The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Related articles

VOLUME 15 , ISSUE 2 ( March-April, 2014 ) > List of Articles

REVIEW ARTICLE

Bibliometric Indicators for Evaluating the Quality of Scientific Publications

Medha A Joshi

Citation Information : Joshi MA. Bibliometric Indicators for Evaluating the Quality of Scientific Publications. J Contemp Dent Pract 2014; 15 (2):258-262.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-1525

License: CC BY-NC 3.0

Published Online: 00-04-2014

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2014; Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd.


Abstract

How to cite this article

Joshi MA. Bibliometric Indicators for Evaluating the Quality of Scientific Publications. J Contemp Dent Pract 2014;15(2):258-262.


PDF Share
  1. Citations of literature. Acta Cytol 1969 Oct;13(10):544.
  2. The use of bibliometric indicators to help peer-review assessment. Arch Immunol Ther Exp (Warsz) 2009 Feb;57(1):33-38.
  3. Bibliometric indicators: quality measurements of scientific publication. Radiology 2010 May;255(2):342-351.
  4. Fundamentals of Evidence-Based Medicine [Internet]. Springer; 2004 [cited 2014 Jan 22]. Available from: http://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/978-81-322-0831-0.pdf
  5. Citation indexes for science. Science. 1956 Jan 13;123(3185):61-62.
  6. Journal impact factor: a brief review. CMAJ Can Med Assoc J J Assoc Medicale Can 1999 Oct 19;161(8):979-980.
  7. Impact factor and other standardized measures of journal citation: a perspective. Indian J Dent Res Off Publ Indian Soc Dent Res 2009 Mar;20(1):81-85.
  8. com/press-releases/062013/2013-journal-citation-reports. Accessed January 27, 2014.
  9. Impact factors: use and abuse. Medicina (Mex) 2003;63(4):347-354.
  10. Not-so-deep impact. Nature 2005;435(77045):1003-1004.
  11. J R Soc Med 2007 Mar;100(3):142-150.
  12. Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research. BMJ. 1997 Feb 15;314(7079):498-502.
  13. Submissions, editorial process and impact factor 1992-2000: focus on Europe. Cardiovasc Res 2000 Aug;47(2):203-206.
  14. Journal accused of manipulating impact factor. BMJ 1997;314(7079):461.
  15. Citation rates and impact factors: should they matter? Br J Radiol 2001 Jan;74(877):1-3.
  16. Impact factors: uses and abuses. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2002;14(3):209-211.
  17. Journal evaluation: technical and practical issues. Libr Trends 2002;50(3):418-439.
  18. On the pitfalls of journal ranking by Impact Factor. Eur J Oral Sci 1998 Feb;106(1):525-526.
  19. Development and application of new journal impact measures. Cortex J Devoted Study Nerv Syst Behav 2001 Sep;37(4):607-610.
  20. The ‘impact factor’ revisited. Biomed Digit Libr 2005 Dec 5;2:7.
  21. [Indexes for the evaluation of scientific publications: what they are and what they are used for]. Rev Port Cardiol Orgão of Soc Port Cardiol Port J Cardiol Off J Port Soc Cardiol. 2000 May;19(5):611-615.
  22. Glossary of Scientific. http://ip-science.thomsonreuters.com/support/patents/patinf/terms/#C Accessed January 23, 2014.
  23. How research becomes knowledge in radiology: an analysis of citations to published papers. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1988 Jan;150(1):31-37.
  24. New bibliometric tools for the assessment of national research performance: Database description, overview of indicators and first applications. Scientometrics 1995;33(3):381-422.
  25. Bibliometric handbook for Karolinska Institutet. Huddinge Karolinska Institutet 2008.
  26. Is it better or just the same? An analysis of the impact of scientific article identification strategies on bibliometric assessments. Eighth Int Conf Sci Technol Indic 2004.p.145.
  27. Lifting the crown—citation z score. J Informetr 2007;1(2):145-154.
  28. An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2005 Nov 15;102(46):16569-16572.
  29. Does the h-index for ranking of scientists really work? Scientometrics 2005;65(3):391-392.
  30. Scientific evaluation of the scholarly publications. J Pharmacol Pharmacother 2013 Apr;4(2):125-129.
  31. Are there better indices for evaluation purposes than the h-index? A comparison of nine different variants of the h-index using data from biomedicine. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol 2008;59(5):830-837.
  32. The state of h index research. Is the h-index the ideal way to measure research performance? EMBO Rep 2009;10(1)2.
  33. Theory and practise of the g-index. Scientometrics 2006;69(1):131-152.
  34. A new Hirsch-type index saves time and works equally well as the original h-index. ISSI Newsl 2006;2(3):4-6.
  35. Part II: Should the h-Index Be Modified? An Analysis of the m-Quotient, Contemporary h-Index, Authorship Value, and Impact Factor. World Neurosurg 2013 Dec;80(6):766-774.
  36. The e-index, complementing the h-index for excess citations. PloS One. 2009;4(5):e5429.
  37. Journal impact factors. Allergy 1998 Dec;53(12):1225.
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.