Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28974826›Full record

ArticleMedical archives (Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina)2017

Evaluation of the Medical Academic Community of Bosnia and Herzegovina Based on Scopus Parameters.

Izet Masic

Abstract readEditorial
In one paragraph

Article in Medical archives (Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina), 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Low Sensitivity and Specificity of Existing Bibliometric Indices Gives Unrealistic Picture of an Author's Contribution to Science.Acta informatica medica : AIM : journal of the Society for Medical Informatics of Bosnia & Herzegovina : casopis Drustva za medicinsku informatiku BiH · 2021
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Evaluation of Founding Members of the International Academy of Health Sciences Informatics (IAHSI) Based on Google Scholar and Scopus Parameters.Acta informatica medica : AIM : journal of the Society for Medical Informatics of Bosnia & Herzegovina : casopis Drustva za medicinsku informatiku BiH · 2017
    Article
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

1 author.

Izet MasicFaculty of Medicine, University of Sarajevo, Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThe academic community of Bosnia and Herzegovina (B&H) is represented by four Academies, which include eminent personalities in the field of medical sciences (Academy of Sciences and Arts of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Department for Medical Sciences (ANUBiH), Academy of Sciences and Arts of the Republika Srpska (ANURS), Croatian Academy of Sciences and Arts in BiH (HAZU B&H), and the Academy of Medical Sciences of Bosnia and Herzegovina (AMNuBiH)).

aimTo present scientometric analysis of members of the medical sphere of the ANUBiH, ANURS, HAZU B&H and AMNuBiH, to evaluate members and their scientific rating. MATERIAL AND

methodsThe work has an analytical character and presents analysis of the data obtained from the Scopus database. Results are shown through number of cases, percentage, arithmetic mean, standard deviation, median and interquartile range, with Spearman's rank correlation coefficient.

resultsThe analysis showed a significant correlation between the Academy and the country of origin of the academician. In AMNuBiH and ANUBiH are mainly represented academics originating from Bosnia and Herzegovina, while ANURS, 71.4% of the members, are academics with background from Serbia. There is no significant correlation between the observed parameters (Scopus parameters-number of papers, H index, number of citations) according to memberschip in Academies. By analyzing the correlation between the country of residence, the number of papers, H index and the number of citations, it has been shown that the correlation is significant between the state and the number of papers, but not the other two observed parameters.

conclusionCriteria for admission to main academic communities are highly questionable, as this analysis showed. Progress in the academic hierarchy must be more stringent, and the criteria must be set to the highest possible level, as this is the only path which leads to progress.

Indexed as

BibliometricsAcademies and InstitutesBosnia and HerzegovinaPublishingevaluationscientometric analysisScopus parameters

Identifiers

PMID28974826
PMCPMC5585812

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.