Lewis J, Ossowski S, Hicks J, Errami M, Garner HR. Medicine. The NIH particularly values work that ultimately culminates in advances to human health, a process that has historically taken decades [72]. Are Impact Factors corrupting truth and utility in biomedical research? Widespread adoption of this or any other new metric should follow, not precede, extensive testing in a wide variety of real-world circumstances. This is not a perfect approach, as it is possible to use entirely different words to describe similar concepts, but positive matches can be taken as a strong indication of similarity. Further, the RCR method was designed to assess neither the productivity of individual researchers nor the quality of their science. The article must be in the Scopus database. However, its blanket use also camouflages large differences in the influence of individual papers. Citation Research and Impact Metrics - Arizona The average TR ratio for these papers is 1.67, and the average RCR is 0.67. In this example, we want to compare an article's performance in 2015 to its journal's 2015 CiteScore; because the 2015 CiteScore is derived from the citation counts of articles from 2012 -2014, to keep the comparison as "apples to apples", the article we pick must have been published from 2012 through 2014. This may mean that investigators tend to ask and answer questions of similar interest to their fields. PIs were ranked by this aggregate score and split into quintiles. In each case, r is over 0.9. Because CiteScores go back only to 2011, articles published prior to 2008 cannot be assessed by this method.). The RCR metric is ranking invariant when the same number of uncited articles is added to two groups of equal size (Supporting Equations S7S9 in S1 Text). Red points, random assignment model (PI RCRs for the second 4-y period are reshuffled and randomly assigned); red line, linear regression of modeled data. However, as citation rates mark the breadth and speed of the diffusion of knowledge among publishing scholars, we maintain that quantitative metrics based on citations can effectively supplement subject matter expertise in the evaluation of research groups seeking to make new discoveries and widely disseminate their findings. *** p < 0.001, Kruskal-Wallis with Dunns multiple comparison test. Because of our primary interest in biomedical research, we limited our analysis to those journals in which NIH R01-funded researchers published during this time. iCite returns the total number of citations, number of CPY, expected CPY based on an NIH benchmark, FCR, Relative Citation Ratio, and percentile ranking in a downloadable Excel format for each PMID entered, as well as the corresponding title, author information, and year/journal of publication. (A) Schematic of a co-citation network. An RC plane can carry as much as 2 - 20 lbs (32 - 320 oz) of weight. Accessibility In aggregate, the average RCR and JIF values for NIH R01 PIs exhibited log-normal distributions (Fig 7F and 7G) with substantially different hierarchical ordering (S8 Fig). It is calculated by dividing the number of citations a paper has received by the average number received by documents published in the same year and in the same Fields of Research (FoR) category. It is calculated as the cites/year of each paper, normalized to the citations per year received by NIH-funded papers in the same field and year. All three types of networks would be expected to accurately reflect the interdisciplinary nature of modern biomedical research and the expert opinion of publishing scientists, who are themselves the best judges of what constitutes a field. Search for a liquid-liquid critical point in model of silica. Lascaris E., Hemmati M., Buldyrev S.V., Stanley H.E., and Angell C.A. Questions about how to advance science most effectively within the constraints of limited funding require that we apply scientific approaches to determine how science is funded [6871]. Cosine similarity scores were then calculated using either the top 100 terms (A) or all terms appearing in at least ten documents (B). government site. As might be expected, the data in Fig 2 also indicate that articles published in disciplinary journals are more alike than articles published in multidisciplinary journals; the latter are shown as negative controls and highlight the difference in the degree of cosine similarity between an article and its co-citation network versus its journal of publication. Thus, it is useful . The results of a landmark study on the relationship between quality and success in a competitive market suggest that the ultimate winners in such contests are determined not only by the intrinsic value of the work but also by more intangible social variables [66]. This is because impact factor is calculated as the average number of times articles published over a 2-y period in a given journal are cited; in reality, citations follow a log-normal rather than a Gaussian distribution [9]. Mir R, Karim S, Kamal MA, Wilson CM, Mirza