Bibliometric data in clinical cardiology revisited. The case of 37 Dutch professors

Netherlands Heart Journal

Volumn 19, Issue 5, 2011, Pages 246-255

  Opthof, T ^a,b   Wilde, A A M ^a  

^a ACADEMIC MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

^b UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER UTRECHT   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Bibliometric analysis; Citation analysis; Clinical cardiology; H index; Hirsch index; Professors

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BIBLIOMETRICS; CARDIOLOGY; CARDIOVASCULAR PARAMETERS; CITATION ANALYSIS; CLINICAL PRACTICE; DATA BASE; HIRSCH INDEX; INFORMATION PROCESSING; MATHEMATICAL ANALYSIS; MEDICAL EXPERT; PUBLICATION; UNIVERSITY;

EID: 79955453916     PISSN: 15685888     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s12471-011-0128-y     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. Opthof T, Wilde AAM. The Hirsch-index: a simple, new tool for the assessment of scientific output of individual scientists. The case of Dutch professors in clinical cardiology. Neth Heart J. 2009;17:145-54.
2. Hirsch JE. An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2005;102:16569-72.
3. Spaan JAE. Arrogance and ignorance in assessing scientific quality in a multidisciplinary academic medical centre. Neth Heart J. 2010;18:319-22.
4. Van Kammen J, Van Lier R, Gunning-Schepers L. Assessing scientific quality in a multidisciplinary academic medical centre. Neth Heart J. 2009;17:500.
5. Opthof T, Wilde AAM. Comment: assessment of scientific quality is complicated. Neth Heart J. 2009;17:501-2.
6. Cole S. Citations and the evaluation of individual scientists. Trends Biochem Sci. 1989;14:9-13.
7. MacRoberts MH, MacRoberts BR. Citation analysis and the science policy arena. Trends Biochem Sci. 1989;14:8-12.
8. Seglen PO. From bad to worse: evaluation by Journal Impact. Trends Biochem Sci. 1989;14:326-7.
9. MacRoberts MH, MacRoberts BR. Problems of citation analysis. Scientometrics. 1996;36:435-44.
10. Opthof T. Sense and nonsense about the impact factor. Cardiovasc Res. 1997;33:1-7.
11. Adler R, Ewing J, Taylor P. Citation Statistics: A report from the International Mathematical Union (IMU) in cooperation with the International Council of Industrial and Applied Mathematics (ICIAM) and Institute of Mathematical Statistics (IMS). Statistical Science. 2009;24(1):1-14.
12. Leydesdorff L. Caveats for the use of citation indicators in research and journal evaluations. JASIS. 2008;59:278-87.
13. MacRoberts MH, MacRoberts BR. Problems of citation analysis: a study of uncited and seldom-cited influences. JASIST. 2010; 61:1-12.
14. Opthof T. Differences in citation numbers between and within sets of clinical and basic papers in cardiovascular research: why citation indicators fail. Med Biol Eng Comput 2011; 49 (in press)
15. Bornmann L, Mutz R, Daniel HD. Are there better indices for evaluation purposes than the h index? A comparison of nine different variants of the h index using data from biomedicine. JASIS. 2008;59:830-7.
16. Callaham M, McCullouch C. Longitudinal trends in the performance of scientific peer reviewers. Ann Emerg Med. 2011;57:141-8.
17. Lotka AJ. The frequency distribution of scientific productivity. J Washington Acad Sci. 1926;16:317-23.
18. Opthof T, Coronel R. Productivity in science: more and more? Cardiovasc Res. 2002;56:175-7.
19. Leydesdorff L, Bornmann L, Mutz R et al. Normalizing the measurement of citation performance: principles for comparing sets of documents. JASIST 2011. doi:10.1002/asi21534