Correspondence on »Five major challenges for medical bibliometrics«

Bibliometrics is a set of mathematical and statistical methods used to analyze and measure the quantity and quality of books, articles, and other forms of publications. There are three types of bibliometric indicators: quantity indicators, which measure the productivity of a particular researcher; quality indicators, which measure the quality (or "performance") of a researcher's output; and structural indicators, which measure connections between publications, authors, and areas of research. Bibliometric indicators are especially important for researchers and organizations, as these measurements are often used in funding decisions, appointments, and promotions of researchers. As more and more scientific discoveries occur and published research results are read and then quoted by other researchers, bibliometric indicators are becoming increasingly important. This article provides an overview of the currently used bibliometric indicators and summarizes the critical elements and characteristics one should be aware of when evaluating the quantity and quality of scientific output.

Contents index volume 5, 1985

The range and types of performance metrics has recently proliferated in academic settings, with bibliometric indicators being particularly visible examples. One field that has traditionally been hospitable towards such indicators is biomedicine. Here the relative merits of bibliometrics are widely discussed, with debates often portraying them as heroes or villains. Despite a plethora of controversies, one of the most widely used indicators in this field is said to be the Journal Impact Factor (JIF). In this article we argue that much of the current debates around researchers’ uses of the JIF in biomedicine can be classed as ‘folk theories’: explanatory accounts told among a community that seldom (if ever) get systematically checked. Such accounts rarely disclose how knowledge production itself becomes more-or-less consolidated around the JIF. Using ethnographic materials from different research sites in Dutch University Medical Centers, this article sheds new empirical and theoretical light on how performance metrics variously shape biomedical research on the ‘shop floor.’ Our detailed analysis underscores a need for further research into the constitutive effects of evaluative metrics.

Since open universities can adapt to students’ work schedules, personal preferences, age, and so on, they have facilitated access to education for a large group of people. The open university phenomenon, which arose in the 1960s, fostered countries’ cultural growth; higher education was now longer exclusively for a privileged few. This paper presents a bibliometric study on the existing scientific output on open universities throughout the last 40 years. A bespoke methodology of bibliometric studies has been used, by setting key descriptors to be consulted in the most prestigious scientific database Web of Science. The sample was composed of 809 papers in total, indexed in prestigious journals and published during the period 1969 to 2018. The output, scattering, and impact bibliometric indicators were analysed in those papers. Among the results obtained, it was found that scientific output on open universities is in a phase of exponential growth, in which 2015 was the most productive year. Furthermore, the UK, where the phenomenon of open universities started, is the country with the most scientific output. Finally, the bibliometric study of the output indexed in the Web of Science shows a panoramic vision of the past, present, and future of open universities, emphasising the idea that this phenomenon is continuing to grow.

Although faculty development programs in medical education have increased over the past two decades, there is a lack of rigorous program evaluation. The aim of this study was to determine quantifiable outcomes of Harvard Medical School's (HMS's) Fellowship in Medical Education and evaluate attainment of its goals. In 2005 and 2009 the authors collected curricula vitae (CVs) and conducted within-subject analysis of 42 fellowship graduates and also conducted comparison analysis between 12 academic year 2005 fellows and 12 faculty who did not participate in the program. The authors identified 10 metrics of academic advancement. CV analysis for the 42 graduates started 2 years prior to fellowship enrollment and continued for 2-year intervals until June 2009 (10 years of data collection). CV analysis for the comparison group was from 2003 to 2009. The authors also analyzed association between gender and academic outcomes. Fellowship graduates demonstrated significant changes in 4 of 10 academic metrics by the end of the fellowship year: academic promotion, educational leadership, education committees, and education funding. Two metrics-educational leadership and committees-showed increased outcomes two years post fellowship, with a positive trend for promotions. Fellowship graduates significantly outpaced the comparison group in 6 of 10 metrics. Women did significantly more committee work, secured more education funding, and were promoted more often than men. Findings indicate that the HMS Fellowship in Medical Education meets programmatic goals and produces positive, measurable academic outcomes. Standardized evaluation metrics of longitudinal faculty development programs would aid cross-institutional comparisons.

