Monday, 31 August 2015

100 Most Cited Articles in Urban Green and Open Spaces: A Bibliometric Analysis | Current World Environment

100 Most Cited Articles in Urban Green and Open Spaces: A Bibliometric Analysis

Mehdi Rakhshandehroo1, Mohd Johari Mohd Yusof 1*, Nader Ale Ebrahim2, Ali Sharghi3, Roozbeh Arabi1

1faculty Of Design And Architecture, University Putra Malaysia, Malaysia
2Centre for Research Services, Institute of Research Management and Monitoring (Ippp), University of Malaya, Malaysia
3Faculty Of Architecture And Urban Planning, Shahid Rajaee Teacher Training University (Srttu), Teheran, Iran.
Correspondence Author Email:


Researchers have contributed significantly to the development
of the subject of urban green and open spaces (UGOS) in both practical
and fundamental aspects. As the number of citations indicates a paper
and author’s competency, the online web of science (ISI) was browsed to
identify the 100 most cited papers in the field of UGOS from 1980 to
2013. Papers were analyzed for authorship, journal sources, publishers,
institutions, countries, year of publication, categories, and author
keywords. The total number of citations was compared to the average
number of citations per year. From 1105 UGOS papers returned, the
maximum number of citations was 212. The top 100 most cited were
published from 1988 to 2011, with the majority in 2007. A remarkable
distinction was found in the comparison of total citations and average
citations per year.  As total linear trend indicates a significant
growth in influential articles, urban green and open spaces are a
developing subject in landscape and urban planning. This study gives an
insight into the readership of UGOS by highlighting key papers.

open space; green space; citations; landscape; urban planning; bibliometric

Download this article as: 

Copy the following to cite this article:

Rakhshandehroo M, Yusof M. J. M, Ebrahim N. A, Sharghi A, Arabi R.
100 Most Cited Articles in Urban Green and Open Spaces: A Bibliometric
Analysis. Curr World Environ 2015;10(2).

doi :

Copy the following to cite this URL:

Rakhshandehroo M, Yusof M. J. M, Ebrahim N. A, Sharghi A, Arabi R.
100 Most Cited Articles in Urban Green and Open Spaces: A Bibliometric
Analysis. Curr World Environ 2015;10(2). Available from:


100 Most Cited Articles in Urban Green and Open Spaces: A Bibliometric Analysis | Current World Environment

SSRN Top Downloads - RECENT TOP PAPERS for all papers first announced in the last 60 days 2 Jul 2015 through 31 Aug 2015


100 Most Cited Articles in Urban Green and Open Spaces: A Bibliometric Analysis

Mehdi Rakhshandehroo,

Mohd Johari Mohd Yusof,

Nader Ale Ebrahim,

Ali Sharghi and

Roozbeh Arabi

University Putra Malaysia, University Putra
Malaysia, University of Malaya (UM) - Department of Engineering Design
and Manufacture, Faculty of EngineeringUniversity of Malaya (UM) -
Research Support Unit, Centre of Research Services, Institute of
Research Management and Monitoring (IPPP), Shahid Rajaee Teacher
Training University (SRTTU) and University Putra Malaysia

Date posted to database: 15 Aug 2015

Last Revised: 15 Aug 2015

SSRN Top Downloads

6 digital tools for researchers added to the list. | Connected Researchers


6 digital tools for researchers added to the list.

Back after a short break with a series of new tools to the list of digital tools for researchers.

TScreen Shot 2015-08-28 at 5.26.50 PMhis
is part of Elsevier’s SciVal platform, providing research institution
and universities with research intelligence, including on their own
research production. This service is only available through a

This service provide up to date news about research throughout the
world, and alerts about funding opportunities. Also available through a

  • Screen Shot 2015-08-28 at 5.28.14 PMProfology – A professional community created exclusively for higher education faculty, staff and administrators.
A free social network for the non-students of higher eduction.The
idea is to provide the staff with a more private space than what you
might get on Facebook. Professor can share tip and trick about teaching
or management of research groups without the risk of students bumping
into it.

  • Kudos – Helps researchers explain, enrich and share their publications for greater research impact.
Screen Shot 2015-08-28 at 5.25.06 PMThis
is good one. I will try to post a more extended post on Kudos soon. It
provides authors with a space to explain their work in a way everyone
can understand and link other ressources to the published article. A
great way to increase the visibility of your published work.

  • Citavi – Reference management, knowledge organization, and task planning solution.
This Switzerland-based company offers a complete solution for your
reference management. I have not tried it myself, but would love to hear
from its users. Windows only for now.

  • InSIlico DB – Genomics made possible for biologists without programming.
This online platform seems like a great for those needing to use
bio-informatic tools. It combines on the same platform an easy access to
genome database with analysis tools. Have a look at this video from
more info.

6 digital tools for researchers added to the list. | Connected Researchers

Wednesday, 26 August 2015

Is it True that Most Open Access Journals Do Not Charge an APC? Sort of. It Depends. | The Scholarly Kitchen


Is it True that Most Open Access Journals Do Not Charge an APC? Sort of. It Depends.

Bayonet soldiers charging
Charge! French soldiers, image from “The Story of the Great War, Volume III”, 1916.
One of the truisms that often comes up when discussing Open Access
(OA) business models is that the majority of OA journals do not charge
authors an article processing charge (APC). This has been a standard
talking point supported by multiple studies (most now a few years out of
date), and by the continuing work of Walt Crawford. It’s a statement on hears over and over (a quick Google search provides mentions here, here, here, here, here, here, and here — if Wikipedia says it’s true,
it must be, right?). It’s a factoid I myself have used in arguments.
But is it really an accurate representation of the OA publishing market?
A closer look suggests that by strictly limiting the definition of what
qualifies as an “OA journal”, we may be missing out on what’s actually

Crawford recently released his latest set of preliminary numbers
(his work continues to be tremendously valuable in helping track and
understand OA growth). Taking his strictest criteria, and limiting the
analysis just to journals that have actually published an article in the
last year, he gets the following results: for 2014, there were 8,760 OA
journals, and publishing in 73% (6,395) of them was free for authors
(no APC charged). The percentage of total OA articles in those journals
was 43%.

This immediately offers up a caveat to the notion that most OA is
published without author charges. Most journals in the study do not
charge authors, but the majority of authors are choosing to publish in
journals that do charge. 27% (2,365) of the journals studied required an
APC and were responsible for 57% of the articles.

The journals in the study, however, do not represent the entire spectrum of OA journal publishing. As Crawford noted in a recent comment thread on this site, the pool of journals examined is limited to fully gold OA journals listed by the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ). That means no hybrid journals or articles published OA in hybrid journals were counted.

The reason for this limitation is a practical one
— there’s no easy way to measure the numbers of hybrid journals and
articles, and there’s no easy way to track journals and articles not
listed in the DOAJ. But this practical limitation also creates
limitations on the conclusions that can be drawn.

Precise language is key to scientific understanding.
As a former journal editor, the most common problem I had to correct
from authors was a tendency toward language that overstated their
conclusions — calling a cellular factor “necessary” for some action,
rather than “sufficient” is a common example. Some of this was
deliberate fuzziness borne out of wishful thinking in hopes of
supporting a preconceived model, while the majority was unintentional
and just poor choices of words.

To be precise then, stating that the majority of OA journals do not
charge an APC is going beyond what the data tells us. What we can safely
say is that the majority of fully gold OA journals listed by the DOAJ
do not charge APCs, though they do not produce the majority of articles
from that pool.

What about those hybrid journals and articles? Can they be summarily dismissed from the discussion, or are they worth a look?

