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



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.


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

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3


  1. 1.

    Van Noorden R (2014) Global scientific output doubles every nine years. Nature news blog. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Clarivate Analytis > Web of Science group. The world´s largest publisher-neutral citation index and research intelligence platform. 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.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    van Eck NJ, Waltman L (2010) Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics 84:523–538.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Grauwin S, Jensen P (2011) Mapping scientific institutions. Scientometrics 89:943–954.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Suresh S (2012) Global challenges need global solutions. Nature 490:18. 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. 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google 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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    US National Library of Medicine > National Institute of health > PubMed. Accessed 31 Aug 2019

  22. 22.

    UniRank > Universities search engine. Accessed 31 Aug 2019

  23. 23.

    Python > SexMaschine 0.1.1. 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.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Mallapaty S (2018) Not so fast. Who really leads the world in science? Nature Index. Accessed 31 Aug 2019

  26. 26.

    Ioannidis PA, Klavans R, Boyack KW (2018) Thousands of scientists publish a paper every five days. Accessed 31 Aug 2019

  27. 27.

    Central Intelligence Agency (2018) The world Factbook 2018.

Download references

Author information



Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sean S. Scholz.

Ethics declarations

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.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Scholz, S.S., Dillmann, M., Flohr, A. et al. Contemporary scientometric analyses using a novel web application: the science performance evaluation (SciPE) approach. Clin Res Cardiol 109, 810–818 (2020).

Download citation


  • Scientometry
  • Bibliometry
  • Bibliometrics
  • Meta-analysis
  • Research assessment