Advertisement
Mayo Clinic Proceedings Home

Impact of FUTON and NAA Bias on Visibility of Research

      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.
      ANOVA (analysis of variance), EBM (evidence-based medicine), FUTON (full text on the Net), HSD (honestly significant difference), ISI (Institute for Scientific Information), NAA (no abstract available)
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Mayo Clinic Proceedings
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      REFERENCES

        • Sackett DL
        • Straus SE
        • Richardson WS
        • Rosenberg W
        • Haynes RB
        Evidence-Based Medicine: How to Practice and Teach EBM. 2nd ed. Churchill Livingstone, Edinburgh, Scotland2000
        • Finkel ML
        • Brown HA
        • Gerber LM
        • Supino PG
        Teaching evidence-based medicine to medical students.
        Med Teach. 2003; 25: 202-204
        • Green ML
        Graduate medical education training in clinical epidemiology, critical appraisal, and evidence-based medicine: a critical review of curricula.
        Acad Med. 1999; 74: 686-694
        • Barnett SH
        • Kaiser S
        • Morgan LK
        • et al.
        An integrated program for evidence-based medicine in medical school.
        Mt Sinai J Med. 2000; 67: 163-168
        • Bazarian JJ
        • Davis CO
        • Spillane LL
        • Blumstein H
        • Schneider SM
        Teaching emergency medicine residents evidence-based critical appraisal skills: a controlled trial.
        Ann Emerg Med. 1999; 34: 148-154
        • Grimes DA
        • Bachicha JA
        • Learman LA
        Teaching critical appraisal to medical students in obstetrics and gynecology.
        Obstet Gynecol. 1998; 92: 877-882
        • Srinivasan M
        • Weiner M
        • Breitfeld PP
        • Brahmi F
        • Dickerson KL
        • Weiner G
        Early introduction of an evidence-based medicine course to preclinical medical students.
        J Gen Intern Med. 2002; 17: 58-65
        • Wadland WC
        • Barry HC
        • Farquhar L
        • Holzman C
        • White A
        Training medical students in evidence-based medicine: a community campus approach.
        Fam Med. 1999; 31: 703-708
        • Barzansky B
        • Etzel SI
        Educational programs in US medical schools, 2002-2003.
        JAMA. 2003; 290: 1190-1196
        • Delamothe T
        Is that it? how online articles have changed over the past five years.
        BMJ. 2002; 325: 1475-1478
        • Hawley JB
        The JCI's commitment to excellence—and free access.
        J Clin Invest. 2003; 112: 968-969
        • National Library of Medicine
        Fact Sheet: MEDLINE.
        (Accessibility verified July 8, 2004.)
        • Wentz R
        Visibility of research: FUTON bias [letter].
        Lancet. 2002; 360: 1256
        • Garfield E
        ISI essay: the impact factor.
        Current Contents®. June 20, 1994; 25: 3-7
        • Frank E
        Authors' criteria for selecting journals.
        JAMA. 1994; 272: 163-164
        • Walter G
        • Bloch S
        • Hunt G
        • Fisher K
        Counting on citations: a flawed way to measure quality.
        Med J Aust. 2003; 178: 280-281
        • Lundberg G
        The “omnipotent” Science Citation Index impact factor [editorial].
        Med J Aust. 2003; 178: 253-254
        • Antman EM
        • Lau J
        • Kupelnick B
        • Mosteller F
        • Chalmers TC
        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
        • Oxman AD
        • Guyatt GH
        The science of reviewing research.
        Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1993; 703: 125-133
        • Carney PA
        • Poor DA
        • Schifferdecker KE
        • Gephart DS
        • Brooks WB
        • Nierenberg DW
        Computer use among community-based primary care physician preceptors.
        Acad Med. 2004; 79: 580-590
        • Montori VM
        • Smieja M
        • Guyatt GH
        Publication bias: a brief review for clinicians.
        Mayo Clin Proc. 2000; 75: 1284-1288
        • van der Meer JW
        • Stalenhoef AF
        • Smits P
        • Thien T
        Abstract! [editorial].
        Neth J Med. 2002; 60: 418
        • Gowrishankar J
        • Divakar P
        Sprucing up one's impact factor [letter].
        Nature. 1999; 401: 321-322
        • Seglen PO
        Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research.
        BMJ. 1997; 314: 498-502
        • Neuberger J
        • Counsell C
        Impact factors: uses and abuses.
        Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2002; 14: 209-211
        • Garfield E
        Journal impact factor: a brief review [editorial].
        CMAJ. 1999; 161: 979-980
        • Kurmis AP
        Understanding the limitations of the journal impact factor.
        J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2003; 85: 2449-2454
        • Bloch S
        • Walter G
        The Impact Factor: time for change.
        Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 2001; 35: 563-568
        • Ghosh AK
        • Murali NS
        Online access to nephrology journals: the FUTON bias [letter].
        Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2003; 18: 1943
        • Jadad AR
        • Gagliardi A
        Rating health information on the Internet: navigating to knowledge or to Babel?.
        JAMA. 1998; 279: 611-614
        • Drueke T
        • Lameire N
        • Hill M
        Online access to nephrology journals: the FUTON bias [reply].
        Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2003; 18: 1943