Updated science-wide author databases of standardized citation indicators.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Ioannidis JPA
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7567353 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Oct
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Updated science-wide author databases of standardized citation indicators.
Ioannidis John P A JPA Boyack Kevin W KW Baas Jeroen J
PLoS biology 20201016 10
This Formal Comment presents an update to citation databases of top-cited scientists across all scientific fields, including more granular information on diverse indicators. ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundAuthor self-citation is the practice of citing one's previous publications in a new publication. Its extent is unknown. We studied author self-citation, choosing the major clinical field of diabetes mellitus to represent the general medical literature.MethodsWe identified every article about diabetes mellitus in 170 hand-searched clinical journals published in 2000. For every article, we recorded the bibliographic citation and publication type (original or review article) and assessed the methodologic rigour. Citation information was obtained from the ISI Web of Knowledge in April 2003.ResultsOf 49,028 articles, 289 were about diabetes mellitus and had citation information. Citation counts ranged from 0 to 347 (median 6, interquartile range [IQR] 2-12). Author self-citation counts ranged from 0 to 16 (median 1, IQR 0-2). Author self-citations accounted for an average of 18% (95% confidence interval [CI] 15%-21%) and a median of 7% (95% CI 5%- 11%) of all citations of each publication that was cited at least once (n = 266). Original articles had double the mean proportion of author self-citations compared with review articles (19% v. 9%; median 7% v. 0%, difference 7%, 95% CI 0- 10%). Methodologic rigour and review type were not significantly associated with subsequent author self-citation.InterpretationNearly one-fifth of all citations to articles about diabetes mellitus in clinical journals in the year 2000 were author self-citations. The frequency of self-citation was not associated with the quality of publications. These findings are likely applicable to the general clinical medicine literature and may have important implications for the assessment of journal or publication importance and the process of scientific discovery.
| S-EPMC421720 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe aims of this bibliometric study were to determine author self-citation trends in high-impact orthodontic literature and to investigate possible association between self-citation and publication characteristics.MethodsSix orthodontic journals with the highest impact factor as ranked by 2017 Journal Citation Reports were screened for a full publication year (2018) for original research articles, reviews, and case reports. Eligible articles were scrutinized for article and author characteristics and citation metrics. Univariable and multivariable negative binomial regression was used to examine associations between self-citation incidence and publication characteristics.ResultsMedians for author self-citation rate of the most self-citing authors and self-citations were 3.03% (range 0-50) and 1 (range 0-19), respectively. In the univariable analysis, there was no association between self-citation counts and study type (P = 0.41), article topic (P = 0.61), number of authors (P = 0.62), and rank of authors (P = 0.56). Author origin (P = 0.001), gender (P = 0.001) and journal (P = 0.05) were associated with self-citation counts and in the multivariable analysis only origin and gender remained strong self-citation predictors. Asian authors and females self-cited significantly less often than all other regions and male authors.ConclusionsAuthors in orthodontics do not self-cite at a frequency that suggests potential citation manipulation. Author origin and gender were the only variables associated with citations counts. More bibliometric research is necessary to draw solid conclusions about author self-citation trends in orthodontic literature.
| S-EPMC7788150 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Following scholars in Scientometrics as examples, we develop five author relationship networks, namely, co-authorship, author co-citation (AC), author bibliographic coupling (ABC), author direct citation (ADC), and author keyword coupling (AKC). The time frame of data sets is divided into two periods: before 2011 (i.e., T1) and after 2011 (i.e., T2). Through quadratic assignment procedure analysis, we found that some authors have ABC or AC relationships (i.e., potential communication relationship, PCR) but do not have actual collaborations or direct citations (i.e., actual communication relationship, ACR) among them. In addition, we noticed that PCR and AKC are highly correlated and that the old PCR and the new ACR are correlated and consistent. Such facts indicate that PCR tends to produce academic exchanges based on similar themes, and ABC bears more advantages in predicting potential relations. Based on tripartite citation analysis, including AC, ABC, and ADC, we also present an author-relation mining process. Such process can be used to detect deep and potential author relationships. We analyze the prediction capacity by comparing between the T1 and T2 periods, which demonstrate that relation mining can be complementary in identifying authors based on similar themes and discovering more potential collaborations and academic communities.
