The import of the impact factor: fallacies of citation-dependent scientometry

Kumar, Malhar N.

doi:10.1308/147363510x481647

Cited by 10 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The drawback of using citation as a marker of the quality is that citation based metrics such as 'impact factor' have numerous limitations. 30,31 More citations for articles with higher levels of evidence do not necessarily imply that the quality of the studies were very high. It is, perhaps, just a reflection of the perception of other authors about LOE.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evidence-based surgery – evidence from survey and citation analysis in orthopaedic surgery

Kumar¹,

Gopalakrishna²,

Swaminath³

et al. 2011

annals

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The survey showed that awareness and access to EBS have improved greatly over the years. At the present time, these factors are not important barriers to the implementation of EBS in clinical practice in developed countries. There was a statistically significant difference in those with and without additional qualifications with regard to the approach to EBS. However, an equal percentage of surgeons with and without additional qualifications felt that it was difficult to adhere to EBS guidelines in daily clinical practice. Citation analysis showed that readers of professional journals attach importance to LOE category of the article and tend to cite level-I evidence articles more than other articles.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evidence-based surgery – evidence from survey and citation analysis in orthopaedic surgery

Kumar¹,

Gopalakrishna²,

Swaminath³

et al. 2011

annals

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The difficulty in defining standardized procedures for the definition of the LCST and UCST of polymers seems to be linked to the difficulty in creating a wealth of interdisciplinary knowledge. It is worth nothing that the sectorialization of scientific publications [143][144][145] and the "me to science" phenomenon [146] have resulted in an increasing number of publications on thermoresponsive polymers, while at the same time the explanation of the basic thermodynamic concept behind LCST and UCST behavior remains relegated to a few fundamental studies [96,98,104,[110][111][112][113][147][148][149][150]. To date, the dependency of critical miscibility behavior on the molecular weight and polymer concentration tends to be underestimated in many studies evaluating the possible applications of thermoresponsive polymers in biological environments [151][152][153][154].…”

Section: The Importance Of a Polymer's Molecular Mass And Concentrationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Chitosan-Based Biocompatible Copolymers for Thermoresponsive Drug Delivery Systems: On the Development of a Standardization System

Marsili

Berti

et al. 2021

Pharmaceutics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Chitosan is a natural polysaccharide that is considered to be biocompatible, biodegradable and non-toxic. The polymer has been used in drug delivery applications for its positive charge, which allows for adhesion with and recognition of biological tissues via non-covalent interactions. In recent times, chitosan has been used for the preparation of graft copolymers with thermoresponsive polymers such as poly-N-vinylcaprolactam (PNVCL) and poly-N-isopropylamide (PNIPAM), allowing the combination of the biodegradability of the natural polymer with the ability to respond to changes in temperature. Due to the growing interest in the utilization of thermoresponsive polymers in the biological context, it is necessary to increase the knowledge of the key principles of thermoresponsivity in order to obtain comparable results between different studies or applications. In the present review, we provide an overview of the basic principles of thermoresponsivity, as well as a description of the main polysaccharides and thermoresponsive materials, with a special focus on chitosan and poly-N-Vinyl caprolactam (PNVCL) and their biomedical applications.

show abstract

“…Although scientometry gradually became prevalent way of measuring one’s research output all over the world, there are many inherent drawbacks in main indices that are used: impact factor, number of citations, number of published papers and Hirsch’s index ( 11 ). Various ways of inflating scientometric indices were revealed, including unjustified self-citation, black-mailing researchers submitting their work to a journal to cite papers of the reviewers, forming alliances with other researchers to cite their papers in return, auto-plagiarism, divided (“salami”) publications, unjustified co-authorship, and many others.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Inflated Co-authorship Introduces Bias to Current Scientometric Indices

Mašić

Janković

2021

Med Arch

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Although scientometry gradually became prevalent way of measuring one’s research output, there are many inherent drawbacks in main indices that are used: impact factor, number of citations, number of published papers and Hirsch’s index. Objective: The aim of this study was to analyze effects of inflated co-authorship on values of scientometric indices among authors in biomedicine who participated in published papers with more than 30 co-authors. Methods: The study was of cross-sectional type, based on 100 publications randomly extracted from the MEDLINE database. The inclusion criterion was publication with more than 30 authors. The studies with topics not related to humans were excluded from further analysis. Results: On average about 10% of papers published by the surveyed authors had more than 30 co-authors, but these papers brought more than 40% of all citations and more than 40% of Hirsch’s index attributed to these authors. The duration of scientific activity was well correlated to number of citations, Hirsch’s index and the number of publications themselves with 30 or less co-authors, while the correlation did not exist with number of citations, Hirsch’s index and the number of publications with more than 30 authors. In summary, publications with > 30 authors carry more scientometric points than publications with less co-authors, and the researchers with shorter scientific activity had larger scientometric benefit from publications with more than 30 authors than senior researchers. Conclusion: Unjustified and prolific co-authorship is one of methods for inflation of scientometric indices that are not further reflecting true quality of research output of an individual. Further improvement of scientometric indicators may prevent unjustified co-authorship if it reflects the work invested in a research result.

show abstract

The import of the impact factor: fallacies of citation-dependent scientometry

Cited by 10 publications

References 35 publications

Evidence-based surgery – evidence from survey and citation analysis in orthopaedic surgery

Evidence-based surgery – evidence from survey and citation analysis in orthopaedic surgery

Chitosan-Based Biocompatible Copolymers for Thermoresponsive Drug Delivery Systems: On the Development of a Standardization System

Inflated Co-authorship Introduces Bias to Current Scientometric Indices

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About