Türk Üroloji Dergisinde Mart 2007 ve Aralık 2013 Tarihleri arasında Yayımlanan Makalelerin Atıf Analizlerinin Değerlendirilmesi

Year 2019, Volume: 14 Issue: 1, 31 - 36, 01.02.2019

Mustafa Zafer Temiz , Zülfü Sertkaya

https://doi.org/10.33719/yud.531643

Abstract

Amaç: Türk Üroloji Dergisinin (TÜD) son yıllardaki bilimsel atıf analizinin yapılması, makale özelliklerinin atıf karakteristikleri üzerine olan etkileri ve dergi impakt faktörünün ortaya çıkarılması amaçlandı.

Gereç ve Yöntemler: Mart 2007 ve Aralık 2013 tarihleri arasında TÜD’ de yayımlanan makaleler çalışmaya dahil edildi. Makele tipleri, makale alt bilim dalları ve makalelerin yayımlandığı kurumların coğrafi bölgeleri kaydedildi. Atıf analizleri Google Scholar veri tabanı kullanılarak gerçekleştirildi. Atıflar ulusal ve uluslararası olarak iki gruba ayrıldı. Makalalelerin tipi, alt bilim dalı ve coğrafi bölgelerine göre ayrı ayrı atıf oranları hesaplanarak, TÜD’ nin 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 ve 2013 yıllarındaki impakt faktörleri belirlendi.

Bulgular: Çalışmaya dahil edilen 495 makalenin atıf analizi sonrasında 250’ si (%74.2) ulusal olmak üzere toplam 292 atıf alındığı belirlendi. En yüksek atıf oranları orijinal araştırma, endoüroloji alt bilim dalı ve Ege bölgesi kaynaklı makalelerde izlendi (Sırasıyla, 0.768, 0.936 ve 0.823). En yüksek impakt faktör 2011 yılında 0.147, en düşüğü ise 2012 yılında 0.027 olarak saptandı.

Sonuç: Üroloji alanında uluslararası bir tıp dergisi olan TÜD’ nin, henüz kısıtlı atıf oranlarına sahip olduğu saptandı. İlerleyen yıllarda olası daha yüksek atıf analizi sonuçları için Derginin PubMed Central and PubMed veritabanlarında indekslenmesinden sonra yapılacak çalışmalar gerekmektedir. 

Keywords

Analiz , Bibliometri , Türk Üroloji Dergisi

Citation Analysis of the Articles Published in the Turkish Journal of Urology Between March 2007 and December 2013

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate the citation rates and impact factor of Turkish Journal of Urology (TJU) in the recent years with assessing the im- pact of some differences on citation characteristics, such as article type, urological subspecialty of the article and article region.

Material and Methods: All of the articles published in the TJU between March 2007 and December 2013 were included into the study. Types of articles, related urological subspecialty of articles and institutional regions of the authors were recorded. The citation counts of all articles were analyzed by using Google Scholar. Citations were also categorized as national and international. Citation rates were separetly calculated ac- cording to article types (such as original research, review, etc.), related urological subspecialty of articles and intuitional regions of the authors. Im- pact factors of the TJU were also determined in 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013.

Results: A total of 495 articles were included into the study. Total citation counts were detected as 292, 250 of which (74.2%) were national. Highest citation rates were in original research articles, articles about endourology and articles submitted from the Aegean Region of Turkey (0.768, 0.936 and 0.823, respectively). The highest IF was determined in 2011 as 0.147 whereas the lowest was 0.027 in 2012.

Conclusions: TJU is an international journal of urology and it has relatively limited citation rates up to now. Further studies must be carried on to assess the citation rates of the journal after indexing in PubMed Central and PubMed. 

Keywords

Analysis , Bibliometrics , Turkish , Journal , Urology

References

• 1. Yi-Luen Do E. Afterword Why Peer Review Journals? IJAC 2003; 1:253-65.
• 2. Seglen PO. Citations and journal impact factors: question- able indicators of research quality. Allergy 1997; 52:1050-6.
• 3. Lee KP, Schotland M, Bacchetti P, et al. Association of journal quality indicators with methodological quality of clinical research articles. JAMA 2002; 287:2805-8.
• 4. Meho LI. The rise and rise of citation analysis. Phys World 2007; 20:32–6.
• 5. Zarifmahmoudi L, Kianifar HR, Sadeghi R. Citation Analy- sis of Iranian Journal of Basic Medical Sciences in ISI Web of Knowledge, Scopus, and Google Scholar. Iran J Basic Med Sci 2013;16:1027-30.
• 6. van Eck NJ, Waltman L, van Raan AF, et al. Citation Analysis May Severely Underestimate the Impact of Clinical Re- search as Compared to Basic Research. PLoS One. 2013; 8: e62395. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0062395.
• 7. Garfield, E. Journal impact factor: a brief review. CMAJ 1999; 161:979-80.
• 8. Glänzel W, Moed HF. Journal impact measures in bliometric research. Scientometrics 2002; 53: 171–193
• 9. Monastersky R. The number that’s devouring science. Chron. Higher Educ 2005; 52: 12.
• 10. Foster WR. Impact factor as the best operational measure of medical journals. Lancet 1999; 346:1301.
• 11. Tsay MY. The relationship between journal use in a medical library and citation use. Bull Med Libr Assoc 1998; 86:39.
• 12. Saha S, Saint S, Christakis DA. Impact factor: a valid mea- sure of journal quality? J Med Libr Assoc 2003; 91: 42–6.
• 13. Arnold DN, Fowler KK. Nefarious Numbers. Notices Amer. Math. Soc 2011; 58:434-7.
• 14. Garfield E. The Impact Factor. Originally published in the Current Contents print editions June 20,1994. http://scientific.thomson.com/knowtrend/essays/journalcitationreports/impactfactor.
• 15. Khaled M. The disaster of the impact factor. Sci Eng Ethics 2015; 21:139-42.
• 16. Seglen PO. Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research. BMJ 1997; 314:498–502.
• 17. Favaloro EJ. Measuring the quality of journals and journal articles: the impact factor tells but a portion of the story. Semin Thromb Hemost 2008; 34:7-25.
• 18. Barbui C, Cipriani A, Malvini L, et al. Validity of the impact factor of journals as a measure of randomized controlled trial quality. J Clin Psychiatry 2006; 67:37-40.
• 19. European Association of Science Editors (EASE) Statement on Inappropriate Use of Impact Factors”. http://www.ease. org.uk/sites/default/files/ease_statement_ifs_final.pdf, 2012).
• 20. Hoeffel C. Journal impact factors [letter]. Allergy 1998; 53:1225.
• 21. Stringer MJ, Sales-Pardo M, Nunes Amaral LA. Statistical validation of a global model for the distribution of the ultimate number of citations accrued by papers published in a scientific journal. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol 2010;61:1377–85.
• 22. Kondziolka D. Citation measures in stereotactic radiosurgery: publication across a discipline. Stereotact Funct Neurosurg 2011; 89:56–61.
• 23. Hennessey K, Afshar K, MacNeily AE. The top 100 cited articles in urology. Can Urol Assoc J 2009; 3: 293–302.
• 24. Nason GJ, Tareen F, Mortell A.The top 100 cited articles in urology: An update. Can Urol Assoc J 2013; 7:16-24.
• 25. Huh S. Citation Analysis of the Korean Journal of Urology From Web of Science, Scopus, Korean Medical Citation Index, KoreaMed Synapse, and Google Scholar. Korean J Urol 2013; 54:220-8.