Bibliometric method for the evaluation of arthritis research

Rheumatology

Volumn 38, Issue 1, 1999, Pages 13-20

  Lewison, G ^a   Devey, M E ^b  

^a WELLCOME TRUST SANGER INSTITUTE   (United Kingdom)

^b Arthritis Research Campaign   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Arthritis; Bibliometrics; Evaluation; Funding; Impact; Research

Indexed keywords

ARTHRITIS; ARTICLE; FINANCE; GOVERNMENT; INDUSTRY; MEDICAL LITERATURE; MEDICAL RESEARCH; METHODOLOGY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PUBLICATION; SPAIN; UNITED KINGDOM; BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATABASE; BIBLIOMETRICS; COMPARATIVE STUDY; FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT; HEALTH; HUMAN; RESEARCH; REVIEW; STATISTICS;

ARTHRITIS; BIBLIOMETRICS; DATABASES, BIBLIOGRAPHIC; GREAT BRITAIN; HUMANS; PUBLICATIONS; RESEARCH; RESEARCH SUPPORT; WORLD HEALTH;

EID: 0032752683     PISSN: 14620324     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/rheumatology/38.1.13     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Price DJD. Little science, big science. New York: Columbia University Press, 1963.
2. Price DJD. Networks of scientific papers. Science 1965;149:510-5.
3. Garfield E. Science citation index: a new dimension in indexing. Science 1964;144:649-54.
4. Garfield E. Citation indexing - its theory and application in science, technology and humanities. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1972.
5. Schubert A, Glanzel W, Braun T. Scientometric datafiles: a comprehensive set of indicators on 2649 journals and 96 countries in all major science fields and subfields 1981-1985. Scientometrics 1989;16:3-478.
6. National Science Foundation: science & engineering indicators 1996. US Government Printing Office, 1996; NSB-96-21.
7. Dawson G, Cottrell R, Lucocq B, Lewison G. Mapping the landscape: national biomedical research outputs 1988-95. London: The Wellcome Trust PRISM Report 9, 1998.
8. Martin BR, Irvine J. Assessing basic research: some partial indicators of scientific progress in radio astronomy. Res Policy 1983;12:61-90.
9. Moed HF, Burger WJM, Frankfort JG, van Raan AFJ. The use of bibliometric data for the measurement of university research performance. Res Policy 1985;14: 131-49.
10. Luukkonen T. Publish in a visible journal or perish? Assessing citation performance of Nordic cancer research. Scientometrics 1989;15:349-67.
11. MacRoberts MH, MacRoberts BR. Quantitative measures of communication in science: a study of the formal level. Soc Stud Sci 1986;16:151-72.
12. Cozzens SE. What do citations count? The rhetoric first model. Scientometrics 1989;15:437-47.
13. Beilock R, Polopolus L. Ranking of agricultural economics departments: influence of regional journals, joint authorship, and self-citations. Am J Agric Econ 1988;70:403-9
14. Cole S. Citations and the evaluation of individual scientists. Trends Biochem Sci 1989;14:9.
15. MacLean M, Davies C, Lewison G, Anderson J. Evaluating the research activity and impact of funding agencies. Res Eval 1998;7:7-16 (see Fig. 2).
16. Moed HF, van Leeuwen TN. Impact factors can mislead. Nature 1996;381:186.
17. Seglen PO. Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research. Br Med J 1997;314:498-502.
18. Lewison G. Evaluation of national biomedical research outputs through journal-based esteem measures. Res Eval 1995;5:225-35 (see Table 3).
19. Lewison G. New bibliometric techniques for the evaluation of medical schools. Scientometrics 1998;41:5-16.
20. Leydesdorff L, Cozzens S, van den Besselaar P. Tracking areas of strategic importance using scientometric journal mappings. Res Policy 1994;23:217-29.
21. Pestaña A. Spanish performance in life sciences: a comparative appraisal of the scientific production of Spain and five other European countries in 1989. Scientometrics 1992;24:95-114.
22. Lewison G. The definition of biomedical research subfields with title keywords and application to the analysis of research outputs. Res Eval 1996:6:25-36.
23. Jeschin D, Lewison G, Anderson J. A bibliometric database for tracking acknowledgements of research funding. In: Proceedings of the 5th International Conference of the International Society for Scientometrics & Informetrics. 1995. Medford, NJ: Learned Information Inc.
24. Narin F, Pinski G, Gee HH. Structure of the biomedical literature. J Am Soc Inf Sci 1976;27:25.
25. Lewison G. Gastroenterology research in the UK - its funding sources and its impact. Gut 1998;43: 288-93.
26. Gee HH, Narin F. An analysis of research publications supported by NIH 1973-76 and 1977-80. US National Institutes of Health 1986; NIH publication 86-2777 (see Tables 9A and 9B).
27. Lewison G, Dawson G. The effect of funding on the outputs of biomedical research. Scientometrics 1998; 41:17-27.
28. Agnew B. New NIH procedures to shield clinicians from grants bias. Scientist 1998;12(11 May):1,14.