liu.seSök publikationer i DiVA
Ändra sökning
Avgränsa sökresultatet
1 - 4 av 4
RefereraExporteraLänk till träfflistan
Permanent länk
Referera
Referensformat
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • oxford
  • Annat format
Fler format
Språk
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Annat språk
Fler språk
Utmatningsformat
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Träffar per sida
  • 5
  • 10
  • 20
  • 50
  • 100
  • 250
Sortering
  • Standard (Relevans)
  • Författare A-Ö
  • Författare Ö-A
  • Titel A-Ö
  • Titel Ö-A
  • Publikationstyp A-Ö
  • Publikationstyp Ö-A
  • Äldst först
  • Nyast först
  • Skapad (Äldst först)
  • Skapad (Nyast först)
  • Senast uppdaterad (Äldst först)
  • Senast uppdaterad (Nyast först)
  • Disputationsdatum (tidigaste först)
  • Disputationsdatum (senaste först)
  • Standard (Relevans)
  • Författare A-Ö
  • Författare Ö-A
  • Titel A-Ö
  • Titel Ö-A
  • Publikationstyp A-Ö
  • Publikationstyp Ö-A
  • Äldst först
  • Nyast först
  • Skapad (Äldst först)
  • Skapad (Nyast först)
  • Senast uppdaterad (Äldst först)
  • Senast uppdaterad (Nyast först)
  • Disputationsdatum (tidigaste först)
  • Disputationsdatum (senaste först)
Markera
Maxantalet träffar du kan exportera från sökgränssnittet är 250. Vid större uttag använd dig av utsökningar.
  • 1.
    Akcan, Derya
    et al.
    Swedish Council Health Technology Assessment SBU, Sweden .
    Axelsson, Susanna
    Swedish Council Health Technology Assessment SBU, Sweden .
    Bergh, Christina
    Gothenburg University, Sweden Sahlgrens University Hospital, Sweden .
    Davidson, Thomas
    Linköpings universitet, Institutionen för medicin och hälsa, Avdelningen för hälso- och sjukvårdsanalys. Linköpings universitet, Hälsouniversitetet.
    Rosen, Mans
    Swedish Council Health Technology Assessment SBU, Sweden Karolinska Institute, Sweden .
    Methodological quality in clinical trials and bibliometric indicators: no evidence of correlations2013Ingår i: Scientometrics, ISSN 0138-9130, E-ISSN 1588-2861, Vol. 96, nr 1, s. 297-303Artikel i tidskrift (Refereegranskat)
    Abstract [en]

    Citation frequencies and journal impact factors (JIFs) are being used more and more to assess the quality of research and allocate research resources. If these bibliometric indicators are not an adequate predictor of research quality, there could be severe negative consequences for research. To analyse to which extent citation frequencies and journal impact factors correlate with the methodological quality of clinical research articles included in an SBU systematic review of antibiotic prophylaxis in surgery. All 212 eligible original articles were extracted from the SBU systematic review "Antibiotic Prophylaxis in Surgery" and categorized according to their methodological rigourness as high, moderate or low quality articles. Median of citation frequencies and JIFs were compared between the methodological quality groups using Kruskal-Wallis non-parametric test. An in-depth study of low-quality studies with higher citation frequencies/JIFs was also conducted. No significant differences were found in median citation frequencies (p = 0.453) or JIFs (p = 0.185) between the three quality groups. Studies that had high citation frequencies/JIFs but were assessed as low-quality lacked control groups, had high dropout rates or low internal validity. This study of antibiotic prophylaxis in surgery does not support the hypothesis that bibliometric indicators are a valid instrument for assessing methodological quality in clinical trials. This is a worrying observation, since bibliometric indicators have a major influence on research funding. However, further studies in other areas are needed.

