An early indicator of drug success: Top Journal Selectivity Index

The Top Journal Selectivity Index (TJSI) is a scientometric index reflecting the potential importance of a new drug. It represents the ratio of the number of all types of articles on a particular drug in the top 20 journals relative to the number of articles in all (>5,000) biomedical journals covered by Medline over the 5 years since the drug’s introduction. The TJSI can be an indicator of a drug’s potential for sustained use: a higher score increases the probability of continuing success

Scientometric assessment of drugs for chronic pain, 1979–2013: rapid growth of publications, paucity of successful drugs

The aim of this study was to find signs of progress in the pharmacotherapy of chronic pain over the past 35 years using scientometric analysis. The following scientometric indices were used: 1) popularity index, representing the share of articles on a specific drug(s) relative to all articles in the field of chronic pain; 2) index of change, representing the degree of growth in publications on a topic from one period to the next; 3) index of expectations, representing the ratio of the number of articles on a topic in the top 20 journals relative to the number of articles in all (>5,000) biomedical journals covered by PubMed; and 4) index of ultimate success, representing a publication outcome when a new drug takes the place of a common drug previously used for the same purpose. Publications on 55 drugs used in the treatment of chronic pain were assessed during seven 5-year periods, from 1979 to 2013. The rate of rise in the number of publications on chronic pain was exponential, with an increase of nearly ninefold from 2,346 articles over the 5-year period 1979–1983 to 21,095 articles in 2009–2013. However, despite this huge increase in publications, our scientometric analysis did not reveal signs of really successful drugs in this field. For the 2009–2013 period, the popularity index had a meaningful magnitude (from 0.5–2.8) for only 13 of 55 drugs. Five of them were opioids, including morphine, which had the highest index value of all drugs (2.8). None of the drugs had a high index of expectations in 2009–2013. The index of ultimate success was positive only with triptans in the relatively limited area of acute treatment of migraine. As a result, despite rapid growth in the number of publications, our scientometric analysis did not reveal signs of substantial progress in the field of pharmacotherapy for chronic pain

Scientometrics of anesthetic drugs and their techniques of administration, 1984–2013

The aim of this study was to assess progress in the field of anesthetic drugs over the past 30 years using scientometric indices: popularity indices (general and specific), representing the proportion of articles on a drug relative to all articles in the field of anesthetics (general index) or the subfield of a specific class of anesthetics (specific index); index of change, representing the degree of growth in publications on a topic from one period to the next; index of expectations, representing the ratio of the number of articles on a topic in the top 20 journals relative to the number of articles in all (>5,000) biomedical journals covered by PubMed; and index of ultimate success, representing a publication outcome when a new drug takes the place of a common drug previously used for the same purpose. Publications on 58 topics were assessed during six 5-year periods from 1984 to 2013. Our analysis showed that during 2009–2013, out of seven anesthetics with a high general popularity index (≥2.0), only two were introduced after 1980, ie, the inhaled anesthetic sevoflurane and the local anesthetic ropivacaine; however, only sevoflurane had a high index of expectations (12.1). Among anesthetic adjuncts, in 2009–2013, only one agent, sugammadex, had both an extremely high index of change (>100) and a high index of expectations (25.0), reflecting the novelty of its mechanism of action. The index of ultimate success was positive with three anesthetics, ie, lidocaine, isoflurane, and propofol, all of which were introduced much longer than 30 years ago. For the past 30 years, there were no new anesthetics that have produced changes in scientometric indices indicating real progress

No evidence of real progress in treatment of acute pain, 1993–2012: scientometric analysis

