FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2094402605> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2094402605 endingPage "1445" @default.
• W2094402605 startingPage "1441" @default.
• W2094402605 abstract "Much has been written about various ways to rank journals and the impact this has on where nursing academics and researchers publish (Ironside 2007, Johnstone 2007, Jackson et al. 2009, Polit & Northam 2011, Hunt et al. 2012). Historically, the journal impact factor (JIF) published by Thompson Reuters via Journal Citation Reports (JCR®) has been the ‘gold standard’ of ranking journals in journal sets. The JIF is defined as the number of citations to a journal's articles published in the previous two years divided by the number of (citable) articles in the journal during those 2 years (Garfield 2006). We and others have argued that the JIF is an imperfect measure and that, despite common practice, the scientific quality of a paper cannot be judged on the basis of the impact factor alone (Seglen 1997, Walter et al. 2003, Broome 2007, Hunt et al. 2011b). For the purposes of comparison, how journals are selected for a given set of ‘like’ journals is somewhat arbitrary as some journals appear in several sets in addition to, for example, the nursing journal set (Polit & Northam 2011), while many others are not listed by JCR at all, thus appearing invisible using this method of comparison. Here, we demonstrate how to identify a core set of journals that frequently publish in a particular field and rank them using various bibliometric indicators rather than the JIF in isolation and to list the top 10 articles that have received the most number of citations. The nurse education field is used to illustrate how this method can be used to rank like journals to help readers identify a more inclusive family of journals relevant to their particular field and interests. To identify journals that publish in the field of nurse education, we initially found journals related to three major journals specializing in this area, Nurse Education Today, Journal of Nursing Education, and Nurse Educator using the JCR feature of the Web of Science (WoS), which lists the number of references to and from these journals in 2011. As not all journals specializing in this area are listed in JCR, we also examined lists provided by Crookes et al. (2010) and SCImago (SCImago Journal and Country Rank from http://www.scimagojr.com) which employs the Scopus database to compare the impact and influence of journals (Pislyakov 2009, Siebelt et al. 2010). Ulrich's Periodicals Dictionary (http://ulrichsweb.serialsolutions.com) was also used to locate potential journals, first year of publication, and any title changes of journals. We only included peer-reviewed academic journals and excluded non-English journals. Table 1 lists the 11 journals chosen for analysis. Eight of these titles were selected from ‘relatedness’ tables available in JCR. Relatedness (R) is a measure of cross referencing between journals from within JCR. The more referencing between two journals, the stronger the relationship between subject matter, and the higher the relatedness factor (Pudovkin & Garfield 2002). Rmax values above 100 for one or more of the three nurse education journals listed above was used for journal selection. The other three journals were derived from SCImago lists, subject area nursing, category miscellaneous. Journals were excluded if they did not appear on either Scopus/SCImago or WoS (e.g. Journal of Nursing, Allied Health & Education Health), appeared annually (e.g. International Journal of Nursing Education Scholarship) or had publication histories of <4 years (e.g. Asian Journal of Nursing Education and Research). To rank the journals we derived five bibliographic measures (Table 1) that we used previously to assess quality of child and adolescent psychiatry journals (Hunt et al. 2011a) and mental health nursing journals (Hunt et al. 2012). First, the JIF for 2011 was derived from listings in WoS and Scopus from their related databases, JCR and SCImago (cites/doc 2 years) are listed in columns 2 and 3 (Table 1). Second, the number of citations received in 2011 for all published articles in WoS and Scopus were determined and listed in columns 4 and 5. The reason total cites were included in the ranking formula was to offset the potential bias of some journals with low publication rates that may over-inflate the JIF. The h-index listed for each journal by Scopus (column 6) was used as a bibliometric measure of long-term acquisition of citations (Hirsch 2005, Bornmann et al. 2009, Hunt et al. 2010). It should be noted, Scopus only lists citations from 1996 onwards; therefore, the number of total cites received in 2011 and a journal's h-index may differ between databases and when a journal's citations first appeared. To factor in the long standing role some journals have had in nursing, age was also used as a ranking measure (column 7). Ranks were then summed over the six measures, so the lower the sum of ranks for a journal, the higher the overall ranking. The final two columns in Table 1 list the suggested Evaluation of Research Activity (ERA) ranking from Crookes et al. (2010) which assessed journal quality using various indicators (e.g. quality of the