Advertisement

Contemporary scientometric analyses using a novel web application: the science performance evaluation (SciPE) approach

  • Sean S. ScholzEmail author
  • Markus Dillmann
  • Alexander Flohr
  • Christina Backes
  • Tobias Fehlmann
  • Dominic Millenaar
  • Christian Ukena
  • Michael Böhm
  • Andreas Keller
  • Felix Mahfoud
Original Paper
  • 15 Downloads

Abstract

Aims

We aimed at developing a structured study protocol utilizing the bibliographic web-application science performance evaluation (SciPE) to perform comprehensive scientometric analyses.

Methods and results

Metadata related to publications derived from online databases were processed and visualized by transferring the information to an undirected multipartite graph and distinct partitioned sets of nodes. Also, institution-specific data were normalized and merged allowing precise geocoordinate positioning, to enable heatmapping and valid identification. As a result, verified, processed data regarding articles, institutions, journals, authors gender, nations and subject categories can be obtained. We recommend including the total number of publications, citations, the population, research institutions, gross domestic product, and the country-specific modified Hirsch Index and to form corresponding ratios (e.g., population/publication). Also, our approach includes implementation of bioinformatical methods such as heatmapping based on exact geocoordinates, simple chord diagrams, and the central implementation of specific ratios with plain visualization techniques.

Conclusion

This protocol allows precise conduction of contemporaneous scientometric analyses based on bioinformatic and meta-analytical techniques, allowing to evaluate and contextualize scientific efforts. Data presentation with the depicted visualization techniques is mandatory for transparent and consistent analyses of research output across different nations and topics. Research performance can then be discussed in a synopsis of all findings.

Graphic abstract

Keywords

Scientometry Bibliometry Bibliometrics Meta-analysis Research assessment 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

SSS has received speaker honoraria from Pfizer. MB and FM are supported by Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (SFB TRR219). MB receives honoraria for lectures and scientific advice from Abbott, Astra-Zeneca, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Medtronic, Novartis, Servier, and Vifor. FM is supported by Deutsche Hochdruckliga (DHL) and Deutsche Gesellschaft für Kardiologie (DGK). FM has received scientific support and speaker honoraria from Medtronic and ReCor Medical. The remaining authors have no disclosures to report.

