Navegando por Palavras-chave "Fator De Impacto"

Agora exibindo 1 - 2 de 2
  • Nenhuma Miniatura disponível
    Item
    Somente Metadadados
    Avaliação Das Revistas De Enfermagem: Estado Da Arte E Desafios Atuais E Futuros
    (Universidade Federal de São Paulo (UNIFESP), 2017-12-20) Avena, Magdalena Jose [UNIFESP]; Barbosa, Dulce Aparecida [UNIFESP]; Universidade Federal de São Paulo (UNIFESP)
    The communication of the scientific research results in the nursing area is obtained by means of the publication in articles of periodicals for validation and certification. Scientific journals are assessed by bibliometric indicators that can influence the evaluation of researchers. Indexing and permanence of journals in the SciELO database depends on criteria and requirements that aim to increase the internationalization and the visibility of journals in the international scientific community. Objective: To evaluate the quantitative-qualitative performance of national journals compared to international ones with similar scope. Method: Nursing journals published in Brazil, with a broad spectrum feature within Nursing science and indexed at the SciELO base were selected and classified in Qualis A1, A2 and B1. International nursing journals selected were those with a broad spectrum and similar to the national ones, and with a Web of Science impact factor between 1.0 and 1.8. The data were collected in the different index bases and in the Journals public pages and were uploaded and tabulated by Excel® program. Results: The analysis of the bibliometric indicators showed that in the WoS the difference of the mean of JCR was 0.819 higher when comparing national and international periodicals; in the Scopus the SJR was 0.281 higher and in the CiteScore 0.77. The H index in the WoS base the difference between the means was 16.85 higher in the international journals, in the Scopus 25.58 higher and in the Google scholar the difference of the mean was 4.0 higher for the national journals. The qualitative aspects evaluated showed similarity in several aspects: all of them provide open access and electronic format, present clarity in the instructions to the authors sector and the majority, in both groups, inform anti-plagiarism actions. All national journals are published in at least two languages and only one international publication in two. Four national journals adopt continuous flow as only one international state that. The h index of the editors in chief is also balanced with a mean of h=10 for nationals and h=14 for international journals. Five national and five international journals use "How to cite" in articles and all of that has a tool for reference export. In terms of marketing and advertising, the difference is greater. The international journals are more present in the social media having several promotion resources. Among the citations received by national journals, 88% are articles in Portuguese, 10% in Spanish and 2% in English. Conclusion: The criteria for excellence imposed for journals internationalization did not bring the expected growth in the bibliometric indicators or citations in international articles of national journals of the nursing area. National journals have some challenges to face, to increase the number of articles that cite their articles attracting Spanish-speaking researchers; developing marketing and advertising mechanisms attracting attentions of authors and readers.
  • Nenhuma Miniatura disponível
    Item
    Somente Metadadados
    Características De Revisões Sistemáticas Cochrane Versus Revisões Sistemáticas Publicadas Em Revistas De Alto Fator De Impacto
    (Universidade Federal de São Paulo (UNIFESP), 2017-12-20) Porfirio, Gustavo Jose Martiniano [UNIFESP]; Riera, Rachel [UNIFESP]; Universidade Federal de São Paulo (UNIFESP)
    Introduction: The systematic review consists of the application of strategies that limit the risk of bias in the gathering, critical evaluation and synthesis of all relevant studies on a subject. It is considered as the best source of evidence for informed decision and has, as main aspects, clear eligibility criteria; explicit and reproducible methods; high sensitivity search looking for all relevant studies on the subject; critical appraisal of included studies; and systematic synthesis of the results of included studies. Despite the recent appreciation of systematic reviews and a significant increase in the number of publications with this design, there are several doubts about the quality of these publications in a global way. Although the limitations of using the impact factor for journal metrics, it is thought that the higher citation numbers of high impact factor journals identify that these reviews are as well executed as the Cochrane systematic reviews. Objective: To evaluate the characteristics of systematic reviews published in high impact factor journals compared to the reviews published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews regarding the presence of adequate content for critical appraisal of the publication. The hypothesis of this study was that the characteristics would be similar. Study design: A cross-sectional study. Sample: We included systematic reviews of the literature published in 2015 in journals of high impact factor or published by the Cochrane Collaboration. Outcomes: The primary outcomes were the characteristics of the systematic reviews based on PRISMA Statement and other complementary information. Statistical methods: No sample size calculation was performed. We analyzed all the systematic reviews published in high impact factor journals published in the year 2015 and their number was the criterion for defining the sample size of the other reviews (Cochrane reviews) included in the research. Results: Of the 134 studies included in the analyzes two groups studied (67 Cochrane and 67 journals of high impact factor), the following characteristics presented a significantly higher frequency in Cochrane reviews: a) provide at least one search strategy; b) does not restrict the search and / or selection of studies by language; c) do not use restriction of the search by year of publication; d) conduct the search for non-indexed studies; e) conducting the search in databases of clinical trials records; f) description duplicity for selection and extraction of data; g) description of method to resolve disagreements; h) description of the criteria for meta-analysis; and i) description of criteria for sensitivity or subgroup analysis; j) information on characteristics of excluded studies; l) information about ongoing studies; m) presentation of bias risk per study; n) indication of registration of the revision or of the existence of a previous protocol; o) presentation of a summary table of the findings; p) use of the GRADE approach; q) refer to the assessment of the quality of the evidence at the conclusion. Conclusion: Significant differences were observed between systematic reviews published by Cochrane and journals of high impact factor in relation to key items related to the quality of publications. The Cochrane publications presented a greater detail of the description of critical items in relation to the others, despite the lower number of gross citations observed in the sample and the lower impact factor in relation to the periodicals analyzed