Royle, Pamela, Kandala, Ngianga-Bakwin, Barnard, Katharine D. and Waugh, Norman (2013) Bibliometrics of systematic reviews : analysis of citation rates and journal impact factors. Systematic Reviews, Volume 2 . Article: 74. doi:10.1186/2046-4053-2-74 ISSN 2046-4053.

Preview

Text WRAP_Royle_Bibliometrics_2046-4053-2-74.pdf - Accepted Version Available under License Creative Commons Attribution 2.0.. Download (307Kb) | Preview

Request Changes to record.

Abstract

Background:
Systematic reviews are important for informing clinical practice and health policy. The aim of this study was to examine the bibliometrics of systematic reviews and to determine the amount of variance in citations predicted by the journal impact factor (JIF) alone and combined with several other characteristics.
Methods:
We conducted a bibliometric analysis of 1,261 systematic reviews published in 2008 and the citations to them in the Scopus database from 2008 to June 2012. Potential predictors of the citation impact of the reviews were examined using descriptive, univariate and multiple regression analysis.
Results:
The mean number of citations per review over four years was 26.5 (SD +/-29.9) or 6.6 citations per review per year. The mean JIF of the journals in which the reviews were published was 4.3 (SD +/-4.2). We found that 17% of the reviews accounted for 50% of the total citations and 1.6% of the reviews were not cited. The number of authors was correlated with the number of citations (r = 0.215, P < 0.001). Higher numbers of citations were associated with the following characteristics: first author from the United States (36.5 citations), an ICD-10 chapter heading of Neoplasms (31.8 citations), type of intervention classified as Investigation, Diagnostics or Screening (34.7 citations) and having an international collaboration (32.1 citations). The JIF alone explained more than half of the variation in citations (R2 = 0.59) in univariate analysis. Adjusting for both JIF and type of intervention increased the R2 value to 0.81. Fourteen percent of reviews published in the top quartile of JIFs (>=5.16) received citations in the bottom quartile (eight or fewer), whereas 9% of reviews published in the lowest JIF quartile (<=2.06) received citations in the top quartile (34 or more). Six percent of reviews in journals with no JIF were also in the first quartile of citations.
Conclusions:
The JIF predicted over half of the variation in citations to the systematic reviews. However, the distribution of citations was markedly skewed. Some reviews in journals with low JIFs were well-cited and others in higher JIF journals received relatively few citations; hence the JIF did not accurately represent the number of citations to individual systematic reviews.

Item Type:	Journal Article
Subjects:	R Medicine > R Medicine (General) Z Bibliography. Library Science. Information Resources > ZA Information resources
Divisions:	Faculty of Science, Engineering and Medicine > Medicine > Warwick Medical School > Health Sciences > Population, Evidence & Technologies (PET) > Warwick Evidence Faculty of Science, Engineering and Medicine > Medicine > Warwick Medical School > Health Sciences Faculty of Science, Engineering and Medicine > Medicine > Warwick Medical School
Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH):	Bibliometrics, Scholarly periodicals -- Ratings and rankings, Bibliographical citations, Systematic reviews (Medical research), Evidence-based medicine
Journal or Publication Title:	Systematic Reviews
Publisher:	BioMed Central Ltd.
ISSN:	2046-4053
Official Date:	12 September 2013
Dates:	Date Event 12 September 2013 Published
Volume:	Volume 2
Page Range:	Article: 74
DOI:	10.1186/2046-4053-2-74
Status:	Peer Reviewed
Publication Status:	Published
Access rights to Published version:	Open Access (Creative Commons)
Date of first compliant deposit:	27 January 2016
Date of first compliant Open Access:	27 January 2016
Funder:	University of Warwick

Request changes or add full text files to a record

Repository staff actions (login required)

View Item

Downloads