Comparative metrics of neurosurgical scientific journals: What do they mean to readers?

Abstract

Background: In regard to scientific information, are we effectively reaching the universe of physicians in the 21st century, all of whom have different backgrounds, practice environments, educational experiences, and varying degrees of research knowledge? Methods: A comparison of the top nine neurosurgery journals based on various popular citation indices and also on the digital metric, Readers (Users)/month, was compiled from available metrics and from internet sources. Results: Major differences in the ranking of the Readers (Users)/month metrics compared to ranking of the various citation indices were found. It is obvious that the citation indices do not measure the number of readers of a publication. Which metric should be used in judging the value of a scientific paper? The answer to that question relates to what the interest of the reader has in the scientific information. It appears that the academic scientist may have a different reason for reading a scientific publication than a physician caring for a patient. Conclusions: There needs to be more than one type of metric that measures the value and “Impact” of a scientific paper based on how physicians learn.