Utilizing a composite citation index for evaluating clinical ophthalmology research: insights into gender, nationality, and self-citation among top ophthalmology researchers.
Journal
Eye (London, England)
ISSN: 1476-5454
Titre abrégé: Eye (Lond)
Pays: England
ID NLM: 8703986
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
03 Jan 2024
03 Jan 2024
Historique:
received:
03
07
2023
accepted:
19
12
2023
revised:
01
12
2023
medline:
4
1
2024
pubmed:
4
1
2024
entrez:
3
1
2024
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
To compare the performance of a composite citation score (c-score) and its six constituent citation indices, including H-index, in predicting winners of the Weisenfeld Award in ophthalmologic research. Secondary objectives were to explore career and demographic characteristics of the most highly cited researchers in ophthalmology. A publicly available database was accessed to compile a set of top researchers in the field of clinical ophthalmology and optometry based on Scopus data from 1996 to 2021. Each citation index was used to construct a multivariable model adjusted for author demographic characteristics. Using area under the receiver operating curve (AUC) analysis, each index's model was evaluated for its ability to predict winners of the Weisenfeld Award in Ophthalmology, a research distinction presented by the Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology (ARVO). Secondary analyses investigated authors' self-citation rates, career length, gender, and country affiliation over time. Approximately one thousand unique authors publishing primarily in clinical ophthalmology/optometry were analyzed. The c-score outperformed all other citation indices at predicting Weisenfeld Awardees, with an AUC of 0.99 (95% CI: 0.97-1.0). The H-index had an AUC of 0.89 (95% CI: 0.83-0.96). Authors with higher c-scores tended to have longer career lengths and similar self-citation rates compared to other authors. Sixteen percent of authors in the database were identified as female, and 64% were affiliated with the United States of America. The c-score is an effective metric for assessing research impact in ophthalmology, as seen through its ability to predict Weisenfeld Awardees.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38172579
doi: 10.1038/s41433-023-02912-2
pii: 10.1038/s41433-023-02912-2
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to The Royal College of Ophthalmologists.
Références
Abbot A, Cyranoski D, Jones N. Metrics: do metrics matter? Nature. 2010;465:860–2. https://doi.org/10.1038/465860a .
doi: 10.1038/465860a
Holden G, Rosenberg G, Barker K. Bibliometrics: a potential decision making aid in hiring, reappointment, tenure and promotion decisions. Soc Work Health Care. 2005;41:67–92. https://doi.org/10.1300/J010v41n03_03 .
doi: 10.1300/J010v41n03_03
pubmed: 16236639
Haustein S, Larivière V. The use of bibliometrics for assessing research: possibilities, limitations and adverse effects. In: Welpe, I, Wollersheim, J, Ringelhan, S, Osterloh, M, eds. Incentives and performance.Cham: Springer; 2015. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-09785-5_8 .
Tanya SM, He B, Tang J, He P, Zhang A, Sharma E, et al. Research productivity and impact of Canadian academic ophthalmologists: trends in H-index, gender, subspecialty, and faculty appointment. Can J Ophthalmol. 2022;57:188–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcjo.2021.03.011 .
doi: 10.1016/j.jcjo.2021.03.011
pubmed: 33865758
Lopez SA, Svider PF, Misra P, Bhagat N, Langer PD, Eloy JA. Gender differences in promotion and scholarly impact: an analysis of 1460 academic ophthalmologists. J Surg Educ. 2014;71:851–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsurg.2014.03.015 .
doi: 10.1016/j.jsurg.2014.03.015
pubmed: 24852601
Huang G, Fang CH, Lopez SA, Bhagat N, Langer PD, Eloy JA. Impact of fellowship training on research productivity in academic ophthalmology. J Surg Educ. 2015;72:410–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsurg.2014.10.010 .
doi: 10.1016/j.jsurg.2014.10.010
pubmed: 25467730
Hirsch JE. An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2005;102:16569–72. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0507655102 .
doi: 10.1073/pnas.0507655102
pubmed: 16275915
pmcid: 1283832
Koltun V, Hafner D. The h-index is no longer an effective correlate of scientific reputation. PLOS ONE. 2021;16:e0253397. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0253397 .
