Bibliometric data in clinical cardiology revisited. The case of 37 Dutch professors

Area of Science:

• Cardiology
• Bibliometrics
• Scientometrics

Background:

• Bibliometric indicators are increasingly used in academic evaluation and science policy.
• The Hirsch index (h-index) is a common metric, but its suitability for diverse scientific fields remains debated.
• Assessing the utility of bibliometric parameters within specialized medical fields is crucial.

Purpose of the Study:

• To evaluate the bibliometric performance of 37 Dutch professors in clinical cardiology.
• To determine the consistency of various bibliometric parameters (h-index, first-authored h-index, paper count, citation count, citations per paper) in ranking these experts.
• To assess the suitability of current bibliometric parameters for science policy decisions in medicine.

Main Methods:

• Compilation of bibliometric data for 37 Dutch clinical cardiology professors.
• Calculation of five key parameters: overall h-index, first-authored h-index, total publications, total citations, and average citations per paper.
• Generation of top 10 lists for each parameter to compare the consistency of rankings.

Main Results:

• Only 22 out of 37 professors appeared in at least one of the five top 10 lists, indicating significant parameter variability.
• No single bibliometric parameter consistently identified the same group of leading professors.
• Considerable inhomogeneity in citation characteristics was observed even within this specialized group.

Conclusions:

• Current bibliometric parameters are not sufficiently robust or reliable for evaluating individual scientists or informing science policy, particularly in specialized medical fields.
• The observed increase in publications per author may reflect increased collaboration and network effects rather than genuine productivity gains.
• Citation analysis requires cautious application, especially when comparing diverse medical disciplines within academic institutions.