Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40114997›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in research metrics and analytics2025

Bibliometrics effects of a new paper level classification.

Marcos Peña-Rocha, Rocío Gómez-Crisóstomo, Vicente P Guerrero-Bote, Félix de Moya-Anegón

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in research metrics and analytics, 2025. 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 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Marcos Peña-RochaDepartamento de Información y Comunicación, Universidad de Extremadura, Badajoz, Spain.
Rocío Gómez-CrisóstomoDepartamento de Información y Comunicación, Universidad de Extremadura, Badajoz, Spain.
Vicente P Guerrero-BoteDepartamento de Información y Comunicación, Universidad de Extremadura, Badajoz, Spain.
Félix de Moya-AnegónSCImago Research Group, Granada, Spain.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study presents a comparative analysis between two scientific document classification systems. The first system employs the Scopus journal-based assignment method, adapted to a fractional model, while the second system uses an item-by-item system based on reclassified references according to the origin of the citers. The study's results are divided into three different sections: the first involves comparisons at the Scopus area level, the second examines comparisons at the category level, and the third tests various bibliometric indicators to identify the variations between the two systems. Highlighting the characteristics of the paper level system, it offers a reduction in the number of categories to which each document is assigned, achieving higher values of single-category assignment compared to the All Science Journal Classification (ASJC). When reclassifying areas and categories, the paper level system tends to accentuate differences at the extreme values, increasing the size of the largest categories and reducing that of the smallest ones. Moreover, the paper-by-paper system provides more homogeneous distributions in normalised impacts and adjusts values related to excellence more uniformly.

Indexed as

ASJCclassification systemsitem-by-item classificationscientometricsScopus

Identifiers

PMID40114997
PMCPMC11924407

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.