![]() ![]() Term frequency–inverse document frequency TR, Science and Technology Policy Institute TF-IDF, įunding: The authors received no specific funding for this work but are all employees of the USA National Institutes of Health.Ĭompeting interests: Since the authors work in the Division of Program Coordination, Planning, and Strategic Initiatives at the National Institutes of Health, our work could have policy implications for how research portfolios are evaluated. The work is made available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication.ĭata Availability: We have developed a web tool (iCite) that calculates RCR and provides associated metrics at the underlying data for all of the figures and the full code for generating the iCite database and tool are posted to. This is an open access article, free of all copyright, and may be freely reproduced, distributed, transmitted, modified, built upon, or otherwise used by anyone for any lawful purpose. Received: DecemAccepted: AugPublished: September 6, 2016 Vaux, Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research, AUSTRALIA PLoS Biol 14(9):Īcademic Editor: David L. ![]() Since choosing to cite is the long-standing way in which scholars acknowledge the relevance of each other’s work, RCR can provide valuable supplemental information, either to decision makers at funding agencies or to others who seek to understand the relative outcomes of different groups of research investments.Ĭitation: Hutchins BI, Yuan X, Anderson JM, Santangelo GM (2016) Relative Citation Ratio (RCR): A New Metric That Uses Citation Rates to Measure Influence at the Article Level. We describe here an improved method to quantify the influence of a research article by making novel use of its co-citation network-that is, the other papers that appear alongside it in reference lists-to field-normalize the number of times it has been cited, generating a Relative Citation Ratio (RCR). Scientists and administrators agree that the use of these metrics is problematic, but in spite of this strong consensus, such judgments remain common practice, suggesting the need for a valid alternative. The sheer volume of available information, together with the increasing specialization of many scientists, has contributed to the adoption of metrics, including journal impact factor and h-index, as signifiers of a researcher’s productivity or the significance of his or her work. In the biomedical sciences alone, this process now generates more than one million new reports each year. ![]() Īcademic researchers convey their discoveries to the scientific community by publishing papers in scholarly journals. A beta version of iCite, our web tool for calculating Relative Citation Ratios of articles listed in PubMed, is available at. ![]() We demonstrate that the values generated by this method strongly correlate with the opinions of subject matter experts in biomedical research and suggest that the same approach should be generally applicable to articles published in all areas of science. To illustrate one application of our method, we analyzed 88,835 articles published between 20 and found that the National Institutes of Health awardees who authored those papers occupy relatively stable positions of influence across all disciplines. The resulting Relative Citation Ratio is article level and field independent and provides an alternative to the invalid practice of using journal impact factors to identify influential papers. Article citation rates are divided by an expected citation rate that is derived from performance of articles in the same field and benchmarked to a peer comparison group. We describe here an improved method to quantify the influence of a research article by making novel use of its co-citation network to field-normalize the number of citations it has received. Despite their recognized limitations, bibliometric assessments of scientific productivity have been widely adopted. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |