[Downloaded free from http://www.lungindia.com on Wednesday, September 28, 2016, IP: 87.2.98.
88]
Letters to Editor
Comments on “An unusual cause of bronchial obstruction”
Sir,
I read with interest the article entitled “An unusual cause
of bronchial obstruction,”[1] published in April 2012 issue
of Lung India. The case was that of mediastinal lymph
node TB which ruptured into left main bronchus and
caused occlusion with monophonic wheeze. Fiberoptic
bronchoscopy confirmed this finding and patient was
treated with ATT and supplemental steroids. It is an
interesting case and I would like to congratulate the
authors for sharing their experience with others. I have
some doubts regarding the present case and would like to
highlight some points to the authors:
The diagnosis of mediastinal lymphadenitis was made on
the basis of chest X-ray or CT scan. As there was involvement
of left main bronchus, which stations of lymph nodes were
involved? It will be helpful to us if authors would be able to
provide us details about the lymph node stations.
I assume that the patient did not have any complaint of
dyspnea prior to ATT, and so there was no baseline spirometry.
Authors have reported flow–volume loop[1] showing findings
of large airway obstruction (flattening of inspiratory loop);
but in the post-treatment spirometry showing complete
recovery, the inspiratory loop is conspicuously missing. It
would have been better if the authors had provided complete
flow–volume loop for post-treatment spirometry also.
The bronchoscopy image shows two openings, and
[1]
if we go by the universally accepted appearance of
bronchoscopy,[2] it does not appear to be carina. In this
Scientific journals: Indexation and impact factor
Sir,
Your recent publication ‘Indexed Journal: What does it
mean?’ is really stimulating. Balhara Yatan compared the
values of indexation of a journal and their impact factors
IF.[1] It is true that both are related and important, but
the question is ‘how objective are these?’ According to
Balhara, popular indexation services that have been for a
long time such as Medline/Pubmed, EMBASE, SCOPUS,
EBSCO Publishing’s Electronic Database, SCIRUS, and
African Index Medicus were regarded as highly rated. He
300 Lung India • Vol 29 • Issue 3 • Jul - Sep 2012
case, where was the occlusion? Left lower lobe basal
segments. Would authors like to clarify at what level the
images were taken?
If there was complete occlusion of left main bronchus
as said by the authors, there is no comment from them
regarding the collapse of left lung/lobes. Was any collapse
of left lung/lobes present or not?
Asmita Mehta
Department of Pulmonary Medicine,
Amrita Institute of Medical Sciences, Ponekkara,
Kochi, Kerala, India.
E-mail: asmitamehta@aims.amrita.edu
REFERENCES
1. Liju A, Sharma N, Milburn H. An unusual cause of bronchial obstruction.
Lung India 2012;29:182-4.
2. Koppen W, Turner JF, Mehta AC. Flexible Bronchoscopy. 2nd ed. Oxford:
Blackwell Publishers; 2004.
Access this article online
Quick Response Code:
Website:
www.lungindia.com
subsequently asked if the newer indexation services like
Capsur, DOAJ, SCOLOAR, Primo Central, ProQuest, Hinari,
Open J Gate and some others are equally relevant bodies.[1]
The question still remains ‘how objective are we?’
Indexation services are meant to give journals wider
coverage for easy accessibility to their published articles.
Bearing this in mind, we can regard all indexation bodies
as equally relevant. However, the coverage capacities
of these bodies differ. Indexing/abstracting bodies like
Pubmed has over the years grown to be globally acceptable
[Downloaded free from http://www.lungindia.com on Wednesday, September 28, 2016, IP: 87.2.98.88]
Letters to Editor
and now has a broader horizon. Similarly are EMBASE
and SCOPUS. This has put them on a hedge over newer
indexation services. If the newer indexing bodies would
continually strive to maintain quality and integrity, then
they will also grow with time.
IF is yet another controversial issue.[2] IF has evolved
from the original intention of using it as a measure of
journal performance[3] to being used as a proxy for the
relative importance of a journal within its field.[1] It is now
employed as a yardstick to evaluate article and scientist.
How true are the values? Garfield has warned against
using IF to evaluate individual articles and scientists.[4-6]
IF has been criticized for falseness and inappropriate
application.[7] IF is not just awarded to journals indexed in
Thomson Reuters Journal Citation Reports (ISI-Thomson),
it is also awarded by SCImago Journal Ranking (SJR).
