Quality of journal of obstetrics and gynecology in ISI and Scopus databases based on indices of ranking journals

Document Type : Original Article


1 PhD Student in Biostatistics, Department of Biostatistics, School of Medicine, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran.

2 Lecture, Department of Epidemiology, Faculty of Medicine, Shahroud University of Medical Sciences, Shahroud, Iran.

3 Assistant Professor, Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, Faculty of Health, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran.


Introduction: Today, huge quantity of medical journals with indescribable quality, have confused health researchers while choosing a suitable journal to publish their scientific results. It seems that quality measuring criteria of journals could have solved this problem to some extent. In this study, we studied quality of journals of obstetrics and gynecology field indexed in the valid databases, and then based on indices of ranking journals.
Materials and Methods: This descriptive study, was conducted in May 1392 by method of assessment. Information about all obstetrics and gynecology journals indexed in the database Scopus, were collected from the databases ISI, Pubmed and Scopus. Spearman's rank correlation coefficient and Kolmogorov–Smirnov test was used for analysis data. Minitab 17 and SPSS 22 were used for data analysis. P value≤0.05 was considered to be significant.
Result: Of the148 Journals of obstetrics and gynecology field which were found in the Scopus database, 89 journals (60.14%) were indexed in the Pubmed and 78 (52.70%) journals were indexed in the ISI. About 42.57% of this journals publish in England and USA. The mean impact factor, SJR, and Eigenfactor score of obstetrics and gynecology journals were 1.825±1.428, 0.459±0.495, and 0.00766±0.011, respectively. Spearman's rank correlation coefficient was 0.895 (between impact factor and SJR), 0.819 (between impact factor and Eigenfactor score), and 0.801 (between SJR and Eigenfactor score).
Conclusion: Our study showed significant association between considered indices of journals ranking: Impact Factor, Eigenfactor score and Scimago Journal Ranking, for journals in the field of obstetrics and gynecology which were indexed in ISI and Scopus databases. The results also showed that although Eigenfactor score and SJR can be better indices than Impact Factor, but considering impact factor cannot be ignored while choosing a proper journal in this discipline, due to its public acceptance in the scientific community, availability and ease of use.


  1. Uzun A. Library and information science research in developing countries and eastern European countries: a brief bibliometric perspective. Int Inf Libr Rev 2002;34(1):21-33
  2. Garfield E. The history and meaning of the journal impact factor. JAMA 2006 Jan 4;295(1):90-3.
  3. Garfield E. Ciation analysis as a tool in journal evalution. Science 1972 Nov 3;178(4060):471-9.
  4. Seglen PO. Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research. BMJ. 1997 Feb 15;314(7079):498-502.
  5. Postma E. Inflated impact factors? The true impact of evolutionary papers in non-evolutionary journals. PloS One 2007 Oct 3;2(10):e999.
  6. Motamed M, Mehta D, Basavaraj S, Fuad F. Self citations and impact factors in otolaryngology journals. Clin Otolaryngol Allied Sci 2002 Oct;27(5):318-20.
  7. Falagas ME, Kouranos VD, Arencibia-Jorge R, Karageorgopoulos DE. Comparison of SCImago journal rank indicator with journal impact factor. FASEB J 2008 Aug;22(8):2623-8.
  8. SCImago Institute. SCImago Journal & Country Rank Spain: SCImago Research Group; 2013. Available at: http://www.scimagojr.com.
  9. Information about Scopus 2013. Available at: http://www.info.sciverse.com/scopus.
  10. Guz AN, Rushchitsky JJ. Scopus: a system for the evaluation of scientific journals. Int Appl Mech 2009;45(4):351-2.
  11. Bergstrom C. Eigenfactor: measuring the value and prestige of scholarly journals. C&RL News. 2007 May;68:314-6.
  12. Ranking and mapping scientific knowledge. 2013. Available at: http://www.eigenfactor.org.
  13. Brown T. Journal quality metrics: options to consider other than impact factors. Am J Occup Ther 2011 MayJun;65(3):346-50.
  14. Ramin S, Sarraf Shirazi A. Comparison between Impact factor, SCImago journal rank indicator and Eigenfactor score of nuclear medicine journals. Nucl Med Rev Cent East Eur 2012 Aug 27;15(2):132-6.
  15. Schöpfel J, Prost H. [Comparison of SCImago journal rank indicator (SJR) with JCR journal impact factor (IF) for French journals] [Article in French]. Pschol Franc 2009 Dec;54(4):287-305.
  16. National Library of Medicine (NLM) Catalog. Catalog of books, journals, and audiovisuals at the National Library of Medicine. 2013. Available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nlmcatalog.
  17. Archibald RB, Finifter DH. Biases in citation-based ranking of journals. Sch Pub 1987;18(2):131-8.
  18. Coelho PM, Antunes CM, Costa HM, Kroon EG, Sousa Lima MC, Linardi PM. The use and misuse of the "impact factor" as a parameter for evaluation of scientific publication quality: a proposal to rationalize its application. Braz J Med Biol Res 2003 Dec;36(12):1605-12.
  19. Bornmann L, Marx W, Gasparyan AY, Kitas GD. Diversity, value and limitations of the journal impact factor and alternative metrics. Rheumatol Int 2012 Jul;32(7):1861-7.
  20. Hellsten I, Lambiotte R, Scharnhorst A, Ausloos M. Self-citations, co-authorships and keywords: A new approach to scientists’ field mobility? Scientometrics 2007;72(3):469-86.
  21. Hyland K. Self-citation and self-reference: Credibility and promotion in academic publication. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol 2003 Jun 8;54(3):251-9.
  22. Glänzel W, Debackere K, Thijs B, Schubert A. A concise review on the role of author self-citations in information science, bibliometrics and science policy. Scientometrics 2006;67(2):263-77.
  23. Zavos C, Kountouras J, Katsinelos P. Impact factors: looking beyond the absolute figures and journal rankings. Gastrointestinal endoscopy. 2006;64(6):1034.
  24. Kurmis TP, Kurmis AP. Self-citation rates among medical imaging journals and a possible association with impact factor. Radiography 2010 Feb;16(1):21-5.
  25. Glanzel W, Mode HF. Journal impact measurement in bibliometric research. Scientometrics 2002;53(2):171-93.
  26. Saha S, Saint S, Christakis DA. Impact factor: a valid measure of journal quality? J Med Libr Assoc 2003 Jan;9(1):42-6.
  27. Murali NS, Murali HR, Auethavekiat P, Erwin PJ, Mandrekar JN, Manek NJ, et al. Impact of FUTON and NAA bias on visibility of research. Mayo Clin Proc 2004 Aug;79(8):1001-6.
  28. Alenzi FQ, Lotfy M, Nasif W, El-Shahat M, Abusini H, Alenazi M, et al. Biomedical research in the Middle Eastern countries: update and insight using SCImago Journal Rank indicator. J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad 2010 Jul-Sep;22(3):100-5.
  29. Berhidi A, Szluka P, Vasas L. [New bibliometric indicators. Is this the end of the impact factor era?] [Article in Hungarian]. Magy Onkol 2009 Jun;53(2):115-25.
  30. Bergstrom CT, West JD, Wiseman MA. The Eigenfactor metrics. J Neurosci 2008 Nov;28(45):11433-4.
  31. López-Illescas C, de Moya-Anegón F, Moed HF. Coverage and citation impact of oncological journals in the Web of Science and Scopus. J Inf 2008 Oct;2(4):304-16.