IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/nat/nature/v514y2014i7524d10.1038_514561a.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Bibliometrics: Is your most cited work your best?

Author

Listed:
  • John P. A. Ioannidis

    (John P. A. Ioannidis is co-director of the Meta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford (METRICS), Stanford University, California, USA.)

  • Kevin W. Boyack

    (Kevin W. Boyack is at SciTech Strategies, Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA.)

  • Henry Small

    (Henry Small is at SciTech Strategies, Bala Cynwyd, Pennsylvania, USA.)

  • Aaron A. Sorensen

    (Aaron A. Sorensen is director of informatics at the Temple University School of Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.)

  • Richard Klavans

    (Richard Klavans is at SciTech Strategies, Berwyn, Pennsylvania, USA.)

Abstract

John P. A. Ioannidis and colleagues asked the most highly cited biomedical scientists to score their top-ten papers in six ways.

Suggested Citation

  • John P. A. Ioannidis & Kevin W. Boyack & Henry Small & Aaron A. Sorensen & Richard Klavans, 2014. "Bibliometrics: Is your most cited work your best?," Nature, Nature, vol. 514(7524), pages 561-562, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:nat:nature:v:514:y:2014:i:7524:d:10.1038_514561a
    DOI: 10.1038/514561a
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.nature.com/articles/514561a
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1038/514561a?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Isager, Peder Mortvedt & van 't Veer, Anna Elisabeth & Lakens, Daniel, 2021. "Replication value as a function of citation impact and sample size," MetaArXiv knjea, Center for Open Science.
    2. Melinda Harm Benson & Christopher D. Lippitt & Ryan Morrison & Barbara Cosens & Jan Boll & Brian C. Chaffin & Alexander K. Fremier & Robert Heinse & Derek Kauneckis & Timothy E. Link & Caroline E. Scr, 2016. "Five ways to support interdisciplinary work before tenure," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 6(2), pages 260-267, June.
    3. Niu, Qikai & Zhou, Jianlin & Zeng, An & Fan, Ying & Di, Zengru, 2016. "Which publication is your representative work?," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(3), pages 842-853.
    4. Nan Deng & An Zeng, 2023. "Enhancing the robustness of the disruption metric against noise," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(4), pages 2419-2428, April.
    5. Shen, Hongquan & Xie, Juan & Ao, Weiyi & Cheng, Ying, 2022. "The continuity and citation impact of scientific collaboration with different gender composition," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 16(1).
    6. Shen, Hongquan & Cheng, Ying & Ju, Xiufang & Xie, Juan, 2022. "Rethinking the effect of inter-gender collaboration on research performance for scholars," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 16(4).
    7. Ruijie Wang & Yuhao Zhou & An Zeng, 2023. "Evaluating scientists by citation and disruption of their representative works," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(3), pages 1689-1710, March.
    8. Libo Sheng & Dongqing Lyu & Xuanmin Ruan & Hongquan Shen & Ying Cheng, 2023. "The association between prior knowledge and the disruption of an article," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(8), pages 4731-4751, August.
    9. Brito, Ana C.M. & Silva, Filipi N. & de Arruda, Henrique F. & Comin, Cesar H. & Amancio, Diego R. & Costa, Luciano da F., 2021. "Classification of abrupt changes along viewing profiles of scientific articles," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 15(2).
    10. Ana Teresa Santos & Sandro Mendonça, 2022. "Do papers (really) match journals’ “aims and scope”? A computational assessment of innovation studies," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(12), pages 7449-7470, December.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:nat:nature:v:514:y:2014:i:7524:d:10.1038_514561a. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.nature.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.