ArticleEuropean 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 Surgery2010
Comparison of the h index with standard bibliometric indicators to rank influential otolaryngologists in Europe and North America.
Article in 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, 2010. 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.
- Evaluation of the National Institutes of Health-supported relative citation ratio among American orthopedic spine surgery faculty: A new bibliometric measure of scientific influence.North American Spine Society journal · 2022Article
- Article
- Current concepts on bibliometrics: a brief review about impact factor, Eigenfactor score, CiteScore, SCImago Journal Rank, Source-Normalised Impact per Paper, H-index, and alternative metrics.Irish journal of medical science · 2019Review
- Article
- Scientific output quality of 40 globally top-ranked medical researchers in the field of osteoporosis.Archives of osteoporosis · 2018Article
- Evaluation of the Relative Citation Ratio, a New National Institutes of Health-Supported Bibliometric Measure of Research Productivity, among Academic Radiation Oncologists.Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR · 2018Article
- The h-index in medical education: an analysis of medical education journal editorial boards.BMC medical education · 2014Article
- Scholastic activity among radiation oncology residents at US academic institutions: a benchmark analysis.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2013Article
- Measuring academic performance for healthcare researchers with the H index: which search tool should be used?Medical principles and practice : international journal of the Kuwait University, Health Science Centre · 2013Article
- Distribution of the h-index in radiation oncology conforms to a variation of power law: implications for assessing academic productivity.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2012Article
- The Hirsch index - a play on numbers or a true appraisal of academic output?International archives of medicine · 2011Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The Hirsch (h) index is an original and simple new bibliometric measure incorporating both quantity and quality. In this study, our aim was first to present characteristics of the statistical correlation between the h index and several standard bibliometric indicators and secondly we compared the h index between otolaryngologists from Europe and US. We used the Institute of Scientific Information (ISI) Web of Knowledge to identify citation reports from a random sample of influential editors from six otolaryngology journals: Journal of Laryngology and Otology (n = 21), Clinical Otolaryngology (n = 16), European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology (n = 49), The Laryngoscope (n = 66), Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery (n = 15), and Archives of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery (n = 15). The following data were gathered: Number of publications (P), total citations received by P(C), total citations received by P without self-citations (Cs), average number of citations per publication (CPP), and Hirsch index (h). Statistical analysis was used to correlate the above data and we also compared the h index of European and North American editors. There were 182 randomly selected editors. We observed a good correlation between the h index and other standard bibliometric indicators. Using the non-parametric Mann-Whitney test, the median P between Europe and US was not statistically significant. However, the median C, CS and h were statistically significant. In conclusion, the h index is a simple yet powerful indicator as it combines productivity and impact. Overall, the US editorial panel have a higher h index.
Indexed as
Identifiers
19551398What 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.