Analysis of h-index and other bibliometric markers of productivity and repercussion of a selected sample of worldwide emergency medicine researchers
Analysis of h-index and other bibliometric markers of productivity and repercussion of a selected sample of worldwide emergency medicine researchers
复制标题
DOI：
10.1136/emermed-2016-205893
复制
发表时间：
2017-03-01
影响因子：
3.1
通讯作者：
Javier Martin-Sanchez, Francisco
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Miro, Oscar;Burbano, Pablo;Javier Martin-Sanchez, Francisco
目的探索全球急诊医学研究人员样本中的文献计量学标记，以确定全球、大陆和个体随时间变化的模式。方法评价6种国际急诊医学期刊编委会成员的载文量、引文量、累积影响因子和h指数。我们计算了每个作者职业生涯中每一年的个人价值，以评估他们的动态演变。结果共纳入107名研究人员(美国76人，欧洲21人，澳大利亚10人；C组46人，B组43人，A组18人)。中位经验为18年(智商：12年)，没有亚组差异。随时间的动态分析显示，所有研究人员个体和所有文献计量学标记(R-2：0.505-0.997)都符合二次函数，h指数达到最好的R2。107名调查者的h指数联合分析也符合二次模型(R-2=0.49)。根据预先定义的大陆和增长率分组进行分析，可以定义特定的模式(R2分别在0.46-0.54和0.80-0.86之间)：按大陆划分，美国研究人员的h指数每年增加0.632点，欧洲为0.417，澳大利亚为0.341；按增长率计算，A、B和C组的研究人员分别增加1.239、0.683和0.320。结论对每个个体作者指标随时间的动态分析符合二次模型，h指数达到最佳的R-2。还可以根据大陆和增长率建立模型，帮助预测特定分组研究人员的未来预期结果，并按增长率对新出现的研究人员进行分类。
Objective To explore bibliometric markers in a worldwide sample of emergency physician investigators to define global, continental and individual patterns over time.Methods We evaluated the number of papers published, citations received, cumulative impact factor and h-index of editorial board members of six international emergency medicine journals. We calculated the individual values for every year of each author's career to evaluate their dynamic evolution. We analysed the results by researcher world area and growth rate.Results We included 107 researchers (76 American, 21 European and 10 Australasian; 46 slow-rate -group C-, 43 medium-rate -group B-and 18 fast-rate growth-group A-). The median experience was 18 (IQR: 12) years, without subgroups differences. Dynamic analysis over time showed good fit with quadratic function in all individual researchers and for all bibliometric markers (R-2: 0.505-0.997), with the h-index achieving the best R2. The combined analysis of the h-index of the 107 investigators also fit the quadratic model (R-2=0.49). Analysis by predefined continental and growth-rate subgroups allowed defining specific patterns (R-2 between 0.46-0.54 and 0.80-0.86, respectively): by continents, American researchers' h-index increased 0.632 points per year, European 0.417 and Australasian 0.341; by growth rate, researchers from group A, B and C increased 1.239, 0.683 and 0.320, respectively.Conclusions Dynamic analysis of every individual author indicator over time has a very good fit with a quadratic model, with the h-index achieving the best R-2. It is also possible to construct models based on continent and rate of growth that could help to predict future expected outcomes of researchers in a particular subgroup and to classify new emerging researchers by growth rate.