To get a quick sense of the numbers I spent 20 minutes or so digging around some of the bigger publisher websites:

  • Elsevier: 1,676 journals listed as having a hybrid OA option
  • Wiley: 1,300 journals listed as having OA available, 33 listed in DOAJ so 1,277 titles can be counted
  • Springer: “the majority of our 2000+ journals” offer an OA option, so at minimum 1,001 titles
  • Taylor & Francis: hybrid OA available for over 1,600 journals
  • Sage: 630 journals listed as having a hybrid option
  • Oxford University Press: 250+ hybrid journals
  • Cambridge University Press: “over 200” hybrid journals
That gives a total of at least 6,634 journals offering OA publication
from just a quick sampling, leaving out many large publishers and a
huge number of smaller university presses and independents. Add that to
Crawford’s earlier totals and the conclusion is reversed: at least 58%
(8,999) of journals that offer OA publishing do indeed charge an APC.*

If you spend much time in the world of altmetrics and DORA,
it may be more forward-thinking to look at the world on an article
level. We live in an article-level economy, and an individual article
should be judged for its own merits, not averaged in with its neighbors.

Add in then the number of articles published by authors taking up the
hybrid option and the total number of OA articles published with an APC
increases even further into the majority. These numbers are hard to
come by, but for OUP, they’ve been pretty steady for the last few years,
ranging from 4% to 6% of total articles (5.01% for 2014). Our total
numbers have increased due to the increasing number of journals and
articles published each year.

So to more clearly state things:

  • The majority of fully gold OA journals listed by the DOAJ do not charge authors an APC.
  • The majority of journals offering OA publication to authors charge APCs.
  • The majority of OA papers are published via paying an APC.
The distinctions are important here. When making business plans or
setting policies, it is crucial to have an accurate picture of current
publishing practices, and the clear picture here is that most OA
publishing is done for a fee.

*My numbers still exclude fully gold OA journals not included in
the DOAJ so the conclusions must include this caveat, but given the
enormous number of questionable/predatory/deceptive journals that fall
into this category and that certainly charge APCs, their inclusion would
likely only push things further in the direction of APC required OA.

Is it True that Most Open Access Journals Do Not Charge an APC? Sort of. It Depends. | The Scholarly Kitchen

Thursday, 20 August 2015

Citations? Great. But have you got the ‘t factor’? | Times Higher Education


Citations? Great. But have you got the ‘t factor’?

Proposed Twitter-based altmetric would treat retweets like citations

Strong man
Strong-arm tactics: the t factor ‘seems highly susceptible to gaming’

your email signature contains your h-index, your Eigenfactor score and
the impact factors of the most prestigious journals you have published
in. But wait – you’ve forgotten your “t factor”.

This is a new Twitter-based “altmetric” proposed in a paper, t factor: A metric for measuring impact on Twitter, posted on the arXiv preprint server by two researchers from Germany’s Max Planck Society.

The authors liken a retweet to a citation in that it reflects the
“impact” of the initial tweet. Hence, based on the formula for the
citation-focused h-index, they say that an individual (or paper, journal
or research group) should be assigned a t factor of x if they have x tweets that have been retweeted at least x times.

They say the measure is an improvement on existing Twitter metrics,
which do not distinguish between tweets and retweets and can be skewed
by large numbers of retweets for a single tweet.

One of the paper’s authors, Lutz Bornmann, a sociologist of science
at the Max Planck Society’s Division for Science and Innovation Studies,
admitted that it was unclear what Twitter impact actually measured
because research showed that it did not correlate with citations.
However it may, he suggested, measure “impact on parts of society
outside science”.

James Wilsdon, professor of science and democracy at the University of Sussex and chair of a recent independent review of the role of research metrics, worried that the t factor “seems highly susceptible to gaming of various kinds”.

“It also reflects a rather narrow view of how and why [academics] use
Twitter,” he added. “Publicising their own papers is a tiny slice of
what they tweet about…It would be a great shame if an online space that
is typically characterised by openness, plurality and a certain
playfulness were to be stifled and impoverished by a hasty move to
measure and value certain types of activity over others.”

David Colquhoun, emeritus professor of pharmacology at University
College London and a critic of metrics, said that it was rare to see “a
serious bit of basic research” mentioned on Twitter.

“The best way to get lots of retweets is to write something that’s
disastrously wrong or just nonsense. Preferably, it should mention diet
or memory or sex or quackery in the title,” he said.

“If anyone were sufficiently foolish to take seriously the t
factor, or altmetrics in general, as a method of assessing the worth of
a person or a paper, the result would be corruption of science. The
only people to gain would be the commercial suppliers of naive numbers
to naive bean counters.”

Citations? Great. But have you got the ‘t factor’? | Times Higher Education

Citations Mining: "How to increase h-index " by Nader Ale Ebrahim


How to increase h-index

Nader Ale EbrahimDepartment of Engineering Design and Manufacture, Faculty of Engineering, University of Malaya


a high quality paper in scientific journals is a halfway of receiving
citation in the future. The rest of the way is advertising and
disseminating the publications by using the proper “Research Tools”.
Familiarity with the tools allows the researcher to increase his/her
h-index in the short time. H-index shows the academicians influences in
the specified field of research. Therefore, a person with higher level
of h-index has more high quality publications with high amount of
citations. This presentation, covers the following topics: Why publish
and increase h-index?, Definition of h-index and g-index, Importance of
h-index, How to use “Research Tools” Mind Map, Paper title preparation,
Selecting keywords, Select the proper journal, Advertise published
article, and finally Trace published article citation.

Suggested Citation

Nader Ale Ebrahim. "How to increase h-index " AGM. Kuala Lumpour, Malaysia. Apr. 2011.

Available at:

Citations Mining: "How to increase h-index " by Nader Ale Ebrahim

Wednesday, 19 August 2015

Managing your research and building your personal brand with ResearcherID

Dear all,

This is a friendly reminder for the 7th session of
Strategies to Enhance Research Visibility, Impact & Citations workshop as

Title:           Create and
maintain ResearcherID profile automatically
Speaker:     Dr. Nader Ale Ebrahim
Session:     Session 7
Date:          20th August
2015 (Thursday)
Time:          9.30 am - 12.00
Venue:        Computer Lab, Level 2,

Please be informed that, due to the limitation of the
computers in the lab, participants are encouraged to bring your own

Please find below the links and ResearcherID slideshow
prepared by Melissa Badenhorst from Thomson Reuters. The slideshow
presentation for Session 7 will be sent to participants who attended the

1.      Link to “Effective
Strategies for Increasing Citation Frequency” paper:

 2.      Link to 
“Introduction to the Research Tools Mind Map” paper:


The venue for the workshop is at Computer Lab,
Level 2, Institute of Research Management & Monitoring
(IPPP), Kompleks Pengurusan Penyelidikan & Inovasi.
The IPPP building is the white building next to
IGS/IPS building and in front of the 12th college.

Kindly contact 7812/ 6289 if you have a problem finding the

Thank you.


Research Support Unit

Formerly known as Scholarly Publication Support Unit (SchoPuS)
Centre of Research Services

Level 2, Research Management & Innovation Complex

University of Malaya

50603 Kuala Lumpur


Tel     :  603-7967 7812 / 7355

Fax    :  603-7967 7354

Email :


Research Tools By: Nader Ale Ebrahim - MindMeister Mind Map

Monday, 17 August 2015

Recent Updates :: SSRN

100 Most Cited Articles in Urban Green and Open Spaces: A Bibliometric Analys

Rakhshandehroo, Mehdi and Mohd Yusof, Mohd Johari and Ale Ebrahim, Nader
and Sharghi, Ali and Arabi, Roozbeh, 100 Most Cited Articles in Urban
Green and Open Spaces: A Bibliometric Analysis (August 13, 2015).
Current World Environment, Vol. 10, No. 2, 2015. Available at SSRN:

Recent Updates :: SSRN

Sunday, 16 August 2015

In addition to the impact factor: The paper and the dissemination of knowledge in medicine


