A critical evaluation of the algorithm behind the Relative Citation Ratio (RCR).
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Janssens ACJW
PROVIDER: S-EPMC5624566 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Oct
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
A critical evaluation of the algorithm behind the Relative Citation Ratio (RCR).
Janssens A Cecile J W ACJW Goodman Michael M Powell Kimberly R KR Gwinn Marta M
PLoS biology 20171002 10
Similar Datasets
Project description:Despite their recognized limitations, bibliometric assessments of scientific productivity have been widely adopted. We describe here an improved method to quantify the influence of a research article by making novel use of its co-citation network to field-normalize the number of citations it has received. Article citation rates are divided by an expected citation rate that is derived from performance of articles in the same field and benchmarked to a peer comparison group. The resulting Relative Citation Ratio is article level and field independent and provides an alternative to the invalid practice of using journal impact factors to identify influential papers. To illustrate one application of our method, we analyzed 88,835 articles published between 2003 and 2010 and found that the National Institutes of Health awardees who authored those papers occupy relatively stable positions of influence across all disciplines. We demonstrate that the values generated by this method strongly correlate with the opinions of subject matter experts in biomedical research and suggest that the same approach should be generally applicable to articles published in all areas of science. A beta version of iCite, our web tool for calculating Relative Citation Ratios of articles listed in PubMed, is available at https://icite.od.nih.gov.
| S-EPMC5012559 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Bibliometrics is becoming increasingly prominent in the world of medical libraries. The number of presentations related to research impact at the Medical Library Association (MLA) annual meeting has been increasing in past years. Medical centers have been using institutional dashboards to track clinical performance for over a decade, and more recently, these institutional dashboards have included measures of academic performance. This commentary reviews current practices and considers the role for a newer metric, the relative citation ratio.
| S-EPMC6148595 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundLimited research has evaluated the relative citation ratio (RCR), a novel measure of research productivity. Accordingly, there remains a minimal understanding of its practical value relative to established metrics such as the h-index. Here, we examined correlations between the mean and weighted RCR scores and the h-index and explore the influence of academic rank, career duration, PhD acquisition, and fellowship training on these metrics.MethodsData regarding the academic rank (e.g. assistant professor, associate professor, professor, or "other"), career duration, degrees, fellowship training, and research yield were collected for 1018 academic ophthalmologists practicing in the southern United States of America. The iCite and Scopus databases were utilized to quantify research yield via calculations of mean and weighted RCR, and h-index, respectively.ResultsSignificant correlations were observed between the h-index and the mean (ρ = 0.62, P < 0.001) and weighted RCR (ρ = 0.84, P < 0.001). Advanced academic rank was associated with increased indices values. In a subset of ophthalmologists excluding members of the "other" category, career duration was moderately correlated with h-index (ρ = 0.45, P < 0.001), and weakly correlated with mean (ρ = 0.14, P < 0.001) and weighted (ρ = 0.26, P < 0.001) RCR. PhD and fellowship acquisition were associated with increased research yield.ConclusionThe findings suggest that the RCR is an effective measure of research yield, while resolving deficiencies present in the h-index. Further research remains to characterize the RCR's value relative to other established markers of research productivity.
| S-EPMC8606875 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Highlights • Analyze new NIH-Supported bibliometric tool, the relative citation ratio (RCR).• Evaluate research productivity among fellowship trained Orthopedic Spine Surgeons.• Conduct demographic analysis of research productivity among fellowship trained Orthopedic Spine Surgeons. Background Publication metrics have been traditionally used to compare research productivity amongst academic faculty. However, traditional bibliometrics lack field-normalization and are often biased towards time-dependent publication factors. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) has developed a new, field-normalized, article-level metric, known as the “relative citation ratio” (RCR), that can be used to make accurate self, departmental, and cross-specialty comparisons of research productivity. This study evaluates the use of the RCR amongst academic orthopedic spine surgery faculty and analyzes physician factors associated with RCR values. Methods A retrospective data analysis was performed using the iCite database for all fellowship trained orthopedic spine surgery (OSS) faculty associated with Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME)-accredited orthopedic surgery residency program. Mean RCR, weighted RCR, and total publication count were compared by sex, career duration, academic rank, and presence of additional degrees. A value of 1.0 is the NIH-funded field-normalized standard. Student t-tests were used for two-group analyses whereas the analysis of variance tests (ANOVA) was used for between-group comparisons of three or more subgroups. Statistical significance was achieved at P < 0.05. Results A total of 502 academic OSS faculty members from 159 institutions were included in the analysis. Overall, OSS faculty were highly productive, with a median RCR of 1.62 (IQR 1.38-2.32) and a median weighted RCR of 68.98 (IQR 21.06-212.70). Advancing academic rank was associated with weighted RCR, career longevity was associated with mean RCR score, and male sex was associated with having increased mean and weighted RCR scores. All subgroups analyzed had an RCR value above 1.0. Conclusions Academic orthopedic spine surgery faculty produce impactful research as evidenced by the high median RCR relative to the standard value set by the NIH of 1.0. Our data can be used to evaluate research productivity in the orthopedic spine community.
| S-EPMC9344340 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionSocial media is increasingly used in the dissemination of medical research. Traditional measures of the impact of a paper do not account for this. Altmetrics are a measure of the dissemination of a publication via social media websites. The purpose of this study is to ascertain if the altmetric attention score of an article is a reliable measure of the impact it has in the field of critical care medicine. To this end, we investigated if a correlation exists between future citation count and altmetric attention score.MethodsThe top nine journals by impact factor in the field of critical care medicine were identified for 2014 and 2015. The 100 most cited articles from these journals were recorded to form the Scientific Impact Group, i.e. those with the greatest impact on the scientific community. The altmetric attention score was recorded for each article. The top 100 articles by altmetric attention score were also identified to form the Media Impact Group, i.e. those that generated the most online attention. Their citation counts' were recorded. Statistical analysis was performed on each group to identify a correlation between altmetric attention score and citation count.ResultsThere was a moderately positive correlation in the Scientific Impact Group, with a Spearman r score of 0.4336 (P = 0.0001). A weakly positive correlation was found in the Media Impact Group, with a Spearman r score of 0.3033 (P = 0.002).ConclusionsThere is a positive correlation between traditional bibliographic metrics and altmetrics in the field of critical care medicine. Highly cited papers are more likely to generate online attention. However, papers that generate a lot of online attention are less likely to have a high citation count. Therefore, altmetric attention score is not a reliable predictor of future citation count in critical care medicine.
| S-EPMC7890758 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The study aimed to investigate molecular signatures in peripheral blood of individuals affected by metabolic syndrome (MetS) and different degrees of obesity. Metabolic health of 1204 individuals was assessed, and 32 subjects were recruited to four study groups: MetS lean, MetS obese, “healthy obese” and healthy lean. Whole-blood transcriptome next generation sequencing with functional data analysis was carried out.
2020-02-18 | GSE145412 | GEO
Project description:It is several years since national research evaluation systems around the globe started making use of quantitative indicators to measure the performance of researchers. Nevertheless, the effects on these systems on the behavior of the evaluated researchers are still largely unknown. For investigating this topic, we propose a new inwardness indicator able to gauge the degree of scientific self-referentiality of a country. Inwardness is defined as the proportion of citations coming from the country over the total number of citations gathered by the country. A comparative analysis of the trends for the G10 countries in the years 2000-2016 reveals a net increase of the Italian inwardness. Italy became, both globally and for a large majority of the research fields, the country with the highest inwardness and the lowest rate of international collaborations. The change in the Italian trend occurs in the years following the introduction in 2011 of national regulations in which key passages of professional careers are governed by bibliometric indicators. A most likely explanation of the peculiar Italian trend is a generalized strategic use of citations in the Italian scientific community, both in the form of strategic author self-citations and of citation clubs. We argue that the Italian case offers crucial insights on the constitutive effects of evaluation systems. As such, it could become a paradigmatic case in the debate about the use of indicators in science-policy contexts.
| S-EPMC6739054 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The relative citation rate (RCR) is a normalized article-level metric useful to assess the impact of research articles. The objective of this bibliometric study is to identify and analyze, in root canal disinfection, the 100 articles having the highest RCRs in the period 1990-2019, then compare them with the top 100 articles most cited. A cross-sectional study was performed, and the search strategy ((Disinfection AND root canal) AND (("1990/01/01"[Date-Publication]: "2019/12/31"[Date-Publication]))) relied on PubMed (n = 4294 documents), and article data were downloaded from the iCite database. The 100 articles with the highest RCRs and the top 100 cited were selected and evaluated in bibliometric terms. Among the 100 articles with the highest RCRs, there were no differences in the three decades for RCRs values, but there were in citations, being 2000-2009 the most cited. The USA was the predominant country (n = 30), followed by Brazil (n = 14). The most frequent study designs were reviews (n = 27) and in vitro (n = 25) and ex vivo (n = 24) studies. All subfields were well represented, although they varied over time. In 2010-2019, regenerative procedures and irrigation/disinfection techniques were predominant. Considering the RCR's top 100 articles, 76 were common with the 100 most cited articles. Using the RCR metric allowed us to identify influential articles in root canal disinfection, a research field with topics of significance that fluctuate over time. Compared to citations, RCR reduces the time from publication to detection of its importance for the readership and could be a valid alternative to citation counts.
| S-EPMC8614753 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The interim results of the large, multinational trials on coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) using a combination of antiviral drugs appear to have little to no effect on the 28-day mortality or the in-hospital course. Therefore, there is a still vivid interest in finding alternate re-purposed drugs and nutrition supplements, which can halt or slow the disease severity. We review here the multiple preclinical studies, partially supported by clinical evidence showing the quercetin's possible therapeutic/prophylaxis efficacy against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) as well as comorbidities like chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), diabetes mellitus, obesity, coagulopathy, and hypertension. Currently, 14 interventional clinical trials are underway assessing the efficacy of quercetin along with other antiviral drugs/nutritional supplements as prophylaxis/treatment option against COVID-19. The present review is tempting to suggest that, based on circumstantial scientific evidence and preliminary clinical data, the flavonoid quercetin can ameliorate COVID-19 infection and symptoms acting in concert on two parallel and independent paths: inhibiting key factors responsible for SARS-CoV-2 infections and mitigating the clinical manifestations of the disease in patients with comorbid conditions. Despite the broad therapeutic properties of quercetin, further high power randomized clinical trials are needed to firmly establish its clinical efficacy against COVID-19.
| S-EPMC9111035 | biostudies-literature
Project description:What3Words is a geocoding application that uses triples of words instead of alphanumeric coordinates to identify locations. What3Words has grown rapidly in popularity over the past few years and is used in logistical applications worldwide, including by emergency services. What3Words has also attracted criticism for being less reliable than claimed, in particular that the chance of confusing one address with another is high. This paper investigates these claims and shows that the What3Words algorithm for assigning addresses to grid boxes creates many pairs of confusable addresses, some of which are quite close together. The implications of this for the use of What3Words in critical or emergency situations is discussed.
| S-EPMC10599581 | biostudies-literature