title: Citation analysis may severely underestimate the impact of clinical research as compared to basic research.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Citation analysis has become an important tool for research performance assessment in the medical sciences. However, different areas of medical research may have considerably different citation practices, even within the same medical field. Because of this, it is unclear to what extent citation-based bibliometric indicators allow for valid comparisons between research units active in different areas of medical research.
  
  
  METHODS
  A visualization methodology is introduced that reveals differences in citation practices between medical research areas. The methodology extracts terms from the titles and abstracts of a large collection of publications and uses these terms to visualize the structure of a medical field and to indicate how research areas within this field differ from each other in their average citation impact.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Visualizations are provided for 32 medical fields, defined based on journal subject categories in the Web of Science database. The analysis focuses on three fields: Cardiac & cardiovascular systems, Clinical neurology, and Surgery. In each of these fields, there turn out to be large differences in citation practices between research areas. Low-impact research areas tend to focus on clinical intervention research, while high-impact research areas are often more oriented on basic and diagnostic research.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Popular bibliometric indicators, such as the h-index and the impact factor, do not correct for differences in citation practices between medical fields. These indicators therefore cannot be used to make accurate between-field comparisons. More sophisticated bibliometric indicators do correct for field differences but still fail to take into account within-field heterogeneity in citation practices. As a consequence, the citation impact of clinical intervention research may be substantially underestimated in comparison with basic and diagnostic research.
authors: Centre for Science and Technology Studies, Leiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands. ecknjpvan@cwts.leidenuniv.nl
authors: Nees Jan
authors: NJ
authors: van Eck
authors: Ludo
authors: L
authors: Waltman
authors: Anthony F J
authors: AF
authors: van Raan
authors: Robert J M
authors: RJ
authors: Klautz
authors: Wilco C
authors: WC
authors: Peul
mesh_terms: D015706:Bibliometrics; D035843:Biomedical Research / Q000145:classification / Q000592:standards*; D003198:Computer Simulation; D006801:Humans; D015233:Models, Statistical; D012106:Research / Q000145:classification / Q000592:standards*
references: J R Soc Med. 2011 Jun;104(6):251-61
references: 21659400
references: Med Biol Eng Comput. 2011 Jun;49(6):613-21
references: 21567267
references: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005 Nov 15;102(46):16569-72
references: 16275915
references: BMJ. 1996 Aug 17;313(7054):411-3
references: 8761234
references: Scientometrics. 2010 Aug;84(2):523-538
references: 20585380
references: Scientometrics. 2011 Jan;86(1):99-112
references: 21212822
references: J R Soc Med. 2007 Mar;100(3):142-50
references: 17339310
references: Scientometrics. 2011 Jun;87(3):467-481
references: 21654898
references: BMJ. 1997 Feb 15;314(7079):498-502
references: 9056804
references: PLoS One. 2013;8(2):e49476
references: 23405060
references: Nature. 2010 Jan 14;463(7278):157
references: 20075899
references: Scientometrics. 2011 Aug;88(2):675-677
references: 21836764
references: JAMA. 2005 May 18;293(19):2362-6
references: 15900006
references: Rheumatology (Oxford). 1999 Jan;38(1):13-20
references: 10334677
references: JAMA. 2006 Jan 4;295(1):90-3
references: 16391221
references: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2008 Nov 11;105(45):17268-72
references: 18978030