FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2298477986> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2298477986 abstract "In 1979 Allan M. Cormack and Godfrey N. Hounsfield were awarded the Nobel Prize in medicine “for the development of computer assisted tomography”. By this time, Hounsfield had published eight papers inmedical journals, his seminal works in the British Journal of Radiology. The second and, thus far, last Nobel Prize awarded for medical imaging went to Paul C. Lauterbur and Peter Mansfield, belatedly, in 2003 “for their discoveries concerning magnetic resonance imaging”. Fourteen of Mansfield’s works, including his most important, had also appeared in the British Journal of Radiology. (He published twice in Pediatric Radiology [1, 2]). This year medical journals are expected to publish almost six times the number of radiologyrelated articles compared with the Nobel year 1979 and about twice as many as in 2003 (Fig. 1). At least part of this publishing explosionmust be explained by increased scientific activity. Witnessing such an unprecedented increase in productivity begs two questions: Where is the big discovery that will launch the next transformation of medical imaging? Or is there perhaps no direct link between article output and scientific impact? In the domain of journal publishing, the Impact Factor has been around for decades. Everyone agrees “it is just another number” and “we would never obey its dictate”. But try securing a research grant if you have not appeared in highimpact journals. Or try to publish something unconventional, controversial or counter-current (innovative?) in the most prestigious journals. Our money would be on rather disappointing outcomes. This is speculation and a virtual kicking of our own backsides, but it is at least an interesting paradox that the most important works on which two Nobel Prizes were founded were published in the fringes of the medical literature (the British Journal of Radiology, host to the laureates, had a 1992 impact factor of less than 0.7). Journal editors claim not to be blinded by numerics, but which editor is happy to see her journal slide down the ranking? A self-perpetuating relationship emerges: Authors need to publish high volumes and in high-ranking journals; journals favour works that are guaranteed citations. The mechanics of the phenomenon are fairly straight-forward: It is much easier to rank by numbers than by any qualitative dimension. The unfortunate consequence may be a profession that self-restricts its research to topics that are conventional, non-controversial and therefore guaranteed publication. In 2014 Pediatric Radiology received 850 new article submissions, about one-fifth the total number of radiology articles published in all medical journals in 1979. The drive to publish is clearly increasing, and there must be several underlying forces. One obviously is technology: It is easier than ever to collect clinical and imaging data, transform these into a manuscript and submit-to-journal by the tap of an index finger. That this is phenomenal can be boded for by anyone who published in science before the internet era, in times when a whole support apparatus had to be enrolled to clear all the required hurdles. Now, everyone can publish. With the internet came an astonishing democratisation of medical publishing (ease of article submission, and also the birth of the onlineonly journal), which is fundamentally sound. A second driving force takes the shape of employer and research-funding organisations, and in particular their strategies for selecting whom to employ, support and award. One way is by counting and weighting (by journal-ranking) publications; both fair and objective. With modern metrics it is no longer a question of * Oystein E. Olsen oeolsen.pedrad@me.com" @default.
• W2298477986 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2298477986 creator A5079147309 @default.
• W2298477986 date "2015-12-21" @default.
• W2298477986 modified "2023-09-28" @default.
• W2298477986 title "The numbers games" @default.
• W2298477986 cites W1968487736 @default.
• W2298477986 cites W1988598902 @default.
• W2298477986 cites W2006800847 @default.
• W2298477986 doi "https://doi.org/10.1007/s00247-015-3527-1" @default.
• W2298477986 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26691154" @default.
• W2298477986 hasPublicationYear "2015" @default.
• W2298477986 type Work @default.
• W2298477986 sameAs 2298477986 @default.
• W2298477986 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W2298477986 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2298477986 hasAuthorship W2298477986A5079147309 @default.
• W2298477986 hasBestOaLocation W22984779861 @default.
• W2298477986 hasConcept C151719136 @default.
• W2298477986 hasConcept C161191863 @default.
• W2298477986 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W2298477986 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W2298477986 hasConcept C2779455604 @default.
• W2298477986 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W2298477986 hasConcept C41458344 @default.
• W2298477986 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2298477986 hasConcept C74916050 @default.
• W2298477986 hasConcept C95457728 @default.
• W2298477986 hasConceptScore W2298477986C151719136 @default.
• W2298477986 hasConceptScore W2298477986C161191863 @default.
• W2298477986 hasConceptScore W2298477986C17744445 @default.
• W2298477986 hasConceptScore W2298477986C199539241 @default.
• W2298477986 hasConceptScore W2298477986C2779455604 @default.
• W2298477986 hasConceptScore W2298477986C41008148 @default.
• W2298477986 hasConceptScore W2298477986C41458344 @default.
• W2298477986 hasConceptScore W2298477986C71924100 @default.
• W2298477986 hasConceptScore W2298477986C74916050 @default.
• W2298477986 hasConceptScore W2298477986C95457728 @default.
• W2298477986 hasLocation W22984779861 @default.
• W2298477986 hasLocation W22984779862 @default.
• W2298477986 hasOpenAccess W2298477986 @default.
• W2298477986 hasPrimaryLocation W22984779861 @default.
• W2298477986 hasRelatedWork W1138022861 @default.
• W2298477986 hasRelatedWork W1563299343 @default.
• W2298477986 hasRelatedWork W191298844 @default.
• W2298477986 hasRelatedWork W1987275767 @default.
• W2298477986 hasRelatedWork W1988024141 @default.
• W2298477986 hasRelatedWork W2094527458 @default.
• W2298477986 hasRelatedWork W2242612557 @default.
• W2298477986 hasRelatedWork W2344287779 @default.
• W2298477986 hasRelatedWork W2352710594 @default.
• W2298477986 hasRelatedWork W2353778914 @default.
• W2298477986 hasRelatedWork W2354843318 @default.
• W2298477986 hasRelatedWork W2378156078 @default.
• W2298477986 hasRelatedWork W2382259018 @default.
• W2298477986 hasRelatedWork W2386826428 @default.
• W2298477986 hasRelatedWork W2386909728 @default.
• W2298477986 hasRelatedWork W3082552577 @default.
• W2298477986 hasRelatedWork W31238839 @default.
• W2298477986 hasRelatedWork W339264714 @default.
• W2298477986 hasRelatedWork W826211159 @default.
• W2298477986 hasRelatedWork W2189089571 @default.
• W2298477986 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2298477986 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2298477986 magId "2298477986" @default.
• W2298477986 workType "article" @default.