Both are issued by Elsevier.[8] SJR calculates IF based on
a periodic citation data and attributes different weight to
citations depending on the citing journal using the Page
Rank algorithm in the network of journals. The prestige
of a journal is transferred through the references that a
journal receives from others.[8]
IF = C/D = C(N)/(A(N-2) + A(N-1)) (1)
where C(N) is total number of cites appearing in journals
from each respective collection to articles published by
journal ‘J’ in years ‘(N-2)’ and ‘(N-1)’, and A(N-i) is the
number of articles published by ‘J’ in years (N-2) and
(N-1).[8]
Some journals now calculate IF using the same basis as:
IF (N) = A/B (2)
where N is the year, A is the number of times articles
published in years ‘N-1’ and ‘N-2’ were cited in indexed
journals during year ‘N’, and ‘B’ is the number of articles,
reviews, and proceedings or notes published by the journal
in years ‘N-1’ and ‘N-2’.
Which IF do we then accept? That from ISI-Thomson or
SCImago? Possibly, that generated by individual journal?
Interestingly, journals now have impact ICV ratings/values
on their official websites. Researchers are often confused
and mistake this for IF.
Multiple factors have been reported to bias the calculation of
IF. These include but are not limited to coverage and language
preference of the database, procedures used to collect
citations, algorithm used to calculate IF, citation distribution
of journals, online availability of publications, negative
citations, preference of journal publishers for articles of a
certain type, publication lag, citing behavior across subjects,
and possibility of exertion of influence from journal editors.[9,10]
These factors might also play a role in journal indexation.
Lung India • Vol 29 • Issue 3 • Jul - Sep 2012 301
Since some journals are indexed in highly rated indexation
services like Pubmed but have low or no IF, while some
have high IF but are not indexed in Pubmed, what are
the selection criteria for labeling a journal ‘high quality
journal’? Indexation or IF? This makes the ranking of
journal quality opinionative and highly subjective.
Emphasis should be placed on evaluation and peer-review
processes, and the consistence of journals as these will
certainly yield good publications. Anecdotal evidence
shows that some journals are worth labeling ‘high quality’
based on unbiased and constructive peer-review process
but are not well indexed probably due to the factors earlier
stated. How would such journals have high coverage or IF?
It is good to publish in journals indexed in highly rated
indexing/abstracting bodies as well as those with high IF,
however, the bone of contention should be shifted and
value should be placed on quality evaluation and peer-
review processes. It is suggested that if there is a need for
IF, associations of editors of medical journals should play
a vital role in ensuring that indexation bodies have a fair,
open, and clear selection criteria, and a standard formula
for calculating IF should be established. These will bring
the actual picture of journals’ impact.
REFERENCES
1. Balhara YP. Indexed journal: What does it mean? Lung India 2012;29:193.
2. Fassoulaki A, Papilas K, Paraskeva A, Patris K. Impact factor bias and
proposed adjustment for its determination. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand
2002;46:902-5.
3. Oh HC, Lim JF. Is the journal impact factor a valid indicator of scientific
value? Singapore Med J 2009;50:749-51.
4. Garfield E. The history and meaning of the journal impact factor. JAMA
2006;295:90-3.
5. Garfield E. How can impact factors be improved? BMJ 1996;313:411-3.
6. Garfield E. Journal impact factor: A brief review. CMAJ 1999;161:979-80.
7. Not-so-deep impact. Nature 2005;435:1003-4.
8. Mueen Ahmed KK. New challenges in the new year for Phcog Mag: 5
years of quality publication. Pharmacogn Mag 2011;7:1-3.
9. Malathi M, Thappa DM. The intricacies of impact factor and mid-term
review of editorship. Indian J Dermatol Venereol Leprol 2012;78:1-4.
10. Balhara YP. Publication: An essential step in research. Lung India
2011;28:324-5.
Roland E. Akhigbe
Department of Physiology, College of Health Sciences,
Ladoke Akintola University of Technology,
Ogbomoso, Oyo state, Nigeria.
E-mail: akhigbemcroy@yahoo.com
Access this article online
Quick Response Code:
Website:
www.lungindia.com
DOI:
10.4103/0970-2113.99130