ArticlePLoS biology2016
Multiple Citation Indicators and Their Composite across Scientific Disciplines.
Article in PLoS biology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 47 papers, 3 of them syntheses 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
47 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Mapping the Landscape of Global Anticancer Organometallics Research: A Systematic Review.Medicinal chemistry (Shariqah (United Arab Emirates)) · 2025Pooled it
- Six Sigma in Health Literature, What Matters?International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Article
- Science-wide mapping of institutions based on affiliated authors' impact and research integrity proxies.Royal Society open science · 2026Article
- Retracted Randomized Clinical Trials From Superretractors and Top-Cited Scientists With Multiple Retractions.JAMA network open · 2026Article
- Gender disparities among Brazil's top 2% of influential scientists for career-long impact.Sao Paulo medical journal = Revista paulista de medicina · 2026Article
- Early citation dynamics and predictors of time to first citation in Ecuadorian medical publications: a survival analysis of research visibility.Frontiers in research metrics and analytics · 2026Article
- Brazilian science through the looking glass: a scientometric perspective from within and beyond.Brazilian journal of medical and biological research = Revista brasileira de pesquisas medicas e biologicas · 2026Article
- Observational
- In conversation with Dr. John P. Ioannidis: On meta-research, metrics, gaming, and top 2 per cent scientists.The Indian journal of medical research · 2025Article
- Author ordering and citation-based measures of scholarly impact: Implications for research assessment.Canadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien · 2025Article
- Bibliometric comparison of Nobel Prize laureates: a few suggestions.Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology · 2025Article
- Linking citation and retraction data reveals the demographics of scientific retractions among highly cited authors.PLoS biology · 2025Article
- Growth in representation of Saudi scientists among Stanford's top 2 percent most-cited (2019-2023).Frontiers in research metrics and analytics · 2025Article
- Article
- Discoverability of African Journals by Google Scholar and Inclusion in Scopus.Gates open research · 2025Article
- Utilizing a composite citation index for evaluating clinical ophthalmology research: insights into gender, nationality, and self-citation among top ophthalmology researchers.Eye (London, England) · 2024Article
- Understand how machine learning impact lung cancer research from 2010 to 2021: A bibliometric analysis.Open medicine (Warsaw, Poland) · 2024Article
- Gender imbalances among top-cited scientists across scientific disciplines over time through the analysis of nearly 5.8 million authors.PLoS biology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Many fields face an increasing prevalence of multi-authorship, and this poses challenges in assessing citation metrics. Here, we explore multiple citation indicators that address total impact (number of citations, Hirsch H index [H]), co-authorship adjustment (Schreiber Hm index [Hm]), and author order (total citations to papers as single; single or first; or single, first, or last author). We demonstrate the correlation patterns between these indicators across 84,116 scientists (those among the top 30,000 for impact in a single year [2013] in at least one of these indicators) and separately across 12 scientific fields. Correlation patterns vary across these 12 fields. In physics, total citations are highly negatively correlated with indicators of co-authorship adjustment and of author order, while in other sciences the negative correlation is seen only for total citation impact and citations to papers as single author. We propose a composite score that sums standardized values of these six log-transformed indicators. Of the 1,000 top-ranked scientists with the composite score, only 322 are in the top 1,000 based on total citations. Many Nobel laureates and other extremely influential scientists rank among the top-1,000 with the composite indicator, but would rank much lower based on total citations. Conversely, many of the top 1,000 authors on total citations have had no single/first/last-authored cited paper. More Nobel laureates of 2011-2015 are among the top authors when authors are ranked by the composite score than by total citations, H index, or Hm index; 40/47 of these laureates are among the top 30,000 by at least one of the six indicators. We also explore the sensitivity of indicators to self-citation and alphabetic ordering of authors in papers across different scientific fields. Multiple indicators and their composite may give a more comprehensive picture of impact, although no citation indicator, single or composite, can be expected to select all the best scientists.
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.