Global mapping of randomised trials related articles published in high-impact-factor medical journals: a cross-sectional analysis

BACKGROUND: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) provide the most reliable information to inform clinical practice and patient care. We aimed to map global clinical research publication activity through RCT-related articles in high-impact-factor medical journals over the past five decades. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of articles published in the highest ranked medical journals with an impact factor > 10 (according to Journal Citation Reports published in 2017). We searched PubMed/MEDLINE (from inception to December 31, 2017) for all RCT-related articles (e.g. primary RCTs, secondary analyses and methodology papers) published in high-impact-factor medical journals. For each included article, raw metadata were abstracted from the Web of Science. A process of standardization was conducted to unify the different terms and grammatical variants and to remove typographical, transcription and/or indexing errors. Descriptive analyses were conducted (including the number of articles, citations, most prolific authors, countries, journals, funding sources and keywords). Network analyses of collaborations between countries and co-words are presented. RESULTS: We included 39,305 articles (for the period 1965-2017) published in forty journals. The Lancet (n = 3593; 9.1%), the Journal of Clinical Oncology (n = 3343; 8.5%) and The New England Journal of Medicine (n = 3275 articles; 8.3%) published the largest number of RCTs. A total of 154 countries were involved in the production of articles. The global productivity ranking was led by the United States (n = 18,393 articles), followed by the United Kingdom (n = 8028 articles), Canada (n = 4548 articles) and Germany (n = 4415 articles). Seventeen authors who had published 100 or more articles were identified; the most prolific authors were affiliated with Duke University (United States), Harvard University (United States) and McMaster University (Canada). The main funding institutions were the National Institutes of Health (United States), Hoffmann-La Roche (Switzerland), Pfizer (United States), Merck Sharp & Dohme (United States) and Novartis (Switzerland). The 100 most cited RCTs were published in nine journals, led by The New England Journal of Medicine (n = 78 articles), The Lancet (n = 9 articles) and JAMA (n = 7 articles). These landmark contributions focuse

Productivity trends and collaboration patterns: A diachronic study in the eating disorders field

