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. 5. The only difference is that the number of citations (see Fig. 4) was not divided by the average of the total of 567 papers, but by the average of the two groups. These averages were 93 and 66 citations, respectively
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection


getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC3104007&req=5

Fig6: The same data are presented as in Fig. 5. The only difference is that the number of citations (see Fig. 4) was not divided by the average of the total of 567 papers, but by the average of the two groups. These averages were 93 and 66 citations, respectively

Mentions: The average citation was 93 ± 4.9 for the clinical papers and 66 ± 5.4 for the basic papers. The difference amounts to about 40%. Figure 6 shows that the two distributions are superimposed when the numbers of citations are divided by the averages of each of the two groups. Obviously, there is heterogeneity below the aggregation level of a scientific journal.Fig. 6


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. 5. The only difference is that the number of citations (see Fig. 4) was not divided by the average of the total of 567 papers, but by the average of the two groups. These averages were 93 and 66 citations, respectively
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

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

Fig6: The same data are presented as in Fig. 5. The only difference is that the number of citations (see Fig. 4) was not divided by the average of the total of 567 papers, but by the average of the two groups. These averages were 93 and 66 citations, respectively
Mentions: The average citation was 93 ± 4.9 for the clinical papers and 66 ± 5.4 for the basic papers. The difference amounts to about 40%. Figure 6 shows that the two distributions are superimposed when the numbers of citations are divided by the averages of each of the two groups. Obviously, there is heterogeneity below the aggregation level of a scientific journal.Fig. 6

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