A longitudinal analysis of bibliometric and impact factor trends among the core international journals of nursing, 1977–2008
Introduction
It has been suggested that scientific knowledge is communicated to members of a profession via its literature, and as such, journals represent an important method for the dissemination of research findings to nurses (Oermann et al., 2008). Nursing research has developed quickly in recent decades, with the number of scientific nursing periodicals now rapidly increasing (Hallberg, 2009), and journals fast becoming the primary source of information within this field. Bibliometric research and the analysis of nursing periodicals have also become more common as clinicians find it increasingly difficult to keep up to date with the latest research findings to guide their practice (Oermann et al., 2008). Bibliometrics itself evolved from an age-old conundrum of librarians regarding which journals were the most important in each discipline. That is, which journals they should purchase given the seemingly endless number of titles on offer, versus the realities of limited and often declining, budgets (Meadows, 2005), and which journals they should keep.
In the 1950s, a young information scientist named Eugene Garfield created the Science Citation Index® (SCI) as an up-to-date tool to facilitate the dissemination and retrieval of scientific literature (Garfield, 1955). Even with this system the sheer volume of data was still extensive; the project contained over 1 million citations by the early 1960s for example (Garfield and Sher, 1963). The concept of a journal's impact factor was subsequently devised by Garfield and Sher as a means of ranking journals by citation count, rather than by number of publications (Garfield, 2006). This assisted Garfield's company, the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI), in deciding which journal titles to include in the SCI, as well as accounting for journals that published a relatively small number of articles but which received a comparatively large number of citations (Garfield, 2007). A by-product of the SCI, the Journal Citation Reports® (JCR) had evolved from the ISI's ranked author list (Garfield, 2006), and was officially launched by the ISI in 1975 (Garfield, 1976).
Although impact factors were largely ignored for many years by most people aside from librarians, information scientists and the occasional journal editor (Brown, 2007), they now occupy a position of great interest and debate among contemporary journals editors, academics and researchers (Smith, 2006). Citations are being increasingly seen as the ‘currency’ of modern science (Joseph, 2003), with the more citations an author receives, the more important their work is assumed to be (Norris and Oppenheim, 2003). With the introduction of schemes such as the Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) in the United Kingdom and the more recent Exercise in Research Assessment (ERA) in Australia, the importance of author citations and bibliometric performance has become even more relevant for contemporary academics. This has, in turn, led to increasing interest in bibliometric and other citation-based research in virtually all disciplines. One of the first bibliometric investigations of nursing periodicals was conducted by Garfield himself in the early 1980s using all ‘core’ nursing journals that were, at the time, included in the ISI's databases. Since then, various studies have investigated the content and performance of nursing periodicals from a variety of perspectives.
In 1999, for example, a task force was first established to help ‘map’ the literature in nursing, as part of a larger project to help characterize the literature of allied health fields using a common bibliometric methodology (Schloman, 1999). Nursing literature has also been investigated by region, including in the United Kingdom (Traynor et al., 2001), the United States (Allen and Levy, 2006), Australia (Borbasi et al., 2002, Wilkes et al., 2002), Spain (Pardo et al., 2001) and Taiwan (Huang et al., 2006). In 2009, Crookes and colleagues developed a ranking tool for refereed journals in which nursing and midwifery researchers publish their work (Crookes et al., 2009). Via consultation with experts in the field, the authors developed a novel technique called the Journal Evaluation Tool (JET) which sorted 52 periodicals into four quality bands. A few years earlier than this, the Allen (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature – CINAHL) Rating System had been developed for nursing journals, one which judged periodicals on content, reputation and frequency of citations (Plohman et al., 2008). Other scholars have used the JCR more broadly as a selection technique when investigating journals. Dougherty et al. (2004) for example, looked at international content in ‘high ranking nursing journals’ by consulting all 42 nursing journals that were listed in the 2000 Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI). Angordans et al. (2009) appear to have gone one step further, by proposing that nursing journals adopt their own model for publication, irrespective of the medical model. Regardless of what nursing journals and academic models a researcher ultimately chooses to analyze the literature, it is clear that bibliometric analysis of this nature provides interesting and relevant information on the progression of academic publishing over time.
