Additional support for RCR: A validated article-level measure of scientific influence
Open accessThe 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?
The RCR has performed better than journal impact factor, citations per year, or the Thompson-Reuters ratio as a method to quantify publication quality or its impact on the field.
“As one of several methods to quantify publication quality or its impact on the field, the RCR has performed better than journal impact factor, citations per year, or the Thompson–Reuters ratio [11,26,27].”
From Structure, function, and productivity from the National Dental Practice-Based Research Network. (2022) · cites this paper as [26]
In the paper’s main text (page unavailable), the authors call RCR a validated measure of publication influence and say they consider it the best available method for assessing that influence. They distinguish its approach from journal impact factors, but do not report a performance comparison with journal impact factor, citations per year, or the Thompson–Reuters ratio. The claim of better performance against those specific measures, and its extension to publication quality, are therefore not established by this copy. (LLM, conf=0.85)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 4 · Cited by 36
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- [6]Janssens AC, Gwinn M. Novel citation-based search method for scientific literature: application to meta-analyses. BMC medical research methodology. 2015; 15: 84 Epub 2015/10/16. doi: 10.1186/s12874-015-0077-z; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4604708. 26462491 PMC4604708 · DOI
- [7]Santangelo GM. Article-level assessment of influence and translation in biomedical research. Molecular biology of the cell. 2017; 28(11): 1401– 8. Epub 2017/06/01. doi: 10.1091/mbc.E16-01-0037; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC5449139. 28559438 PMC5449139 · DOI
- Authors
- Hutchins, B. I., Hoppe, T. A., Meseroll, R. A., Anderson, J. M., & Santangelo, G. M.
- Affiliations
- National Institutes of Health (US)
- Corresponding author
- Santangelo, George M.
- Venue
- PLOS Biology
- Publisher
- Public Library of Science (PLoS)
- Published
- 2017-10-02
- Volume
- 15
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- e2003552
- ISSN
- 1544-9173 (ISSN-L)
- 1545-7885
- PMC
- PMC5624567
- OpenAlex
- W2763187212
- Cited by
- 36
- References
- 4
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 2
- FWCI
- 1.47
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- public-domain
- creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (vor)
- Locations
- PLoS Biology (publishedVersion, public-domain)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, public-domain)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, public-domain)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Funders
- National Institutes of Health (Z99 OD999999)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › scientometrics and bibliometrics research
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Academic Publishing and Open Access
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Academic integrity and plagiarism
- Keywords
- scientific impact, citation impact, bibliometric analysis
- MeSH terms
- Scientific Misconduct, Ethics, Research
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
