Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27367269›Full record

ArticlePLoS biology2016

Multiple Citation Indicators and Their Composite across Scientific Disciplines.

John P A Ioannidis, Richard Klavans, Kevin W Boyack

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
47citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

47 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Mapping the Landscape of Global Anticancer Organometallics Research: A Systematic Review.Medicinal chemistry (Shariqah (United Arab Emirates)) · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Six Sigma in Health Literature, What Matters?International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Gender disparities among Brazil's top 2% of influential scientists for career-long impact.Sao Paulo medical journal = Revista paulista de medicina · 2026
    Article
  8. Article
  9. 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 · 2026
    Article
  10. Observational
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Bibliometric comparison of Nobel Prize laureates: a few suggestions.Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology · 2025
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

John P A IoannidisMeta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford (METRICS), Stanford University, Stanford, California, United States of America.
Richard KlavansSciTech Strategies, Inc., Wayne, Pennsylvania, United States of America.
Kevin W BoyackSciTech Strategies, Inc., Albuquerque, New Mexico, United States of America.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

AuthorshipJournal Impact FactorPeriodicals as TopicBibliometricsCooperative BehaviorHumansPublishingQuality ControlResearch Personnel

Identifiers

PMID27367269
PMCPMC4930269

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.