Analysis of ten years of publishing in Pharmacy Practice
Keywords:Periodicals as Topic, Bibliometrics, Authorship, Publishing, Cooperative Behavior, Pharmacists
Objective: The aim of this study is to characterize the patterns and trends in the editorial process and features of the first decade of Pharmacy Practice, with the final goal of initiating a benchmarking process to enhance the quality of the journal.
Methods: Metadata of all of the articles published from 2006 issue #3 to 2016 issue #2 were extracted from PubMed and complemented by a manual data extraction process on the full-text articles. Citations of these articles were retrieved from Web of Science (WOS), Scopus, and Google Scholar on August 15, 2016. The references from all of the articles published by Pharmacy Practice in 2015 were also extracted. International collaboration was explored with a network analysis.
Results: A total of 40 issues were published in this timespan, including 349 articles, 91.1% of which were original research articles. The number of citations received by these articles varies from 809, as reported by the WOS, to the 1162 reported by Scopus and the 2610 reported by Google Scholar. The journals cited by Pharmacy Practice are mainly pharmacy journals, including Pharm Pract (Granada), Int J Clin Pharm, Am J Health-Syst Pharm, Am J Pharm Educ, and Ann Pharmacother. Only 17.3% of the articles involved international collaboration. Delays in the editorial process increased in 2013, mainly due to an increase in acceptance delay (mean=138 days).
Conclusion: Pharmacy Practice has improved its visibility and impact over the past decade, especially after 2014, when the journal became indexed in PubMed Central. The editorial process duration is one of the weaknesses that should be tackled. Further studies should investigate if the low international collaboration rate is common across other pharmacy journals.
2. Wiedenmayer K, Summers RS, Mackie CA, Gous AG, Everard M. Developing pharmacy practice: A focus on patient care. Geneve: WHO; 2006.
3. Taylor K, Harding G. Pharmacy Practice. London: Taylor & Francis; 2001.
4. Almarsdottir AB, Granas AG. Social Pharmacy and Clinical Pharmacy - Joining forces. Pharmacy. 2016;4:1. doi:10.3390/pharmacy4010001
5. Minguet F, Salgado TM, van den Boogerd L, Fernandez-Llimos F. Quality of pharmacy-specific Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) assignment in pharmacy journals indexed in MEDLINE. Res Social Adm Pharm. 2015;11(5):686-695. doi: 10.1016/j.sapharm.2014.11.004
6. U. S. National Library of Medicine. MEDLINE, PubMed, and PMC (PubMed Central): How are they different? ; Available from: https://www.nlm.nih.gov/pubs/factsheets/dif_med_pub.html (accesed November 21, 2016).
7. Jacomy M, Venturini T, Heymann S, Bastian M. ForceAtlas2, a continuous graph layout algorithm for handy network visualization designed for the Gephi software. PLoS One. 2014;9(6):e98679. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0098679
8. Fernandez-Llimos F. Collaborative publishing: the difference between 'gratis journals' and 'open access journals'. Pharm Pract (Granada). 2015;13(1):593. doi: 10.18549/PharmPract.2015.01.593
9. Reid AJ. Canadian Family Physician's peer reviewers. Unsung heroes. Can Fam Physician. 1998;44:13-14.
10. Fernandez-Llimos F. Title: Assessment of the peer-reviewers' selection process in the journal Pharmacy Practice. Res Social Adm Pharm. 2014;10:E9-E10.
11. Liu XL, Gai SS, Zhou J. Journal Impact Factor: Do the Numerator and Denominator Need Correction? PLoS One. 2016;11(3):e0151414. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0151414
12. Falagas ME, Kouranos VD, Arencibia-Jorge R, Karageorgopoulos DE. Comparison of SCImago journal rank indicator with journal impact factor. FASEB J. 2008;22(8):2623-1628. doi: 10.1096/fj.08-107938
13. Minasny B, Hartemink AE, McBratney A, Jang HJ. Citations and the h index of soil researchers and journals in the Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar. PeerJ. 2013;1:e183. doi: 10.7717/peerj.183
14. Zarifmahmoudi L, Kianifar HR, Sadeghi R. Citation Analysis of Iranian Journal of Basic Medical Sciences in ISI Web of Knowledge, Scopus, and Google Scholar. Iran J Basic Med Sci. 2013;16(10):1027-1030.
15. Trapp J. Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar citation rates: a case study of medical physics and biomedical engineering: what gets cited and what doesn't? Australas Phys Eng Sci Med. 2016 [Epub ahead of print] doi: 10.1007/s13246-016-0478-2
16. Fernandez-Llimos F. Bradford's law, the long tail principle, and transparency in Journal Impact Factor calculations. Pharm Pract (Granada). 2016 Jul-Sep;14(3):842. doi: 10.18549/PharmPract.2014.03.842
17. El Ansari W, Afifi Soweid RA, Jabbour S. Geography of biomedical publications. Lancet. 2004;363(9407):489
18. Eldor J. Geography of medical publication. Lancet. 1993;341(8845):634.
19. Aleixandre Benavent R, Gonzalez de Dios J, Alonso Arroyo A, Bolanos Pizarro M, Castello Cogollos L, Gonzalez Alcaide G, Vidal Infer A, Navarro Molina C, Coronado Ferrer S, Gonzalez Munoz M, Malaga Guerrero S. [Co-authorship and Spanish pediatric scientific collaboration networks (2006-2010)]. An Pediatr (Barc). 2013;78(6):410. doi: 10.1016/j.anpedi.2013.01.002
20. Glänzel W. Coauthorship patterns and trends in the sciences (1980-1998) :A bibliometric study with implications for database indexing and search strategies. Library Trends. 2002;50:461-73.
21. Gonzalez-Alcaide G, Alonso-Arroyo A, Gonzalez de Dios J, Sempere AP, Valderrama-Zurian JC, Aleixandre-Benavent R. [Coauthorship networks and institutional collaboration in Revista de Neurologia]. Rev Neurol. 2008;46(11):642-651.
22. Nabout JC, Parreira MR, Teresa FB, Carneiro FM, Cunha HF, Ondei LS, Caramori SS, Soares TN. Publish (in a group) or perish (alone): the trend from single- to multi-authorship in biological papers. Scientometrics. 2015;102(1):357-364.
23. Zare-Farashbandi F, Geraei E, Siamaki S. Study of co-authorship network of papers in the Journal of Research in Medical Sciences using social network analysis. J Res Med Sci. 2014;19(1):41-46.
24. Athanasiou T, Patel V, Garas G, Ashrafian H, Hull L, Sevdalis N, Harding S, Darzi A, Paroutis S. Mentoring perception, scientific collaboration and research performance: is there a 'gender gap' in academic medicine? An Academic Health Science Centre perspective. Postgrad Med J. 2016;92(1092):581-586. doi: 10.1136/postgradmedj-2016-134313
How to Cite
Copyright (c) 2016 Pharmacy Practice
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 Unported License.