Jane goodall and the chimpanzees of gombe: An analysis of publications and their impact on teaching science

Five types of introductory university textbooks (N=37) were analyzed for references and citations pertaining to research on wild chimpanzees. Jane Goodall's publications were cited about three times as often as the publications from field sites other than Gombe and approximately five times more often than other Gombe researchers. Biological anthropology textbooks cited Goodall's work most often, followed by textbooks in general anthropology and cultural anthropology. Psychology and biology textbooks cited Goodall least often. Goodall's most comprehensive work, The Chimpanzees of Gombe: Patterns of Behavior (1986), was the most often cited publication about Gombe's apes, and tool-use was the most cited topic. The number of citations to wild chimpanzees tripled from publications in the 1960s to those in the 1980s, suggesting a growing recognition of primatology in the teaching of science.     

Incorrect Citations Give Unfair Credit to Review Authors in Ecology Journals

The number of citations that papers receive has become significant in measuring researchers'' scientific productivity, and such measurements are important when one seeks career opportunities and research funding. Skewed citation practices can thus have profound effects on academic careers. We investigated (i) how frequently authors misinterpret original information and (ii) how frequently authors inappropriately cite reviews instead of the articles upon which the reviews are based. To reach this aim, we carried a survey of ecology journals indexed in the Web of Science and assessed the appropriateness of citations of review papers. Reviews were significantly more often cited than regular articles. In addition, 22% of citations were inaccurate, and another 15% unfairly gave credit to the review authors for other scientists'' ideas. These practices should be stopped, mainly through more open discussion among mentors, researchers and students.     

Academic Impact of Qualitative Studies in Healthcare: Bibliometric Analysis

Context

Although qualitative studies are becoming more appreciated in healthcare, the number of publications of quality studies remains low. Little is known about the frequency and characteristics of citation in qualitative studies.

Objective

To compare the academic impact of qualitative studies to that of two quantitative studies: systematic reviews and randomized controlled trials.

Methods

Publications in BMJ between 1997 and 2006 (BMJ’s median impact factor was 7.04 during this period) employing qualitative methods were matched to two quantitative studies appearing the same year using PubMed. Using Web of Science, citations within a 24-month publication period were determined. Additionally, three hypotheses were examined: qualitative studies are 1) infrequently cited in original articles or reviews; 2) rarely cited by authors in non-English-speaking countries; and 3) more frequently cited in non-medical disciplines (e.g., psychology or sociology).

Results

A total of 121 qualitative studies, 270 systematic reviews, and 515 randomised controlled trials were retrieved. Qualitative studies were cited a total of 1,089 times, with a median of 7.00 times (range, 0–34) for each study. Matched systematic reviews and randomized controlled trials were cited 2,411times and 1,600 times, respectively. With respect to citing documents, original articles and reviews exceeded 60% for each study design. Relative to quantitative studies, qualitative studies were cited more often by authors in English-speaking countries. With respect to subject area, medical disciplines were more frequently cited than non-medical disciplines for all three study designs (>80%).

Conclusion

The median number of citations for qualitative studies was almost the same as the median of BMJ’s impact factor during the survey period. For a suitable evaluation of qualitative studies in healthcare, it will be necessary to develop a reporting framework and include explicit discussions of clinical implications when reporting findings. Coordination between researchers and editors will be needed to achieve this goal.     

Levels of citation of nonhuman animal studies conducted at a Canadian research hospital

The publication of scientific articles that receive few or no citations raises questions of the appropriate use of resources as well as ethics. In the case of animal research, the ethics issue extends beyond human patients to nonhuman animals, as the research subjects them to pain and, typically, to death. This study is a citation analysis of animal research conducted at Toronto's Hospital for Sick Children (HSC). Of the 594 publications (1990 to 1995) on animal research by affiliates of HSC, 29% received fewer than 10 citations in a 10-year period. We compare the research history of 13 “best ”and 13 “worst ”HSC scientists. Worst researchers continue to do infrequently cited research. Recommendations indicate how institutions and researchers can become more effective and accountable.     

Traditional uses of medicinal animals in the semi-arid region of northeastern Brazil

The present work presents an inventory of the traditional medicinal uses of animals in the municipality of Bom Sucesso in Paraíba State (PB) in the semiarid northeastern region of Brazil. Information was obtained through the use of semi-structured interviews with 50 people who use zootherapeutic products. A total of 25 animal species used for medicinal purposes were identified (18 vertebrates and seven invertebrates) distributed among five taxonomic categories; the groups with the largest numbers of citations were: mammals (8 citations), insects (7), and reptiles (5). The most cited animal species were: Tubinambis merianae “teju” lizards (44 citations); Apis mellifera Italian honeybees (318 citations); Gallus gallus chickens (31 citations); Ovis aries sheep (31 citations); Crotalus durissus rattlesnakes (14 citations); Boa constrictor (12 citations); and Bos taurus cattle (12 citations). A significant number of illnesses and conditions treated with animal-based medicines were cited, and the category with the greatest number of citations was “problems affecting the respiratory system”. Our results suggest that the use of zootherapeutics in the region is persistent, and that knowledge about these curative practices is an integral part of the regional culture. As such, studies concerning the uses of zootherapeutics are important windows to understanding human/environmental/cultural interactions and a pathway to conciliating regional cultures with efforts to conserve the native fauna.     

Peer-Selected “Best Papers”—Are They Really That “Good”?

Background

Peer evaluation is the cornerstone of science evaluation. In this paper, we analyze whether or not a form of peer evaluation, the pre-publication selection of the best papers in Computer Science (CS) conferences, is better than random, when considering future citations received by the papers.

Methods

Considering 12 conferences (for several years), we collected the citation counts from Scopus for both the best papers and the non-best papers. For a different set of 17 conferences, we collected the data from Google Scholar. For each data set, we computed the proportion of cases whereby the best paper has more citations. We also compare this proportion for years before 2010 and after to evaluate if there is a propaganda effect. Finally, we count the proportion of best papers that are in the top 10% and 20% most cited for each conference instance.

Results

The probability that a best paper will receive more citations than a non best paper is 0.72 (95% CI = 0.66, 0.77) for the Scopus data, and 0.78 (95% CI = 0.74, 0.81) for the Scholar data. There are no significant changes in the probabilities for different years. Also, 51% of the best papers are among the top 10% most cited papers in each conference/year, and 64% of them are among the top 20% most cited.

Discussion

There is strong evidence that the selection of best papers in Computer Science conferences is better than a random selection, and that a significant number of the best papers are among the top cited papers in the conference.     

Impact analysis of a regional scientific journal (1980-2000): supporting promising local researchers pays the greatest dividends

During the past 28 years, the journal "Collegium Antropologicum" has continuously served as one of the main disseminators of anthropological scientific production in Central and Eastern Europe. The journal was committed to its role of a multidisciplinary platform for presenting wide range of research topics relevant to anthropology, from investigations within social and cultural anthropology and archaeology to those covering contemporary population genetics, human evolution and biomedical issues. Two key strategies aimed at sustaining and increasing the impact of this journal were oriented towards: (i) identification of promising local groups of researchers who were at disadvantage by many aspects (e.g. educational curricula, financial supports, language barriers etc.) when trying to publish their research internationally, and (ii) invitation and encouragement of already established international scientists to make contributions for "Collegium Antropologicum". From 1980-2000, 89 articles (or 6.3% of all published papers during that period) were cited 6 or more times, contributing disproportionately to journal's impact (nearly a third of all citations received). In an attempt to identify such papers more readily among the submissions to the journal in the future, we analyzed research topics and affiliations of the authors among the 89 papers receiving most citations in comparison to all papers published. Among the papers most frequently cited, we found greater-than-expected prevalence of Croatian researchers (especially when publishing in collaboration with international scientists) and studies of special populations. Several papers received more than 25 citations or had overall citation intensity greater than 2 per year. This implies that an interesting article from a local group of researchers can still resonate with international audience although published in a regional journal. Present analysis supports current editorial strategy that with a help of the international consulting editorial board continuously improves international recognition of this journal. The results imply that a balanced encouragement to promising local groups of researchers and to contributions of already established international scientists is a strategy superior to others in maintaining and increasing the impact of this regional journal.     

