Biomedical research evaluation has traditionally been based on analysis of outputs and their citations by other papers. However we should try to map the routes by which research…
Abstract
Biomedical research evaluation has traditionally been based on analysis of outputs and their citations by other papers. However we should try to map the routes by which research actually improves patient care and reduces illness, and develop indicators for them. We must allow for the lengthy time‐scales involved and the importance of researchers being physically close to healthcare professionals, whose practice can be improved through international and governmental regulations and through approved guidelines. Each of these will depend on a body of research evidence. We must also evaluate the effects of research on policy makers and the public, who often learn about it through the World Wide Web and through the mass media, particularly newspapers. The latter provide a major bibliometric resource but one that needs to be tapped in individual countries using common standards in order to provide internationally‐comparable indicators.
Details
Keywords
Examines a set of over 27,000 UK papers in cancer research in order to identify the individual factors that influence the impact category of the journals in which they are…
Abstract
Examines a set of over 27,000 UK papers in cancer research in order to identify the individual factors that influence the impact category of the journals in which they are published, using multiple regression analysis. The most important independent variables that have a positive effect are the numbers of authors and funding bodies, the research level (from clinical to basic), and the presence of certain universities, or of the USA, in the address field. Inter‐lab co‐operation was shown to have a negative effect on journal impact category, as was international co‐authorship. It is because such partnerships usually involve more authors and funding for the research that they are perceived to lead to higher impact work. There is also a tendency for papers to be published in higher impact journals in later years, probably because of market forces, which means that such journals will tend to expand.
Details
Keywords
Seeks to characterise world astronomy research during the last decade by an analysis of papers in the Science Citation Index identified with a special filter and to study Indian…
Abstract
Purpose
Seeks to characterise world astronomy research during the last decade by an analysis of papers in the Science Citation Index identified with a special filter and to study Indian output in order to identify the leading institutions and authors.
Design/methodology/approach
Lists of specialist journals and title words of papers were selected to create a filter giving high precision and recall for astronomy papers. Some biology papers were erroneously retrieved because of ambiguous title words. Potential citation impact was determined from journal citation scores, and multiple regression was used to evaluate leading countries.
Findings
Title words added almost a quarter to the list of papers in specialist journals, and the final file contained over 96,000 papers. Potential impact increased with more authors per paper and more addresses; it was greater for papers from Canada, the UK and the USA, and less for papers from China, India and Russia; for other countries the effects of the author's location on potential impact were not statistically significant. Indian astronomy output has increased in potential impact, partly through greater international co‐authorship, but also through indigenous papers.
Research limitations/implications
The study was confined to one subject area, and impact was determined on the basis of journals, not of individual papers.
Practical implications
Use of title words in addition to journal lists is essential to sub‐field definition in order to have high precision and recall. Because of the confounding effects of authorship numbers, it is necessary to use multiple regression analysis in order to see whether research from a given country is significantly better or worse than average.
Originality/value
Characterises world astronomy research during the last decade by an analysis of papers in the Science Citation Index identified with a special filter.
Details
Keywords
To conduct an analysis of the bibliometric presence of a patient group, the Multiple Sclerosis Society, within its relevant biomedical sub‐field.
Abstract
Purpose
To conduct an analysis of the bibliometric presence of a patient group, the Multiple Sclerosis Society, within its relevant biomedical sub‐field.
Design/methodology/approach
Publications in the multiple sclerosis sub‐field for 1988‐1999 in the Research Outputs Database constitute the data‐set. Proxy measures, based on funding acknowledgement counts, are used to analyse the bibliometric presence of the society in comparison with other leading agencies, focusing on visibility, research orientation and research impact. The results are discussed within the frame of an evolutionary economics of knowledge production and the larger policy debate concerning the public funding of science.
Findings
The society is the most frequently acknowledged funding agency and it distinguishes itself by the clustering of its acknowledgements in the area of clinical investigation. With a high and leading research impact, the society is considered an influential actor in the relevant biomedical sub‐field.
Originality/value
This paper fills a gap in the literature on the public funding of science by drawing attention to the important performance and presence of patient groups as funding agencies.
Details
Keywords
Adriana Roa‐Atkinson and Léa Velho
To provide an empirical contribution to analyse the dynamics of research groups in knowledge production in an interdisciplinary research field in two scientifically peripheral…
Abstract
Purpose
To provide an empirical contribution to analyse the dynamics of research groups in knowledge production in an interdisciplinary research field in two scientifically peripheral countries (Colombia and Brazil).
Design/methodology/approach
This dynamic is analysed in the interdisciplinary area of immunology through a comparative study of Brazilian and Colombian research groups. The practices of publication, collaborative links and patterns of acknowledgements provided the framework for this study. Quantitative and qualitative tools were used; in particular a bibliometric study was complemented with information derived from semi‐structured interviews with members of the research communities selected.