editorial board, stringent peer review process, widely available and features contributions from a range of countries), and the Excellence in Research Australia journal ranking from 2010 (http://lamp.infosys.deakin.edu.au/era). The data for each measure were collected over 1 week (12–16 November 2012). The Journal of Nursing Scholarship was the highest overall ranked journal in this journal set and was the only one to receive an A* ERA classification from independent sources (Table 1). The journals ranked second and third, Nurse Education Today and Nursing Outlook, had similar rankings (18 and 18·5) and both received A-classifications by independent ranking criteria. Three journals were given ERA classifications of B and the rest were ranked C. The common features of the A and A* journals were that their JIFs from both sources were above 1·2, had long publication histories (>30 years) and h-indexes exceeding 30 (range 31–53). The B-ranked journals in this set had JIFs ranging from 0·87–1·43, fewer total citations in 2011 than the A-rated journals, and h-indexes between 17 and 41. Nurse Education Today had the two highest cited articles in this journal set according to Scopus (Table 2) and the Journal of Nursing Scholarship had six articles in the top 10. Nursing Education Perspectives and Nursing Outlook had one article each in the top 10. Examination of the titles of these highly cited articles show they are mainly review articles of critical evaluations of methodologies or theoretical issues. Overall, there was a positive association between the method of ranking these 11 journals using various bibliometric indicators and two independent ERA rankings. The method outlined here is more inclusive as it incorporates journals not listed on JCR and less prone to certain biases leading to some journals receiving an over-inflated impact factor. For most of the nurse education journals the JIF from Scopus was slightly higher than the JIF provided by JCR. This is likely due to the larger coverage of nursing journals in Scopus compared with JCR (De Groote & Raszewski 2012). There is pressure on editors to maintain or increase their journal's 2-year impact factor, but authors aspire to have their articles gain wide exposure and become highly cited, which often takes several years. There was a wide variability of the h-index between these journals (range 7–51) and, all things being equal, show that some journals attract more citations over time than others for the articles they publish. That is not to say that some of the lower ranked journals should be ignored when considering where to publish your work, as these journals provide an important forum to disseminate information to reach the right audience (Oermann 2012) they too should be considered in the decision process, not just a journal's impact factor. Some of the journals were not listed on WoS until recently and this may have reduced the number of citations received in 2011. For this reason, WoS was not used to determine the top 10 articles as only 35 nursing journals were indexed by JCR in 2004, although this has gradually increased to 74 in 2009, 95 in 2010, and currently stands at 99 journals in 2012 (Polit & Northam 2011). The top ten papers listed here using citations from Scopus may change over time and may be different using different search engines (Google Scholar, CINAHL etc). In 2011, Excellence in Research Australia journal rankings has been dropped from assessing research output. However, these rankings are still relevant as they give a good overall rating of journals between subjects and fields, which is especially useful for nursing journals which traditionally have lower JIFs compared with other fields (Hunt & Cleary 2011, Oermann 2012). We acknowledge that nurse education articles also appear in the general nursing journals (Journal of Advanced Nursing, Journal of Clinical Nursing and International Journal of Nursing Studies) which may have higher impact factors, but the focus of this editorial was to compare journals specializing in nurse education. Publishing in more specialized journals, such as the ones identified here can result in strong citations counts with a wide dissemination of research findings. We see no reason why leading nurse researchers in the field of education and scholarship will not seek to publish their most seminal findings in their specialized field, knowing those impassioned about the topic will read and likely cite their article." @default.
• W2094402605 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2094402605 creator A5003406310 @default.
• W2094402605 creator A5017983014 @default.
• W2094402605 creator A5024461249 @default.
• W2094402605 creator A5083929296 @default.
• W2094402605 date "2013-06-03" @default.
• W2094402605 modified "2023-10-17" @default.
• W2094402605 title "A citation analysis of nurse education journals using various bibliometric indicators" @default.
• W2094402605 cites W1484195042 @default.
• W2094402605 cites W1492151636 @default.
• W2094402605 cites W1971383575 @default.
• W2094402605 cites W1993007565 @default.
• W2094402605 cites W1998541534 @default.
• W2094402605 cites W2003883024 @default.
• W2094402605 cites W2019906982 @default.
• W2094402605 cites W2022345552 @default.
• W2094402605 cites W2030090349 @default.
