Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-z2ts4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-09T06:18:52.470Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Record citations in 2011 contribute to maintenance of the impact factor of BJN

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 September 2012

Philip C. Calder
Philip C. Calder*
Affiliation:
Institute of Human Nutrition, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK email pcc@soton.ac.uk
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content. As you have access to this content, full HTML content is provided on this page. A PDF of this content is also available in through the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Information

Type
Editorial
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 108 , Issue 5 , 14 September 2012 , pp. 759 - 761
Copyright
Copyright © The Author 2012

In late June 2012, the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) released its annual statistics on citations of articles published in previous years in scientific journals. A number of different summary statistics are produced by the ISI, the most widely discussed being the impact factor. I have used previous editorials to keep readers informed of the most recent statistics for the BJN and to analyse them in relation to those of comparator journals and to temporal changes(Reference Calder1–Reference Calder7). The BJN is listed in the Nutrition and Dietetics category of ISI Journal Citation Reports®. In 2011, there were seventy-two journals listed in this category, including review journals and journals in the areas of obesity (e.g. International Journal of Obesity, Obesity) and lipidology (e.g. Progress in Lipid Research, Lipids). The impact factor of a journal is calculated as the number of citations of papers published in the previous 2 years divided by the number of papers published in those 2 years. Thus, the impact factor for 2011 (issued in 2012) is based upon the number of citations during 2011 of papers published in a particular journal in 2009 and 2010 divided by the number of papers published in that journal in 2009 and 2010. Clearly, this favours very rapidly moving areas of research. Hence, journals such as Nature, Cell and Science have high impact factors (36·28, 32·40 and 31·20, respectively, for 2011). For the past 10 years, the two highest ranked journals in the Nutrition and Dietetics category have been Progress in Lipid Research and Annual Reviews in Nutrition, and with impact factors of 10·67 and 9·45, respectively, for 2011. Table 1 lists the impact factors for the BJN and nine comparator journals over the period 2001–11 inclusive. The comparator journals all publish a similar range of material as does the BJN, including molecular, cellular, whole body, human, clinical, public health and experimental animal nutrition and, in most cases, also farm animal nutrition. It is evident that the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition is firmly established as the highest ranked journal in this category that is not solely limited to publishing review articles. In 2011, the impact factor of the BJN remained almost the same as in 2010 (3·01 v. 3·07), representing 2823 citations in 2011 to the 937 articles published in 2009 and 2010. Maintaining an impact factor above 3 is important, keeping the BJN in the top 30 % of journals in this growing category. Readers may be interested in the impact factors of our sister journals: 4·84, 2·77 and 2·17 for Nutrition Research Reviews (ranked 4/72), Proceedings of the Nutrition Society (ranked 23/72) and Public Health Nutrition (ranked 34/72), respectively.

Table 1

Impact factor of the British Journal of Nutrition and comparator journals over the period 2001–11*

* Data are from the ISI Journal Citation Reports®.

† Ranking among journals in the Nutrition and Dietetics subject category.

Table 2 lists the articles published in the BJN during 2009 and 2010 that were most highly cited in 2011(Reference Roberfroid, Gibson and Hoyles8–Reference Turchini and Francis27). This table indicates the importance of review and supplement articles, in addition to research papers, to the impact factor of the journal. Although the articles published in 2009 continue to be cited (Table 2), they will not contribute to the impact factor for 2012, which will be based upon articles published in 2010 and 2011.

Table 2

Articles published in the British Journal of Nutrition in 2009 and 2010 that were most highly cited in 2011*

* Data were obtained from the ISI Web of Science® on 9 July 2012.

