Measuring Knowledge Translation Uptake Using Citation Metrics: A Case Study of a Pan-Canadian Network of Pharmacoepidemiology Researchers

Melissa Rothfus; Ingrid S. Sketris; Robyn Traynor; Melissa Helwig; Samuel A. Stewart

doi:10.1080/0194262X.2016.1192008

Measuring Knowledge Translation Uptake Using Citation Metrics: A Case Study of a Pan-Canadian Network of Pharmacoepidemiology Researchers

Melissa Rothfus, Ingrid S. Sketris, Robyn Traynor, Melissa Helwig, Samuel A. Stewart

Producción científica: Contribución a una revista › Artículo › revisión exhaustiva

5 Citas (Scopus)

Resumen

Collecting citation metric data is important, as research funders are increasingly demanding impact assessment, but there is limited consensus on the most rigorous and accurate approach. We compared three sources of citation counts (Google Scholar, Web of Science, Scopus) to determine their reliability, comprehensiveness, and currency. We identified each tool’s strengths and limitations, particularly when considering team outputs. Citation counts varied, with poor overall agreement: Fleiss’ kappa, 0.075 (95% CI [0.01, 0.12]). Researchers, funders, and administrators need to understand each tool’s unique strengths and limitations and develop guidelines for use within specific contexts.

Idioma original	English
Páginas (desde-hasta)	228-240
Número de páginas	13
Publicación	Science and Technology Libraries
Volumen	35
N.º	3
DOI	https://doi.org/10.1080/0194262X.2016.1192008
Estado	Published - jul. 2 2016
Publicado de forma externa	Sí

Nota bibliográfica

Funding Information:
The Canadian Network for Observational Drug Effect Studies (CNODES), a collaborating center of the Drug Safety and Effectiveness Network (DSEN), is funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (Grant Number DSE-111845). MR, IS, and RT received salary support, in part, from CIHR for the CNODES project.

Publisher Copyright:
© 2016, Published with license by Taylor & Francis © 2016 Melissa Rothfus, Ingrid S. Sketris, Robyn Traynor, Melissa Helwig, and Samuel A. Stewart.

ASJC Scopus Subject Areas

Library and Information Sciences

Acceder al documento

10.1080/0194262X.2016.1192008

Otros archivos y enlaces

Citar esto

Measuring Knowledge Translation Uptake Using Citation Metrics: A Case Study of a Pan-Canadian Network of Pharmacoepidemiology Researchers. / Rothfus, Melissa; Sketris, Ingrid S.; Traynor, Robyn et al.
En: Science and Technology Libraries, Vol. 35, N.º 3, 02.07.2016, p. 228-240.

Producción científica: Contribución a una revista › Artículo › revisión exhaustiva

@article{b7a6db66b1684c878f9b3594342f2db0,

title = "Measuring Knowledge Translation Uptake Using Citation Metrics: A Case Study of a Pan-Canadian Network of Pharmacoepidemiology Researchers",

abstract = "Collecting citation metric data is important, as research funders are increasingly demanding impact assessment, but there is limited consensus on the most rigorous and accurate approach. We compared three sources of citation counts (Google Scholar, Web of Science, Scopus) to determine their reliability, comprehensiveness, and currency. We identified each tool{\textquoteright}s strengths and limitations, particularly when considering team outputs. Citation counts varied, with poor overall agreement: Fleiss{\textquoteright} kappa, 0.075 (95% CI [0.01, 0.12]). Researchers, funders, and administrators need to understand each tool{\textquoteright}s unique strengths and limitations and develop guidelines for use within specific contexts.",

author = "Melissa Rothfus and Sketris, {Ingrid S.} and Robyn Traynor and Melissa Helwig and Stewart, {Samuel A.}",

note = "Funding Information: The Canadian Network for Observational Drug Effect Studies (CNODES), a collaborating center of the Drug Safety and Effectiveness Network (DSEN), is funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (Grant Number DSE-111845). MR, IS, and RT received salary support, in part, from CIHR for the CNODES project. Publisher Copyright: {\textcopyright} 2016, Published with license by Taylor & Francis {\textcopyright} 2016 Melissa Rothfus, Ingrid S. Sketris, Robyn Traynor, Melissa Helwig, and Samuel A. Stewart.",

year = "2016",

month = jul,

day = "2",

doi = "10.1080/0194262X.2016.1192008",

language = "English",

volume = "35",

pages = "228--240",

journal = "Science and Technology Libraries",

issn = "0194-262X",

publisher = "Routledge",

number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Measuring Knowledge Translation Uptake Using Citation Metrics

T2 - A Case Study of a Pan-Canadian Network of Pharmacoepidemiology Researchers

AU - Rothfus, Melissa

AU - Sketris, Ingrid S.

AU - Traynor, Robyn

AU - Helwig, Melissa

AU - Stewart, Samuel A.

N1 - Funding Information: The Canadian Network for Observational Drug Effect Studies (CNODES), a collaborating center of the Drug Safety and Effectiveness Network (DSEN), is funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (Grant Number DSE-111845). MR, IS, and RT received salary support, in part, from CIHR for the CNODES project. Publisher Copyright: © 2016, Published with license by Taylor & Francis © 2016 Melissa Rothfus, Ingrid S. Sketris, Robyn Traynor, Melissa Helwig, and Samuel A. Stewart.

PY - 2016/7/2

Y1 - 2016/7/2

N2 - Collecting citation metric data is important, as research funders are increasingly demanding impact assessment, but there is limited consensus on the most rigorous and accurate approach. We compared three sources of citation counts (Google Scholar, Web of Science, Scopus) to determine their reliability, comprehensiveness, and currency. We identified each tool’s strengths and limitations, particularly when considering team outputs. Citation counts varied, with poor overall agreement: Fleiss’ kappa, 0.075 (95% CI [0.01, 0.12]). Researchers, funders, and administrators need to understand each tool’s unique strengths and limitations and develop guidelines for use within specific contexts.

AB - Collecting citation metric data is important, as research funders are increasingly demanding impact assessment, but there is limited consensus on the most rigorous and accurate approach. We compared three sources of citation counts (Google Scholar, Web of Science, Scopus) to determine their reliability, comprehensiveness, and currency. We identified each tool’s strengths and limitations, particularly when considering team outputs. Citation counts varied, with poor overall agreement: Fleiss’ kappa, 0.075 (95% CI [0.01, 0.12]). Researchers, funders, and administrators need to understand each tool’s unique strengths and limitations and develop guidelines for use within specific contexts.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84976314621&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84976314621&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1080/0194262X.2016.1192008

DO - 10.1080/0194262X.2016.1192008

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:84976314621

SN - 0194-262X

VL - 35

SP - 228

EP - 240

JO - Science and Technology Libraries

JF - Science and Technology Libraries

IS - 3

ER -

Measuring Knowledge Translation Uptake Using Citation Metrics: A Case Study of a Pan-Canadian Network of Pharmacoepidemiology Researchers

Resumen

Nota bibliográfica

ASJC Scopus Subject Areas

Acceder al documento

Otros archivos y enlaces

Huella

Citar esto