The geographic bias of mammal studies: a comparison of a half a century of research on Palearctic and Neotropical mammals / El sesgo geográfico en el estudio de los mamíferos: comparación de medio siglo de investigación sobre mamíferos paleárticos y neotropicales

Abstract Introduction: There are no studies that specifically compare research output of Palearctic and Neotropical mammalogy; such comparison would be useful for informed decisions in conservation and management. Objective: To compare the scientific documents and citations about Palearctic and Neotropical mammals over half a century. Methods: We compared 50 years (1970-2019) of documents on 60 medium and large-sized (heavier than 1 kg) mammal species, in Scopus and the Web of Science (WoS) Core Collection, considering number of documents and four citation indicators at the species level (h-index, citation rate, total citations, and citations per year). Results: We retrieved 13 274 documents in Scopus and 12 913 in WoS. We found that Palearctic mammals have 3.77 times more documents than Neotropical species in Scopus (3.91 times in WoS), and that the documents recorded 5.95 more total citations in Scopus (6.93 times more in WoS). Palearctic documents also record more yearly citations and a higher h-index in both Scopus and WoS. Scopus retrieved more articles for Neotropical species (2 782 vs. 2 631 in WoS) and had more citations (28 120 vs. 24 977 in WoS); differences for the citation indicators between regions were marker in WoS. The h-index and total citations are greatly affected by how many studies are published, i.e. the region with more production is the one with higher values. The Neotropical articles showed a greater growth rate in the last decade, decreasing the gap between both regions. Conclusion: There is a regional bias in WoS and Scopus, which retrieve more articles and citations about Palearctic mammals than about Neotropical mammals; this bias is worse in WoS and means that an urgent increase in indexed research about Neotropical species is needed to be on par with Palearctic research.

Resumen Introducción: No existen estudios que comparen, específicamente, la investigación de la mastozoología paleártica con la neotropical; pero tales comparaciones serían útiles para tomar decisiones informadas en conservación y manejo. Objetivo: Comparar los documentos científicos sobre mamíferos paleárticos y neotropicales, y su impacto en citas, durante medio siglo. Métodos: Comparamos 50 años (1970-2019) de documentos sobre 60 especies de mamíferos de tamaño mediano y grande (más de 1 kg), en Scopus y la colección principal del Web of Science (WoS), considerando el número de documentos y cuatro indicadores de citas a nivel de especie (índice h, tasa de citas, total de citas y citas por año). Resultados: Recuperamos 13 274 documentos en Scopus y 12 913 en WoS, y encontramos que los mamíferos paleárticos tienen 3.77 veces más documentos que las especies neotropicales en Scopus (3.91 veces en WoS), y que los documentos registran 5.95 más citas totales en Scopus (6.93 veces más en WoS). Los documentos paleárticos también registran más citas anuales y un índice h más alto, tanto en Scopus como en WoS. Scopus recuperó más artículos para especies neotropicales (2 782 vs. 2 631 en WoS) y tuvo más citas (28 120 vs. 24 977 en WoS). Las diferencias para los indicadores de citas entre regiones fueron más marcadas en WoS. El índice h y el total de citas se ven muy afectados por la cantidad de estudios publicados, es decir, la región con más producción será la que tenga indicadores más altos. Los artículos neotropicales mostraron una mayor tasa de crecimiento en la última década, disminuyendo la brecha entre ambas regiones. Conclusión: Existe un sesgo regional en WoS y Scopus, que recuperan más artículos y citas sobre mamíferos paleárticos que sobre mamíferos neotropicales; este sesgo es peor en WoS y significa que se necesita un aumento urgente en la investigación indexada sobre especies neotropicales para estar al nivel de la investigación paleártica.

