Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Protein expression and significance of VEGF, EGFR and MMP-9 in non-small cell lung carcinomas.

Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP·2011
Same author

Bilirubin attenuates bufadienolide-induced ventricular arrhythmias and cardiac dysfunction in guinea-pigs by reducing elevated intracellular Na(+) levels.

Cardiovascular toxicology·2011
Same author

Parental knowledge regarding lifelong congenital cardiac care.

Pediatrics·2011
Same author

RING domain mutations uncouple TRIM5α restriction of HIV-1 from inhibition of reverse transcription and acceleration of uncoating.

Journal of virology·2011
Same author

Applied force provides insight into transcriptional pausing and its modulation by transcription factor NusA.

Molecular cell·2011
Same author

[Remote monitoring of home-based noninvasive ventilation in children with obstructive sleep apnea-hypopnea syndrome and concomitant risk factors].

Zhonghua er bi yan hou tou jing wai ke za zhi = Chinese journal of otorhinolaryngology head and neck surgery·2011

Related Experiment Video

Updated: Mar 24, 2026

Comparing Bibliometric Analysis Using PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science Databases
05:02

Comparing Bibliometric Analysis Using PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science Databases

Published on: October 24, 2019

34.3K

Journal Impact Factor: Do the Numerator and Denominator Need Correction?

Xue-Li Liu1,2, Shuang-Shuang Gai2,3, Jing Zhou2,3

  • 1Henan Research Center for Science Journals, Xinxiang Medical University, Xinxiang, Henan Province, China.

Plos One
|March 16, 2016
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Researchers developed five corrective impact factors (IFs) to address document type inconsistencies. Correcting IFs proved valuable for ophthalmology journals but not for mathematics journals, suggesting disciplinary differences in IF utility.

More Related Videos

Automated Quantification and Analysis of Cell Counting Procedures Using ImageJ Plugins
11:01

Automated Quantification and Analysis of Cell Counting Procedures Using ImageJ Plugins

Published on: November 17, 2016

49.4K
The Optical Fractionator Technique to Estimate Cell Numbers in a Rat Model of Electroconvulsive Therapy
07:55

The Optical Fractionator Technique to Estimate Cell Numbers in a Rat Model of Electroconvulsive Therapy

Published on: July 9, 2017

12.2K

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: Mar 24, 2026

Comparing Bibliometric Analysis Using PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science Databases
05:02

Comparing Bibliometric Analysis Using PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science Databases

Published on: October 24, 2019

34.3K
Automated Quantification and Analysis of Cell Counting Procedures Using ImageJ Plugins
11:01

Automated Quantification and Analysis of Cell Counting Procedures Using ImageJ Plugins

Published on: November 17, 2016

49.4K
The Optical Fractionator Technique to Estimate Cell Numbers in a Rat Model of Electroconvulsive Therapy
07:55

The Optical Fractionator Technique to Estimate Cell Numbers in a Rat Model of Electroconvulsive Therapy

Published on: July 9, 2017

12.2K

Area of Science:

  • Bibliometrics
  • Scholarly Communication
  • Journal Evaluation

Background:

  • Traditional impact factor (IF) formula has document type incongruence between numerator and denominator.
  • This incongruence may affect the accuracy of journal evaluation.
  • Need for refined metrics to better reflect a journal's true impact.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To propose and evaluate five adjusted impact factor formulas.
  • To assess the effectiveness of these corrective IFs in journal evaluation.
  • To compare the performance of corrective IFs against the traditional IF in different scientific fields.

Main Methods:

  • Developed five new impact factor formulas: IFTotal/Total, IFTotal/AREL, IFAR/AR, IFAREL/AR, and IFAREL/AREL.
  • Conducted a survey of researchers in ophthalmology and mathematics to establish expert-perceived journal impact rankings.
  • Analyzed correlations between traditional IF, corrective IFs, and expert rankings to evaluate their effectiveness.

Main Results:

  • Corrective IFs demonstrated superior journal evaluation effects compared to traditional IF in ophthalmology.
  • IFAR/AR showed the best corrective effect in ophthalmology, followed by IFAREL/AR, IFTotal/Total, IFTotal/AREL, and IFAREL/AREL.
  • Traditional IF outperformed the five corrective IFs in mathematics, with IFTotal/Total showing the best performance among the corrective metrics.

Conclusions:

  • The necessity of impact factor correction varies across scientific disciplines.
  • Correcting the IF for ophthalmology journals is potentially valuable.
  • Impact factor correction appears to be largely meaningless for mathematics journals.