Skip to main content
Feasibility of common bibliometrics in evaluating translational science.
- Author(s): Schneider, M;
- Kane, CM;
- Rainwater, J;
- Guerrero, L;
- Tong, G;
- Desai, SR;
- Trochim, W
- et al.
Published Web Locationhttps://doi.org/10.1017/cts.2016.8
IntroductionA pilot study by 6 Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSAs) explored how bibliometrics can be used to assess research influence.
MethodsEvaluators from 6 institutions shared data on publications (4202 total) they supported, and conducted a combined analysis with state-of-the-art tools. This paper presents selected results based on the tools from 2 widely used vendors for bibliometrics: Thomson Reuters and Elsevier.
ResultsBoth vendors located a high percentage of publications within their proprietary databases (>90%) and provided similar but not equivalent bibliometrics for estimating productivity (number of publications) and influence (citation rates, percentage of papers in the top 10% of citations, observed citations relative to expected citations). A recently available bibliometric from the National Institutes of Health Office of Portfolio Analysis, examined after the initial analysis, showed tremendous potential for use in the CTSA context.
ConclusionDespite challenges in making cross-CTSA comparisons, bibliometrics can enhance our understanding of the value of CTSA-supported clinical and translational research.
For improved accessibility of PDF content, download the file to your device.