心胸外科的新期刊指标:当代指标与影响因子有何不同?

IF 1.6 Q2 SURGERY
Russell Seth Martins, Warda Ahmed, Mehak Barolia, Kostantinos Poulikidis, Joanna Weber, M Jawad Latif, Syed Shahzad Razi, Faiz Y Bhora
{"title":"心胸外科的新期刊指标:当代指标与影响因子有何不同?","authors":"Russell Seth Martins, Warda Ahmed, Mehak Barolia, Kostantinos Poulikidis, Joanna Weber, M Jawad Latif, Syed Shahzad Razi, Faiz Y Bhora","doi":"10.1177/15569845231225205","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Despite shortcomings, impact factor (IF) remains the \"gold standard\" metric for journal quality. However, novel metrics including the h-index, g-index, and Altmetric Attention Score (AAS; mentions in mainstream/social media) are gaining traction. We assessed correlations between these metrics among cardiothoracic surgery journals.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>For all cardiothoracic surgery journals with a 2021 Clarivate IF (<i>N</i> = 20), the 2-year IF (2019 to 2020) and 5-year IF (2016 to 2020), h-index, and g-index were obtained. Two-year journal-level AAS (2019 to 2020) was also calculated. Journal Twitter presence and activity was sourced from Twitter and the Twitter application programming interface. Correlations were assessed using Spearman correlation, and coefficients of determination were calculated.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>IF demonstrated a moderate-strong positive correlation with the h-index (<i>r<sub>s</sub></i> = 0.48 to 0.77) and g-index (<i>r<sub>s</sub></i> = 0.49 to 0.79) and a moderate correlation with AAS (<i>r<sub>s</sub></i> = 0.53 to 0.58). The 2-year IF accounted for 25% to 49% of variability in the h-index, 27% to 55% of variability in the g-index, and 32% of variability in the AAS. Among journals with a Twitter account (<i>N</i> = 10), IF was strongly correlated with Twitter following (<i>r<sub>s</sub></i> = 0.81 to 0.86), which was in turn strongly correlated with journal AAS (<i>r<sub>s</sub></i> = 0.79). Article-level AAS was moderately correlated with citation count (<i>r<sub>s</sub></i> = 0.47).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>IF accounted for only between 25% and 55% of variability in the h-index and g-index, indicating that these newer metrics measure unique dimensions of citation-based impact. Thus, the academic community must familiarize itself with these newer journal metrics. Social media attention may be associated with scholarly impact, although further work is needed to understand these relationships.</p>","PeriodicalId":13574,"journal":{"name":"Innovations: Technology and Techniques in Cardiothoracic and Vascular Surgery","volume":" ","pages":"80-87"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Novel Journal Metrics in Cardiothoracic Surgery: How Different Are Contemporary Metrics From the Impact Factor?\",\"authors\":\"Russell Seth Martins, Warda Ahmed, Mehak Barolia, Kostantinos Poulikidis, Joanna Weber, M Jawad Latif, Syed Shahzad Razi, Faiz Y Bhora\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/15569845231225205\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Despite shortcomings, impact factor (IF) remains the \\\"gold standard\\\" metric for journal quality. However, novel metrics including the h-index, g-index, and Altmetric Attention Score (AAS; mentions in mainstream/social media) are gaining traction. We assessed correlations between these metrics among cardiothoracic surgery journals.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>For all cardiothoracic surgery journals with a 2021 Clarivate IF (<i>N</i> = 20), the 2-year IF (2019 to 2020) and 5-year IF (2016 to 2020), h-index, and g-index were obtained. Two-year journal-level AAS (2019 to 2020) was also calculated. Journal Twitter presence and activity was sourced from Twitter and the Twitter application programming interface. Correlations were assessed using Spearman correlation, and coefficients of determination were calculated.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>IF demonstrated a moderate-strong positive correlation with the h-index (<i>r<sub>s</sub></i> = 0.48 to 0.77) and g-index (<i>r<sub>s</sub></i> = 0.49 to 0.79) and a moderate correlation with AAS (<i>r<sub>s</sub></i> = 0.53 to 0.58). The 2-year IF accounted for 25% to 49% of variability in the h-index, 27% to 55% of variability in the g-index, and 32% of variability in the AAS. Among journals with a Twitter account (<i>N</i> = 10), IF was strongly correlated with Twitter following (<i>r<sub>s</sub></i> = 0.81 to 0.86), which was in turn strongly correlated with journal AAS (<i>r<sub>s</sub></i> = 0.79). Article-level AAS was moderately correlated with citation count (<i>r<sub>s</sub></i> = 0.47).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>IF accounted for only between 25% and 55% of variability in the h-index and g-index, indicating that these newer metrics measure unique dimensions of citation-based impact. Thus, the academic community must familiarize itself with these newer journal metrics. Social media attention may be associated with scholarly impact, although further work is needed to understand these relationships.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":13574,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Innovations: Technology and Techniques in Cardiothoracic and Vascular Surgery\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"80-87\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Innovations: Technology and Techniques in Cardiothoracic and Vascular Surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/15569845231225205\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/2/12 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"SURGERY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Innovations: Technology and Techniques in Cardiothoracic and Vascular Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/15569845231225205","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/2/12 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:影响因子(IF)尽管存在缺陷,但仍是衡量期刊质量的 "黄金标准"。然而,包括 h 指数、g 指数和 Altmetric 关注分值(AAS;在主流/社交媒体中的提及率)在内的新指标正日益受到重视。我们评估了这些指标在心胸外科期刊中的相关性:对于所有拥有 2021 年 Clarivate IF 的心胸外科期刊(N = 20),我们获得了 2 年 IF(2019 年至 2020 年)和 5 年 IF(2016 年至 2020 年)、h 指数和 g 指数。此外,还计算了两年的期刊级 AAS(2019 年至 2020 年)。期刊的 Twitter 影响力和活动来自 Twitter 和 Twitter 应用程序接口。相关性采用斯皮尔曼相关法进行评估,并计算决定系数:IF与h指数(rs = 0.48至0.77)和g指数(rs = 0.49至0.79)呈中度强正相关,与AAS(rs = 0.53至0.58)呈中度相关。两年 IF 占 h 指数变化的 25% 到 49%,占 g 指数变化的 27% 到 55%,占 AAS 变化的 32%。在拥有推特账户的期刊中(N = 10),IF 与推特关注度密切相关(rs = 0.81 到 0.86),而推特关注度又与期刊的 AAS 密切相关(rs = 0.79)。文章层面的 AAS 与引用次数呈中度相关(rs = 0.47):结论:IF 仅占 h 指数和 g 指数变化的 25% 到 55%,这表明这些新指标衡量的是基于引文的影响力的独特维度。因此,学术界必须熟悉这些较新的期刊指标。社交媒体关注度可能与学术影响力有关,但要了解这些关系还需要进一步的工作。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Novel Journal Metrics in Cardiothoracic Surgery: How Different Are Contemporary Metrics From the Impact Factor?

