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