Assessing Prevention Research ImpactA Bibliometric Analysis

Franks, Adele L.; Simões, Eduardo J.; Singh, Rajdeep; Gray, Barbara Sajor

doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2005.10.025

Cited by 31 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The search result analysis was already used in previous papers (Hruska, 2004;Franek and Hruska, 2005). Recently published papers confirm the significance of analyses of publications (Torricella-Morales et al, 2000;Gu, 2004;Benito et al, 2005;Cardinal and Thomas, 2005;de Araujo et al, 2005;MusiLechuga et al, 2005;Reid and Chen, 2005;Franks et al, 2006). …”

mentioning

confidence: 78%

Veterinary Research Institute, Brno, Czech Republic: Analysis of papers published from 1990 to 2005

Hruška¹

2006

Vet. Med. - Czech

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

mentioning

confidence: 78%

Veterinary Research Institute, Brno, Czech Republic: Analysis of papers published from 1990 to 2005

Hruška¹

2006

Vet. Med. - Czech

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Through this approach, we sought to expand traditional bibliometric analyses beyond citation counts to include normative comparisons, network analysis and visualization techniques, and assessment of inclusion in reviews and syntheses. Expanding descriptive and inferential bibliometric methods are especially important in new research frontiers like prevention [37], as well as in very collaborative and cross-disciplinary environments. Overall, the scientific publications from the NIAID HIV/AIDS clinical trials networks were slightly above the average number of citations worldwide controlling for the journals in which they were published.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluating Research and Impact: A Bibliometric Analysis of Research by the NIH/NIAID HIV/AIDS Clinical Trials Networks

Rosas¹,

Kagan

Schouten

et al. 2011

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Evaluative bibliometrics uses advanced techniques to assess the impact of scholarly work in the context of other scientific work and usually compares the relative scientific contributions of research groups or institutions. Using publications from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) HIV/AIDS extramural clinical trials networks, we assessed the presence, performance, and impact of papers published in 2006–2008. Through this approach, we sought to expand traditional bibliometric analyses beyond citation counts to include normative comparisons across journals and fields, visualization of co-authorship across the networks, and assess the inclusion of publications in reviews and syntheses. Specifically, we examined the research output of the networks in terms of the a) presence of papers in the scientific journal hierarchy ranked on the basis of journal influence measures, b) performance of publications on traditional bibliometric measures, and c) impact of publications in comparisons with similar publications worldwide, adjusted for journals and fields. We also examined collaboration and interdisciplinarity across the initiative, through network analysis and modeling of co-authorship patterns. Finally, we explored the uptake of network produced publications in research reviews and syntheses. Overall, the results suggest the networks are producing highly recognized work, engaging in extensive interdisciplinary collaborations, and having an impact across several areas of HIV-related science. The strengths and limitations of the approach for evaluation and monitoring research initiatives are discussed.

show abstract

“…Even similar methods may produce different results, especially when using expert review. For instance, one study of prevention research centers found that researchers named ninety-nine different Environmental heaith citation patterns journals as influential in their field, thirty-four of which were named more than once [28]. Smith looked at ten different studies with "core" occupational health journals and found that only four titles overlapped on every study [26].…”

Section: Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 98%