Articles in Peer-Reviewed Cardiovascular Journals from 1997-2007 : Analysis of 5-Year Citation Rates

Background— The extent to which articles are cited is a surrogate of the impact and importance of the research conducted; poorly cited articles may identify research of limited use and potential wasted investments. We assessed trends in the rates of poorly cited articles and journals in the cardiovascular literature from 1997 to 2007. Methods and Results— We identified original articles published in cardiovascular journals and indexed in the Scopus citation database from 1997 to 2007. We defined poorly cited articles as those with ⩽5 citations in the 5 years following publication and poorly cited journals as those with >75% of journal content poorly cited. We identified 164 377 articles in 222 cardiovascular journals from 1997 to 2007. From 1997 to 2007, the number of cardiovascular articles and journals increased by 56.9% and 75.2%, respectively. Of all the articles, 75 550 (46.0%) were poorly cited, of which 25 650 (15.6% overall) had no citations. From 1997 to 2007, the proportion of poorly cited articles declined slightly (52.1%–46.2%, trend P<0.001), although the absolute number of poorly cited articles increased by 2595 (trend P<0.001). At a journal level, 44% of cardiovascular journals had more than three-fourths of the journal’s content poorly cited at 5 years. Conclusion— Nearly half of all peer-reviewed articles published in cardiovascular journals are poorly cited 5 years after publication, and many are not cited at all. The cardiovascular literature and the number of poorly cited articles both increased substantially from 1997 to 2007. The high proportion of poorly cited articles and journals suggests inefficiencies in the cardiovascular research enterprise.

[1]  Joan Fowler Federal Funds for Research and Development , 1969 .

[2]  Eugene Garfield,et al.  Citation data as science indicators , 1978 .

[3]  Michael H. MacRoberts,et al.  Problems of citation analysis: A critical review , 1989, JASIS.

[4]  David P. Hamilton Publishing by--and for?--the numbers. , 1990, Science.

[5]  J. Tainer Science, citation, and funding. , 1991, Science.

[6]  David P. Hamilton Research papers: who's uncited now? , 1991, Science.

[7]  W. Banks Science, citation, and funding. , 1991, Science.

[8]  Leroy Hood says no. , 1991, Science.

[9]  P. Seglen,et al.  Citations and journal impact factors: questionable indicators of research quality , 1997, Allergy.

[10]  E. Russo,et al.  SEARCH CONTINUES FOR BIOCHEMICAL PAHTWAY THAT LEADS TO ONSET OF ALZHEIMER'S DISEASE , 1998 .

[11]  M. Amin,et al.  Impact factors: use and abuse. , 2003, Medicina.

[12]  Ben R. Martin,et al.  The use of multiple indicators in the assessment of basic research , 1996, Scientometrics.

[13]  J. E. Hirsch,et al.  An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output , 2005, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA.

[14]  Nicola J Cooper,et al.  The use of systematic reviews when designing studies , 2005, Clinical trials.

[15]  David J Torgerson,et al.  Adequacy and reporting of allocation concealment: review of recent trials published in four general medical journals , 2005, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[16]  Johannes B Reitsma,et al.  Evidence of bias and variation in diagnostic accuracy studies , 2006, Canadian Medical Association Journal.

[17]  Carl Heneghan,et al.  What is missing from descriptions of treatment in trials and reviews? , 2008, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[18]  C. Neylon,et al.  Article-Level Metrics and the Evolution of Scientific Impact , 2009, PLoS biology.

[19]  Marie E. McVeigh,et al.  The journal impact factor denominator: defining citable (counted) items. , 2009, JAMA.

[20]  P. Glasziou,et al.  Avoidable waste in the production and reporting of research evidence , 2009, The Lancet.

[21]  Harlan M. Krumholz,et al.  Trial Publication after Registration in ClinicalTrials.Gov: A Cross-Sectional Analysis , 2009, PLoS medicine.

[22]  A. Kulkarni,et al.  Comparisons of citations in Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar for articles published in general medical journals. , 2009, JAMA.

[23]  Michael H. MacRoberts,et al.  Problems of citation analysis: A study of uncited and seldom-cited influences , 2010, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[24]  Ara Darzi,et al.  How has healthcare research performance been assessed? A systematic review , 2011, Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine.

[25]  Li Zhang,et al.  The Evolution of Academic Performance in Nine Subspecialties of Internal Medicine: An Analysis of Journal Citation Reports from 1998 to 2010 , 2012, PloS one.

[26]  Robert M Califf,et al.  Characteristics of clinical trials registered in ClinicalTrials.gov, 2007-2010. , 2012, JAMA.

[27]  Charlotte Haug,et al.  The downside of open-access publishing. , 2013, The New England journal of medicine.

[28]  H. Krumholz How do we know the value of our research? , 2013, Circulation. Cardiovascular quality and outcomes.

[29]  Iain Chalmers,et al.  How to increase value and reduce waste when research priorities are set , 2014, The Lancet.

[30]  Rustam Al-Shahi Salman,et al.  Increasing value and reducing waste in biomedical research regulation and management , 2014, The Lancet.

[31]  Harlan M Krumholz,et al.  Increasing value and reducing waste: addressing inaccessible research , 2014, The Lancet.