Z. Conotoxins: Structure, Therapeutic Potential and Pharmacological Applications. Using impact factors to credit influential work therefore means overlooking 89% of similarly influential papers published in less prestigious venues. Both subjects are deserving of attention and resources; however, papers in the former field, which includes subjects such as dementia and mental health, tend to appear in lower impact factor journals and receive fewer CPY than those in the latter. Boxes show the 25th75th percentiles with a line at the median; whiskers extend to the 10th and 90th percentiles. Experimental study of inequality and unpredictability in an artificial cultural market, Network-driven reputation in online scientific communities, Percentile ranking and citation impact of a large cohort of National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute-funded cardiovascular R01 grants. Purpose: Methods: Citation database searches were performed for all US radiation oncologists affiliated with academic RO programs. The RA in the bottom panel of Fig 1B describes the identification of new peptides structurally similar to conotoxins, a little-known family of proteins that has begun to attract attention as the result of recent work describing their potential clinical utility [36]. (C) Scores of 290 R01-funded articles reviewed by experts from the NIH Intramural Research Program. You rely on your scale for safe, accurate powder changes. To test this hypothesis directly, we performed a mean reversion test, which determines whether or not the set of values under consideration will return to an average, or mean, value over time. For FCR stability analysis, this dataset was extended to include 2014 data. Black bars, decrease in RCR; grey bars, decrease in RCR of 0.1 or more. This demonstrates that the RCR method can be used effectively and safely in evaluating the relative influence of large groups of publications. Again, click "Limit To", Once the results list refreshes, go to the header bar above the list and set the list sort option to "Cited By". The impact factor of each journal is shown above. From left to right, investigators starting in different quintiles were tracked to see their rank in the next 4-y period. The relative citation ratio and the h-index among academic The work is made available under the, GUID:F4BD340C-BD30-4800-8F31-F59262141B89, GUID:0BF574CB-3FF7-4009-9656-035EBDDC8815, GUID:BD81BB2B-BD71-4D98-8B84-DD4B9D5DBCA4, GUID:ED2687C8-6063-427D-9ED8-6ADAB7898FC7, GUID:F582A038-5C7C-4529-B4E9-9955A9B43B5F, GUID:99FF8334-6A39-4ABB-9055-7B89611FE0BE, GUID:6EDC5DEC-B2E2-4677-95D1-D39EB9415F2A, GUID:E5233C63-FB8D-4DF3-BB20-235D5125381A, GUID:E00B7069-7B4F-42E2-B86B-BAAD03D07EFD, GUID:A6420E14-3398-48C8-B728-481EED87E8FC, GUID:76B10580-D152-4F16-AC66-807998DB52B9, GUID:3392C1CA-995E-42B8-8284-030D0AA06A71, GUID:D859B7DC-D21A-4BE2-8A4C-E7BC5E4478E1, GUID:26279D39-694B-425F-8D7F-759BDE8C27BB, GUID:E7B77699-C4A4-4E0C-9E7C-B98D8742A956, GUID:F904FEA7-83AA-4564-8D76-4C66439BC9C4, GUID:6AC15C95-1518-430A-8884-67407BE017B2, GUID:29E9A84D-03DD-44B3-B139-2CD449298E7A, An index to quantify an individuals scientific research output, Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research. Insights into how to accelerate this process will probably come from quantitative analysis. Scale Check Weights | RCBS 2x20, 1x10, 1x5, 2x2, 1x1, 1x.5. This was accomplished on a paper-by-paper basis by assembling the list of articles citing the article of interest and then assembling a list of each paper that those cited. To generate a list of continuously funded investigators, only those Person Profile IDs with active R01 support in each year of FY2003FY2010 were included. Academic researchers convey their discoveries to the scientific community by publishing papers in scholarly journals. The Relative Citation Ratio: A Brief Primer on the National institutes Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research, AUSTRALIA. However, SNCS2 has an important disadvantage relative to RCR; it grows continually over time (like raw citation counts) and so is biased in favor of older papers. Furthermore, we have shown that co-citation networks better define an articles field than journal of publication (Fig 2), so RCR is a more precise measure of influence than journal-based metrics, a category that includes both citation percentiles and MNCS methods such as the TR ratio. This list of co-cited papers was deduplicated at this point. Black points, actual RCR values; black line, linear regression of actual RCR values. RCR is less likely to unfairly advantage publications in fields with a low citation rate than the TR ratio (Fig 4E). (B) Pearson correlation coefficients (r) of one randomly chosen reviewer score versus the mean of the other two scores for that paper, determined by statistical resampling. (B) Reviewer scores of 430 HHMI and NIH-funded papers collected by STPI. Any numbers, as well as words consisting of one or two letters, were removed from the corpus along with