ArticleRetrovirology2007
Impact factor, H index, peer comparisons, and Retrovirology: is it time to individualize citation metrics?
Article in Retrovirology, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed, 37 citations in OpenAlex.
- Recent trends in biomedical informatics: a study based on JAMIA articles.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2013Article
- A measure of success.Cell & bioscience · 2012Article
- Open access, moving to the fore.Retrovirology · 2012Article
- The Hirsch index - a play on numbers or a true appraisal of academic output?International archives of medicine · 2011Article
- Hirsch index and truth survival in clinical research.PloS one · 2010Article
- Comparison of the h index with standard bibliometric indicators to rank influential otolaryngologists in Europe and North America.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2010Article
- The importance of individualized article-specific metrics for evaluating research productivity.Retrovirology · 2009Article
- H-index, mentoring-index, highly-cited and highly-accessed: how to evaluate scientists?Retrovirology · 2008Article
- Sometimes the impact factor outshines the H index.Retrovirology · 2008Article
- Please comment, but with civility.Retrovirology · 2008Article
- Does the H index have predictive power?Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2007Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
There is a natural tendency to judge a gift by the attractiveness of its wrapping. In some respect, this reflects current mores of measuring the gravitas of a scientific paper based on the journal cover in which the work appears. Most journals have an impact factor (IF) which some proudly display on their face page. Although historically journal IF has been a convenient quantitative shorthand, has its (mis)use contributed to inaccurate perceptions of the quality of scientific articles? Is now the time that equally convenient but more individually accurate metrics be adopted?
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.