. 2010 Mar 22;172(12):984; author reply 984.
[We wish more professional debate about the bibliometric research indicators]
[Article in
Danish]
- PMID: 20376986
Item in Clipboard
[We wish more professional debate about the bibliometric research indicators]
[Article in
Danish]
Ugeskr Laeger.
.
No abstract available
Similar articles
-
New developments in the use of citation analysis in research evaluation.Arch Immunol Ther Exp (Warsz). 2009 Jan-Feb;57(1):13-8. doi: 10.1007/s00005-009-0001-5. Epub 2009 Feb 14. Arch Immunol Ther Exp (Warsz). 2009. PMID: 19219533 Review.
-
[Result-based financing of medical research].Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen. 2009 Mar 26;129(7):638-41. doi: 10.4045/tidsskr.08.0362. Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen. 2009. PMID: 19337335 Norwegian. No abstract available.
-
Impact factor rises again.Brain Res Bull. 2004 Dec 15;64(4):285-7. doi: 10.1016/j.brainresbull.2004.07.012. Brain Res Bull. 2004. PMID: 15561462 No abstract available.
-
Is the journal impact factor a valid indicator of scientific value?Singapore Med J. 2009 Aug;50(8):749-51. Singapore Med J. 2009. PMID: 19710968 No abstract available.
-
Bibliometric methods: pitfalls and possibilities.Basic Clin Pharmacol Toxicol. 2005 Nov;97(5):261-75. doi: 10.1111/j.1742-7843.2005.pto_139.x. Basic Clin Pharmacol Toxicol. 2005. PMID: 16236137 Review.