Search

Aim: To evaluate the output of scientific publications in obstetrics and gynecology journals from Mainland China and six other countries, to compare the difference of research situation between Mainland China and the developed countries in order to measure the trend of number of publication in the field of Obstetrics and Gynecology. Methods: Information on article amounts, impact factors (IF), citation and publication in high‐impact obstetrics and gynecology journals by seven top‐ranking countries between January 1, 2007 and August 31, 2017, was extracted from Web of Science databases. Results: A total of 137 661 articles were published between 2007 and 2017 in the 98 obstetrics and gynecology journals. The cumulative IF and citations of articles from USA were the highest. The highest average citation was France and Mainland China ranked fourth. There were 52 631 papers published in the top 10 obstetrics and gynecology journals and the USA accounted for the majority of these papers (33 978, 64.6%), followed by England (8347, 15.9%). Articles from the USA were most often published in American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology (10658) and those from Mainland China were mostly published in Fertility and Sterility (809). Conclusion: The USA published the most articles having high IF, making the greatest contribution to the field of obstetrics and gynecology. Although the number of scientific publications from Mainland China has rapidly increased from 2007 to 2017, the quality of these publications has not been as satisfactory. It implys that Chinese current academic evaluation system should pay special attention to the quality of academic papers, instead of the number of papers published by scientists. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The National Institute of Academic Anaesthesia (NIAA) was founded in 2008 to lead a UK strategy for developing academic anaesthesia. We aimed to assess the distribution of applications and quantify the academic returns of NIAA-supported research grants, as this has hitherto not been analysed. We sought data on the baseline characteristics of all grant applicants and recipients. Every grant recipient from 2008 to 2015 was contacted to ascertain the status of their supported research projects. We also examined Google Scholar, Scopus® database and InCites Journal Citation Reports for citation, author and journal metrics, respectively. In total, 495 research project applications were made, with 150 grants being awarded. Data on 121 out of 150 (80.7%) grant awards, accounting for £3.5 million, were collected, of which 91 completed studies resulted in 140 publications and 2759 citations. The median (IQR [range]) time to first or only publication was 3 (2-4 [0-9]) years. The overall cost per publication was £14,970 (£7457-£24,998 [£2212-£73,755]) and the cost per citation was £1515 (£323-£3785 [£70-£36,182]), with 1 (0-2 [0-8]) publication and 4 (0-25 [0-265]) citations resulting per grant. The impact factor of journals in which publications arose was 4.7 (2.5-6.2 [0-47.8]), with the highest impact arising from clinical and basic science studies, particularly in the fields of pain and peri-operative medicine. Grants were most frequently awarded to clinical and basic science categories of study, but in terms of specialty, critical care medicine and peri-operative medicine received the greatest number of grants. Superficially, there seemed a geographical disparity, with 123 (82%) grants being awarded to researchers in England, London receiving 48 (32%) of these. However, this was in proportion to the number of grant applications received by country or city of application, such that there was no significant difference in overall success rates. There was no significant difference in productivity in terms of publications and citations from grants awarded to each city. The 150 grants were awarded to 107 recipients (identified as the most senior applicant for each grant), 27 of whom received ≥ two grants. Recipients had a median career total of 21 (8-76 [0-254]) publications and 302 (44-1320 [0-8167]) citations, with an h-index of 8 (3-22 [0-54]). We conclude that a key determinant of grant success is simply applying. This is the first study to report the distribution and scholarly output of individual anaesthesia research grants, particularly from a collaborative body such as the NIAA, and can be used as a benchmark to further develop academic anaesthesia in the UK and beyond. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]