Ranking 2019 de investigación de las universidades públicas españolas / Research Ranking of Spanish Public Universities (2019)

ANTECEDENTES: los cambios producidos en el sistema universitario español con el proceso Bolonia hacen necesaria la realización periódica de informes de evaluación de la actividad investigadora. El objetivo de este estudio es actualizar el último ranking disponible de investigación de las universidades públicas españolas con los datos de 2013-2018. MÉTODO: se evaluó la producción y productividad de cada universidad, atendiendo a siete indicadores específicos y a una puntuación global: artículos en revistas indexadas en el JCR (Journal Citation Reports), tramos de investigación, proyectos I+D, tesis doctorales, ayudas FPU (formación de profesorado universitario), ayudas FPI (formación de personal investigador) y patentes. RESULTADOS: a nivel global, las universidades Complutense de Madrid, Barcelona y Granada se sitúan en las primeras posiciones en producción, mientras que las primeras posiciones en productividad son ocupadas por las universidades Pompeu Fabra, Autónoma de Madrid y Autónoma de Barcelona. CONCLUSIONES: las universidades que ocupan las primeras posiciones en este ranking se mantienen relativamente estables a lo largo del tiempo y son también las que destacan en clasificaciones internacionales

BACKGROUND: The changes produced in the Spanish university system due to the Bologna process require periodically updated evaluation reports of research activity. The objective of this study is to update the last available ranking of Spanish public universities, based on data from 2013-2018. METHOD: The production and productivity of each university were assessed based on seven specific indicators and a global score: articles in journals indexed in the JCR (Journal Citation Reports), research periods, R+D projects, doctoral theses, FPU (training of university professors) grants, FPI (training of personal researchers) grants, and patents. RESULTS: Globally, the universities Complutense of Madrid, Barcelona, and Granada hold the first positions in terms of production, while the first positions in terms of productivity are held by the universities Pompeu Fabra, Autonomous of Madrid, and Autonomous of Barcelona. CONCLUSIONS: The universities that hold the top positions in this ranking remain relatively steady over time and are also the Spanish universities that stand out in international classifications

[Research Ranking of Spanish Public Universities (2019)].

Research Ranking of Spanish Public Universities (2019). BACKGROUND: The changes produced in the Spanish university system due to the Bologna process require periodically updated evaluation reports of research activity. The objective of this study is to update the last available ranking of Spanish public universities, based on data from 2013-2018. METHOD: The production and productivity of each university were assessed based on seven specific indicators and a global score: articles in journals indexed in the JCR (Journal Citation Reports), research periods, R+D projects, doctoral theses, FPU (training of university professors) grants, FPI (training of personal researchers) grants, and patents. RESULTS: Globally, the universities Complutense of Madrid, Barcelona, and Granada hold the first positions in terms of production, while the first positions in terms of productivity are held by the universities Pompeu Fabra, Autonomous of Madrid, and Autonomous of Barcelona. CONCLUSIONS: The universities that hold the top positions in this ranking remain relatively steady over time and are also the Spanish universities that stand out in international classifications.

Evaluation of medical research performance--position paper of the Association of the Scientific Medical Societies in Germany (AWMF).

OBJECTIVE: The evaluation of medical research performance is a key prerequisite for the systematic advancement of medical faculties, research foci, academic departments, and individual scientists' careers. However, it is often based on vaguely defined aims and questionable methods and can thereby lead to unwanted regulatory effects. The current paper aims at defining the position of German academic medicine toward the aims, methods, and consequences of its evaluation. METHODS: During the Berlin Forum of the Association of the Scientific Medical Societies in Germany (AWMF) held on 18 October 2013, international experts presented data on methods for evaluating medical research performance. Subsequent discussions among representatives of relevant scientific organizations and within three ad-hoc writing groups led to a first draft of this article. Further discussions within the AWMF Committee for Evaluation of Performance in Research and Teaching and the AWMF Executive Board resulted in the final consented version presented here. RESULTS: The AWMF recommends modifications to the current system of evaluating medical research performance. Evaluations should follow clearly defined and communicated aims and consist of both summative and formative components. Informed peer reviews are valuable but feasible in longer time intervals only. They can be complemented by objective indicators. However, the Journal Impact Factor is not an appropriate measure for evaluating individual publications or their authors. The scientific "impact" rather requires multidimensional evaluation. Indicators of potential relevance in this context may include, e.g., normalized citation rates of scientific publications, other forms of reception by the scientific community and the public, and activities in scientific organizations, research synthesis and science communication. In addition, differentiated recommendations are made for evaluating the acquisition of third-party funds and the promotion of junior scientists. CONCLUSIONS: With the explicit recommendations presented in the current position paper, the AWMF suggests enhancements to the practice of evaluating medical research performance by faculties, ministries and research funding organizations.

