ABSTRACT
This paper characterises scientific output in biomedicine in Andalusia, and Spain as a whole, and conduct a first-time comparison to Europe- and world-wide production. The data were extracted from the Scopus database. Three families of indicators are explored to analyse research quantity, quality and collaboration. The results show an upward trend on biomedical output in Andalusia. Over 50 % was in clinical medicine, whose growth doubled the basic medicine. We found greater than nationwide specialisation in biochemistry, genetics and molecular biology, immunology and microbiology, and pharmacology, while psychology proved to be the most prominent emerging area. The publication in most cited journals together with national and international collaboration enhanced research visibility. More citable papers were published on basic than clinical medicine, and the number of citations received by the former was also larger. The higher citation rate in basic medicine may also be explained by the bigger percentage of papers published in international instead domestic journals. Hence, publication patterns would appear to affect research visibility. The methodology proposed may provide guidance for public policy makers to improve, encourage and intensify good biomedical research practice.
Este trabajo presenta una caracterización bibliométrica de la producción científica biomédica en Andalucía y España durante la década 1996-2007, comparándola por primera vez a nivel europeo y mundial. El análisis se ha realizado con los datos procedentes del índice multidisciplinar de citas Scopus, que duplica en volumen a los índices Thomson Reuters. Se exploran tres bloques de indicadores bibliométricos para el análisis de la dimensión cuantitativa, cualitativa y colaborativa. Los resultados han revelado una tasa de crecimiento de la investigación en Andalucía del 124 % frente al 97 % nacional, principalmente en el campo de la Medicina Básica más que en la Clínica. También se ha detectado una mayor especialización temática con respecto a España en Bioquímica, Genética y Biología Molecular, en Inmunología y Microbiología y finalmente en Farmacología, mientras que Psicología destaca como el área más claramente emergente. La publicación de una mayor cantidad de documentos citables, la publicación en revistas nacionales y la colaboración internacional influyen en la visibilidad de la investigación. Por tanto, los patrones de publicación parecen estar influyendo en su visibilidad. La metodología propuesta proporciona una batería de indicadores y representaciones gráficas que permiten hacer un seguimiento de estos patrones para detectar buenas prácticas de publicación con el fin de incrementar la visibilidad de la investigación producida por cualquier agregado científico y ayudar a los gestores científicos en la toma de decisiones.
ABSTRACT
This study provides an overview of the research performance of major European countries in the field Oncology, the most important journals in which they published their research articles, and the most important academic institutions publishing them. The analysis was based on Thomson Scientific's Web of Science (WoS) and calculated bibliometric indicators of publication activity and actual citation impact. Studying the time period 2000-2006, it gives an update of earlier studies, but at the same time it expands their methodologies, using a broader definition of the field, calculating indicators of actual citation impact, and analysing new and policy relevant aspects. Findings suggest that the emergence of Asian countries in the field Oncology has displaced European articles more strongly than articles from the USA; that oncologists who have published their articles in important, more general journals or in journals covering other specialties, rather than in their own specialist journals, have generated a relatively high actual citation impact; and that universities from Germany, and--to a lesser extent--those from Italy, the Netherlands, UK, and Sweden, dominate a ranking of European universities based on number of articles in oncology. The outcomes illustrate that different bibliometric methodologies may lead to different outcomes, and that outcomes should be interpreted with care.
