Explore the vast range of titles available.

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.

The use of metrics in the evaluation of a researcher’s output is now a common practice and has a decisive influence on their career (metricracy). It is widespread to consider the Journal Impact Factor (JIF) as a means of assessing the quality and significance of a paper. It has been discussed that it is appropriate to use a metric that evaluates each paper based on its citations rather than the journal in which it was published. Other parameters such as the number of years since publication, the number of authors and their position in the author list are also discussed and a formula for scoring each published article is proposed.

Journal Impact Factor (JIF) has been used in assessing scientific journals. Other indices, h- and g-indices and Article Influence Score (AIS), have been developed to overcome some limitations of JIF. The aims of this study were, first, to critically assess the use of JIF and other parameters related to medical education research, and second, to discuss the capacity of these indices in assessing research productivity as well as their utility in academic promotion. The JIF of 16 medical education journals from 2000 to 2011 was examined together with the research evidence about JIF in assessing research outcomes of medical educators. The findings were discussed in light of the nonnumerical criteria often used in academic promotion. In conclusion, JIF was not designed for assessing individual or group research performance, and it seems unsuitable for such purposes. Although the g- and h-indices have demonstrated promising outcomes, further developments are needed for their use as academic promotion criteria. For top academic positions, additional criteria could include leadership, evidence of international impact, and contributions to the advancement of knowledge with regard to medical education.

Journal quality metrics (also referred to as bibliometrics), such as impact factors, are increasingly being used as a measure of researchers’ and educators’ success and prestige. Occupational therapists who submit articles to peer-reviewed journals may face a professional and research dilemma: Do they submit their articles to journals that largely have a professional audience and potentially do not have an impact factor, or do they opt not to publish their research material in occupational therapy–oriented journals? Occupational therapy authors can consider other journal quality metric alternatives, in addition to the impact factor option, including the Eigenfactor Score, Article Influence Score, h-index, SCImago Journal Rank (SJR), Source Normalised Impact per Paper (SNIP), and discipline-specific generated journal quality measures. These other journal quality metrics can be important reference points for occupational therapists who publish and may encourage authors to publish in journals relevant to the discipline. This process, in turn, will build the occupational therapy body of knowledge as well as provide an essential, growing reference source for evidence-based practice.

Eleven authors, 29 patients and an open-label design would not generally be regarded as strong predictors of a publication's citation success, so this one (Grace et al., 2001) probably needs some explaining. I was advised early in my prospective publishing career always to look for “a gap in the market” and in 2001 this short paper probably filled a significant gap in clinical knowledge. It was almost a decade since the first reports had appeared about dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB) being a relatively common cause of dementia in older people, and by 2001 the first iteration of the consensus criteria for DLB diagnosis was starting to be widely used. Clinicians were therefore becoming more confident about recognizing DLB in their clinics, realized that cholinesterase inhibitors (ChEIs) were often useful in symptom control, and wanted to know more about their effects in the longer term. This short paper gave them some useful evidence to support their practice. The lead author, Janet Grace, who was working as my clinical lecturer, had for a couple of years been following up a group of DLB patients whom she had originally entered in an earlier placebo controlled study (McKeith et al., 2000) and was interested in charting their progress with the ready help of U.K. colleagues in Essex, Manchester, Southampton and Nottingham. Although the 21 patients who remained on treatment did show some evidence of disease progression after two years, neither their Mini-mental State Examination (MMSE) scores nor their Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI) scores were significantly worse than at baseline. And reassuringly their parkinsonism had not worsened, which was a common concern at that time.

The burgeoning trend of pursuing publication in a leading journal, as a benchmark of standard doctoral research, has become an appealing expectation of early-stage doctoral researchers (ESDR). However, recent pedagogical studies showed limited attention to exploring the dynamic relations between doctoral education and the academic publication process. Our aim was to investigate and understand (if and) how this intricately intertwined relation contributes to the scholarly publication practice in doctoral education from an individual and institutional context. We used a duo-analytic autoethnography approach and presented a comprehensive narrative based on the authors’ self-reflections by using a range of data sources namely research diaries, journaling, seminars, training courses, online forum talking, and web-based open sources. Through our autoethnographic narrative, we found five key aspects associated with publication practices in doctoral programs: quality-quantity debate, authorship dilemma, journal selection process, publishing in leading journals, and publication process. We additionally mapped out a conclusive publication cycle to demonstrate how dominant structural factors of the doctoral program subsequently affect the publication process, influence ESDR’s decision-making, and potentially reinforce academic pressures. Based on our study findings, we concluded that doctoral education should remain research intensive rather than a simplified way of obtaining a higher academic qualification.

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.

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.