Assessing the scientific research productivity of a leading toxicology journal: A case study of Human & Experimental Toxicology from 2003 to 2012

SAGE Open Medicine

Volumn 2, Issue , 2014, Pages

  Zyoud, Sa’ed H ^a,b   Al Jabi, Samah W ^a   Sweileh, Waleed M ^a   Awang, Rahmat ^b  

^a AN NAJAH NATIONAL UNIVERSITY   (Palestine)

^b SCHOOL OF PHYSICS   (Malaysia)

Author keywords

Bibliometric; Citations; Human and experimental toxicology; Scopus

Indexed keywords

EID: 84899502651     PISSN: None     EISSN: 20503121     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/2050312114523424     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. Human & Experimental Toxicology. Aims and scope, http://www.uk.sagepub.com/journalsProdDesc.nav?prodId=Journal201813&ct_p=title&crossRegion=midEast#tabview=aimsAndScope (2013, accessed 9 September 2013).
2. Drobne D. Toxicology has to use opportunities given by Bologna reform of higher education. Toxicol Lett 2009; 190: 116–122.
3. Ettlin RA, Dybing E, Eistrup C, et al. Careers in toxicology in Europe – options and requirements. Report of a workshop organized on behalf of the Individual Members of EUROTOX during the EUROTOX Congress 2000 in London (September 17–20, 2000). Arch Toxicol 2001; 75: 251–261.
4. Ettlin RA and Hodel CM. Professional opportunities for toxicologists: the requirements of the private sector for education/ teaching. Toxicol Lett 2000; 112–113: 371–378.
5. Franco R and Munoz B. Challenges and opportunities for toxicology in Mexico. Toxicol Mech Methods 2011; 21: 635–636.
6. De Battisti F and Salini S. Robust analysis of bibliometric data. Stat Method Appl 2013; 22: 269–283.
7. Wallin JA. Bibliometric methods: pitfalls and possibilities. Basic Clin Pharmacol Toxicol 2005; 97: 261–275.
8. Bissar-Tadmouri N and Tadmouri GO. Bibliometric analyses of biomedical research outputs in Lebanon and the United Arab Emirates (1988–2007). Saudi Med J; 2009; 30: 130–139.
9. Scopus. SciVerse Scopus fact sheet. SciVerse® Scopus, http://www.elsevier.com/online-tools/scopus (2013, 14 September 2013).
10. Falagas ME, Pitsouni EI, Malietzis GA, et al. Comparison of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google scholar: strengths and weaknesses. FASEB J 2008; 22: 338–342.
11. Burnham JF. Scopus database: a review. Biomed Digit Libr 2006; 3: 1.
12. Miro O, Montori E, Ramos X, et al. Trends in research activity in toxicology and by toxicologists in seven European countries. Toxicol Lett 2009; 189: 1–4.
13. Biglu MH and Omidi Y. Scientific profile of pharmacology, toxicology and pharmaceutics fields in Middle East countries: impacts of Iranian scientists. Int J Adv Pharmaceut Sci 2010; 1: 122–127.
14. Delirrad M, Rashidi A and Karimi S. A bibliometric analysis of toxicology publications of Iran and Turkey in ISI web of science. IJT 2013; 6: 735–745.
15. Jones AW. Impact of JAT publications 1981–2003: the most prolific authors and the most highly cited articles. J Anal Toxicol 2004; 28: 541–545.
16. Bird SB. Journal impact factors, h indices, and citation analyses in toxicology. J Med Toxicol 2008; 4: 261–274.
17. Zyoud SH, Al-Jabi SW, Sweileh WM, et al. A bibliometric analysis of research productivity of Malaysian publications in leading toxicology journals during a 10-year period (2003– 2012). Hum Exp Toxicol, in press.
18. Zyoud SH, Al-Jabi SW, Sweileh WM, et al. A bibliometric analysis of toxicology research productivity in Middle Eastern Arab Countries during a 10-year period (2003–2012). Health Res Policy Syst 2014; 12: 4.
19. Essential Science Indicators. Top 20 Countries in ALL FIELDS, 2001-August 31, 2011, http://archive.sciencewatch.com/dr/cou/2011/11decALL/(2012, accessed 20 September).
20. Brent J and Abdollahi M. The major role of toxicology societies in global collaborations – a call to action. Daru 2012; 20: 11.
21. Mehrpour O and Abdollahi M. Poison treatment centers in Iran. Hum Exp Toxicol 2012; 31: 303–304.
22. Di Marco PN and Sardas S. Preface (4th Congress of Toxicology in Developing Countries (4th CTOX-DC), Antalya, Turkey, 6–10 November 1999). Pure Appl Chem 2000; 72: iv–vii.
23. SCImago Journal & Country Rank. Country rankings for subject category: toxicology (1996–2012), http://www.scimagojr.com/countryrank.php?area=0&category=3005®ion=all&year=all&order=it&min=0&min_type=it (2013, accessed 17 January 2014).
24. Jang DH and Rusyniak DE. Hard impact: journal impact factor and JMT. J Med Toxicol 2011; 7: 256–258.
25. Ioannidis JP. Concentration of the most-cited papers in the scientific literature: analysis of journal ecosystems. PLoS One 2006; 1: e5.
26. Callaham M, Weber E and Wears R. Citation characteristics of research published in Emergency Medicine versus other scientific journals. Ann Emerg Med 2001; 38: 513–517.
27. Jones AW. Impact factors of forensic science and toxicology journals: what do the numbers really mean? Forensic Sci Int 2003; 133: 1–8.
28. Journal Citation Reports®. Journal Summary List 2012, http://admin.webofknowledge.com:2059/JCR/JCR (2013, accessed 17 January 2014).
29. Jaffe K. Do countries with lower self-citation rates produce higher impact papers? Or, does humility pay. Interciencia 2011; 36: 694–698.
30. Allik J. Bibliometric analysis of the journal of cross-cultural psychology during the first ten years of the new millennium. J Cross Cult Psychol 2013; 44: 657–667.
31. Berghmans T, Meert AP, Mascaux C, et al. Citation indexes do not reflect methodological quality in lung cancer randomised trials. Ann Oncol 2003; 14: 715–721.
32. Royle P, Kandala NB, Barnard K, et al. Bibliometrics of systematic reviews: analysis of citation rates and journal impact factors. Syst Rev 2013; 2: 74.
33. Winnik S, Raptis DA, Walker JH, et al. From abstract to impact in cardiovascular research: factors predicting publication and citation. Eur Heart J 2012; 33: 3034–3045.
34. Allareddy V, Lee MK, Shah A, et al. Association between study design and citation counts of articles published in the American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics and Angle Orthodontist. Orthodontics (Chic) 2012; 13: 184–191.
35. De Granda-Orive JI, Alonso-Arroyo A and Roig-Vazquez F. Which data base should we use for our literature analysis? Web of Science versus SCOPUS. Arch Bronconeumol 2011; 47: 213.
36. Tadmouri GO and Bissar-Tadmouri N. A major pitfall in the search strategy on PubMed. Saudi Med J 2004; 25: 7–10.
37. Kulkarni AV, Aziz B, Shams I, et al. Comparisons of citations in Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar for articles published in general medical journals. JAMA 2009; 302: 1092–1096.