IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0061837.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Trends in Citations to Books on Epidemiological and Statistical Methods in the Biomedical Literature

Author

Listed:
  • Miquel Porta
  • Jan P Vandenbroucke
  • John P A Ioannidis
  • Sergio Sanz
  • Esteve Fernandez
  • Raj Bhopal
  • Alfredo Morabia
  • Cesar Victora
  • Tomàs Lopez

Abstract

Background: There are no analyses of citations to books on epidemiological and statistical methods in the biomedical literature. Such analyses may shed light on how concepts and methods changed while biomedical research evolved. Our aim was to analyze the number and time trends of citations received from biomedical articles by books on epidemiological and statistical methods, and related disciplines. Methods and Findings: The data source was the Web of Science. The study books were published between 1957 and 2010. The first year of publication of the citing articles was 1945. We identified 125 books that received at least 25 citations. Books first published in 1980–1989 had the highest total and median number of citations per year. Nine of the 10 most cited texts focused on statistical methods. Hosmer & Lemeshow's Applied logistic regression received the highest number of citations and highest average annual rate. It was followed by books by Fleiss, Armitage, et al., Rothman, et al., and Kalbfleisch and Prentice. Fifth in citations per year was Sackett, et al., Evidence-based medicine. The rise of multivariate methods, clinical epidemiology, or nutritional epidemiology was reflected in the citation trends. Educational textbooks, practice-oriented books, books on epidemiological substantive knowledge, and on theory and health policies were much less cited. None of the 25 top-cited books had the theoretical or sociopolitical scope of works by Cochrane, McKeown, Rose, or Morris. Conclusions: Books were mainly cited to reference methods. Books first published in the 1980s continue to be most influential. Older books on theory and policies were rooted in societal and general medical concerns, while the most modern books are almost purely on methods.

