Ernesto Roldan-Valadez1,2, Shirley Yoselin Salazar-Ruiz3, Rafael Ibarra-Contreras4, Camilo Rios5. 1. Directorate of Research, Hospital General de Mexico "Dr Eduardo Liceaga", Dr Balmis 148 street, Col. Doctores, Del. Cuauhtemoc, 06726, Mexico City, Mexico. ernest.roldan@usa.net. 2. Department of Radiology, I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University (Sechenov University), Trubetskaya str., 8, b. 2, 119992, Moscow, Russia. ernest.roldan@usa.net. 3. Directorate of Research, Hospital General de Mexico "Dr Eduardo Liceaga", Dr Balmis 148 street, Col. Doctores, Del. Cuauhtemoc, 06726, Mexico City, Mexico. 4. General Directorate of Libraries, National Autonomous University of Mexico, Mexico City, Mexico. 5. Department of Neurochemistry, National Institute of Neurology and Neurosurgery, Mexico City, Mexico.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Understanding the impact of a publication by using bibliometric indices becomes an essential activity not only for universities and research institutes but also for individual academicians. This paper aims to provide a brief review of the current bibliometric tools used by authors and editors and proposes an algorithm to assess the relevance of the most common bibliometric tools to help the researchers select the fittest journal and know the trends of published submissions by using self-evaluation. METHODS: We present a narrative review answering at least two related consecutive questions triggered by the topics mentioned above. How prestigious is a journal based on its most recent bibliometrics, so authors may choose it to submit their next manuscript? And, how can they self-evaluate/understand the impact of their whole publishing scientific life? RESULTS: We presented the main relevant definitions of each bibliometrics and grouped them in those oriented to evaluated journals or individuals. Also, we share with our readers our algorithm to assess journals before manuscript submission. CONCLUSIONS: Since there is a journal performance market and an article performance market, each one with its patterns, an integrative use of these metrics, rather than just the impact factor alone, might represent the fairest and most legitimate approach to assess the influence and importance of an acceptable research issue, and not only a sound journal in their respective disciplines.
BACKGROUND: Understanding the impact of a publication by using bibliometric indices becomes an essential activity not only for universities and research institutes but also for individual academicians. This paper aims to provide a brief review of the current bibliometric tools used by authors and editors and proposes an algorithm to assess the relevance of the most common bibliometric tools to help the researchers select the fittest journal and know the trends of published submissions by using self-evaluation. METHODS: We present a narrative review answering at least two related consecutive questions triggered by the topics mentioned above. How prestigious is a journal based on its most recent bibliometrics, so authors may choose it to submit their next manuscript? And, how can they self-evaluate/understand the impact of their whole publishing scientific life? RESULTS: We presented the main relevant definitions of each bibliometrics and grouped them in those oriented to evaluated journals or individuals. Also, we share with our readers our algorithm to assess journals before manuscript submission. CONCLUSIONS: Since there is a journal performance market and an article performance market, each one with its patterns, an integrative use of these metrics, rather than just the impact factor alone, might represent the fairest and most legitimate approach to assess the influence and importance of an acceptable research issue, and not only a sound journal in their respective disciplines.
Authors: Weslley Ferreira de Lima; Yago Gecy Sousa Né; Walessa Alana Bragança Aragão; Luciana Eiró-Quirino; Daiane Claydes Baia-da-Silva; Ana Cirovic; Aleksandar Cirovic; Rafael Rodrigues Lima Journal: Biol Trace Elem Res Date: 2022-10-03 Impact factor: 4.081