Bibliometric analysis of global trends for research productivity in microbiology

被引:0
作者
P. I. Vergidis
A. I. Karavasiou
K. Paraschakis
I. A. Bliziotis
M. E. Falagas
机构
[1] Alfa Institute of Biomedical Sciences (AIBS),
[2] Tufts University School of Medicine,undefined
来源
European Journal of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases | 2005年 / 24卷
关键词
Gross Domestic Product; Impact Factor; Research Productivity; World Region; Journal Citation Report;
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
In order to expand upon the limited literature estimating the quantity and quality of worldwide research production in the field of microbiology, a bibliometric analysis was conducted for the period 1995–2003 using the PubMed and Journal Citation Reports databases. By searching the “microbiology” category of the Journal Citation Reports database, a total of 74 journals were identified that were also included in PubMed. From these journals, a total of 89,527 articles were identified for analysis, and data on the country in which the research originated was available for 88,456 (98.8%) of them. The individual countries were separated into nine world regions. In terms of research production for the period studied, Western Europe exceeded all other world regions, with the USA ranking second. The mean impact factor was highest for the USA at 3.4, while it was 2.8 for Western Europe and 2.4 for the rest of the world combined. The research productivity per unit of expenditure for research and development was higher for Canada and Western Europe than for the USA. The three regions in which research productivity increased the most were Asia, Latin America, and Eastern Europe.
引用
收藏
页码:342 / 346
页数:4
相关论文
共 18 条
[1]  
Ramos JM(2004)Publication of European Union research on infectious diseases (1991-2001): a bibliometric evaluation Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 23 180-184
[2]  
Gutierrez F(2000)Medical-bioscientific databanks and the impact factor Dtsch Med Wochenschr 125 1133-1141
[3]  
Masia M(2002)Impact factors: facts and myths Eur Radiol 12 715-717
[4]  
Martin-Hidalgo A(1997)Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research BMJ 314 498-502
[5]  
Winkmann G(1998)Alternative to the Science Citation Index impact factor as an assessment of emergency medicine’s scientific contributions Ann Emerg Med 31 78-82
[6]  
Schweim HG(1955)Citation indexes for science; a new dimension in documentation through association of ideas Science 122 108-111
[7]  
Whitehouse GH(1990)Bibliometrics and evaluation of research performance Ann Med 22 145-150
[8]  
Seglen PO(2000)Changes in the impact factor of anesthesia/critical care journals within the past 10 years Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 44 842-849
[9]  
Barnaby DP(2001)Impact factors of dermatological journals for 1991–2000 BMC Dermatol 1 7-133
[10]  
Gallagher EJ(1999)The impact factor: a factor of impact or the impact of a (sole) factor? The limits of a bibliometric indicator as a candidate for an instrument to evaluate scientific production Ann Ital Med Int 14 130-undefined