Abstract
Objectives
To compare the performance of a composite citation score (c-score) and its six constituent citation indices, including H-index, in predicting winners of the Weisenfeld Award in ophthalmologic research. Secondary objectives were to explore career and demographic characteristics of the most highly cited researchers in ophthalmology.
Methods
A publicly available database was accessed to compile a set of top researchers in the field of clinical ophthalmology and optometry based on Scopus data from 1996 to 2021. Each citation index was used to construct a multivariable model adjusted for author demographic characteristics. Using area under the receiver operating curve (AUC) analysis, each index’s model was evaluated for its ability to predict winners of the Weisenfeld Award in Ophthalmology, a research distinction presented by the Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology (ARVO). Secondary analyses investigated authors’ self-citation rates, career length, gender, and country affiliation over time.
Results
Approximately one thousand unique authors publishing primarily in clinical ophthalmology/optometry were analyzed. The c-score outperformed all other citation indices at predicting Weisenfeld Awardees, with an AUC of 0.99 (95% CI: 0.97–1.0). The H-index had an AUC of 0.89 (95% CI: 0.83–0.96). Authors with higher c-scores tended to have longer career lengths and similar self-citation rates compared to other authors. Sixteen percent of authors in the database were identified as female, and 64% were affiliated with the United States of America.
Conclusion
The c-score is an effective metric for assessing research impact in ophthalmology, as seen through its ability to predict Weisenfeld Awardees.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Access options
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 18 print issues and online access
$259.00 per year
only $14.39 per issue
Buy this article
- Purchase on Springer Link
- Instant access to full article PDF
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
Similar content being viewed by others
Data availability
All data used in this project are publicly available in the “Updated science-wide author databases of standardized citation indicators” found at the following website: https://elsevier.digitalcommonsdata.com/datasets/btchxktzyw/6.
References
Abbot A, Cyranoski D, Jones N. Metrics: do metrics matter? Nature. 2010;465:860–2. https://doi.org/10.1038/465860a.
Holden G, Rosenberg G, Barker K. Bibliometrics: a potential decision making aid in hiring, reappointment, tenure and promotion decisions. Soc Work Health Care. 2005;41:67–92. https://doi.org/10.1300/J010v41n03_03.
Haustein S, Larivière V. The use of bibliometrics for assessing research: possibilities, limitations and adverse effects. In: Welpe, I, Wollersheim, J, Ringelhan, S, Osterloh, M, eds. Incentives and performance.Cham: Springer; 2015. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-09785-5_8.
Tanya SM, He B, Tang J, He P, Zhang A, Sharma E, et al. Research productivity and impact of Canadian academic ophthalmologists: trends in H-index, gender, subspecialty, and faculty appointment. Can J Ophthalmol. 2022;57:188–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcjo.2021.03.011.
Lopez SA, Svider PF, Misra P, Bhagat N, Langer PD, Eloy JA. Gender differences in promotion and scholarly impact: an analysis of 1460 academic ophthalmologists. J Surg Educ. 2014;71:851–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsurg.2014.03.015.
Huang G, Fang CH, Lopez SA, Bhagat N, Langer PD, Eloy JA. Impact of fellowship training on research productivity in academic ophthalmology. J Surg Educ. 2015;72:410–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsurg.2014.10.010.
Hirsch JE. An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2005;102:16569–72. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0507655102.
Koltun V, Hafner D. The h-index is no longer an effective correlate of scientific reputation. PLOS ONE. 2021;16:e0253397. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0253397.
Schreiber M. A modification of the h-index: the hm-index accounts for multi-authored manuscripts. J Informetr. 2008;2:211–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2008.05.001.
Ioannidis JPA, Klavans R, Boyack KW. Multiple citation indicators and their composite across scientific disciplines. PLOS Biol. 2016;14:e1002501. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1002501.
ARVO Achievement Awards. https://www.arvo.org/awards-grants-and-fellowships/arvo-achievement-awards/.
Ioannidis JPA, Boyack KW, Baas J. Updated science-wide author databases of standardized citation indicators. PLOS Biol. 2020;18:e3000918. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3000918.
Robin X, Turck N, Hainard A, Tiberti N, Lisacek F, Sanchez JC, et al. pROC: an open-source package for R and S+ to analyze and compare ROC curves. BMC Bioinforma. 2011;12:77. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2105-12-77.
Nielsen MW, Andersen JP, Schiebinger L, Schneider JW. One and a half million medical papers reveal a link between author gender and attention to gender and sex analysis. Nat Hum Behav. 2017;1:791–6. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-017-0235-x.
Nguyen AX, Ratan S, Biyani A, Trinh XV, Saleh S, Sun Y, et al. Gender of award recipients in major ophthalmology societies. Am J Ophthalmol. 2021;231:120–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajo.2021.05.021.
Sinatra R, Wang D, Deville P, Song C, Barabási AL. Quantifying the evolution of individual scientific impact. Science. 2016;354:aaf5239. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaf5239.
Szomszor M, Pendlebury DA, Adams J. How much is too much? The difference between research influence and self-citation excess. Scientometrics. 2020;123:1119–47. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03417-5.
Reddy AK, Bounds GW, Bakri SJ, Gordon LK, Smith JR, Haller JA, et al. Representation of women with industry ties in ophthalmology. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2016;134:636. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2016.0552.
Mimouni M, Zayit-Soudry S, Segal O, Barak Y, Nemet AY, Shulman S, et al. Trends in authorship of articles in major ophthalmology journals by gender, 2002–2014. Ophthalmology. 2016;123:1824–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2016.04.034.
Santamaría L, Mihaljević H. Comparison and benchmark of name-to-gender inference services. PeerJ Comput Sci. 2018;4:e156. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj-cs.156.
Yang K, Meho LI. Citation analysis: a comparison of Google Scholar, Scopus, and Web of Science. Proc Am Soc Inf Sci Technol. 2006;43:1–15. https://doi.org/10.1002/meet.14504301185.
Allen P. World-Wide News Coverage in PlumX. 2017. https://plumanalytics.com/world-wide-news-coverage-plumx/.
Meschede C, Siebenlist T. Cross-metric compatability and inconsistencies of altmetrics. Scientometrics. 2018;115:283–97. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2674-1.
How Outputs Are Tracked and Measured. Altmetric https://help.altmetric.com/support/solutions/articles/6000234171-how-outputs-are-tracked-and-measured.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
GJ, AAP, and FW contributed to the conception and design of the work. AAP and ATP contributed to extracting and analyzing the data and drafting initial sections of the paper. BA, GJ, GL, and FW provided feedback during manuscript revision and approved of the submitted version.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary information
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Pan, A.A., Pham, A.T., Appelo, B. et al. Utilizing a composite citation index for evaluating clinical ophthalmology research: insights into gender, nationality, and self-citation among top ophthalmology researchers. Eye (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41433-023-02912-2
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41433-023-02912-2