BackgroundAs statisticians develop new methodological approaches, there are many factors that influence whether others will utilize their work. This paper is a bibliometric study that identifies and quantifies associations between characteristics of new biostatistics methods and their citation counts. Of primary interest was the association between numbers of citations and whether software code was available to the reader.MethodsStatistics journal articles published in 2010 from 35 statistical journals were reviewed by two biostatisticians. Generalized linear mixed models were used to determine which characteristics (author, article, and journal) were independently associated with citation counts (as of April 1, 2017) in other peer-reviewed articles.ResultsOf 722 articles reviewed, 428 were classified as new biostatistics methods. In a multivariable model, for articles that were not freely accessible on the journal’s website, having code available appeared to offer no boost to the number of citations (adjusted rate ratio = 0.96, 95% CI = 0.74 to 1.24, p = 0.74); however, for articles that were freely accessible on the journal’s website, having code available was associated with a 2-fold increase in the number of citations (adjusted rate ratio = 2.01, 95% CI = 1.30 to 3.10, p = 0.002). Higher citation rates were also associated with higher numbers of references, longer articles, SCImago Journal Rank indicator (SJR), and total numbers of publications among authors, with the strongest impact on citation rates coming from SJR (rate ratio = 1.21 for a 1-unit increase in SJR; 95% CI = 1.11 to 1.32).ConclusionThese analyses shed new insight into factors associated with citation rates of articles on new biostatistical methods. Making computer code available to readers is a goal worth striving for that may enhance biostatistics knowledge translation.

Journal of Accounting Research Impact Factor 2024-2025 - ResearchHelpDesk - The Journal of Accounting Research is a general-interest accounting journal. It publishes original research in all areas of accounting and related fields that utilizes tools from basic disciplines such as economics, statistics, psychology, and sociology. This research typically uses analytical, empirical archival, experimental, and field study methods and addresses economic questions, external and internal, in accounting, auditing, disclosure, financial reporting, taxation, and information as well as related fields such as corporate finance, investments, capital markets, law, contracting, and information economics. The journal publishes four regular issues and one conference issue each year. The conference issue contains papers from the annual accounting research conference held at the University of Chicago. Topics published include: The impact of financial reporting and disclosure on stock prices; The economics of auditing, enforcement and audit oversight; The use of accounting information in contracting in debt, labour, supply, and other markets; The role of accounting in compensation and in corporate governance; The role of managerial accounting on internal decision making such as budgeting, costing, and transfer pricing; The real effects of financial reporting and disclosure (e.g. on firm behaviour); The economics of regulation of financial reporting and disclosure, including bank regulation; International differences in financial reporting and the role of reporting standards in international capital markets; The political economy of standard-setting; The use of accounting information in public finance and macroeconomic statistics; The impact of tax regulation on transaction structuring; The role of transparency in markets and society; Corporate Social Responsibility Keywords Accounting, Finance, Business, Global, Research, Statistical, Historical, Professional, Auditing, Theory, Financial, Management, Social, Environmental, Taxation, Analysis, Journal, Studies, Article, Periodical, Review, Book, Standards, Regulation, Rules, International Abstracting and Indexing Information ABI/INFORM Collection (ProQuest) Accounting, Tax & Banking Collection (ProQuest) Business Abstracts (EBSCO Publishing) Business ASAP (GALE Cengage) Business Premium Collection (ProQuest) CatchWord (Publishing Technology) Current Contents: Social & Behavioral Sciences (Clarivate Analytics) Current Index to Statistics (ASA/IMS) EBSCO Online (EBSCO Publishing) EconLit (AEA) Emerald Management Reviews (Emerald) Expanded Academic ASAP (GALE Cengage) InfoTrac (GALE Cengage) Journal Citation Reports/Social Science Edition (Clarivate Analytics) OmniFile Full Text Mega Edition (HW Wilson) Periodical Index Online (ProQuest) Proquest Business Collection (ProQuest) ProQuest Central (ProQuest) ProQuest Central K-277 ProQuest Politics Collection (ProQuest) ProQuest Sociology Collection (ProQuest) RePEc: Research Papers in Economics Research Library (ProQuest) Research Library Prep (ProQuest) SCOPUS (Elsevier) Social Science Premium Collection (ProQuest) Social Sciences Citation Index (Clarivate Analytics)

We consider the 13 journals that are primarily classified in the field of experimental psychology according to the ISI. We rank journals according to: (i) the maximization of the multi-class AUC statistic for the steady-state distributions and (ii) the JIF; q̅ and σ are the model parameters obtained using ; n̅ and Q2 are the mean and median number of citations in the steady state. We also show the steady-state period.

Since 2011, a declining trend in academic freedom globally has paralleled a rising tide of neo-nationalism. We use fixed effects models to examine data from the Varieties of Democracy (V-DEM) academic freedom index and bibliometric data for 17 OECD countries across nearly three decades (1981–2007) that precede the recent decline in academic freedom. We find substantial, statistically significant, positive relationships between cross-nationally comparable and longitudinal measures of academic freedom and volume of STEM publications. Additionally, academic freedom positively influenced the quality of STEM publications as measured by journal rankings. Our findings were relatively consistent across various measures of academic freedom and model specifications. We discuss implications for safeguarding academic freedom, applying neo-institutional theory, and identifying directions for future research.

Health Reports, published by the Health Analysis Division of Statistics Canada, is a peer-reviewed journal of population health and health services research. It is designed for a broad audience that includes health professionals, researchers, policymakers, and the general public. The journal publishes articles of wide interest that contain original and timely analyses of national or provincial/territorial surveys or administrative databases. New articles are published electronically each month.