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0253397
pubmed: 34181681
pmcid: 8238192
Schreiber M. A modification of the h-index: the hm-index accounts for multi-authored manuscripts. J Informetr. 2008;2:211–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2008.05.001 .
doi: 10.1016/j.joi.2008.05.001
Ioannidis JPA, Klavans R, Boyack KW. Multiple citation indicators and their composite across scientific disciplines. PLOS Biol. 2016;14:e1002501. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1002501 .
doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1002501
pubmed: 27367269
pmcid: 4930269
ARVO Achievement Awards. https://www.arvo.org/awards-grants-and-fellowships/arvo-achievement-awards/ .
Ioannidis JPA, Boyack KW, Baas J. Updated science-wide author databases of standardized citation indicators. PLOS Biol. 2020;18:e3000918. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3000918 .
doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3000918
pubmed: 33064726
pmcid: 7567353
Robin X, Turck N, Hainard A, Tiberti N, Lisacek F, Sanchez JC, et al. pROC: an open-source package for R and S+ to analyze and compare ROC curves. BMC Bioinforma. 2011;12:77. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2105-12-77 .
doi: 10.1186/1471-2105-12-77
Nielsen MW, Andersen JP, Schiebinger L, Schneider JW. One and a half million medical papers reveal a link between author gender and attention to gender and sex analysis. Nat Hum Behav. 2017;1:791–6. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-017-0235-x .
doi: 10.1038/s41562-017-0235-x
pubmed: 31024130
Nguyen AX, Ratan S, Biyani A, Trinh XV, Saleh S, Sun Y, et al. Gender of award recipients in major ophthalmology societies. Am J Ophthalmol. 2021;231:120–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajo.2021.05.021 .
doi: 10.1016/j.ajo.2021.05.021
pubmed: 34102152
pmcid: 8608693
Sinatra R, Wang D, Deville P, Song C, Barabási AL. Quantifying the evolution of individual scientific impact. Science. 2016;354:aaf5239. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaf5239 .
doi: 10.1126/science.aaf5239
pubmed: 27811240
Szomszor M, Pendlebury DA, Adams J. How much is too much? The difference between research influence and self-citation excess. Scientometrics. 2020;123:1119–47. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03417-5 .
doi: 10.1007/s11192-020-03417-5
Reddy AK, Bounds GW, Bakri SJ, Gordon LK, Smith JR, Haller JA, et al. Representation of women with industry ties in ophthalmology. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2016;134:636. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2016.0552 .
doi: 10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2016.0552
pubmed: 27101532
Mimouni M, Zayit-Soudry S, Segal O, Barak Y, Nemet AY, Shulman S, et al. Trends in authorship of articles in major ophthalmology journals by gender, 2002–2014. Ophthalmology. 2016;123:1824–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2016.04.034 .
doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2016.04.034
pubmed: 27221734
Santamaría L, Mihaljević H. Comparison and benchmark of name-to-gender inference services. PeerJ Comput Sci. 2018;4:e156. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj-cs.156 .
doi: 10.7717/peerj-cs.156
pubmed: 33816809
pmcid: 7924484
Yang K, Meho LI. Citation analysis: a comparison of Google Scholar, Scopus, and Web of Science. Proc Am Soc Inf Sci Technol. 2006;43:1–15. https://doi.org/10.1002/meet.14504301185 .
doi: 10.1002/meet.14504301185
Allen P. World-Wide News Coverage in PlumX. 2017. https://plumanalytics.com/world-wide-news-coverage-plumx/ .
Meschede C, Siebenlist T. Cross-metric compatability and inconsistencies of altmetrics. Scientometrics. 2018;115:283–97. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2674-1 .
doi: 10.1007/s11192-018-2674-1
How Outputs Are Tracked and Measured. Altmetric https://help.altmetric.com/support/solutions/articles/6000234171-how-outputs-are-tracked-and-measured .