| S-EPMC5678701 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Modern bibliographic databases provide the basis for scientific research and its evaluation. While their content and structure differ substantially, there exist only informal notions on their reliability. Here we compare the topological consistency of citation networks extracted from six popular bibliographic databases including Web of Science, CiteSeer and arXiv.org. The networks are assessed through a rich set of local and global graph statistics. We first reveal statistically significant inconsistencies between some of the databases with respect to individual statistics. For example, the introduced field bow-tie decomposition of DBLP Computer Science Bibliography substantially differs from the rest due to the coverage of the database, while the citation information within arXiv.org is the most exhaustive. Finally, we compare the databases over multiple graph statistics using the critical difference diagram. The citation topology of DBLP Computer Science Bibliography is the least consistent with the rest, while, not surprisingly, Web of Science is significantly more reliable from the perspective of consistency. This work can serve either as a reference for scholars in bibliometrics and scientometrics or a scientific evaluation guideline for governments and research agencies.
| S-EPMC4178292 | biostudies-other
Project description:Many fields face an increasing prevalence of multi-authorship, and this poses challenges in assessing citation metrics. Here, we explore multiple citation indicators that address total impact (number of citations, Hirsch H index [H]), co-authorship adjustment (Schreiber Hm index [Hm]), and author order (total citations to papers as single; single or first; or single, first, or last author). We demonstrate the correlation patterns between these indicators across 84,116 scientists (those among the top 30,000 for impact in a single year [2013] in at least one of these indicators) and separately across 12 scientific fields. Correlation patterns vary across these 12 fields. In physics, total citations are highly negatively correlated with indicators of co-authorship adjustment and of author order, while in other sciences the negative correlation is seen only for total citation impact and citations to papers as single author. We propose a composite score that sums standardized values of these six log-transformed indicators. Of the 1,000 top-ranked scientists with the composite score, only 322 are in the top 1,000 based on total citations. Many Nobel laureates and other extremely influential scientists rank among the top-1,000 with the composite indicator, but would rank much lower based on total citations. Conversely, many of the top 1,000 authors on total citations have had no single/first/last-authored cited paper. More Nobel laureates of 2011-2015 are among the top authors when authors are ranked by the composite score than by total citations, H index, or Hm index; 40/47 of these laureates are among the top 30,000 by at least one of the six indicators. We also explore the sensitivity of indicators to self-citation and alphabetic ordering of authors in papers across different scientific fields. Multiple indicators and their composite may give a more comprehensive picture of impact, although no citation indicator, single or composite, can be expected to select all the best scientists.
| S-EPMC4930269 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Peer-reviewed publications focusing on climate change are growing exponentially with the consequence that the uptake and influence of individual papers varies greatly. Here, we derive metrics of narrativity from psychology and literary theory, and use these metrics to test the hypothesis that more narrative climate change writing is more likely to be influential, using citation frequency as a proxy for influence. From a sample of 732 scientific abstracts drawn from the climate change literature, we find that articles with more narrative abstracts are cited more often. This effect is closely associated with journal identity: higher-impact journals tend to feature more narrative articles, and these articles tend to be cited more often. These results suggest that writing in a more narrative style increases the uptake and influence of articles in climate literature, and perhaps in scientific literature more broadly.
| S-EPMC5158318 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Modern information and communication technologies, especially the Internet, have diminished the role of spatial distances and territorial boundaries on the access and transmissibility of information. This has enabled scientists for closer collaboration and internationalization. Nevertheless, geography remains an important factor affecting the dynamics of science. Here we present a systematic analysis of citation and collaboration networks between cities and countries, by assigning papers to the geographic locations of their authors' affiliations. The citation flows as well as the collaboration strengths between cities decrease with the distance between them and follow gravity laws. In addition, the total research impact of a country grows linearly with the amount of national funding for research & development. However, the average impact reveals a peculiar threshold effect: the scientific output of a country may reach an impact larger than the world average only if the country invests more than about 100,000 USD per researcher annually.
