Does the COVID-19 Pandemic Affect Excellence in Academic Research? a Study of Science and Engineering Faculty Members in China

Research excellence is one of the key missions of universities and an important engine for socio-economic development. However, the outbreak of COVID-19 has affected academic research in many ways. This study examines the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the research performance of science and engineering faculty members in China's top research universities. It is found that the pandemic caused a decline in the numbers and quality of published articles, and the effects persisted over time. The negative effect of the pandemic on research excellence was more pronounced in the older faculty groups and departments of science. In addition, the pandemic has harmed international research collaborations among academics, which is likely to obstruct research excellence in the long run. In the end, this paper proposes several policy recommendations to reinvigorate universities' capacity for research innovation in the post-pandemic era.

Scientometrics Analysis of Iranian Orthopedics Academic Departments

BACKGROUND

Scientometrics is one of the bibliometrics subsets aiming to study the status of scientific development of scientific and research institutes. This study aimed to investigate the scientific status of orthopedic departments in different universities of Iran using the national scientometrics system of the Ministry of Health in Iran.

METHODS

This cross-sectional study investigated the researchers and orthopedic departments in different universities of Iran based on the data from the scientometrics system of the Ministry of Health in Iran until the beginning of 2021. All researchers and publications related to orthopedics, as well as the relationship of these researchers, have been studied part-time and full-time. The number of publications, indexing level, academic degree, and academic position has been also registered and examined through the scientometrics system.

RESULTS

This study included 280 researchers from different universities in Iran. The mean number of the published articles was 20.6±19.8. The highest number of faculty members were from Iran (n=27; 9.64%), Shahid Beheshti (n=26; 9.28%), Tehran (n=25; 9.28%), as well as Mashhad and Shiraz Universities of Medical Sciences (n=18; 6.42%) in descending order. The overall mean values of the H- and G-index were determined at 5.85±2.7 and 9.3±4.2, respectively. Furthermore, the number of citations per published article was obtained at 6.7±1.3. It should be mentioned that Mashhad University of Medical Sciences obtained the highest H-index (9.6) and G-index (10.6), respectively.

CONCLUSION

The scientific productions and publications of the Iranian orthopedic academic institutions were similar to those of the international scientific institutes in terms of H-index and number of citations per published article. It is worth mentioning that Mashhad University of Medical Sciences was the leader in this regard.

A bibliometric methodology to unveil territorial inequities in the scientific wealth to combat COVID-19

In this paper we develop a methodology to assess the scientific wealth of territories at field level. Our methodology uses a bibliometric approach based on the observation of academic research performance and overall scientific production in each territory. We apply it to assess disparities in the Italian territories in the medical specialties at the front line of the COVID-19 emergency. Italy has been the first among western countries to be severely affected by the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. The study reveals remarkable inequities across territories, with scientific weaknesses concentrated in the south. Policies for rebalancing the north–south divide should also consider, in addition to tangible assets, the gap in production and availability of quality medical knowledge.

A scientometric analysis of neuroblastoma research

Background

Thousands of research articles on neuroblastoma have been published over the past few decades; however, the heterogeneity and variable quality of scholarly data may challenge scientists or clinicians to survey all of the available information. Hence, holistic measurement and analyzation of neuroblastoma-related literature with the help of sophisticated mathematical tools could provide deep insights into global research performance and the collaborative architectonical structure within the neuroblastoma scientific community. In this scientometric study, we aim to determine the extent of the scientific output related to neuroblastoma research between 1980 and 2018.

Methods

We applied novel scientometric tools, including Bibliometrix R package, biblioshiny, VOSviewer, and CiteSpace IV for comprehensive science mapping analysis of extensive bibliographic metadata, which was retrieved from the Web of ScienceTM Core Collection database.

Results

We demonstrate the enormous proliferation of neuroblastoma research during last the 38 years, including 12,435 documents published in 1828 academic journals by 36,908 authors from 86 different countries. These documents received a total of 316,017 citations with an average citation per document of 28.35 ± 7.7. We determine the proportion of highly cited and never cited papers, “occasional” and prolific authors and journals. Further, we show 12 (13.9%) of 86 countries were responsible for 80.4% of neuroblastoma-related research output.

Conclusions

These findings are crucial for researchers, clinicians, journal editors, and others working in neuroblastoma research to understand the strengths and potential gaps in the current literature and to plan future investments in data collection and science policy. This first scientometric study of global neuroblastoma research performance provides valuable insight into the scientific landscape, co-authorship network architecture, international collaboration, and interaction within the neuroblastoma community.