Contribution of Genome-Wide Association Studies to Scientific Research: A Bibliometric Survey of the Citation Impacts of GWAS and Candidate Gene Studies Published during the Same Period and in the Same Journals

In genetic epidemiology, genome-wide association studies (GWAS) are used to rapidly scan a large set of genetic variants and thus to identify associations with a particular trait or disease. The GWAS philosophy is different to that of conventional candidate-gene-based approaches, which directly test the effects of genetic variants of potentially contributory genes in an association study. One controversial question is whether GWAS provide relevant scientific outcomes by comparison with candidate-gene studies. We thus performed a bibliometric study using two citation metrics to assess whether the GWAS have contributed a capital gain in knowledge discovery by comparison with candidate-gene approaches. We selected GWAS published between 2005 and 2009 and matched them with candidate-gene studies on the same topic and published in the same period of time. We observed that the GWAS papers have received, on average, 30±55 citations more than the candidate gene papers, 1 year after their publication date, and 39±58 citations more 2 years after their publication date. The GWAS papers were, on average, 2.8±2.4 and 2.9±2.4 times more cited than expected, 1 and 2 years after their publication date; whereas the candidate gene papers were 1.5±1.2 and 1.5±1.4 times more cited than expected. While the evaluation of the contribution to scientific research through citation metrics may be challenged, it cannot be denied that GWAS are great hypothesis generators, and are a powerful complement to candidate gene studies.     

Continuing problems with gray literature*

Frequent gatherings, such as those on coastal management, have resulted in increased production of gray literature like conference proceedings and institutional reports, which are published without adequate peer review. In developing countries like those in southeast Asia, manuals and other publications used in workshops and training programs seldom use peer-reviewed references. Among papers sampled, those in conference proceedings have lower percentages of citations to peer-reviewed journals, whether or not the proceedings are issued as books or journal supplements. From three proceedings and one institutional report with a total of 37 papers and an average of 22 cited references per paper, citations to gray literature averaged 92 percent of total citations. This poor quality of the reference lists decrease the credibility of a paper. Scientific conferences should be designed to reverse the production and use of gray literature by limiting the scope of the proceedings to invited reviews, with other presentations appearing only as abstracts to encourage their ultimate publication in peer-reviewed journals. A conference book of reviews by respected scientists will then support incorporation of scientific information into policy and management decisions for more effective coastal management.     

From clinical specimens to human cancer preclinical models—a journey the NCI-cell line database—25 years later

The intramural the National Cancer Institute (NCI) and more recently the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center with many different collaborators comprised a complex, multi-disciplinary team that collaborated to generated large, comprehensively annotated, cell-line related research resources which includes associated clinical, and molecular characterization data. This material has been shared in an anonymized fashion to accelerate progress in overcoming lung cancer, the leading cause of cancer death across the world. However, this cell line collection also includes a range of other cancers derived from patient-donated specimens that have been remarkably valuable for other types of cancer and disease research. A comprehensive analysis conducted by the NCI Center for Research Strategy of the 278 cell lines reported in the original Journal of Cellular Biochemistry Supplement, documents that these cell lines and related products have since been used in more than 14 000 grants, and 33 207 published scientific reports. This has resulted in over 1.2 million citations using at least one cell line. Many publications involve the use of more than one cell line, to understand the value of the resource collectively rather than individually; this method has resulted in 2.9 million citations. In addition, these cell lines have been linked to 422 clinical trials and cited by 4700 patents through publications. For lung cancer alone, the cell lines have been used in the research cited in the development of over 70 National Comprehensive Cancer Network clinical guidelines. Finally, it must be underscored again, that patient altruism enabled the availability of this invaluable research resource.     

Persistence and availability of Web services in computational biology

We have conducted a study on the long-term availability of bioinformatics Web services: an observation of 927 Web services published in the annual Nucleic Acids Research Web Server Issues between 2003 and 2009. We found that 72% of Web sites are still available at the published addresses, only 9% of services are completely unavailable. Older addresses often redirect to new pages. We checked the functionality of all available services: for 33%, we could not test functionality because there was no example data or a related problem; 13% were truly no longer working as expected; we could positively confirm functionality only for 45% of all services. Additionally, we conducted a survey among 872 Web Server Issue corresponding authors; 274 replied. 78% of all respondents indicate their services have been developed solely by students and researchers without a permanent position. Consequently, these services are in danger of falling into disrepair after the original developers move to another institution, and indeed, for 24% of services, there is no plan for maintenance, according to the respondents. We introduce a Web service quality scoring system that correlates with the number of citations: services with a high score are cited 1.8 times more often than low-scoring services. We have identified key characteristics that are predictive of a service's survival, providing reviewers, editors, and Web service developers with the means to assess or improve Web services. A Web service conforming to these criteria receives more citations and provides more reliable service for its users. The most effective way of ensuring continued access to a service is a persistent Web address, offered either by the publishing journal, or created on the authors' own initiative, for example at http://bioweb.me. The community would benefit the most from a policy requiring any source code needed to reproduce results to be deposited in a public repository.     

Tweeting the meeting: an in-depth analysis of Twitter activity at Kidney Week 2011

In recent years, the American Society of Nephrology (ASN) has increased its efforts to use its annual conference to inform and educate the public about kidney disease. Social media, including Twitter, has been one method used by the Society to accomplish this goal. Twitter is a popular microblogging service that serves as a potent tool for disseminating information. It allows for short messages (140 characters) to be composed by any author and distributes those messages globally and quickly. The dissemination of information is necessary if Twitter is to be considered a tool that can increase public awareness of kidney disease. We hypothesized that content, citation, and sentiment analyses of tweets generated from Kidney Week 2011 would reveal a large number of educational tweets that were disseminated to the public. An ideal tweet for accomplishing this goal would include three key features: 1) informative content, 2) internal citations, and 3) positive sentiment score. Informative content was found in 29% of messages, greater than that found in a similarly sized medical conference (2011 ADA Conference, 16%). Informative tweets were more likely to be internally, rather than externally, cited (38% versus 22%, p<0.0001), thereby amplifying the original information to an even larger audience. Informative tweets had more negative sentiment scores than uninformative tweets (means -0.162 versus 0.199 respectively, p<0.0001), therefore amplifying a tweet whose content had a negative tone. Our investigation highlights significant areas of promise and improvement in using Twitter to disseminate medical information in nephrology from a scientific conference. This goal is pertinent to many nephrology-focused conferences that wish to increase public awareness of kidney disease.     

Contribution of case reports to brain metastases research: systematic review and analysis of pattern of citation

Research activity related to different aspects of prevention, prediction, diagnosis and treatment of brain metastases has increased during recent years. One of the major databases (Scopus) contains 942 scientific articles that were published during the 5-year time period 2006–2010. Of these, 195 (21%) reported on single patient cases and 12 (1%) were reports of 2 cases. Little is known about their influence on advancement of the field or scientific merits. Do brain metastases case reports attract attention and provide stimuli for further research or do they go largely unrecognized? Different measures of impact, visibility and quality of published research are available, each with its own pros and cons. For the present evaluation, article citation rate was chosen. The median number of citations overall and stratified by year of publication was 0, except for the year 2006 when it was 2. As compared to other articles, case reports remained more often without citation (p<0.05 except for 2006 data). All case reports with 10 or more citations (n = 6) reported on newly introduced anticancer drugs, which commonly are prescribed to treat extracranial metastases, and the responses observed in single patients with brain metastases. Average annual numbers of citations were also calculated. The articles with most citations per year were the same six case reports mentioned above (the only ones that obtained more than 2.0 citations per year). Citations appeared to gradually increase during the first two years after publication but remained on a generally low or modest level. It cannot be excluded that case reports without citation provide interesting information to some clinicians or researchers. Apparently, case reports describing unexpected therapeutic success gain more attention, at least in terms of citation, than others.     

Multiple Citation Indicators and Their Composite across Scientific Disciplines

Many fields face an increasing prevalence of multi-authorship, and this poses challenges in assessing citation metrics. Here, we explore multiple citation indicators that address total impact (number of citations, Hirsch H index [H]), co-authorship adjustment (Schreiber Hm index [Hm]), and author order (total citations to papers as single; single or first; or single, first, or last author). We demonstrate the correlation patterns between these indicators across 84,116 scientists (those among the top 30,000 for impact in a single year [2013] in at least one of these indicators) and separately across 12 scientific fields. Correlation patterns vary across these 12 fields. In physics, total citations are highly negatively correlated with indicators of co-authorship adjustment and of author order, while in other sciences the negative correlation is seen only for total citation impact and citations to papers as single author. We propose a composite score that sums standardized values of these six log-transformed indicators. Of the 1,000 top-ranked scientists with the composite score, only 322 are in the top 1,000 based on total citations. Many Nobel laureates and other extremely influential scientists rank among the top-1,000 with the composite indicator, but would rank much lower based on total citations. Conversely, many of the top 1,000 authors on total citations have had no single/first/last-authored cited paper. More Nobel laureates of 2011–2015 are among the top authors when authors are ranked by the composite score than by total citations, H index, or Hm index; 40/47 of these laureates are among the top 30,000 by at least one of the six indicators. We also explore the sensitivity of indicators to self-citation and alphabetic ordering of authors in papers across different scientific fields. Multiple indicators and their composite may give a more comprehensive picture of impact, although no citation indicator, single or composite, can be expected to select all the best scientists.     

Interlibrary loans and their citation in undergraduate essays

We have examined interlibrary loan requests made by final-year biology undergraduates for an assessed essay. Students made an average of four requests and cited two. However, of an average of 32 citations per essay, between one quarter and one half had not been read. Students should be given instruction not only in the retrieval of biological information but also in its evaluation. Staff should examine critically the use and understanding of literature cited in student essays.     

The influence of “Homage to Santa Rosalia” on aquatic ecology: a scientometric approach

In 1959, G.E. Hutchinson provided a general explanation for the diversity of species in his paper “Homage to Santa Rosalia or why are there so many kinds of animals?” To assess the contribution of the ideas Hutchinson introduced in “The Homage” to aquatic ecology research, we performed a bibliometric evaluation of all the articles that cited this paper between 1960 and 2009. The articles were retrieved using the database from Thomson Reuters (ISI Web of Knowledge) in March 2009. For each paper, we first identified the studied environment (terrestrial, marine or freshwater) and whether the study was theoretical or empirical. For marine and freshwater studies, we recorded the journal where the article was published, the year of publication, the number of citations, the taxonomic group (e.g. fish, phytoplankton, zooplankton, macroinvertebrates or macrophytes), the habitat (e.g. wetlands, lakes, rivers, streams or ocean) and the main ideas addressed. A total of 1345 articles cited “The Homage”, and the number of citations increased significantly with time. Most of the articles that cited “The Homage” described research carried out in a terrestrial environment or were theoretical, and a lesser number of citations came from freshwater and marine papers, which used mainly fish and invertebrates as model organisms. In the aquatic sciences, most of the papers discussed the influences of competition and energy (productivity) on diversity. Our results indicate that “The Homage” can still be considered a “citation classic” and a breakthrough contribution, and that it is still having a great impact on different fields of ecology, including limnology and marine ecology.     

Citation Classics in Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: Who Wrote the Top 100 Most Cited Articles?

Background

Systematic reviews of the literature occupy the highest position in currently proposed hierarchies of evidence. The aims of this study were to assess whether citation classics exist in published systematic review and meta-analysis (SRM), examine the characteristics of the most frequently cited SRM articles, and evaluate the contribution of different world regions.

Methods

The 100 most cited SRM were identified in October 2012 using the Science Citation Index database of the Institute for Scientific Information. Data were extracted by one author. Spearman’s correlation was used to assess the association between years since publication, numbers of authors, article length, journal impact factor, and average citations per year.

Results

Among the 100 citation classics, published between 1977 and 2008, the most cited article received 7308 citations and the least-cited 675 citations. The average citations per year ranged from 27.8 to 401.6. First authors from the USA produced the highest number of citation classics (n=46), followed by the UK (n=28) and Canada (n=15). The 100 articles were published in 42 journals led by the Journal of the American Medical Association (n=18), followed by the British Medical Journal (n=14) and The Lancet (n=13). There was a statistically significant positive correlation between number of authors (Spearman’s rho=0.320, p=0.001), journal impact factor (rho=0.240, p=0.016) and average citations per year. There was a statistically significant negative correlation between average citations per year and year since publication (rho = -0.636, p=0.0001). The most cited papers identified seminal contributions and originators of landmark methodological aspects of SRM and reflect major advances in the management of and predisposing factors for chronic diseases.

Conclusions

Since the late 1970s, the USA, UK, and Canada have taken leadership in the production of citation classic papers. No first author from low or middle-income countries (LMIC) led one of the most cited 100 SRM.