Three dimensions of scientific impact

Siudem, Grzegorz; Żogała-Siudem, Barbara; Cena, Anna; Gągolewski, Marek

doi:10.1073/pnas.2001064117

Cited by 39 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 50 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…One measure to assess the research quality would be to analyze citations, but given the comparably short time in which thousands of manuscripts have been published, a more comprehensive analysis can be expected in the future. If citation numbers grow, this will allow further analyses, according to three easily interpretable parameters: productivity, total impact, and how successful an author has been so far, as proposed in a recent study [19]. Regarding the number of COVID-19 cases and related deaths, we relied on published data from official authorities.…”

Section: Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Research Output and International Cooperation Among Countries During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Scientometric Analysis

Grammes¹,

Millenaar²,

Fehlmann³

et al. 2020

J Med Internet Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background The COVID-19 pandemic, caused by the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2, has instigated immediate and massive worldwide research efforts. Rapid publication of research data may be desirable but also carries the risk of quality loss. Objective This analysis aimed to correlate the severity of the COVID-19 outbreak with its related scientific output per country. Methods All articles related to the COVID-19 pandemic were retrieved from Web of Science and analyzed using the web application SciPE (science performance evaluation), allowing for large data scientometric analyses of the global geographical distribution of scientific output. Results A total of 7185 publications, including 2592 articles, 2091 editorial materials, 2528 early access papers, 1479 letters, 633 reviews, and other contributions were extracted. The top 3 countries involved in COVID-19 research were the United States, China, and Italy. The confirmed COVID-19 cases or deaths per region correlated with scientific research output. The United States was most active in terms of collaborative efforts, sharing a significant amount of manuscript authorships with the United Kingdom, China, and Italy. The United States was China’s most frequent collaborative partner, followed by the United Kingdom. Conclusions The COVID-19 research landscape is rapidly developing and is driven by countries with a generally strong prepandemic research output but is also significantly affected by countries with a high prevalence of COVID-19 cases. Our findings indicate that the United States is leading international collaborative efforts.

show abstract

Section: Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Research Output and International Cooperation Among Countries During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Scientometric Analysis

Grammes¹,

Millenaar²,

Fehlmann³

et al. 2020

J Med Internet Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, some academics have argued that first authorship is a better measurement of success [14]. Although the h-index is a well-accepted means of measuring a researcher's impact, this metric includes all of the researchers' works across medical fields, rather than only ophthalmology-centric journals [15]. Using internet searches to find curricula vitae posted online, implies the risk that the information posted was incorrect and/or outdated.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Demographic correlations for 100 most-cited authors in ophthalmic research; a bibliometric study

Clarke¹,

Smith²,

Wilde³

et al. 2021

Med Hypothesis Discov Innov Ophthalmol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: To analyze the academic characteristics, career trajectory, scholarly publications, and demographic background of the 100 most-cited authors in ophthalmic literature. Methods: In this observational cross-sectional study, a database containing every ophthalmology journal article from 1967 to 2018 was built using Scopus journal article information. The 100 authors with the most citations were identified, along with a control group of authors with at least five publications. Information about each author, such as gender, institution, and educational degrees were found from online web searches. Intra- and inter-group analyses were performed to identify correlations that may lead to having a high level of impact in ophthalmology literature. Results: Of the 100 most-cited ophthalmologists, 56 practice in the United States (US) and only 12 are female. In an odds ratio (OR) analysis, highly-cited researchers more often lived in the US (OR, 2.97; P < 0.001), were male (OR, 2.4; P = 0.02), and graduated from an elite medical school (OR, 3.89; P = 0.02) and/or residency (OR, 3.67; P = 0.02), but were not from an undergraduate institution (P = 0.75). There was no difference in citation numbers between different ophthalmology subspecialties (P = 0.22) or advanced degrees (PhD, MPH in addition to MD). Women among the top-100-cited authors were more likely to author high impact journal articles (P < 0.05). Conclusions: Among highly-cited ophthalmologists, practicing in the US and attending a top medical school or residency program may provide training for a successful research career in ophthalmology. Additionally, top female ophthalmologists participate in more influential research.

show abstract

“…It is worth noting that this does not prevent many papers from being correctly evaluated by bibliometric indices; the impediment for their use is that not all papers are correctly evaluated. Unfortunately, this issue is frequently ignored and bibliometric tools are used in the evaluation of researchers (e.g., Kaptay, 2020;Siudem, Zogala-Siudem et al, 2020). In contrast, at the aggregation level of institutions, citation indicators have been validated against peer review (Rodríguez-Navarro & Brito, 2020a;Traag & Waltman, 2019).…”

Section: Citation-based Indicators Of Research Performancementioning

confidence: 99%

Total number of papers and in a single percentile fully describes research impact—Revisiting concepts and applications

Rodríguez‐Navarro

Brito

2021

Quantitative Science Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study uses the thorough data provided by the Leiden Ranking 2020 to support the claim that percentile-based indicators are linked by a power law function. A constant calculated from this function, ℯp, and the total number of papers fully characterize the percentile distribution of publications. According to this distribution, the probability that a publication from a country or institution is in the global xth percentile can be calculated from a simple equation: P = ℯp(2 – lgx). By taking the Leiden Ranking PPtop10%/100 as an approximation of the ℯp constant, our results demonstrate that other PPtopx% indicators can be calculated applying this equation. Consequently, given a PPtopx% indicator, all the others are redundant with it. Even accepting that the total number of papers and a single PPtopx% indicator are sufficient to fully characterize the percentile distribution of papers, the results of comparisons between universities and research institutions differ depending on the percentile selected for the comparison. We discuss which Ptopx% and PPtopx% indicators are the most convenient for these comparisons in order to obtain reliable information that can be used in research policy.

show abstract

Three dimensions of scientific impact

Cited by 39 publications

References 50 publications

Research Output and International Cooperation Among Countries During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Scientometric Analysis

Research Output and International Cooperation Among Countries During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Scientometric Analysis

Demographic correlations for 100 most-cited authors in ophthalmic research; a bibliometric study

Total number of papers and in a single percentile fully describes research impact—Revisiting concepts and applications

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About