Big Science vs. Little Science: How Scientific Impact Scales with Funding.

AGENCIES THAT FUND SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH MUST CHOOSE: is it more effective to give large grants to a few elite researchers, or small grants to many researchers? Large grants would be more effective only if scientific impact increases as an accelerating function of grant size. Here, we examine the scientific impact of individual university-based researchers in three disciplines funded by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC). We considered four indices of scientific impact: numbers of articles published, numbers of citations to those articles, the most cited article, and the number of highly cited articles, each measured over a four-year period. We related these to the amount of NSERC funding received. Impact is positively, but only weakly, related to funding. Researchers who received additional funds from a second federal granting council, the Canadian Institutes for Health Research, were not more productive than those who received only NSERC funding. Impact was generally a decelerating function of funding. Impact per dollar was therefore lower for large grant-holders. This is inconsistent with the hypothesis that larger grants lead to larger discoveries. Further, the impact of researchers who received increases in funding did not predictably increase. We conclude that scientific impact (as reflected by publications) is only weakly limited by funding. We suggest that funding strategies that target diversity, rather than "excellence", are likely to prove to be more productive.

Research funding and mentoring in family medicine residencies.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: This study's purpose was to measure the current status of research funding and mentoring in family medicine residencies and to ascertain what resources are needed to increase residencies' research output. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional survey of family medicine residency program directors in the United States. We measured grant funding sources, availability of mentors, the likelihood programs could qualify for National Institutes of Health (NIH) K awards, barriers to research, and how these factors varied by program type. RESULTS: The response rate was 66% (298/453). Medical school-based programs were much more likely to report that their family medicine faculty wrote funded research grants than were community-based medical school affiliated programs (76% versus 32%). The majority of both program types reported that research mentors were available (85% versus 60%). Very few programs of either type were likely to meet the minimum requirements for NIH K01, K08, or K23 awards (29% for medical school programs versus 3% for community programs). The most commonly reported specific resources needed to increase research output were time, money, and more faculty (range 86% to 92% between program types). CONCLUSIONS: The majority of family medicine residencies did not receive grant funding for research, reported that time and money were the most significant barriers to research, but were ineligible to receive support from NIH K awards. More realistic funding mechanisms are needed to support residency-based research faculty.

Current priorities in health research funding and lack of impact on the number of child deaths per year.

We determined the proportion of research on childhood mortality directed toward better medical technology (i.e., by improving old technology or creating new technology) compared with research on technology delivery and utilization. We also estimated mortality reductions from a research-funding strategy focusing primarily on developing technology compared with one that also focused on delivery and utilization. Ninety-seven percent of grants were for developing new technologies, which could reduce child mortality by 22%. This reduction is one third of what could be achieved if existing technologies were fully utilized. There is a serious discrepancy between current research and the research needed to save children's lives. In addition to increased research on the efficacy of treatment, there is an even greater need for increased research on delivery and use of technology.

Reported outcomes in major cardiovascular clinical trials funded by for-profit and not-for-profit organizations: 2000-2005.

