Measuring Knowledge Translation Uptake Using Citation Metrics: A Case Study of a Pan-Canadian Network of Pharmacoepidemiology Researchers

Science and Technology Libraries

Volumn 35, Issue 3, 2016, Pages 228-240

  Rothfus, Melissa ^a   Sketris, Ingrid S ^a   Traynor, Robyn ^b   Helwig, Melissa ^a   Stewart, Samuel A ^a  

^a DALHOUSIE UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^b Pain Management Unit   (Canada)

Author keywords

Bibliometrics; citation metrics; knowledge translation; research impact

Indexed keywords

TECHNOLOGY;

BIBLIOMETRICS; CITATION METRICS; GOOGLE SCHOLAR; IMPACT ASSESSMENTS; KNOWLEDGE TRANSLATION; RESEARCH IMPACTS; WEB OF SCIENCE;

INFORMATION SCIENCE;

ADMINISTRATIVE PERSONNEL; BIBLIOMETRICS; CONSENSUS DEVELOPMENT; HUMAN; PHARMACOEPIDEMIOLOGY; RELIABILITY; SCIENTIST; SCOPUS; WEB OF SCIENCE;

EID: 84976314621     PISSN: 0194262X     EISSN: 15411109     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/0194262X.2016.1192008     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. V.G.Athyros, N.Katsiki, A.Karagiannis, and D.P.Mikhailidis. 2015. Statins can improve proteinuria and glomerular filtration rate loss in chronic kidney disease patients, further reducing cardiovascular risk. Fact or fiction? Expert Opinion on Pharmacotherapy 16 (10):1449–61. doi:10.1517/14656566.2015.1053464.
2. N.Bakkalbasi, K.Bauer, J.Glover, and L.Wang. 2006. Three options for citation tracking:Google Scholar, Scopus and Web of Science. Biomedical Digital Libraries 3:7. doi:10.1186/1742-5581-3-7.
3. J.Bar-Ilan, 2008. Which h-index?—A comparison of WoS, Scopus and Google Scholar. Scientometrics 74 (2):257–71. doi:10.1007/s11192-008-0216-y.
4. M.Boeker, W.Vach, and E.Motschall. 2013. Google Scholar as replacement for systematic literature searches:Good relative recall and precision are not enough. BMC Medical Research Methodology 13:131. doi:10.1186/1471-2288-13-131.
5. L.Bornmann, and H.-D.Daniel. 2008. What do citation counts measure? A review of studies on citing behavior. Journal of Documentation 64 (1):45–80. doi:10.1108/00220410810844150.
6. M.D.Bould, S.Boet, B.Sharma, E.Shin, N.J.Barrowman, and T.Grantcharov. 2011. H-indices in a university department of anaesthesia:An evaluation of their feasibility, reliability, and validity as an assessment of academic performance. British Journal of Anaesthesia 106 (3):325–30. doi:10.1093/bja/aeq403.
7. Canadian Institutes of Health Research. 2012. About DSEN. http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/39389.html (accessed May 5, 2016)
8. CNODES (Canadian Network of Observational Drug Effect Studies). 2013. n.d. Canadian Network of Observational Drug Effect Studies. http://www.cnodes.ca (accessed May 5, 2016)
9. J.Cohen, 1960. A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement 20 (1):37–46. doi:10.1177/001316446002000104.
10. N.J.Cooke, and M.L.Hilton (eds.). 2015. Enhancing the effectiveness of team science. Washington, DC:National Academies Press.
11. J.C.F.De Winter, A.A.Zadpoor, and D.Dodou. 2014. The expansion of Google Scholar versus Web of Science:A longitudinal study. Scientometrics 98 (2):1547–65. doi:10.1007/s11192-013-1089-2.
12. C.R.Dormuth, K.B.Filion, J.M.Paterson, M.T.James, G.F.Teare, C.B.Raymond, E.Rahme, H.Tamim, and L.Lipscombe; Canadian Network for Observational Drug Effect Studies Investigators. 2014. Higher potency statins and the risk of new diabetes:Multicentre, observational study of administrative databases. BMJ 348:g3244. doi:10.1136/bmj.g3244
13. C.R.Dormuth, B.R.Hemmelgarn, J.M.Paterson, M.T.James, G.F.Teare, C.B.Raymond, J.P.Lafrance, et al. 2013. Use of high potency statins and rates of admission for acute kidney injury:Multicenter, retrospective observational analysis of administrative databases. BMJ 346:f880.
14. Elsevier. 2015. Scopus content. https://www.elsevier.com/solutions/scopus/content (accessed May 5, 2016)
15. Elsevier. 2016. Scopus. http://www.elsevier.com/solutions/scopus (accessed May 5, 2016)
16. M.E.Falagas, E.I.Pitsouni, G.A.Malietzis, and G.Pappas. 2008. Comparison of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar:Strengths and weaknesses. FASEB Journal:Official Publication of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology 22 (2):338–42. doi:10.1096/fj.07-9492LSF.
17. K.B.Filion, D.Chateau, L.E.Targownik, A.Gershon, M.Durand, H.Tamim, G.F.Teare, et al. 2014. Proton pump inhibitors and the risk of hospitalisation for community-acquired pneumonia:Replicated cohort studies with meta-analysis. Gut 63 (4):552–58. doi:10.1136/gutjnl-2013-304738.
18. J.L.Fleiss, 1971. Measuring nominal scale agreement among many raters. Psychological Bulletin 76 (5):378–82. doi:10.1037/h0031619.
19. Google. 2016. Google Scholar. https://scholar.google.ca/ (accessed May 5, 2016)
