Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2018 Apr;6(7):114.
doi: 10.21037/atm.2018.03.02.

Impact factors of orthopaedic journals between 2010 and 2016: trends and comparisons with other surgical specialties

Nequesha S Mohamed  1 , Chukwuweike U Gwam  1 , Jennifer I Etcheson  1 , Nicole E George  1 , Nicolas S Piuzzi  2 , Samuel Rosas  3 , Nipun Sohdi  2 , Assem A Sultan  2 , Anton Khlopas  2 , Ronald E Delanois  1
Affiliations

Impact factors of orthopaedic journals between 2010 and 2016: trends and comparisons with other surgical specialties

Nequesha S Mohamed et al. Ann Transl Med. 2018 Apr.

Abstract

Background: With increased legislative efforts to utilize evidence-based medicine as a guide for clinical practice, orthopaedists feel increasing pressure to publish research in higher-quality journals that reach a larger audience. Impact factor (IF) is used to quantify and rank journal apparent quality, and is the most standardized method for journal appraisal. In this study, we assessed the trends for IF among orthopaedic journals and compared these trends to those of medicine and general surgery journals.

Methods: Journal IFs from Journal Citation Reports (JCR) between the years 2010 to 2016 were obtained and analyzed for trends. Only journals that were considered primarily orthopaedic journals were included. The top 10 journals by IF in both internal medicine and surgery were also included for comparison. Each journal was analyzed by IF, and trends across time were noted. The differences in mean IF between orthopaedic specialty groups were analyzed using an independent samples t-test.

Results: The mean IF of orthopaedic increased from 1.4 (range, 0.0-3.9) in 2010 to 1.9 (range, 0.5-5.7) in 2016. In 2016, the percentage of English journals increased to 87.3% (n=48), while the percentage of journals published in the United States was 47.3% (n=26). There was a significant difference between the IF of journals published in English and those published in other languages (P=0.004). The mean IF of both general and specialized orthopaedic journals increased from 2010 to 2016, but the difference was nonsignificant. The mean IF of the top 10 journals in both surgery and internal medicine also increased from 2010 to 2016, but the increase was also nonsignificant.

Conclusions: Overall, the mean IF for peer-reviewed orthopaedic journals has increased in the past years, as has the number of journals. English journals from the United States continue to have the largest impact when compared to non-English journals and journals from outside the United States. Future studies should aim to better qualify journal impact, while limiting confounders such as self-citation.

Keywords: Orthopaedics; impact factor (IF); research.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of Interest: The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Impact factor equation.
Figure 2
Figure 2
2016 impact factors of the journals listed in the JCR deemed to be primarily orthopaedic journals (as per Table 1), listed by accepted JCR abbreviation. JCR, Journal Citation Report.
Figure 3
Figure 3
2010 impact factors of the journals listed in the JCR deemed to be primarily orthopaedic journals (as per Table 1), listed by accepted JCR abbreviation. JCR, Journal Citation Report.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Change in mean impact factor of orthopaedic journals between 2010 and 2016. Orthopaedic journals (as per Table 1), listed by accepted JCR abbreviation. JCR, Journal Citation Report.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Change in impact factor from 2010 to 2016 for orthopaedic journals.
Figure 6
Figure 6
Change in mean impact factor of orthopaedic, internal medicine, and surgery journals from 2010 to 2016.
Figure 7
Figure 7
Change in mean impact factor of internal medicine and surgery journals from 2010 to 2016 (IM: P=0.202; surgery: P=0.573). IM, internal medicine.
Figure 8
Figure 8
Change in impact factor from 2010 to 2016 for internal medicine and surgery journals.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Bourdeau M, Winter R, Marshall R. Opportunities for improving legislative public health policy in Rhode Island through evidence-based education. R I Med J (2013) 2013;96:29-31. - PubMed
    1. Harolds JA, Merrill JK. Evidence-based medicine and health care reform legislation. Clin Nucl Med 2010;35:65. 10.1097/RLU.0b013e3181cf3963 - DOI - PubMed
    1. InCites https://jcr-incites-thomsonreuters-com.ccmain.ohionet.org/JCRJournalHome...
    1. Garfield E. Citation indexes for science; a new dimension in documentation through association of ideas. Science 1955;122:108-11. 10.1126/science.122.3159.108 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Isohanni M. Peer review--still the well-functioning quality control and enhancer in scientific research. Acta Psychiatr Scand 2005;112:165-6. 10.1111/j.1600-0447.2005.00601.x - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources