The Hirsch index and related impact measures

Citation metrics and evaluation of journals and conferences

Citation analysis aims at evaluating the published scientific manuscripts, their authors and the publication venues (journals/conferences). There are several popular metrics for measuring the impact of the journals, the Impact Factor (IF) being the most popular. Similarly, the [Formula: see text]-index is a popular metric for evaluating and ranking conferences. We have presented a review of metrics for citation analysis, categorised according to their applicability for evaluating journals and conferences. The citation metrics may also be categorised as popularity measuring and prestige measuring. Prestige measuring indicators like SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) and Eigenfactor have already gained popularity for evaluating journals. We discuss their role in evaluating the conferences. Indeed, some conferences have already started mentioning their prestige score in terms of the SJR of their conference proceedings. We also propose a Normalised Immediacy Index ([Formula: see text]), a variant of the Immediacy Index ([Formula: see text]), to measure the immediate relevance of articles published in a journal/conference. It is shown that the proposed metric can be used for immediacy relevance comparison irrespective of the publication schedule of the articles. Spearman correlation was run to determine the relationship between the values of the proposed [Formula: see text] and traditional metrics ([Formula: see text]-index for conferences and IF for journals). A strong, positive monotonic correlation was observed between [Formula: see text] and H-index ([Formula: see text] = .67, [Formula: see text] = 17, [Formula: see text] < .01) for conferences and between [Formula: see text] and IF ([Formula: see text] = .65, [Formula: see text] = 20, [Formula: see text] < .01) for journals.

Authors who contributed most to the fields of hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis since 2011 using the hT-index: Bibliometric analysis

BACKGROUND

The h-index does not take into account the full citation list of a researcher to evaluate individual research achievements (IRAs). As a generalization of the h-index, the hT-index takes all citations into account to evaluate IRAs. Compared to other bibliometric indices, it is unclear whether the hT-index is more closely associated with the h-index. We utilized articles published on hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis (HD/PD) to validate the hT-index as a measure of the most significant contributions to HD/PD.

METHODS

Using keywords involving HD/PD in titles, subject areas, and abstracts since 2011, we obtained 7702 abstracts and their associated metadata (e.g., citations, authors, research institutes, countries of origin). In total, 4752 first or corresponding authors with hT-indices >0 were evaluated. To present the author's IRA, the following 4 visualizations were used: radar, Sankey, impact beam plot, and choropleth map to investigate whether the hT-index was more closely associated with the h-index than other indices (e.g., g-/x-indices and author impact factors), whether the United States still dominates the majority of publications concerning PD/HD, and whether there was any difference in research features between 2 prolific authors.

RESULTS

In HD/PD articles, we observed that (a) the hT-index was closer to and associated with the h-index; (b1) the United States (37.15), China (34.63), and Japan (28.09) had the highest hT-index; (b2) Sun Yat Sen University (Chian) earned the highest hT-index (=20.02) among research institutes; (c1) the authors with the highest hT-indices (=15.64 and 14.39, respectively) were David W Johnson (Australia) and Andrew Davenport (UK); and (c2) their research focuses on PD and HD, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The hT-index was demonstrated to be appropriate for assessing IRAs along with visualizations. The hT-index is recommended in future bibliometric analyses of IRAs as a complement to the h-index.

Patient satisfaction with nursing care: A bibliometric and visualization analysis (1950-2021)

AIM

The current study aimed to provide an overview of research publications on patient satisfaction with nursing care.

BACKGROUND

Research activity on patient satisfaction with nursing care is an indicator of the commitment of policymakers to improve the quality of health services.

DESIGN

This was a descriptive cross-sectional bibliometric study.

METHODS

The Scopus database was used to retrieve relevant documents for the period from 1950 to 31 December 2021. The keywords 'patient satisfaction' and 'nursing care' were used in the search strategy. Two volunteers validated the search strategy.

