BackgroundThere is widespread evidence that statistical methods play an important role in original research articles, especially in medical research. The evaluation of statistical methods and reporting in journals suffers from a lack of standardized methods for assessing the use of statistics. The objective of this study was to develop and evaluate an instrument to assess the statistical intensity in research articles in a standardized way.MethodsA checklist-type measure scale was developed by selecting and refining items from previous reports about the statistical contents of medical journal articles and from published guidelines for statistical reporting. A total of 840 original medical research articles that were published between 2007–2015 in 16 journals were evaluated to test the scoring instrument. The total sum of all items was used to assess the intensity between sub-fields and journals. Inter-rater agreement was examined using a random sample of 40 articles. Four raters read and evaluated the selected articles using the developed instrument.ResultsThe scale consisted of 66 items. The total summary score adequately discriminated between research articles according to their study design characteristics. The new instrument could also discriminate between journals according to their statistical intensity. The inter-observer agreement measured by the ICC was 0.88 between all four raters. Individual item analysis showed very high agreement between the rater pairs, the percentage agreement ranged from 91.7% to 95.2%.ConclusionsA reliable and applicable instrument for evaluating the statistical intensity in research papers was developed. It is a helpful tool for comparing the statistical intensity between sub-fields and journals. The novel instrument may be applied in manuscript peer review to identify papers in need of additional statistical review.

The New England Journal of Medicine Acceptance Rate - ResearchHelpDesk - The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) is the world’s leading medical journal and website. Published continuously for over 200 years, NEJM delivers high-quality, peer-reviewed research and interactive clinical content to physicians, educators, and the global medical community. Our mission is to bring physicians the best research and information at the intersection of biomedical science and clinical practice and to present this information in understandable and clinically useful formats that inform health care delivery and improve patient outcomes. To these ends, the NEJM editorial team employs rigorous: Editorial, peer, and statistical review processes to evaluate manuscripts for scientific accuracy, novelty, and importance. Policies and practices to ensure that authors disclose all relevant financial associations and that such associations in no way influence the content NEJM publishes. A truly global brand, NEJM keeps health care professionals at the leading edge of medical knowledge, helps them to gain broad understanding in their areas of interest, and provides valuable perspectives on the practice of medicine. Today, NEJM is the most widely read, cited, and influential general medical periodical in the world. More than 600,000 people from nearly every country read NEJM in print and online each week. Each year, NEJM receives more than 16,000 research and other submissions for consideration for publication. About 5% of original research submissions achieve publication by NEJM; more than half originate from outside the U.S. NEJM is cited more often in scientific literature than any other medical journal, and has the highest Journal Impact Factor (70.670) of all general medical journals (2018 Journal Citation Reports, Web of Science Group, 2019). NEJM is a Public Access Journal. All original research content is freely available on NEJM.org six months after the date of publication. In addition, qualifying low-income countries are granted free access to all articles on NEJM.org dating back to 1990. The editors may also make certain materials including articles on global health and of public health importance free to all readers immediately upon publication on NEJM.org

Update — December 7, 2014. – Evidence-based medicine (EBM) is not working for many reasons, for example: 1. Incorrect in their foundations (paradox): hierarchical levels of evidence are supported by opinions (i.e., lowest strength of evidence according to EBM) instead of real data collected from different types of study designs (i.e., evidence). http://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.1122534 2. The effect of criminal practices by pharmaceutical companies is only possible because of the complicity of others: healthcare systems, professional associations, governmental and academic institutions. Pharmaceutical companies also corrupt at the personal level, politicians and political parties are on their payroll, medical professionals seduced by different types of gifts in exchange of prescriptions (i.e., bribery) which very likely results in patients not receiving the proper treatment for their disease, many times there is no such thing: healthy persons not needing pharmacological treatments of any kind are constantly misdiagnosed and treated with unnecessary drugs. Some medical professionals are converted in K.O.L. which is only a puppet appearing on stage to spread lies to their peers, a person supposedly trained to improve the well-being of others, now deceits on behalf of pharmaceutical companies. Probably the saddest thing is that many honest doctors are being misled by these lies created by the rules of pharmaceutical marketing instead of scientific, medical, and ethical principles. Interpretation of EBM in this context was not anticipated by their creators. “The main reason we take so many drugs is that drug companies don’t sell drugs, they sell lies about drugs.” ―Peter C. Gøtzsche “doctors and their organisations should recognise that it is unethical to receive money that has been earned in part through crimes that have harmed those people whose interests doctors are expected to take care of. Many crimes would be impossible to carry out if doctors weren’t willing to participate in them.” —Peter C Gøtzsche, The BMJ, 2012, Big pharma often commits corporate crime, and this must be stopped. Pending (Colombia): Health Promoter Entities (In Spanish: EPS ―Empresas Promotoras de Salud).

