Impact beyond the impact factor

Zupanc, Günther K.H.

doi:10.1007/s00359-013-0863-1

Cited by 44 publications

(27 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It is in the interest of journals to publish highly cited articles to raise their impact factor (10), as this bibliometric is often viewed as a proxy for journal quality (11,12). Authors often strive to publish in journals with high impact factors because these publications can garner prestige among colleagues and are commonly viewed as favorable indicators of academic performance by institutions (13,14).…”

Section: Evidence-based Practice: Is There An Association Between Stamentioning

confidence: 99%

Is There an Association between STARD Statement Adherence and Citation Rate?

Dilauro¹,

McInnes²,

Korevaar³

et al. 2016

Radiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose To determine if adherence to the Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy (STARD) is associated with postpublication citation rates. Materials and Methods A comprehensive search of PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases was performed to identify published articles that have evaluated adherence of diagnostic accuracy studies to the STARD statement. These were included if the number of STARD items reported ("STARD result") could be obtained for each evaluated study. The date of publication, journal impact factor, and citation rate (citations per day) were extracted for the diagnostic accuracy studies. Univariate correlations were performed to identify any association between STARD result, impact factor, and citation rate. Multivariate regression analysis was performed to explore the effect of impact factor on postpublication citation rates. Results The authors were able to obtain the STARD results for 1002 "original" diagnostic accuracy studies from eight different "STARD evaluation" articles. The median impact factor was 3.97 (interquartile range [IQR]: 2.32-6.21), the median STARD result was 15 of 25 items (IQR: 12-18), and the median citation rate was 0.007 citations per day (IQR: 0.0032-0.017). The authors identified a weak positive correlation between STARD result and citation rate (r = 0.096; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.034, 0.157), a moderate positive correlation between impact factor and citation rate (r = 0.58; 95% CI: 0.535, 0.617), and a weak positive correlation between impact factor and STARD result (r = 0.13; 95% CI: 0.064, 0.186). Multivariate analysis accounting for journal clustering effects revealed that, when impact factor is partialed out, the positive correlation between citation rate and STARD result does not persist (r = 0.029; 95% CI: -0.033, 0.091). Conclusion There is a positive correlation between completeness of reporting, as evaluated with STARD, and citation rate as well as impact factor. When adjusted for impact factor, the positive correlation between completeness of reporting and citation rate does not persist. (©) RSNA, 2016 Online supplemental material is available for this article.

show abstract

Section: Evidence-based Practice: Is There An Association Between Stamentioning

confidence: 99%

Is There an Association between STARD Statement Adherence and Citation Rate?

Dilauro¹,

McInnes²,

Korevaar³

et al. 2016

Radiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The impact factor of a journal is a widely used indicator for evaluating scientific journals (Zupanc, 2014) and could therefore be seen as a way to identify more reliable reviews for decision-making. Impact factors attract heavy criticism (e.g.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Impact factors attract heavy criticism (e.g. Zupanc, 2014) and decision-makers have been advised to exercise caution in basing research evaluation on the journal within which a review is published (Guerrero, 2001;Jarwal et al, 2009). Nevertheless, we considered the relationship between journal impact factor and review reliability in order to inform non-specialists who might consider using journal impact factor as a proxy for selecting more reliable reviews.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The reliability of evidence review methodology in environmental science and conservation

O‘Leary

Kvist

Bayliss

et al. 2016

Environmental Science & Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Given the proliferation of primary research articles, the importance of reliable environmental evidence reviews for informing policy and management decisions is increasing. Although conducting reviews is an efficient method of synthesising the fragmented primary evidence base, reviews that are of poor methodological reliability have the potential to misinform by not accurately reflecting the available evidence base. To assess the current value of evidence reviews for decision-making we appraised a systematic sample of articles published in early 2015 (N=92) using the Collaboration for Environmental Evidence Synthesis Assessment Tool (CEESAT). CEESAT assesses the methodology of policy-relevant evidence reviews according to elements important for objectivity, transparency and comprehensiveness. Overall, reviews performed poorly with a median score of 2.5/39 and a modal score of zero (range 0-30, mean 5.8), and low scores were ubiquitous across subject areas. In general, reviews that applied meta-analytical techniques achieved higher scores than narrative syntheses (median 18.3 and 2.0 respectively), as a result of the latter consistently failing to adequately report methodology or how conclusions were drawn. However, some narrative syntheses achieved high scores, illustrating that the reliability of reviews should be assessed on a case-by-case basis. Given the potential importance of reviews for informing management and policy, as well as research, it is vital that overall methodological reliability is improved. Although the increasing number of systematic reviews and meta-analyses highlight that some progress is being made, our findings suggest little or no improvement in the last decade. To motivate progress, we recommend that an annual assessment of the methodological reliability of evidence reviews be conducted. To better serve the environmental policy and management communities we identify a requirement for independent critical appraisal of review methodology thus enabling decisionmakers to select reviews that are most likely to accurately reflect the evidence base.

show abstract

“…Moreover, journals with high impact factors were considered. High impact factor can be seen as a reliable gauge in this study because mirrors the quality of the journal and its citation frequency (Hendee, Bernstein, & Levine, 2012;Shanta, Pradhan, & Sharma, 2013;Zupanc, 2014). Identified journals with the impact factor above 2.7 are Energy policy, Energy and buildings, Renewable energy, Energy, Renewable and sustainable energy reviews, Applied energy, Clear production, Environmental management.…”

Section: Lesson Learned Review Criteria and Semantic Cluster Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Green Construction Project: A Critical Review of Retrofitting Awarded Green Buildings in Malaysia

Mohd-Rahim

Pirotti

Keshavarzsaleh

et al. 2017

JDBE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Technical-centered issues have gained far more importance in green building construction, however, the role of less technical related issues still have been left untouched or less paid attention. The project management processes and practices can contribute here and this research provides frontiers and boundaries of scope to bridge the technical and engineering areas in green building construction to project management practices and processes. Therefore, the project management researchers will have a broad view of the green building research areas. The study draws attention to investigate a position of project management, which is less associated with engineering and technology in construction, and to represent a framework based upon the case of successfully accomplished buildings. The current contribution and scope of green building, energy and project management are clarified. A semantic clustering analysis of the boundaries is implemented. 51 articles with the high impact factor (above 2.7) are selected and empirically reviewed. A literature synthesis approach is presented. Therefore, the findings are classified, and the assessment of evidence around the topics of energy scenario, green building and retrofitting, and cases of three awarded green buildings in Malaysia are facilitated. Derived from the structuralized empirical review, four core factors of retrofitting are identified: a) Energy efficiency improvement; b) Technological change; c) Organizational/managerial challenges, and d) Behavioural change. The contemplations of findings are suggested to be considered as crucial factors for every retrofitting building can be compared and discussed with respect to each of these categorized factors for enthusiast project management scholars. Green building and retrofitting of the existing green buildings have been a centre of attention for a decade. However, it appears that there is no current study which has been conducted to critically review and empirically study of previous research endeavours in order to define the frontiers and boundaries of the scope of this scientific sphere.

show abstract

Impact beyond the impact factor

Cited by 44 publications

References 11 publications

Is There an Association between STARD Statement Adherence and Citation Rate?

Is There an Association between STARD Statement Adherence and Citation Rate?

The reliability of evidence review methodology in environmental science and conservation

Green Construction Project: A Critical Review of Retrofitting Awarded Green Buildings in Malaysia

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About