| S-EPMC3509350 | biostudies-literature
Project description:This paper offers a comparative evaluation of the scientific impact of a citizen science program in ecology, ''Vigie-Nature", managed by the French National Museum of Natural History. Vigie-Nature consists of a national network of amateur observatories dedicated to a participative study of biodiversity in France that has been running for the last twenty years. We collected 123 articles published by Vigie-Nature in international peer-reviewed journals between 2007 and 2019, and computed the yearly amount of citations of these articles between 0-12 years post-publication. We then compared this body of citations with the number of yearly citations relative to the ensemble of the articles published in ecology and indexed in the ''Web of Science" data-base. Using a longitudinal data analysis, we could observe that the yearly number of citations of the Vigie-Nature articles is significantly higher than that of the other publications in the same domain. Furthermore, this excess of citations tends to steadily grow over time: Vigie-Nature publications are about 1.5 times more cited 3 years after publication, and 3 times more cited 11 years post-publication. These results suggest that large-scale biodiversity citizen science projects are susceptible to reach a high epistemic impact, when managed in specific ways which need to be clarified through further investigations.
| S-EPMC8504750 | biostudies-literature
Project description:This study provides an overview of science from the Wikipedia perspective. A methodology has been established for the analysis of how Wikipedia editors regard science through their references to scientific papers. The method of co-citation has been adapted to this context in order to generate Pathfinder networks (PFNET) that highlight the most relevant scientific journals and categories, and their interactions in order to find out how scientific literature is consumed through this open encyclopaedia. In addition to this, their obsolescence has been studied through Price index. A total of 1 433 457 references available at Altmetric.com have been initially taken into account. After pre-processing and linking them to the data from Elsevier's CiteScore Metrics the sample was reduced to 847 512 references made by 193 802 Wikipedia articles to 598 746 scientific articles belonging to 14 149 journals indexed in Scopus. As highlighted results we found a significative presence of "Medicine" and "Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology" papers and that the most important journals are multidisciplinary in nature, suggesting also that high-impact factor journals were more likely to be cited. Furthermore, only 13.44% of Wikipedia citations are to Open Access journals.
| S-EPMC7010282 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Bibliometric indicators increasingly affect careers, funding, and reputation of individuals, their institutions and journals themselves. In contrast to author self-citations, little is known about kinetics of journal self-citations. Here we hypothesized that they may show a generalizable pattern within particular research fields or across multiple fields. We thus analyzed self-cites to 60 journals from three research fields (multidisciplinary sciences, parasitology, and information science). We also hypothesized that the kinetics of journal self-citations and citations received from other journals of the same publisher may differ from foreign citations. We analyzed the journals published the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Nature Publishing Group, and Editura Academiei Române. We found that although the kinetics of journal self-cites is generally faster compared to foreign cites, it shows some field-specific characteristics. Particularly in information science journals, the initial increase in a share of journal self-citations during post-publication year 0 was completely absent. Self-promoting journal self-citations of top-tier journals have rather indirect but negligible direct effects on bibliometric indicators, affecting just the immediacy index and marginally increasing the impact factor itself as long as the affected journals are well established in their fields. In contrast, other forms of journal self-citations and citation stacking may severely affect the impact factor, or other citation-based indices. We identified here a network consisting of three Romanian physics journals Proceedings of the Romanian Academy, Series A, Romanian Journal of Physics, and Romanian Reports in Physics, which displayed low to moderate ratio of journal self-citations, but which multiplied recently their impact factors, and were mutually responsible for 55.9%, 64.7% and 63.3% of citations within the impact factor calculation window to the three journals, respectively. They did not receive nearly any network self-cites prior impact factor calculation window, and their network self-cites decreased sharply after the impact factor calculation window. Journal self-citations and citation stacking requires increased attention and elimination from citation indices.
| S-EPMC4835057 | biostudies-literature