1. Misinterpretations New technologies or concepts are difficult to understand in the beginning, it doesn’t matter their simplicity, we need to get used to new tools aimed to improve our professional practice. Probably the best explanation is here in these videos (credits to Antonio Villafaina for sharing these videos with me). English https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQHX-SjgQvQ&w=420&h=315 Spanish https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DApozQBrlhU&w=420&h=315 ----------------------- Hypothesis: hierarchical levels of evidence based medicine are wrong Dear Editor, I have data to support the hypothesis described in the title of this letter. Before rejecting the null hypothesis I would like to ask the following open question:Could you support with data that hierarchical levels of evidence based medicine are correct? (1,2) Additional explanation to this question: – Only respond to this question attaching publicly available raw data.– Be aware that more than a question this is a challenge: I have data (i.e., evidence) which is contrary to classic (i.e., McMaster) or current (i.e., Oxford) hierarchical levels of evidence based medicine. An important part of this data (but not all) is publicly available. References
2. Ramirez, Jorge H (2014): The EBM challenge. figshare. http://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.1135873
3. The EBM Challenge Day 1: No Answers. Competing interests: I endorse the principles of open data in human biomedical research Read this letter on The BMJ – August 13, 2014.http://www.bmj.com/content/348/bmj.g3725/rr/762595Re: Greenhalgh T, et al. Evidence based medicine: a movement in crisis? BMJ 2014; 348: g3725. _ Fileset contents Raw data: Excel archive: Raw data, interactive figures, and PubMed search terms. Google Spreadsheet is also available (URL below the article description). Figure 1. Unadjusted (Fig 1A) and adjusted (Fig 1B) PubMed publication trends (01/01/1992 to 30/06/2014). Figure 2. Adjusted PubMed publication trends (07/01/2008 to 29/06/2014) Figure 3. Google search trends: Jan 2004 to Jun 2014 / 1-week periods. Figure 4. PubMed publication trends (1962-2013) systematic reviews and meta-analysis, clinical trials, and observational studies.
   Figure 5. Ramirez, Jorge H (2014): Infographics: Unpublished US phase 3 clinical trials (2002-2014) completed before Jan 2011 = 50.8%. figshare.http://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.1121675 Raw data: "13377 studies found for: Completed | Interventional Studies | Phase 3 | received from 01/01/2002 to 01/01/2014 | Worldwide". This database complies with the terms and conditions of ClinicalTrials.gov: http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/about-site/terms-conditions Supplementary Figures (S1-S6). PubMed publication delay in the indexation processes does not explain the descending trends in the scientific output of evidence-based medicine. Acknowledgments I would like to acknowledge the following persons for providing valuable concepts in data visualization and infographics:
4. Maria Fernanda Ramírez. Professor of graphic design. Universidad del Valle. Cali, Colombia.
5. Lorena Franco. Graphic design student. Universidad del Valle. Cali, Colombia. Related articles by this author (Jorge H. Ramírez)
6. Ramirez JH. Lack of transparency in clinical trials: a call for action. Colomb Med (Cali) 2013;44(4):243-6. URL: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24892242
7. Ramirez JH. Re: Evidence based medicine is broken (17 June 2014). http://www.bmj.com/node/759181
8. Ramirez JH. Re: Global rules for global health: why we need an independent, impartial WHO (19 June 2014). http://www.bmj.com/node/759151
9. Ramirez JH. PubMed publication trends (1992 to 2014): evidence based medicine and clinical practice guidelines (04 July 2014). http://www.bmj.com/content/348/bmj.g3725/rr/759895 Recommended articles
10. Greenhalgh Trisha, Howick Jeremy,Maskrey Neal. Evidence based medicine: a movement in crisis? BMJ 2014;348:g3725
11. Spence Des. Evidence based medicine is broken BMJ 2014; 348:g22
12. Schünemann Holger J, Oxman Andrew D,Brozek Jan, Glasziou Paul, JaeschkeRoman, Vist Gunn E et al. Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations for diagnostic tests and strategies BMJ 2008; 336:1106
13. Lau Joseph, Ioannidis John P A, TerrinNorma, Schmid Christopher H, OlkinIngram. The case of the misleading funnel plot BMJ 2006; 333:597
14. Moynihan R, Henry D, Moons KGM (2014) Using Evidence to Combat Overdiagnosis and Overtreatment: Evaluating Treatments, Tests, and Disease Definitions in the Time of Too Much. PLoS Med 11(7): e1001655. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001655
15. Katz D. A-holistic view of evidence based medicinehttp://thehealthcareblog.com/blog/2014/05/02/a-holistic-view-of-evidence-based-medicine/ ---