Envisioning the Health Research System in the Philippines by 2040: A perspective inspired by Ambisyon Natin 2040

@#<p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE:</strong> This paper aims to describe long-term visions for health research in the Philippines. Ambisyon Natin 2040, an overarching vision for a dynamic country by the year 2040, is its main inspiration as this enables innovation and sustainable development.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>METHODS:</strong> The health research profile conceptual framework developed by Tugwell et al., (2006) was utilized to structure the articulation of these visions. Review of related literature, reports, and documents and in-depth interviews with key players in health research were conducted.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>RESULTS:</strong> In view of economic and technological developments in the country, it is expected that in 2040, health research priorities shall be more trans-disciplinary and more advanced. Research on health regulation and ethics will continue to be of importance. A more enabling environment for health research is also envisioned, since majority of research funding is expected to come from government, in addition to more research-friendly laws. More innovative platforms will be utilized to disseminate research results. The increasing international exposure and impact of academic work in the Philippines is also envisaged.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS: </strong>Health research in the Philippines has been benefitted by a lot of gains and advances in the past years. Thus, to create an enabling health research system in the Philippines by 2040, focusing on innovations in health research, increased number of funding sources, and crafting of better policies on health research should be pursued. Sustaining these gains and advancing health research in our country entail collective effort from different stakeholders, both public and private.</p>

Bibliometrics: Tracking research impact by selecting the appropriate metrics / 亚洲男科学杂志(英文版)

Traditionally, the success of a researcher is assessed by the number of publications he or she publishes in peer-reviewed, indexed, high impact journals. This essential yardstick, often referred to as the impact of a specific researcher, is assessed through the use of various metrics. While researchers may be acquainted with such matrices, many do not know how to use them to enhance their careers. In addition to these metrics, a number of other factors should be taken into consideration to objectively evaluate a scientist′s profile as a researcher and academician. Moreover, each metric has its own limitations that need to be considered when selecting an appropriate metric for evaluation. This paper provides a broad overview of the wide array of metrics currently in use in academia and research. Popular metrics are discussed and defined, including traditional metrics and article-level metrics, some of which are applied to researchers for a greater understanding of a particular concept, including varicocele that is the thematic area of this Special Issue of Asian Journal of Andrology. We recommend the combined use of quantitative and qualitative evaluation using judiciously selected metrics for a more objective assessment of scholarly output and research impact.

Conceptual model of comprehensive research metrics for improved human health and environment: [review] / Modelo conceitual de indicadores de desempenho abrangentes para a melhoria da saúde humana e do meio ambiente: [revisão]

Performance measurement predominantly consisted of near-term outputs measured through bibliometrics, but the recent focus is on accountability for investment based on long-term outcomes. Our objective is to build a logic model and associated metrics through which to measure the contribution of environmental health research programs to improvements in human health, the environment, and the economy. We developed a logic model that defines the components and linkages between extramural environmental health research grant programs and the outputs and outcomes related to health and social welfare, environmental quality and sustainability, economics, and quality of life, focusing on the environmental health research portfolio of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) Division of Extramural Research and Training and delineates pathways for contributions by five types of institutional partners in the research process. The model is being applied to specific NIEHS research applications and the broader research community. We briefly discuss two examples and discuss the strengths and limits of outcome- based evaluation of research programs.

A avaliação de desempenho compreendia predominantemente resultados de curto prazo avaliados através de bibliometria, mas recentemente a ênfase voltou-se à prestação de contas dos investimentos com base em resultados a longo prazo. Nosso objetivo é criar um modelo lógico e métricas associadas através dos quais possamos avaliar a contribuição de programas de pesquisa em saúde ambiental para melhorar a saúde humana, o meio ambiente e a economia. Desenvolvemos um modelo lógico que define os componentes e elos entre os programas de pesquisa em saúde ambiental extramuros subsidiados e os resultados relacionados à saúde e ao bem-estar social, qualidade ambiental e sustentabilidade, economia e qualidade de vida, com ênfase no portfólio de pesquisa em saúde ambiental do National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), divisão de pesquisa e treinamento extramuros, delineando caminhos para as contribuições de cinco tipos de parceiros institucionais no processo de pesquisa. O modelo está sendo usado em aplicações específicas do NIEHS e na comunidade de pesquisa como um todo. Analisamos brevemente dois exemplos e os pontos fortes e limitações da avaliação baseada em resultados dos programas de pesquisa.