In a paper discussed in a previous blog, Ioannidis et al published a comprehensive database of a large number of scientists across science. They used Scopus data to compile a database of the 100,000 most-cited authors across all scientific fields based on their ranking of a composite indicator that considers six citation metrics (total citations; Hirsch h-index; coauthorship-adjusted Schreiber hm-index; number of citations to papers as single author; number of citations to papers as single or first author; and number of citations to papers as single, first, or last author). The authors also added this caution:
Citation analyses for individuals are used for various single-person or comparative assessments in the complex reward and incentive system of science. Misuse of citation metrics in hiring, promotion or tenure decision, or other situations involving rewards (e.g., funding or awards) takes many forms, including but not limited to the use of metrics that are not very informative for scientists and their work (e.g., journal impact factors); focus on single citation metrics (e.g., h-index); and use of calculations that are not standardized, use different frames, and do not account for field. The availability of the data sets that we provide should help mitigate many of these problems. The database can also be used to perform evaluations of groups of individuals, e.g., at the level of scientific fields, institutions, countries, or memberships in diversely defined groups that may be of interest to users.
It seems thus obvious and relevant to employ the new metrics for defining the most ‘influential’ (most frequently cited) researchers in so-called alternative medicine (SCAM). Doing this creates not one but two non-overlapping tables (because ‘complementary&alternative medicine’ is listed both as a primary and a secondary field (not sure about the difference)). Below, I have copied a small part of these tables; the first three columns are self-explanatory; the 4th relates to the number of published articles, the 4th to the year of the author’s first publication, the 5th to the last, the 6th column is the rank amongst 100 000 scientists of all fields who have published more than a couple of papers.
TABLE 1
Ernst, E. | University of Exeter | gbr | 2253 | 1975 | 2018 | 104 |
Davidson, Jonathan R. T. | Duke University | usa | 426 | 1972 | 2017 | 1394 |
Kaptchuk, Ted J. | Harvard University | usa | 245 | 1993 | 2018 | 6545 |
Eisenberg, David M. | Harvard University | usa | 127 | 1991 | 2018 | 8641 |
Lundeberg, Thomas | 340 | 1983 | 2016 | 17199 | ||
Linde, Klaus | Technische Universitat Munchen | deu | 276 | 1993 | 2018 | 19488 |
Schwartz, Gary E. | University of Arizona | usa | 264 | 1967 | 2018 | 21893 |
Eloff, J.N. | University of Pretoria | zaf | 204 | 1997 | 2018 | 23830 |
Birch, Stephen | McMaster University | can | 244 | 1985 | 2018 | 31925 |
Wilson, Kenneth H. | Duke University | usa | 76 | 1976 | 2017 | 40760 |
Kemper, Kathi J. | Ohio State University | usa | 181 | 1988 | 2017 | 45193 |
Oken, Barry S. | Oregon Health and Science University | usa | 121 | 1974 | 2018 | 51325 |
Pittler, M.H. | 155 | 1997 | 2016 | 53183 | ||
Postuma, Ronald B. | McGill University | can | 159 | 1998 | 2018 | 61018 |
Patwardhan, Bhushan | University of Pune | ind | 144 | 1989 | 2018 | 64465 |
Krucoff, Mitchell W. | Duke University | usa | 261 | 1986 | 2016 | 66028 |
Chiesa, Alberto | 87 | 1973 | 2017 | 82390 | ||
Baliga, Manjeshwar Shrinath | 142 | 2002 | 2018 | 83030 | ||
Mischoulon, David | Harvard University | usa | 194 | 1992 | 2018 | 91705 |
Büssing, Arndt | University of Witten/Herdecke | deu | 207 | 1980 | 2018 | 95907 |
Langevin, Helene M. | Harvard University | usa | 67 | 1999 | 2018 | 98290 |
Creath, Katherine | 84 | 1984 | 2017 | 99709 | ||
