Search

We assessed the contribution of Brazilian limnologists (freshwater ecologists) in international journals in the period 1970-2004. Brazilian contribution was low and regular in the 1970's, but increased steeply after 1980 with no signs of stabilization until the present. Articles authored by Brazilians tend to be less cited than articles authored by non-Brazilians, although this difference is reduced in co-authored articles with international researchers.  Brazilian articles are not distributed homogenously among the sub-areas of Limnology, but present some biases that can be explained by intellectual legacy. Brazil has invested since the 1970's in establishing postgraduate courses in Brazil and in the last years has turned the focus to a better qualification of these courses. We believe these are the main reasons for the conspicuous development of Brazilian Limnology.We assessed the contribution of Brazilian limnologists (freshwater ecologists) in international journals in the period 1970-2004. Brazilian contribution was low and regular in the 1970's, but increased steeply after 1980 with no signs of stabilization until the present. Articles authored by Brazilians tend to be less cited than articles authored by non-Brazilians, although this difference is reduced in co-authored articles with international researchers.  Brazilian articles are not distributed homogenously among the sub-areas of Limnology, but present some biases that can be explained by intellectual legacy. Brazil has invested since the 1970's in establishing postgraduate courses in Brazil and in the last years has turned the focus to a better qualification of these courses. We believe these are the main reasons for the conspicuous development of Brazilian Limnology.

Summary: Felsenstein’s (1985) method of phylogenetic independent contrasts is probably the most commonly used technique in evolutionary biology to study adaptation of organisms to their environment, taking phylogeny into account. Here, we performed a scientometric evaluation of all 1462 articles that cited Felsenstein (1985) between 1985 and 2002, in order to analyze the impact of his comparative method on the evolutionary research program and what has been done since it. We found that Felsentein’s (1985) article can be classified as a “hot paper” or a breakthrough contribution, since it was the most cited article from The American Naturalist published in 1985. Also, it can be considered as a “citation classic”, since it is the third more cited paper in The American Naturalist from 1945 to 2002. In general, papers that cited Felsenstein (1985) were published in high-impact journals, and most of them are theoretical articles indicating that biologists are aware of statistical and conceptual problems in dealing with comparative methods.