These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Bibliometric indicators: a snapshot of the scientific productivity of leading European PRM researchers.
    Author: Franchignoni F, Muñoz Lasa S, Ozçakar L, Ottonello M.
    Journal: Eur J Phys Rehabil Med; 2011 Sep; 47(3):455-62. PubMed ID: 21946402.
    Abstract:
    AIM: The aim of this paper was to explore the validity and practical usefulness of a set of bibliometric indicators with a focus on the scientific production of influential European researchers in Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine (PRM). METHODS: We randomly selected 24 European PRM specialists from the list of invited lecturers or chairpersons at the 17th ESPRM Congress in 2010. Using the time window 1996-2010, we recorded the number of papers published, total number of citations, and h-index from Web of Science (WoS) and Publish or Perish (PoP) databases. We also noted the journals in which the papers were published. Ranking the 24 authors into two groups according to higher vs. lower research productivity, we compared the frequency of Editorial Board membership of at least one of the 5 most influential journals in PRM. RESULTS: Median values (WoS, PoP) for papers, citations, and h-index were respectively: (31, 46); (171, 317); and (6.5, 8.5). High correlations were found among different indicators, and also between the same indicators calculated in the two different databases. However, the Bland-Altman plot indicated that the two databases could not be considered interchangeable. Twelve PRM specialists were Editorial Board members: 11 of them were in the first 10 ranking positions for at least one of the 6 indicators analysed. CONCLUSION: There is need to better understand the characteristics of bibliometric indicators and we retain that the information they provide is insufficiently valid to justify their use as the sole objective criterion for career assessment.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]