Relation between online "hit counts" and subsequent citations: prospective study of research papers in the BMJ

doi:10.1136/bmj.329.7465.546

BMJ 2004;329:546-547 (4 September), doi:10.1136/bmj.329.7465.546

Paper

Relation between online "hit counts" and subsequent citations: prospective study of research papers in the BMJ

Thomas V Perneger, professor of health services evaluation¹

¹ Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine, University of Geneva, CH-1211 Geneva, Switzerland thomas.perneger@hcuge.ch

The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below.

Introduction

Evaluation of published medical research remains a challenge.Two classic yardsticks are the citation count (the number oftimes a given paper is cited by others)^1
2 and the impact factorof the journal that published the paper (which reflects theaverage number of citations per article).^2
3 However, the citationcount can be assessed only several years after publication,and the impact factor is not paper specific and is thus virtuallymeaningless in assessing any given paper.³ Another measure,which can be obtained rapidly and is paper specific, is the"hit count" (the number of times a paper is accessed online).Whether this count predicts citations is unknown. I examinedthis issue prospectively in a cohort of papers published inthe BMJ.

Methods and results

The study used articles published in volume 318 of the BMJ (1999)in sections titled Papers, General Practice, and Informationin Practice. The hit counts (full text articles, . . . [Full text of this article]

Comment

CiteULike

Complore

Connotea

Del.icio.us Add to Digg

Digg

StumbleUpon Add to Technorati

Technorati What's this?

Relevant Articles

Open access publishing, article downloads, and citations: randomised controlled trial: Philip M Davis, Bruce V Lewenstein, Daniel H Simon, James G Booth, and Mathew J L Connolly
BMJ 2008 337: a568. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Prediction of citation counts for clinical articles at two years using data available within three weeks of publication: retrospective cohort study: Cynthia Lokker, K Ann McKibbon, R James McKinlay, Nancy L Wilczynski, and R Brian Haynes
BMJ 2008 336: 655-657. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Open access and openly accessible: a study of scientific publications shared via the internet: Jonathan D Wren
BMJ 2005 330: 1128. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This article has been cited by other articles:

Davis, P. M, Lewenstein, B. V, Simon, D. H, Booth, J. G, Connolly, M. J L (2008). Open access publishing, article downloads, and citations: randomised controlled trial. BMJ 337: a568-a568 [Abstract] [Full text]
Lokker, C., McKibbon, K A., McKinlay, R J., Wilczynski, N. L, Haynes, R B. (2008). Prediction of citation counts for clinical articles at two years using data available within three weeks of publication: retrospective cohort study. BMJ 336: 655-657 [Abstract] [Full text]
LEWISON, G., THORNICROFT, G., SZMUKLER, G., TANSELLA, M. (2007). Fair assessment of the merits of psychiatric research. Br. J. Psychiatry 190: 314-318 [Abstract] [Full text]
Garfield, E. (2006). The History and Meaning of the Journal Impact Factor. JAMA 295: 90-93 [Full text]
Pless, I B (2005). Do scientific publications change anything?. Inj. Prev. 11: 193-194 [Full text]
Wren, J. D (2005). Open access and openly accessible: a study of scientific publications shared via the internet. BMJ 330: 1128- [Abstract] [Full text]
Sterk, P. J., Rabe, K. F. (2005). Serving researchers, the impact factor and other conflicts of interest.. Eur Respir J 25: 3-5 [Full text]

Rapid Responses:

Read all Rapid Responses

Those papers read most are cited most: Jon R Brassey
bmj.com, 3 Sep 2004 [Full text]
Citation errors: Phillip J. Colquitt
bmj.com, 3 Sep 2004 [Full text]
Annoying that the BMJ published wrong hits data on their website: Gunther Eysenbach
bmj.com, 6 Sep 2004 [Full text]
Prior evidence that downloads predict citations: Stevan Harnad, et al.
bmj.com, 6 Sep 2004 [Full text]
On 'hit counts': Maged N.K. Boulos
bmj.com, 6 Sep 2004 [Full text]
Real hits and shadow hits: Paul R. Mazur
bmj.com, 6 Sep 2004 [Full text]
Publication of Hit counts May Lead to Cheating.: Richard D Kennedy, et al.
bmj.com, 6 Sep 2004 [Full text]
Scientific value versus scientific interest: Jeffrey Mann
bmj.com, 6 Sep 2004 [Full text]
Journal Readership and Impact Factors: Kai Ming Chow, et al.
bmj.com, 8 Sep 2004 [Full text]
Re: Annoying that the BMJ published wrong hits data on their website: Tony Delamothe
bmj.com, 6 Sep 2004 [Full text]
In response: Thomas V Perneger
bmj.com, 7 Sep 2004 [Full text]
Journal online bias: Syed Abdul Mujeeb
bmj.com, 10 Sep 2004 [Full text]