Explore the vast range of titles available.

We analyzed how often and in what ways the Journal Impact Factor (JIF) is currently used in review, promotion, and tenure (RPT) documents of a representative sample of universities from the United States and Canada. 40% of research-intensive institutions and 18% of master’s institutions mentioned the JIF, or closely related terms. Of the institutions that mentioned the JIF, 87% supported its use in at least one of their RPT documents, 13% expressed caution about its use, and none heavily criticized it or prohibited its use. Furthermore, 63% of institutions that mentioned the JIF associated the metric with quality, 40% with impact, importance, or significance, and 20% with prestige, reputation, or status. We conclude that use of the JIF is encouraged in RPT evaluations, especially at research-intensive universities, and that there is work to be done to avoid the potential misuse of metrics like the JIF.

Traditionally, the success of a researcher is assessed by the number of publications he or she publishes in peer-reviewed, indexed, high impact journals. This essential yardstick, often referred to as the impact of a specific researcher, is assessed through the use of various metrics. While researchers may be acquainted with such matrices, many do not know how to use them to enhance their careers. In addition to these metrics, a number of other factors should be taken into consideration to objectively evaluate a scientist's profile as a researcher and academician. Moreover, each metric has its own limitations that need to be considered when selecting an appropriate metric for evaluation. This paper provides a broad overview of the wide array of metrics currently in use in academia and research. Popular metrics are discussed and defined, including traditional metrics and article-level metrics, some of which are applied to researchers for a greater understanding of a particular concept, including varicocele that is the thematic area of this Special Issue of Asian Journal of Andrology. We recommend the combined use of quantitative and qualitative evaluation using judiciously selected metrics for a more objective assessment of scholarly output and research impact.

Nitrous oxide (N2O) is a long-lived greenhouse gas that contributes to global warming. Emissions of N2O mainly stem from agricultural soils. This review highlights the principal factors from peer-reviewed literature affecting N2O emissions from agricultural soils, by grouping the factors into three categories: environmental, management and measurement. Within these categories, each impact factor is explained in detail and its influence on N2O emissions from the soil is summarized. It is also shown how each impact factor influences other impact factors. Process-based simulation models used for estimating N2O emissions are reviewed regarding their ability to consider the impact factors in simulating N2O. The model strengths and weaknesses in simulating N2O emissions from managed soils are summarized. Finally, three selected process-based simulation models (Daily Century (DAYCENT), DeNitrification-DeComposition (DNDC), and Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT)) are discussed that are widely used to simulate N2O emissions from cropping systems. Their ability to simulate N2O emissions is evaluated by describing the model components that are relevant to N2O processes and their representation in the model.

The authors evaluate the quality of research reported in major journals in social-personality psychology by ranking those journals with respect to their N-pact Factors (NF)-the statistical power of the empirical studies they publish to detect typical effect sizes. Power is a particularly important attribute for evaluating research quality because, relative to studies that have low power, studies that have high power are more likely to (a) to provide accurate estimates of effects, (b) to produce literatures with low false positive rates, and (c) to lead to replicable findings. The authors show that the average sample size in social-personality research is 104 and that the power to detect the typical effect size in the field is approximately 50%. Moreover, they show that there is considerable variation among journals in sample sizes and power of the studies they publish, with some journals consistently publishing higher power studies than others. The authors hope that these rankings will be of use to authors who are choosing where to submit their best work, provide hiring and promotion committees with a superior way of quantifying journal quality, and encourage competition among journals to improve their NF rankings.

The lack of predictability of citation-based measures frequently used to gauge impact, from impact factors to short-term citations, raises a fundamental question: Is there long-term predictability in citation patterns? Here, we derive a mechanistic model for the citation dynamics of individual papers, allowing us to collapse the citation histories of papers from different journals and disciplines into a single curve, indicating that all papers tend to follow the same universal temporal pattern. The observed patterns not only help us uncover basic mechanisms that govern scientific impact but also offer reliable measures of influence that may have potential policy implications.

Ambio is a leading journal in environmental science and policy, sustainable development, and human-environment interactions. The paper at hand aims to run a bibliometric analysis to inspect the main publications features of Ambio in Science Citation Index Expanded SCI-EXPANDED. For this scope, a bibliometric survey has been carried out to investigate the journal’s historic characteristics in the Web of Science (WoS) categories of environmental sciences and environmental engineering for Ambio from 1980 to 2019. These are the categories for which the journal has been indexed throughout the indexed time frame. The paper proposes technical and methodological innovations, including improvements in the methods and original characteristics analyzed. Documents published in Ambio were searched out from SCI-EXPANDED. Six publication indicators were applied to evaluate the publication performance of countries, institutes, and authors. Three citation indicators were used to compare publications. As a parameter, the journal impact factor contributor was applied to compare the most frequently cited publications. The journal impact factor contributing publications were also discussed. Results show that Sweden ranked top in six publication indicators and that the top three productive institutes were located in Sweden. A low percentage of productive authors emerged as a journal impact factor contributor. Similarly, a low relationship between the IF contributing publications and the highly cited publications was also found. Less than half of the top 100 highly cited publications in Ambio did not lie within the high impact in most the recent year of 2019. Three members of the advisory board in Ambio were the main productive authors. T.V. Callaghan contributed to most of the publications while papers published by J. Rockstrom as first and corresponding author contributed the most to the journal impact factor. An article authored by Steffen et al. ( 2007 ) scored the highest total citations in 2019.

