Analysis of publication quality in a Cancer Research Institute

Visualizing the History and Perspectives of Disaster Medicine: A Bibliometric Analysis

OBJECTIVE

To analyze the development of disaster medicine and to identify the main obstacles to improving disaster medicine research and application.

METHODS

A topic search strategy was used to search the Web of Science Core Collection database. The 100 articles with the highest local citation scores were selected for bibliometric analysis; summarizing informetric indicators; and preparing a historiography, themes network, and key word co-occurrence map.

RESULTS

The 100 articles with the highest local citation scores were published from 1983 to 2013 in 9 countries, mainly in the United States. The most productive authors were Koenig and Rubinson. The lead research institution was Columbia University. The most commonly cited journal was the Annals of Emergency Medicine. The development of disaster medicine could be separated into 3 consecutive periods. All results indicate that the development of disaster medicine faces some obstacles that need to be addressed.

CONCLUSIONS

Research works have provided a solid foundation for disaster medicine, but its development has been in a slow growth period for a long time. Obstacles to the development of disaster medicine include the lack of scientist communities, transdisciplinary research, innovative research perspectives, and continuous research. Future research should overcome these obstacles so as to make further advances in this field.

Spanish National Oncological Research Center (CNIO): a bibliometric portrait

INTRODUCTION

Madrid's CNIO (Spanish National Oncological Research Center) ranks among the three first institutions in the world, specifically dedicated to cancer research. CNIO research mainly focuses on three aspects: use of stem cells to fix problematic cancer damage, searches for genes that cause cancer disease, and use of drug design to manage oncological disorders.

OBJECTIVES

The main goal of this study is to determine the effectiveness of the 'translation' of basic discoveries generated at this cancer research center, into new interventions aimed at preventing and treating various types of cancer, with bibliometric criteria.

METHODS

A corpus of published articles and citations received by CNIO between 1998 and 2016 has been retrieved from the Web of Science (WoS) database. Bibliometric indicators considered here are: citation practices, use of journals on the basis of their impact factors, scientific literature citing CNIO publications, and international connectedness of CNIO researchers.

RESULTS

A total of 3510 articles were published by CNIO between 1998 and 2016, 23% of which in journals with impact factors between 10 and 15 and above 15. Along the same period, the institution received 135,769 citations published in more than 5800 journals, where the most important citing journals were the Plos One with 3.6% of all the citing articles, Oncotarget with 1.8%, and Scientific Reports with 1.2%. The highest number of citations was 18,005 in 2007; in terms of average citation rate, the first ranked CNIO research program was in the area of experimental therapeutics (77.79%), followed by molecular oncology (68.1%). This position was provided by the active growth in citation to the articles whose themes are related to the problems of the consequences of the design of preclinical drug candidates and the study of oncological disorders.

CONCLUSIONS

From this study on a number of bibliometric characteristics of the Spanish National Oncological Research Center (CNIO), we conclude that the publication activity (since 2006 its scientific production has increased in about 83%), the number of high-quality journals used per year, the high influence, and impact of the journals and organizations citing the institution, consolidate its image as a top-notch oncological research center.

Characterizing peer-judged answer quality on academic Q&A sites

Purpose

Academic social (question and answer) Q&A sites are now utilised by millions of scholars and researchers for seeking and sharing discipline-specific information. However, little is known about the factors that can affect their votes on the quality of an answer, nor how the discipline might influence these factors. The paper aims to discuss this issue.

Design/methodology/approach

Using 1,021 answers collected over three disciplines (library and information services, history of art, and astrophysics) in ResearchGate, statistical analysis is performed to identify the characteristics of high-quality academic answers, and comparisons were made across the three disciplines. In particular, two major categories of characteristics of the answer provider and answer content were extracted and examined.

Findings

The results reveal that high-quality answers on academic social Q&A sites tend to possess two characteristics: first, they are provided by scholars with higher academic reputations (e.g. more followers, etc.); and second, they provide objective information (e.g. longer answer with fewer subjective opinions). However, the impact of these factors varies across disciplines, e.g., objectivity is more favourable in physics than in other disciplines.