words appearing less than ten times. When comparing citations rates to other metrics (e.g., postpublication review scores), citation rates were log-transformed because of their highly skewed distribution, unless these other scores were similarly skewed (i.e., Faculty of 1000 review scores). See this article for how to do it using data from the Web of Science: The ASU Library acknowledges the twenty-three Native Nations that have inhabited this land for centuries. RCR and weighted RCR were calculated and compared between each subgroup of interest. The Relative Citation Ratio (RCR) is a NIH metric representing a citation-based measure of scientific influence. As such, the metric described here should be viewed not as a tool to be used as a primary criterion in funding decisions but as one of several metrics that can provide assistance to decision makers at funding agencies or in other situations in which quantitation can be used judiciously to supplement, not substitute for, expert opinion. The FCR quickly converged within five citations, passing r = 0.9 at that point (Fig 3C). Such an integrated benchmark, or comparison group, is not used by any currently available citation-based metric. Another possible interpretation of the above data is that PI RCRs perform an unbiased random walk from their initial state with a large diffusion rate. Any metric can be gamed, and we have thought carefully about how a single author might try to game RCR. Summary of Risk Weights for Exposures to Government and Public Sector Entities RC-R-43 Risk-Weighted Assets for Securitization Exposures RC-R-44 a. An author taking this approach would need to stack the reference section of his or her work not just with poorly cited articles, or with articles in poorly cited fields, but with articles that are co-cited with articles in poorly cited fields. Furthermore, randomly shuffling PI RCRs from the second 4-y period gives a slope that is significantly different than that observed for the real data (p < 0.001, extra sum-of-squares F-test, n = 3,089, Fig 8C), ruling out the possibility that these values are randomly sampled from the same distribution in each time interval. Articles are binned by reviewer score; bubble area is proportionate to the number of articles in that bin. Rose S, Engel D, Cramer N, Cowley W. Autometic keyword extraction from individual documents In: Berry MW, Kogan J, editors. This requires an RC plane to have a motor that is proportionate to the weight of the craft. This RA described the identification of new peptides of possible clinical utility due to their similarity to known conotoxins. Journal impact factor (JIF) was for a time seen as a valuable indicator of scientific quality because it serves as a convenient, and not wholly inaccurate, proxy for expert opinion [8]. PDF RC-R - REGULATORY CAPITAL Part II. Risk-Weighted Assets - FDIC RCR is also ranking invariant when the same proportion of uncited articles is added to two groups of unequal size (Supporting Equations S10S11 in S1 Text). We also calculated what the FCR would be if it were instead based on citing or cited networks. Papers in the co-citation network of this RA focused on (1) -conotoxin mechanisms of action, (2) structure and evolution of conotoxins, (3) cyclotide biochemistry, (4) conotoxin phylogenetics, and (5) identification and synthesis of lantibiotics. We compared RCR with expert rankings (Fig 4) for 2,193 articles published in 2009 and evaluated by Faculty of 1000 members (Fig 4A and S3 Fig), as well as rankings of 430 Howard Hughes Medical Institute- or NIH-funded articles published between 2005 and 2011 and evaluated in a study conducted by the Science and Technology Policy Institute (STPI, Fig 4B and S4 Fig), and finally, 290 articles published in 2009 by extramurally funded NIH investigators and evaluated by NIH intramural investigators in a study of our own design (Fig 4C; S5, S6 and S7 Figs). A critical evaluation of the algorithm behind the Relative Citation Ratio (RCR), Additional support for RCR: A validated article-level measure of scientific influence, Articles per Interval (PIs with >0 Articles in Both 4-y Intervals), term frequencyinverse document frequency. Since the authors work in the Division of Program Coordination, Planning, and Strategic Initiatives at the National Institutes of Health, our work could have policy implications for how research portfolios are evaluated. Traditionally, these judgments have largely depended on recommendations by peers, informal interactions, and other subjective criteria. Having established the co-citation network as a means of determining an FCR for each RA, our next step was to calculate ACR/FCR ratios. RCBS powder scales accurately weigh powder loads used in reloading cartridges. Determination of the "expected citation rate" is controversial.. The article must have been published in the three years immediately preceding the journal's CiteScore. Within these bounds, bibliometric methods such as RCR have the potential to track patterns