Limits...
Differences in citation frequency of clinical and basic science papers in cardiovascular research.

Opthof T - Med Biol Eng Comput (2011)

Bottom Line: It is also demonstrated that the groups of clinical and basic cardiovascular papers are also heterogeneous concerning citation frequency.It is concluded that none of the existing citation indicators appreciates these differences.At this moment these indicators should not be used for quality assessment of individual scientists and scientific niches with small numbers of scientists.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

ABSTRACT
In this article, a critical analysis is performed on differences in citation frequency of basic and clinical cardiovascular papers. It appears that the latter papers are cited at about 40% higher frequency. The differences between the largest number of citations of the most cited papers are even larger. It is also demonstrated that the groups of clinical and basic cardiovascular papers are also heterogeneous concerning citation frequency. It is concluded that none of the existing citation indicators appreciates these differences. At this moment these indicators should not be used for quality assessment of individual scientists and scientific niches with small numbers of scientists.

Show MeSH
Comparison of the most cited papers in the three clinical journals during 10 years (n = 30) with the most cited papers in the three basic journals. The same comparison is made with papers at the 5th percentile
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection


getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC3104007&req=5

Fig2: Comparison of the most cited papers in the three clinical journals during 10 years (n = 30) with the most cited papers in the three basic journals. The same comparison is made with papers at the 5th percentile

Mentions: Figure 2 shows that there was a huge difference in the number of citations of the most frequently cited paper in the clinical versus the basic group [373 ± 53.7 vs. 140 ± 30.4; mean ± SEM, n = 30 (10 years, 3 journals, P < 0.0005, ANOVA)]. One might argue that clinical journals often publish trials or statement type papers on public health which attract many citations. Thus, the difference might mainly apply to the two or three most frequently cited papers. To explore this in more detail, we also compared citation of the papers at the 5th percentile, that is, the paper at position 10 when a journal published 200 articles in a given year or a paper at position 30 when a journal published 600 articles. The results in the clinical and basic sets of journals were averaged. Figure 2 shows that papers at the 5th percentile were still more often cited when they were published in clinical journals compared with basic journals (92 ± 12.1 vs. 58 ± 8.8; mean ± SEM, n = 30 (10 years, 3 journals, P < 0.05).Fig. 2


Differences in citation frequency of clinical and basic science papers in cardiovascular research.

Opthof T - Med Biol Eng Comput (2011)

Comparison of the most cited papers in the three clinical journals during 10 years (n = 30) with the most cited papers in the three basic journals. The same comparison is made with papers at the 5th percentile
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC3104007&req=5

Fig2: Comparison of the most cited papers in the three clinical journals during 10 years (n = 30) with the most cited papers in the three basic journals. The same comparison is made with papers at the 5th percentile
Mentions: Figure 2 shows that there was a huge difference in the number of citations of the most frequently cited paper in the clinical versus the basic group [373 ± 53.7 vs. 140 ± 30.4; mean ± SEM, n = 30 (10 years, 3 journals, P < 0.0005, ANOVA)]. One might argue that clinical journals often publish trials or statement type papers on public health which attract many citations. Thus, the difference might mainly apply to the two or three most frequently cited papers. To explore this in more detail, we also compared citation of the papers at the 5th percentile, that is, the paper at position 10 when a journal published 200 articles in a given year or a paper at position 30 when a journal published 600 articles. The results in the clinical and basic sets of journals were averaged. Figure 2 shows that papers at the 5th percentile were still more often cited when they were published in clinical journals compared with basic journals (92 ± 12.1 vs. 58 ± 8.8; mean ± SEM, n = 30 (10 years, 3 journals, P < 0.05).Fig. 2

Bottom Line: It is also demonstrated that the groups of clinical and basic cardiovascular papers are also heterogeneous concerning citation frequency.It is concluded that none of the existing citation indicators appreciates these differences.At this moment these indicators should not be used for quality assessment of individual scientists and scientific niches with small numbers of scientists.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

ABSTRACT
In this article, a critical analysis is performed on differences in citation frequency of basic and clinical cardiovascular papers. It appears that the latter papers are cited at about 40% higher frequency. The differences between the largest number of citations of the most cited papers are even larger. It is also demonstrated that the groups of clinical and basic cardiovascular papers are also heterogeneous concerning citation frequency. It is concluded that none of the existing citation indicators appreciates these differences. At this moment these indicators should not be used for quality assessment of individual scientists and scientific niches with small numbers of scientists.

Show MeSH