ArticleRetrovirology2008
H-index, mentoring-index, highly-cited and highly-accessed: how to evaluate scientists?
Article in Retrovirology, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- A bibliometrics and visualization analysis of ropivacaine research from 2000 to 2023.Frontiers in medicine · 2024Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Global Trends and Hotspots in Ultrasound Imaging for Rehabilitation Research: A Bibliometric and Visualization Analysis.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2025Article
- Scientific output quality of 40 globally top-ranked medical researchers in the field of osteoporosis.Archives of osteoporosis · 2018Article
- Ranking Iranian biomedical research centers according to H-variants (G, M, A, R) in Scopus and Web of Science.Medical journal of the Islamic Republic of Iran · 2015Article
- The Hirsch index - a play on numbers or a true appraisal of academic output?International archives of medicine · 2011Article
- Prizes and heroes: lagging and leading indicators.Retrovirology · 2010Article
- The Retrovirology Open Access experience.Retrovirology · 2009Article
- The importance of individualized article-specific metrics for evaluating research productivity.Retrovirology · 2009Article
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.
Funding
Abstract
How best to evaluate scientists within a peer group is a difficult task. This editorial discusses the use of the H-index and total citations. It also raises the consideration of a mentoring-index and the value of understanding the frequency that a published paper is accessed by readers.
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.