CONTEXT: In surveys based on data available prior to 2000, clinical trials funded by for-profit organizations appeared more likely to report positive findings than those funded by not-for-profit organizations. Whether this situation has changed over the past 5 years or whether similar effects are present among jointly funded trials is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To determine in contemporary randomized cardiovascular trials the association between funding source and the likelihood of reporting positive findings. DESIGN: We reviewed 324 consecutive superiority trials of cardiovascular medicine published between January 1, 2000, and July 30, 2005, in JAMA, The Lancet, and the New England Journal of Medicine. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The proportion of trials favoring newer treatments over the standard of care was evaluated by funding source. RESULTS: Of the 324 superiority trials, 21 cited no funding source. Of the 104 trials funded solely by not-for-profit organizations, 51 (49%) reported evidence significantly favoring newer treatments over the standard of care, whereas 53 (51%) did not (P = .80). By contrast, 92 (67.2%) of 137 trials funded solely by for-profit organizations favored newer treatments over standard of care (P<.001). Among 62 jointly funded trials, 35 (56.5%), an intermediate proportion, favored newer treatments. For 205 randomized trials evaluating drugs, the proportions favoring newer treatments were 39.5%, not-for-profit; 54.4%, jointly funded; and 65.5%, for-profit trials (P for trend across groups = .002). For the 39 randomized trials evaluating cardiovascular devices, the proportions favoring newer treatments were 50.0%, not-for-profit; 69.2%, jointly funded; and 82.4%, for-profit trials (P for trend across groups = .07). Regardless of funding source, trials using surrogate end points, such as quantitative angiography, intravascular ultrasound, plasma biomarkers, and functional measures were more likely to report positive findings (67%) than trials using clinical end points (54.1%; P = .02). CONCLUSIONS: Recent cardiovascular trials funded by for-profit organizations are more likely to report positive findings than trials funded by not-for-profit organizations, as are trials using surrogate rather than clinical end points. Trials jointly funded by not-for-profit and for-profit organizations appear to report positive findings at a rate approximately midway between rates observed in trials supported solely by one or the other of these entities.

Tuberculosis prevention versus hospitalization: taxpayers save with prevention.

This study describes who pays for inpatient tuberculosis (TB) care and factors associated with payer source. The authors analyzed TB hospitalization costs for a prospective cohort of active TB patients at 10 U.S. sites. Private insurance paid for 9 percent and private hospitals for 6 percent of TB hospitalization costs. Public sources (federal, state, and local governments and public hospitals) paid more than 85 percent of TB hospitalization costs. Preventive services (treatment for latent TB infection; housing, food, and social work for homeless persons; substance abuse treatment for substance abusers; and antiretroviral medication for HIV-infected persons) targeted to those at high risk for TB hospitalization could save taxpayers between $4 million and $118 million. Since public resources are used to pay nearly all the costs of late-stage TB care, the public sector could save by shifting resources currently used for inpatient care to target preventive services to persons at high risk for TB hospitalization.

Message content of alcohol moderation TV commercials: impact of corporate versus nonprofit sponsorship.

This content analysis examines a sample of 203 alcohol-related North American TV commercials dealing with alcohol moderation and driving under the influence (DUI), in order to determine whether the type of ad sponsor has an impact on the message content. Corporate sponsors, such as breweries and distillers, are compared to nonprofit sponsors such as governments and nonprofit organizations. Findings show that ads from corporate sponsors are less likely to make mention of threats or negative consequences, and are also less likely to use fear arousal. However, DUI/alcohol moderation ads from corporate sponsors and nonprofit sponsors do not differ in the degree to which they use humor or positive approaches.

Redistributive effects of Swedish health care finance.

This paper investigates the redistributive effects of the Swedish health care financing system in 1980 and 1990 for four different financial sources: county council taxes, payroll taxes, direct payments and state grants. The redistributive effects are decomposed into vertical, horizontal and 'reranking' segments for each of the four financial sources. The data used are based on probability samples of the Swedish population, from the Level of Living Survey (LNU) from 1981 and 1991. The paper concludes that the Swedish health care financing system is weakly progressive, although direct payments are regressive. There is some horizontal inequity and 'reranking', which mainly comes from the county council taxes, since those tax rates vary for each county council. The implication is that, to some extent, people with equal incomes are treated unequally.

Towards a two tier health system in the Netherlands: how to put theory into practice.

The Dutch health care system is developing a two, or multiple, tier system. How can moral principles be of help in assessing whether this is the right track? Instead of dismissing as unhelpful the principles that have been suggested so far and exchanging them for other, usually more complex, principles, it is suggested that the methods of moral inquiry be reconsidered.

National health accounts: lessons from the U.S. experience.

The national health accounts (NHA) are the framework within which type of services and sources of funding for health care expenditures are measured. NHA, devised to portray the structure of health care delivery and financing in the United States, provide essential information necessary for the formulation of public health policy and for international comparison. In this article, the authors describe the importance of the NHA nationally and internationally, and provide a blueprint of the definitions, sources, and methods used to create this system of NHA in the United States.