Biomedical engineering and bibliometric indices for scientific quality

Spaan, Jos A. E.

doi:10.1007/s11517-009-0546-9

Cited by 10 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The h-index was adopted in fields other than physics, including biomedical engineering (BME) (Spaan, 2009), and it is now increasingly being used in promotion committees, faculty recruitments, tenure and funding decisions, selection of award recipients, ranking performances of departments or institutions and ranking scientific journals evaluating h-indices of editorial board members (Ball, 2005;Garcia-Perez, 2009;Lazaridis, 2010).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It is well-known that h-index values strongly depend on the research field (Bornmann and Daniel, 2007;Spaan, 2009). It is also nearly a consensus that h-index calculations (or any other similar or derivative indices) do not substitute for thorough, informed judgment of peers in decision-making processes such as the ones listed above, but the h-index is still useful for evaluating scientific performances of individuals, for example, when needing to screen many candidates.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

How high is a “high” Hirsch index in biomechanics research?

Gefen

2011

Journal of Biomechanics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

How high is a “high” Hirsch index in biomechanics research?

Gefen

2011

Journal of Biomechanics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Bibliometric methods (King, 1987;Thelwall, 2007) have demonstrated a wide range of applications in different fields, medical and life science issues included (Lovegrove & Johnson, 2008;Spaan, 2009). …”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bibliometric analysis of the use of the term preembryo in scientific literature

Vivanco

Bartolomé

Martín

et al. 2011

J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Our objective was to determine the prevalence of the term preembryo in the scientific literature using a bibliometric study in the Web of Science database. We retrieved data from the Web of Science from 1986 to 2005, covering a range of 20 years since the term was first published. Searches for the terms embryo, blastocyst, preimplantation embryo, and preembryo were performed. Then, Boolean operators were applied to measure associations between terms. Finally, statistical assessments were made to compare the use of each term in the scientific literature, and in specific areas where preembryo is most used. From a total of 93,019 registers, 90,888 corresponded to embryo; 8,366 to blastocyst ; 2,397 to preimplantation embryo; and 172 to preembryo. The use frequency for preembryo was 2:1000. The term preembryo showed a lower cumulative impact factor (343) in comparison with the others (25,448; 5,530; and 546; respectively) in the highest scored journal category. We conclude that the term preembryo is not used in the scientific community, probably because it is confusing or inadequate. The authors suggest that its use in the scientific literature should be avoided in future publications. The bibliometric analysis confirms this statement. While preembryo hardly ever is used, terms such as preimplantation embryo and blastocyst have gained wide acceptance in publications from the same areas of study.

show abstract

“…These differences are in general not taken into account when it comes to evaluation of performance of biomedical engineers [29]. It is difficult to say what the h-factor is for a good biomedical engineer.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%