Related Experiment Videos
Do citation classics in rhinology reflect utility rather than quality?
J E Fenton1, A O'Connor, I Ullah
1Department of Otolaryngology/Head and Neck Surgery, Mid-Western Regional General Hospital, Limerick, Ireland. john.fenton@mailh.hse.ie
Rhinology
|October 13, 2005
Summary
Citation rates indicate article utility, not necessarily quality. This study found rhinology citation classics were well-written and methodologically sound, though lacking randomized controlled trials.
Area of Science:
- Otolaryngology
- Neurosurgery
- Medical Research Methodology
Background:
- Citation rates are often debated as a proxy for scientific impact.
- Distinguishing between article utility and intrinsic quality is crucial for research evaluation.
Purpose of the Study:
- To assess the quality and utility of highly cited articles in rhinology and anterior skull base surgery.
- To determine if citation classics truly represent high-quality research in this specialty.
Main Methods:
- Analysis of 14 "citation classic" articles in rhinology/anterior skull base surgery.
- Quality assessment based on writing, research, evidence-based methodology, and outcomes.
- Categorization of quality factors into four distinct groups.
Main Results:
- Citation classics were well-written, peer-reviewed, and addressed important questions.
- Methodologies were generally adequate, demonstrating good research quality and historical importance.
- Quality was not solely dependent on randomized controlled trials, statistical rigor, or specific patient criteria.
Conclusions:
- Citation rates in rhinology/anterior skull base surgery primarily reflect utility rather than inherent scientific quality.
- High citation counts do not automatically equate to superior research quality.
- Further research is needed to refine metrics for evaluating scientific impact.