BackgroundResearch evidence to inform primary care policy and practice is essential for building high-performing primary care systems. Nevertheless, research output relating to primary care remains low worldwide. This study describes the factors associated with the research productivity of primary care researchers.MethodsA qualitative, descriptive key informant study approach was used to conduct semi-structured interviews with twenty-three primary care researchers across Canada. Qualitative data were analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis.ResultsTwenty-three primary care researchers participated in the study. An interplay of personal (psychological characteristics, gender, race, parenthood, education, spousal occupation, and support), professional (mentorship before appointment, national collaborations, type of research, career length), institutional (leadership, culture, resources, protected time, mentorship, type), and system (funding, systematic bias, environment, international collaborations, research data infrastructure) factors were perceived to be associated with research productivity. Research institutes and mentors facilitated collaborations, and mentors and type of research enabled funding success. Jurisdictions with fewer primary care researchers had more national collaborations but fewer funding opportunities. The combination of institutional, professional, and system factors were barriers to the research productivity of female and/or racialized researchers.ConclusionsThis study illuminates the intersecting and multifaceted influences on the research productivity of primary care researchers. By exploring individual, professional, institutional, and systemic factors, we underscore the pivotal role of diverse elements in shaping RP. Understanding these intricate influencers is imperative for tailored, evidence-based interventions and policies at the level of academic institutions and funding agencies to optimize resources, promote fair evaluation metrics, and cultivate inclusive environments conducive to diverse research pursuits within the PC discipline in Canada.

The objective of the present study is to characterize the global scientific production on medical education during the COVID-19 pandemic in seven scientific databases from January 2020 to April 2021. We worked with a universe of 248 articles of which bibliometric indicators were analyzed using Publish or Perish software v. 7.19 and the same analytical software for the chosen databases. The results indicate an average of 39.5 citations. 27.95, 0.87 and 17.90 citations per year, citations per article and citations per author respectively. Among the most cited articles in the Scopus and Microsoft academic databases, Maintaining High-Quality Multidisciplinary Scholarship Programs in Pain Medicine stands out: Part I: Innovations in Education, Research, Candidate Selection Process, Wellness, and Implementation from ACGME during the COVID-19 pandemic. This article is also the second most cited article in the Web of Science database. These results show that the production of scientific articles on educational medicine in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic has not had a significant development.

Objective. This study aims to analyze trends in research on accounting information systems (AIS) as reflected in the Scopus database, covering the entire period during which related works have been published. To achieve this, we have identified the main characteristics and trends of research on this topic. Design/Methodology/Approach. To perform a bibliometric analysis, data were extracted from Scopus. First, data collection was carried out. For this purpose, scientific articles published between 1961 and 2024 were selected using keywords and previously defined inclusion/exclusion criteria. In this case, the document typology was delimited to analyze the results only for citable documents. Subsequently, bibliometric indicators were analyzed by calculating general metrics and mapping trends over the last ten years using the Bibliometrix tool. Results/Discussion. The analyzed distribution of author productivity was consistent with Lotka's Law, showing a concentration of scientific output among a small group of highly productive authors. Lederer AL, King WR, Grover V, and Marsden Jr. are influential figures in information systems, and their contributions are directly relevant to AIS. Trends in blockchain, information systems, and data analytics research reveal a dynamic and transformative landscape in the AIS field. These technologies are redefining the management, analysis, and protection of data in the healthcare sector. Conclusions. This study offers an overview of recent literature on AIS, emphasizing various bibliometric papers and review studies. The convergence of blockchain technology, information systems research, and data analytics is developing a more robust, secure, and intelligent AIS ecosystem.

The paper makes a bibliometric assessment of the scientific output of the Punjab Agricultural University (PAU) in agricultural sciences for a period of 20 years from 2003-2022. Data for the study were downloaded from the Scopus database of the Elsevier. To identify the papers published by the university, a search was conducted in the Scopus database using Punjab Agricultural University in the affiliation tag for the period 2003-2022. The downloaded data identified 6016 research publications published by PAU during the study period of 2003-2022. The growth pattern of publications output during the period under study is inconsistent but shows a growing trend of output. The highest number of articles was produced in the last two year block of 2021-2022. Of the total output, about 48.8% papers appeared in Indian journals and remaining 51.2% in journals originating from other developing and developed nations of the world. Only a small proportion of articles appeared in high and very high impact factor journals. “Agricultural Research Journal” published by the PAU was the most preferred choice of communication of research results by the scholars of the university. The study provides deep insights into research contributions and trends of output of the university and is the first study related to assess scientific productivity of PAU in agricultural sciences using different bibliometric indicators.