RESULTS

The search strategy found 387 documents authored by 1470 researchers and disseminated through 241 journals. Research on patient satisfaction with nursing care (a) has experienced a steep growth over the last decade; (b) was mainly published by scholars from a limited number of countries; (c) has limited cross-country collaboration and limited author collaboration; (d) has addressed research topics concerning the quality of care, instrument validation, emergency department and hospital care and (e) has shown the highest readability for topics related to nurses' burnout and patient satisfaction.

CONCLUSION

Researchers and educators, especially in low- and middle-income countries, need to focus on this field to support activities to upgrade health services and patient outcomes.

Global Development of Research on Anorectal Malformations over the Last Five Decades: A Bibliometric Analysis

Purpose: Anorectal malformations (ARM) are one of the most challenging congenital malformations in pediatric surgery. We aimed to assess the research activity on ARM over the last five decades. Methods: Data on original research publications were retrieved from the Web of Science Core Collection (1970–2020), and analyzed for countries, authors, scientific journals, and top-ten papers. Scientific quantity was assessed by the number of publications. Research quality was estimated from the number of citations, average citation rate per item (ACI), and h-index. Results: A total number of 1595 articles with 19,419 citations (ACI = 12.2; h-index = 54) were identified. The annual number of publications and citations significantly increased over time (p < 0.0001). The USA (n = 386; 24.2%), Japan (n = 153; 9.6%), and China (n = 137; 8.6%) were the most productive countries; and the USA (n = 7850; ACI = 20.3; h-index = 44), Japan (n = 1937; ACI = 12.6; h-index = 21), and the Netherlands (n = 1318; ACI = 17.3; h-index = 22) were the top cited countries. Articles were preferentially published in JPS (n = 391; 24.5%), PSI (n = 181; 11.3%), and EJPS (n = 56; 3.5%). Top-ten cited papers focused on classification (n = 1), surgical technique (n = 3), associated syndromes (n = 2), postoperative outcome (n = 3), and basic research (n = 1). Conclusion: This bibliometric study provides valuable insights into the global development of ARM research, and shows that clinical studies and international collaborations dominate in this field.

A fairer way to compare researchers at any career stage and in any discipline using open-access citation data

The pursuit of simple, yet fair, unbiased, and objective measures of researcher performance has occupied bibliometricians and the research community as a whole for decades. However, despite the diversity of available metrics, most are either complex to calculate or not readily applied in the most common assessment exercises (e.g., grant assessment, job applications). The ubiquity of metrics like the h-index (h papers with at least h citations) and its time-corrected variant, the m-quotient (h-index ÷ number of years publishing) therefore reflect the ease of use rather than their capacity to differentiate researchers fairly among disciplines, career stage, or gender. We address this problem here by defining an easily calculated index based on publicly available citation data (Google Scholar) that corrects for most biases and allows assessors to compare researchers at any stage of their career and from any discipline on the same scale. Our ε′-index violates fewer statistical assumptions relative to other metrics when comparing groups of researchers, and can be easily modified to remove inherent gender biases in citation data. We demonstrate the utility of the ε′-index using a sample of 480 researchers with Google Scholar profiles, stratified evenly into eight disciplines (archaeology, chemistry, ecology, evolution and development, geology, microbiology, ophthalmology, palaeontology), three career stages (early, mid-, late-career), and two genders. We advocate the use of the ε′-index whenever assessors must compare research performance among researchers of different backgrounds, but emphasize that no single index should be used exclusively to rank researcher capability.

A multidimensional framework for characterizing the citation impact of scientific publications

The citation impact of a scientific publication is usually seen as a one-dimensional concept. We introduce a multidimensional framework for characterizing the citation impact of a publication. In addition to the level of citation impact, quantified by the number of citations received by a publication, we also conceptualize and operationalize the depth and breadth and the dependence and independence of the citation impact of a publication. The proposed framework distinguishes between publications that have a deep citation impact, typically in a relatively narrow research area, and publications that have a broad citation impact, probably covering a wider area of research. It also makes a distinction between publications that are strongly dependent on earlier work and publications that make a more independent scientific contribution. We use our multidimensional citation impact framework to report basic descriptive statistics on the citation impact of highly cited publications in all scientific disciplines. In addition, we present a detailed case study focusing on the field of scientometrics. The proposed citation impact framework provides a more in-depth understanding of the citation impact of a publication than a traditional one-dimensional perspective.

The Effect of Article Characteristics on Citation Number in a Diachronic Dataset of the Biomedical Literature on Chronic Inflammation: An Analysis by Ensemble Machines

Citations are core metrics to gauge the relevance of scientific literature. Identifying features that can predict a high citation count is therefore of primary importance. For the present study, we generated a dataset of 121,640 publications on chronic inflammation from the Scopus database, containing data such as titles, authors, journal, publication date, type of document, type of access and citation count, ranging from 1951 to 2021. Hence we further computed title length, author count, title sentiment score, number of colons, semicolons and question marks in the title and we used these data as predictors in Gradient boosting, Bagging and Random Forest regressors and classifiers. Based on these data, we were able to train these machines, and Gradient Boosting achieved an F1 score of 0.552 on classification. These models agreed that document type, access type and number of authors were the best predicting factors, followed by title length.

Bibliometric data based on the Pharm.D. and Ph.D. degree in United States research-intensive colleges of pharmacy

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this work was to compare bibliometrics based on doctoral degrees within United States colleges of pharmacy to understand productivity differences. Secondary objectives were to provide quantitative data based on degree that could be utilized by individual faculty, administration and other key stakeholders in academic pharmacy.

METHODS

Bibliometric indices were obtained from Scopus and Web of Science for faculty from research-intensive United States pharmacy schools. Scholarly metrics that included publication number, total citations, highest cited article and H-index were compared between degrees using multivariate regression adjusted for academic rank and years since first publication. A correction for multiple testing was applied.

KEY FINDINGS

All collected scholarly metrics were higher for Ph.D.-only and Pharm.D./Ph.D. faculty when compared to Pharm.D.-only faculty. Ph.D.-only faculty significantly differed compared to Pharm.D./Ph.D. faculty for Web of Science average citations per document.

CONCLUSIONS

Differences are apparent between the major doctoral degrees at research-intensive, federally funded colleges of pharmacy; however, these differences were primarily identified for Pharm.D.-only compared to the other doctoral degree types Future work should analyse the potential variables that explain the scholarly metrics differences between degrees and aim to analyse other areas of faculty impact beyond scholarly metrics.

Peer review versus the h-index for evaluation of individual researchers in the biological sciences

Past performance is a key consideration when rationalising the allocation of grants and other opportunities to individual researchers. The National Research Foundation of South Africa (NRF) has long used a highly structured system of ‘rating’ the past performance of individual researchers. This system relies heavily on peer review, and has seldom been benchmarked against bibliometric measures of research performance such as Hirsch’s h-index. Here I use data for about 600 rated researchers in the biological sciences to evaluate the extent to which outcomes of peer review correspond to bibliometric measures of research performance. The analysis revealed that values of the h-index based on the Scopus database are typically 5–20 for researchers placed in the NRF’s C rating category (‘established’), 20–40 for those in the B rating category (‘considerable international recognition’) and >40 for those in the A rating category (‘leading international scholars’). Despite concerns that citation patterns differ among disciplines, the mean h-index per rating category was remarkably consistent across five different disciplines in the biological sciences, namely animal sciences, plant sciences, ecology, microbiology and biochemistry/genetics. This observation suggests that the NRF rating system is equitable in the sense that the outcomes of peer review are generally consistent with bibliometric measures of research performance across different disciplines in the biological sciences. However, the study did reveal some notable discrepancies which could reflect either bias in the peer-review process or shortcomings in the bibliometric measures, or both.

