O41: JOURNAL RANKING METHODS AND THEIR APPLICATION IN GENERAL SURGERY - A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW

Bibliometrics enable the objective assessment of a journals quality and prestige, making them vital to academic surgical integrity. This paper systematically reviews the evidence for current journal-ranking platforms. Method An initial systematic search identified published journal bibliometrics on 5th November 2019. Studies assessing journal bibliometrics were identified through a second systematic search through OVID Medline database (PROSPERO:159689) on 18th November 2019. Non-English papers and those solely referring to author and institutional ranking methods were excluded. A coding framework was developed to assess strengths and limitations of journal bibliometrics. Result The systematic search returned 2480 articles. All abstracts were reviewed leaving 474 for full assessment. 306 papers were included in the final synthesis. 12 journal bibliometrics were identified. SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) was deemed the most robust journal ranking method. Impact Factor (IF) is the most commonly used but has clear limitations. Altmetrics are likely to become more important. Ranking the Top 25 general surgical journals using SJR and IF results in clear discordance. Conclusion Impact Factor is susceptible to manipulation by journals putting its reliability into question. This has huge implications for academic surgery, the appraisal of evidence and its downstream assessment for inclusion into clinical guidelines and practice. SJR is more robust and it is recommended that this ranking method is adopted by the academic surgical community going forward. Take-home message The widely used Impact Factor can be manipulated by journals, which has implications for academic surgery and evidence-based medicine. SCImago Journal Rank is more robust and should be adopted by the academic surgical community.