Relative Value of Adapted Novel Bibliometrics in Evaluating Surgical Academic Impact and Reach.
Journal
World journal of surgery
ISSN: 1432-2323
Titre abrégé: World J Surg
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 7704052
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Apr 2019
Apr 2019
Historique:
pubmed:
20
12
2018
medline:
16
7
2019
entrez:
20
12
2018
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The Hirsch index, often used to assess research impact, suffers from questionable validity within the context of General Surgery, and consequently adapted bibliometrics and altmetrics have emerged, including the r-index, m-index, g-index and i10-index. This study aimed to assess the relative value of these novel bibliometrics in a single UK Deanery General Surgical Consultant cohort. Five indices (h, r, m, g and i10) and altmetric scores (AS) were calculated for 151 general surgical consultants in a UK Deanery. Indices and AS were calculated from publication data via the Scopus search engine with assessment of construct validity and reliability. The median number of publications, h-index, r-index, m-index, g-index and i10-index were 13 (range 0-389), 5 (range 0-63), 5.2 (range 0-64.8), 0.33 (range 0-1.5), 10 (range 0-125) and 4 (range 0-245), respectively. Correlation coefficients of r-index, m-index, g-index and i10-index with h-index were 0.913 (p < 0.001), 0.716 (p < 0.001), 0.961 (p < 0.001) and 0.939 (p < 0.001), respectively. Significant variance was observed when the cohort was ranked by individual bibliometric measures; the median ranking shifts were: r-index - 2 (- 46 to + 23); m-index - 6.5 (- 53 to + 22); g-index - 0.5 (- 24 to + 13); and i10-index 0 (- 8 to + 11), respectively (p < 0.001). The median altmetric score and AS index were 0 (range 0-225.5) and 1 (range 0-10), respectively; AS index correlated strongly with h-index (correlation coefficient 0.390, p < 0.001). Adapted bibliometric indices appear to be equally valid measures of evaluating academic productivity, impact and reach.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The Hirsch index, often used to assess research impact, suffers from questionable validity within the context of General Surgery, and consequently adapted bibliometrics and altmetrics have emerged, including the r-index, m-index, g-index and i10-index. This study aimed to assess the relative value of these novel bibliometrics in a single UK Deanery General Surgical Consultant cohort.
METHOD
METHODS
Five indices (h, r, m, g and i10) and altmetric scores (AS) were calculated for 151 general surgical consultants in a UK Deanery. Indices and AS were calculated from publication data via the Scopus search engine with assessment of construct validity and reliability.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The median number of publications, h-index, r-index, m-index, g-index and i10-index were 13 (range 0-389), 5 (range 0-63), 5.2 (range 0-64.8), 0.33 (range 0-1.5), 10 (range 0-125) and 4 (range 0-245), respectively. Correlation coefficients of r-index, m-index, g-index and i10-index with h-index were 0.913 (p < 0.001), 0.716 (p < 0.001), 0.961 (p < 0.001) and 0.939 (p < 0.001), respectively. Significant variance was observed when the cohort was ranked by individual bibliometric measures; the median ranking shifts were: r-index - 2 (- 46 to + 23); m-index - 6.5 (- 53 to + 22); g-index - 0.5 (- 24 to + 13); and i10-index 0 (- 8 to + 11), respectively (p < 0.001). The median altmetric score and AS index were 0 (range 0-225.5) and 1 (range 0-10), respectively; AS index correlated strongly with h-index (correlation coefficient 0.390, p < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Adapted bibliometric indices appear to be equally valid measures of evaluating academic productivity, impact and reach.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30564922
doi: 10.1007/s00268-018-04893-w
pii: 10.1007/s00268-018-04893-w
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
967-972Références
Surgery. 2013 Apr;153(4):493-501
pubmed: 23465942
World J Surg. 2018 Sep;42(9):2745-2756
pubmed: 29536144
Cell Cycle. 2012 Nov 15;11(22):4118-21
pubmed: 22983124
Br J Anaesth. 2011 Mar;106(3):325-30
pubmed: 21258072
Laryngoscope. 2013 Apr;123(4):884-9
pubmed: 23417821
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005 Nov 15;102(46):16569-72
pubmed: 16275915
J Am Coll Radiol. 2009 Feb;6(2):112-8
pubmed: 19179240
FASEB J. 2008 Feb;22(2):338-42
pubmed: 17884971
J Neurosurg. 2009 Aug;111(2):387-92
pubmed: 19392590
J Surg Educ. 2016 Jan-Feb;73(1):111-5
pubmed: 26481425
J Neurointerv Surg. 2018 Feb;10(2):102-106
pubmed: 28824008
J Investig Med. 2007 May;55(4):174-80
pubmed: 17651671
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2007 Dec 4;104(49):19193-8
pubmed: 18040045
Indian J Psychol Med. 2015 Jul-Sep;37(3):376
pubmed: 26664098
PLoS One. 2012;7(10):e47679
pubmed: 23118890