From cut-points to key players in co-authorship networks: a case study in ventilator-associated pneumonia research

In co-authorship networks, some nodes play the key role of cut-point, facilitating the integration of other authors and favoring connectivity among different research communities. The present study uses bibliometric and network embeddedness indicators to analyze the scientific activity on ventilator-associated pneumonia and the roles of 17 research communities and 30 cut-points therein. In addition to fostering network connectivity and cohesion, cut-points are characterized by other differential features compared to other authors, including a much higher level of productivity and greater participation in leadership positions, higher betweenness values, lower clustering coefficients and higher levels of constraint. The cut-points identified have different characteristics in terms of the connectivity they facilitate between research communities: some cut-points have established weak intercommunity ties in the form of bridges with a single author from a different community; in other cases, they serve as gatekeepers due to their connection with different authors of a community that they link with their own; cut-points may also act as structural folds, that is, actors with an overlapping role between two cohesive communities. The cut-points present very diverse connectivity degrees, with some cut-points whose elimination would provoke severe network fragmentation and others who are responsible for linking far fewer external authors to their network. The cut-points that present both the main mechanisms for obtaining social capital—that is, filling structural holes and participating in cohesive network structures—can be considered key actors/players because their participation is crucial for ensuring both integration into the main research focus of some communities with high research performance and the overall cohesion of a co-authorship network.

The research performance of Iranian medical academics: a National Analyses

BACKGROUND

Scientometric studies are one of the most important and useful tools to assess the research performance and knowledge impact of researchers. The aim of this study was to map out the scientific performance of the Iranian medical academics with respect to a detailed range of scientometric indicators.

METHODS

Using scientometric approach, individual and scientific performance data of medical academic staff were extracted from the Iranian Scientometric Information Database (ISID). Total number of publications, total number of citations, citation per paper, h-index, international collaboration, self-citation, SJR decile, i10-Index, Quartile distribution were the studied scientometric variables. Out of the registered 19,023 academic staff, 746 were included in the study through simple random sampling method using random sample extraction function in STATA. Data were analyzed using STATA 14 statistical software package.

RESULTS

Most of the included academicians were men (60%). A total of 13,682 articles were published by them until 2018, being cited 114,928 times with a mean of 5.77 citation per paper. H-index median was three and about 90% of the staff had an H-index below 10. Number of published papers, cite per paper and H-index metrics were significantly different with respect to gender, academic position/degree, and general field of study (p < 0.05). About 2.5% of published articles were contributed through international collaboration. The scientometric performance of academic staff was highly diverse with respect to the employing institution and its national classification group (type 1, 2, 3).

CONCLUSIONS

Nevertheless to the great scientific production of medical academics, individual and institutional characteristics were identified as effective variables in academics research performance and should be considered in their assessment. Academicians affiliated with type 2 and 3 universities (based on national ranking of medical universities) had weaker research performance compared to those affiliated with type 1 universities. However, low rate of international research collaborations was a common challenge in medical universities.

University-industry R&D linkage metrics: validity and applicability in world university rankings

In September 2015 Thomson Reuters published its Ranking of Innovative Universities (RIU). Covering 100 large research-intensive universities worldwide, Stanford University came in first, MIT was second and Harvard in third position. But how meaningful is this outcome? In this paper we will take a critical view from a methodological perspective. We focus our attention on the various types of metrics available, whether or not data redundancies are addressed, and if metrics should be assembled into a single composite overall score or not. We address these issues in some detail by emphasizing one metric in particular: university-industry co-authored publications (UICs). We compare the RIU with three variants of our own University-Industry R&D Linkage Index, which we derived from the bibliometric analysis of 750 research universities worldwide. Our findings highlight conceptual and methodological problems with UIC-based data, as well as computational weaknesses such university ranking systems. Avoiding choices between size-dependent or independent metrics, and between single-metrics and multi-metrics systems, we recommend an alternative 'scoreboard' approach: (1) without weighing systems of metrics and composite scores; (2) computational procedures and information sources are made more transparent; (3) size-dependent metrics are kept separate from size-independent metrics; (4) UIC metrics are selected according to the type of proximity relationship between universities and industry.

Reporting of health promotion research: addressing the quality gaps in iran

Quality of health behavior research determines usefulness of the findings for application. The authors individually scrutinized quality of a representative sample of abstracts (n=315) submitted to the 1st International and 4th National Congress on Health Education and Promotion, held in Tabriz, Iran on 16-19 May, 2011. Among the assessed abstracts, introduction section had the standard format in 18.1% (CI: 14.2-22.7%), sampling method and sample size were concurrently explained in 56.3% (CI: 50.3-62.1%), and the data in 40.6% (CI: 35.4-46.1%) were insufficient to support the conclusion section. The observed heterogeneity in the quality of Iranian research may reflect gaps in research methodology education. Revision in the current research performance is recommended to ensure a more stringent national research output.