Emotions and Sport Management: A Bibliometric Overview

Emotions are considered a fundamental aspect of sport scenarios, and within sports, consumer behavior is a very popular area of research in the sport management field. Thus, in recent years, there has been a growing interest for sport managers regarding the role that emotions play in sport consumer behavior. Thus, the aim of this paper is to provide an overview of the academic research on emotions in the sport management field using two techniques: a bibliometric performance analysis and a graphic mapping of the references in this field. This analysis focuses on authors, journals, papers, institutions and countries. Bibliometric indicators including the h-index measure, productivity and the number of citations were used to perform the performance analysis. Then, VOSviewer software was used to perform co-citation, bibliographic coupling and co-occurrence of keyword analysis (mapping analysis). The results of both types of analysis are consistent, with the United States being the most influential country in emotions in sport management research because the main authors and institutions in this research field belong to this country. The overall results indicate that the literature on this research topic has grown significantly in recent years in all scientific disciplines; however, the research topic is incipient, and therefore, the number of articles is still limited. Thus, this research presents the key aspects in the topic of emotions in sport management that could be helpful for researchers and policy makers in the field of sport management to make future decisions.

Professional standards in bibliometric research evaluation? A meta-evaluation of European assessment practice 2005-2019

Despite growing demand for practicable methods of research evaluation, the use of bibliometric indicators remains controversial. This paper examines performance assessment practice in Europe-first, identifying the most commonly used bibliometric methods and, second, identifying the actors who have defined wide-spread practices. The framework of this investigation is Abbott's theory of professions, and I argue that indicator-based research assessment constitutes a potential jurisdiction for both individual experts and expert organizations. This investigation was conducted using a search methodology that yielded 138 evaluation studies from 21 EU countries, covering the period 2005 to 2019. Structured content analysis revealed the following findings: (1) Bibliometric research assessment is most frequently performed in the Nordic countries, the Netherlands, Italy, and the United Kingdom. (2) The Web of Science (WoS) is the dominant database used for public research assessment in Europe. (3) Expert organizations invest in the improvement of WoS citation data, and set technical standards with regards to data quality. (4) Citation impact is most frequently assessed with reference to international scientific fields. (5) The WoS classification of science fields retained its function as a de facto reference standard for research performance assessment. A detailed comparison of assessment practices between five dedicated organizations and other individual bibliometric experts suggests that corporate ownership and limited access to the most widely used citation databases have had a restraining effect on the development and diffusion of professional bibliometric methods during this period.

Three Commonly Utilized Scholarly Databases and a Social Network Site Provide Different, But Related, Metrics of Pharmacy Faculty Publication

Scholarly productivity is a critical component of pharmacy faculty effort and is used for promotion and tenure decisions. Several databases are available to measure scholarly productivity; however, comparisons amongst these databases are lacking for pharmacy faculty. The objective of this work was to compare scholarly metrics from three commonly utilized databases and a social networking site focused on data from research-intensive colleges of pharmacy and to identify factors associated with database differences. Scholarly metrics were obtained from Scopus, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and ResearchGate for faculty from research-intensive (Carnegie Rated R1, R2, or special focus) United States pharmacy schools with at least two million USD in funding from the National Institutes of Health. Metrics were compared and correlations were performed. Regression analyses were utilized to identify factors associated with database differences. Significant differences in scholarly metric values were observed between databases despite the high correlations, suggestive of systematic variation in database reporting. Time since first publication was the most common factor that was associated with database differences. Google Scholar tended to have higher metrics than all other databases, while Web of Science had lower metrics relative to other databases. Differences in reported metrics between databases are apparent, which may be attributable to the time since first publication and database coverage of pharmacy-specific journals. These differences should be considered by faculty, reviewers, and administrative staff when evaluating scholarly performance.

