6 research outputs found
Differences in citation frequency of clinical and basic science papers in cardiovascular research
In this article, a critical analysis is performed on differences in citation frequency of basic and clinical cardiovascular papers. It appears that the latter papers are cited at about 40% higher frequency. The differences between the largest number of citations of the most cited papers are even larger. It is also demonstrated that the groups of clinical and basic cardiovascular papers are also heterogeneous concerning citation frequency. It is concluded that none of the existing citation indicators appreciates these differences. At this moment these indicators should not be used for quality assessment of individual scientists and scientific niches with small numbers of scientists
How citation boosts promote scientific paradigm shifts and Nobel Prizes
Nobel Prizes are commonly seen to be among the most prestigious achievements
of our times. Based on mining several million citations, we quantitatively
analyze the processes driving paradigm shifts in science. We find that
groundbreaking discoveries of Nobel Prize Laureates and other famous scientists
are not only acknowledged by many citations of their landmark papers.
Surprisingly, they also boost the citation rates of their previous
publications. Given that innovations must outcompete the rich-gets-richer
effect for scientific citations, it turns out that they can make their way only
through citation cascades. A quantitative analysis reveals how and why they
happen. Science appears to behave like a self-organized critical system, in
which citation cascades of all sizes occur, from continuous scientific progress
all the way up to scientific revolutions, which change the way we see our
world. Measuring the "boosting effect" of landmark papers, our analysis reveals
how new ideas and new players can make their way and finally triumph in a world
dominated by established paradigms. The underlying "boost factor" is also
useful to discover scientific breakthroughs and talents much earlier than
through classical citation analysis, which by now has become a widespread
method to measure scientific excellence, influencing scientific careers and the
distribution of research funds. Our findings reveal patterns of collective
social behavior, which are also interesting from an attention economics
perspective. Understanding the origin of scientific authority may therefore
ultimately help to explain, how social influence comes about and why the value
of goods depends so strongly on the attention they attract.Comment: 6 pages, 6 figure
Hirsch Index and Truth Survival in Clinical Research
BACKGROUND: Factors associated with the survival of truth of clinical conclusions in the medical literature are unknown. We hypothesized that publications with a first author having a higher Hirsch' index value (h-I), which quantifies and predicts an individual's scientific research output, should have a longer half-life. METHODS AND RESULTS: 474 original articles concerning cirrhosis or hepatitis published from 1945 to 1999 were selected. The survivals of the main conclusions were updated in 2009. The truth survival was assessed by time-dependent methods (Kaplan Meier method and Cox). A conclusion was considered to be true, obsolete or false when three or more observers out of the six stated it to be so. 284 out of 474 conclusions (60%) were still considered true, 90 (19%) were considered obsolete and 100 (21%) false. The median of the h-I was=24 (range 1-85). Authors with true conclusions had significantly higher h-I (median=28) than those with obsolete (h-I=19; P=0.002) or false conclusions (h-I=19; P=0.01). The factors associated (P<0.0001) with h-I were: scientific life (h-I=33 for>30 years vs. 16 for<30 years), -methodological quality score (h-I=36 for high vs. 20 for low scores), and -positive predictive value combining power, ratio of true to not-true relationships and bias (h-I=33 for high vs. 20 for low values). In multivariate analysis, the risk ratio of h-I was 1.003 (95%CI, 0.994-1.011), and was not significant (P=0.56). In a subgroup restricted to 111 articles with a negative conclusion, we observed a significant independent prognostic value of h-I (risk ratio=1.033; 95%CI, 1.008-1.059; P=0.009). Using an extrapolation of h-I at the time of article publication there was a significant and independent prognostic value of baseline h-I (risk ratio=0.027; P=0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: The present study failed to clearly demonstrate that the h-index of authors was a prognostic factor for truth survival. However the h-index was associated with true conclusions, methodological quality of trials and positive predictive values