Suggested Citation

  • Miquel Porta & Jan P Vandenbroucke & John P A Ioannidis & Sergio Sanz & Esteve Fernandez & Raj Bhopal & Alfredo Morabia & Cesar Victora & Tomàs Lopez, 2013. "Trends in Citations to Books on Epidemiological and Statistical Methods in the Biomedical Literature," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(5), pages 1-1, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0061837
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0061837
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0061837
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0061837&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0061837?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Anton J. Nederhof & Thed N. Leeuwen & Anthony F. J. Raan, 2010. "Highly cited non-journal publications in political science, economics and psychology: a first exploration," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 83(2), pages 363-374, May.
    2. Per O Seglen, 1992. "How representative is the journal impact factor?," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 2(3), pages 143-149, December.
    3. Krieger, Nancy, 1994. "Epidemiology and the web of causation: Has anyone seen the spider?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 39(7), pages 887-903, October.
    4. Kayvan Kousha & Mike Thelwall & Somayeh Rezaie, 2011. "Assessing the citation impact of books: The role of Google Books, Google Scholar, and Scopus," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 62(11), pages 2147-2164, November.
    5. Fang Zhang & Desireé Michaels & Barun Mathema & Shuaib Kauchali & Anjan Chatterjee & David Ferris & Tamarra James & Jennifer Knight & Matthew Dounel & Hebatullah Tawfik & Janet Frohlich & Li Kuang & E, 2004. "Evolution of epidemiologic methods and concepts in selected textbooks of the 20 th century," International Journal of Public Health, Springer;Swiss School of Public Health (SSPH+), vol. 49(2), pages 97-104, April.
    6. Victor R Fuchs, 1998. "Who Shall Live?:Health, Economics, and Social Choice," World Scientific Books, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., number 3534, February.
    7. Bhopal, R., 1999. "Paradigms in epidemiology textbooks: In the footsteps on Thomas Kuhn," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 89(8), pages 1162-1165.
    8. Linda Butler & Martijn S. Visser, 2006. "Extending citation analysis to non-source items," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 66(2), pages 327-343, February.
    9. Vincent Larivière & Yves Gingras & Éric Archambault, 2009. "The decline in the concentration of citations, 1900–2007," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 60(4), pages 858-862, April.
    10. Kayvan Kousha & Mike Thelwall & Somayeh Rezaie, 2011. "Assessing the citation impact of books: The role of Google Books, Google Scholar, and Scopus," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 62(11), pages 2147-2164, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Boyack, Kevin W. & Klavans, Richard, 2014. "Including cited non-source items in a large-scale map of science: What difference does it make?," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 8(3), pages 569-580.
    2. Eleonora Dagienė, 2024. "Mapping scholarly books: library metadata and research assessment," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(9), pages 5689-5714, September.
    3. Kousha, Kayvan & Thelwall, Mike, 2018. "Can Microsoft Academic help to assess the citation impact of academic books?," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(3), pages 972-984.
    4. Chi, Pei-Shan, 2016. "Differing disciplinary citation concentration patterns of book and journal literature?," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(3), pages 814-829.
    5. Daniel Torres-Salinas & Nicolás Robinson-García & Álvaro Cabezas-Clavijo & Evaristo Jiménez-Contreras, 2014. "Analyzing the citation characteristics of books: edited books, book series and publisher types in the book citation index," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 98(3), pages 2113-2127, March.
    6. Matthew S. Bickley & Kayvan Kousha & Michael Thelwall, 2020. "Can the impact of grey literature be assessed? An investigation of UK government publications cited by articles and books," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(2), pages 1425-1444, November.
    7. Qingqing Zhou & Chengzhi Zhang, 2020. "Evaluating wider impacts of books via fine-grained mining on citation literatures," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(3), pages 1923-1948, December.
    8. Alesia Zuccala & Roberto Cornacchia, 2016. "Data matching, integration, and interoperability for a metric assessment of monographs," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 108(1), pages 465-484, July.
    9. Martin-Martin, Alberto & Orduna-Malea, Enrique & Harzing, Anne-Wil & Delgado López-Cózar, Emilio, 2017. "Can we use Google Scholar to identify highly-cited documents?," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 11(1), pages 152-163.
    10. Daniel Torres-Salinas & Nicolás Robinson-Garcia & Juan Gorraiz, 2017. "Filling the citation gap: measuring the multidimensional impact of the academic book at institutional level with PlumX," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 113(3), pages 1371-1384, December.
    11. Mohammadamin Erfanmanesh & A. Noorhidawati & A. Abrizah, 2019. "What can Bookmetrix tell us about the impact of Springer Nature’s books," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 121(1), pages 521-536, October.
    12. Tausch, Arno, 2018. "The Market Power of Global Scientific Publishing Companies in the Age of Globalization. An Analysis Based on the OCLC Worldcat," MPRA Paper 87442, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    13. Siluo Yang & Xin Xing & Fan Qi & Maria Cláudia Cabrini Grácio, 2021. "Comparison of academic book impact from a disciplinary perspective: an analysis of citations and altmetric indicators," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(2), pages 1101-1123, February.
    14. Hall, C. Michael & Page, Stephen J., 2015. "Following the impact factor: Utilitarianism or academic compliance?," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 309-312.
    15. Mingkun Wei & Abdolreza Noroozi Chakoli, 2020. "Evaluating the relationship between the academic and social impact of open access books based on citation behaviors and social media attention," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(3), pages 2401-2420, December.
    16. Mike Thelwall, 2021. "Measuring Societal Impacts Of Research With Altmetrics? Common Problems And Mistakes," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 35(5), pages 1302-1314, December.
    17. Cristina López-Duarte & Marta M. Vidal-Suárez & Belén González-Díaz, 2019. "Cross-national distance and international business: an analysis of the most influential recent models," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 121(1), pages 173-208, October.
    18. Muhammad Omar & Arif Mehmood & Gyu Sang Choi & Han Woo Park, 2017. "Global mapping of artificial intelligence in Google and Google Scholar," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 113(3), pages 1269-1305, December.
    19. Ashraf Maleki, 2022. "OCLC library holdings: assessing availability of academic books in libraries in print and electronic compared to citations and altmetrics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(2), pages 991-1020, February.
    20. Ashraf Maleki, 2022. "Why does library holding format really matter for book impact assessment?: Modelling the relationship between citations and altmetrics with print and electronic holdings," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(2), pages 1129-1160, February.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0061837. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.