Authors:M. Oshtrakh, V. Semionkin, O. Milder, and E. Novikov
Mössbauer spectroscopy is a useful technique for biomedical applications. To increase analytical possibilities and quality
of its biomedical applications a new Mössbauer spectrometric system was developed. This system based on a highly stable, sensitive
and precision spectrometer SM-2201 with high velocity resolution and a temperature variable liquid nitrogen cryostat with
a moving absorber. The first results of Mössbauer spectroscopy with high velocity resolution demonstrated a decrease in the
experimental error in the determination of 57Fe hyperfine parameters and, therefore, an increase of accuracy in analysis of small variations of the iron electronic structure,
as well as more reliable fitting of complicated spectra.
Traditional means of analysis of research outputs have focussed on citations to papers in journals in other journal publications.
But these only chronicle the early stages whereby research in biomedicine is converted into health improvement through better
patient care and through preventive measures. New evaluation methods, still based on the concept of citation of research in
other documents, are needed and are now being developed. These include the use of textbooks in medical education and the analysis
of governmental regulations and health policies, which can influence both the availability of new drugs and the control of
toxic substances in food and the environment. There is also an interest in the way that newspapers report biomedical research
advances. Readers include politicians, healthcare professionals, the general public (who are increasingly becoming active
consumers of healthcare products) and other researchers who may value the immediacy of the reporting. Newspaper articles tend
to focus on fashionable topics and to offer premature hopes of cures to disease, but they can also provide a valuable service
in showing the importance of animal experiments to biomedical progress. It would be useful to create an international database
of newspaper citations through a consortium of partners in different countries who would agree a common protocol and exchange
information on a regular basis.
Authors:Teresa H. Jones, Claire Donovan, and Steve Hanney
Funders of health research increasingly recognise the need both to understand the translation of biomedicalresearch into improved healthcare and to assess the extent to which these wider impacts or benefits to
The long-term influence and contribution of research can be evaluated relatively reliably by bibliometric citation analysis.
Previously, productivity of nations has been estimated by using either the number of published articles or journal impact
factors and/or citation data. These studies show certain trends, but detailed analysis is not possible due to the assumption
that all articles in a journal were equally cited. Here we describe the first comprehensive, longterm, nationwide analysis
of scientific performance. We studied the lifetime research output of 748 Finnish principal investigators in biomedicine during
the years 1966–2000, analysed national trends, and made a comparison with international research production. Our results indicate
that analyses of the scientific contribution of persons, disciplines, or nations should be based on actual publication and
citation counts rather than on derived information like impact factors. 51% of the principal investigators have published
altogether 75% of the articles; however, the whole scientific community has contributed to the growth of biomedical research
in Finland since the Second World War.
In three biomedical research institutions, there is no indication of a single laboratory size at which the number of publications per scientist is maximal or minimal. In a scattergram of the number of publications of a laboratory against laboratory size, the horizontal coordinate measures the number of scientists in a laboratory, the vertical axis measures the number of publications from the laboratory (counting each publication once regardless of the number of authors), and each laboratory is represented by one point. Scattergrams for the Rockefeller University (RU), New York, the National Institute for Medical Research (NIMR), London, and the National Cancer Institute (NCI), Bethesda, are each described well by a straight line through the origin. The slopes of the lines for the three institutions are not significantly different. In these laboratories, ranging in size from 1 to 46 scientists, one additional scientist increases the expected annual number of publications of a laboratory by approximately 1.1, regardless of the size of the laboratory. Although the three institutions have significantly different mean laboratory sizes, the frequency distribution of laboratory size in each institution is described well by a 0-truncated negative binomial distribution, as predicted by a simple model of laboratory population dynamics.
New Scientist is a British weekly magazine that is half-way between a newspaper and a scientific journal. It has many news items, and also
longer feature articles, both of which cite biomedical research papers, and thus serve to make them better known to the public
and to the scientific community, mainly in the UK but about half overseas. An analysis of these research papers shows (in
relation to their presence in the biomedical research literature) a strong bias towards the UK, and also one to the USA, Scandinavia
and Ireland. There is a reasonable spread of subject areas, although neuroscience is favoured, and coverage of many journals—not
just the leading weeklies. Most of the feature articles (but not the news items) in New Scientist include comments by other researchers, who can put the new results in context. Their opinions appear to be more discriminating
than those of commentators on research in the mass media, who usually enthuse over the results while counselling patience
before a cure for the disease is widely available.
An econometric-type model was developed that describes the relationship between federal biomedical funding and the number, subject area and research level (clinical to basic) of published papers in biomedical journals. The study covered federal biomedical funding over the period 1962–1979 and biomedical literature counts over the period 1965–1979. A unique feature of the model was the explicit incorporation of the citation-based interrelationships among the various subfields and research levels of biomedicine.Publication counts in a particular subject area were modeled as a function of federal funding to the area and publication activity in related subject areas. In general, publication activity in related subject areas was found to be a significant explanatory variable over and above funding alone. Moreover, clinically oriented subject areas most often had publication counts in related basic research areas as explanatory variables.
The Research Outputs Database (ROD) has been used to investigate the effects of different input variables, including the numbers
of funding bodies, on the impact of research papers in a biomedical subfield (gastroenterology). This was determined by the
medium-term impact of the journals in which they were published. It was shown that, when account was taken of the effects
of the other input factors, the mean impact for a group of papers increased with the number of authors, the type of research
(basic more than clinical), and with the number and identity of the funding bodies. However itdecreased slightly if there were more addresses; whether the paper was multinational had no significant effect. Previous work showing
that multi-institution or multi-country papers are more highly cited reached this conclusion because it did not take into
account the confounding effect of multiple funding sources, and possibly other factors.
Authors:Maria Bordons, Isabel Gómez, M. Fernández, M. Zulueta, and Aida Méndez
Collaboration practices and partners vary greatly per scientific area and discipline and influence the scientific performance. Bibliometric indicators are used to analyse international, domestic and local collaboration in publications of Spanish authors in three Biomedical subfields: Neurosciences, Gastroenterology and Cardiovascular System as covered by theSCI database. Team size, visibility and basic-applied level of research were analysed according to collaboration scope. International collaboration was linked to higher visibility documents. Cluster analysis of the most productive authors and centres provides a description, of collaboration habits and actors in the three subfields. A positive correlation was found between productivity and international and domestic collaboration at the author level.
At the Rockefeller University in 1977–78, the number of all publications of a research group in a year was approximately proportional to the number of individuals in that group during the year. The number of primary research publications of a group in a year was also approximately proportional to the number of individuals in that group during the year. The observed frequency distribution of laboratory size was statistically indistinguishable from a 0-truncated negative binomial distribution, which is the equilibrium frequency distribution of size predicted by stochastic models for the dynamics of freely-forming primate social groups.