Advertisement

Citations to Papers from Other Documents

Evaluation of the Practical Effects of Biomedical Research
  • Grant Lewison

Abstract

Citations to biomedical research papers from different types of document — clinical guidelines, textbooks, government policy documents, international or national regulations and newspaper articles — can provide new indicators of the utility of such research. However, most such citing documents will be national in character, and in order to provide an international perspective it will be necessary to combine several databases constructed to the same protocols and linked through the Web.

Keywords

Biomedical Research Citation Count Patent Citation Social Science Citation Index Scottish Intercollegiate Guideline Network 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Anderson, J., Williams, N., Seemungal, D., et al. (1996). Human genetic technology: exploring the links between science and innovation. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 8, 135–156.Google Scholar
  2. Annandale, E., Hunt, K. (Eds). (2000). Gender inequalities in health. Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Atiogbe, P. (2001). Bibliometric analysis of the international codex alimentarius food pesticide standards. MSc dissertation, Department of Information Science, City University, London.Google Scholar
  4. Braun, T., Glänzel, W. (2000). Chemistry research in Eastern Central Europe (1992–1997). Facts and figures on publication output and citation impact for 13 countries. Scientometrics, 49, 187–214.Google Scholar
  5. Chalmers, I., Sinclair, J.C. (1985). Promoting perinatal health — is it time for a change of emphasis in research? Early Human Development, 10, 171–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Colborn, T., Dumanoski, D, Myers, J.P. (1996). Our stolen future — are we threatening our fertility, intelligence and survival? New York, NY: Dutton.Google Scholar
  7. Dawson, G., Lucocq, B., Cottrell, R., Lewison, G. (1998). Mapping the landscape: national biomedical research outputs 1988–95. London: The Wellcome Trust, Policy Report no 9.Google Scholar
  8. Dean, M. (1999). A quiet clinical revolution begins. The Lancet, 353, 651.Google Scholar
  9. Dean, T. (2002). The Cochrane collaboration and its contribution towards the management of allergic diseases Clinical and Experimental Allergy, 32, 1269–1273.Google Scholar
  10. Doll, R., Peto, R. (1981). The causes of cancer — quantitative estimates of avoidable risks of cancer in the United States today. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 66, 1191–1308.Google Scholar
  11. European Commission (2002). Communication from the Commission on the collection and use of expertise by the Commission. COM(2002) 713 final, 11 December.Google Scholar
  12. Garfield, E. (1955). A new dimension in documentation through association of ideas. Science, 122, 108–111.Google Scholar
  13. Garfield, E. (1963). Citation indexes in sociological and historical research. American Documentation, 14, 289–291.Google Scholar
  14. Garfield, E. (1979). Citation indexing: its theory and application in science, technology and the humanities. New York, NY: Wiley.Google Scholar
  15. Glänzel, W. (2000). Science in Scandinavia: a bibliometric approach. Scientometrics, 48, 121–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Grant, J. (1999). Evaluating the outcomes of biomedical research on healthcare. Research Evaluation, 8, 33–38.Google Scholar
  17. Grant, J., Cottrell, R., Cluzeau, F., Fawcett, G. (2000). Evaluating ‘payback’ on biomedical research from papers cited in clinical guidelines — applied bibliometric study. BMJ, 320, 1107–1111.Google Scholar
  18. Grupp, H., Schmoch, U. (1999). Patent statistics in the age of globalization — new legal procedures, new analytical methods, new economic interpretation. Research Policy, 28, 37–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hanney, S., Frame, I., Grant, J., Green P., Buxton, M. (2003). From bench to bedside — tracing the payback forwards from basic or early clinical research — a preliminary exercise and proposals for a future study. Brunel University, Health Economics Research Group report no 31.Google Scholar
  20. Harhoff, D., Narin, F., Scherer, F.M., Vopel, K. (1999). Citation frequency and the value of patented inventions. Review of Economic Statistics, 81, 511–515.Google Scholar
  21. Ingwersen, P., Larsen, B., Wormell, I. (2000). Applying diachronic citation analysis to research program evaluations. In B. Cronin, H.B. Atkins (Eds), The Web of Knowledge — a Festschrift in Honor of Eugene Garfield (pp 373–387). Medford, NJ: Information Today, Inc.Google Scholar
  22. Kostoff, R.N. (1998). The use and misuse of citation analysis in Research Evaluation — comments on theories of citation. Scientometrics, 43, 27–43.Google Scholar
  23. Laupacis, A. (2002). The Cochrane Collaboration — how is it progresssing? Statistics in Medicine, 21, 2815–2822.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lederberg, J. (2000). How the science citation index got started. In B. Cronin, H.B. Atkins (Eds), The web of knowledge — a Festschrift in honor of Eugene Garfield (pp 25–64). Medford, NJ: Information Today, Inc.Google Scholar
  25. Lewison, G. (2002). From biomedical research to health improvement. Scientometrics, 54, 229–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lewison, G. (2003). Austrian biomedical research — a bibliometric evaluation. Plattform Forschungs-und Technologieevaluierung, 18, 13–17-see Figure 5.Google Scholar
  27. Lewison, G., Paraje, G. (2003). The classification of biomedical journals by research level. Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Scientometrics and Informetrics, Beijing, China; pp 142–151. Also Scientometrics (2004), in press.Google Scholar
  28. Lewison, G., Wilcox-Jay, K. (2003). Getting biomedical research into practice — the citations from UK clinical guidelines. Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Scientometrics and Informetrics, Beijing, China; pp 152–160.Google Scholar
  29. Leydesdorff, L. (1998). Theories of citation. Scientometrics, 43, 5–25.Google Scholar
  30. Mahmoud, A.A.F. (Ed). (2001). Schistosomiasis. London: Imperial College Press.Google Scholar
  31. McGinnis, J.M., Foege, W.H. (1993). Actual causes of death in the United States. Journal of the American Medical Association, 270, 2207–2212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Moed, H.F. (2000). Bibliometric indicators reflect publication and management strategies. Scientometrics, 47, 323–346.Google Scholar
  33. Moxham, H., Anderson, J. (1992). Peer review: a view from the inside. Science and Technology Policy, Feb, 2–6.Google Scholar
  34. Narin, F. (1994). Patent bibliometrics. Scientometrics, 30, 147–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Narin, F., Olivastro, D. (1998). Linkage between patents and papers: an interim EPO/US comparison. Scientometrics, 41, 51–59.Google Scholar
  36. Noyons, E.C.M., Luwel, M., Moed, H.F. (1998). Assessment of Flemish research and development in the field of information technology — a bibliometric evaluation based on publication and patent data, combined with OECD research input statistics. Research Policy, 27, 285–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Peritz, B.C. (1992). On the objectives of citation analysis–problems of theory and method. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 43, 448–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Petrie, J.C, Grimshaw, J.M., Bryson, A (1995). The Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network Initiative — getting validated guidelines into local practice. Health Bulletin, 53, 345–348.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Grant Lewison
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Information ScienceCity UniversityLondonEngland

Personalised recommendations