Search

Objectives: To characterize, by means of bibliometric indicators, the scientific publications of the Peruvian Experimental Medicine and Public Health Journal, 2010-2017., Materials and Methods: A bibliometric study in which the publications were retrieved from the data base of Scopus. The bibliometric production indicators were: number of publications per year and type of publication. Brief original and original articles were considered as units of analysis based on number of authors, institutional affiliation, and country of corresponding author, type of research and study design. The impact indicators were: number of citations by publication according to Scopus, metric of impact, such as CiteScore, Scimago Journal & Country Rank (SJR), and SciELO Public Health., Results: A total of 1,045 publications were made by the RPMESP: 40.1% of publications corresponded to original articles and original briefs; 1,837 authors contributed with these publications; 134 institutional affiliations were declared by the corresponding authors; 48,0% were research works on determinants of a health problem; on the other hand, 90.5% corresponded to observational studies. The publications analyzed received 945 citations, of which 78.5% were for publications for the 2010-2013 period., Conclusions: Four of ten publications of the RPMESP correspond to brief original or original articles. According to diverse formulas of calculation, the impact metric of the RPMESP shows an ascending trend; however, their magnitude is lower versus other regional journals.

The main aim of this study was to assess the quality and quantity of the Mexican epidemiologic production published in two journals: Salud Pública de México (SPM) and Boletín de la Oficina Sanitaria Panamericana (BOSP). A previously accepted criterion was used to qualify a paper as an epidemiologic work. The period of study was eleven years (1975-1985) with 89 classified paper as "epidemiologic reports" (36 of BOSP and 53 of SPM). The variables included: original or revision's report; epidemiologic design; measures employed (frequency, association or potential impact); condition (contagious diseases, chronic-degenerative diseases or physiologic status); use of prevalent cases, incident cases or deaths; internal and external validity; bias' recognition; and number of references. Among the results that stand out are the proportion of cross-sectional designs (51.75), the weight for communicable diseases (36%), the detection of potential bias (65.7%) and the reports without references (30%). The discussion is centered in the main implications of these results when they are used to make decisions in the planning, operation and assessment of health services and in the generation of new epidemiologic knowledge.