Novembre Dicembre 2016 - In depth review

Bibliometric indicators of nephrology journals: strengths and weaknesses


Scientific journals are an important communication tool through which authors, publishers, editors, readers, librarians support the circulation of information.

How do I select the journal to submit for publication? How can my research have the widest circulation? How can I make my article and my scientific activities to be positively considered by assessment boards? These are some of the main questions that arise when an author chooses to write an article.

The research evaluation can be based on qualitative indicators such as the peer review and/or quantities of a not bibliometric or bibliometric type, such as the Impact Factor or SCImago Journal Rank indicator. The study aims to analyze, with no presumption of completeness, the impact and the specificities of nephrology journals to support those who decide to publish an article.

The comparison of the data of some bibliometric indicators brings out a common view about many medical disciplines in which England and the United States on one side and the English language on the other side have a leading role in constituting a reference point for those who want to try to publish an article. The Italian reality, especially, through some magazines offers interesting ideas for publication.

Bibliometric indicators, therefore, are a valuable reference for orientation in the complex world of scientific publications, only if you know how to look beyond the purely mathematical and statistical data, not neglecting “minor” realities which in some cases may be the right launching pad for a production of scientific value.

Key words: SCImago Journal & Country Rank, bibliometrics, eigenfactor, journal impact factor, nephrology, open access, research evaluation

Full text of the article is available in Italian.