  • 2.
    Lundgren, Silje
    et al.
    Linköpings universitet, Institutionen för tema, Tema Genus. Linköpings universitet, Filosofiska fakulteten.
    Shildrick, Margrit
    Linköpings universitet, Institutionen för tema, Tema Genus. Linköpings universitet, Filosofiska fakulteten.
    Lawrence, David
    Linköpings universitet, Universitetsbiblioteket.
    Rethinking bibliometric data concerning gender studies: A response to Söderlund and Madison2015Ingår i: Scientometrics, ISSN 0138-9130, E-ISSN 1588-2861, Vol. 105, nr 3, s. 1389-1398Artikel i tidskrift (Refereegranskat)
    Abstract [en]

    Comment to the article ‘Characteristics of gender studies publications: Abibliometric analysis based on a Swedish population database’ by Therese So¨derlund andGuy Madison (Scientometrics, 2015). From the position of relevant expertise within genderstudies and bibliometrics, this text offers a critique of the present study and some suggestionsof alternative ways forward. It analyses (1) the object of study of the article (theterms used to denominate the field, keywords and methods to make sample selection), (2)technical issues and the question of language in relation to international citations andimpact factor, and (3) the views presented in the article regarding gender studies andpolitical ideology.

  • 3.
    Lykke, Nina
    Linköpings universitet, Institutionen för tema, Tema Genus. Linköpings universitet, Filosofiska fakulteten.
    Cant bibliometric analysts do better? How quality assessment without field expertise does not work A comment on G. Madison and T. Soderlund: Comparisons of scientific quality indicators across peer-reviewed journal articles with more or less gender perspective: Gender studies can do better2018Ingår i: Scientometrics, ISSN 0138-9130, E-ISSN 1588-2861, Vol. 117, nr 1, s. 655-666Artikel i tidskrift (Refereegranskat)
    Abstract [en]

    The article is an invited comment on Guy Madison and Therese Soderlund (Mamp;S): Comparisons of content and scientific quality indicators across peer-reviewed journal articles with more or less gender perspective: Gender studies can do better. Scientometrics 115(3):1161-1183. The article pinpoints a series of serious problems in Mamp;Ss quantitative quality assessment and analysis of the field of gender studies, pertaining to their overall conceptual framework, their general approach and their specific analysis. It is argued that the over-arching problem in Mamp;Ss study is their lack of expert knowledge of the field of gender studies, their lack of respect for differences between qualitative and quantitative research, and their research design, which is biased towards quantitative social and natural science research. Firstly, it is demonstrated that a key concept, gender perspective, is used in an incoherent and confusing way in Mamp;Ss analysis. Secondly, it is argued that the confusion is not an isolated definitional problem, but related to a series of slippages between Mamp;Ss source of inspiration (Ganetz in Genusvetenskapliga projektansokningar inom humaniora-samhallsvetenskap - en uppfoljning av Vetenskapsradets beredning och utfall ar 2004. Vetenskapsradets rapportserie, Stockholm 15/2005, 2005) and their own adoption of the category. Thirdly, differences between qualitative and quantitative research, and between hermeneutic and explanatory knowledge production, are discussed more broadly to sustain the argument that the mentioned slippages occur, because Mamp;S transfer analytical tools from Ganetz qualitative study, based on a peer review methodology, to a quantitative quality assessment, carried out without field specific expert knowledge. It is argued that, to be adequate and relevant, a quality assessment would need to respect these differences, and develop tools and research designs accordingly. Fourthly, the validity of Mamp;Ss content analysis-the core of their study-is questioned in detail because of its use of inadequate analytical categories, and because of its exclusion of central elements from the analysis. Finally, it is argued that the bias in Mamp;Ss research design is reproduced in their results.

  • 4.
    Sandström, Ulf
    et al.
    Linköpings universitet, Filosofiska fakulteten. Linköpings universitet, Institutionen för studier av samhällsutveckling och kultur, Tema Kultur och samhälle.
    Hällsten, Martin
    Sociology Stockholm University.
    Persistent Nepotism in Peer Review2008Ingår i: Scientometrics, ISSN 0138-9130, E-ISSN 1588-2861, Vol. 74, nr 2Artikel i tidskrift (Refereegranskat)
1 - 4 av 4
RefereraExporteraLänk till träfflistan
Permanent länk
Referera
Referensformat
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • oxford
  • Annat format
Fler format
Språk
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Annat språk
Fler språk
Utmatningsformat
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf