OBJECTIVE
To determine whether availability of journals on MEDLINE as FUTON (full text on the
Net) affects their impact factor.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
A comprehensive search identified 324 cardiology, nephrology, and rheumatology/immunology
journals on-line until May 2003. The status of these journals was ascertained in MEDLINE
as having FUTON, abstracts only, and NAA (no abstract available). Impact factors for
all available journals from the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) were abstracted.
RESULTS
Of the 324 journals, 124 (38.3%) were FUTON, 138 (42.6%) had abstracts only, and 62
(19.1%) had NAA. The mean (±SEM) impact factor was 3.24 (±0.32), 1.64 (±0.30), and
0.14 (±0.45), respectively. Of the 324 current journals, 159 existed in both the pre-
and the post-Internet era. An analysis of the change (ie, δ) in impact factor from
the pre- to post-Internet era revealed a trend between journals with FUTON and abstracts
only (P=.17, Wilcoxon rank sum test). Similar analyses of the δ of cardiology journals revealed
a statistically significant difference between journals with FUTON and abstracts only
(P=.04, Wilcoxon rank sum test).
CONCLUSION
FUTON bias is the tendency to peruse what is more readily available. This is the first
study to show that on-line availability of medical literature may increase the impact
factor and that such increase tends to be greater in FUTON journals. Failure to consider
this bias may affect a journal's impact factor. Also, it could limit consideration
of medical literature by ignoring relevant NAA articles and thereby influence medical
education akin to publication or language bias.
To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
Purchase one-time access:
Academic and PersonalSubscribe:
Subscribe to Mayo Clinic ProceedingsAlready a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
REFERENCES
- Evidence-Based Medicine: How to Practice and Teach EBM. 2nd ed. Churchill Livingstone, Edinburgh, Scotland2000
- Teaching evidence-based medicine to medical students.Med Teach. 2003; 25: 202-204
- Graduate medical education training in clinical epidemiology, critical appraisal, and evidence-based medicine: a critical review of curricula.Acad Med. 1999; 74: 686-694
- An integrated program for evidence-based medicine in medical school.Mt Sinai J Med. 2000; 67: 163-168
- Teaching emergency medicine residents evidence-based critical appraisal skills: a controlled trial.Ann Emerg Med. 1999; 34: 148-154
- Teaching critical appraisal to medical students in obstetrics and gynecology.Obstet Gynecol. 1998; 92: 877-882
- Early introduction of an evidence-based medicine course to preclinical medical students.J Gen Intern Med. 2002; 17: 58-65
- Training medical students in evidence-based medicine: a community campus approach.Fam Med. 1999; 31: 703-708
- Educational programs in US medical schools, 2002-2003.JAMA. 2003; 290: 1190-1196
- Is that it? how online articles have changed over the past five years.BMJ. 2002; 325: 1475-1478
- The JCI's commitment to excellence—and free access.J Clin Invest. 2003; 112: 968-969
- Fact Sheet: MEDLINE.(Accessibility verified July 8, 2004.)
- Visibility of research: FUTON bias [letter].Lancet. 2002; 360: 1256
- ISI essay: the impact factor.Current Contents®. June 20, 1994; 25: 3-7
- Authors' criteria for selecting journals.JAMA. 1994; 272: 163-164
- Counting on citations: a flawed way to measure quality.Med J Aust. 2003; 178: 280-281
- The “omnipotent” Science Citation Index impact factor [editorial].Med J Aust. 2003; 178: 253-254
- A comparison of results of meta-analyses of randomized control trials and recommendations of clinical experts: treatments for myocardial infarction.JAMA. 1992; 268: 240-248
- The science of reviewing research.Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1993; 703: 125-133
- Computer use among community-based primary care physician preceptors.Acad Med. 2004; 79: 580-590
- Publication bias: a brief review for clinicians.Mayo Clin Proc. 2000; 75: 1284-1288
- Abstract! [editorial].Neth J Med. 2002; 60: 418
- Sprucing up one's impact factor [letter].Nature. 1999; 401: 321-322
- Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research.BMJ. 1997; 314: 498-502
- Impact factors: uses and abuses.Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2002; 14: 209-211
- Journal impact factor: a brief review [editorial].CMAJ. 1999; 161: 979-980
- Understanding the limitations of the journal impact factor.J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2003; 85: 2449-2454
- The Impact Factor: time for change.Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 2001; 35: 563-568
- Online access to nephrology journals: the FUTON bias [letter].Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2003; 18: 1943
- Rating health information on the Internet: navigating to knowledge or to Babel?.JAMA. 1998; 279: 611-614
- Online access to nephrology journals: the FUTON bias [reply].Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2003; 18: 1943
Article Info
Footnotes
Presented in part at the following national and international meetings: Second International Conference of Evidence Based Health-Care Teachers and Developers, Palermo, Italy, September 12, 2003; 20th Midwest SGIM Regional Meeting, Chicago, Ill, September 20, 2003; American College of Rheumatology/Association of Rheumatology Health Professionals, Annual Scientific Meeting, Orlando, Fla, October 26, 2003; Annual Minnesota American College of Physicians Chapter Meeting, Minneapolis, Minn, November 7, 2003; and National American Society of Nephrology, San Diego, Calif, November 15, 2003.
Identification
Copyright
© 2004 Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
