research. BMJ. 1997;314(7079):498-502.

Amin M, Mabe M. Impact factors: use and abuse. Perspectives in Publishing. 2000;1:1-6. Available from: http://www.elsevier.com/framework_editors/pdfs/Perspectives1.pdf. Accessed in 2012 (Mar 20).

Young NS, Ioannidis JP, Al-Ubaydli O. Why current publication practices may distort science. PLoS Med. 2008;5(10):e201.

Moore DS. The basic practice of statistics. 4th ed. New York NY: WH Freeman and Company; 2007.

Thomson Reuters. ISI web of knowledge. Available from: http://wokinfo. com/media/swf/wokdemoshell.html. Accessed in 2012 (Mar 20).

The impact factor game. It is time to find a better way to assess the scientific literature. PLoS Med. 2006;3(6):e291.

Rossner M, Van Epps H, Hill E. Show me the data. J Exp Med. 2007;204(13):3052-3.

Maturana MA, Irigoyen MC, Spritzer PM. Menopause, estrogens, and endothelial dysfunction: current concepts. Clinics (Sao Paulo). 2007;62(1):77-86.

Coura JR, Willcox L de C. Impact factor, scientific production and quality of Brazilian medical journals. Mem Inst Oswaldo Cruz. 2003;98(3):293-7.

Downloads

Published

2012-09-09

How to Cite

1.
Lustosa LA, Chalco MEP, Borba C de M, Higa AE, Almeida RMVR. Citation distribution profile in Brazilian journals of general medicine. Sao Paulo Med J [Internet]. 2012 Sep. 9 [cited 2025 Oct. 16];130(5):314-7. Available from: https://periodicosapm.emnuvens.com.br/spmj/article/view/1498

Issue

Vol. 130 No. 5 (2012)

Section

Short Communication

License

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.