Authors:Judith de Arenas, J. Valles, and M. Arenas
The most prestigious award in Mexico, the “National Prize for Science and Art” has been awarded to 33 health scientists. An
exercise was carried out to assess their performance to answer the question: why them?
The laureates' profile was based on data retrieved from MEDLINE andScience Citation Index Expanded available on the WWW as well as the ISI's 15-year (1981–1995) cumulative impact factor lists. The laureates published 2,049
papers and were cited 50,834 times.
Our results showed the scientific pre-eminence of laureates. We concluded that bibliometric data could complement other indicators
of research performance. Bibliometrics could insure the Prize committee against error and the operationalization of the Matthew
Effect could be minimized to honor only the most creative researchers.
To analyse the relationship between research group size and scientific productivity within the highly cooperative research environment characteristic of contemporary biomedical science, an investigation of Norwegian Microbiology was undertaken. By an author-gated retrieval from ISI's database National Science Indicators on Diskette (NSIOD), of journal articles published by Norwegian scientists involved in microbiological research during the period 1992–1996, a total of 976 microbiological and 938 non-microbiological articles, by 3,486 authors, were obtained. Functional research groups were defined bibliometrically on the basis of co-authorship, yielding a total of 180 research groups varying in size from one author/one article to 180 authors/83 articles (all authors associated with a group during the whole five-year period were included, hence the large group size). Most of Norwegian microbiological research (73% of the microbiology articles) appears to be performed by specialist groups (with 70% of their production as microbiology), the remainder being published by groups with a broader biomedical research profile (who were responsible for 95% of the non-microbiological articles). The productivity (articles per capita) showed only moderate (Poisson-distributed) variability between groups, and was remarkably constant across all subfields, at about 0.1 article per author per year. No correlation between group size and productivity was found.
In the first part, the present paper presents a quantitative analysis of physics publications in the domain of experimental particle physics, before the Second World War in the field of cosmic rays physics and for the modern times in the field of accelerator and collision rings experiments. In the second part, a more general study is made on publications in the various fields of physics separating contributions from experiment, theory and techniques. Three aspects of physics are enlightened: physics of exploration, physics of applications, and forefront physics.
During the period 1984–89 Spanish pharmacologists published 344 papers (44.3% of their total scientific production) (Science Citation Index, CD-Edition) in journals classified by theSCI in subfields different from Pharmacology & Pharmacy. Distribution by institutions, geographical regions, journals, subfields and research levels are presented. The Normalized Journal Position (NJP) is introduced as indicator of the expected impact in each subfield. Results are compared with those of the analysis of the production of Spanish pharmacologists in the Pharmacology & Pharmacy subfield, presented in a previous paper. Some of the features detected are common to both areas, such as: increasing trend in the productivity over years, irregular geographical distribution with three regions as major producers, or university as main producer institution. Special features of the extra-Pharmacology area are also pointed out: irregular growth of publication number over years, high dispersion of publications in journals and subfields, high collaboration rate, and low percentage of authors with at least 1 paper/year, among others. Attending to journal of publication, cross-disciplinarity research of Spanish pharmacologists is analysed, being Neurosciences, Biochemistry & Molecular Biology and Physiology, the main border fields involved.
The relationship between the size of national scientific activities of advanced countries and the degree of specialization by fields of science is examined using bibliometric indicators of the number of papers and of paper citations. A negative relation between the amount of scientific activity and the degree of scientific specialization has emerged, with Japan and, to a lesser extent Italy, showing a specialization degree higher than expected. Countries with established scientific traditions (such as the US, the UK, the Netherlands, and Switzerland) have a lower than expected specialization degree, suggesting a more diversified range of research activities. Over time, however, most countries have reduced their scientific specialization, a pattern which is in contrast with recent research on patents and technological specialization.
members and other countries. Among other things, special bibliometricanalysis of scientific publications of the CIS countries is promising subject for more detailed research.
The trends revealed during the review of
This paper presents the results of a study of Britain's scientific performance in the fields of ocean currents and protein crystallography carried out for the Advisory Board for the Research Councils (ABRC). Using a range of publication and citation indicators, the study aimed to explore the potential value to science policy-making of low-cost scientometric approaches to research evaluation.
This study investigates the scientific output and publication patterns of Korean biotechnology before and after the start
of the Korean Biotechnology Stimulation Plans (1994–2007), and then compares the results with publication data from the same
time periods for Japan, the People’s Republic of China, Taiwan and Singapore. For this study, 14,704 publications, published
by at least one researcher from one of the five Asian nations (indexed by SCI Expanded during the years 1990–1993 and the
years 2000–2003), were considered. A marked increase of Korean research output in biotechnology was largely influenced by
an increasing tendency for researchers to enter the field of biotechnology and by increased expenditures for R&D activity
through the Korean Biotechnology Stimulation Plans. In addition, the SCI Expanded coverage of national journals affected the
scientific output and publication patterns of Japanese and Korean researchers. Looking at the Korean publications by collaboration
type, international collaboration leads to more publications in mainstream journals of high impact factors than local and
domestic collaborations for the two periods. However, although the Korean Biotechnology Stimulation Plans were followed by
a remarkable increase in South Korea’s research output, this increase has not been accompanied by growth in the quality of
those publications in terms of impact factors of journals for Korean publications.