20. S.Hanney, A.Boaz, T.Jones, and B.Soper. 2013. Engagement in research:An innovative three-stage review of the benefits for health-care performance. Health Services and Delivery Research 1 (8). doi:10.3310/hsdr01080.
21. S.Hanney, I.Frame, J.Grant, M.Buxton, T.Young, and G.Lewison. 2005. Using categorisations of citations when assessing the outcomes from health research. Scientometrics 65 (3):357–79. doi:10.1007/s11192-005-0279-y.
22. S.R.Hanney, P.D.Home, I.Frame, J.Grant, P.Green, and M.J.Buxton. 2006. Identifying the impact of diabetes research. Diabetic Medicine 23 (2):176–84. doi:10.1111/dme.2006.23.issue-2.
23. J.E.Hirsch, 2005. An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 102 (46):16569–72. doi:10.1073/pnas.0507655102.
24. P.Jacsó, 2005. Google Scholar:The pros and the cons. Online Information Review 29 (2):208–14. doi:10.1108/14684520510598066.
25. A.V.Kulkarni, B.Aziz, I.Shams, and J.W.Busse. 2009. Comparisons of citations in Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar for articles published in general medical journals. Journal of the American Medical Association 302 (10):1092–96. doi:10.1001/jama.2009.1307.
26. M.Levine-Clark, and E.L.Gil. 2008. A comparative citation analysis of Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar. Journal of Business & Finance Librarianship 14 (1):32–46. doi:10.1080/08963560802176348.
27. J.Li, J.F.Burnham, T.Lemley, and R.M.Britton. 2010. Citation analysis:Comparison of Web of Science®, Scopus™, SciFinder®, and Google Scholar. Journal of Electronic Resources in Medical Libraries 7 (3):196–217. doi:10.1080/15424065.2010.505518.
28. L.L.Lipscombe, P.C.Austin, S.Alessi-Severini, D.F.Blackburn, L.Blais, L.Bresee, K.B.Filion, Y.Kawasumi, P.Kurdyak, and R.W.Platt. 2015. Atypical antipsychotics and hyperglycemic emergencies:Multicentre, retrospective cohort study of administrative data. Schizophrenia Research 154 (1):54–60. doi:10.1016/j.schres.2014.01.043.
29. W.-K.Lo, and H.Mashimo. 2015. Critical assessment of endoscopic techniques for gastroesophageal reflux disease. Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology 49 (9):720–24. doi:10.1097/MCG.0000000000000389.
30. L.I.Meho, and K.Yang. 2007. Impact of data sources on citation counts and rankings of LIS faculty:Web of Science versus Scopus and Google Scholar. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 58 (13):2105–25. doi:10.1002/(ISSN)1532-2890.
31. H.F.Moed, 2009. New developments in the use of citation analysis in research evaluation. Archivum Immunologiae et Therapiae Experimentalis 57 (1):13–18. doi:10.1007/s00005-009-0001-5.
32. S.Nelson, J.Turnbull, L.Bainbridge, T.Caulfield, G.Hudon, D.Kendel, D.Mowat, et al. 2014. Optimizing scopes of practice:New models for a new health care system. Ottawa:Canadian Academy of Health Science.
33. E.J.Rinia, T.N.Van Leeuwen, H.G.Van Vuren, and A.F.J.Van Raan. 1998. Comparative analysis of a set of bibliometric indicators and central peer review criteria:Evaluation of condensed matter physics in the Netherlands. Research Policy 27 (1):95–107. doi:10.1016/S0048-7333(98)00026-2.
34. J.-A.Sahel, 2011. Quality versus quantity:Assessing individual research performance. Science Translational Medicine 3 (84):84cm13. doi:10.1126/scitranslmed.3002249.
35. S.Sibbald, J.MacGregor, M.Surmacz, and C.N.Wathen. 2015. Into the gray:A modified approach to citation analysis to better understand research impact. Journal of the Medical Library Association 103 (1):49–54. doi:10.3163/1536-5050.103.1.010.
36. K.M.Smith, E.Crookes, and P.A.Crookes. 2013. Measuring research “impact” for academic promotion:Issues from the literature. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 35 (4):410–20. doi:10.1080/1360080X.2013.812173.
37. B.Soper, and S.R.Hanney. 2007. Lessons from the evaluation of the UK’s NHS R&D implementation methods programme. Implementation Science 2 (1):13. doi:10.1186/1748-5908-2-7.
38. S.Suissa, D.Henry, P.Caetano, C.R.Dormuth, P.Ernst, B.Hemmelgarn, J.LeLorier, A.Levy, P.J.Martens, J.M.Paterson, et al. 2012. CNODES:The Canadian Network for Observational Drug Effect Studies. Open Medicine 6 (4):e134.
39. R.ThomsonReuters. 2015. Web of Science:The complete citation connection. http://wokinfo.com/citationconnection/realfacts/#regional (accessed May 5, 2016)
40. T.ReutersThomson. 2016. Web of Science. http://wokinfo.com/ (accessed May 5, 2016)
41. R.ThomsonReuters. n.d. Science citation index expanded. http://thomsonreuters.com/en/products-services/scholarly-scientific-research/scholarly-search-and-discovery/science-citation-index-expanded.html (accessed May 5, 2016)
42. Wilsdon, J., L. Allen, E. Belfiore, P. Campbell, S. Curry, S. Hill, R. Jones, J. Hill, R. Kain, and B. Johnson. 2015. The metric tide:Report of the independent review of the role of metrics in research assessment and management. DOI:10.13140/RG.2.1.4929.1363. http://www.hefce.ac.uk/pubs/rereports/Year/2015/metrictide/Title,104463,en.html (accessed June 6, 2016).