Scientometrics

, Volume 90, Issue 2, pp 331–342 | Cite as

The perceived impact of publications on Neglected Tropical Zoonoses as measured by their impact factor

  • Dieter Vanderelst
  • Sara Speybroeck
  • Niko Speybroeck
Article

Abstract

We investigated whether papers on Neglected Tropical Zoonoses are published in journals with lower impact factors than research on diseases with a similar global health burden. We found that, despite being cited equally often, the papers on Neglected Tropical Zoonoses were published in journals with lower impact factors. The scopes of these journals are mainly restricted to Tropical medicine. A clustering analysis revealed that The Lancet, a high impact general medical journal, does pay attention to Neglected Tropical Zoonoses. We discuss our findings in the context of the ongoing discussion about the publishing policies of medical journals. Moreover, our findings stress the importance of recent suggestions that impact factors should not be used for assigning public funding to research (programs) on Neglected Tropical Zoonoses.

Keywords

Neglected Tropical Zoonoses Neglected Tropical Diseases DALY Burden of disease 

References

  1. Bakker, P., & Rigter, H. (1985). Editors of medical journals: Who and from where. Scientometrics, 7(1), 11–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Balasegaram, M., Balasegaram, S., Malvy, D., & Millet, P. (2008). Neglected diseases in the news: A content analysis of recent international media coverage focussing on leishmaniasis and trypanosomiasis. PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases, 2(5), e234.Google Scholar
  3. Bosman, M., & Mwinga, A. (2000). Tropical diseases and the 10/90 gap. The Lancet, 356(Supplement 1), S63–S63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Catling, J., Mason, V., & Upton, D. (2009). Quality is in the eye of the beholder? An evaluation of impact factors and perception of journal prestige in the UK. Scientometrics, 81(2), 333–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chew, M., Villanueva, E., & Van Der Weyden, M. (2007). Life and times of the impact factor: Retrospective analysis of trends for seven medical journals (1994–2005) and their Editors’ views. JRSM, 100(3), 142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chirac, P., & Torreele, E. (2006). Global framework on essential health R&D. The Lancet, 367(9522), 1560–1561.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Engels, D., & Savioli, L. (2006). Reconsidering the underestimated burden caused by neglected tropical diseases. Trends in Parasitology, 22(8), 363–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Falagas, M., Pitsouni, E., Malietzis, G., & Pappas, G. (2008). Comparison of PubMed, Scopus, web of science, and Google scholar: Strengths and weaknesses. The FASEB Journal, 22(2), 338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Frank, M. (2003). Impact factors: Arbiter of excellence? Journal of the Medical Library Association, 91(1), 4.Google Scholar
  10. Gordon, M. (1984). How authors select journals: A test of the reward maximization model of submission behaviour. Social Studies of Science, 14(1), 27–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Harzing, A., & van der Wai, R. (2008). Google scholar as a new source for citation analysis. Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics (ESEP), 8(1), 61–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Horton, R. (2003). Medical journals: Evidence of bias against the diseases of poverty. Lancet, 361(9359), 712.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hotez, P., Molyneux, D., Fenwick, A., Kumaresan, J., Sachs, S., Sachs, J., & Savioli, L. (2007a). Control of neglected tropical diseases. The New England Journal of medicine, 357(10), 1018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hotez, P., Molyneux, D., Fenwick, A., Ottesen, E., Sachs, S., & Sachs, J. (2007b). Incorporating a rapid-impact package for neglected tropical diseases with programs for HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria. PLoS Medicine, 3(5), 576.Google Scholar
  15. Hotez, P., Fenwick, A., Savioli, L., & Molyneux, D. (2009). Rescuing the bottom billion through control of neglected tropical diseases. The Lancet, 373(9674), 1570–1575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hunter, P. (2009). Bibliometrics, research quality, and neglected tropical diseases. The Lancet, 373(9664), 630–631.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Krell, F. (2010). Should editors influence journal impact factors? Learned Publishing, 23(1), 59–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Luukkonen, T. (1992). Is scientists’ publishing behaviour reward seeking? Scientometrics, 24(2), 297–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Mathers, C., Ezzati, M., Lopez, A. (2007). Measuring the burden of neglected tropical diseases: The global burden of disease framework. PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases, 1(2), e161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Matias-Guiu, J., Garcia-Ramos, R. (2008). The impact factor and editorial decisions. Neurologia, 23(6), 342–348.Google Scholar
  21. Médecins Sans Frontières (2001). Fatal imbalance: The crisis in research and development for drugs for neglected diseases. Tech. Rep. Geneva, Switzerland: MS Frontires.Google Scholar
  22. Morel, C. M., Serruya, S. J., Penna, G. O., & Guimares, R. (2009). Co-authorship network analysis: A powerful tool for strategic planning of research, development and capacity building programs on neglected diseases. PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases, 3(8), e501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Pringle, J. (2008). Trends in the use of ISI citation databases for evaluation. Learned Publishing, 21(2), 85–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Pruss-Ustun, A., Mathers, C., Corvalan, C., & Woodward, A. (2003). The global burden of disease concept. Introduction and methods: Assessing the environmental burden of disease at national and local levels (pp. 27–40). Geneva, Switzerland: WHO.Google Scholar
  25. R Development Core Team (2010). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna. http://www.R-project.org. Accessed Nov 2010.
  26. Regazzi, J., & Aytac, S. (2008). Author perceptions of journal quality. Learned Publishing, 21(3), 225–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Saha, S., Saint, S., & Christakis, D. (2003). Impact factor: A valid measure of journal quality? Journal—Medical Library Association, 91, 42–46.Google Scholar
  28. Seglen, P. O. (1997). Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research. British Medical Journal, 314(7079):497. http://www.bmj.com/content/314/7079/497.1.short.
  29. Sumathipala, A., Siribaddana, S., & Patel, V. (2004). Under-representation of developing countries in the research literature: Ethical issues arising from a survey of five leading medical journals. BMC Medical Ethics, 5(1), 5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. US National Library of Medicine (2010). Medline pubmed xml element descriptions and their attributes. Bethesda, Maryland, USA.Google Scholar
  31. Vanderelst, D., & Speybroeck, N. (2010). Quantifying the lack of scientific interest in neglected tropical diseases. PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases, 4(1), 576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Venables, W., & Ripley, B. (2002). Modern applied statistics with S. New York, NY: Springer Verlag.MATHGoogle Scholar
  33. WHO (2008). The global burden of disease: 2004 Update. http://www.who.int/evidence/bod. Accessed Nov 2010.
  34. WHO (2010). Working to overcome the global impact of neglected tropical diseases: First who report on neglected tropical diseases. Tech. Rep. Geneva, Switzerland: WHO.Google Scholar
  35. WHO (2011). Neglected zoonotic diseases. http://www.who.int/neglected_diseases/zoonoses/en/. Accessed Nov 2010.
  36. Yamey, G. (2002). The world’s most neglected diseases Ignored by the pharmaceutical industry and by public–private partnerships. British Medical Journal, 325(7357), 176–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dieter Vanderelst
    • 1
  • Sara Speybroeck
    • 2
  • Niko Speybroeck
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Applied EconomicsUniversity AntwerpAntwerpBelgium
  2. 2.Instituut voor Onderwijskunde & Informatie WetenschappenUniversity AntwerpAntwerpBelgium
  3. 3.Faculté de Santé PubliqueUniversité Catholique de LouvainLouvainBelgium

Personalised recommendations