of scientific productivity over time, which may help answer important questions about how science progresses. To some extent, then, interdisciplinarity is in the eye of the beholder, and this presents another challenge. (B) Box-and-whisker plots showing the distribution of RCR values for articles describing the human microbiome, published with support from the Human Microbiome Project (HMP) of the NIH Common Fund or another source (other). n.s., not significant. PDF What is iCite? - DPCPSI Grant and publication linkages to PIs were established using Person Profile IDs from the NIH IMPAC-II database. However, in smaller analyses in which the distribution of data may be skewed, OLS may yield an RCR less than 1.0 for the median, i.e., typical, article under consideration. Using a network of papers linked to that RA through citations occurred to us as a promising possibility (Fig 1). HHS Vulnerability Disclosure, Help Mean RCR is Weighted RCR divided by the number of papers. Methods and metrics for evaluating scholarly and research impact. PIs were ranked by this aggregate score and split . For reasons of algorithmic parsimony we used the JCRs for the year each article in the co-citation network was published; a different choice at this step would be expected to have little if any effect, since almost all JCRs are quite stable over time (S1 Fig; S1 Table). Strikingly, this analysis showed that diagnostic words are much more likely to be shared between an article and the papers in its co-citation network than between that same article and the papers that appear alongside it in its journal of publication (Fig 2). Each article in one of the three co-citation networks is shown as a separate green dot; the edges (connections between dots) indicates their presence together in the same reference list. The reference article (RA) (red, middle row) cites previous papers from the literature (orange, bottom row); subsequent papers cite the RA (blue, top row). The Thomson Reuters Web of Science citation dataset from 20022012 was used for citation analyses. Mean represented by a +. (E) Comparison of RCRs (orange) and Thompson Reuters ratios (blue) [17,28] for the same 544 articles with a low denominator. Many alternative methods for quantifying scientific accomplishment have been proposed, including citation normalization to journals or journal categories [1219]; note that one of these is a previously described Relative Citation Rate [19], which should not be confused with the method we describe here. Compared to the Relative Citation Ratio (RCR), the FCR uses a more tangible definition of a field, i.e. However, it does not measure these values against any broader context. In other words, if an article becomes more or less influential compared to its peers after that fixed window has passed, as for example can occur with sleeping beauties [42], this would not be apparent to users of SNCS2. Over time, accumulated grit and dust can affect accuracy. For details about the information on the results page . For example, biochemistry may have been considered highly interdisciplinary in 1905, the year that term first appears in the PubMed indexed literature [50], but most biomedical researchers today would consider it a well-established discipline in its own right. Recent work has improved our theoretical understanding of citation dynamics [2729]. Since citing behavior is also constrained by content, this might be difficult to accomplish; at the very least, it seems likely that reviewers and editors would be able to identify the resulting reference list as unusual. A simple proposal for the publication of journal citation distributions. (AC) Bubble plots of reviewer scores versus RCR for three different datasets. If drift in PI RCR were simply a random walk, then the change in RCR should by definition be independent of starting RCR, and plotting these two values against each other should result in a straight line with a slope of zero. What is Field-weighted Citation Impact (FWCI)? (F, G) Frequency distribution of investigator-level RCRs (F) and JIFs (G), representing the mean values for papers authored by each of 3,089 R01-funded PIs. The journal comparisons and the co-citation comparison were both done with primary articles as well as reviews. (B) Box-and-whisker plots of 88,835 NIH-funded papers (published between 2003 and 2010), summarizing their ACR, journal impact factor (matched to the articles year of publication), and field citation rate (FCR). Thus, the RCR addresses the limitations of the h-index by standardizing career duration . FCRs based on co-citation networks exhibited lower variance than those based on cited or citing networks (Table 1), suggesting that co-citation networks are better at defining an articles field than citing or cited networks. The Field Citation Ratio is calculated for all publications in Dimensions which are at least 2 years old and were published in 2000 or later. Term-document matrices were weighted for TF-IDF [77]. For box-and-whisker