Objective: Despite shortcomings, impact factor (IF) remains the "gold standard" metric for journal quality. However, novel metrics including the h-index, g-index, and Altmetric Attention Score (AAS; mentions in mainstream/social media) are gaining traction. We assessed correlations between these metrics among cardiothoracic surgery journals.

Methods: For all cardiothoracic surgery journals with a 2021 Clarivate IF (N = 20), the 2-year IF (2019 to 2020) and 5-year IF (2016 to 2020), h-index, and g-index were obtained. Two-year journal-level AAS (2019 to 2020) was also calculated. Journal Twitter presence and activity was sourced from Twitter and the Twitter application programming interface. Correlations were assessed using Spearman correlation, and coefficients of determination were calculated.

Results: IF demonstrated a moderate-strong positive correlation with the h-index (rs = 0.48 to 0.77) and g-index (rs = 0.49 to 0.79) and a moderate correlation with AAS (rs = 0.53 to 0.58). The 2-year IF accounted for 25% to 49% of variability in the h-index, 27% to 55% of variability in the g-index, and 32% of variability in the AAS. Among journals with a Twitter account (N = 10), IF was strongly correlated with Twitter following (rs = 0.81 to 0.86), which was in turn strongly correlated with journal AAS (rs = 0.79). Article-level AAS was moderately correlated with citation count (rs = 0.47).

Conclusions: IF accounted for only between 25% and 55% of variability in the h-index and g-index, indicating that these newer metrics measure unique dimensions of citation-based impact. Thus, the academic community must familiarize itself with these newer journal metrics. Social media attention may be associated with scholarly impact, although further work is needed to understand these relationships.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.00
自引率
6.70%
发文量
80
期刊介绍: Innovations: Technology and Techniques in Cardiothoracic and Vascular Surgery is the first journal whose main mission is to disseminate information specifically about advances in technology and techniques that lead to less invasive treatment of cardiothoracic and vascular disease. It delivers cutting edge original research, reviews, essays, case reports, and editorials from the pioneers and experts in the field of minimally invasive cardiothoracic and vascular disease, including biomedical engineers. Also included are papers presented at the annual ISMICS meeting. Official Journal of the International Society for Minimally Invasive Cardiothoracic Surgery
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信