How to select publications on occupational health: the usefulness of Medline and the impact factor

Citation
Jf. Gehanno et B. Thirion, How to select publications on occupational health: the usefulness of Medline and the impact factor, OCC ENVIR M, 57(10), 2000, pp. 706-709
Citations number
6
Categorie Soggetti
Envirnomentale Medicine & Public Health","Pharmacology & Toxicology
Journal title
OCCUPATIONAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL MEDICINE
ISSN journal
13510711 → ACNP
Volume
57
Issue
10
Year of publication
2000
Pages
706 - 709
Database
ISI
SICI code
1351-0711(200010)57:10<706:HTSPOO>2.0.ZU;2-Y
Abstract
Objectives-Publications in the field of occupational health appear in vario us journals, including those of other medical specialties. This complicates the follow up of literature for specialists in this field. On the basis of Medline and the impact factor, this diversity was assessed, and a cost eff ective method for selecting the most pertinent journals in the practice of occupational health was proposed. Methods-A Medline search identified all the articles published in 1998 with occupational diseases or occupational exposures as the main topic. These a rticles were classified based on the journals in which they appeared. The j ournals were then compared according to their subject area, the number of a rticles that were published in the fields studied, and their impact factor. Results-The search retrieved 2247 articles, published in 577 different jour nals in 1998. Each journal published between one and 105 articles during th is period (mean 3.89). However, only 1.4% of the journals accounted for mor e than 25% of the total articles published. More than half of the articles were published in journals dealing with general practice or medical special ties other than occupational health. Only 66% of retrieved journals had an impact factor, and more than 80% of the articles were published in journals with an impact factor <2. Conclusion-Simply following up occupational health journals is not sufficie nt to meet the requirements of the occupational health professional. Moreov er, the use of the impact factor cannot be considered as a reliable researc h tool to assess follow up. Two lists of eight and 38 journals were thus se t up. They permit a Literature coverage of 27% and 52% respectively in the specific fields studied, and this seems to be the optimal compromise betwee n time and Literature covered. Lastly, practical procedures are suggested t o follow up literature and obtain abstracts from selected journals on the i nternet.