BioMed Central Blog

Updated SCImago journal rankings – BMC-series journals rank highly

In an update to our previous post about SCImago journal rankings, we have news of updated rankings for some of our journals. Highlights of these include high rankings for the following BMC-series journals:

• BMC Bioinformatics with a SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) of 0.75 is placed 2nd of 150 journals in the Computer Science Applications category.
• BMC Medical Education (SJR 0.13) is 2nd of 397 journals in the Education category.
• BMC Medical Ethics (SJR of 0.11) is 1st of 9 journals in the Issues, Ethics and Legal Aspects category. Philosophy, Ethics and Humanities in Medicine, which is also published by BioMed Central, occupies the 2nd place in this category.
• BMC Plant Biology (SJR 0.67) is 8th of 291 journals in the Plant Science category.

These updates to the 2008 SCImago journal rankings have been released as these journals were previously listed in categories that were not as relevant to their scope.

The SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) is a measure of a journals' citation impact and is calculated in a similar manner to Google's Page Rank. This approach calculates a journal rank by weighting citations from journals according to how highly cited the journal is itself. Further details of SJRs for BioMed Central journals can be found on our website.

Posted by Charlotte Hubbard at 11:38    Comments (0)

Statistical power in clinical trials

In a new debate published in BMC Medicine, Peter Bachetti talks about the concept of statistical power in determining sample size, the undue weight that is given to power calculations in clinical research, and the way that power calculations can actually contribute to less transparent reporting.

Randomised controlled trials are one of the highest forms of evidence-based clinical research, and can heavily influence treatment options in the clinic. However, as with most research, they are only as good as their basic design. Sample size is considered to be a key parameter in deciding whether a study is credible, and this decision is most often based on a statistical calculation of power. However, is this really “the best” way of determining sample size?

Bachetti advocates looking to other parameters to influence the determination of adequate sample size, including information already available and choices based on cost and feasibility.

Visit BMC Medicine to read the full debate and gain additional insight into this interesting and controversial topic. While you’re there, why not contribute to the debate or sign up for article alerts, which will help keep you informed of the latest publications in general medical and clinical research? 

Posted by Robin Cassady-Cain at 10:26    Comments (0)