Kuete, Victor | University of Dschang | cmr | 239 | 2005 | 2018 | 128347 |
TABLE 2
White, Adrian | University of Plymouth | gbr | 294 | 1990 | 2016 | 16714 |
Astin, John A. | California Pacific Medical Center | usa | 50 | 1994 | 2014 | 21379 |
Kelly, Gregory S. | 37 | 1985 | 2011 | 31037 | ||
Walach, Harald | University of Medical Sciences Poznan | pol | 246 | 1996 | 2018 | 31716 |
Berman, Brian M. | University of Maryland School of Medicine | usa | 211 | 1986 | 2018 | 34022 |
Lewith, George | University of Southampton | gbr | 380 | 1980 | 2018 | 34830 |
Kidd, Parris M. | University of California at Berkeley | usa | 38 | 1976 | 2011 | 36571 |
Jonas, Wayne B. | 187 | 1992 | 2018 | 42445 | ||
MacPherson, Hugh | University of York | gbr | 143 | 1996 | 2018 | 49923 |
Bell, Iris R. | University of Arizona | usa | 142 | 1984 | 2015 | 51016 |
Patrick, Lyn | 21 | 1999 | 2018 | 57086 | ||
Ritenbaugh, Cheryl | University of Arizona | usa | 172 | 1981 | 2018 | 63248 |
Boon, Heather | University of Toronto | can | 188 | 1988 | 2017 | 69066 |
Aickin, Mikel | University of Arizona | usa | 149 | 1996 | 2014 | 72040 |
Lee, Myeong Soo | 430 | 1996 | 2018 | 72358 | ||
Lao, Lixing | University of Hong Kong | hkg | 247 | 1990 | 2018 | 74896 |
Witt, Claudia M. | Charite – Universitatsmedizin Berlin | deu | 238 | 2001 | 2018 | 78849 |
Sherman, Karen J. | 136 | 1984 | 2017 | 82542 | ||
Verhoef, Marja J. | University of Calgary | can | 190 | 1989 | 2016 | 84314 |
Smith, Caroline A. | University of Western Sydney | aus | 135 | 1979 | 2018 | 94130 |
Miller, Alan L. | 30 | 1980 | 2016 | 94421 | ||
Paterson, Charlotte | University of Bristol | gbr | 71 | 1995 | 2017 | 95130 |
Milgrom, Lionel R. | London Metropolitan University | gbr | 107 | 1979 | 2017 | 112943 |
Adams, Jon | University of Technology NSW | aus | 294 | 1999 | 2018 | 128486 |
Litscher, Gerhard | Medical University of Graz | aut | 245 | 1986 | 2018 | 133122 |
Chen, Calvin Yu-Chian | China Medical University Taichung | chn | 130 | 2007 | 2016 | 164522 |
No other researchers are listed in the ‘Complementary&Alternative Medicine’ categories and made it into the list of the 100 000 most-cited scientists.
To make this easier to read, I have ordered all SCAM researchers according to their rank in one single list and, where known to me, added the respective focus in SCAM research (ma = most areas of SCAM):
- ERNST EDZARD (ma)
- DONALDSON JONATHAN
- KAPTCHUK TED (acupuncture)
- EISENBERG DAVID (TCM)
- WHITE ADRIAN (acupuncture)
- LUNDEBERG THOMAS (acupuncture)
- LINDE KLAUS (homeopathy)
- ASTIN JOHN (mind/body)
- SCHWARTZ GARRY (healing)
- ELOFF JN
- KELLY GREGORY
- WALLACH HARALD (homeopathy)
- BIRCH STEVEN (acupuncture)
- BERMAN BRIAN (acupuncture)
- LEWITH GEORGE (acupuncture)
- KIDD PARRIS
- WILSON KENNETH
- JONAS WAYNE (homeopathy)
- KEMPER KATHIE (ma)
- MACPHERSON HUGH (acupuncture)
- BELL IRIS (homeopathy)
- OKEN BARRY (dietary supplements)
- PITTLER MAX (ma)
- PATRICK LYN
- RITENBAUGH CHERYL (ma)
- POSTUMA RONALD
- PATWARDHAN BHUSHAN
- KRUCOFF MICHELL
- BOON HEATHER
- AICKIN MIKEL (ma)
- LEE MYEONG SOO (TCM)
- LAO LIXING (acupuncture)
- WITT CLAUDIA (ma)
- CHIESA ALBERTO
- SHERMAN KAREN (acupuncture)
- BALIGA MANJESHWAR
- VERHOEF MARIA (ma)
- MISCHOULON DAVID
- SMITH CAROLINE (acupuncture)
- MILLER ALAN
- PATERSON CHARLOTTE (ma)
- BUESSING ARNDT (anthroposophical medicine)
- LANGEVIN HELENE (ma)
- CREATH KATHERINE
- MILGROM LIONEL (homeopathy)
- KUETE VICTOR
- ADAMS JON (ma)
- LITSCHER GERHARD
- CHEN CALVIN
The list is interesting in several regards. Principally, it offers individual SCAM researchers for the first time the opportunity to check their international standing relative to their colleagues. But, as the original analysis in Ioannidis’s paper contains much more data than depicted above, there is much further information to be gleaned from it.
