A comparison of bibliometric indicators in occupational therapy journals published in English
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND.: The use of bibliometrics to evaluate the quality and impact of refereed journals has increased along with access to electronic databases and citation counts. PURPOSE.: This analysis compared and contrasted the range of publication metrics available for English-language occupational therapy journals. METHOD.: Bibliometric data were sourced for 23 English-language occupational therapy journals, including data from the Journal Citation Reports (JCR) 2- and 5-year impact factor, JCR Immediacy Index, Eigenfactor Score, Article Influence Score, Scopus Source Normalized Impact per Paper, SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) score, and ResearchGate journal impact score. H-indexes for journals were also sourced. FINDINGS.: The American Journal of Occupational Therapy had the highest publication metrics. SJR-based scores included a larger number of journals, whereas JCR-based metrics were more restrictive in the number of journals included. IMPLICATIONS.: Multiple metrics should be used to comprehensively understand occupational therapy journal performance.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.019 | 0.127 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.101 | 0.101 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".