Citation Flows in the Zones of Influence of Scientific

Domestic citation to papers from the same country and the greater citation impact of documents involving international collaboration are two phenomena that have been extensively studied and contrasted. Here, however, we showthat it is not somuch a national bias,but that papers have a greater impact on their immediate environments, an impact that is diluted as that environment grows. For this reason, the greatest biases are observed in countries with a limited production. Papers that involve international collaboration have a greater impact in general, on the one hand, because they have multiple “immediate environments,” and on the other because of their greater quality or prestige. In short, one can say that science knows no frontiers. Certainly there is a greater impact on the authors’ immediate environment, but this does not necessarily have to coincide with their national environments, which fade in importance as the collaborative environment expands

Are citations from clinical trials evidence of higher impact research? An analysis of ClinicalTrials.gov

An important way in which medical research can translate into improved health outcomes is by motivating or influencing clinical trials that eventually lead to changes in clinical practice. Citations from clinical trials records to academic research may therefore serve as an early warning of the likely future influence of the cited articles. This paper partially assesses this hypothesis by testing whether prior articles referenced in ClinicalTrials.gov records are more highly cited than average for the publishing journal. The results from four high profile general medical journals support the hypothesis, although there may not be a cause-and effect relationship. Nevertheless, it is reasonable for researchers to use citations to their work from clinical trials records as partial evidence of the possible long-term impact of their research

Global Research output on Eosinophilia Literature: A Scientometric Analysis

The study analyses that research output on eosinophilia from 1998-2017 on different parameters including the literature growth, year -wise cited records, number of authors & h-index. The relative growth rate (RGR) and doubling time (Dt), the time series analysis for articles, contribution of various subject fields, highest research productivity of journals and their citation with impact factor and keyword analysis. The higher numbers of publications 793 were published in 2016, the scientists most preferred journals are Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, Journal of immunology, American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine. The high frequency keywords were: Eosinophilia (3175), Asthma (1365), Eosinophilic (1335) and Syndrome (1303). The Web of science database has been used to retrieve the data for 20 years (1998-2017) by searching different relevant keywords in its combined title, abstract and keywords fields

Relationship among research collaboration, number of documents and number of citations. A case study in Spanish computer science production in 2000-2009.

This paper analyzes the relationship among research collaboration, number of documents and number of citations of computer science research activity. It analyzes the number of documents and citations and how they vary by number of authors. They are also analyzed (according to author set cardinality) under different circumstances, that is, when documents are written in different types of collaboration, when documents are published in different document types, when documents are published in different computer science subdisciplines, and, finally, when documents are published by journals with different impact factor quartiles. To investigate the above relationships, this paper analyzes the publications listed in the Web of Science and produced by active Spanish university professors between 2000 and 2009, working in the computer science field. Analyzing all documents, we show that the highest percentage of documents are published by three authors, whereas single-authored documents account for the lowest percentage. By number of citations, there is no positive association between the author cardinality and citation impact. Statistical tests show that documents written by two authors receive more citations per document and year than documents published by more authors. In contrast, results do not show statistically significant differences between documents published by two authors and one author. The research findings suggest that international collaboration results on average in publications with higher citation rates than national and institutional collaborations. We also find differences regarding citation rates between journals and conferences, across different computer science subdisciplines and journal quartiles as expected. Finally, our impression is that the collaborative level (number of authors per document) will increase in the coming years, and documents published by three or four authors will be the trend in computer science literature

Patrones de comunicación e impacto de la producción científica cubana en salud pública

[EN] Objective: to characterize the Cuban pattern of scientific communication in public health in Scopus database on the basis of the output and collaboration patterns and their influence on the impact of publications.Methods: bibliometric indicators of output, visibility and collaboration taken from SCImago Institutions Rankings and SCImago Journal and Country Rank portals were used, according to Scopus database, in the Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health category in 2003-2011 period.Results: the communication pattern showed an increasing tendency of the scientific output, with great leadership of Cuban authors and poor national and international collaboration. This increase did not have a higher impact on the international community; 7.22 % of documents were published in high impact journals and 2.16 % were among excellence documents. The excellence output with leadership was almost non-existent. Seventy five percent of the output was seen in low impact journals (fourth quartile) and most of it in national journals. The English output accounted for less than 30% of the total amount but had higher impact than the Spanish articles.Conclusions: the pattern of Cuban scientific communication in public health was characterized, in which low number of English publications, of publications in high impact journals and poor national and international collaborations are factors that may influence on the low scientific impact. These results can be used to supplement the assessment of research in public health within the tenth basic function of this specialty.[ES] Objetivo: caracterizar el patrón cubano de comunicación científica en salud pública en la base de datos Scopus a partir de los patrones de producción y colaboración y su influencia en el impacto de las publicaciones.Métodos: se aplicaron indicadores bibliométricos de producción, visibilidad y colaboración extraídos de los portales SCImago Institutions Rankings y SCImago Journal and Country Rank a partir de datos de Scopus, categoría Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health, período 2003-2011.Resultados: el patrón de comunicación presentó una tendencia al incremento de la producción científica con un alto liderazgo de autores cubanos y escasa colaboración nacional e internacional. Este incremento no repercutió en un mayor impacto en la comunidad internacional; el 7,22 % de los documentos aparecieron en revistas de alto impacto, y el 2,16 % entre los documentos de excelencia. La producción de excelencia con liderazgo fue casi inexistente. El 75 % de la producción se ubicó en revistas de bajo impacto (cuarto cuartil) y la mayoría en revistas nacionales. La producción en inglés representó menos del 30 % del total y alcanzaron mayor impacto que los artículos en español.Conclusiones: se caracterizó el patrón de comunicación científica cubano en salud pública, donde la poca publicación en inglés, en revistas de alto impacto y la insuficiente colaboración nacional e internacional son factores que pudieran estar influenciando en el bajo impacto científico. Estos resultados pueden utilizarse como complemento de la evaluación de la investigación en salud pública en el marco de su décima función esencial. Palabras clave: salud pública, evaluación de la investigación, funciones esenciales de la salud pública, cienciometría, bases de datos, indicadores bibliométricos, colaboración científica, revistas, SCImago Journal and Country Rank, SCImago Institutions Rankings.Peer reviewe