The Journal of Community Health Management Impact Factor 2024-2025 - ResearchHelpDesk - The Journal of Community Health Management (JCHM) is open access, double-blind peer-review journal publishing quarterly since 2014. JCHM is proclaimed by Innovative Education and Scientific Research Foundation, print and published by Innovative Publication. It has an International Standard Serial Number (ISSN 2394-272X, e ISSN 2394-2738). JCHM permits authors to self-archive final approval of the articles on any OAI-compliant institutional/subject-based repository. Aim and Scope JCHM is focusing on Community Health which is the branch of the Public Health, it's making people aware and describing their role as determinants of their own and other people’s health in contrast to environmental health which focal point on the physical environment and its impact on people health. It concentrates on the maintenance, protection, and improvement of the health status of population groups and communities. The scope is, therefore, huge covering almost all streams of Community Health Management starting from original research articles, review articles, short communications, and clinical cases as well as studies covering clinical, experimental and applied topics on Community health Management on above subjective areas. The scope of the journal isn't restricted to those subjects however it's the broader coverage of all the newest updates and specialties. Indexing The Journal is an index with Index Copernicus (Poland), Google Scholar, J-gate, EBSCO (USA) database, Academia.edu, CrossRef, ROAD, InfoBase Index, GENAMIC, etc. Keywords Acute Care, Bio-statics, Community Health, Epidemiology and Health Services Research, Health Management, Medicine and Allied branches of Medical Sciences including Health Statistics, Nutrition, Preventive Medicine, Primary Prevention, Primary Health Care, Secondary Prevention, Secondary Healthcare, Tertiary Healthcare.

The Journal of Community Health Management FAQ - ResearchHelpDesk - The Journal of Community Health Management (JCHM) is open access, double-blind peer-review journal publishing quarterly since 2014. JCHM is proclaimed by Innovative Education and Scientific Research Foundation, print and published by Innovative Publication. It has an International Standard Serial Number (ISSN 2394-272X, e ISSN 2394-2738). JCHM permits authors to self-archive final approval of the articles on any OAI-compliant institutional/subject-based repository. Aim and Scope JCHM is focusing on Community Health which is the branch of the Public Health, it's making people aware and describing their role as determinants of their own and other people’s health in contrast to environmental health which focal point on the physical environment and its impact on people health. It concentrates on the maintenance, protection, and improvement of the health status of population groups and communities. The scope is, therefore, huge covering almost all streams of Community Health Management starting from original research articles, review articles, short communications, and clinical cases as well as studies covering clinical, experimental and applied topics on Community health Management on above subjective areas. The scope of the journal isn't restricted to those subjects however it's the broader coverage of all the newest updates and specialties. Indexing The Journal is an index with Index Copernicus (Poland), Google Scholar, J-gate, EBSCO (USA) database, Academia.edu, CrossRef, ROAD, InfoBase Index, GENAMIC, etc. Keywords Acute Care, Bio-statics, Community Health, Epidemiology and Health Services Research, Health Management, Medicine and Allied branches of Medical Sciences including Health Statistics, Nutrition, Preventive Medicine, Primary Prevention, Primary Health Care, Secondary Prevention, Secondary Healthcare, Tertiary Healthcare.

Good quality medical research generally requires not only an expertise in the chosen medical field of interest but also a sound knowledge of statistical methodology. The number of medical research articles which have been published in Indian medical journals has increased quite substantially in the past decade. The aim of this study was to collate all evidence on study design quality and statistical analyses used in selected leading Indian medical journals. Ten (10) leading Indian medical journals were selected based on impact factors and all original research articles published in 2003 (N = 588) and 2013 (N = 774) were categorized and reviewed. A validated checklist on study design, statistical analyses, results presentation, and interpretation was used for review and evaluation of the articles. Main outcomes considered in the present study were – study design types and their frequencies, error/defects proportion in study design, statistical analyses, and implementation of CONSORT checklist in RCT (randomized clinical trials). From 2003 to 2013: The proportion of erroneous statistical analyses did not decrease (χ2=0.592, Φ=0.027, p=0.4418), 25% (80/320) in 2003 compared to 22.6% (111/490) in 2013. Compared with 2003, significant improvement was seen in 2013; the proportion of papers using statistical tests increased significantly (χ2=26.96, Φ=0.16, p

This year, from January 1 to December 28, a total of 111 papers were submitted to Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions (JEEHP). Of these 111 papers, 88 were regarded as unsuitable because they did not follow the instructions for manuscript preparation for JEEHP, and some of the papers were eventually rejected or were resubmitted after revision. So far, 34 papers have been published this year, and 21 are in the processing stage. The acceptance rate is currently 27.4%, which is lower than the acceptance rate for 2016.

Datasets for publication: 'Measuring the excellence contribution at the journal level: An alternative to Garfield's Impact Factor'.

Overview. Overview of the number of journals, publications, excellent publications and multidisciplinarity for each category considered.

ALL. Journal indicators for all the document types by JCR category.

ALL_JCR. Journal indicators for all the document types by JCR category (only journals indexed in the JCR category are taken into account).

AR. Journal indicators for only articles and reviews by JCR category.

AR_JCR. Journal indicators for only articles and reviews by JCR category (only journals indexed in the JCR category are taken into account).

Background This bibliometric analysis examines the top 50 most-cited articles on COVID-19 complications, offering insights into the multifaceted impact of the virus. Since its emergence in Wuhan in December 2019, COVID-19 has evolved into a global health crisis, with over 770 million confirmed cases and 6.9 million deaths as of September 2023. Initially recognized as a respiratory illness causing pneumonia and ARDS, its diverse complications extend to cardiovascular, gastrointestinal, renal, hematological, neurological, endocrinological, ophthalmological, hepatobiliary, and dermatological systems. Methods Identifying the top 50 articles from a pool of 5940 in Scopus, the analysis spans November 2019 to July 2021, employing terms related to COVID-19 and complications. Rigorous review criteria excluded non-relevant studies, basic science research, and animal models. The authors independently reviewed articles, considering factors like title, citations, publication year, journal, impact fa..., A bibliometric analysis of the most cited articles about COVID-19 complications was conducted in July 2021 using all journals indexed in Elsevier’s Scopus and Thomas Reuter’s Web of Science from November 1, 2019 to July 1, 2021. All journals were selected for inclusion regardless of country of origin, language, medical speciality, or electronic availability of articles or abstracts. The terms were combined as follows: (“COVID-19†OR “COVID19†OR “SARS-COV-2†OR “SARSCOV2†OR “SARS 2†OR “Novel coronavirus†OR “2019-nCov†OR “Coronavirus†) AND (“Complication†OR “Long Term Complication†OR “Post-Intensive Care Syndrome†OR “Venous Thromboembolism†OR “Acute Kidney Injury†OR “Acute Liver Injury†OR “Post COVID-19 Syndrome†OR “Acute Cardiac Injury†OR “Cardiac Arrest†OR “Stroke†OR “Embolism†OR “Septic Shock†OR “Disseminated Intravascular Coagulation†OR “Secondary Infection†OR “Blood Clots† OR “Cytokine Release Syndrome†OR “Paediatric Inflammatory Multisystem Syndrome†OR “Vaccine..., , # Data of top 50 most cited articles about COVID-19 and the complications of COVID-19

This dataset contains information about the top 50 most cited articles about COVID-19 and the complications of COVID-19. We have looked into a variety of research and clinical factors for the analysis.

Description of the data and file structure

The data sheet offers a comprehensive analysis of the selected articles. It delves into specifics such as the publication year of the top 50 articles, the journals responsible for publishing them, and the geographical region with the highest number of citations in this elite list. Moreover, the sheet sheds light on the key players involved, including authors and their affiliated departments, in crafting the top 50 most cited articles.

Beyond these fundamental aspects, the data sheet goes on to provide intricate details related to the study types and topics prevalent in the top 50 articles. To enrich the analysis, it incorporates clinical data, capturing...

