The citation disadvantage of clinical research |
| |
| Institution: | 1. International Joint Informatics Laboratory (IJIL), Nanjing University, Nanjing, 210023, China;2. International Joint Informatics Laboratory (IJIL), University of Illinois, Champaign, United States;3. Jiangsu Key Laboratory of Data Engineering and Knowledge Service, School of Information Management, Nanjing University, Nanjing, 210023, China;1. Laboratory for Studies of Research and Technology Transfer, Institute for System Analysis and Computer Science (IASI-CNR), National Research Council of Italy, Viale Manzoni 30, 00185 Rome, Italy;2. Department of Engineering and Management, University of Rome “Tor Vergata”, Via del Politecnico 1, 00133 Rome, Italy;1. Laboratory for Studies in Research Evaluation, Institute for System Analysis and Computer Science (IASI-CNR), National Research Council, Rome, Italy;2. Nordic Institute for Studies in Innovation, Research and Education, Oslo, Norway;3. University of Rome “Tor Vergata”, Dept of Engineering and Management, Rome, Italy;1. Sapienza University of Rome, Italy;2. SCImago Group, Madrid, Spain;3. SCImago Group, Dept. Information and Communication, University of Extremadura, Badajoz, Spain;4. University Complutense of Madrid, Information Science Faculty, Dept. Information and Library Science, SCImago Group, Spain;1. Department of Computer Science and Engineering, IIT Roorkee, India;2. Department of Computer Science and Engineering, IIT Gandhinagar, India;3. Department of Computer Science and Engineering, IIT Kharagpur, India;4. Department of Computer Science and Engineering, IIT Bombay, India;1. Center for Modern Korean Studies, Yonsei University, Wonju, Republic of Korea;2. Department of Library and Information Science, Yonsei University, Seoul, Republic of Korea;3. College of Computing and Informatics, Drexel University, Philadelphia, USA |
| |
| Abstract: | Biomedical research encompasses diverse types of activities, from basic science (“bench”) to clinical medicine (“bedside”) to bench-to-bedside translational research. It, however, remains unclear whether different types of research receive citations at varying rates. Here we aim to answer this question by using a newly proposed paper-level indicator that quantifies the extent to which a paper is basic science or clinical medicine. Applying this measure to 5 million biomedical papers, we find a systematic citation disadvantage of clinical oriented papers; they tend to garner far fewer citations and are less likely to be hit works than papers oriented towards basic science. At the same time, clinical research has a higher variance in its citation. We also find that the citation difference between basic and clinical research decreases, yet still persists, if longer citation-window is used. Given the increasing adoption of short-term, citation-based bibliometric indicators in funding decisions, the under-cited effect of clinical research may provide disincentives for bio-researchers to venture into the translation of basic scientific discoveries into clinical applications, thus providing explanations of reasons behind the existence of the gap between basic and clinical research that is commented as “valley of death” and the commentary of “extinction” risk of translational researchers. Our work may provide insights to policy-makers on how to evaluate different types of biomedical research. |
| |
| Keywords: | Biomedicine Basic research Clinical medicine Citation analysis Bias |
| 本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录！ |
|
