Poorly Cited Articles in Peer-Reviewed Cardiovascular Journals from 1997 to 2007

Isuru Ranasinghe · Abbas Shojaee · Behnood Bikdeli · Aakriti Gupta · Ruijun Chen · Joseph S. Ross +4 more

37 citations0/0 files storedCirculation

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

scientometrics and bibliometrics research Academic Writing and Publishing Academic Publishing and Open Access

Abstract

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.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 37 citations exist upstream.

References

2005An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output 2009Avoidable waste in the production and reporting of research evidence 2009Comparisons of Citations in Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar for Articles Published in General Medical Journals 1989Problems of citation analysis: A critical review 2008What is missing from descriptions of treatment in trials and reviews?2006Evidence of bias and variation in diagnostic accuracy studies 2009Avoidable Waste in the Production and Reporting of Research Evidence 2003Impact factors: use and abuse.

Cited by

2016An Academic Healthcare Twitter Account: The Mayo Clinic Experience 2019The role of social media in cardiology 2018Factors Associated With the Highest and Lowest Cited Research Articles in Urology Journals 2018Uncited Research Articles in Popular United States General Radiology Journals 2020Factors Associated With the Highest and Lowest Cited Research Articles in General Surgery Journals

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.