Over the past 2 decades, many new techniques and drugs for the treatment of acute pain have achieved widespread use. The main aim of this study was to assess the progress in their implementation using scientometric analysis. The following scientometric indices were used: 1) popularity index, representing the share of articles on a specific technique (or a drug) relative to all articles in the field of acute pain; 2) index of change, representing the degree of growth in publications on a topic compared to the previous period; and 3) index of expectations, representing the ratio of the number of articles on a topic in the top 20 journals relative to the number of articles in all (>5,000) biomedical journals covered by PubMed. Publications on specific topics (ten techniques and 21 drugs) were assessed during four time periods (1993–1997, 1998–2002, 2003–2007, and 2008–2012). In addition, to determine whether the status of routine acute pain management has improved over the past 20 years, we analyzed surveys designed to be representative of the national population that reflected direct responses of patients reporting pain scores. By the 2008–2012 period, popularity index had reached a substantial level (≥5%) only with techniques or drugs that were introduced 30–50 years ago or more (epidural analgesia, patient-controlled analgesia, nerve blocks, epidural analgesia for labor or delivery, bupivacaine, and acetaminophen). In 2008–2012, promising (although modest) changes of index of change and index of expectations were found only with dexamethasone. Six national surveys conducted for the past 20 years demonstrated an unacceptably high percentage of patients experiencing moderate or severe pain with not even a trend toward outcome improvement. Thus, techniques or drugs that were introduced and achieved widespread use for acute pain management within the past 20 years have produced no changes in scientometric indices that would indicate real progress and have failed to improve national outcomes for relief of acute pain. Two possible reasons for this are discussed: 1) the difference between the effectiveness of old and new techniques is not clinically meaningful; and 2) resources necessary for appropriate use of new techniques in routine pain management are not adequate

Chronic Postsurgical Pain: Still a Neglected Topic?

Background: Surgical injury can frequently lead to chronic pain. Despite the obvious importance of this problem, the first publications on chronic pain after surgery as a general topic appeared only a decade ago. This study tests the hypothesis that chronic postsurgical pain was, and still is, represented insufficiently. Methods: We analyzed the presentation of this topic in journal articles covered by PubMed and in surgical textbooks. The following signs of insufficient representation in journal articles were used: (1) the lack of journal editorials on chronic pain after surgery, (2) the lack of journal articles with titles clearly indicating that they are devoted to chronic postsurgical pain, and (3) the insufficient representation of chronic postsurgical pain in the top surgical journals. Results: It was demonstrated that insufficient representation of this topic existed in 1981–2000, especially in surgical journals and textbooks. Interest in this topic began to increase, however, mostly regarding one specific surgery: herniorrhaphy. It is important that the change in the attitude toward chronic postsurgical pain spreads to other groups of surgeries. Conclusion: Chronic postsurgical pain is still a neglected topic, except for pain after herniorrhaphy. The change in the attitude toward chronic postsurgical pain is the important first step in the approach to this problem

Scientific output of the emerging Cuban biopharmaceutical industry: a scientometric approach

"This is a post-peer-review, pre-copyedit version of an article published in Scientometrics. The final authenticated version is available online at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-2023-1"Cuba has developed a biopharmaceutical sector that involves some of the country’s most relevant scientific institutions. Despite the severe constraints on resources resulting from the U.S. embargo, the results achieved by this sector have contributed to put the country’s health indicators at the same level of high-income nations. Recently, the creation of BioCubaFarma as a cluster of high-technology enterprises organized around a closed cycle model becomes one of the most relevant efforts of the Island in order to make biopharmaceuticals one of the country’s leading export earners. The main aim of the current paper was to characterize BioCubaFarma through a battery of Scopus-based bibliometric indicators. A comparison with the most productive multinational pharmaceutical companies was made. Regression analysis of annual productivity, number of citations, scientific talent pool, innovative knowledge and other citation-based indicators was performed. Differences and similarities between BioCubaFarma and multinational companies in four Scopus subject categories related to this sector were identified. The most productive and visible institutions from BioCubaFarma were also characterized. Qualified human resources, innovative knowledge, leadership, high specialization in the field of vaccines development and non-dependence of international collaboration are strengths of the organization. However, it is still necessary to increase the number of articles published in highly visible journals with the aim to achieve a better citation-based performance. Moreover, to increase the contributions from less-productive institutions, more clinical research published in medical journals and more collaboration with universities and health institutions could also have positive benefits for BioCubaFarma’s pipelines and portfolios.This research was supported by 2015 Postdoctoral Short Visiting Program of the Spanish Instituto de Bienes y Políticas Públicas (IPP) from Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (CSIC).Peer reviewe

