Kaltman Jonathan R, Evans Frank J, Danthi Narasimhan S, Wu Colin O, DiMichele Donna M, Lauer Michael S
From the Heart Development and Structural Disease Branch (J.R.K., F.J.E.), Advanced Technologies and Surgery Branch (N.S.D.), Office of Biostatistics Research (C.O.W.), and the Office of the Director (M.S.L.), Division of Cardiovascular Sciences of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI), Bethesda, MD; and Office of the Director, Division of Blood Diseases and Resources of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, Bethesda, MD (D.M.D.).
Circ Res. 2014 Sep 12;115(7):617-24. doi: 10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.115.304766.
We previously demonstrated absence of association between peer-review-derived percentile ranking and raw citation impact in a large cohort of National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute cardiovascular R01 grants, but we did not consider pregrant investigator publication productivity. We also did not normalize citation counts for scientific field, type of article, and year of publication.
To determine whether measures of investigator prior productivity predict a grant's subsequent scientific impact as measured by normalized citation metrics.
We identified 1492 investigator-initiated de novo National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute R01 grant applications funded between 2001 and 2008 and linked the publications from these grants to their InCites (Thompson Reuters) citation record. InCites provides a normalized citation count for each publication stratifying by year of publication, type of publication, and field of science. The coprimary end points for this analysis were the normalized citation impact per million dollars allocated and the number of publications per grant that has normalized citation rate in the top decile per million dollars allocated (top 10% articles). Prior productivity measures included the number of National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute-supported publications each principal investigator published in the 5 years before grant review and the corresponding prior normalized citation impact score. After accounting for potential confounders, there was no association between peer-review percentile ranking and bibliometric end points (all adjusted P>0.5). However, prior productivity was predictive (P<0.0001).
Even after normalizing citation counts, we confirmed a lack of association between peer-review grant percentile ranking and grant citation impact. However, prior investigator publication productivity was predictive of grant-specific citation impact.
我们之前在一大群美国国立心肺血液研究所的心血管R01基金中证明了同行评审得出的百分位排名与原始引用影响力之间不存在关联，但我们没有考虑资助前研究者的发表产出。我们也没有对科学领域、文章类型和发表年份的引用次数进行标准化。
确定研究者先前生产力的衡量指标是否能预测一项基金随后通过标准化引用指标衡量的科学影响力。
我们识别出了1492项由研究者发起的全新美国国立心肺血液研究所R01基金申请，这些申请在2001年至2008年期间获得资助，并将这些基金的发表成果与其InCites（汤森路透）引用记录相联系。InCites为每篇发表成果提供了标准化引用次数，按发表年份、发表类型和科学领域进行分层。该分析的共同主要终点是每百万美元拨款的标准化引用影响力以及每项基金中标准化引用率处于每百万美元拨款前十分位（前10%的文章）的发表数量。先前生产力的衡量指标包括每位主要研究者在基金评审前5年发表的由美国国立心肺血液研究所支持的发表成果数量以及相应的先前标准化引用影响力得分。在考虑了潜在混杂因素后，同行评审百分位排名与文献计量学终点之间不存在关联（所有调整后的P>0.5）。然而，先前生产力具有预测性（P<0.0001）。
即使在对引用次数进行标准化之后，我们仍证实同行评审基金百分位排名与基金引用影响力之间缺乏关联。然而，研究者先前的发表生产力可预测特定基金的引用影响力。