Research is a highly competitive profession where evaluation plays a central role; journals are ranked and individuals are evaluated based on their publication number, the number of times they are cited and their h -index. Yet such evaluations are often done in inappropriate ways that are damaging to individual careers, particularly for young scholars, and to the profession. Furthermore, as with all indices, people can play games to better their scores. This has resulted in the incentive structure of science increasingly mimicking economic principles, but rather than a monetary gain, the incentive is a higher score. To ensure a diversity of cultural perspectives and individual experiences, we gathered a team of academics in the fields of ecology and evolution from around the world and at different career stages. We first examine how authorship, h -index of individuals and journal impact factors are being used and abused. Second, we speculate on the consequences of the continued use of these metrics with the hope of sparking discussions that will help our fields move in a positive direction. We would like to see changes in the incentive systems, rewarding quality research and guaranteeing transparency. Senior faculty should establish the ethical standards, mentoring practices and institutional evaluation criteria to create the needed changes.

Objective To examine how poor reporting and inadequate methods for key methodological features in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have changed over the past three decades.Design Mapping of trials included in Cochrane reviews.Data sources Data from RCTs included in all Cochrane reviews published between March 2011 and September 2014 reporting an evaluation of the Cochrane risk of bias items: sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding, and incomplete outcome data.Data extraction For each RCT, we extracted consensus on risk of bias made by the review authors and identified the primary reference to extract publication year and journal. We matched journal names with Journal Citation Reports to get 2014 impact factors.Main outcomes measures We considered the proportions of trials rated by review authors at unclear and high risk of bias as surrogates for poor reporting and inadequate methods, respectively.Results We analysed 20 920 RCTs (from 2001 reviews) published in 3136 journals. The proportion of trials with unclear risk of bias was 48.7% for sequence generation and 57.5% for allocation concealment; the proportion of those with high risk of bias was 4.0% and 7.2%, respectively. For blinding and incomplete outcome data, 30.6% and 24.7% of trials were at unclear risk and 33.1% and 17.1% were at high risk, respectively. Higher journal impact factor was associated with a lower proportion of trials at unclear or high risk of bias. The proportion of trials at unclear risk of bias decreased over time, especially for sequence generation, which fell from 69.1% in 1986-1990 to 31.2% in 2011-14 and for allocation concealment (70.1% to 44.6%). After excluding trials at unclear risk of bias, use of inadequate methods also decreased over time: from 14.8% to 4.6% for sequence generation and from 32.7% to 11.6% for allocation concealment.Conclusions Poor reporting and inadequate methods have decreased over time, especially for sequence generation and allocation concealment. But more could be done, especially in lower impact factor journals.

How does scientific research affect the world around us? Being able to answer this question is of great importance in order to appropriately channel efforts and resources in science. The impact by scientists in academia is currently measured by citation based metrics such as h-index, i-index and citation counts. These academic metrics aim to represent the dissemination of knowledge among scientists rather than the impact of the research on the wider world. In this work we are interested in measuring scientific impact beyond academia, on the economy, society, health and legislation (comprehensive impact). Indeed scientists are asked to demonstrate evidence of such comprehensive impact by authoring case studies in the context of the Research Excellence Framework (REF). We first investigate the extent to which existing citation based metrics can be indicative of comprehensive impact. We have collected all recent REF impact case studies from 2014 and we have linked these to papers in citation networks that we constructed and derived from CiteSeerX, arXiv and PubMed Central using a number of text processing and information retrieval techniques. We have demonstrated that existing citation-based metrics for impact measurement do not correlate well with REF impact results. We also consider metrics of online attention surrounding scientific works, such as those provided by the Altmetric API. We argue that in order to be able to evaluate wider non-academic impact we need to mine information from a much wider set of resources, including social media posts, press releases, news articles and political debates stemming from academic work. We also provide our data as a free and reusable collection for further analysis, including the PubMed citation network and the correspondence between REF case studies, grant applications and the academic literature.

Altmetrics is a newer approach that looks not only at citation counts, but also considers how many databases refer to the source article, what the number of article views or downloads is, and if the article is mentioned in the news media. Should a researcher get ''extra points'' for publishing in a high-impact journal compared to a lower-impact one? Because finding downstream citations by hand is tedious and costly, automated systems are now widely used. [...]there are technical questions, such as, when aggregating scores to produce an average for one researcher, how can automated systems handle researchers with identical names? SCIENTOMETRICS A related field is scientometrics. Possible roles include helping find downstream citations, creating thesauri (taxonomies) to judge cross-discipline impact and to improve automated searches, helping to find the most appropriate score source, and helping to interpret different scoring models.