ArticlePloS one2009
Looking for landmarks: the role of expert review and bibliometric analysis in evaluating scientific publication outputs.
Article in PloS one, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 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
32 citing papers in PubMed.
- Global research trends in oncolytic virotherapy for sarcomas of bone and soft tissue (2000-2024): a bibliometric and visualization study.Translational cancer research · 2026Article
- Review
- Review
- Global research status of intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy: A bibliometric analysis of hotspots, bursts, and trends.Heliyon · 2024Article
- Rubella Virus Infections: A Bibliometric Analysis of the Scientific Literature from 2000 to 2021.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Knowledge Areas and New Trends in Lumbar Disc Herniation Research: Bibliometrics and Knowledge Mapping Analysis.Indian journal of orthopaedics · 2022Article
- A Global Bibliometric Analysis on Antibiotic-Resistant Active Pulmonary Tuberculosis over the Last 25 Years (1996-2020).Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- A Bibliometric Analysis and Visualization of Current Research Trends in Chinese Medicine for Osteosarcoma.Chinese journal of integrative medicine · 2022Article
- A scientometric analysis of the 100 most cited articles on magnetic resonance guided focused ultrasound.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2022Review
- Artificial intelligence solutions enabling sustainable agriculture: A bibliometric analysis.PloS one · 2022Article
- A Bibliometric Analysis and Visualization of Current Research Trends in the Treatment of Cervical Spondylotic Myelopathy.Global spine journal · 2021Article
- Use of the journal impact factor for assessing individual articles: Statistically flawed or not?F1000Research · 2020Article
- Current Status of helicopter emergency medical services in China: A bibliometric analysis.Medicine · 2019Article
- Importance of Quality Assessment in Clinical Research in Japan.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2019Article
- Citation classics in pediatrics: a bibliometric analysis.World journal of pediatrics : WJP · 2018Article
- The best cited articles of the European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Traumatology (EJOST): a bibliometric analysis.European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie · 2018Article
- A bibliometric study of the movement disorder field by analyzing classic citation data on publication.Iranian journal of neurology · 2018Article
- Review
- Multi-Dimensional Impact of the Public-Private Center for Translational Molecular Medicine (CTMM) in the Netherlands: Understanding New 21(st) Century Institutional Designs to Support Innovation-in-Society.Omics : a journal of integrative biology · 2016Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare expert assessment with bibliometric indicators as tools to assess the quality and importance of scientific research papers. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Shortly after their publication in 2005, the quality and importance of a cohort of nearly 700 Wellcome Trust (WT) associated research papers were assessed by expert reviewers; each paper was reviewed by two WT expert reviewers. After 3 years, we compared this initial assessment with other measures of paper impact.
resultsShortly after publication, 62 (9%) of the 687 research papers were determined to describe at least a 'major addition to knowledge' -6 were thought to be 'landmark' papers. At an aggregate level, after 3 years, there was a strong positive association between expert assessment and impact as measured by number of citations and F1000 rating. However, there were some important exceptions indicating that bibliometric measures may not be sufficient in isolation as measures of research quality and importance, and especially not for assessing single papers or small groups of research publications.
conclusionWhen attempting to assess the quality and importance of research papers, we found that sole reliance on bibliometric indicators would have led us to miss papers containing important results as judged by expert review. In particular, some papers that were highly rated by experts were not highly cited during the first three years after publication. Tools that link expert peer reviews of research paper quality and importance to more quantitative indicators, such as citation analysis would be valuable additions to the field of research assessment and evaluation.
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.