Bibliometrics approach to evaluating the research impact of CTSAs: A pilot study
Open accessAbstract
Introduction: To enhance the performance evaluation of Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) hubs, we examined the utility of advanced bibliometric measures that go beyond simple publication counts to demonstrate the impact of translational research output. Methods: The sampled data included North Carolina Translational and Clinical Science Institute (NC TraCS)-supported publications produced between September 2008 and March 2017. We adopted advanced bibliometric measures and a state-of-the-art bibliometric network analysis tool to assess research productivity, citation impact, the scope of research collaboration, and the clusters of research topics. Results: Totally, 754 NC TraCS-supported publications generated over 24,000 citation counts by April 2017 with an average of 33 cites per article. NC TraCS-supported research papers received more than twice as many cites per year as the average National Institute of Health-funded research publications from the same field and time. We identified the top productive researchers and their networks within the CTSA hub. Findings demonstrated the impact of NC TraCS in facilitating interdisciplinary collaborations within the CTSA hub and across the CTSA consortium and connecting researchers with right peers and organizations. Conclusion: Both improved bibliometrics measures and bibliometric network analysis can bring new perspectives to CTSA evaluation via citation influence and the scope of research collaborations.
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Liraglutide and Cardiovascular Outcomes in Type 2 Diabetes
Marso, S. P., Daniels, G. H., Brown-Frandsen, K., Kristensen, P., Mann, J. F. E., Nauck, M. A., Nissen, S. E., Pocock, S., Poulter, N. R., Ravn, L. S., et al. (2016) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa1603827 · Cited by 7,629 · cited 1× · see citing works
“The spike in the 2016 FWCI is driven by an outlier – one highly cited study published with support from NC TraCS [35].”
BackgroundSelf-citationHutchins, B. I., Yuan, X., Anderson, J. M., & Santangelo, G. M. (2016) · PLoS Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1002541 · Cited by 500 · see citing works
The rise and rise of citation analysis
Meho, L. I. (2007) · Physics World · doi:10.1088/2058-7058/20/1/33 · Cited by 371 · see citing works
Citation rates and journal impact factors are not suitable for evaluation of research
Seglen, P. O. (1998) · Acta Orthopaedica Scandinavica · doi:10.3109/17453679809000920 · Cited by 240 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Structure, function, and productivity from the National Dental Practice-Based Research Network.
Gilbert, G. H., Fellows, J. L., Allareddy, V., Cochran, D. L., Cunha-Cruz, J., Gordan, V. V., McBurnie, M. A., Meyerowitz, C., Mungia, R., Rindal, D. B., et al. (2022) · Journal of Clinical and Translational Science · doi:10.1017/cts.2022.421 · Cited by 54 · see citing works
“Establishing consensus about methods to quantify success and productivity of large research groups may be important to justify continued funding or establishing new networks [28,29].”
BackgroundMani, N. S., Hayes, B. E., Dodd, A., Yu, F., & Cawley, M. A. (2021) · Advances in Library and Information Science · doi:10.4018/978-1-7998-7258-0.ch017 · Cited by 4 · see citing works
Self-citation
- Authors
- Yu, F., Van, A. A., Patel, T., Mani, N., Carnegie, A., Corbie-Smith, G. M., Carey, T., Buse, J., & Dave, G.
- Affiliations
- University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
- Corresponding author
- Yu, Fei
- Venue
- Journal of Clinical and Translational Science
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 2020-04-02
- Volume
- 4
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 336-344
- ISSN
- 2059-8661 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC7681148
- OpenAlex
- W3014182976
- Cited by
- 26
- References
- 4
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 1
- FWCI
- 1.82
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Locations
- Journal of Clinical and Translational Science (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Carolina Digital Repository (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
- UNC Libraries
- Funders
- National Institutes of Health (UL1TR002489)
- University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (UL1TR002489)
- National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (K24HL105493)
- National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (P30DK124723)
- National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › scientometrics and bibliometrics research
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Health and Medical Research Impacts
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Web visibility and informetrics
- Keywords
- Clinical and Translational Science Awards, research impact assessment, bibliometric indicators, citation impact, bibliometric network analysis, research collaboration networks, interdisciplinary collaboration, research productivity, research topic clusters
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