Translated by: Google Translate

Portuguese Journal of Allergology

Print ISSN 0871-9721

Rev Port Imunoalergologia vol.23 no.2 Lisbon June 2015

In addition to the impact factor: The paper and the dissemination of knowledge in medicine

John Fonseca

Unit Imunoalergologia, CUF Hospital and Port Institute

CINTESIS - Center for Health Services Research and Technology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Porto

Secretary-General of the Portuguese Society of Allergology and Clinical Immunology


An old story about a scientific publication can be told briefly.
Coffee, a doctor says to the other: "He just left a great article which
proves that in patients with ... [select reader a clinical situation]
is better ... [therapeutic or diagnostic intervention] than ... [further

The other doctor replies, "This has even my grandmother knew!"

The first doctor said quietly, "It was worth your grandmother have been published."

The paper is one of the publication of new advances in medical knowledge formats.
The processes of editorial selection and peer review are crucial as
most valued form of presentation of results of a research work in

The publication of a scientific paper is now the most visible and
persistent way in time for the dissemination of these results, also
becoming a showcase of authors and institutions that produce them - the
icing on the cake will say some, the best cakes will tell others.

To the affirmation and growth of a clinical area is essential consistent production and quality scientific papers.
Also for training and updating of experts in the clinical area, the
preparation and holding of a paper published in the form of paper is a
challenge and a unique educational experience.

This primacy of the article imply that many other forms of
dissemination of new clinical knowledge are also not necessary and

On the contrary the (good) discussions between colleagues,
communication in meetings and conferences (and respective abstracts),
the disclosure in non average and new media or without peer review
publications such as books or monographs, complement and expand the
functions scientific articles.

We have witnessed an exponential growth of scientific papers fueled by
factors such as increased research, technological advances or even
enhancing the importance of the paper.

In nearly two decades have passed from lack of access to scientific
information for the imperiousness to choose from the vast amount of
scientific articles produced.

Today we ask ourselves how to look for the one and how to select them.
The selection will depend surely the reason why we want to read but, in
general, be sure that the more articles cited by other authors will
have a greater interest.
However, just last too long we know that articles are cited more often.

What we do know is that articles published in journals that have cited articles usually have a lot more quotes.

These magazines are the most prestigious, the most sought for
publication and therefore more demanding in the choice of articles they
Consequently, the articles published there tend to have more quality and importance, which is why most cited.

The Institute of Scientific Information (ISI) now part of the Web of Science from Thomson Reuters, devised a measure of the impact of a magazine using the number of citations -. The impact factor (IF) 2
The FI accounts for citations in a given year the articles published in
the two previous years in journals included in the Science Citation
Index, the most demanding database indexing journals.

The calculation of the FI is the ratio between the number of citations
to articles published in the journal during the previous two years had
that year and the number of published articles - the magazine x 2014 FI
is equal number of citations of articles published in 2014 in 2012-13 in
the magazine x dividing by the number of articles published in
2012-> 13 in the same journal.
Simply put we could say that an article published in the journal Allergy, for example, have an average of 6 citations in the following two years ( Table 1 ). The IF of a journal can be searched in the Journal of citations reports (JCR), 3 a paid feature of Thomson Reuters, the Portuguese institutions have access through the online knowledge library ( By June of each year are published FI last year. In 2015 he was presented the 40th edition. The Allergy
category has 24 journals indexed and the aggregate impact factor of
these 22 magazines 4047, corresponding to the 22nd place of 232
categories of all scientific areas that are part of JCR.
In Table 1 are listed in descending order the ten journals with high impact factor indexed Allergy JCR category in 2014.

The FI is widely used to be a simple, easy to understand and which showed its value over the decades.
However, as there are no perfect measures have been many criticisms of
FI4 and their use for the purpose for which it was not designed.
The IF can not be used to assess the impact of an article in concrete, but a journal.
Probably the most frequent criticism (but not the most important) made
the FI is the inability to be used to compare journals from different
scientific areas - the number of citations varies widely among
scientific fields, for example by differences in scientific production
but also for nature own areas and citation habits.
They emerged, so other more advanced metrics such as Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP)
that takes into account the total number of citations of a particular
scientific field, which lets you compare journals from different areas.
In addition to other improvements over the FI the SNIP is freely accessible 5 but still be less known.
Already this year 2015 Thomson Reuters showed the impact factor
percentile of a magazine, which normalizes the FI, allowing comparison
between journals from different areas.