For instance, I looked at the rate of self-citation (not least because I have sometimes been accused of overdoing this myself). It turns out that, with 7%, I am relative modest and well below average in that regard. Most of my colleagues are well above that figure. Researchers who have exceptionally high self-citation rates include Buessing (30%), Kuete (43%), Adams (36%), Litscher (45%), and Chen (53%).
The list also opens the possibility to see which countries dominate SCAM research. The dominance of the US seems fairly obvious and would have been expected due to the size of this country and the funds the US put into SCAM research. Considering the lack of funds in the UK, my country ranks surprisingly high, I find. No other country is well-represented in this list. In particular Germany does not appear often (even if we would classify Wallach as German); considering the large amounts of money Germany has invested in SCAM research, this is remarkable and perhaps even a bit shameful, in my view.
Looking at the areas of research, acupuncture and homeopathy seem to stand out. Remarkably, many of the major SCAMs are not or not well represented at all. This is in particular true for herbal medicine, chiropractic and osteopathy.
The list also confirms my former team as the leaders in SCAM research. (Yes, I know: in the country of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.) Pittler, White and Lee were, of course, all former co-workers of mine.
Perhaps the most intriguing finding, I think, relates to the many SCAM researchers who did not make it into the list. Here are a few notable absentees:
- Behnke J – GERMANY (homeopathy)
- Bensoussan A – AUSTRALIA (acupuncture)
- Brinkhaus B – GERMANY (acupuncture)
- Bronfort G – US (chiropractic)
- Chopra D – US (mind/body)
- Cummings M – UK (acupuncture)
- Dixon M – UK (ma)
- Dobos G – GERMANY (ma)
- Fisher P – UK (homeopathy)
- Fonnebo V – NORWAY (ma)
- Frass M – AUSTRIA (homeopathy)
- Goertz C – US (chiropractic)
- Hawk C -US (chiropractic)
- Horneber M – GERMANY (ma)
- Jacobs J – US (homeopathy)
- Jobst K – UK (homeopathy)
- Kraft K – GERMANY (naturopathy)
- Lawrence D – US (chiropractic)
- Long CR – US (chiropractic)
- Meeker WC – US (chiropractic)
- Mathie R – UK (homeopathy)
- Melchart – GERMANY (ma)
- Michalsen A – GERMANY (ma)
- Mills S – UK (herbal medicine)
- Peters D – UK (ma)
- Reilly D -US (homeopathy)
- Reily D – UK (homeopathy)
- Robinson N – UK (ma)
- Streitberger K – GERMANY (acupuncture)
- Tuchin PJ – US (chiropractic)
- Uehleke – GERMANY (naturopathy)
- Ullman D – US (homeopathy)
- Weil A – US (ma)
I leave it to you to interpret this list and invite you to add more SCAM researchers to it.
(thanks to Paul Posadski for helping with the tables)
Very surprised, my favorite site for pseudoscience didn’t have any authors on this list. I guess they are just guest writers for SBM.
some of the SBM guys are high up on the list of scientists (not SCAM); just have a look.
It’s almost as if proponents of SCAM aren’t interested in researching their products and services…
Speaking of research…. More SCAM “research” in my RSS feed today. This one out of S. Korea/US.
https://medicalxpress.com/news/2019-09-acupuncture-alcohol-symptoms-rats.html. Link to study: https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/5/9/eaax1342 It’s an open source journal from AAAS. I expected better.
I couldn’t get past the technobabble to even try to figure out what the results were. But hey. Let’s stick needles in fake meridians to balance fake xi.
