1000 resultados para Fator de impacto de revistas
Resumo:
The impact factor of scientific journals has been used to evaluate them, as well as the quality of scientific research. This parameter was recently used by CAPES as an important criterion for the evaluation of Brazilian postgraduate courses. The main objective of this paper is to show how impact factor is calculated and to discuss its importance and limitations, with special emphasis on chemistry journals.
Resumo:
OBJETIVO: Avaliar a produção científica brasileira, no ano de 2005, nas 20 revistas de psiquiatria com maior fator de impacto (FI) segundo o Journal of Citation Report (JCR), 2004. MÉTODOS: Do total de 90 periódicos com FI variando de 11,207 até 0,13, selecionamos todos os artigos dos periódicos com FI acima do percentil 75 (n = 20). Avaliamos, entre esses artigos, quantos apresentavam pelo menos um autor brasileiro, quantos eram compostos por equipe exclusivamente brasileira ou tinham pelo menos o primeiro autor e/ou o autor sênior filiado à instituição nacional. Avaliamos também a respectiva distribuição das publicações por estados de acordo com a instituição de filiação do(s) autor(es). RESULTADOS: Entre 4.859 artigos avaliados, 54 (1,11%) tinham pelo menos um autor com afiliação a instituição brasileira e 22 tinham autor sênior brasileiro, excluindo-se as 32 publicações compostas exclusivamente por pesquisadores brasileiros. Ao se determinar a distribuição, por estados, da instituição de pesquisa à qual está(ão) vinculado(s) o(s) autor(res) brasileiro(s), São Paulo, com 34 publicações (55,73%), ficou na primeira posição, com predominância absoluta do eixo Sudeste-Sul (96,72%). CONCLUSÃO: Apesar de as publicações brasileiras em psiquiatria terem apresentado aparente crescimento quantitativo e qualitativo, a produção científica da área é ainda pequena e altamente concentrada em alguns poucos estados.
O fator de impacto do ISI e a avaliação da produção científica: aspectos conceituais e metodológicos
Resumo:
Aborda os conceitos e os métodos relacionados com o uso do fator de impacto (FI) do Institute for Scientific Information para avaliação da produção científica publicada em periódicos. Resgata a história do FI, desde sua formulação inicial até tornar-se objeto de inúmeras investigações sobre as diferenças nos valores do indicador nas várias áreas do conhecimento. Destaca que as variáveis que apresentam a maior influência sobre o FI são a densidade e o ritmo de obsolescência dos periódicos. Trata das abordagens sincrônicas e diacrônicas de medir a obsolescência da literatura, como o índice de citação imediata, a meia-vida das citações e o estudo da idade de referências citadas. Conclui com reflexões sobre o sistema de avaliação científica brasileiro e o papel do SciELO na formulação de indicadores bibliométricos.
Resumo:
Resumen tomado de la publicaci??n
Resumo:
[EN]This paper proposes an alternative bibliometric indicator for evaluating scholarly journals based on the percentage of highly cited articles in a journal. It compares such an index with the impact factor and the h-index by using different time windows and levels of citation that can determine when a document can be considered as highly cited compared to others of the same year and discipline. The main outcome of this comparison suggests that the best index for obtaining data distributions that are comparable between scientific fields is by taking the 20% citation percentile over a three-year time frame for considering citations.
Resumo:
PURPOSE: To compare clinical trials published in Brazilian journals of ophthalmology and in foreign journals of ophthalmology with respect to the number of citations and the quality of reporting [by applying the Consolidated Standards for Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement writing standards]. METHODS: The sample of this systematic review comprised the two Brazilian journals of ophthalmology indexed at Science Citation Index Expanded and six of the foreign journals of ophthalmology with highest Impact Factor® according ISI. All clinical trials (CTs) published from January 2009 to December 2010 at the Brazilians journals and a 1:1 randomized sample of the foreign journals were included. The primary outcome was the number of citations through the end of 2011. Subgroup analysis included language. The secondary outcome included likelihood of citation (cited at least once versus no citation), and presence or absence of CONSORT statement indicators. RESULTS: The citation counts were statistically significantly higher (P<0.001) in the Foreign Group (10.50) compared with the Brazilian Group (0.45). The likelihood citation was statistically significantly higher (P<0.001) in the Foreign Group (20/20 - 100%) compared with the Brazilian Group (8/20 - 40%). The subgroup analysis of the language influence in Brazilian articles showed that the citation counts were statistically significantly higher in the papers published in English (P<0.04). Of 37 possible CONSORT items, the mean for the Foreign Group was 20.55 and for the Brazilian Group was 13.65 (P<0.003). CONCLUSION: The number of citations and the quality of reporting of clinical trials in Brazilian journals of ophthalmology still are low when compared with the foreign journals of ophthalmology with highest Impact Factor®.
Resumo:
PURPOSE: To determine the association between language and number of citations of ophthalmology articles published in Brazilian journals. METHODS: This study was a systematic review. Original articles were identified by review of documents published at the two Brazilian ophthalmology journals indexed at Science Citation Index Expanded - SCIE [Arquivos Brasileiros de Oftalmologia (ABO) and Revista Brasileira de Oftalmologia (RBO)]. All document types (articles and reviews) listed at SCIE in English (English Group) or in Portuguese (Portuguese Group) from January 1, 2008 to December 31, 2009 were included, except: editorial materials; corrections; letters; and biographical items. The primary outcome was the number of citations through the end of second year after publication date. Subgroup analysis included likelihood of citation (cited at least once versus no citation), journal, and year of publication. RESULTS: The search at the web of science revealed 382 articles [107 (28%) in the English Group and 275 (72%) in the Portuguese Group]. Of those, 297 (77.7%) were published at the ABO and 85 (23.3%) at the RBO. The citation counts were statistically significantly higher (P<0.001) in the English Group (1.51 - SD 1.98 - range 0 to 11) compared with the Portuguese Group (0.57 - SD 1.06 - range 0 to 7). The likelihood citation was statistically significant higher (P<0.001) in the English Group (70/107 - 65.4%) compared with the Portuguese Group (89/275 - 32.7%). There were more articles published in English at the ABO (98/297 - 32.9%) than at the RBO (9/85 - 10.6%) [P<0.001]. There were no significant difference (P=0.967) at the proportion of articles published in English at the years 2008 (48/172 - 27.9%) and 2009 (59/210 - 28.1%). CONCLUSION: The number of citations of articles published in Portuguese at Brazilian ophthalmology journals is lower than the published in English. The results of this study suggest that the editorial boards should strongly encourage the authors to adopt English as the main language in their future articles.
Resumo:
Pós-graduação em Bases Gerais da Cirurgia - FMB
Resumo:
Pós-graduação em Ciência da Informação - FFC