Financial overview and grant giving statistics of The Medical Journal Club

ABSTRACT This research analyzes the characteristics of Qualis A1 medical journals in order to set up a critical reflection on the impact of journal evaluation policies on Brazilian scientific production. Identifies editorial characteristics of the A1 journals in the areas of Medicina I, Medicina II and Medicina III through a qualitative-quantitative analysis, in order to draw a profile of these journals. The information was extracted from the following systems: Sucupira, Ulrichsweb, DOAJ, Scimago Journal Rank and Journal Citation Reports. The results for the profile of the journals were homogeneous among the three medical areas, and demonstrated that they are mainly published by commercial entities with the predominance of the publisher Elsevier; the median of the unified factor (Journal Impact Factor or Cites per Doc) is 5,365; the frequency of publishing is monthly; they are 45 years old; 13% are Open Access; the predominant country is the United States and that the English language is almost unanimous. It concludes that the observed editorial characteristics reflect the hegemony of commercial conglomerates in the academic publishing market, and that the Brazilian journals, mostly of Open Access and financed by public resources, are unable to compete with the journals of these companies.

International Journal of Contemporary Medical Research Impact Factor 2024-2025 - ResearchHelpDesk - International Journal of Contemporary Medical Research - IJCMR, an official publication of International Society for Contemporary Medical Research (Registered under Government of India, Society Registration Act No - 21, 1860), is a peer reviewed, international, print and online, open access journal with MONTHLY (since January, 2016) publication. It is a multidisciplinary journal to provide a forum for the presentation and criticism of original, innovative and thought provocative ideas in medical and allied specialties. IJCMR publishes new, challenging and radical ideas, so long as they are coherent and clearly expressed. The types of article accepted include original articles, review articles, case reports, and letters to the editor. Clinical microbiology relevant immunology, pathophysiology, genetics, epidemiological, and genomics studies are also welcome. International Journal of Contemporary Medical Research is an internationally targeted official publication. All articles have to be original articles that have not been published elsewhere or are being considered for publication in other journals. All articles submitted will be peer reviewed by experts. Receipt of the manuscript will be acknowledged by email. Every effort will be made to complete the review process within 2 weeks and communicated to the corresponding author. Papers should be submitted to ijcmr.journal@gmail.com. The Editorial board will strive for the quality of the journal and will also index the journal in various indexing bodies and the information will be updated on the journal website from time to time. We welcome all your submissions. I hope you will consider IJCMR for your next submission. Periodicity of the journal - Quarterly (Since inception to 2015 June (Volume 2; Issue 2) Bimonthly (Since 2015 July (Volume 2; Issue 3)) Monthly (Since January 2016 (Volume 3; Issue 1)) Scope of Journal The journal covers all aspects of medical sciences from genes to humans. Articles reporting clinical observations, experimental studies and theoretical concepts are all welcome, and especially welcome high quality review articles from distinguished authors, and original articles reporting new findings in medical and allied sciences. The journal covers technical and clinical studies related to health, ethical and social issues in the fields of Science and allied specialties. Articles with clinical interest and implications will be given preference. Journal editors, welcome thought provoking papers on areas listed above. Decisions about papers will be communicated to authors within 3 weeks of submission. IJCMR publishes original research work that contributes significantly to further the scientific knowledge and research in Medical, Dental, Pharmaceutical Sciences etc.. and aims to provide a platform to researchers to publish their articles. It comprises peer- reviewed articles as its core material which includes original research papers, case reports and review articles as well. We encourage the submission of manuscripts that cross disciplines and also studies that address universal problems of human health. Fields Anesthesiology, Anatomy, Animal Research, Ayurveda, Sidha & Unani (All Branches) Biochemistry, Biotechnology, Cardiology, Community, Dermatology, Dentistry (All Branches), Education, Emergency Medicine, Endocrinology, Ethics, Ear Nose and Throat, Forensic, Gastroenterology, Genetics, Haematology, Health Management and Policy, Homeopathy, Immunology and Infectious Diseases, Intensive Care, Internal Medicine, Microbiology, Health Management and Policy, Immunology and Infectious Diseases, Intensive Care, Internal Medicine, Microbiology, Nephrology / Renal, Neurology and Neuro-Surgery, Nutrition, Oncology, Orthopaedics, Ophthalmology, Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Paediatrics and Neonatology, Pharmacology, Pharmacy (All branches) Physiology, Pathology, Plastic Surgery, Psychiatry/Mental Health, Rehabilitation, Radiology, Statistics, Surgery, Yoga and alternative therapies.

