BACKGROUND: Use of bibliometric assessments of research quality is growing worldwide. So far, a narrow range of metrics have been applied across the whole of biomedical research. Without specific sets of metrics, appropriate to each sub-field of research, biased assessments of research excellence are possible. AIMS: To discuss the measures used to evaluate the merits of psychiatric biomedical research, and to propose a new approach using a multidimensional selection of metrics appropriate to each particular field of medical research. METHOD: Three steps: (a) a definition of scientific 'domains', (b) translating these into 'filters' to identify publications from bibliometric databases, leading to (c) the creation of standardised measures of merit. RESULTS: We propose using: (a) established metrics such as impact factors and citation indices, (b) new derived measures such as the 'worldscale' score, and (c) new indicators based on journal peer esteem, impact on clinical practice, medical education and health policy. CONCLUSIONS: No single index or metric can be used as a fair rating to compare nations, universities, research groups, or individual investigators across biomedical science. Rather, we propose using a multidimensional profile composed of a carefully selected array of such metrics.
BACKGROUND: Use of bibliometric assessments of research quality is growing worldwide. So far, a narrow range of metrics have been applied across the whole of biomedical research. Without specific sets of metrics, appropriate to each sub-field of research, biased assessments of research excellence are possible. AIMS: To discuss the measures used to evaluate the merits of psychiatric biomedical research, and to propose a new approach using a multidimensional selection of metrics appropriate to each particular field of medical research. METHOD: Three steps: (a) a definition of scientific 'domains', (b) translating these into 'filters' to identify publications from bibliometric databases, leading to (c) the creation of standardised measures of merit. RESULTS: We propose using: (a) established metrics such as impact factors and citation indices, (b) new derived measures such as the 'worldscale' score, and (c) new indicators based on journal peer esteem, impact on clinical practice, medical education and health policy. CONCLUSIONS: No single index or metric can be used as a fair rating to compare nations, universities, research groups, or individual investigators across biomedical science. Rather, we propose using a multidimensional profile composed of a carefully selected array of such metrics.
Authors: K Pritchard-Jones; G Lewison; S Camporesi; G Vassal; R Ladenstein; Y Benoit; J S Predojevic; J Sterba; J Stary; T Eckschlager; H Schroeder; F Doz; U Creutzig; T Klingebiel; H V Kosmidis; M Garami; R Pieters; A O'Meara; G Dini; R Riccardi; J Rascon; L Rageliene; V Calvagna; P Czauderna; J R Kowalczyk; M J Gil-da-Costa; L Norton; F Pereira; D Janic; J Puskacova; J Jazbec; A Canete; L Hjorth; G Ljungman; T Kutluk; B Morland; M Stevens; D Walker; R Sullivan Journal: Ecancermedicalscience Date: 2011-02-09
Authors: Vanash M Patel; Hutan Ashrafian; Kamran Ahmed; Sonal Arora; Sejal Jiwan; Jeremy K Nicholson; Ara Darzi; Thanos Athanasiou Journal: J R Soc Med Date: 2011-06 Impact factor: 5.344