AB288. SOH26AB_0337. “Notions” and notice with caveats of citation scores
Head & Neck Posters

AB288. SOH26AB_0337. “Notions” and notice with caveats of citation scores

Nyabwire Kaare1,2, Nyamateja Kaare1,2, Daniel Coelho3, John Fenton1,2

1Academic Department of Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery (ORL-HNS), Faculty of Surgery, University of Limerick, Ireland; 2Clinical Education and Research Centre (CERC), University Hospital Limerick, Limerick, Ireland; 3Department of Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery, School of Medicine, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA, USA

Background: Issues that arise with citation scores in medical publications commence with what is worthy of citation and where is it cited? Generally, author-order and rank are not considered in calculating scores. Various tools used to calculate bibliometrics have supporters and detractors. The aim of this paper was to assess the results of the senior author’s (J.F.) publication record and citation scores from a sample of databases and reflect on the relevant results.

Methods: A search for all publications, h-index score, number of citations, number of first author, senior author, and co-author publications on Medline, Scopus, Google Scholar, Web of Science, and ResearchGate.

Results: Medline identified 140 articles, 36 were first author and 52 were senior author, with a range to 34th author of 40. Google Scholar demonstrated a h-index of 33. ResearchGate revealed 259 research items with a total of 2,920 citations, h-index 30, and Research Interest Score of 1,653. Both Scopus and Web of Science lists were incomplete and indicated a h-index of 24 and 21, respectively.

Conclusions: The tools of bibliometrics scores vary on almost every aspect of metrics and citation analysis for one individual. There should be a weighted approach to citation scores with a downward titration from the first author to senior authorship followed by co-authors. It may be appropriate to divide the designated co-author percentage by the number of co-authors with an equal score for each. If a published article is cited in any format that reference is worthy of a score.

Keywords: Authorship; bibliometrics; citation; medical; publication

Acknowledgments

None.

Footnote

Funding: None.

Conflicts of Interest: The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Ethical Statement: The authors are accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

Open Access Statement: This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), which permits the non-commercial replication and distribution of the article with the strict proviso that no changes or edits are made and the original work is properly cited (including links to both the formal publication through the relevant DOI and the license). See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.

doi: 10.21037/map-26-ab288
Cite this abstract as: Kaare N, Kaare N, Coelho D, Fenton J. AB288. SOH26AB_0337. “Notions” and notice with caveats of citation scores. Mesentery Peritoneum 2026;10:AB288.

Article Options

Download Citation

Share