Findings
The bibliometric study allowed the construction of some indicators: channels of publication, impact of the research outputs, citations and patterns of collaboration. Also, a database with acknowledgements was created to identify the different actors who take part in the process of knowledge production. These indicators, interpreted in the light of qualitative analysis, throw considerable light on how the different groups work on the cognitive and social aspects of knowledge production.
Research limitations/implications
This study is limited to 31 leading research groups from Colombia and Brazil.
Originality/value
This paper starts to redress the situation of a lack of empirical studies in developing countries in the use of acknowledgements as a tool to examine formal and informal scientific collaboration and as indicator of accountability to funding bodies. This work provides an empirical contribution to policy‐makers and scientific communities in the task of understanding the dynamics of knowledge production in an interdisciplinary area combining different approaches.
Details
Keywords
Teresa Jones, Steve Hanney, Martin Buxton and Isla Rippon
To identify the papers, and publishing journals, describing psychiatry, surgery and paediatrics research funded by the National Health Service (NHS) in the UK. To make comparisons…
Abstract
Purpose
To identify the papers, and publishing journals, describing psychiatry, surgery and paediatrics research funded by the National Health Service (NHS) in the UK. To make comparisons with non‐NHS research and examine the journal impact factors, and importance to clinicians, of journals publishing the most NHS research. To consider the implications, including those for research assessment.
Design/methodology/approach
Existing databases were examined: the research outputs database (ROD), which contains information on UK biomedical papers; NHS ROD, which contains details of papers on ROD funded by the NHS; lists of journal impact factors. These were combined with selective findings from surveys conducted to identify journals read and viewed as important for clinical practice by psychiatrists, surgeons and paediatricians.
Findings
In each specialty many papers publish NHS‐funded research and they out‐number the non‐NHS papers in the ROD. They appear in a wide range of journals but in each specialty one journal is clearly the most used. The impact factors of journals publishing the most NHS research vary considerably. In each specialty the journal containing most NHS publications is widely perceived to be important by clinicians.
Research limitations/implications
Much NHS‐funded research is also funded by other bodies. Clinician survey response rates were between 38 per cent and 47 per cent. The analysis could be extended to other specialties.
Practical implications
Papers published in the few journals in each specialty that are viewed as important by clinicians could be given additional credit in assessments.
Originality/value
This paper describes outputs from NHS research and shows how assessment could be extended.
Details
Keywords
The present study aims to overview Brazilian human resources and scientific output in astronomy, immunology and oceanography during the last decade.
Abstract
Purpose
The present study aims to overview Brazilian human resources and scientific output in astronomy, immunology and oceanography during the last decade.
Design/methodology/approach
Data on human resources and on scientific output were obtained from the Brazilian database, the Directory of Research Groups. Scientific outputs were also analysed from a set of journals catalogued by the Institute for Scientific Information: the 20 journals with the largest number of articles in 2003.
Findings
Compared with the other two fields, the number of Brazilian researchers in astronomy has not grown from 1997‐2002, but they are the most qualified and more than 90 per cent of them have a PhD degree. Most astronomy publications are in international journals and they are well cited. The most cited astronomy papers are on international topics, but this is not true for the oceanography papers.
Research limitations/implications
These data are derived from a particular set of publications and should be interpreted as trends rather than as definitive.
Originality/value
This study, which covers three fields with different structures and traditions, provides a snapshot of some features of the whole of Brazilian science, and will provide evidence for new science policies.
Details
Keywords
To test the effect of public‐private collaboration on research quality in the UK biotechnology industry.
Abstract
Purpose
To test the effect of public‐private collaboration on research quality in the UK biotechnology industry.
Design/methodology/approach
Development of an economic model suggesting that collaboration results in learning gains that lead to higher quality research and subsequently testing of this model using unique data from the UK biotechnology sector from 1988‐2001.
Findings
Collaborative research does indeed improve research quality, although the nature of the biotech firm in question seems to be an important factor in determining how strongly positive an effect public‐private collaboration has on research quality.
Originality/value
Shows that there exists a growing body of work that points to the increasing value of public‐private interaction for the performance and growth of high technology science‐based firms and industries. However, research on the effects of this interaction on the resulting quality of scientific output is scarce.
Details
Keywords
This paper introduces a new bibliometric tool, the journal diffusion factor. An argument is presented that the bibliometric indicators commonly used to measure the quality of…
Abstract
This paper introduces a new bibliometric tool, the journal diffusion factor. An argument is presented that the bibliometric indicators commonly used to measure the quality of research (journal impact factor, immediacy index and cited half‐life) offer little insight into the transdisciplinary reception (thus the wider influence) of journals. The journal diffusion factor describes a neglected dynamic of citation reception and is intended as a complementary partial indicator for research evaluation purposes, to be read alongside existing well‐established indicators.