Research Impact of the Iranian Publications on Social Networks in Scopus Indexed

Due to the major role of research in the sustainable development of countries all around the world, mapping the scientific production must be designed according to indexed in databases. The purpose of the present study is to analyze Iranian literature on the field of social networks in comparison with the same studies to cross the Middle East and the world level. This is research is a descriptive study. A total of 123,609 documents indexed pertained to this topic were processed from 1970 to the end of 2017 indexed in the Scopus database. Excel software was used to analyze the data. Different study types, characterized by years, city/country of origin, journals and more productive authors, the ratio cooperation between them by country and institutions, cites and H index. Data was collected and analyzed in Microsoft Excel software. The finding showed that United States was the highest producer (% 29.74), followed by China (%11.85) and Iran ranked 31th among the countries of the world and also 3rd among the Middle East countries (H index=23). Although the ratio of scientific production in bibliographical databases, particularly regional, is still relatively impressive then it is necessary to promote more research on it

National Scientific Performance Evolution Patterns: Retrenchment, Successful Expansion, or Overextension

This is an accepted manuscript of an article published by Taylor and Francis in Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology on 17/11/2017, available online: https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23969 The accepted version of the publication may differ from the final published version.National governments would like to preside over an expanding and increasingly high impact science system but are these two goals largely independent or closely linked? This article investigates the relationship between changes in the share of the world’s scientific output and changes in relative citation impact for 2.6 million articles from 26 fields in the 25 countries with the most Scopus-indexed journal articles from 1996 to 2015. There is a negative correlation between expansion and relative citation impact but their relationship varies. China, Spain, Australia, and Poland were successful overall across the 26 fields, expanding both their share of the world’s output and its relative citation impact, whereas Japan, France, Sweden and Israel had decreased shares and relative citation impact. In contrast, the USA, UK, Germany, Italy, Russia, Netherlands, Switzerland, Finland, and Denmark all enjoyed increased relative citation impact despite a declining share of publications. Finally, India, South Korea, Brazil, Taiwan, and Turkey all experienced sustained expansion but a recent fall in relative citation impact. These results may partly reflect changes in the coverage of Scopus and the selection of fields

Not all international collaboration is beneficial: The Mendeley readership and citation impact of biochemical research collaboration

This is an accepted manuscript of an article published by Wiley Blackwell in Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology on 13/05/2015, available online: https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23515 The accepted version of the publication may differ from the final published version.Biochemistry is a highly funded research area that is typified by large research teams and is important for many areas of the life sciences. This article investigates the citation impact and Mendeley readership impact of biochemistry research from 2011 in the Web of Science according to the type of collaboration involved. Negative binomial regression models are used that incorporate, for the first time, the inclusion of specific countries within a team. The results show that, holding other factors constant, larger teams robustly associate with higher impact research, but including additional departments has no effect and adding extra institutions tends to reduce the impact of research. Although international collaboration is apparently not advantageous in general, collaboration with the USA, and perhaps also with some other countries, seems to increase impact. In contrast, collaborations with some other nations associate with lower impact, although both findings could be due to factors such as differing national proportions of excellent researchers. As a methodological implication, simpler statistical models would have found international collaboration to be generally beneficial and so it is important to take into account specific countries when examining collaboration

Why are co-authored academic articles more cited:Higher quality or larger audience?

This is an accepted manuscript of an article due to be published by Wiley in the Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. The accepted version of the publication may differ from the final published version.Collaboration is encouraged because it is believed to improve academic research, supported by indirect evidence in the form of more co-authored articles being more cited. Nevertheless, this might not reflect quality but increased self-citations or the “audience effect”: citations from increased awareness through multiple author networks. We address this with the first science wide investigation into whether author numbers associate with journal article quality, using expert peer quality judgements for 122,331 articles from the 2014-20 UK national assessment. Spearman correlations between authors numbers and quality scores show moderately strong positive associations (0.2-0.4) in the health, life, and physical sciences, but weak or no positive associations in engineering and social sciences, with weak negative/positive or no association in various arts and humanities, and a possible negative association for decision sciences. This gives the first systematic evidence that greater numbers of authors associates with higher quality journal articles in the majority of academia outside the arts and humanities, at least for the UK. Positive associations between team size and citation counts in areas with little association between team size and quality also show that audience effects or other non-quality factors account for the higher citation rates of co-authored articles in some fields.This study was funded by Research England, Scottish Funding Council, Higher Education Funding Council for Wales, and Department for the Economy, Northern Ireland as part of the Future Research Assessment Programme (https://www.jisc.ac.uk/future-research-assessment-programme)