Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29081556›Full record

ArticleScientometrics

Country over-citation ratios.

Victoria Bakare, Grant Lewison

Abstract read
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 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. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

2 authors.

Victoria BakareDepartment of Cancer Studies, Guy's Hospital, King's College London, Great Maze Pond, London, SE1 9RT UK.
Grant LewisonDepartment of Cancer Studies, Guy's Hospital, King's College London, Great Maze Pond, London, SE1 9RT UK.ORCID 0000-0002-4493-1216

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

There is a clear tendency for authors of scientific papers to over-cite the papers by their fellow countrymen (and countrywomen) relative to the percentage presence of their papers in world output in the same field. We investigated the Over-Citation Ratio (OCR) as a function of this percentage, and the effects of different scientific fields and publication years. For cancer research, we also compared clinical with basic research. We found that the OCR for a given percentage presence has been decreasing over the period 1980-2010, probably because of better communications. It is greater for fields of relatively more national interest (chemistry, ornithology) and less for those of international concern (astronomy, diabetes, cancer). It may also be slightly greater for basic cancer research than for clinical work. The OCR values given allow other types of citation, such as the references on clinical practice guidelines and papers featured in newspaper stories, to be put in context: are they unusually nationalistic, or typical of normal citation behaviour?

Indexed as

Citing papersCountry dataEvaluationSelf-citations

Identifiers

PMID29081556
PMCPMC5640755

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.