Comparison of Impact Factor of Technical Journals of Iran and Selected Countries*

Document Type : Original Article

Authors
Maryam Okhovati 1
Mahmood Nekoueimoghadam 2
Mohammadreza Amiresmaili 3
Mina Moradzadeh 4
Mahmood Moosazadeh 5
1 Assistant Professor, Library and Information Sciences, Medical Informatics Research Center, School of Management and Medical Information, Kerman University of Medical Sciences, Kerman, Iran
2 Associate Professor, Health Care Management, Research Center for Health Services Management, School of Management and Medical Information, Kerman University of Medical Sciences, Kerman, Iran
3 Assistant Professor, Health Care Management, Medical Informatics Research Center, School of Management and Medical Information, Kerman University of Medical Sciences, Kerman, Iran
4 MSc Student, Library and Medical Information, Student Research Committee, School of Management and Medical Information, Kerman University of Medical Sciences, Kerman, Iran
5 PhD Candidate, Epidemiology, Research Center for Modeling in Health, Institute of Futures Studies in Health, Kerman University of Medical Sciences, Kerman, Iran (Corresponding Author) Email: mmoosazadeh1351@gmail.com
Abstract
Introduction: Obtaining top academic position among countries of the Middle East and having advanced
knowledge and ability to produce knowledge are among the most important goals set in Iran’s twenty-year
vision. Present study aimed to determine impact factor of specialized and technical journals of Iran and to
compare with selected countries and provide appropriate recommendation.
Methods: In this comparative study which was conducted through cross-sectional method in winter 2012,
impact factor and quantitative indices of some Iranian published journals were compared with journals of
twenty five countries. Countries were selected based on Islamic Republic of Iran’s vision. A checklist was
used for data collection whose validity was confirmed using expert opinion and its reliability was 100%;
because the variables were objective and consensus was present between two researchers on data
extraction. Required data were extracted from 2009 and 2010 Journal Citation Reports® (JCR). Mean of
Impact factor was obtained for each country using descriptive statistics. Finally, the countries were ranked
based on total scores acquired by each country.
Results: Twenty five studied countries had 1440 and 1507 specialized and technical journals with 87
(6.04%) and 124 (8.23%) ISI indexed in 2009 and 2010, respectively. Growth of published journal in Iran,
Turkey and Pakistan was 9.7%, 4.5% and 2.1%, respectively in 2010 compared to 2009; however, this
number for 2010 ISI indexed journals for Armenia, Turkey, Pakistan and Iran was 200%, 58.1%, 57.1%
and 36%, respectively.
Conclusion: Turkey, Iran and Pakistan with 20, 14 and 9 points, respectively were the first three countries
among twenty five studied countries based on science production indices. This study indicated that Iranian
scholars had lots of efforts in producing science in recent years, with considerable advances every year
compared to previous year. To achieve goals of twenty-year vision, considering ISI standards, easy access
of scholars to paper and journals and publishing joint papers should be placed in the agenda of the
authorities and process owners