Challenges of connecting chemistry to pharmacology: perspectives from curating the IUPHAR/BPS Guide to PHARMACOLOGY

Connecting chemistry to pharmacology (c2p) has been an objective of GtoPdb and its precursor IUPHAR-DB since 2003. This has been achieved by populating our database with expert-curated relationships between documents, assays, quantitative results, chemical structures, their locations within the documents and the protein targets in the assays (D-A-R-C-P). A wide range of challenges associated with this are described in this perspective, using illustrative examples from GtoPdb entries. Our selection process begins with judgements of pharmacological relevance and scientific quality. Even though we have a stringent focus for our small-data extraction we note that assessing the quality of papers has become more difficult over the last 15 years. We discuss ambiguity issues with the resolution of authors’ descriptions of A-R-C-P entities to standardised identifiers. We also describe developments that have made this somewhat easier over the same period both in the publication ecosystem as well as enhancements of our internal processes over recent years. This perspective concludes with a look at challenges for the future including the wider capture of mechanistic nuances and possible impacts of text mining on automated entity extractio

Drugs Affecting 5-HT Systems

Seminar transcriptIt was in the very early hours of a February morning in 1977 that I first looked down the microscope and saw yellow fluorescence, characteristic of 5-hydroxytryptamine (5-HT) in frozen sections of Octopus brain. After struggling for two years with the capricious fluorescence histochemical technique to locate catecholamines and 5-HT, I finally had a successful result, and the PhD that had seemed a remote possibility for many months finally began to look feasible. Given the enormously important topic of this volume – the discovery and development of drugs affecting 5-HT systems – this small excursion into Octopus neurochemistry might seem irrelevant. However, cephalopod molluscs have played important roles in the history of 5-HT. More than 30000 pairs of posterior salivary glands of Octopus vulgaris were used by Vittorio Erspamer, for the first extraction and identification of enteramine, which was later shown to be identical to serotonin discovered by John Gaddum, and chemically characterized as 5-hydroxytryptamine. Other molluscs have provided some of the most sensitive bioassays for 5-HT, as Gaddum and Paasonen described in 1955, and several participants in this Witness Seminar recollected either using such bioassays or investigating invertebrate pharmacology at the beginning of their careers. Many reflected, however, that invertebrate receptors seemed to be very different from those found in mammals; they had, as David Wallis put it, ‘a parallel pharmacology’. One Witness, Merton Sandler, remembered attending a lecture by Vittorio Erspamer in London in the early 1950s, and being intrigued enough to start work on the degradative enzyme monoamine oxidase, a field which became highly significant for the development of a whole class of therapeutic drugs: the monoamine oxidase inhibitor

A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review [version 2; referees: 2 approved]

Peer review of research articles is a core part of our scholarly communication system. In spite of its importance, the status and purpose of peer review is often contested. What is its role in our modern digital research and communications infrastructure? Does it perform to the high standards with which it is generally regarded? Studies of peer review have shown that it is prone to bias and abuse in numerous dimensions, frequently unreliable, and can fail to detect even fraudulent research. With the advent of web technologies, we are now witnessing a phase of innovation and experimentation in our approaches to peer review. These developments prompted us to examine emerging models of peer review from a range of disciplines and venues, and to ask how they might address some of the issues with our current systems of peer review. We examine the functionality of a range of social Web platforms, and compare these with the traits underlying a viable peer review system: quality control, quantified performance metrics as engagement incentives, and certification and reputation. Ideally, any new systems will demonstrate that they out-perform and reduce the biases of existing models as much as possible. We conclude that there is considerable scope for new peer review initiatives to be developed, each with their own potential issues and advantages. We also propose a novel hybrid platform model that could, at least partially, resolve many of the socio-technical issues associated with peer review, and potentially disrupt the entire scholarly communication system. Success for any such development relies on reaching a critical threshold of research community engagement with both the process and the platform, and therefore cannot be achieved without a significant change of incentives in research environments