There are several other bibliometric measures, ie, the statistical
analysis of publications and their citations used in specific

In addition to the bibliometric measures, the analysis of the spread
and the impact that a particular item has today can be measured by
analyzing the references to the article on the Internet (Webometrics).
In 2010, we proposed a more general measure of the impact of the articles - the altmetrics, 6 that besides the quotes incorporates the number of views of the articles, downloads, references in knowledge bases, in the media and traditional media social.

This measure can be applied to magazines, people or institutions, for
example, competing so oh-index, a metric widely used to evaluate the
productivity and scientific impact of a researcher or group. 7
Still on the subject of dissemination of knowledge using the Internet,
reference is made to communication tools directed to the interests of
each element of scientific communities and help to know the articles
that are being published.
Examples are the Research Gate ( ), Researcher ID or .
In many cases it is also autoarquivo repositories of complete articles
by authors, allowing access articles published in journals to which we
do not have free access.

In short, the scientific article is the primary means of dissemination of medical knowledge advances. The rapid changes of the last decades made it necessary to learn how to search and select the papers.

The impact factor was one of the first metrics used to measure the
impact of scientific publication, it is widely used because it is easy
to interpret but also easy to use inappropriately.

We are witnessing the increasing use of other measures that help us
better understand the spread and impact of journals and scientific
papers, but also of the authors and groups / institutions.


1. Jacinto T, Morais, Fonseca, J A. How to write a scientific paper - Searching and Managing Biomedical information. Rev Port Pneumol 2011; 17 (4): 190> -4

2. The Thomson Reuters Impact factor.

3. Journal of citation reports.

4. Fooladi M, H Salehi, Yunus MM, Farhadi M, Chadegani AA, Farhadi, H, et al. Does Criticisms Overcome the Praises of Journal Impact Factor ?. Asian Social Science 2013; 9 (5): 176-82

5. Centre for Science and Technology Studies (CWTS) Journal Indicators.

6. Priem J, Taraborelli D, P Groth, Neylon C, Altmetrics: The manifesto, 26 October 2010.

7. Jones T, S Huggett, Kamalski J. Finding a way through the scientific literature: indexes and Measures. World Neurosurg 2011; 76 (1-2): 36-8


John Fonseca


Hospital and Institute

Road Circunvalação 14341

4100-180 Oporto

Google Translate

Revista Portuguesa de Imunoalergologia - Para além do fator de impacto: O artigo científico e a disseminação de conhecimento em Medicina


Revista Portuguesa de Imunoalergologia

versão impressa ISSN 0871-9721

Rev Port Imunoalergologia vol.23 no.2 Lisboa jun. 2015



Para além do fator de impacto:  O artigo científico e a disseminação de conhecimento em Medicina

João Fonseca

Unidade de Imunoalergologia, CUF Porto Hospital e Instituto

CINTESIS – Center for Health Technology and Services Research, Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade do Porto

Secretario‑Geral da Sociedade Portuguesa de Alergologia e Imunologia Clínica


velha história sobre a publicação científica pode ser contada de forma
breve. Ao café, um médico diz ao outro: “Acabou de sair um artigo ótimo
que prova que nos doentes com … [escolha o leitor uma situação clínica]
é melhor … [intervenção terapêutica ou diagnóstica] do que … [outra

O outro médico responde: “Isso até já a minha avó sabia!”

