Publication Languages of Impact Factor Journals and of Medical Bibliographic Databanks

Background and objective: A preference for English-language sources during determination of Journal Impact Factors (IF) was discussed, IF being published in the annual Journal Citation Reports (JCR). The JCR are derived from data in Science Citation Index (SCI). The aim of this study was, therefore, (i) to review publication countries and languages in JCR, (ii) publication languages in SCI in comparison to further recognised medical bibliographic databanks.

Methods: Searching (i) countries and languages in JCR Science-Editions 1997 and 1998, (ii) language distributions in publication years 1995-2000 in bibliographic databanks SCI, MEDLINE (ME) and EMBASE (EM).

Results: (i) Almost 70 % journals in JCR 1997 and 1998 were published in USA, United Kingdom, or The Netherlands. Of two language options present, a number of English-classified journals contained > 90 % articles in other languages, whereas > 90 % publications in English could occur in Multi-Language (ML) journals, thereby complicating statistical comparisons. 83,9 % JCR-periodicals in 1997 and 85,6 % in 1998 were classified English. English/ ML ratios increased exponentially with increasing IF. (ii) 95,5 % of the articles documented 1995- 2000 in whole SCI and in our constructed SCI segment ”Medicine and related areas” were written in English, compared to 88,5 % in ME and 89,8 % in EM. The SCI Medicine segment was 15 % more comprehensive than either MEDLINE or EMBASE. Highly significant differences of language distributions in SCI vs. MEDLINE and especially SCI vs. EMBASE were observed. Retrieval rates in SCI of German-, French-, Japanese- and Chinese-language medical papers published in 2000 were impressively augmented by EMBASE and MEDLINE.

Conclusions: (i) Anglo-American publishers’ countries and English- language journals prevail in JCR with respect to numbers and IF levels. Publication language English favours citation frequency. (ii) Of databanks studied, SCI shows a maximum preference for English-language sources, thereby causing an English Language Bias during IF derivation.

References

• 1 Barillot M J, Sarrut B, Doreau C G. Evaluation of drug interaction document citation in nine on-line bibliographic databases.  Ann Pharmacother. 1997;  31 45-49
• 2 Barnaby D P, Gallagher E J. Alternative to the Science Citation Index impact factor as an assessment of emergency medicine’s scientific contributions.  Ann Emerg Med. 1998;  31 78-82
• 3 Beller F K. Der Zusammenhang zwischen Index Medicus, dem Impact Factor und der deutschen Sprache.  Dtsch Med Wochenschr. 1999;  124 A18
• 4 Beller F K. Die Zukunft der deutschen Sprache in der Wissenschaft.  Gynakol geburtshilfliche Rundsch. 2000;  40 50-54 (1)
• 5 Benitez-Bribiesca L. The impact factor of medical journals: its use and misuse.  Arch Med Res. 1999;  30 161-162
• 6 Dietrich G V, Hempelmann G. Welchen Stellenwert hat eine Publikation in deutscher Sprache?.  Anasthesiol Intensivmed Notfallmed Schmerzther. 2000;  35 543-544
• 7 DIMDI. Deutsches Institut für Medizinische Dokumentation und Information, Einstiegspunkt Database Searching (SCISEARCH-, MEDLINE-, EMBASE-Memocards; grips command language).  Internet URL http://www.dimdi.de/.
• 8 Finzen A, Hoffmann-Richter U, Dittmann V, Haug H J. Deutsch lesen - Englisch schreiben. Fachzeitschriften zwischen Science Citation Index und Nulltarif.  Psychiat Prax. 1996;  23 1-3
• 9 Gallagher E J, Barnaby D B. Evidence of methodological bias in the derivation of the Science Citation Index impact factor.  Ann Emerg Med. 1998;  31 83-86
• 10 Garfield E. How can impact factors be improved?.  Br Med J. 1996;  313 411-413
• 11 Garfield E. The Impact Factor.  Internet URL www.isinet.com/isi/hot/essays/journalcitationreports/7.html (as of XXI-02 - 2002).
• 12 Gieler A. Zur Evaluierung der Forschungsleistung eines Universitätsklinikums.  Dtsch Med Wochenschr. 2000;  125 979-983
• 13 Golder W. Der Impact Factor: eine kritische Analyse.  ROFO Fortschr Geb Rontgenstr Neuen Bildgeb Verfahr. 1998;  169 220-226 (3)
• 14 Golder W. Wer kontrolliert die Kontrolleure? Zehn Thesen zum sogenannten Impact Factor.  Onkologie. 2000;  23 73-75
• 15 Haller U, Hepp H, Reinold E. Tötet der ”Impact Factor” die deutsche Sprache?.  Gynakol geburtshilfliche Rundsch. 1997;  37 117-118
• 16 ISI. Science Citation Index; Science Citation Index Expanded; SciSearch.  Internet URL http://www.isinet.com/products/citation/citsci.html.
• 17 Kleijnen J, Knipschild P. The comprehensiveness of MEDLINE and EMBASE computer searches. Searches for controlled trials of homoeopathy, ascorbic acid acid for common cold and gingko biloba for cerebral insufficiency and intermittent claudication.  Pharm Weekbl Sci. 1994;  14 316-320
• 18 Meenen N M. Der Impact-Faktor - ein zuverlässiger scientometrischer Parameter?.  Unfallchirurgie. 1997;  23 128-134 (4)
• 19 Middeke M. Zukunft braucht Herkunft - Die DMW im Jahr 2000.  Dtsch Med Wochenschr. 2000;  125 1099-1102 (38)
• 20 Seglen P O. Citations and journal impact factors: questionable indicators of research quality.  Allergy. 1997;  52 1050-1056
• 21 Stegmann J. Building a list of journals with constructed impact factors.  Journal of Documentation. 1999;  55 310-324
• 22 Stegmann J. Zitierstatus von MEDLINE- und Nicht-MEDLINE-Artikeln. Deutsche Gesellschaft für Informationswissenschaft und Informationspraxis (DGI) 1999. 51. Jahrestagung, Hamburg; 21 - 23. September: S. 147-158
• 23 Winkmann G, Schweim H G. Medizinisch-biowissenschaftliche Datenbanken und der Impact-Faktor.  Dtsch Med Wochenschr. 2000;  125 1133-1141 (38)
• 24 Woods D, Trewheellar K. MEDLINE and EMBASE complement each other in literature searches.  Br Med J. 1998;  316 1166

correspondence