ArticleProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2013
Determining scientific impact using a collaboration index.
Article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
21 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Single-Event Multi-Level Surgery in Cerebral Palsy: A Bibliometric Analysis.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2023Review
- Bibliometric Analysis of 6 Major European Neurosurgical Publications from 2011-2020 (part 3): a Comparative Metrics Review.Acta informatica medica : AIM : journal of the Society for Medical Informatics of Bosnia & Herzegovina : casopis Drustva za medicinsku informatiku BiH · 2023Article
- Profiling the Research Landscape on Cognitive Aging: A Bibliometric Analysis and Network Visualization.Frontiers in aging neuroscience · 2022Review
- A large National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Biomedical Research Centre facilitates impactful cross-disciplinary and collaborative translational research publications and research collaboration networks: a bibliometric evaluation study.Journal of translational medicine · 2021Article
- Impact of Coronavirus Outbreaks on Science and Society: Insights from Temporal Bibliometry of SARS and COVID-19.Entropy (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Evaluating Journal Impact Factor: a systematic survey of the pros and cons, and overview of alternative measures.The journal of venomous animals and toxins including tropical diseases · 2020Article
- Article
- Collaborative patterns, authorship practices and scientific success in biomedical research: a network analysis.Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine · 2019Article
- Two New Factors for the Evaluation of Scientific Performance:Turkish journal of pharmaceutical sciences · 2019Review
- Normalized Paper Credit Assignment: A Solution for the Ethical Dilemma Induced by Multiple Important Authors.Science and engineering ethics · 2018Article
- Fair ranking of researchers and research teams.PloS one · 2018Article
- What are the personal and professional characteristics that distinguish the researchers who publish in high- and low-impact journals? A multi-national web-based survey.Ecancermedicalscience · 2017Article
- Relative Citation Ratio (RCR): A New Metric That Uses Citation Rates to Measure Influence at the Article Level.PLoS biology · 2016Article
- Article
- A Discussion on Governmental Research Grants.Science and engineering ethics · 2015Article
- Quantifying the impact of weak, strong, and super ties in scientific careers.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2015Article
- A quantitative perspective on ethics in large team science.Science and engineering ethics · 2014Article
- Collective credit allocation in science.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2014Article
- Evaluation and ranking of researchers--Bh Index.PloS one · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Researchers collaborate on scientific projects that are often measured by both the quantity and the quality of the resultant peer-reviewed publications. However, not all collaborators contribute to these publications equally, making metrics such as the total number of publications and the H-index insufficient measurements of individual scientific impact. To remedy this, we use an axiomatic approach to assign relative credits to the coauthors of a given paper, referred to as the A-index for its axiomatic foundation. In this paper, we use the A-index to compute the weighted sums of peer-reviewed publications and journal impact factors, denoted as the C- and P-indexes for collaboration and productivity, respectively. We perform an in-depth analysis of bibliometric data for 186 biomedical engineering faculty members and from extensive simulation. It is found that these axiomatically weighted indexes better capture a researcher's scientific caliber than do the total number of publications and the H-index, allowing for fairer and sharper evaluation of researchers with diverse collaborative behaviors.
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.