One argument against the importance of the impact factor in indicating the ‘value’ of a journal is that the time frame over which it is calculated is too short to really reflect the impact that the articles that a journal publishes will have. Thus, alternative measures of article citations are available. These include the total number of citations made to articles published in a journal, the 5-year impact factor and the cited half-life of articles. Table 3 lists the total number of citations made to articles published in the BJN, irrespective of their year of publication, during the years 2000–11. In 2011, articles published in the BJN were cited 15 036 times, placing the BJN fifth in the Nutrition and Dietetics category for total citations in 2011. The total number of citations of articles in the journal has increased year-on-year and increased by 7 % from 2010 and by over 170 % since 2000. The cited half-life of a journal (Table 3) is the median age of the articles published in that journal that are cited in the reporting year. Thus, publication of articles that remain important (or controversial) long after they are published will result in a long cited half-life. The cited half-life of the BJN for 2011 was 6·9 years, indicating that half of the citations to articles to the BJN in 2011 were to articles published in 2004 or before. Thus, it seems to me that the BJN is publishing articles that are seen as important in the short term, as judged by the reasonably high impact factor (within the journal category), but which remain important for many years, as judged by the cited half-life. For comparison, the cited half-lives for the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition and the Journal of Nutrition for 2010 were 8·2 and 8·9 years, respectively. The immediacy index is calculated as citations of articles published in the reporting year (e.g. 2011) by papers published in that same year. It is a measure of how immediately important (or controversial) published papers are. For 2011, the immediacy index of the BJN was 0·519 (245 citations in 2011 out of 472 articles published in 2011). In 2008, the 5-year impact factor was calculated for the first time; this is the number of citations in the year to articles published in the previous five years. For 2011, the 5-year impact factor of the BJN was 3·34 (6517 citations in 2010 to 1950 articles published in 2006–10 inclusive), placing it eighteenth in the Nutrition and Dietetics category. For comparison, 5-year impact factors for the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition and the Journal of Nutrition for 2011 were 7·37 and 4·36, respectively. The final statistic shown in Table 3 is the Eigenfactor™ score. This is a complex calculation, which, like the impact factor, is a ratio of the number of citations to the total number of articles published. However, unlike the impact factor, the Eigenfactor™ score counts citations to journals in both the sciences and social sciences, eliminates self-citations (i.e. every reference from one article in a journal to another article from the same journal is discounted) and weights each reference according to a measure of the amount of time researchers spend reading the journal (http://www.eigenfactor.org/methods.htm). For 2011, the Eigenfactor™ score of the BJN was 0·03405, placing it sixth in the Nutrition and Dietetics category.

Table 3

Citation statistics for the British Journal of Nutrition 2000–11

Another relatively new statistic is the Article Influence™ score, which calculates the relative importance of the journal on a per-article basis. It is the journal's Eigenfactor™ score divided by the fraction of articles within the category published by that journal. That fraction is normalised so that the mean Article Influence™ score within the category is 1·00. A score greater than 1·00 indicates that each article in the journal has above-average influence, while a score less than 1·00 indicates that each article in the journal has below-average influence. For 2011, the Article Influence™ score of the BJN was 0·950, placing it seventeenth in the Nutrition and Dietetics category. For comparison, Article Influence™ scores for the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition and the Journal of Nutrition for 2011 were 2·378 and 1·263, respectively.

My overall view based upon these statistics is that the BJN is doing well, but could do better. As I indicated previously, the BJN is receiving more submissions and is publishing more articles than ever before(Reference Calder28). This suggests that the journal is in good health and is viewed favourably by researchers within the discipline. My aim is to act to further improve the impact factor, the 5-year impact factor and the Article Influence™ score in order that the prestige and attractiveness of the BJN are maintained in the face of mounting competition from other journals, and that its perceived quality is enhanced. An improvement in (perceived) quality of the BJN will assure its place among the top journals in the field.

