ArticleCanadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien2025
Author ordering and citation-based measures of scholarly impact: Implications for research assessment.
Article in Canadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo assess the use of common author ordering conventions, their effects on measures of citation impact, and their implications for the assessment of individual researchers and researcher rankings.
designAnalysis of associations between the use of author ordering conventions, measures of citation impact, and researcher rankings using publications by Canadian primary health care researchers included in the Scopus database.
settingCanada.
participantsThe 49 living Canadian primary health care researchers with the most first-author citations.
main outcome measuresSpearman rank correlations were assessed between rankings based on number of first-author citations and alternative measures of number of citations. Changes in researcher rankings were assessed based on alternative citation metrics.
resultsRank order correlations varied from 0.55 (first author vs
conclusionThe variability and inconsistency of author ordering thwart efforts to identify or create valid measures to rank citation impact. Adoption of author ordering based on contribution as a universal convention would enhance the reliability and validity of comparisons and rankings across disciplines and research fields and would facilitate comparisons among candidates for hiring, tenure, promotion, and awards.
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.