Despite this fact, however, no author has ever investigated the bibliometric performance of core nursing journals over a long period of time. While some recent investigations have examined single (Dougherty et al., 2004) and multiple years (Mantzoukas, 2009, Oermann et al., 2008), again, none has focused on longitudinal bibliometric analyses.
Section snippets
Aim
The current study aimed to investigate, from a bibliometric perspective, the longitudinal progression and trends of core international nursing journals for the longest possible period of time.
Journal selection
The age and completeness of data used in the current study were dependent on how long each individual journal had been included in the JCR. Titles selected for inclusion were based on the list of ‘core’ nursing journals originally proposed by Garfield (1984) as follows: the American Journal of Nursing (AJN), the International Journal of Nursing Studies (IJNS), the Journal of Advanced Nursing (JAN), the Journal of Nurse-Midwifery (later to become the Journal of Midwifery & Women's Health)
Results
Fig. 1 displays the trend of average citations received and citable items between 1977 and 2008 among the 7 nursing journals analyzed in this study. In 1977 an average of approximately 360 citations were being received per year, a figure which had risen dramatically to around 2600 per year in 2008, a statistically significant (p < 0.001) increase of approximately 722%. This also meant that each journal was receiving, on average, an increase of approximately 65 extra citations per year. On the
Discussion
This study provides a very comprehensive, longitudinal bibliometric analysis of important journals in the field of nursing. The first major finding was that the number of citations received by nursing journals has been steadily increasing over the past 32 years. There are a few probable reasons for this. Firstly, there is probably a growing awareness of nursing literature, most likely due to the increasing focus on publication and citation that is occurring within virtually all research fields.
Conclusion
This study provides a very comprehensive, longitudinal bibliometric analysis of important journals in the field of nursing. Investigation of the progression and continuing rise of 7 core international nursing journals over a 32-year time period revealed the existence of important bibliometric trends, not the least of which was clear evidence of rapidly rising impact factors in the field of nursing. Results also suggest that journal impact factors will continue to rise in future, thus confirming
References (72)
What we write and what we cite: a comment on Mantzoukas (2009)
Int. J. Nurs. Stud.
(2009)Moving nursing research forward towards a stronger impact on health care practice?
Int. J. Nurs. Stud.
(2009)- et al.
Impact factors and citations counts: a state of disquiet
Int. J. Nurs. Stud.
(2009) - et al.
The evolution of a journal
J. Midwifery Womens Health
(2008) The research evidence published in high impact nursing journals between 2000 and 2006: a quantitative content analysis
Int. J. Nurs. Stud.
(2009)- et al.
Revisiting ‘obsolescence’ and journal article ‘decay’ through usage data: an analysis of digital journal use by year of publication
Inf. Process. Manage.
(2005) - et al.
Information sources for developing the nursing literature
Int. J. Nurs. Stud.
(2008) The Journal of Midwifery & Women's Health 1955–2005: Its historic milestones and evolutionary changes
J. Midwifery Womens Health
(2005)- et al.
Bibliometrics, impact factors and manual therapy: balancing the science and the art
Man. Ther.
(2009) From epistemic origins to journal impact factors: what do citations tell us?
Int. J. Nurs. Stud.
(2006)
Mapping the general literature of American nursing
J. Med. Libr. Assoc.
Nursing research and bibliographic citation models
Rev. Lat. Am. Enfermagem.
Interview with Eugene Garfield, Chairman Emeritus of the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI)
Cortex
Measuring the outputs of Australian nursing research published 1995–2000
J. Adv. Nurs.
How impact factors changed medical publishing and science
BMJ
Commentary on Jackson D, Haigh C & Watson R (2009) editorial: nurses and publications – the impact of the impact factor
J. Clin. Nurs.
Life and times of the impact factor: retrospective analysis of trends for seven medical journals (1994–2005) and their Editors’ views
J. R. Soc. Med.
International content of high-ranking nursing journals in the year 2000
J. Nurs. Scholarsh.
Reading maketh a full nurse
Am. J. Nurs.
