Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30131092›Full record

ReviewScience progress2018

Bibliometrics in a digital age: help or hindrance.

Karen Blakeman

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Science progress, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review
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.

Karen Blakeman

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Bibliometrics are a range of techniques and quantitative measures that provide an analysis of written publications such as books and articles, and which assess the impact of research outputs. They are commonly applied to individual authors in the form of citation metrics but can also be used to assess the influence of research groups or even entire institutions. With the increased importance of social media as a means of communicating and publicising research findings, additional alternative measures of impact (altmetrics) are now being used. In addition to analysing the reach of a research output, bibliometrics can also be used as search tools to identify related and updated research, author networks and connections between institutions. This review summarises the range of tools and services that are available, their advantages and disadvantages, and some of the challenges and issues presented by the existence of multiple digital versions of research outputs.

Indexed as

BibliometricsData MiningMEDLINEPeriodicals as Topic

Identifiers

PMID30131092
PMCPMC10365180

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.