ArticlePloS one2012
A new family of cumulative indexes for measuring scientific performance.
Article in PloS one, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Application of image analysis combined with regression models to estimate the reduction of Escherichia coli and Salmonella spp. on vegetable surfaces after washing.Bioresources and bioprocessing · 2026Article
- Evaluation of the i10-Index in Plastic Surgery Research and its Correlation with Altmetric Attention Scores and Traditional Author Bibliometrics: An Evaluation of a Single Journal.Indian journal of plastic surgery : official publication of the Association of Plastic Surgeons of India · 2023Article
- Trends in scientific editing and good research practices: what do researchers-nurses know?Revista da Escola de Enfermagem da U S P · 2022Article
- Relative Value of Adapted Novel Bibliometrics in Evaluating Surgical Academic Impact and Reach.World journal of surgery · 2019Article
- Research Productivity of Sports Medicine Fellowship Faculty.Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine · 2016Article
- Considerations for higher efficiency and productivity in research activities.BioData mining · 2016Article
- The Pagerank-Index: Going beyond Citation Counts in Quantifying Scientific Impact of Researchers.PloS one · 2015Article
- A Brief Review on Article-, Author-, and Journal-Level Scientometric Indices.Indian dermatology online journalReview
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
In this paper we propose a new family of cumulative indexes for measuring scientific performance which can be applied to many metrics, including h index and its variants (here we apply it to the h index, h(2) index and Google Scholar's i10 index). These indexes follow the general principle of repeating the index calculation for the same publication set. Using bibliometric data and reviewer scores for accepted and rejected fellowship applicants we examine how valid the cumulative variant is compared to the original variant. These analyses showed that the cumulative indexes result in higher correlations with the reviewer scores than their original variants. Thus, the cumulative indexes better reflect the assessments by peers than the original variants and are useful extensions of the original indexes. In contrast to many other measures of scientific performance proposed up to now, the cumulative indexes seem not only to be effective, but they are also easy to understand and calculate.
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.