{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.025738798856053385, 'fraction_numerical': 0.008102955195424213, 'mean_word_length': 5.5186335403726705, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
How can we assess scientific quality? Citation index only for original research and/or for authorship in the guidelines?

C ompeting with others is inherent to human nature. Ratings are thus common practice in all areas, including research. As recording and communicating research results has been revolutionised and extended through internet development, quantitative analysis is of ultimate importance for evaluating scientific reports. Bibliometrics, or scientometrics, is a set of methods developed to quantitatively analyse academic literature and the research performance of individual researchers, research groups, and departments. It was first introduced by Eugene Garfield, who described the idea of a citation index for the sciences.1 Citation analysis is the first and most applied method in bibliometrics. Retraction rate is another quality measure that has received an enormous amount of attention recently, as retractions have increased sharply between 2000 and 2010.2,3 Interestingly, retraction rates have remained in parallel with the impact factors of 17 high impact journals over the last decade.4 Citation indexes are based on databases such as Thomson-Reuters’ Web of Science (the first one), Elsevier’s Scopus, and Google Scholar, which cannot really be compared as they are under continuous development. Several indicators have also been used, such as publication number, total citations, impact factor, the Hirsch index, and a normalised or relative citation impact indicator; however, none of these is ideal, as they are biased by several factors.5,6 The Hirsch index (practically a median of the citations) is highly biased towards older researchers. Moreover, review articles and older publications tend to be cited more frequently than original research articles and recently published works. The research field also affects citations (e.g. an article examining the causes of endocarditis, although of significant clinical importance, may have only few citations as little research focuses on this field). Accordingly, a normalised index may address these bias factors.7