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
Citation numbers of the most cited clinical paper of Circulation published in 1998 (Laufs et al. [10]) and the most cited basic paper (Wei et al. [33]). The dashed box indicates the time window over which the citation were used in these papers and all 565 others in set 2 (see text)
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection


getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC3104007&req=5

Fig3: Citation numbers of the most cited clinical paper of Circulation published in 1998 (Laufs et al. [10]) and the most cited basic paper (Wei et al. [33]). The dashed box indicates the time window over which the citation were used in these papers and all 565 others in set 2 (see text)

Mentions: The most frequently cited paper in the basic category was that of Wei et al. [33]. These authors measured myocardial blood flow in dogs with a technique based on continuous infusion of microbubbles. This novel technique has a potential on measuring tissue perfusion in any organ accessible by ultrasound. Figure 3 shows the citation profile for both papers. The total number of citations was 708 for Laufs et al. [10] and 506 for Wei et al. [33] between 1998 and 2006.Fig. 3


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

Opthof T - Med Biol Eng Comput (2011)

Citation numbers of the most cited clinical paper of Circulation published in 1998 (Laufs et al. [10]) and the most cited basic paper (Wei et al. [33]). The dashed box indicates the time window over which the citation were used in these papers and all 565 others in set 2 (see text)
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

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

Fig3: Citation numbers of the most cited clinical paper of Circulation published in 1998 (Laufs et al. [10]) and the most cited basic paper (Wei et al. [33]). The dashed box indicates the time window over which the citation were used in these papers and all 565 others in set 2 (see text)
Mentions: The most frequently cited paper in the basic category was that of Wei et al. [33]. These authors measured myocardial blood flow in dogs with a technique based on continuous infusion of microbubbles. This novel technique has a potential on measuring tissue perfusion in any organ accessible by ultrasound. Figure 3 shows the citation profile for both papers. The total number of citations was 708 for Laufs et al. [10] and 506 for Wei et al. [33] between 1998 and 2006.Fig. 3

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