Citation analysis may severely underestimate the impact of clinical research as compared to basic research.
Citation analysis may severely underestimate the impact of clinical research as compared to basic research.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1371/journal.pone.0062395
复制
发表时间：
2013
期刊：
影响因子：
3.7
通讯作者：
Peul WC
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
van Eck NJ;Waltman L;van Raan AF;Klautz RJ;Peul WC
引文分析已成为医学科学研究绩效评估的重要工具。但是，即使在同一医学领域，医学研究的不同领域也可能具有截然不同的引用实践。因此，目前尚不清楚在多大程度上基于引用的文献计量指标允许在医学研究不同领域的研究单元之间进行有效的比较。
引入了一种可视化方法，该方法揭示了医学研究领域之间的引文实践差异。该方法从大量出版物的标题和摘要中提取术语，并使用这些术语可视化医学领域的结构，并指出该领域内的研究领域的平均引文影响如何彼此不同。
为32个医疗领域提供了可视化，这些医学领域根据网络科学数据库中的期刊主题类别定义。该分析侧重于三个领域：心脏和心血管系统，临床神经病学和手术。在这些领域的每个领域中，研究领域之间的引文实践存在很大差异。低影响的研究领域倾向于关注临床干预研究，而高影响力的研究领域通常更注重基本和诊断研究。
流行的文献计量指标，例如H索引和影响因素，无法纠正医疗领域之间的引文实践差异。因此，这些指标不能用于进行准确的场地比较。更复杂的文献计量指标确实对现场差异进行了纠正，但仍未考虑引用实践中场内异质性。结果，与基本和诊断研究相比，临床干预研究的引文影响可能被大大低估。
Citation analysis has become an important tool for research performance assessment in the medical sciences. However, different areas of medical research may have considerably different citation practices, even within the same medical field. Because of this, it is unclear to what extent citation-based bibliometric indicators allow for valid comparisons between research units active in different areas of medical research. A visualization methodology is introduced that reveals differences in citation practices between medical research areas. The methodology extracts terms from the titles and abstracts of a large collection of publications and uses these terms to visualize the structure of a medical field and to indicate how research areas within this field differ from each other in their average citation impact. Visualizations are provided for 32 medical fields, defined based on journal subject categories in the Web of Science database. The analysis focuses on three fields: Cardiac & cardiovascular systems, Clinical neurology, and Surgery. In each of these fields, there turn out to be large differences in citation practices between research areas. Low-impact research areas tend to focus on clinical intervention research, while high-impact research areas are often more oriented on basic and diagnostic research. Popular bibliometric indicators, such as the h-index and the impact factor, do not correct for differences in citation practices between medical fields. These indicators therefore cannot be used to make accurate between-field comparisons. More sophisticated bibliometric indicators do correct for field differences but still fail to take into account within-field heterogeneity in citation practices. As a consequence, the citation impact of clinical intervention research may be substantially underestimated in comparison with basic and diagnostic research.
登录
查看更多内容
影响因子：
--
作者：
Garfield, E
通讯作者：
Garfield, E
影响因子：
3.9
作者：
Glaenzel, Wolfgang;Schubert, Andras;Debackere, Koenraad
通讯作者：
Debackere, Koenraad
DOI：
10.1002/asi.21371
发表时间：
2010-11-01
影响因子：
--
作者：
Leydesdorff, Loet;Opthof, Tobias
通讯作者：
Opthof, Tobias
影响因子：
3.9
作者：
Neuhaus, Christoph;Daniel, Hans-Dieter
通讯作者：
Daniel, Hans-Dieter
影响因子：
3.9
作者：
Smolinsky, Lawrence;Lercher, Aaron
通讯作者：
Lercher, Aaron