Increased specialization and extensive collaboration are common behaviours in the scientific community, as well as the evaluation of scientific research based on bibliometric indicators. This paper aims to analyse the effect of collaboration (co-authorship) on the scientific output of Italian economists. We use social network analysis to investigate the structure of co-authorship, and econometric analysis to explain the productivity of individual Italian economists, in terms of ‘attributional’ variables (such as age, gender, academic position, tenure, scientific sub-discipline, geographical location), ‘relational’ variables (such as propensity to cooperate and the stability of cooperation patterns) and ‘positional’ variables (such as betweenness and closeness centrality indexes and clustering coefficients).

We investigate whether and in what measure scientists tend to diversify their research activity, and if this tendency varies according to their belonging to different disciplinary areas. We analyze the nature of research diversification along three dimensions: extent of diversification, intensity of diversification, and degree of relatedness of topics in which researchers diversifies. For this purpose we propose three bibliometric indicators, based on the disciplinary placement of scientific output of individual scientists. The empirical investigation shows that the extent of diversification is lowest for scientists in Mathematics and highest in Chemistry; intensity of diversification is lowest in Earth sciences and highest in Industrial and information engineering; and degree of relatedness is lowest in Earth sciences and highest in Chemistry.

El objetivo de este trabajo es poner de manifiesto la utilidad del HJ-Biplot en los estudios bibliométricos. El HJ-Biplot es una representación intuitiva y sencilla, similar a un diagrama de dispersión, pero que captura las estructuras de covariación multivariantes entre los indicadores bibliométricos. Su interpretación no requiere conocimientos estadísticos especializados, basta con saber interpretar la longitud de un vector, el ángulo entre dos vectores y la distancia entre dos puntos. Con este fin, se analiza la actividad científica de los centros propios y mixtos del CSIC durante el período 2006-2009 mediante una serie de indicadores de colaboración e impacto científico. Utilizando un HJ-Biplot es posible interpretar simultáneamente la posición de los centros, representados por puntos; de los indicadores, representados mediante vectores; y de las relaciones entre ambos, en el plano con mayor capacidad informativa. Esto nos permite analizar la situación de cada centro en el contexto de su área y en el contexto general del CSIC e identificar aquéllos que muestran un comportamiento singular. Se concluye que las áreas de Humanidades y Ciencias Sociales y Ciencia y Tecnología de Alimentos son las más homogéneas en el comportamiento de sus centros, mientras que Físicas y Agrarias, muestran la mayor heterogeneidad.

Visibility, collaboration and impact of the Cuban scientific output on COVID-19 in Scopus

Blockbuster effect of COVID-19 on the impact factor of infectious disease journals

There are many metrics to evaluate the performance and status of journals. Among these, the journal impact factor (JIF) has become the dominant metric. The influence of JIF is illustrated by its widespread use to evaluate academic status, compensation, and funding decisions. However, as noted by Clarivate Analytics, the parent company of the Web of Science (WoS), the JIF should not be used without careful attention to the many phenomena that influence citation rates. To facilitate transparency, Clarivate Analytics provides all data used to determine the JIF. In addition, WoS provides other metrics for journal evaluation, including the article citation median and the review citation median. These metrics are represented as medians to minimize the confounding influence of a small number of highly cited articles that may occur when data are represented as means. Another feature of these WoS metrics is that data are separated according to different publication types of article (original research and review). To systematically compare these selected metrics, we used the data provided on the WoS web site to analyze 25 top ranked cardiovascular journals in the same mode as represented in the WoS citation distribution window. The results indicate that the article citation median and review citation median overcome several concerns that have been raised about the JIF and seem to provide enhanced objectivity as an indicator of journal impact in publishing original research and reviews. Therefore, we advocate that these additional WoS metrics might be preferentially considered as indicators of journal performance.