OBJECTIVE: Journal impact factor (JIF) is often used as a measure of journal quality. A retrospective cohort study determined the ability of clinical article and journal characteristics, including appraisal measures collected at the time of publication, to predict subsequent JIFs. METHODS: Clinical research articles that passed methods quality criteria were included. Each article was rated for relevance and newsworthiness by 3 to 24 physicians from a panel of more than 4,000 practicing clinicians. The 1,267 articles (from 103 journals) were divided 60∶40 into derivation (760 articles) and validation sets (507 articles), representing 99 and 88 journals, respectively. A multiple regression model was produced determining the association of 10 journal and article measures with the 2007 JIF. RESULTS: Four of the 10 measures were significant in the regression model: number of authors, number of databases indexing the journal, proportion of articles passing methods criteria, and mean clinical newsworthiness scores. With the number of disciplines rating the article, the 5 variables accounted for 61% of the variation in JIF (R(2) = 0.607, 95% CI 0.444 to 0.706, P<0.001). CONCLUSION: For the clinical literature, measures of scientific quality and clinical newsworthiness available at the time of publication can predict JIFs with 60% accuracy.
OBJECTIVE: Journal impact factor (JIF) is often used as a measure of journal quality. A retrospective cohort study determined the ability of clinical article and journal characteristics, including appraisal measures collected at the time of publication, to predict subsequent JIFs. METHODS: Clinical research articles that passed methods quality criteria were included. Each article was rated for relevance and newsworthiness by 3 to 24 physicians from a panel of more than 4,000 practicing clinicians. The 1,267 articles (from 103 journals) were divided 60∶40 into derivation (760 articles) and validation sets (507 articles), representing 99 and 88 journals, respectively. A multiple regression model was produced determining the association of 10 journal and article measures with the 2007 JIF. RESULTS: Four of the 10 measures were significant in the regression model: number of authors, number of databases indexing the journal, proportion of articles passing methods criteria, and mean clinical newsworthiness scores. With the number of disciplines rating the article, the 5 variables accounted for 61% of the variation in JIF (R(2) = 0.607, 95% CI 0.444 to 0.706, P<0.001). CONCLUSION: For the clinical literature, measures of scientific quality and clinical newsworthiness available at the time of publication can predict JIFs with 60% accuracy.
Authors: R Brian Haynes; Chris Cotoi; Jennifer Holland; Leslie Walters; Nancy Wilczynski; Dawn Jedraszewski; James McKinlay; Richard Parrish; K Ann McKibbon Journal: JAMA Date: 2006-04-19 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: William D Figg; Lara Dunn; David J Liewehr; Seth M Steinberg; Paul W Thurman; J Carl Barrett; Julian Birkinshaw Journal: Pharmacotherapy Date: 2006-06 Impact factor: 4.705
Authors: Usama Ahmed Ali; Beata M M Reiber; Joren R Ten Hove; Pieter C van der Sluis; Hein G Gooszen; Marja A Boermeester; Marc G Besselink Journal: Langenbecks Arch Surg Date: 2017-06-04 Impact factor: 3.445
Authors: Siddhartha R Jonnalagadda; Soheil Moosavinasab; Chinmoy Nath; Dingcheng Li; Christopher G Chute; Hongfang Liu Journal: AMIA Annu Symp Proc Date: 2014-11-14