The DOI matches its Crossref record; 16 of the 16 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Bibliometric Methods: Pitfalls and Possibilities
Open accessAbstract
Abstract: Bibliometric studies are increasingly being used for research assessment. Bibliometric indicators are strongly methodology‐dependent but for all of them, various types of data normalization are an indispensable requirement. Bibliometric studies have many pitfalls; technical skill, critical sense and a precise knowledge about the examined scientific domain are required to carry out and interpret bibliometric investigations correctly.
Overview
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
Verification
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.
Citations
Cites
The Matthew Effect in Science: The reward and communication systems of science are considered.
Merton, R. K. (1968) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.159.3810.56 · Cited by 6,720
Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research
Seglen, P. O. (1997) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.314.7079.497 · Cited by 2,447
Nigel Gilbert, G. (1977) · Social Studies of Science · doi:10.1177/030631277700700112 · Cited by 691
MacRoberts, M. H., & MacRoberts, B. R. (1996) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/bf02129604 · Cited by 503
The use of bibliometric data for the measurement of university research performance
Moed, H. F., Burger, W. J. M., Frankfort, J. G., & Van Raan, A. F. J. (1985) · Research Policy · doi:10.1016/0048-7333(85)90012-5 · Cited by 472
A macro study of self-citation
Aksnes, D. W. (2003) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1023/a:1021919228368 · Cited by 357
Leydesdorff, L. (1998) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/bf02458391 · Cited by 347
Baldi, S. (1998) · American Sociological Review · doi:10.2307/2657504 · Cited by 335
Private acts and public objects: An investigation of citer motivations
Brooks, T. A. (1985) · Journal of the American Society for Information Science · doi:10.1002/asi.4630360402 · Cited by 256
Some bibliometric correlates of quality in scientific research
Lawani, S. M. (1986) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/bf02016604 · Cited by 222
Cited by
How to conduct a bibliometric analysis: An overview and guidelines
Donthu, N., Kumar, S., Mukherjee, D., Pandey, N., & Lim, W. M. (2021) · Journal of Business Research · doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.04.070 · Cited by 14,329
Bibliometric Methods in Management and Organization
Zupic, I., & Čater, T. (2015) · Organizational Research Methods · doi:10.1177/1094428114562629 · Cited by 7,495
Meho, L. I., & Yang, K. (2007) · Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology · doi:10.1002/asi.20677 · Cited by 974
A bibliometric-based survey on AHP and TOPSIS techniques
Zyoud, S. H., & Fuchs-Hanusch, D. (2017) · Expert Systems with Applications · doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2017.02.016 · Cited by 492
Montazeri, A., Mohammadi, S., M.Hesari, P., Ghaemi, M., Riazi, H., & Sheikhi-Mobarakeh, Z. (2023) · Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1186/s13643-023-02410-2 · Cited by 433
Metadata
- Authors
- Wallin, J. A.
- Venue
- Basic & Clinical Pharmacology & Toxicology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2005-10-18
- Volume
- 97
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 261-275
- ISSN
- 1742-7835 (ISSN-L)
- 1742-7843
- OpenAlex
- W2039027543
- Cited by
- 884
- References
- 16
- FWCI
- 5.90
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Bibliometric Methods: Pitfalls and Possibilities. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1742-7843.2005.pto_139.x
- The paper
- Wallin, J. A. (2005). Bibliometric Methods: Pitfalls and Possibilities. Basic & Clinical Pharmacology & Toxicology. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1742-7843.2005.pto_139.x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
