Bibliometrics: methods for studying academic publishing
Open accessAbstract
Bibliometrics is the study of academic publishing that uses statistics to describe publishing trends and to highlight relationships between published works. Likened to epidemiology, researchers seek to answer questions about a field based on data about publications (e.g., authors, topics, funding) in the same way that an epidemiologist queries patient data to understand the health of a population. In this Eye Opener, the authors introduce bibliometrics and define its key terminology and concepts, including relational and evaluative bibliometrics. Readers are introduced to common bibliometric methods and their related strengths and weaknesses. The authors provide examples of bibliometrics applied in health professions education and propose potential future research directions. Health professions educators are consumers of bibliometric reports and can adopt its methodologies for future studies.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Bibliometrics is a quantitative research method that uses mathematical and statistical tools to analyze publication patterns and trends in scientific literature.
“Bibliometrics is a quantitative research method that uses mathematical and statistical tools to analyze publication patterns and trends in scientific literature (Ninkov et al., 2022).”
From Research trends and hotspots of cognitive behavioral therapy for tinnitus: a bibliometric analysis (2025) · cites this paper as Ninkov et al., 2022
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 23 · Cited by 1,048
- Authors
- Ninkov, A., Frank, J. R., & Maggio, L. A.
- Affiliations
- University of Ottawa (CA)
- Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences (US)
- Corresponding author
- Ninkov, Anton
- Venue
- Perspectives on Medical Education
- Publisher
- Ubiquity Press, Ltd.
- Published
- 2021-12-16
- Volume
- 11
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 173-176
- ISSN
- 2212-2761 (ISSN-L)
- 2212-277X
- PMC
- PMC9240160
- OpenAlex
- W4200395585
- Cited by
- 1,048
- References
- 23
- Citations by year
- 2026: 254 · 2025: 366 · 2024: 288 · 2023: 122 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 1
- FWCI
- 61.26
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- diamond
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Perspectives on Medical Education (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › scientometrics and bibliometrics research
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Psychology Research and Bibliometrics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Academic Writing and Publishing
- Keywords
- bibliometric analysis, scholarly publishing, bibliometric methods, health professions education, research trends, publication analysis
- MeSH terms
- Humans, Publications, Publishing, Bibliometrics
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review