Cargando…

Cross-sectional analysis of bibliometrics and altmetrics: comparing the impact of qualitative and quantitative articles in the British Medical Journal

OBJECTIVES: In comparison to quantitative research, the impact of qualitative articles in the medical literature has been questioned by the BMJ; to explore this, we compared the impact of quantitative and qualitative articles published in BMJ. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey. SETTING: Articles publis...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Retrouvey, Helene, Webster, Fiona, Zhong, Toni, Gagliardi, Anna R, Baxter, Nancy N
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7580064/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33087378
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-040950
_version_ 1783598718306484224
author Retrouvey, Helene
Webster, Fiona
Zhong, Toni
Gagliardi, Anna R
Baxter, Nancy N
author_facet Retrouvey, Helene
Webster, Fiona
Zhong, Toni
Gagliardi, Anna R
Baxter, Nancy N
author_sort Retrouvey, Helene
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVES: In comparison to quantitative research, the impact of qualitative articles in the medical literature has been questioned by the BMJ; to explore this, we compared the impact of quantitative and qualitative articles published in BMJ. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey. SETTING: Articles published in the BMJ between 2007 and 2017. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Bibliometric and altmetric measures of research impact were collected using Web of Science, Google Scholar, Scopus, Plum Analytics and ProQuest Altmetric. Bibliometric measures consisted of citation numbers, field weighted citation impact and citation percentile. Altmetric measures consisted of article usage, captures, mentions, readers, altmetric attention score and score percentile. Scores were compared using the Wilcoxon Rank-sum test. RESULTS: We screened a total of 7777 articles and identified 42 qualitative articles. Each qualitative article was matched to 3 quantitative articles published during the same year (126 quantitative articles). Citation numbers were not statistically different between the two research types; the median number of citations (google scholar) per quantitative article was 62 (IQR 38–111) versus 58 (IQR 36–85) per qualitative article (p=0.47). Using Plum Analytics, qualitative articles were found to have a significantly higher usage, with a median of 984 (IQR 581–1351) versus 379 (IQR 177–763) for quantitative (p<0.001). The Altmetric Attention Score was higher for quantitative articles at 16 (IQR 7–37) versus qualitative articles at 9 (IQR 5–23, p=0.05), as was the Altmetric Score percentile 93 (IQR 87–96) versus 88 (IQR 76–95; p=0.02). CONCLUSION: Qualitative and quantitative articles published in the BMJ between 2007 and 2017 both have a high impact. No article type was consistently superior in terms of bibliometric or altmetric measures, suggesting that type of article is not the major driver of impact.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7580064
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-75800642020-10-27 Cross-sectional analysis of bibliometrics and altmetrics: comparing the impact of qualitative and quantitative articles in the British Medical Journal Retrouvey, Helene Webster, Fiona Zhong, Toni Gagliardi, Anna R Baxter, Nancy N BMJ Open Health Services Research OBJECTIVES: In comparison to quantitative research, the impact of qualitative articles in the medical literature has been questioned by the BMJ; to explore this, we compared the impact of quantitative and qualitative articles published in BMJ. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey. SETTING: Articles published in the BMJ between 2007 and 2017. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Bibliometric and altmetric measures of research impact were collected using Web of Science, Google Scholar, Scopus, Plum Analytics and ProQuest Altmetric. Bibliometric measures consisted of citation numbers, field weighted citation impact and citation percentile. Altmetric measures consisted of article usage, captures, mentions, readers, altmetric attention score and score percentile. Scores were compared using the Wilcoxon Rank-sum test. RESULTS: We screened a total of 7777 articles and identified 42 qualitative articles. Each qualitative article was matched to 3 quantitative articles published during the same year (126 quantitative articles). Citation numbers were not statistically different between the two research types; the median number of citations (google scholar) per quantitative article was 62 (IQR 38–111) versus 58 (IQR 36–85) per qualitative article (p=0.47). Using Plum Analytics, qualitative articles were found to have a significantly higher usage, with a median of 984 (IQR 581–1351) versus 379 (IQR 177–763) for quantitative (p<0.001). The Altmetric Attention Score was higher for quantitative articles at 16 (IQR 7–37) versus qualitative articles at 9 (IQR 5–23, p=0.05), as was the Altmetric Score percentile 93 (IQR 87–96) versus 88 (IQR 76–95; p=0.02). CONCLUSION: Qualitative and quantitative articles published in the BMJ between 2007 and 2017 both have a high impact. No article type was consistently superior in terms of bibliometric or altmetric measures, suggesting that type of article is not the major driver of impact. BMJ Publishing Group 2020-10-21 /pmc/articles/PMC7580064/ /pubmed/33087378 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-040950 Text en © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.
spellingShingle Health Services Research
Retrouvey, Helene
Webster, Fiona
Zhong, Toni
Gagliardi, Anna R
Baxter, Nancy N
Cross-sectional analysis of bibliometrics and altmetrics: comparing the impact of qualitative and quantitative articles in the British Medical Journal
title Cross-sectional analysis of bibliometrics and altmetrics: comparing the impact of qualitative and quantitative articles in the British Medical Journal
title_full Cross-sectional analysis of bibliometrics and altmetrics: comparing the impact of qualitative and quantitative articles in the British Medical Journal
title_fullStr Cross-sectional analysis of bibliometrics and altmetrics: comparing the impact of qualitative and quantitative articles in the British Medical Journal
title_full_unstemmed Cross-sectional analysis of bibliometrics and altmetrics: comparing the impact of qualitative and quantitative articles in the British Medical Journal
title_short Cross-sectional analysis of bibliometrics and altmetrics: comparing the impact of qualitative and quantitative articles in the British Medical Journal
title_sort cross-sectional analysis of bibliometrics and altmetrics: comparing the impact of qualitative and quantitative articles in the british medical journal
topic Health Services Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7580064/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33087378
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-040950
work_keys_str_mv AT retrouveyhelene crosssectionalanalysisofbibliometricsandaltmetricscomparingtheimpactofqualitativeandquantitativearticlesinthebritishmedicaljournal
AT websterfiona crosssectionalanalysisofbibliometricsandaltmetricscomparingtheimpactofqualitativeandquantitativearticlesinthebritishmedicaljournal
AT zhongtoni crosssectionalanalysisofbibliometricsandaltmetricscomparingtheimpactofqualitativeandquantitativearticlesinthebritishmedicaljournal
AT gagliardiannar crosssectionalanalysisofbibliometricsandaltmetricscomparingtheimpactofqualitativeandquantitativearticlesinthebritishmedicaljournal
AT baxternancyn crosssectionalanalysisofbibliometricsandaltmetricscomparingtheimpactofqualitativeandquantitativearticlesinthebritishmedicaljournal