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.

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/ ---

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.

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.

Indian Journal of Community Medicine Impact Factor 2024-2025 - ResearchHelpDesk - The Indian Journal of Community Medicine (IJCM), is the official organ & the only official journal of the Indian Association of Preventive and Social Medicine (IAPSM). It is a peer-reviewed journal which is published Quarterly. The journal publishes research articles, focusing on biostatistics, epidemiology, family health care, public health administration, national health problems, medical anthropology, health care delivery and social medicine, invited annotations and comments, invited papers on recent advances, clinical and epidemiological diagnosis and management; editorial correspondence and book reviews. Abstracting and Indexing Information The journal is registered with the following abstracting partners: CNKI (China National Knowledge Infrastructure), Baidu Scholar, EBSCO Publishing's Electronic Databases, Ex Libris – Primo Central, Google Scholar, Infotrieve, Hinari, ProQuest, National Science Library, TdNet, Wanfang Data The journal is indexed with, or included in, the following: Emerging Sources Citation Index, DOAJ, Indian Science Abstracts,MedInd, PubMed Central, IndMed, Scimago Journal Ranking, Web of Science, SCOPUS.

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.

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...

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.

This is the full citation details and DOIs for 85 co-published reporting guidelines, together with the citation counts, number of article accesses and journal impact factor for each article and journal. This represents a total of nine research reporting statements, published across 58 journals in biomedicine.

The Journal of Community Health Management - 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.

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.

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.

ORIGINAL DATA SET FOR STUDY OF PUBLICATION AND CITATION TRENDS, TROPICAL MEDICINE, EARLY COVID 19 PANDEMIC. Background: An adequate response to health needs includes the identification of research patterns about the large number of people living in the tropics and subjected to tropical diseases. Studies have shown that research does not always match the real needs of those populations, and that citation reflects mostly the amount of money behind particular publications. Here we test the hypothesis that research from richer institutions is published in better-indexed journals, and thus has greater citation rates. Methods: The data in this study was extracted from the Science Citation Index Expanded database; the 2020 journal Impact Factor (IF2020) was updated to 30 June 2021. We considered places, subjects, institutions and journals. Results: We identified 1 041 highly cited articles with 100 citations or more in the category of tropical medicine. About a decade is needed for an article to reach peak citation. Only two Covid-19 related were highly cited in the last three years. Most cited articles were published by the journals Memorias Do Instituto Oswaldo Cruz (Brazil), Acta Tropica (Switzerland), and PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases (USA). The USA dominated five of the six publication indicators. International collaboration articles had more citations than single-country articles. The UK, South Africa, and Switzerland had high citation rates, as did the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine in the UK, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in the USA, and the WHO in Switzerland. Conclusions: About ten years of accumulated citations are needed to get 100 citations or more as highly cited articles in the Web of Science category of tropical medicine. Six publication and citation indicators, including authors’ publication potential and characteristics evaluated by Y-index, indicate that the currently available indexing system places tropical researchers at a disadvantage against their colleagues in temperate countries, and suggest that, to progress towards better control of tropical diseases, international collaboration should increase, and other tropical countries should follow the example of Brazil, which provides significant financing to its scientific community.Julián Monge-Nájera1, and Yuh-Shan Ho2* 1Laboratorio de Ecología Urbana, Vicerrectoría de Investigación, Universidad Estatal a Distancia, 2050 San José, Costa Rica; julianmonge@gmail.com (https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7764-2966) *Corresponding author: Trend Research Centre, Asia University, No. 500 Lioufeng Road, Wufeng, Taichung 41354, Taiwan; ysho@asia.edu.tw (https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2557-8736) {"references": ["Monge-Najera and Ho. (2023). Highly cited tropical medicine articles in the Web of Science from 1991 to 2020: A bibliometric analysis"]} Full data set in Excel, most cited tropical medicine articles at the beginning of the COVID 19 pandemic

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).

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 

The Journal of Community Health Management Impact Factor 2024-2025 - ResearchHelpDesk - The Journal of Community Health Management (JCHM) open access, peer-reviewed quarterly journal publishing since 2014 and is published under the auspices of the Innovative Education and Scientific Research Foundation (IESRF), aim to uplift researchers, scholars, academicians, and professionals in all academic and scientific disciplines. IESRF is dedicated to the transfer of technology and research by publishing scientific journals, research content, providing professional’s membership, and conducting conferences, seminars, and award programs. With the aim of faster and better dissemination of knowledge, we will be publishing the article ‘Ahead of Print’ immediately on acceptance. In addition, the journal would allow free access (Open Access) to its contents, which is likely to attract more readers and citations to articles published in JCHM. Manuscripts must be prepared in accordance with “Uniform requirements for Manuscripts submitted to Biomedical Journals” as per guidelines by the International Committee of Medical Journals Editors (Updated December 2019). The uniform requirements and specific requirements of JCHM are mentioned below. Before sending a manuscript contributors are requested to check for the author guidelines are available from the website of the journal (www.jchm.in/info/author) or directly from (Innovative Pre-Publication Portal) manuscript submission website https://innovpub.org/journal/JCHM Aims and Scope The aim and commitment of the journal are to publish a research-oriented manuscript address significant issues in all the subjects and areas of Community Health Management. Journal is committed itself to improve Education and Research on 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, etc. Indexing and Abstracting Information Index Copernicus, Google Scholar, Indian Science Abstracts, National Science Library, J- gate, ROAD, CrossRef, Microsoft Academic, Indian Citation Index (ICI). Journal Ethics Journal is committed to upholding the highest standards of ethical behavior at all stages of publication. We strictly adhere to the industry associations such as the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), and World Association of Medical Editors (WAME), that set standards and provide guidelines for best practices in order to meet these requirements. Our specific policies regarding duplicate publication, conflict of interest, patient consent, etc., Please visit the editor guidelines