H-Index and Its Variants

H-index is an accepted norm to rank scientists and makes them eligible for various professional benefits. However, taking into consideration the associated flaws of the h-index, a diversified set of parameters have been proposed by the scientific community to rank authors in a better way. Imaginary case studies and datasets are used to find out the practical and actual utility of the proposed indicators. To analyze the individual behaviour of each index, these indices are comprehensively evaluated on an extensive data set. This study emphasizes the scrutiny of the h-index, some of its variants, and extensions to rank authors. There appears to be a correlation between high citation rates for a published researcher and the award of prestigious accolades. Thus, the inclusion of a researcher in the list is based on high citation rates and the authority has claimed a direct connection between the citation rates and prestigious awards. In this context, the work initiated to find out the h-index and its variants for the selected researchers incorporated in the hall of citation laureates from the field of medicine. It is clear from the correlation analysis that there is a difference in the degree of correlation between the h-index and its variants. The A-index is weakly correlated, and M-Quotient is strongly correlated with h-index. Thus, most of the h-index variants are merely mathematically and arithmetically modified and does not add any new information as these are highly correlated and are based on the h-core. Thus, more useful and reasonable approaches could be developed for multidimensional and contextualized evaluations of scientific performance rather than cocooning them with mere numbers.

A novel bibliometric index with a simple geometric interpretation

We propose the χ-index as a bibliometric indicator that generalises the h-index. While the h-index is determined by the maximum square that fits under the citation curve of an author when plotting the number of citations in decreasing order, the χ-index is determined by the maximum area rectangle that fits under the curve. The height of the maximum rectangle is the number of citations ck to the kth most-cited publication, where k is the width of the rectangle. The χ-index is then defined as [Formula: see text], for convenience of comparison with the h-index and other similar indices. We present a comprehensive empirical comparison between the χ-index and other bibliometric indices, focusing on a comparison with the h-index, by analysing two datasets-a large set of Google Scholar profiles and a small set of Nobel prize winners. Our results show that, although the χ and h indices are strongly correlated, they do exhibit significant differences. In particular, we show that, for these data sets, there are a substantial number of profiles for which χ is significantly larger than h. Furthermore, restricting these profiles to the cases when ck > k or ck < k corresponds to, respectively, classifying researchers as either tending to influential, i.e. having many more than h citations, or tending to prolific, i.e. having many more than h publications.

Does bibliometric research confer legitimacy to research assessment practice? A sociological study of reputational control, 1972-2016

The use of bibliometric measures in the evaluation of research has increased considerably based on expertise from the growing research field of evaluative citation analysis (ECA). However, mounting criticism of such metrics suggests that the professionalization of bibliometric expertise remains contested. This paper investigates why impact metrics, such as the journal impact factor and the h-index, proliferate even though their legitimacy as a means of professional research assessment is questioned. Our analysis is informed by two relevant sociological theories: Andrew Abbott's theory of professions and Richard Whitley's theory of scientific work. These complementary concepts are connected in order to demonstrate that ECA has failed so far to provide scientific authority for professional research assessment. This argument is based on an empirical investigation of the extent of reputational control in the relevant research area. Using three measures of reputational control that are computed from longitudinal inter-organizational networks in ECA (1972-2016), we show that peripheral and isolated actors contribute the same number of novel bibliometric indicators as central actors. In addition, the share of newcomers to the academic sector has remained high. These findings demonstrate that recent methodological debates in ECA have not been accompanied by the formation of an intellectual field in the sociological sense of a reputational organization. Therefore, we conclude that a growing gap exists between an academic sector with little capacity for collective action and increasing demand for routine performance assessment by research organizations and funding agencies. This gap has been filled by database providers. By selecting and distributing research metrics, these commercial providers have gained a powerful role in defining de-facto standards of research excellence without being challenged by expert authority.

