ArticleNetherlands heart journal : monthly journal of the Netherlands Society of Cardiology and the Netherlands Heart Foundation2010
Arrogance and ignorance in assessing scientific quality in a multidisciplinary academic medical centre.
Article in Netherlands heart journal : monthly journal of the Netherlands Society of Cardiology and the Netherlands Heart Foundation, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Science in transition: open access to society?Netherlands heart journal : monthly journal of the Netherlands Society of Cardiology and the Netherlands Heart Foundation · 2014Article
- Differences in citation frequency of clinical and basic science papers in cardiovascular research.Medical & biological engineering & computing · 2011Article
- Bibliometric data in clinical cardiology revisited. The case of 37 Dutch professors.Netherlands heart journal : monthly journal of the Netherlands Society of Cardiology and the Netherlands Heart Foundation · 2011Article
- Arrogance and ignorance in assessing scientific quality in a multidisciplinary academic medical centre.Netherlands heart journal : monthly journal of the Netherlands Society of Cardiology and the Netherlands Heart Foundation · 2010Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Several academic institutions in the Netherlands and elsewhere develop indices to rank their scientists which will impact evaluation and steering of research. An important part of these indices is based on bibliometric indices. The development of such ranking indices is often seen as the prerogative of management and is kept out of the process where scientific instruments should be presented and evaluated: peer-reviewed journals. In this case the index of the author's institution is criticised both for the evasion of discussion as for the lack of compensation for bias related to discipline, gender and personal history. Furthermore, it is argued that the ranking based on 'numbers' rather than scientific contributions is detrimental to the motivation of the staff suffering under the several modi of bias, is counterproductive for interdisciplinary achievements and discourages young researchers in less scoring disciplines to find their way in the medical academic arena. (Neth Heart J 2010;18:319-22.).
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.