MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2601148230 · doi:10.1108/cb-10-2016-0028

Highly cited articles in malaria research: a bibliometric analysis

2017· article· en· W2601148230 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueCollection Building · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMalaria Research and Control
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBibliometricsLibrary scienceScience Citation IndexWeb of scienceImpact factorCitationCitation analysisQuarter (Canadian coin)Dominance (genetics)Computer scienceMEDLINEHistoryPolitical scienceBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to reveal the bibliometric characteristics of highly cited articles in Malaria research for the period of 1991-2015. Design/methodology/approach The data of highly cited articles for the period of 1991 to 2015 were extracted from the Science Citation Index Expended of Web of Science. The keyword “Malaria” was used as topic term to search documents that contained this word in the title or keyword or abstract of the documents that published in 1991 to 2015. A total of 1,614 articles having TC 2015 = 100 were retrieved as highly cited articles for further analysis, and Microsoft excel was used for the analysis purpose. Findings A total of 1,614 of highly cited articles were published in the 230 journals for the period of 1991 to 2015, and majority of the articles were appeared in journals that have top impact factor. The articles published in the 2011s have greater average citations and authors per article. Six journals have produced almost a quarter of highly cited articles and remaining articles were published in 224 journals. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA was the most productive journal with 154 articles, which accounts for 9.53 per cent of the total articles, followed by Lancet (110; 6.81 per cent). We found degree collaboration value of 0.971 for the articles, which indicates the clear dominance of multiple authors in publication of highly cited articles in Malaria research. In this study, new indictor called P index was applied for the evaluation of the author’s productivity. As per the p -value, the White, NJ has emerged as the most productive author with the p -value of 0.41 (61 articles), followed by Marsh, K ( p = 0.33), Nosten, F ( p = 0.32) and Snow, RW ( p = 0.31). The USA and the UK were the most productive countries. The article entitled as “Global and regional burden of disease and risk factors, 2001: systematic analysis of population health data” contributed by Lopez et al. (2006) was the most cited article with 2,245 citations in 2015. Research limitations/implications The data for the present study was limited to the publications that indexed in Science Citation index Expended of Web of Science. Originality/value This paper would be useful to the researchers to know the trends and achievements in the Malaria research and also to the library and information science professionals in collection building process.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesBibliometrics
Consensus categoriesBibliometrics
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.070
Threshold uncertainty score0.873

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.1370.178
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.114
GPT teacher head0.408
Teacher spread0.293 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it