Indicateurs bibliométriques - Réalités, mythes et prospective

Lesya Baudoin; Nicole Haeffner-Cavaillon; Nicole Pinhas; Suzy Mouchet; Claude Kordon

doi:10.1051/medsci/20042010909

Accès gratuit

Numéro		Med Sci (Paris) Volume 20, Numéro 10, Octobre 2004


Page(s)		909 - 915
Section		Dossier Technique
DOI		https://doi.org/10.1051/medsci/20042010909
Publié en ligne		15 octobre 2004

Marshall BJ, Warren JR. Unidentified curved bacilli in the stomach of patients with gastritis and peptic-ulceration. Lancet 1984; 1 : 1311–5. [Google Scholar]
Marshall BJ, Armstrong JA, McGechie DB, Glancy RJ. Attempt to fulfill Koch postulates for pyloric Campylobacter. Med J Aust 1985; 142 : 436–9. [Google Scholar]
Jacso PA. Deficiency in the algorithm for calculating the impact factor of scholarly journals : The journal impact factor. Cortex 2001; 37 : 590–4. [Google Scholar]
Amin M, Mabe M. Impact factors : use and abuse. Perspectives in Publishing (newsletter for journal editors, Elsevier Science) 2000; 1 : 1–6 (http://www.elsevier.nl/homepage/about/ita/editors/perspectives1.pdf). [Google Scholar]
Garfield E. The impact factor and using it correctly. Unfallchirurg 1998; 101 : 413–4. [Google Scholar]
Lewison G. Researchers’ and users’ perceptions of the relative standing of biomedical papers in different journals. Scientometrics 2002; 53 : 229–40. [Google Scholar]
Lawrence PA. The politics of publication. Authors, reviewers and editors must act to protect the quality of research. Nature 2003; 422 : 259–61. [Google Scholar]
Garfield E. Evaluating research. Do bibliometric indicators provide the best measures. Introduction to a review of bibliometric and other science indicators and their role in research evaluation (reprinted). Current Contents 1989; 14 : 3–10. [Google Scholar]
Garfield E. How can impact factors be improved ? Br Med J 1996; 313 : 411–3. [Google Scholar]
Lawrence S. Free online availability substantially increases a paper’s impact. Nature 2001; 411 : 521. [Google Scholar]
Anderson K, Sack J, Krauss L, O’Keefe L. Publishing online-only peer-reviewed biomedical literature : three years of citation, author perception, and usage experience. J Electronic Publishing 2001; 6 (http://www.press.umich.edu/jep/06-03/anderson.html). [Google Scholar]
Burke J. Connections. Boston : Little Brown and Company, 1995. [Google Scholar]
Gardin JC. The logicist analysis of explanatory theories in archæology. In : Franck R, ed. The explanatory power of models. Boston : Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2002 : 267–84. [Google Scholar]

Les statistiques affichées correspondent au cumul d'une part des vues des résumés de l'article et d'autre part des vues et téléchargements de l'article plein-texte (PDF, Full-HTML, ePub... selon les formats disponibles) sur la platefome Vision4Press.

Les statistiques sont disponibles avec un délai de 48 à 96 heures et sont mises à jour quotidiennement en semaine.

Le chargement des statistiques peut être long.

[1] Marshall BJ, Warren JR. Unidentified curved bacilli in the stomach of patients with gastritis and peptic-ulceration. Lancet 1984; 1 : 1311–5. [Google Scholar]

[2] Marshall BJ, Armstrong JA, McGechie DB, Glancy RJ. Attempt to fulfill Koch postulates for pyloric Campylobacter. Med J Aust 1985; 142 : 436–9. [Google Scholar]

[3] Jacso PA. Deficiency in the algorithm for calculating the impact factor of scholarly journals : The journal impact factor. Cortex 2001; 37 : 590–4. [Google Scholar]

[4] Amin M, Mabe M. Impact factors : use and abuse. Perspectives in Publishing (newsletter for journal editors, Elsevier Science) 2000; 1 : 1–6 (http://www.elsevier.nl/homepage/about/ita/editors/perspectives1.pdf). [Google Scholar]

[5] Garfield E. The impact factor and using it correctly. Unfallchirurg 1998; 101 : 413–4. [Google Scholar]

[6] Lewison G. Researchers’ and users’ perceptions of the relative standing of biomedical papers in different journals. Scientometrics 2002; 53 : 229–40. [Google Scholar]

[7] Lawrence PA. The politics of publication. Authors, reviewers and editors must act to protect the quality of research. Nature 2003; 422 : 259–61. [Google Scholar]

[8] Garfield E. Evaluating research. Do bibliometric indicators provide the best measures. Introduction to a review of bibliometric and other science indicators and their role in research evaluation (reprinted). Current Contents 1989; 14 : 3–10. [Google Scholar]

[9] Garfield E. How can impact factors be improved ? Br Med J 1996; 313 : 411–3. [Google Scholar]

[10] Lawrence S. Free online availability substantially increases a paper’s impact. Nature 2001; 411 : 521. [Google Scholar]

[11] Anderson K, Sack J, Krauss L, O’Keefe L. Publishing online-only peer-reviewed biomedical literature : three years of citation, author perception, and usage experience. J Electronic Publishing 2001; 6 (http://www.press.umich.edu/jep/06-03/anderson.html). [Google Scholar]

[12] Burke J. Connections. Boston : Little Brown and Company, 1995. [Google Scholar]

[13] Gardin JC. The logicist analysis of explanatory theories in archæology. In : Franck R, ed. The explanatory power of models. Boston : Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2002 : 267–84. [Google Scholar]