• W2094402605 cites W2036886991 @default.
• W2094402605 cites W2048250974 @default.
• W2094402605 cites W2048471705 @default.
• W2094402605 cites W2060017510 @default.
• W2094402605 cites W2065018034 @default.
• W2094402605 cites W2065157469 @default.
• W2094402605 cites W2071569322 @default.
• W2094402605 cites W2088393330 @default.
• W2094402605 cites W2092822028 @default.
• W2094402605 cites W2092878777 @default.
• W2094402605 cites W2095059931 @default.
• W2094402605 cites W2105670889 @default.
• W2094402605 cites W2122328334 @default.
• W2094402605 cites W2128438887 @default.
• W2094402605 cites W2131151889 @default.
• W2094402605 cites W2132631086 @default.
• W2094402605 cites W2136322570 @default.
• W2094402605 cites W2140283616 @default.
• W2094402605 cites W2158495354 @default.
• W2094402605 cites W2165407725 @default.
• W2094402605 cites W2331859220 @default.
• W2094402605 doi "https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.12069" @default.
• W2094402605 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23725531" @default.
• W2094402605 hasPublicationYear "2013" @default.
• W2094402605 type Work @default.
• W2094402605 sameAs 2094402605 @default.
• W2094402605 citedByCount "16" @default.
• W2094402605 countsByYear W20944026052014 @default.
• W2094402605 countsByYear W20944026052015 @default.
• W2094402605 countsByYear W20944026052016 @default.
• W2094402605 countsByYear W20944026052017 @default.
• W2094402605 countsByYear W20944026052018 @default.
• W2094402605 countsByYear W20944026052019 @default.
• W2094402605 countsByYear W20944026052020 @default.
• W2094402605 countsByYear W20944026052022 @default.
• W2094402605 countsByYear W20944026052023 @default.
• W2094402605 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2094402605 hasAuthorship W2094402605A5003406310 @default.
• W2094402605 hasAuthorship W2094402605A5017983014 @default.
• W2094402605 hasAuthorship W2094402605A5024461249 @default.
• W2094402605 hasAuthorship W2094402605A5083929296 @default.
• W2094402605 hasBestOaLocation W20944026051 @default.
• W2094402605 hasConcept C105345328 @default.
• W2094402605 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W2094402605 hasConcept C159110408 @default.
• W2094402605 hasConcept C161191863 @default.
• W2094402605 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W2094402605 hasConcept C178315738 @default.
• W2094402605 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W2094402605 hasConcept C2778805511 @default.
• W2094402605 hasConcept C2779473830 @default.
• W2094402605 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W2094402605 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2094402605 hasConceptScore W2094402605C105345328 @default.
• W2094402605 hasConceptScore W2094402605C15744967 @default.
• W2094402605 hasConceptScore W2094402605C159110408 @default.
• W2094402605 hasConceptScore W2094402605C161191863 @default.
• W2094402605 hasConceptScore W2094402605C17744445 @default.
• W2094402605 hasConceptScore W2094402605C178315738 @default.
• W2094402605 hasConceptScore W2094402605C199539241 @default.
• W2094402605 hasConceptScore W2094402605C2778805511 @default.
• W2094402605 hasConceptScore W2094402605C2779473830 @default.
• W2094402605 hasConceptScore W2094402605C41008148 @default.
• W2094402605 hasConceptScore W2094402605C71924100 @default.
• W2094402605 hasIssue "7" @default.
• W2094402605 hasLocation W20944026051 @default.
• W2094402605 hasLocation W20944026052 @default.
• W2094402605 hasOpenAccess W2094402605 @default.
• W2094402605 hasPrimaryLocation W20944026051 @default.
• W2094402605 hasRelatedWork W1120136794 @default.
• W2094402605 hasRelatedWork W2068407715 @default.
• W2094402605 hasRelatedWork W2259463482 @default.
• W2094402605 hasRelatedWork W2475524488 @default.
• W2094402605 hasRelatedWork W2540369525 @default.
• W2094402605 hasRelatedWork W2738763945 @default.
• W2094402605 hasRelatedWork W3030526979 @default.
• W2094402605 hasRelatedWork W3132139325 @default.
• W2094402605 hasRelatedWork W1933855421 @default.
• W2094402605 hasRelatedWork W3154488723 @default.
• W2094402605 hasVolume "69" @default.

• next