Keywords

1. Emrani E. A review on evaluation indicators of research outputs. Faslnameh Ketab 2008; 18(3): 157-76.
[In Persian].
2. Davarpanah MR. The international publication productivity of Malaysian in social sciences: developing a
scientific power index. Journal of Scholarly Publishing 2009; 41(1): 67-91. [In Persian].
3. Moed HF. Measuring China"s research performance using the Science Citation Index. Scientometrics 2002;
53(3): 281-96.
4. Norouzi-Chakoli HA, Nourmohammadi H, Vaziri E, Etemadifard A. Science Production in Iran in 2005 and 2006
according to ISI Statistics. Faslnameh Ketab 2007; 18(3): 71-90. [In Persian].
5. Hassanzadeh H, Gorji AH, Shokranehnanehkaran F, Valinejadi A. Scientific Products of Iran University of
Medical Sciences' Authors with Co-Authorship Networks in Web of Science (WOS) Database, up to 2007. J
Health Adm 2009; 11(34): 59-67. [In Persian].
6. Garfield E. The evolution of the Science Citation Index. International Microbiology 2007; 10: 65-9.
7. Solimini AG, Solimini R. Impact Factor and other metrics for evaluating science: essentials for public health
practitioners. Italian Journal of Public Health 2011; 8(1): 96-103.
8. Garfield E. The history and meaning of the journal impact factor. JAMA 2006; 295(1): 90-3.
9. Brumfiel G. Misconduct finding at Bell Labs shakes physics community. Nature 2002; 419(6906): 419.
10.Garfield E. Citation analysis as a tool in journal evaluation. Science 1972; 178(4060): 471-9.
11.Rajesh R, Rajeev K, Ragesh NK, Gopakumar V. Measures for the Quality of Individual Articles, Authors and
Journals. International Journal of Computer Applications 2010; 9(3): 24-8.
12.Garfield E. Use of Journal Citation Reports and Journal Performance Indicators in measuring short and long term
journal impact. Croat Med J 2000; 41(4): 368-74.
13.Dong P, Loh M, Mondry A. The "impact factor" revisited. Biomed Digit Libr 2005; 2: 7.
14.Coelho PM, Antunes CM, Costa HM, Kroon EG, Sousa Lima MC, Linardi PM. The use and misuse of the
"impact factor" as a parameter for evaluation of scientific publication quality: a proposal to rationalize its
application. Braz J Med Biol Res 2003; 36(12): 1605-12.
15.Amin M, Mabe M. Impact factors: use and abuse. Perspectives in Publishing 2007; 2(1).
16.Duy J, Vaughan L. Can electronic journal usage data replace citation data as a measure of journal use? An
empirical examination. The Journal of Academic Librarianship 2006; 32(5): 512-7.
17. Samadi L. Reviewing Impact Factor to Evaluate the Quality of Journals. Journal of Information Processing and
Management, 2011; 26(4): 1089-105. [In Persian].
18. Saha S, Saint S, Christakis DA. Impact factor: a valid measure of journal quality? J Med Libr Assoc 2003; 91(1): 42-6.
19.Buela-Casal G. Assessing the quality of articles and scientific journals: proposal for weighted impact factor and a
quality index. Psychology in Spain 2004; 8(1): 60-76.
20.Hagh Doost AA. Durations of studies of Iranian PhD students graduated from UK and Ireland universities
between 1995 and 2001. Strides Dev Med Educ 2005; 2(1): 1-8. [In Persian].
21.Mahjub H, Koorki M, Sheikh N. A Comparative Study of Factors Affecting Reluctance to Scientific Writing
from The Viewpoints of Basic and Clinical Sciences Faculty Members in Hamedan University of Medical
Sciences in 2006. Iran J Med Educ 2008; 8(1): 158-63. [In Persian].
22.Mohseni M. Review the characteristics and issues of scientific journals. Rahyaft Journal 2000; (23): 27-41.
[In Persian].
23.Kazemi AH. Problems in Scientific Environments of Country Scientometrics. Health Inf Manage 2008; 5(2):  175-8. [In Persian].                                                                                                                                                                                       24. Talebi M. Assessment of the factors cause of production and publication of scientific papers in international
journals. Rahyaft Journal 2002; (27): 184-96. [In Persian].
25.Mohseneyanrad M. Weaknesses of scientific journals in Iran. Rahyafat Journal 1995; (8): 1-16. [In Persian].
26.Marilu PD, Mandri A. New approach on the impact factor. Faslnameh Ketab 2007; 18(3): 255-72. [In Persian].
27.Qureshi MA, Jawaid M. Pakistani Journals and the Impact Factor: Where are we standing right now. Pak J Med
Sci 2011; 27(5): 1214-6.
28.Uzum A. Statistical relationship of some basic bibliometric indicators in scientometric research. Proceedings of
the International'Workshop on Webometrics, Infometrics and Scientometric & Seventh COLLNET Meeting;
2006 May 10-12; Nancy, France; 2006.
29.Bahr AH, Zemon M. Collaborative Authorship in the Journal Literature: Perspectives for Academic Librarians
Who Wish to Publish. College & Research Libraries 2000; 61(5): 410-9.
30.Kim KW. Measuring international research collaboration of peripheral countries: Taking the context into
consideration. Scientometrics 2006; 66(2): 231-40.                     
Health Information Management
Volume 10, Issue 1
Spring 2014
Pages 79-89