Health Reports had an impact factor of 2.673 for 2014 and a five-year impact factor of 4.167. All articles are indexed in PubMed. Our online catalogue is free and receives more than 500,000 visits per year. External submissions are welcome.

The newspaper with the highest print circulation in the United States in the six months running to September 2023 was The Wall Street Journal, with an average weekday print circulation of 555.2 thousand. Ranking second was The New York Times, followed by The New York Post. The paper in the ranking with the highest year-over-year drop in circulation was The Denver Post with a decline of 25 percent (although Buffalo News recorded a higher drop, data does not refer to September 2022 to September 2023, see notes).

Categories assigned in institutional ranking by KBN (1992–2004) and the MNiSW (2007), published in Official Journals [43].

Comparison of journal self-citations in COVID-19 with other infectious diseases.

Most productive journals with at least 600 COVID-19 publications indexed in the Web of Science 2020–2023.

Study categorization criteria, examples, and descriptive statistics for each paper category regarding the percentage of behavioral information supporting the BA.

IntroductionJournal self-citation contributes to the overall citation count of a journal and to some metrics like the impact factor. However, little is known about the extent of journal self-citations in COVID-19 research. This study aimed to determine the journal self-citations in COVID-19 research and to compare them according to the type of publication and publisher.MethodsData in COVID-19 research extracted from the Web of Science Core Collection 2020–2023 was collected and further analyzed with InCites. The journals with the highest self-citation rates and self-citation per publication were identified. Statistical comparisons were made according to the type of publication and publishers, as well as with other major infectious diseases.ResultsThe median self-citation rate was 4.0% (IQR 0–11.7%), and the median journal self-citation rate was 5.9% (IQR 0–12.5%). 1,859 journals (13% of total coverage) had self-citation rates at or above 20%, meaning that more than one in five references are journal self-citations. There was a positive and statistically significant correlation of self-citations with the other indicators, including number of publications, citations, and self-citations per publication (p

An overview of statistical methods and their properties.

The entries in the table are the probabilities (as a percentage) of each treatment achieving each possible rank.

A mixed sampling methodology was implemented (Figure 1) to collect journals and articles. First, a selection filter was applied within the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) Journal Citation Report (https://jcr.clarivate.com) database to generate a list of 504 life science journals. Then, exclusion criteria were applied to the journal list and 245 periodicals were removed. Filters and exclusion criteria are given in Table 1. Using a pseudo-random sequence of 20 numbers between 1 and 259 generated using GraphPad QuickCalc (https://www.graphpad.com/quickcalcs/randMenu), a final shortlist of 20 journals among the 259 preselected ordered by decreasing 2018 Impact Factor were selected (the latest available impact factor at the time of designing this study). Four additional journals were finally excluded either because they were eventually found to be too clinical or because there was no online access granted to the author’s institution, leading to a final list of 16 periodicals (Table 3). Clinical journals were excluded although they may include publications with some preclinical experiments. This was justified to prevent the possible bias created by both the presumed small proportion of such articles in clinical periodicals which would have prompted a larger sampling and the supposed compliance of these studies with clinical guidelines whose standards may be different 29,30. Fifteen articles per journal were collected by sampling the online contents of each journal, starting from the last issue released in 2019 and browsing backward. This time window was selected to avoid the abundant literature on Coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) published since January 2020, which might show unusual statistical standards. Article inclusion and exclusion criteria are presented in Table 2. Studies using human data were acceptable when they used ex-vivo/in-vitro approaches for extracting tissues, cells or samples. From this intermediate list of 240 articles, 17 were finally excluded during the analysis due to previously unnoticed violations of inclusion criteria or for congruity with exclusion criteria, resulting in a final sample set that included 223 articles. Assessment of reportingEach article was explored, and three types of statistical attributes were quantified (Table 4). Indicators of the transparency of study protocols were binary items coded as 0 (presence of all needed information in the text) or 1 (absence of information in the text for at least one figure or table) and were aggregated as proportions of articles that had an insufficiency (non-disclosure) for the given item. The indicators were chosen as the minimum set of information needed by a reader to replicate the statistical protocol: precise sample size (experimental units), well identified test, software and no contradiction. A contradictory information is defined as a mismatch between information provided in different parts of the manuscript although they refer to the same object, such as the disclosure of dissimilar statistical tests (in methods and figure legends) to describe the analysis in one figure or the disclosure of multiple sample sizes for one single set of data. The article structure was assessed using quantitative items, specified as total counts of given items as well as one binary outcome (presence of a statistical paragraph). Qualitative items represented the article content and have been summarised as an inventory of information of interest. In the sampled articles, supplemental methods and information were considered full-fledged methodological information, but supplementary figures and tables presenting results were not eligible for the quantification of statistical insufficiencies, even if they were used to report location tests.

Summary of fixed effects models testing robustness of academic freedom measures.

Performance of the optimal classifiers on each feature list.

Models are ranked in order of their AIC (Akaike Information Criterion) scores, and other ranking are given along with values for corresponding statistics.

Statistics of the studied data sets.

Descriptive and inferential statistics for Experiment 1 audience rankings.

18 samples were from temperature group as input.Geometric mean (GM); Stability Value (SV); Pearson’s correlation coefficient ([r]); Standard Deviation (SD).A summary of ranking for reference gene candidates using five different statistical approaches.