Using Google Scholar institutional level data to evaluate the quality of university research

In recent years, the extent of formal research evaluation, at all levels from the individual to the multiversity has increased dramatically. At the institutional level, there are world university rankings based on an ad hoc combination of different indicators. There are also national exercises, such as those in the UK and Australia that evaluate research outputs and environment through peer review panels. These are extremely costly and time consuming. This paper evaluates the possibility of using Google Scholar (GS) institutional level data to evaluate university research in a relatively automatic way. Several citation-based metrics are collected from GS for all 130 UK universities. These are used to evaluate performance and produce university rankings which are then compared with various rankings based on the 2014 UK Research Excellence Framework (REF). The rankings are shown to be credible and to avoid some of the obvious problems of the REF ranking, as well as being highly efficient and cost effective. We also investigate the possibility of normalizing the results for the university subject mix since science subjects generally produce significantly more citations than social science or humanities.

Publication activity in medical education research: A descriptive analysis of submissions to the GMS Zeitschrift für Medizinische Ausbildung in 2007-2015

Objectives: The significance of medical education research has increased internationally. In this context we investigated whether, and if so, how the quantity and quality of scientific papers reviewed and/or published by the GMS Zeitschrift für Medizinische Ausbildung (GMS Z Med Ausbild) changed. Methods: The quantity and ratio of original papers, project reports and reviews submitted to or published in the GMS Z Med Ausbild were analysed. Published scientific articles were investigated in regard to the quality features "study type" and "mode of data collection" as well as the background (university affiliation) of the last authors. The citation frequency within the first five years after PubMed listing was compared to the one of BMC Medical Education in the corresponding period. Results: The number of submitted scientific manuscripts increased steadily. Most of the submissions and publications are original papers. For publications explorative studies and prospective data collection are most common. A shift over time is not observed. 16% of the published works come from one and 36% from four of the in total 39 universities represented by the last authors. The development of the citation frequency of articles published in GMS Z Med Ausbild is similar to that of BMC Medical Education. Conclusion: The rising number of submissions indicates an increasing significance of medical education research in German-speaking countries. The development of the number of citations reflects the growing appreciation of GMS Z Med Ausbild also indicated by the increasing number of online accesses. Our findings that study type and mode of data collection did not change has to be interpreted with caution since among other things choice and correct application of adequate methods are crucial regarding a scientific work's quality, too. These aspects, however, were not investigated in this paper.

Research productivity of doctor of physical therapy faculty promoted in the southeastern United States

BACKGROUND

Little information exists on the research productivity of successfully promoted tenure-track Doctor of Physical Therapy (DPT) faculty.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the research productivity that typically results in successful promotion.

DESIGN

We collected publicly available curriculum vitae (CVs) from faculty currently in accredited DPT programs and who had been successfully promoted from an institution in the southeastern USA from 2000 through 2016. Total publication count, journal impact factor, funding, citations, and other metrics were analysed from 45 subjects of 22 of the 64 CAPTE-accredited DPT programs in the southeast.

RESULTS

None of the studied metrics were normally distributed with time to promotion as determined by a Shapiro-Wilk test. These faculty exhibited a median publication count of 4, range 0 to 43; median of average citation count of 12.4, range 0 to 87.25; median of average journal impact factor of 2.866, range 0 to 6.280; median external funding received of $9910, range $0.00 to $19 543 198; and median author h-index of 3, range 0 to 17. The median number of years before promotion was 6, ranging from 3 to 13 years. Linear regression analysis indicates a poor fit with no significant correlation between years before promotion and any of the studied metrics. No correlation between journal impact factor and number of citations was observed (m = -0.22, p = 0.728, R² = 0.0003). Prior to promotion 31% (14 of 45) did not receive external funding and 24% (11 of 45) had a 0 h-index. The Carnegie Classification of the institution did not significantly correlate with research productivity metrics in this dataset (p = 0.213).

CONCLUSION

While faculty unsuccessful in promotion were not identifiable using this method, this research can be used by faculty and committees to evaluate research productivity against regional data and promote competitive standards with peer institutions.

ABBREVIATIONS

CAPTE: Commission on Accreditation in Physical Therapist Education; DPT: Doctor of Physical Therapy.

The construct validity of theh-index

Purpose

The purpose of this paper is to show how bibliometrics would benefit from a stronger programme of construct validity.

