ReviewTurkish journal of pharmaceutical sciences2019
Two New Factors for the Evaluation of Scientific Performance:
Review in Turkish journal of pharmaceutical sciences, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Scientific performance of researchers that translates into academic improvement, tenure position in universities and project grants are commonly evaluated by using some bibliometric indicators. These indicators can be calculated through total number of papers and citations, impact factors of publishing journals, impact of each paper or impact of total papers. In addition, scientific impact of individuals is also determined by some indexes such as Hirsch (h) index. All of these measures and indexes have several limitations. Scientific projects and publications are mostly collaborative and all collaborators do not contribute to these projects and publications equally. Thus, it is difficult to understand and analyze an individual's performance by the outputs coming from collaborative studies. Here, a new practice for evaluating individual scientific performance is proposed.
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.