Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Archives of Osteoporosis 1/2018

Open Access 01-12-2018 | Original Article

Scientific output quality of 40 globally top-ranked medical researchers in the field of osteoporosis

Authors: W. Pluskiewicz, B. Drozdzowska, P. Adamczyk, K. Noga

Published in: Archives of Osteoporosis | Issue 1/2018

Login to get access

Abstract

Summary

The study presents the research output of 40 globally top-ranked authors, publishing in the field of osteoporosis. Their h-index is compared with the Scientific Quality Index (SQI), a novel indicator. Using SQI, 92.5% of the authors changed their initial positions in the general ranking. SQI partially depends on bibliometric measures different from those influencing h-index and may be considered as an assessment tool, reflecting more objective, qualitative, rather than quantitative, features of individual scientific output.

Purpose

The study approaches the research output of 40 globally top-ranked authors in the field of osteoporosis.

Methods

The assessed authors were identified in the Scopus database, using the key word “osteoporosis” and the h-index data, collected during the last decade (2008–2017). The data, concerning the scientific output, expressed by the h-index, were compared with a novel indicator of scientific quality—called the Scientific Quality Index (SQI). SQI is calculated according to the following formula: Parameter No. 1 + Parameter No. 2, where: Parameter No. 1 (the percent of papers cited ≥ 10 times) the number of papers cited ≥ 10 times (excluding self-citations and citations of all co-authors) is divided by the number of all the published papers (including the papers with no citation) × 100%, Parameter No. 2 (the mean number of citations per paper) the total number of citations (excluding self-citations and citations of all co-authors) divided by the number of all published papers (including papers with no citation).

Results

The following research output values were obtained: the citation index, 2483.6 ± 1348.7; the total number of papers, 75.1 ± 23.2; the total number of cited papers, 69.3 ± 22.0; the number of papers cited, at least, 10 times, 45.4 ± 17.2; the percent of papers cited, at least, 10 times, 59.9 ± 10.0; and the mean citations per paper, 32.8 ± 15.0. The mean value of Hirsch index was 24.2 ± 6.2 and SQI 92.7 ± 22.3. Using SQI, only three authors did not change their initial ranking position, established according to the h-index; 18 authors noted a decrease, while other 19 improved their initial ranking position. The h-index correlated with SQI; r = 0.72; p < 0.0001.

Conclusion

Qualitative features of scientific output, reflected by SQI, have changed the classification of 92.5% of authors. SQI may be considered as an assessment tool which is more strongly determined by qualitative than quantitative features of individual scientific output.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Hirsch JE (2005) An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 102:16569–16572CrossRef Hirsch JE (2005) An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 102:16569–16572CrossRef
2.
go back to reference Bartneck C, Kokkelmans S (2011) Detecting h-index manipulation through self-citation analysis. Scientometrics 87:85–98CrossRef Bartneck C, Kokkelmans S (2011) Detecting h-index manipulation through self-citation analysis. Scientometrics 87:85–98CrossRef
3.
go back to reference Ahangar HG, Siamian H, Yaminfirooz M (2014) Evaluation of the scientific outputs of researchers with similar h index: a critical approach. Acta Inform Med 22:255–258CrossRef Ahangar HG, Siamian H, Yaminfirooz M (2014) Evaluation of the scientific outputs of researchers with similar h index: a critical approach. Acta Inform Med 22:255–258CrossRef
5.
go back to reference Patel VM, Asharafian H, Almoudaris A, Makanjuola J, Bucciarelli-Ducci C, Darzi A, Athanasiou T (2013) Measuring academic performance for healthcare researchers with the h index: which search tool should be used? Med Princ Pract 22:178–183CrossRef Patel VM, Asharafian H, Almoudaris A, Makanjuola J, Bucciarelli-Ducci C, Darzi A, Athanasiou T (2013) Measuring academic performance for healthcare researchers with the h index: which search tool should be used? Med Princ Pract 22:178–183CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Romanovsky AA (2012) Revised h index for biomedical research. Cell Cycle 11:4118–4121CrossRef Romanovsky AA (2012) Revised h index for biomedical research. Cell Cycle 11:4118–4121CrossRef
7.
go back to reference Sharma B, Boet S, Grandcharov T, Shin E, Barrowman NJ, Bould MD (2013) The h-index outperforms other bibliometrics in the assessment of research performance in general surgery: a province-wide study. Surgery 153:493–501CrossRef Sharma B, Boet S, Grandcharov T, Shin E, Barrowman NJ, Bould MD (2013) The h-index outperforms other bibliometrics in the assessment of research performance in general surgery: a province-wide study. Surgery 153:493–501CrossRef
8.
go back to reference Bornmann L, Daniel HD (2009) The state of h index research. Is the h index the ideal way to measure research performance? EMBO Rep 10:2–6CrossRef Bornmann L, Daniel HD (2009) The state of h index research. Is the h index the ideal way to measure research performance? EMBO Rep 10:2–6CrossRef
9.
go back to reference Birks Y, Fairhurst C, Bloor K, Campbell M, Baird W, Torgerson D (2014) Use of the h-index to measure the quality of the output of health services researchers. J Health Serv Res Policy 19:102–109CrossRef Birks Y, Fairhurst C, Bloor K, Campbell M, Baird W, Torgerson D (2014) Use of the h-index to measure the quality of the output of health services researchers. J Health Serv Res Policy 19:102–109CrossRef
10.
go back to reference Kulasegarah J, Fenton JE (2010) Comparison of the h index with standard bibliometric indicators to rank influential otolaryngologists in Europe and North America. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 267:455–458CrossRef Kulasegarah J, Fenton JE (2010) Comparison of the h index with standard bibliometric indicators to rank influential otolaryngologists in Europe and North America. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 267:455–458CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Scientific output quality of 40 globally top-ranked medical researchers in the field of osteoporosis
Authors
W. Pluskiewicz
B. Drozdzowska
P. Adamczyk
K. Noga
Publication date
01-12-2018
Publisher
Springer London
Published in
Archives of Osteoporosis / Issue 1/2018
Print ISSN: 1862-3522
Electronic ISSN: 1862-3514
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11657-018-0446-4

Other articles of this Issue 1/2018

Archives of Osteoporosis 1/2018 Go to the issue