Design/methodology/approach

The value of the construct validity concept is demonstrated by applying this approach to the evaluation of theh-index, a widely used metric.

Findings

The paper demonstrates that theh-index comprehensively fails any test of construct validity. In simple terms, the metric does not measure what it purports to measure. This conclusion suggests that the current popularity of theh-index as a topic for bibliometric research represents wasted effort, which might have been avoided if researchers had adopted the approach suggested in this paper.

Research limitations/implications

This study is based on the analysis of a single bibliometric concept.

Practical implications

The conclusion that theh-index fails any test in terms of construct validity implies that the widespread use of this metric within the higher education sector as a management tool represents poor practice, and almost certainly results in the misallocation of resources.

Social implications

This paper suggests that the current enthusiasm for theh-index within the higher education sector is misplaced. The implication is that universities, grant funding bodies and faculty administrators should abandon the use of theh-index as a management tool. Such a change would have a significant effect on current hiring, promotion and tenure practices within the sector, as well as current attitudes towards the measurement of academic performance.

Originality/value

The originality of the paper lies in the systematic application of the concept of construct validity to bibliometric enquiry.

Model-based evaluation of scientific impact indicators

Using bibliometric data artificially generated through a model of citation dynamics calibrated on empirical data, we compare several indicators for the scientific impact of individual researchers. The use of such a controlled setup has the advantage of avoiding the biases present in real databases, and it allows us to assess which aspects of the model dynamics and which traits of individual researchers a particular indicator actually reflects. We find that the simple average citation count of the authored papers performs well in capturing the intrinsic scientific ability of researchers, regardless of the length of their career. On the other hand, when productivity complements ability in the evaluation process, the notorious h and g indices reveal their potential, yet their normalized variants do not always yield a fair comparison between researchers at different career stages. Notably, the use of logarithmic units for citation counts allows us to build simple indicators with performance equal to that of h and g. Our analysis may provide useful hints for a proper use of bibliometric indicators. Additionally, our framework can be extended by including other aspects of the scientific production process and citation dynamics, with the potential to become a standard tool for the assessment of impact metrics.

Scientific publications from Arab world in leading journals of Integrative and Complementary Medicine: a bibliometric analysis

BACKGROUND

Bibliometric analysis is increasingly employed as a useful tool to assess the quantity and quality of research performance. The specific goal of the current study was to evaluate the performance of research output originating from Arab world and published in international Integrative and Complementary Medicine (ICM) journals.

METHODS

Original scientific publications and reviews from the 22 Arab countries that were published in 22 international peer-reviewed ICM journals during all previous years up to December 31(st) 2013, were screened using the Web of Science databases.

RESULTS

Five hundred and ninety-one documents were retrieved from 19 ICM journals. The h-index of the set of papers under study was 47. The highest h-index was 27 for Morocco, 21 for Jordan, followed by 19 for each Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA), and Egypt, and the lowest h-index was 1 for each of Comoros, Qatar, and Syrian Arab Republic. No data related to ICM were published from Djibouti, and Mauritania. After adjusting for economy and population power, Somalia (89), Morocco (32.5), Egypt (31.1), Yemen (21.4), and Palestine (21.2) had the highest research productivity. The total number of citations was 9,466, with an average citation of 16 per document. The study identified 262 (44.3 %) documents with 39 countries in Arab-foreign country collaborations. Arab authors collaborated most with countries in Europe (24.2 %), followed by countries in the Asia-Pacific region (9.8 %).

CONCLUSION

Scientific research output in the ICM field in the Arab world region is increasing. Most of publications from Arab world in ICM filed were driven by societal use of medicinal plants and herbs. Search for new therapies from available low cost medicinal plants in Arab world has motivated many researchers in academia and pharmaceutical industry. Further investigation is required to support these findings in a wider journal as well as to improve research output in the field of ICM from Arab world region by investing in more national and international collaborative research project.