Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27122644›Full record

ArticleScientometrics

Scientific workflows for bibliometrics.

Arzu Tugce Guler, Cathelijn J F Waaijer, Magnus Palmblad

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Scientometrics. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 110 papers, 11 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
110citing papers in PubMed, 11 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

110 citing papers in PubMed, 11 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. Use of the Spanish Version of the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) Scale: A Meta-Research Study of Systematic Reviews.Physiotherapy research international : the journal for researchers and clinicians in physical therapy · 2026
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Article

50 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

3 authors.

Arzu Tugce GulerCenter for Proteomics and Metabolomics, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Cathelijn J F WaaijerFaculty of Social and Behavioural Sciences, Centre for Science and Technology Studies, Leiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Magnus PalmbladCenter for Proteomics and Metabolomics, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-5865-8994

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Scientific workflows organize the assembly of specialized software into an overall data flow and are particularly well suited for multi-step analyses using different types of software tools. They are also favorable in terms of reusability, as previously designed workflows could be made publicly available through the myExperiment community and then used in other workflows. We here illustrate how scientific workflows and the Taverna workbench in particular can be used in bibliometrics. We discuss the specific capabilities of Taverna that makes this software a powerful tool in this field, such as automated data import via Web services, data extraction from XML by XPaths, and statistical analysis and visualization with R. The support of the latter is particularly relevant, as it allows integration of a number of recently developed R packages specifically for bibliometrics. Examples are used to illustrate the possibilities of Taverna in the fields of bibliometrics and scientometrics.

Indexed as

BibliometricsMass spectrometryMedicinal chemistryRScientific workflowsTavernaXML

Identifiers

PMID27122644
PMCPMC4833826

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.