Differences in citation frequency of clinical and basic science papers in cardiovascular research

被引：0
作者：
Tobias Opthof
机构：
[1] Center for Heart Failure Research,Experimental Cardiology Group
[2] Academic Medical Center,Department of Medical Physiology
[3] University Medical Center,undefined
来源：
Medical & Biological Engineering & Computing | 2011年 / 49卷
关键词：
Citation; Citation indicators; Basic science; Clinical science; Cardiovascular; CWTS; Hirsch index; Peer review; Peer esteem; Historical citation data; Citation profiles;
D O I：
暂无
中图分类号：
学科分类号：
摘要：
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.
引用
收藏
相关论文
共 69 条
[1]  
Bornmann L(2010)Towards an ideal method of measuring research performance: some comments to the Opthof and Leydesdorff (2010) paper J Informetr 4 441-443
[2]  
Bornmann L(2008)Are there better indices for evaluation purposes than the JASIST 59 830-837
[3]  
Mutz R(2008) index? A comparison of nine different variants of the Ethics Sci Environ Polit 8 93-102
[4]  
Daniel HD(1989) index using data from biomedicine Trends Biochem Sci 14 9-13
[5]  
Bornmann L(2002)Citation counts for research evaluation: standards of good practice for analyzing bibliometric data and presenting and interpreting results Cardiovasc Res 56 330-331
[6]  
Mutz R(2011)Citations and the evaluation of individual scientists J Informetr 5 226-227
[7]  
Neuhaus C(2005)Interactions between science and arts Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 102 16569-16572
[8]  
Daniel H-D(2004)There are neither “king” nor “crown” in scientometrics: comments on a supposed “alternative” method of normalization Research Eval 13 51-62
[9]  
Cole S(1998)An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output Circulation 97 1129-1135
[10]  
Dibbets J(2011)Judging quality. Expert panels evaluating research: decision-making and sources of bias JASIST 62 217-229
1234567