References

1Calder, PC (2006) Carpe diem. Br J Nutr 95, 1–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2Calder, PC (2007) Floruit floreat. Br J Nutr 97, 1–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3Calder, PC (2007) Happy birthday BJN! Br J Nutr 98, 447–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4Calder, PC (2008) Record citations in 2007, but impact factor slips. Br J Nutr 100, 687–689.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5Calder, PC (2009) BJN impact factor rises. Br J Nutr 102, 1243–1245.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6Calder, PC (2010) BJN impact factor rises by 25 %. Br J Nutr 104, 621–623.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7Calder, PC (2011) More citations, but a fall in impact factor. Br J Nutr 106, 789–792.Google Scholar
8Roberfroid, M, Gibson, GR, Hoyles, L, et al. (2010) Prebiotic effects: metabolic and health benefits. Br J Nutr 104, Suppl. 2, S1–S63.Google Scholar
9von Hurst, R, Stonehouse, W & Coad, J (2010) Vitamin D supplementation reduces insulin resistance in South Asian women living in New Zealand who are insulin resistant and vitamin D deficient – a randomised, placebo-controlled trial. Br J Nutr 103, 549–555.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10Ramirez-Farias, C, Slezak, K, Fuller, Z, et al. (2009) Effect of inulin on the human gut microbiota: stimulation of Bifidobacterium adolescentis and Faecalibacterium prausnitzii. Br J Nutr 101, 541–550.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11Epstein, J, Sanderson, IR & MacDonald, TT (2010) Curcumin as a therapeutic agent: the evidence from in vitro, animal and human studies. Br J Nutr 103, 1545–1557.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12Rzehak, P, Heinrich, J, Klopp, N, et al. (2009) Evidence for an association between genetic variants of the fatty acid desaturase 1 fatty acid desaturase 2 (FADS1 FADS2) gene cluster and the fatty acid composition of erythrocyte membranes. Br J Nutr 101, 20–26.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13Ramsden, CE, Hibbeln, JR, Majchrzak, SF, et al. (2010) n-6 Fatty acid-specific and mixed polyunsaturate dietary interventions have different effects on CHD risk: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Br J Nutr 104, 1586–1600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14Rush, EC, Freitas, I & Plank, LD (2009) Body size, body composition and fat distribution: comparative analysis of European, Maori, Pacific Island and Asian Indian adults. Br J Nutr 102, 632–641.Google Scholar
15Stewart, JE, Feinle-Bisset, C, Golding, M, et al. (2010) Oral sensitivity to fatty acids, food consumption and BMI in human subjects. Br J Nutr 104, 145–152.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16Egert, S, Bosy-Westphal, A, Seiberl, J, et al. (2009) Quercetin reduces systolic blood pressure and plasma oxidised low-density lipoprotein concentrations in overweight subjects with a high-cardiovascular disease risk phenotype: a double-blinded, placebo-controlled cross-over study. Br J Nutr 102, 1065–1074.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17Fernandez-Ballarth, JD, Pinol, JL, Zazpe, I, et al. (2010) Relative validity of a semi-quantitative food-frequency questionnaire in an elderly Mediterranean population of Spain. Br J Nutr 103, 1808–1816.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18Moore, RJ, Jackson, KG & Minihane, AM (2009) Green tea (Camellia sinensis) catechins and vascular function. Br J Nutr 102, 1790–1802.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
19de Artinano, AA & Castro, MM (2009) Experimental rat models to study the metabolic syndrome. Br J Nutr 102, 1246–1253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20Laitinen, K, Poussa, T & Isolauri, E (2009) Probiotics and dietary counselling contribute to glucose regulation during and after pregnancy: a randomised controlled trial. Br J Nutr 101, 1679–1687.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
21Castetbon, K, Vernay, M, Malon, A, et al. (2009) Dietary intake, physical activity and nutritional status in adults: the French nutrition and health survey (ENNS, 2006–2007). Br J Nutr 102, 733–743.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
22Fleissner, CK, Huebel, N, Abd El-Bary, MMA, et al. (2010) Absence of intestinal microbiota does not protect mice from diet-induced obesity. Br J Nutr 104, 919–929.Google Scholar
23Lomax, AR & Calder, PC (2009) Prebiotics, immune function, infection and inflammation: a review of the evidence. Br J Nutr 101, 633–658.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
24Poslusna, K, Ruprich, J, de Vries, JHM, et al. (2009) Misreporting of energy and micronutrient intake estimated by food records and 24 h recalls, control and adjustment methods in practice. Br J Nutr 101, Suppl. 2, S73–S85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
25Santacruz, A, Collado, MC, Garcia-Valdes, L, et al. (2010) Gut microbiota composition is associated with body weight, weight gain and biochemical parameters in pregnant women. Br J Nutr 104, 83–92.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
26Timmermans, S, Jaddoe, VWV, Hofman, A, et al. (2009) Periconception folic acid supplementation, fetal growth and the risks of low birth weight and preterm birth: the Generation R Study. Br J Nutr 102, 777–785.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
27Turchini, GM & Francis, DS (2009) Fatty acid metabolism (desaturation, elongation and beta-oxidation) in rainbow trout fed fish oil- or linseed oil-based diets. Br J Nutr 102, 69–81.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
28Calder, PC (2009) BJN to publish more issues and more papers in 2009. Br J Nutr 101, 1.Google Scholar
Figure 0

Table 1 Impact factor of the British Journal of Nutrition and comparator journals over the period 2001–11*

Figure 1

Table 2 Articles published in the British Journal of Nutrition in 2009 and 2010 that were most highly cited in 2011*

Figure 2

Table 3 Citation statistics for the British Journal of Nutrition 2000–11