References

  1. 1.
    Van Noorden R (2014) Global scientific output doubles every nine years. Nature news blog. http://blogs.nature.com/news/2014/05/global-scientific-output-doubles-every-nine-years.html. Accessed 31 Aug 2019
  2. 2.
    Martín-Martín A, Orduna-Malea E, Thelwall M, Delgado López-Cózar E (2018) Google Scholar, Web of Science, and Scopus: a systematic comparison of citations in 252 subject categories. J Informetr 12:1160–1177.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2018.09.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Clarivate Analytis > Web of Science group. The world´s largest publisher-neutral citation index and research intelligence platform. https://clarivate.com/webofsciencegroup/solutions/web-of-science/. Accessed 31 Aug 2019
  4. 4.
    Chen C, Hu Z, Liu S, Tseng H (2012) Emerging trends in regenerative medicine: a scientometric analysis in CiteSpace. Expert Opin Biol Ther 12:593–608.  https://doi.org/10.1517/14712598.2012.674507 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    van Eck NJ, Waltman L (2014) CitNetExplorer: a new software tool for analyzing and visualizing citation networks. J Informetr 8:802–823.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2014.07.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    van Eck NJ, Waltman L (2010) Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics 84:523–538.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-0146-3 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Grauwin S, Jensen P (2011) Mapping scientific institutions. Scientometrics 89:943–954.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-011-0482-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Groneberg-Kloft B, Fischer TC, Quarcoo D, Scutaru C (2009) New quality and quantity indices in science (NewQIS): the study protocol of an international project. J Occup Med Toxicol 4:16.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1745-6673-4-16 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Suresh S (2012) Global challenges need global solutions. Nature 490:18. https://www.nature.com/articles/490337a.pdf. Accessed 31 Aug 2019
  10. 10.
    Bendels MHK, Brüggmann D, Schöffel N, Groneberg DA (2016) Gendermetrics.NET: a novel software for analyzing the gender representation in scientific authoring. J Occup Med Toxicol. http://occup-med.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12995-016-0133-6. Accessed 31 Aug 2019
  11. 11.
    Menzel LC, Kramer PW, Groneberg DA, Bendels MHK (2019) Gender disparities in authorships of Alzheimer’s disease and dementia research articles. J Alzheimer’s Dis.  https://doi.org/10.3233/JAD-190216 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kayvanpour E, Sedaghat-Hamedani F, Gi W-T et al (2019) Clinical and genetic insights into non-compaction: a meta-analysis and systematic review on 7598 individuals. Clin Res Cardiol.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00392-019-01465-3 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Wernly B, Seelmaier C, Leistner D et al (2019) Mechanical circulatory support with Impella versus intra-aortic balloon pump or medical treatment in cardiogenic shock—a critical appraisal of current data. Clin Res Cardiol.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00392-019-01458-2 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jobs A, Abdin A, de Waha-Thiele S et al (2019) Angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors in hemodynamic congestion: a meta-analysis of early studies. Clin Res Cardiol.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00392-019-01456-4 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Vargas KG, Haller PM, Jäger B et al (2019) Variations on classification of main types of myocardial infarction: a systematic review and outcome meta-analysis. Clin Res Cardiol 108:749–762.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00392-018-1403-3 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Shah SR (2019) Interventional closure vs. medical therapy of patent foramen ovale for secondary prevention of stroke: updated meta-analysis. Clin Res Cardiol 108:452.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00392-018-1382-4 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lorenzi M, Ambegaonkar B, Baxter CA et al (2019) Ezetimibe in high-risk, previously treated statin patients: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of lipid efficacy. Clin Res Cardiol 108:487–509.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00392-018-1379-z CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Scholz SS, Vukadinović D, Lauder L et al (2019) Effects of arteriovenous fistula on blood pressure in patients with end-stage renal disease: a systematic meta-analysis. J Am Heart Assoc.  https://doi.org/10.1161/JAHA.118.011183 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Murray M-I, Arnold A, Younis M et al (2018) Cryoballoon versus radiofrequency ablation for paroxysmal atrial fibrillation: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Clin Res Cardiol 107:658–669.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00392-018-1232-4 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sedaghat-Hamedani F, Kayvanpour E, Tugrul OF et al (2018) Clinical outcomes associated with sarcomere mutations in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy: a meta-analysis on 7675 individuals. Clin Res Cardiol 107:30–41.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00392-017-1155-5 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    US National Library of Medicine > National Institute of health > PubMed. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/. Accessed 31 Aug 2019
  22. 22.
    UniRank > Universities search engine. https://www.4icu.org. Accessed 31 Aug 2019
  23. 23.
    Python > SexMaschine 0.1.1. https://pypi.org/project/SexMachine/. Accessed 31 Aug 2019
  24. 24.
    Hirsch JE (2005) An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 102:16569–16572.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0507655102 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Mallapaty S (2018) Not so fast. Who really leads the world in science? Nature Index. https://www.natureindex.com/news-blog/not-so-fast-who-really-leads-the-world-in-science. Accessed 31 Aug 2019
  26. 26.
    Ioannidis PA, Klavans R, Boyack KW (2018) Thousands of scientists publish a paper every five days. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-06185-8. Accessed 31 Aug 2019
  27. 27.
    Central Intelligence Agency (2018) The world Factbook 2018. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/download/download-2018/index.html

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sean S. Scholz
    • 1
    Email author
  • Markus Dillmann
    • 2
  • Alexander Flohr
    • 2
  • Christina Backes
    • 2
  • Tobias Fehlmann
    • 2
  • Dominic Millenaar
    • 1
  • Christian Ukena
    • 1
  • Michael Böhm
    • 1
  • Andreas Keller
    • 2
    • 3
  • Felix Mahfoud
    • 1
    • 4
  1. 1.Klinik für Innere Medizin III, Kardiologie, Angiologie und Internistische IntensivmedizinSaarland University HospitalHomburg/SaarGermany
  2. 2.Zentrum für Bioinformatik Saar, Abteilung für klinische BioinformatikUniversität des SaarlandesSaarbrückenGermany
  3. 3.Department of NeurologyStanford University CaliforniaCaliforniaUSA
  4. 4.Institute for Medical Engineering and Science, Massachusetts Institute of TechnologyCambridgeUSA

Personalised recommendations