Search

This study uses bibliometric methods to evaluate the magnitude and quality of publications in arthritis research in the UK and compare this with that of other countries. Arthritis research was defined by publication in a specialist journal or by specific title key words or address. Outputs from 13 countries between 1988 and 1995 were analysed by number, research level (from clinical to basic) and potential impact on other researchers (from low to high). The UK has a strong presence in arthritis research and the highest relative commitment of all the countries studied. UK output was more clinical than that of other countries, except Spain, and was of relatively high impact. A second study examined UK arthritis papers supported by different funding sources including government, private-non-profit and industry. Papers with funding acknowledgements were of significantly higher impact and less clinical than those without. The Arthritis Research Campaign was the leading funder in the UK with high-impact papers which, over the 8 yr period, have become more clinical than those supported by other funding sources, except hospital trusts.Key words: Arthritis, Bibliometrics, Evaluation, Funding, Impact, Research.

Abstract: This paper first explains the need to define subfields of science by means of “filters” that selectively retrieve papers from a database, and then describes how such filters are constructed and calibrated. Good filters should have precision and recall of the order of 90% so as to be representative of a subfield; they are created by an interactive partnership between an expert in the subject and a bibliometrician. They are based primarily on the use of title keywords, often in combination rather than singly, and specialist journals. Their calibration depends on experts marking lists of papers extracted by the filter as relevant, don't know or not relevant. This allows the actual size of a subfield to be estimated and hence the relative importance accorded to it within a major field of science. It permits organisations and countries to see their contributions to individual scientific subfields in detail.

This study uses bibliometric methods to evaluate the magnitude and quality of publications in arthritis research in the UK and compare this with that of other countries. Arthritis research was defined by publication in a specialist journal or by specific title key words or address. Outputs from 13 countries between 1988 and 1995 were analysed by number, research level (from clinical to basic) and potential impact on other researchers (from low to high). The UK has a strong presence in arthritis research and the highest relative commitment of all the countries studied. UK output was more clinical than that of other countries, except Spain, and was of relatively high impact. A second study examined UK arthritis papers supported by different funding sources including government, private-non-profit and industry. Papers with funding acknowledgements were of significantly higher impact and less clinical than those without. The Arthritis Research Campaign was the leading funder in the UK with high-impact papers which, over the 8 yr period, have become more clinical than those supported by other funding sources, except hospital trusts.

Abstract: Scientific outputs from Serbia, Croatia and Slovenia, and the patterns of co-authorship between them and five western countries and with each other have been determined from theScience Citation Index. They reflect accurately the political situation underlying the recent break-up of the former Yugoslavia, and long-term international alliances and friendships, but also take account of geographical proximity, which assists scientific co-operation. There is no evidence of changes in the ethnic composition of Serbian and Croatian scientists overall, as revealed by the names of their researchers before and after the civil war. However some changes appear to have taken place in Serbia outwith Belgrade, which are consistent with the reports of the expulsion of Croats living in Vojvodina.

Abstract: Bibliometrics have been used in novel ways to assist with the evaluation of two medical schools, one in England and one in Sweden. The first evaluation was intended to allow the relative strengths in 26 subfields of five component campuses to be estimated. Selective filters for each subfield were defined, many of them with the help of the school's reserrch staff, so that relevant papers could be retrieved from a database on the basis of their title keywords and specialist journals. The campus outputs were then analysed by the research level of the journals (clinical/basic) and their influence. In the second evaluation, nine different indicators of research output were produced so that the school could be compared with four others in Scandinavia. The indicators included measures of output, co-authorship, journal esteem and citations by papers and by patents.

Abstract: 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.

Abstract: This paper introduces ldquoalphabet spectrardquo which are the 26 frequencies of occurrence of scientific papers in a given sample with at least one author of each initial, A, B,...Z. The sum of these frequencies exceeds unity because of multiple authorships. Formulae are given relating this sum to the mean number of authors per paper in the sample. The method is applied to show the increase in this number over the last 15 years in different fields of science and for different countries. The ldquoalphabet spectrardquo vary greatly depending on the nationality of the scientists concerned and can be compared to frequency absorption spectra for chemical elements or molecules. The spectra can be used to determine the national composition of a country's scientific authors and how this has changed with time.

Abstract: Data are presented on the scientific output from 1985–92 of the Less Favoured Regions (LFRs) of the European Community as recorded in theScience Citation Index. The use of postcodes makes it easier to identify papers from LFRs and they are now nearly universal (over 95%). LFR output has grown since 1985 from 5% to nearly 8% of the EC total, and there is much more trans-national co-authorship between ones in different countries though it is still at a low level. There is also increasing co-publication between scientists from LFRs and the rest of the EC (More Favoured Regions, MFRs), both within the same countries and trans-nationally. Selective retrieval of papers by their address keywords shows that the LFRs are relatively strong in the physical, rather than the life, sciences and that the major areas of growth in recent years have been engineering, earth/space sciences and physics.

Abstract: Results are presented of a study covering 1986–91 of the scientific output of Latin American nations. The distribution of the output within the countries is shown: in most countries there is a high concentration in the national capital. The papers co-authored with scientists from other countries are also examined. There has been a notable rise in both the number and proportion of papers co-authored within the region, with the USA and Canada, and, especially, with the countries of the European Community, where a programme of International Scientific Co-operation, to promote just such links, has been active since the mid-1980s in many Latin American countries.

Abstract: Results are presented of an analysis of 1333 papers in the SCI from 1986–1993 supported by the BAP, with their degree of trans-nationality, level of dependence on the programme and propensity to acknowledge this, and their record of citation by authors in different groups of countries. The papers are nearly three times as transnational in their addresses as other EC biotechnology papers, but nearly 25% of single country papers depend on foreign co-authors or acknowledge transnational support. BAP was acknowledged by 80% of the papers that received 20% or more support. Citations by authors from other EC Member States account for many of the extra citations received by BAP papers and show that the results of the programme have been effectively disseminated by the Commission within the EC.

Abstract: Results are given of a bibliometric study covering 1977–86 and 28 scientific fields defined by journals and title keywords. Attention was focussed on publications from less favoured regions of the EC, containing 20% of the population, 10% of the g.d.p., but only 5% of scientific output, although this is growing rapidly. The scientific strengths of the different LFRs vary and details are given. Finally, some appropriate indicators are suggested to measure the effectiveness of scientific infrastructure support planned for these regions.

Abstract: Results are given of an analysis of the scientific papers describing work carried out under two European Community research programmes, in biotechnology and environmental chemicals. They were shown to be more multinational in their authorship than other papers in the same journals, and as a consequence, more frequently cited in the 5 years following publication. The citation rates peak early for the biotechnology papers suggesting that effective measures have been taken to disseminate the results of the work to other scientists so that they have become aware of them earlier than usual.