Mapping the field: a bibliometric analysis of the research utilization literature in nursing
Nurs. Res.
Citation analysis of the most influential authors and ophthalmology journals in the field of cataract and corneal refractive surgery 2000–2004
Clin. Exp. Ophthalmol.
A 9-year analysis of bibliographical trends for journals in the subject category of general and internal medicine
Account. Res.
Citation indexes for science; a new dimension in documentation through association of ideas
Science
The evolution of the Science Citation Index
Int. Microbiol.
The history and meaning of the journal impact factor
JAMA
Introducing Journal Citation Reports
Journal citation studies 44. Citation patterns in nursing journals, and their most-cited articles
Which medical journals have the greatest impact?
Ann. Intern. Med.
New factors in the evaluation of scientific literature through citation indexing
Am. Doc.
Bibliometric analysis of nursing research in Taiwan 1991–2004
J. Nurs. Res.
Advancing the science of nursing education: rethinking the meaning and significance of impact factors
J. Nurs. Educ.
Editorial: nurses and publications—the impact of the impact factor
J. Clin. Nurs.
Journal impact factors: implications for the nursing profession
Int. Nurs. Rev.
Quality of impact factors of general medical journals
BMJ
Understanding the limitations of the journal impact factor
J. Bone Joint Surg. Am.
Cited by (24)
Impact factor evolution of nursing research journals: 2009 to 2014
2017, Nursing OutlookCitation Excerpt :Given the importance of citation-based research and the fact that the bibliometric assessment of research utility will continue for a long time, the nursing profession clearly needs to expand its research literature and have more journals included in the appropriate databases. One major issue for the contemporary scholar of nursing is being able to disseminate information in an increasingly competitive market (Smith, 2010). Although nursing scientists have many options regarding where to publish, choosing a publication venue is rarely a clear-cut decision (Lewallen & Crane, 2010).
The Journal of Nursing Regulation at Age 6: A Bibliographic Analysis
2016, Journal of Nursing RegulationCitation Excerpt :While this technique has been used in a wide range of other areas of science, such as palaeobotany (Saravanan & Dominic, 2014) and scientometrics (Ravikumar, Agrahari, & Singh, 2015), its application to nursing journals is relatively new (Hunt, Happell, Chan, & Cleary, 2012; Hunt, Watson, Jackson, & Cleary, 2012; Lozano-Leon, Gomez-Fernandez, Romero-Indiano, & Peral-Belchoir, 2010; Smith, 2010; Wiles, Olds, & Williams, 2013). Smith (2010) examined a range of nursing journals during a 32-year period, and Wiles, Olds, and Williams (2013) examined nursing and allied health journals during a 25-year period. The approach taken by Lozano-Leon, Gomez-Fernandez, Romero-Indiano, and Peral-Belchoir (2010) and Hunt, Watson, Jackson, & Cleary (2012) was far more focused; they examined the output of a single journal.
Publication efficiency among the higher impact factor nursing journals in 2009: A retrospective analysis
2013, International Journal of Nursing StudiesCitation Excerpt :The space available might influence publication efficiency, and for this reason if a comparison is made with other disciplines/journals in the future, this limitation should be addressed. Even though Oermann et al. (2010) and Smith (2010) documented different writing styles within journals aiming to achieve a different audience (e.g., professional, clinical or academic) and outcomes (benefits for academic career vs. reach practical nurses), which might affect the accuracy of the information reported (e.g., data collection ending), articles were analysed without taking into consideration the mission of the journals included, which were very different. We have assumed that knowledge generation starts with the data collection process when information is gathered (Polit and Beck, 2010).
Preprints Are Here to Stay: Is That Good for Science?
2024, Springer International Handbooks of EducationGlobal nursing research activity from 2009 to 2020: A bibliometric analysis
2022, International Journal of Nursing PracticeGlobal production of nursing research: A 10-year survey of subspecialty nursing journals
2022, International Journal of Nursing Practice