Comparison between Impact Factors and Citations in Evidence-Based Practice Guidelines [4]

JAMA

Volumn 290, Issue 6, 2003, Pages 755-756

  Nakayama, Takeo ^a   Fukui, Tsuguya ^a   Fukuhara, Shunichi ^a   Tsutani, Kiichiro ^b   Yamazaki, Shigeaki ^c  

^a KYOTO UNIVERSITY GRADUATE SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (Japan)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TOKYO   (Japan)

^c AICHI SHUKUTOKU UNIVERSITY   (Japan)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; LETTER; MEDICAL LITERATURE; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PUBLICATION; SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE; BIBLIOMETRICS; COMPARATIVE STUDY; METHODOLOGY; PUBLISHING; STATISTICS;

BIBLIOMETRICS; EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE; PRACTICE GUIDELINES; PUBLISHING;

EID: 0043162145     PISSN: 00987484     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1001/jama.290.6.755-a     Document Type: Letter

References (7)

1. Garfield E. Which medical journals have the greatest impact? Ann Intern Med. 1986;105:313-320.
2. Seglen PO. Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research? BMJ. 1997;314:498-502.
3. Smith R. Journal accused of manipulating impact factor. BMJ. 1997;314:463.
4. Hemmingsson A, Mygind T, Skjennald A, Edgren J. Manipulation of impact factors by editors of scientific journals. A J R Am J Roentgenol. 2002;178:767.
5. Valdecasas AG, Castroviejo S, Marcus LF. Reliance on the citation index undermines the study of biodiversity. Nature. 2000;403:698.
6. US Preventive Services Task Force. Guide to clinical preventive services, second edition. Available at: http://www.odphp.osophs.dhhs.gov/pubs/guidecps/. Accessed June 25, 2003.
7. ISI Web of Knowledge, Available at: http://www.isinet.com/isi/products/citation/jcr/jcrweb. Accessibility verified (paid subscription) July 24, 2003.