Originality/value

The study is envisioned to help academic Q&A sites to select and recommend high-quality answers across different disciplines, especially in a cold-start scenario where the answer has not received enough judgements from peers.

Searching Institute for Scientific Information databases at the Deutsches Institut für Medizinische Dokumentation und Information, Cologne

The aim of the paper is to illustrate the retrieval methods used to count the number of citations in the Institute for Scientific Information online databases (SciSearch and Social Sci-Search) made available by the Deutsches Institut für Medizinische Dokumentation und Information host computer.

Citation analysis is a bibliometric measure increasingly applied to evaluate the publication quality of individual scientists or research groups. Therefore, it is very important to know, and to use correctly, the search methods made available to retrieve the number of citations.

Different search methods and their specific features and limits are discussed, and practical problems in working with the online citation indices are described, highlighting the pivotal role of information specialists to make accessible, and to better use, the database data and the retrieval techniques, thus providing vital information to institutions and research activity.

Identification of the Key Fields and Their Key Technical Points of Oncology by Patent Analysis

Background

This paper aims to identify the key fields and their key technical points of oncology by patent analysis.

Methodology/Principal Findings

Patents of oncology applied from 2006 to 2012 were searched in the Thomson Innovation database. The key fields and their key technical points were determined by analyzing the Derwent Classification (DC) and the International Patent Classification (IPC), respectively. Patent applications in the top ten DC occupied 80% of all the patent applications of oncology, which were the ten fields of oncology to be analyzed. The number of patent applications in these ten fields of oncology was standardized based on patent applications of oncology from 2006 to 2012. For each field, standardization was conducted separately for each of the seven years (2006–2012) and the mean of the seven standardized values was calculated to reflect the relative amount of patent applications in that field; meanwhile, regression analysis using time (year) and the standardized values of patent applications in seven years (2006–2012) was conducted so as to evaluate the trend of patent applications in each field. Two-dimensional quadrant analysis, together with the professional knowledge of oncology, was taken into consideration in determining the key fields of oncology. The fields located in the quadrant with high relative amount or increasing trend of patent applications are identified as key ones. By using the same method, the key technical points in each key field were identified. Altogether 116,820 patents of oncology applied from 2006 to 2012 were retrieved, and four key fields with twenty-nine key technical points were identified, including “natural products and polymers” with nine key technical points, “fermentation industry” with twelve ones, “electrical medical equipment” with four ones, and “diagnosis, surgery” with four ones.

Conclusions/Significance

The results of this study could provide guidance on the development direction of oncology, and also help researchers broaden innovative ideas and discover new technological opportunities.

Discussing some basic critique on Journal Impact Factors: revision of earlier comments

In this study the issue of the validity of the argument against the applied length of citation windows in Journal Impact Factors calculations is critically re-analyzed. While previous studies argued against the relatively short citation window of 1-2 years, this study shows that the relative short term citation impact measured in the window underlying the Journal Impact Factor is a good predictor of the citation impact of the journals in the next years to come. Possible exceptions to this observation relate to journals with relatively low numbers of publications, and the citation impact related to publications in the year of publication. The study focuses on five Journal Subject Categories from the science and social sciences, on normal articles published in these journals, in the 2 years 2000 and 2004.

World dental research production: an ISI database approach (1999-2003)

The objective of this study was to obtain a geographic world map of scientific production in dentistry by analysing published papers. Articles and reviews in the Dentistry, Oral Surgery & Medicine category published from 1999 to 2003 were accessed through the ISI database. The data were analyzed quantitatively (number of documents, number of researchers, productivity, interannual variation rate and relative specialization index), qualitatively (weighted impact factor, relative impact factor, citation rate per document and top 5 publications) and socioeconomically (number of documents per inhabitant and per dentist and in relation to the country's GDP). The USA, UK, Japan and Scandinavian countries were found to be the most productive countries (number of publications). Publications from Scandinavian countries were also of high quality as measured by Impact Factor and Citation Rate, while the UK had one of the highest productivity rates (number of documents per researcher).