Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26806079›Full record

ReviewAsian journal of andrology

Bibliometrics: tracking research impact by selecting the appropriate metrics.

Ashok Agarwal, Damayanthi Durairajanayagam, Sindhuja Tatagari, Sandro C Esteves, Avi Harlev, Ralf Henkel, Shubhadeep Roychoudhury, Sheryl Homa, Nicolás Garrido Puchalt, Ranjith Ramasamy and 11 more

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Asian journal of andrology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 226 papers, 23 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
226citing papers in PubMed, 23 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

226 citing papers in PubMed, 23 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. Pooled it
  17. Pooled it
  18. Pooled it
  19. Pooled it
  20. Pooled it

166 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

21 authors.

Ashok AgarwalAmerican Center for Reproductive Medicine, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA.
Damayanthi Durairajanayagam
Sindhuja Tatagari
Sandro C Esteves
Avi Harlev
Ralf Henkel
Shubhadeep Roychoudhury
Sheryl Homa
Nicolás Garrido Puchalt
Ranjith Ramasamy
Ahmad Majzoub
Kim Dao Ly
Eva Tvrda
Mourad Assidi
Kavindra Kesari
Reecha Sharma
Saleem Banihani
Edmund Ko
Muhammad Abu-Elmagd
Jaime Gosalvez
Asher Bashiri

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Traditionally, the success of a researcher is assessed by the number of publications he or she publishes in peer-reviewed, indexed, high impact journals. This essential yardstick, often referred to as the impact of a specific researcher, is assessed through the use of various metrics. While researchers may be acquainted with such matrices, many do not know how to use them to enhance their careers. In addition to these metrics, a number of other factors should be taken into consideration to objectively evaluate a scientist's profile as a researcher and academician. Moreover, each metric has its own limitations that need to be considered when selecting an appropriate metric for evaluation. This paper provides a broad overview of the wide array of metrics currently in use in academia and research. Popular metrics are discussed and defined, including traditional metrics and article-level metrics, some of which are applied to researchers for a greater understanding of a particular concept, including varicocele that is the thematic area of this Special Issue of Asian Journal of Andrology. We recommend the combined use of quantitative and qualitative evaluation using judiciously selected metrics for a more objective assessment of scholarly output and research impact.

Indexed as

BibliometricsAuthorshipBiomedical ResearchHumansJournal Impact FactorOpen Access PublishingPeriodicals as Topic

Identifiers

PMID26806079
PMCPMC4770502

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.