plots, boxes represent the interquartile range with a line in between at the median, and whiskers extend to the 10th and 90th percentiles. Publications from the final year of our dataset (2012) were not included in analyses because they did not have time to accrue enough citations from which to draw meaningful conclusions, but references from these papers to earlier ones were included in citation counts. Since papers in the biomedical sciences have a median of 30 articles in their reference lists, each citation event can be expected to add multiple papers to an articles co-citation network (Fig 1D) but only one to its citing network. Two areas of science in which the NIH funds research are neurological function and basic cell biology. Cosine similarity scores [37] were calculated for these 1,397 RAs against each article in their co-citation network and separately against each article appearing in the same journal. When comparing an article's citation count to the citation distribution of a journal, we recommend using articles from the same year; so if you are assessing a 2014 article, find the citation distribution for articles published in that journal for 2014. FOIA We next asked how stable the FCRs in our dataset remain over time, particularly when the starting co-citation network is small. Data that were used for analysis can be found as csv files in the same repository. Still, it is a more refined measure than JIF or CPY, and like RCR, it seeks to field-normalize citations based on choice of comparison group in its denominator. Of course, if enough authors start to reference works in poorly cited areas, that fields citation rate will go up, and the RCR of the papers in it may go down; in that respect, efforts to game RCR might ultimately prove to be self-defeating. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the Received 2015 Dec 7; Accepted 2016 Aug 1. Article citation rates are divided by an expected citation rate that is derived from performance of articles in the same field and benchmarked to a peer comparison group. All three approaches demonstrate that RCR values are well correlated with reviewers judgments. The more closely a method of field definition approaches maximal separation of between-field and within-field citation behaviors, the lower its expected variance in citations per year (CPY). For comparison of JIF CPY and RCR (Fig 4D), papers in the fields of cell biology and neurological function were those supported by grants assigned to the corresponding review units within the NIH Center for Scientific Review. Focusing on a dozen representative journals with a wide range of JIFs further substantiates the finding that influential science appears in many venues and reveals noteworthy departures from the correlation between JIF and median RCR (see S1 Text). RCR also meets or exceeds the standards set by other current metrics with respect to the ambitious ideals set out above. ACRs could be inflated through a combination of self-citation and frequent publication; this strategy has its limits, though, as the top 10% of RCR values for NIH-funded publications on average receive more than 25 CPY, and it is rare for a biomedical scientist to publish more than four or five times over that period. The ordinary least squares (OLS) approach will benchmark articles such that the mean RCR is equal to 1.0. (E) Box-and-whisker plots summarizing RCRs of these same papers published in selected journals. A proposal of methods based on percentiles of citations, Assessing citations with the Eigenfactor metrics, Measuring contextual citation impact of scientific journals. It is worth noting that average FCRs for investigators were extremely stable from one 4-y period to the next (Pearson r = 0.92, Table 2), Since FCRs are the quantitative representation of co-citation networks, this further suggests that each co-citation network is successfully capturing the corresponding investigators field of research. About Field Normalized Citation Impact - The Metrics Toolkit. We currently lack an explanation why this might be so; given how infrequent these small drops are, we cannot yet rule out the possibility that statistical noise is responsible. Stringer MJ, Sales-Pardo M, Nunes Amaral LA. Considered from this frame, it could be said that 47% of PIs who started in the top quintile moved out of it during the second 4-y period we analyzed. The Relative Citation Ratio: A Modern Approach to Assessing - LWW From "What is the FCR? Three RAs published in 2006 (red dots) were cited 5 (top row), 9 (middle row), or 31 times (bottom row) by 2011. An average of 17.8 new papers is added to the co-citation network for each additional citation. We next undertook a large case study of all 88,835 articles published by NIH investigators who maintained continuous R01 funding from fiscal year (FY) 2003 through FY2010 to ask how the RCR of publications from individual investigators changed over this 8-y interval.
500 Home Run Club List, Quickbooks Mobile Card Reader, Articles W