Poor data and code (DAC) sharing undermines open science principles. This study evaluates the stringency of DAC availability policies in high-profile medical journals and identifies policy-practice gaps (PPG) in published articles. DAC availability policies of 931 Q1 medical journals (Clarivate JCR 2021) were evaluated, with PPGs quantified across 3,191 articles from The BMJ, JAMA, NEJM, and The Lancet. Only 9.1% (85/931) of journals mandated DAC sharing and availability statements, with 70.6% of these lacking mechanisms to verify authenticity, and 61.2% allowing publication despite invalid sharing. Secondary analysis revealed a disproportionate distribution of policies across subspecialties, with 18.6% (11/59) of subspecialties having >20% journals with mandated policies. Journal impact factors exhibited positive correlations with the stringency of availability statement policies (ρ = 0.20, p 

Clinical and Experimental Vaccine Research has been an official journal of the Korean Vaccine Society. Five years passed since its launch in 2012; therefore, it is a time to check the present situation in the international network of journals. To evaluate the journal, there is a variety of tools; however, journal metrics is one of the most frequently used ones because it provides the quantitative data on the journal’s reputation and even quality. Of course, for the journal evaluation, article’s quality itself is the most important and valuable one. Also the data accompanied by the article should be seized for its usefulness [1]. As for article content and data in the journal, it can be analyzed by vaccine researchers in the world. Before that, I would like to provide the quantitative data based on journal metrics to help them to grasp the merit of the journal.

The classification in reproducible and not reproducible models was made by Tiwari et al.

Citations were looked up in Scopus, Web of Science and Google Scholar.

The following journals had to be excluded, as Journal Impact Factors (JIF) were missing or papers were discontinued: * Experientia was closed 1996 and continued as Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences 1997 * The American journal of physiology – split into fields 1977, further splits in 1980 and 1989 * IFAC Proceedings Volumes – last issue 2014, continued as IFAC-PapersOnLine * Mathematical and Computer Modelling – discontinued as of 2014 * IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering – not a journal but conference proceedings – no impact factor listed * Infectious Disease Modelling – no impact factor found * Jurnal Teknologi – no impact factor found * JCO clinical cancer informatics – no impact factor found * Quantitative biology (Beijing, China) – no impact factor found * Letters in Biomathematics – no impact factor found * Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society. IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society. Annual International Conference – no impact factor found * Haemostasis – discontinued; no impact factor found

It was tried to include as many papers as possible.

As the JIF is calculated every year, an average JIF of the Journal Citation Reports from 2014 to 2021 was calculated and used for the analysis. The results do not differ qualitatively if only the JIF of 2021 was used. As the Journal Impact Factor reports belong to Clarivate the JCR data was not uploaded to the repository.

BackgroundSharing research data provides benefit to the general scientific community, but the benefit is less obvious for the investigator who makes his or her data available.Principal FindingsWe examined the citation history of 85 cancer microarray clinical trial publications with respect to the availability of their data. The 48% of trials with publicly available microarray data received 85% of the aggregate citations. Publicly available data was significantly (p = 0.006) associated with a 69% increase in citations, independently of journal impact factor, date of publication, and author country of origin using linear regression.SignificanceThis correlation between publicly available data and increased literature impact may further motivate investigators to share their detailed research data.

*Chi-square test for differences on three years.#Database includes EpiData, Oracle, Access and Others. If the article mentioned the data is input into database, then it was divided into "Others".※Excel is not a database.Statistical software published in 1990, 2000, and 2010.

It is difficult to determine the influence and impact of journals which are not covered by the ISI databases and Journal Citation Report. However, with the availability of databases such as MyAIS (Malaysian Abstracting and Indexing System), which offers sufficient information to support bibliometric analysis as well as being indexed by Google Scholar which provides citation information, it has become possible to obtain productivity, citation and impact information for non-ISI indexed journals. The bibliometric tool Harzing's Publish and Perish was used to collate citation information from Google scholar. The study examines article productivity, the citations obtained by articles and calculates the impact factor of Medical Journal of Malaysia (MJM) published between 2004 and 2008. MJM is the oldest medical journal in Malaysia and the unit of analysis is 580 articles. The results indicate that once a journal is covered by MyAIS it becomes visible and accessible on the Web because Google Scholarindexes MyAIS. The results show that contributors to MJM were mainly Malaysian (91) and the number of Malaysian-Foreign collaborated papers were very small (28 articles, 4.8). However, citation information from Google scholar indicates that out of the 580 articles, 76.8 (446) have been cited over the 5-year period. The citations were received from both mainstrean foreign as well as Malaysian journals and the top three citors were from China, Malaysia and the United States. In general more citations were received from East Asian countries, Europe, and Southeast Asia. The 2-yearly impact factor calculated for MJM is 0.378 in 2009, 0.367 in 2008, 0.616 in 2007 and 0.456 in 2006. The 5-year impact factor is calculated as 0.577. The results show that although MJM is a Malaysian journal and not ISI indexed its contents have some international significance based on the citations and impact score it receives, indicating the importance of being visible especially in Google scholar.