On another note, San Diego Zoo is using acupuncture on one of their elephants and then using crappy thermal imaging to prove it’s working. The story was featured on The Zoo: San Diego on Animal Planet (I think).
my comments on the Korean study are here:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-7426769/Acupuncture-used-treat-alcohol-dependency-activating-brain-pathways.html
The difference in publication output between you and everyone else on this list is seriously impressive. Well done!
thank you
I hardly could believe the figures myself.
but what I found even more impressive was the standing of my team – and, of course, the sadness at HRH forcing its closure 7 years ago.
Yes, as you said previously these things are usually a team effort. It’s appalling that HRH intervened to close a department that was essentially the international leader in its field by a big margin.
it is good to hear this being stated by someone from the outside who I don mot even know. THANKS
OK, the following may not be ‘on topic’, but I am very weary of the unhelpful – almost hysterical – bias against so called alternative medicine on this forum which is generally harmless to patients. The following snippet is from today’s BBC health section:
A “super-fit” 35-year-old woman told by her GP that blood in her stools was caused by piles later found she had bowel cancer. After EIGHT MONTHS “back and forth” to the surgery Beth Hewitt was referred to a consultant, who discovered a tumour. Mrs Hewitt said GPs told her: “You’re too young for anything like cancer.”
This is just one of many true events that are reported in the UK on a regular basis, highlighting indifference and false assumptions made by trusted Doctors. Any comments from medically qualified Practitioners would be welcome, but please don’t change the subject back to SCAM!
1) yes, it’s off topic,
2) you confuse criticism with bias,
3) you just broke confidentiality rules,
4) everyone knows some very poor GPs, I think
I am not aware of a bias against alternative medicine here. Professor Ernst has spent his career searching for evidence in favour of it, though as far as I can tell he has yet to find any. On the other hand there are a great many charlatans and liars in the alternative medicine world who harm people in many ways with bogus treatment, even if only by taking their money, delaying proper diagnosis and treatment, discouraging effective and important measures such as vaccination, or just promoting woolly thinking, and I for one am pleased to see anything that exposes them for what they are (even though they do much less harm than the advertising industry).
The youngest patient I have treated for bowel cancer was 19 (and 37 for prostate cancer, a disease of old men…).
If the blood was bright enough to confuse with bleeding piles then this would indicate a low tumour that would be easy to feel with a simple rectal examination; if the blood wasn’t fresh then it couldn’t be piles. Either way the GP ought to have been able to detect that something was amiss. When I was a junior doctor in Watford I made a point of doing a rectal examination on every emergency patient I admitted; over a six-month period I found three rectal and one anal cancer that nobody had suspected. As my professor of surgery at Westminster Medical School, Harold Ellis, was fond of saying “If you don’t put your finger in it you will put your foot in it”.
The other thing the GP could have done was fax the “two-week-rule” referral form to their local hospital after ticking the rectal bleeding box, and the patient would have been examined by a surgeon within 14 days.
Unfortunately the main barrier to making a diagnosis is often thinking of it in the first place. Everything you can think of in medicine has a range, whether it is the age at which a disease appears, survival after cancer treatment, response to a drug or even something as basic as height. While most people are somewhere in the middle, there will always be a few towards the extremes, and if you forget that fundamental truth (which is mathematical, not biological, in origin) then you will inevitably be caught out.
While the birds in your garden are likely to be sparrows not peacocks (as the Dean of my medical school, Cionsultant Radiologist Radiologist Dr Joe Gleeson, was fond of saying – though nowadays sparrows are becoming rare), the converse is also true that if you only think of sparrows you won’t notice anything else. He was also fond of saying (in his quiet Irish brogue):
“You see what you look for. You look for what you know. And you know f*** all.”
for those who read German, here is Walach’s somewhat odd take on this subject:
https://harald-walach.de/2019/10/26/ioannidis-zitationsdatenbank-ein-kleiner-bauchpinsler-und-ein-paar-gedanken-zum-thema-wissenschaftlichkeit/
And we also have this…
“The present data demonstrate an increase of CAM usage from 1990 through 2006 in all countries investigated.” Ochsner J. 2012 Spring; 12(1): 45–56.