Article Text

PDF
Analysis of h-index and other bibliometric markers of productivity and repercussion of a selected sample of worldwide emergency medicine researchers
  1. Òscar Miró1,2,
  2. Pablo Burbano2,
  3. Colin A Graham3,
  4. David C Cone4,
  5. James Ducharme5,
  6. Anthony F T Brown6,
  7. Francisco Javier Martín-Sánchez1,7
  1. 1Editor in Chief, Emergencias, Barcelona, Spain
  2. 2Emergency Department, Hospital Clínic, Emergencies: Processes and Pathologies” Research Group, IDIBAPS, Barcelona, Spain
  3. 3Editor in Chief, European Journal of Emergency Medicine, Hong Kong, China
  4. 4Former Editor in Chief, Academic Emergency Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, USA
  5. 5Editor in Chief, Canadian Journal of Emergency Medicine, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
  6. 6Former Editor in Chief, Emergency Medicine Australasia, Brisbane, Australia
  7. 7Associate Editor, Emergencias, Madrid, Spain
  1. Correspondence to Dr Òscar Miró, Emergency Department, Hospital Clínic, Villarroel 170, Barcelona 08036, Catalonia, Spain; omiro{at}clinic.cat

Abstract

Objective To explore bibliometric markers in a worldwide sample of emergency physician investigators to define global, continental and individual patterns over time.

Methods We evaluated the number of papers published, citations received, cumulative impact factor and h-index of editorial board members of six international emergency medicine journals. We calculated the individual values for every year of each author's career to evaluate their dynamic evolution. We analysed the results by researcher world area and growth rate.

Results We included 107 researchers (76 American, 21 European and 10 Australasian; 46 slow-rate -group C-, 43 medium-rate -group B- and 18 fast-rate growth -group A-). The median experience was 18 (IQR: 12) years, without subgroups differences. Dynamic analysis over time showed good fit with quadratic function in all individual researchers and for all bibliometric markers (R2: 0.505–0.997), with the h-index achieving the best R2. The combined analysis of the h-index of the 107 investigators also fit the quadratic model (R2=0.49). Analysis by predefined continental and growth-rate subgroups allowed defining specific patterns (R2 between 0.46–0.54 and 0.80–0.86, respectively): by continents, American researchers' h-index increased 0.632 points per year, European 0.417 and Australasian 0.341; by growth rate, researchers from group A, B and C increased 1.239, 0.683 and 0.320, respectively.

Conclusions Dynamic analysis of every individual author indicator over time has a very good fit with a quadratic model, with the h-index achieving the best R2. It is also possible to construct models based on continent and rate of growth that could help to predict future expected outcomes of researchers in a particular subgroup and to classify new emerging researchers by growth rate.

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.