O primeiro médico comenta calmamente: “Foi pena a tua avó não ter publicado.”

artigo científico é um dos formatos de publicação de novos avanços do
conhecimento médico. Os processos de seleção editorial e de revisão por
pares são determinantes como forma mais valorizada de apresentação de
resultados de um trabalho de investigação em Medicina.

publicação de um artigo científico é hoje o modo mais visível e
persistente no tempo de disseminação desses resultados, tornando‑se
também uma montra dos autores e instituições que os produzem – a cereja
em cima do bolo dirão uns, os melhores bolos dirão outros.

a afirmação e crescimento de uma área clínica é imprescindível uma
produção consistente e de qualidade de artigos científicos. Igualmente,
para a formação e actualização dos especialistas numa área clínica, a
preparação e realização de um trabalho publicado sob a forma de artigo é
um desafio e uma experiência educativa única.

Esta primazia
do artigo não significa que muitas outras formas de disseminação de
novo conhecimento clínico não sejam também necessárias e relevantes.
Pelo contrário as (boas) discussões entre colegas, as comunicações em
reuniões e congressos (e respetivos resumos), a divulgação em média não
especializados e em novos média ou as publicações sem revisão por pares,
como livros ou monografias, complementam e expandem as funções dos
artigos científicos.

Temos assistido a um crescimento
exponencial dos artigos científicos alimentado por fatores como o
aumento da investigação, os avanços tecnológicos ou mesmo o reforço da
importância do artigo científico. Em cerca de duas décadas passamos da
dificuldade de acesso a informação científica para a de imperiosidade de
escolha de entre a imensa quantidade de artigos científicos produzidos.

Hoje perguntamo‑nos como os procurar1
e como os selecionar. A seleção dependerá, seguramente, do motivo
porque queremos ler mas, de um modo geral, será seguro que os artigos
mais citados por outros autores terão um maior interesse. No entanto, só
passado demasiado tempo sabemos que artigos são mais citados.

O que sabemos é que artigos publicados em revistas que tem artigos muito citados têm habitualmente mais citações.

revistas são as mais prestigiadas, mais procuradas para publicação e
por isso mais exigentes na escolha dos artigos que publicam. Por
consequência, os artigos aí publicados tendem a ter mais qualidade e
importância, sendo por isso mais citados.

O Institute of Scientific Information(ISI) agora parte da Web of Science da Thomson Reuters, concebeu uma medida do impacto de uma revista utilizando o número de citações – o fator de impacto (FI).2
O FI contabiliza as citações feitas num dado ano a artigos publicados
nos dois anos anteriores nas revistas incluídas no Science Citation
Index, a base de dados mais exigente de indexação de revistas

O cálculo do FI é o quociente entre o número de
citações que os artigos publicados na revista durante os dois anos
anteriores tiveram naquele ano e o número de artigos publicados – o FI
de 2014 da revista x é igual número de citações em 2014 dos artigos
publicados em 2012‑13 na revista x a dividir pelo número de artigos
publicados em 2012‑>13 na mesma revista. Simplificando poderíamos
dizer que um artigo publicado na revista Allergy, por exemplo, terá em média 6 citações nos 2 anos seguintes (Quadro 1). O FI de uma revista pode ser procurado no Journal of citations reports(JCR),3
um recurso pago da Thomson Reuters, a que as instituições portuguesas
têm acesso através da biblioteca do conhecimento online (B‑ Pelo
mês de junho de cada ano são publicados os FI do ano anterior. Em 2015
foi apresentada a 40.ª edição. A categoria Allergytem 24 revistas
indexadas e o fator de impacto agregado dessas 22 revistas é 4047,
correspondendo ao 22.º lugar das 232 categorias de todas as áreas
científicas que fazem parte do JCR. No Quadro 1 estão listadas por ordem decrescente as dez revistas com maior fator de impacto indexadas na categoria Allergy do JCR em 2014.

