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
The same data are presented as in Fig. 4. The number of papers of 381 and 186 are both rescaled to 100%. The number of citations was divided by the average citation (84) of all 567 papers. The vertical dashed lines indicate that 38% of the clinical papers were cited above average and 23% of the basic papers
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection


getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC3104007&req=5

Fig5: The same data are presented as in Fig. 4. The number of papers of 381 and 186 are both rescaled to 100%. The number of citations was divided by the average citation (84) of all 567 papers. The vertical dashed lines indicate that 38% of the clinical papers were cited above average and 23% of the basic papers

Mentions: In Fig. 5, the 381 clinical and 186 basic papers were rescaled to a percentage scale along the abscissa. Along the ordinate, the number of citations was divided (see Fig. 4) by the average of all papers (84). Obviously, the basic papers are less frequently cited over the whole range. The vertical dashed lines indicate that from the clinical papers 38% is more often cited than the average (ratio above 1.0) and that this is pertinent to only 23% of the basic papers. The top ratio (number of citations obtained by the most frequently paper divided by the average citation of all papers) was 8.4 in the clinical category and 6.0 in the basic category.Fig. 5


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

Opthof T - Med Biol Eng Comput (2011)

The same data are presented as in Fig. 4. The number of papers of 381 and 186 are both rescaled to 100%. The number of citations was divided by the average citation (84) of all 567 papers. The vertical dashed lines indicate that 38% of the clinical papers were cited above average and 23% of the basic papers
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

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

Fig5: The same data are presented as in Fig. 4. The number of papers of 381 and 186 are both rescaled to 100%. The number of citations was divided by the average citation (84) of all 567 papers. The vertical dashed lines indicate that 38% of the clinical papers were cited above average and 23% of the basic papers
Mentions: In Fig. 5, the 381 clinical and 186 basic papers were rescaled to a percentage scale along the abscissa. Along the ordinate, the number of citations was divided (see Fig. 4) by the average of all papers (84). Obviously, the basic papers are less frequently cited over the whole range. The vertical dashed lines indicate that from the clinical papers 38% is more often cited than the average (ratio above 1.0) and that this is pertinent to only 23% of the basic papers. The top ratio (number of citations obtained by the most frequently paper divided by the average citation of all papers) was 8.4 in the clinical category and 6.0 in the basic category.Fig. 5

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