Publikationssprachen der Impact Faktor-Zeitschriften 
und medizinischer Literaturdatenbanken

Winkmann, G.; Schlutius, S.; Schweim, Harald G.

doi:10.1055/s-2002-19715

Cited by 23 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…For this purpose, data was drawn from laboratory and clinical studies published in English, only. The reason for this language restriction was the consideration that English trial reports are more influential than reports published in other languages: English-language journals have a higher mean log impact factor than non-English language journals [ 55 ] and publishing in English appears to favor a high impact factor level and therefore, a high international citation frequency [ 56 ]. In addition, it has been shown that the inclusion of non-English trials may have little effect on summary treatment effect estimates and thus may be assumed as confirmatory of English publications [ 57 , 58 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Do Laboratory Results Concerning High-Viscosity Glass-Ionomers versus Amalgam for Tooth Restorations Indicate Similar Effect Direction and Magnitude than that of Controlled Clinical Trials? - A Meta-Epidemiological Study

Mickenautsch

Yengopal

2015

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundA large percentage of evidence concerning dental interventions is based on laboratory research. The apparent wealth of laboratory evidence is sometimes used as basis for clinical inference and recommendations for daily dental practice. In this study two null-hypotheses are tested: whether trial results from laboratory and controlled clinical trials concerning the comparison of high-viscosity glass-ionomer cements (HVGIC) to amalgam for restorations placed in permanent posterior teeth have: (i) similar effect direction and (ii) similar effect magnitude.Methods7 electronic databases were searched, as well as reference lists. Odds ratios (OR) and Standardised Mean Differences (SMD) with 95% Confidence intervals were computed for extracted dichotomous and continuous data, respectively. Pooled effect estimates for laboratory and clinical data were computed to test for effect direction. Odds ratios were converted into SMDs. SMDs from laboratory and clinical data were statistically compared to test for differences in effect magnitude. The analysed results were further investigated within the context of potential influencing or confounding factors using a Directed acyclic graph.ResultsOf the accepted eight laboratory and nine clinical trials, 13 and 21 datasets could be extracted, respectively. The pooled results of the laboratory datasets were highly statistically significant in favor of amalgam. No statistically significant differences, between HVGICs and amalgam, were identified for clinical data. For effect magnitude, statistically significant differences between clinical and laboratory trial results were found. Both null-hypotheses were rejected.ConclusionLaboratory results concerning high-viscosity glass-ionomers versus amalgam for tooth restorations do not indicate similar effect direction and magnitude than that of controlled clinical trials.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Do Laboratory Results Concerning High-Viscosity Glass-Ionomers versus Amalgam for Tooth Restorations Indicate Similar Effect Direction and Magnitude than that of Controlled Clinical Trials? - A Meta-Epidemiological Study

Mickenautsch

Yengopal

2015

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…On the other hand, for the determination of the numerator every citation to the journal's articles is counted, irrespective of their types, including, for example, editorials or letter to the editor-a clear mismatch between the published items and the cited items. Furthermore, there is a clear bias toward publications in English, including both the journals listed in the Web of Science database and the articles cited (Artus 1996;Winkmann et al 2002).…”

Section: What Is the Journal Impact Factor?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Impact beyond the impact factor

Zupanc

2013

J Comp Physiol A

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The journal impact factor is an annually calculated number for each scientific journal, based on the average number of times its articles published in the two preceding years have been cited. It was originally devised as a tool for librarians and publishers to provide information about the citation performance of a journal as a whole, but over the last few decades it has increasingly been used to assess the quality of specific articles and the research performance of individual investigators, institutions, and countries. In addition to this clear abuse of the journal impact factor, several conceptual and technical issues limit its usability as a measure of journal reputation, especially when journals are compared across different fields. An author's decision regarding the suitability of a scholarly journal for publication should, therefore, be based on the impact that this journal makes in the field of research, rather than on the journal impact factor.

show abstract

“…Eine solche Benachteiligung erfolgt schon durch die Fokussierung auf den Impact−Faktor als alleini− gen Bewertungsmaßstab. Der Impact−Factor bevorzugt englisch− sprachige Zeitschriften insofern, als Spitzenwerte nur durch eine Akkumulation von Zitaten in vielen Journalen entstehen können, und ausschließlich der englische Sprachraum ± anders als der französische, deutsche oder spanische ± eine solche Vielzahl von Zeitschriften bietet [17]. Hier ist noch nicht einmal die Pro− blematik berücksichtigt, dass einige anglophone Zeitschriften nicht englischsprachige Literaturangaben unterbinden [18].…”

Section: Die Heutige Zeit: Globalisierung Auch Im Umgang Mit Wissenunclassified

Wissenschaftliche Originalarbeiten in deutscher Sprache – Ein Anachronismus

Braus¹,

Baethge²

2009

Psychiat Prax

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Originalarbeiten in der PsychiatrieDie Psychiatrie als medizinische Disziplin zählt heute zu den Biowissenschaften und gehört da− mit zu den Fachgebieten, in denen neue For− schungsergebnisse als Originalarbeiten in Fach− zeitschriften vom Fachpublikum wahrgenom− men werden. Diese müssen formalen und inhalt− lichen Kriterien genügen, nachdem die Arbeiten von Fachgutachtern auf die wissenschaftliche Güte, ethische Grundsätze und Originalität über− prüft wurden. Die Ergebnisse werden dabei in das ¹Theoriegebäude" der Hirn(fehl)funktion eingeordnet. Dieses ist vom ¹Theoriegebäude" der Geist−Seele−Funktion abzugrenzen, das von den Geisteswissenschaften gespeist wird. Bei den weiteren Ausführungen sollen Veröffentli− chungen aus dem letztgenannten Bereich nicht beleuchtet werden.

show abstract

Publikationssprachen der Impact Faktor-Zeitschriften und medizinischer Literaturdatenbanken

Cited by 23 publications

References 1 publication

Do Laboratory Results Concerning High-Viscosity Glass-Ionomers versus Amalgam for Tooth Restorations Indicate Similar Effect Direction and Magnitude than that of Controlled Clinical Trials? - A Meta-Epidemiological Study

Do Laboratory Results Concerning High-Viscosity Glass-Ionomers versus Amalgam for Tooth Restorations Indicate Similar Effect Direction and Magnitude than that of Controlled Clinical Trials? - A Meta-Epidemiological Study

Impact beyond the impact factor

Wissenschaftliche Originalarbeiten in deutscher Sprache – Ein Anachronismus

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About