Cargando…

Improving the evaluation of worldwide biomedical research output: classification method and standardised bibliometric indicators by disease

OBJECTIVE: Since most biomedical research focuses on a specific disease, evaluation of research output requires disease-specific bibliometric indicators. Currently used methods are insufficient. The aim of this study is to develop a method that enables detailed analysis of worldwide biomedical resea...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales:	van de Laar, Lissy, de Kruif, Thijs, Waltman, Ludo, Meijer, Ingeborg, Gupta, Anshu, Hagenaars, Niels
Formato:	Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:	English
Publicado:	BMJ Publishing Group 2018
Materias:	Medical Publishing and Peer Review
Acceso en línea:	https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5988175/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29866730 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-020818

Ejemplares similares

Gender parity in scientific authorship in a National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre: a bibliometric analysis
por: Shah, Syed Ghulam Sarwar, et al.
Publicado: (2021)

Standardised method for reporting exercise programmes: protocol for a modified Delphi study
por: Slade, Susan C, et al.
Publicado: (2014)

Systematic examination of preprint platforms for use in the medical and biomedical sciences setting
por: Kirkham, Jamie J, et al.
Publicado: (2020)

Role of supplementary material in biomedical journal articles: surveys of authors, reviewers and readers
por: Price, Amy, et al.
Publicado: (2018)

Scientific research output in orthopaedics from China and other top-ranking countries: a 10-year survey of the literature
por: Zou, Yuming, et al.
Publicado: (2016)

How do scientists perceive the current publication culture? A qualitative focus group interview study among Dutch biomedical researchers
por: Tijdink, J K, et al.
Publicado: (2016)

Editors’ perspectives on the peer-review process in biomedical journals: protocol for a qualitative study
por: Glonti, Ketevan, et al.
Publicado: (2018)

Development of ARCADIA: a tool for assessing the quality of peer-review reports in biomedical research
por: Superchi, Cecilia, et al.
Publicado: (2020)

Journal editors’ perspectives on the roles and tasks of peer reviewers in biomedical journals: a qualitative study
por: Glonti, Ketevan, et al.
Publicado: (2019)

Bibliometric analysis of scientific publications in transplantation journals from Mainland China, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan between 2006 and 2015
por: Pu, Qiang-Hong, et al.
Publicado: (2016)

A scoping review protocol on the roles and tasks of peer reviewers in the manuscript review process in biomedical journals
por: Glonti, Ketevan, et al.
Publicado: (2017)

Data-sharing recommendations in biomedical journals and randomised controlled trials: an audit of journals following the ICMJE recommendations
por: Siebert, Maximilian, et al.
Publicado: (2020)

Authorship inequality: a bibliometric study of the concentration of authorship among a diminishing number of individuals in high-impact medical journals, 2008–2019
por: Hart, Kamber L, et al.
Publicado: (2021)

Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping
por: van Eck, Nees Jan, et al.
Publicado: (2009)

Impact of a short version of the CONSORT checklist for peer reviewers to improve the reporting of randomised controlled trials published in biomedical journals: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial
por: Speich, Benjamin, et al.
Publicado: (2020)

Modernizing biomedical regulation: foresight and values in the promotion of responsible research and innovation
por: Harmon, Shawn H.E.
Publicado: (2016)

Automatic term identification for bibliometric mapping
por: van Eck, Nees Jan, et al.
Publicado: (2010)

A recursive field-normalized bibliometric performance indicator: an application to the field of library and information science
por: Waltman, Ludo, et al.
Publicado: (2011)

Exploring the Relationship between the Engineering and Physical Sciences and the Health and Life Sciences by Advanced Bibliometric Methods
por: Waltman, Ludo, et al.
Publicado: (2014)

Results availability and timeliness of registered COVID-19 clinical trials: interim cross-sectional results from the DIRECCT study
por: Salholz-Hillel, Maia, et al.
Publicado: (2021)

STARD 2015 guidelines for reporting diagnostic accuracy studies: explanation and elaboration
por: Cohen, Jérémie F, et al.
Publicado: (2016)

SPIRIT and CONSORT extensions for early phase dose-finding clinical trials: the DEFINE (DosE-FIndiNg Extensions) study protocol
por: Espinasse, Aude, et al.
Publicado: (2023)

Protocol for a meta-research study of protocols for diet or nutrition-related trials published in indexed journals: general aspects of study design, rationale and reporting limitations
por: Silva, Flávia Moraes, et al.
Publicado: (2022)

On the correlation between bibliometric indicators and peer review: reply to Opthof and Leydesdorff
por: Waltman, Ludo, et al.
Publicado: (2011)

Fate of manuscripts rejected by a non-English-language general medical journal: a retrospective cohort study
por: Vinther, Siri, et al.
Publicado: (2011)

How often do US-based human subjects research studies register on time, and how often do they post their results? A statistical analysis of the Clinicaltrials.gov database
por: Gill, Christopher J
Publicado: (2012)

Haphazard reporting of deaths in clinical trials: a review of cases of ClinicalTrials.gov records and matched publications–a cross-sectional study
por: Earley, Amy, et al.
Publicado: (2013)

Systematic review on the primary and secondary reporting of the prevalence of ghostwriting in the medical literature
por: Stretton, Serina
Publicado: (2014)

How does under-reporting of negative and inconclusive results affect the false-positive rate in meta-analysis? A simulation study
por: Kicinski, Michal
Publicado: (2014)

Poor adherence of randomised trials in surgery to CONSORT guidelines for non-pharmacological treatments (NPT): a cross-sectional study
por: Nagendran, Myura, et al.
Publicado: (2013)

Quality of descriptions of treatments: a review of published randomised controlled trials
por: Schroter, Sara, et al.
Publicado: (2012)

Awareness and enforcement of guidelines for publishing industry-sponsored medical research among publication professionals: the Global Publication Survey
por: Wager, Elizabeth, et al.
Publicado: (2014)

Occurrence and determinants of selective reporting of clinical drug trials: design of an inception cohort study
por: van den Bogert, Cornelis A, et al.
Publicado: (2015)

Using simplified peer review processes to fund research: a prospective study
por: Herbert, Danielle L, et al.
Publicado: (2015)

Conflict-of-interest disclosure at medical journals in Japan: a nationwide survey of the practices of journal secretariats
por: Kojima, Takako, et al.
Publicado: (2015)

A retrospective analysis of the effect of discussion in teleconference and face-to-face scientific peer-review panels
por: Carpenter, Afton S, et al.
Publicado: (2015)

Professional medical writing support and the quality of randomised controlled trial reporting: a cross-sectional study
por: Gattrell, William T, et al.
Publicado: (2016)

Bias in dissemination of clinical research findings: structured OPEN framework of what, who and why, based on literature review and expert consensus
por: Bassler, Dirk, et al.
Publicado: (2016)

The impact of a streamlined funding application process on application time: two cross-sectional surveys of Australian researchers
por: Barnett, Adrian G, et al.
Publicado: (2015)

Conflicts of interest and spin in reviews of psychological therapies: a systematic review
por: Lieb, Klaus, et al.
Publicado: (2016)

Cannot write session to /tmp/vufind_sessions/sess_9cqn245ha9nlp12viki8tq0ltp