This table provides information on the subject categories of the 20 Journals with the highest Journal Impact Factors, collection date: 2014-02-17.

Raw data of data sharing policies in over 300 journals, supporting the article currently under review: "Reproducible and reusable research: Are journal data sharing policies meeting the mark?".

Raw data and analysis of data sharing policies of 318 biomedical journals. The study authors manually reviewed the author instructions and editorial policies to analyze the each journal's data sharing requirements and characteristics. The data sharing policies were ranked using a rubric to determine if data sharing was required, recommended, or not addressed at all. The data sharing method and licensing recommendations were examined, as well any mention of reproducibility or similar concepts. The data was analyzed for patterns relating to publishing volume, Journal Impact Factor, and the publishing model (open access or subscription) of each journal.

We evaluated journals included in Thomson Reuter’s InCites 2013 Journal Citations Reports (JCR) classified within the following World of Science schema categories: Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Biology, Cell Biology, Crystallography, Developmental Biology, Biomedical Engineering, Immunology, Medical Informatics, Microbiology, Microscopy, Multidisciplinary Sciences, and Neurosciences. These categories were selected to capture the journals publishing the majority of peer-reviewed biomedical research. The original data pull included 1,166 journals, collectively publishing 213,449 articles. We filtered this list to the journals in the top quartiles by impact factor (IF) or number of articles published 2013. Additionally, the list was manually reviewed to exclude short report and review journals, and titles determined to be outside the fields of basic medical science or clinical research. The final study set included 318 journals, which published 130,330 articles in 2013. The study set represented 27% of the original Journal Citation Report list and 61% of the original citable articles. Prior to our analysis, the 2014 Journal Citations Reports was released. After our initial analyses and first preprint submission, the 2015 Journal Citations Reports was released. While we did not use the 2014 or 2015 data to amend the journals in the study set, we did employ data from all three reports in our analyses. In our data pull from JCR, we included the journal title, International Standard Serial Number (ISSN), the total citable items for 2013, 2014, and 2015, the total citations to the journal for 2013/14/15, the impact factors for 2013/14/15, and the publisher.

ABSTRACT Objective: This study aims to assess the quality of articles published in the leading orthopedic surgery journals, by measuring the relation between the impact factor and the number studies with a high level of evidence. Methods: A literature review was performed of articles published in four previously selected journals. A score of journal evidence (RER - Relation between Randomized clinical trials and Systematic reviews) was calculated, considering the number of RCTs and SR published and the total number of full-text articles. Results: The selected journals were JBJS-Am, ASMJ, BJJ-Br and Arthroscopy, with Impact factors of 5.280, 4.362, 3.309 and 3.206 respectively in 2015. In the study, the RER Scores, in the same order, were 9.408, 6.153, 7.456 and 7.779. Conclusion: The journal JBJS-Am is the best available source of information on orthopedic surgery from this point of view. It has the highest Impact Factor and clearly the highest RER Score. On the other hand, we could conclude that the number of published RCT and good quality SR is very low, with less than 10% of all the articles. Level of evidence III, Analyses based on limited alternatives and costs, and poor estimates.

Objective: To investigate clinical trialists’ opinions and experiences of sharing of clinical trial data with investigators who are not directly collaborating with the research team. Design and setting: Cross sectional, web based survey. Participants: Clinical trialists who were corresponding authors of clinical trials published in 2010 or 2011 in one of six general medical journals with the highest impact factor in 2011. Main outcome measures: Support for and prevalence of data sharing through data repositories and in response to individual requests, concerns with data sharing through repositories, and reasons for granting or denying requests. Results: Of 683 potential respondents, 317 completed the survey (response rate 46%). In principle, 236 (74%) thought that sharing de-identified data through data repositories should be required, and 229 (72%) thought that investigators should be required to share de-identified data in response to individual requests. In practice, only 56 (18%) indicated that they were required by the trial funder to deposit the trial data in a repository; of these 32 (57%) had done so. In all, 149 respondents (47%) had received an individual request to share their clinical trial data; of these, 115 (77%) had granted and 56 (38%) had denied at least one request. Respondents’ most common concerns about data sharing were related to appropriate data use, investigator or funder interests, and protection of research subjects. Conclusions: We found strong support for sharing clinical trial data among corresponding authors of recently published trials in high impact general medical journals who responded to our survey, including a willingness to share data, although several practical concerns were identified.