O FI é muito utilizado por ser uma medida simples, fácil de entender e
que mostrou o seu valor o longo de várias décadas. No entanto, como não
há medidas perfeitas, têm sido feitas muitas críticas ao FI4 e à sua
utilização para fins para os quais não foi desenvolvido. O FI não pode
ser utilizado para avaliar o impacto de um artigo em concreto, mas de
uma revista científica. Provavelmente a crítica mais frequente (mas não a
mais importante) feita ao FI é a impossibilidade de ser usada para
comparar revistas de diferentes áreas científicas – o número de citações
varia muito entre áreas científicas, por exemplo pelas diferenças de
produção científica mas também pela natureza própria das áreas e hábitos
de citação. Surgiram, por isso, outras métricas mais evoluídas como o
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) que tem em conta o
número total de citações de uma determinada área científica, o que
permite comparar revistas de áreas diferentes. Além de outras melhorias
face ao FI o SNIP é de acesso livre5 mas continua ser menos
conhecido. Já neste ano de 2015 a Thomson Reuters apresentou o percentil
de fator de impacto de uma revista, o qual normaliza o FI, permitindo a
comparação entre revistas de diferentes áreas. Existem várias outras
medidas de bibliometria, isto é, a análise estatística das publicações e
suas citações utilizadas em situações mais específicas.
Alem das medidas de bibliometria, a análise da disseminação e do
impacto que um determinado artigo tem pode hoje ser medido analisando as
referências ao artigo na Internet (webometrics). Em 2010, foi proposta uma medida mais geral do impacto dos artigos – a altmetrics,6 que além das citações incorpora o número de visualizações dos artigos, de downloads, de referências em bases de conhecimento, nos social média e média tradicionais.

medida pode ser aplicada a revistas, pessoas ou instituições, por
exemplo, concorrendo assim também o h‑index, uma métrica muito utilizada
para avaliar a produtividade e o impacto científico de um investigador
ou grupo.7 Ainda a propósito da disseminação do conhecimento
utilizando a Internet, são de referir ferramentas de comunicação
dirigida aos interesses de cada elemento de comunidades científicas e
que ajudam a conhecer os artigos que vão sendo publicados. São exemplos o
Research Gate (, Researcher ID ou
Em muitos casos são também repositórios de autoarquivo dos artigos
completos pelos autores, permitindo aceder a artigos publicados em
revistas às quais não temos acesso livre.

Em resumo, o
artigo científico é o principal meio de disseminação dos avanços do
conhecimento médico. As rápidas alterações das últimas décadas tornaram
necessário aprender a pesquisar e a selecionar os artigos científicos.

fator de impacto foi uma das primeiras métricas utilizadas para medir o
impacto da publicação científica, é muito utilizado por ser fácil de
interpretar mas também fácil de usar de forma inapropriada. Estamos a
assistir à utilização crescente de outras medidas que nos ajudam a
compreender melhor a disseminação e o impacto de revistas e de artigos
científicos, mas também dos próprios autores e grupos/instituições.


Jacinto T, Morais A, Fonseca, J A. How to write a scientific paper –
Searching and Managing Biomedical information. Rev Port Pneumol

2. The Thomson Reuters Impact factor.‑factor/

3. Journal of citation reports.

4. Fooladi M, Salehi H, Yunus MM, Farhadi M, Chadegani AA, Farhadi, H, et al. Does Criticisms Overcome the Praises of Journal Impact Factor?. Asian Social Science 2013; 9(5):176‑82

5. Centre for Science and Technology Studies (CWTS) Journal Indicators.

6. Priem J, Taraborelli D, Groth P, Neylon C, Altmetrics: A manifesto, 26 October 2010.

Jones T, Huggett S, Kamalski J. Finding a way through the scientific
literature: indexes and measures. World Neurosurg 2011; 76(1‑2):36‑8


João Fonseca


Hospital e Instituto

Estrada da Circunvalação 14341

4100‑180 Porto

Todo o conteúdo deste periódico, exceto onde está identificado, está licenciado sob uma Licença Creative Commons
  Sociedade Portuguesa de Alergologia e Imunologia Clínica

Rua Manuel Rodrigues da Silva, 7 C - escritório 1
1600-503 Lisboa

Revista Portuguesa de Imunoalergologia - Para além do fator de impacto: O artigo científico e a disseminação de conhecimento em Medicina