The global medical journal market is a dynamic sector characterized by significant growth driven by several key factors. The increasing prevalence of chronic diseases, coupled with the expanding research and development activities in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries, fuels the demand for high-quality, peer-reviewed medical publications. Technological advancements, particularly the rise of electronic versions and online access, are transforming the way medical professionals consume information, leading to increased accessibility and broader reach. The market is segmented by application (Research Institutes, Hospitals, Individuals, Others) and type (Paper Version, Electronic Version). While the paper version segment continues to hold a market share, the electronic version demonstrates robust growth, driven by its convenience, cost-effectiveness, and widespread accessibility. Furthermore, the integration of advanced technologies like data analytics and artificial intelligence within medical journals is expected to enhance their value and functionality, further driving market expansion. Key players, including The Lancet, Nature, BMJ, and NEJM Group, are actively shaping market dynamics through innovative publishing models and strategic acquisitions. Geographical distribution reveals significant regional variations, with North America and Europe holding substantial market shares, attributed to robust healthcare infrastructure, extensive research activities, and high per capita healthcare expenditure. However, emerging economies in Asia-Pacific and other regions are exhibiting strong growth potential, driven by increasing healthcare investments and a rising middle class. The market's future trajectory reflects a consistent upward trend, with the compound annual growth rate (CAGR) projected to remain healthy for the forecast period (2025-2033). Restraints such as subscription costs and the need for open access initiatives to ensure broader access to research are prevalent. However, the continued advancement of technology, the escalating demand for evidence-based medicine, and increasing healthcare expenditures are likely to outweigh these challenges, ensuring sustainable growth. The strategic partnerships between publishers, research institutions, and healthcare providers will play a crucial role in shaping the future landscape, fostering collaboration and dissemination of crucial medical knowledge globally. This growth will likely lead to increased competition, encouraging publishers to continuously innovate and enhance the quality and accessibility of their journals.

Unlock valuable biomedical knowledge with our comprehensive PubMed Dataset, designed for researchers, analysts, and healthcare professionals to track medical advancements, explore drug discoveries, and analyze scientific literature.

Dataset Features

Scientific Articles & Abstracts: Access structured data from PubMed, including article titles, abstracts, authors, publication dates, and journal sources. Medical Research & Clinical Studies: Retrieve data on clinical trials, drug research, disease studies, and healthcare innovations. Keywords & MeSH Terms: Extract key medical subject headings (MeSH) and keywords to categorize and analyze research topics. Publication & Citation Data: Track citation counts, journal impact factors, and author affiliations for academic and industry research.

Customizable Subsets for Specific Needs Our PubMed Dataset is fully customizable, allowing you to filter data based on publication date, research category, keywords, or specific journals. Whether you need broad coverage for medical research or focused data for pharmaceutical analysis, we tailor the dataset to your needs.

Popular Use Cases

Pharmaceutical Research & Drug Development: Analyze clinical trial data, drug efficacy studies, and emerging treatments. Medical & Healthcare Intelligence: Track disease outbreaks, healthcare trends, and advancements in medical technology. AI & Machine Learning Applications: Use structured biomedical data to train AI models for predictive analytics, medical diagnosis, and literature summarization. Academic & Scientific Research: Access a vast collection of peer-reviewed studies for literature reviews, meta-analyses, and academic publishing. Regulatory & Compliance Monitoring: Stay updated on medical regulations, FDA approvals, and healthcare policy changes.

Whether you're conducting medical research, analyzing healthcare trends, or developing AI-driven solutions, our PubMed Dataset provides the structured data you need. Get started today and customize your dataset to fit your research objectives.