Montini T, Mangurian C, Bero LA "Assessing the evidence submitted in the development of a workplace smoking regulation: The case of Maryland" PUBLIC HEALTH REPORTS 117 (3): 291-298 MAY-JUN 2002

[Quentin L. Burrell]

Gene's highlighted quote (see below) from the paper by Montini et al is
certainly interesting.

 It suggests that one or other (or both in combination) of the aspects

(i) being more recently published
(ii) being in publications with higher impact factors
are indicative of articles being "of better "quality"".

The assessment of "quality" is always difficult. Is it accepted or has it
been demonstrated that these particular quantitative aspects of articles can
indeed be interpreted in terms of their quality?

Quentin Burrell


-----Original Message-----
From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics
[mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU]On Behalf Of Eugene Garfield
Sent: 07 January 2003 19:14
To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU
Subject: [SIGMETRICS] Montini T, Mangurian C, Bero LA "Assessing the
evidence submitted in the development of a workplace smoking regulation:
The case of Maryland" PUBLIC HEALTH REPORTS 117 (3): 291-298 MAY-JUN
2002


Lisa Bero : bero at medicine.ucsf.edu

This is an interesting use of journal impact factors.
"The journal articles the supporters submitted were more recently published
and were in publications with higher impact factors, suggesting that they
were of better "quality"."

________________________________________________________________

Title    Assessing the evidence submitted in the development of a workplace
         smoking regulation: The case of Maryland
Author   Montini T, Mangurian C, Bero LA
Journal  PUBLIC HEALTH REPORTS 117 (3): 291-298 MAY-JUN 2002

 Document type: Article      Language: English
  Cited References: 57       Times Cited: 0