[EN] Objective The present study seeks to extend previous bibliometric studies on eating disorders (EDs) by including a time-dependent analysis of the growth and evolution of multi-author collaborations and their correlation with ED publication trends from 1980 to 2014 (35 years). Methods Using standardized practices, we searched Web of Science (WoS) Core Collection (WoSCC) (indexes: Science Citation Index-Expanded [SCIE], & Social Science Citation Index [SSCI]) and Scopus (areas: Health Sciences, Life Sciences, & Social Sciences and Humanities) to identify a large sample of articles related to EDs. We then submitted our sample of articles to bibliometric and graph theory analyses to identify co-authorship and social network patterns. Results We present a large number of detailed findings, including a clear pattern of scientific growth measured as number of publications per five-year period or quinquennium (Q), a tremendous increase in the number of authors attracted by the ED subject, and a very high and steady growth in collaborative work. Conclusions We inferred that the noted publication growth was likely driven by the noted increase in the number of new authors per Q. Social network analyses suggested that collaborations within ED follow patters of interaction that are similar to well established and recognized disciplines, as indicated by the presence of a ¿giant cluster¿, high cluster density, and the replication of the ¿small world¿ phenomenon¿the principle that we are all linked by short chains of acquaintances.This work was performed with a subsidy from Universidad Catolica de Valencia "San Vicente Martir" to resarch group INDOTEI: Evaluacion de la Ciencia, for the years 2016-2017. This work is benefited from Spanish Government assistance through Government Delegation for the National Drugs Plan of the Ministry of Health, Social Services and Equality (project 2016/028); and National R+D+I (projects: CS02012-39632-C02-01 and CS02015-65594-C2-2-R) and 2015-Networks of Excellence Call (project CS02015-71867-REDT) of the Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness.Valderrama Zurian, JC.; Aguilar-Moya, R.; Cepeda-Benito, A.; Melero-Fuentes, D.; Navarro-Moreno, MÁ.; Gandía-Balaguer, A.; Aleixandre-Benavent, R. (2017). Productivity trends and collaboration patterns: A diachronic study in the eating disorders field. PLoS ONE. 12(8):1-17. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0182760S117128McClelland, J., Bozhilova, N., Campbell, I., & Schmidt, U. (2013). A Systematic Review of the Effects of Neuromodulation on Eating and Body Weight: Evidence from Human and Animal Studies. European Eating Disorders Review, 21(6), 436-455. doi:10.1002/erv.2256Lancelot, C., Brooks-Gunn, J., Warren, M. P., & Newman, D. L. (1991). Comparison of DSM-III and DSM-III-R bulimia nervosa classifications for psychopathology and other eating behaviors. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 10(1), 57-66. doi:10.1002/1098-108x(199101)10:13.0.co;2-tWONDERLICH, S. A., CROSBY, R. D., JOINER, T., PETERSON, C. B., BARDONE-CONE, A., KLEIN, M., … VRSHEK, S. (2005). Personality subtyping and bulimia nervosa: psychopathological and genetic correlates. Psychological Medicine, 35(5), 649-657. doi:10.1017/s0033291704004234Spitzer, R. L., Devlin, M. J., Walsh, B. T., Hasin, D., Wing, R., Marcus, M. D., … Nonas, C. (1991). Binge eating disorder: To be or not to be in DSM-IV. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 10(6), 627-629. doi:10.1002/1098-108x(199111)10:63.0.co;2-4Wonderlich, S. A., Gordon, K. H., Mitchell, J. E., Crosby, R. D., & Engel, S. G. (2014). The Validity and Clinical Utility of Binge Eating Disorder. FOCUS, 12(4), 489-505. doi:10.1176/appi.focus.120412Theander, S. S. (2002). Literature on eating disorders during 40 Years: increasing number of papers, emergence of bulimia nervosa. European Eating Disorders Review, 10(6), 386-398. doi:10.1002/erv.495Clinton, D. (2010). Towards an ecology of eating disorders: Creating sustainability through the integration of scientific research and clinical practice. European Eating Disorders Review, 18(1), 1-9. doi:10.1002/erv.986Soh, N. L.-W., & Walter, G. (2013). Publications on cross-cultural aspects of eating disorders. Journal of Eating Disorders, 1(1). doi:10.1186/2050-2974-1-4Wuchty, S., Jones, B. F., & Uzzi, B. (2007). The Increasing Dominance of Teams in Production of Knowledge. Science, 316(5827), 1036-1039. doi:10.1126/science.1136099Kumar, S. (2015). Co-authorship networks: a review of the literature. Aslib Journal of Information Management, 67(1), 55-73. doi:10.1108/ajim-09-2014-0116Barabási, A. ., Jeong, H., Néda, Z., Ravasz, E., Schubert, A., & Vicsek, T. (2002). Evolution of the social network of scientific collaborations. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, 311(3-4), 590-614. doi:10.1016/s0378-4371(02)00736-7Newman, M. E. J. (2004). Coauthorship networks and patterns of scientific collaboration. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 101(Supplement 1), 5200-5205. doi:10.1073/pnas.0307545100Aleixandre-Benavent, R., & Alonso-Arroyo, A. (2011). Indicadores bibliométricos, patología del aparato respiratorio y reducción del consumo de tabaco. Revista de Patología Respiratoria, 14(1), 1-3. doi:10.1016/s1576-9895(11)70095-9Pino-Díaz, J., Jiménez-Contreras, E., Ruíz-Baños, R., & Bailón-Moreno, R. (2011). Evaluación de redes tecnocientíficas: la red española sobre Áreas Protegidas, según la Web of Science. Revista española de Documentación Científica, 34(3), 301-333. doi:10.3989/redc.2011.3.804Valderrama-Zurián, J.-C., Aguilar-Moya, R., Melero-Fuentes, D., & Aleixandre-Benavent, R. (2015). A systematic analysis of duplicate records in Scopus. Journal of Informetrics, 9(3), 570-576. doi:10.1016/j.joi.2015.05.002Guardiola-Wanden-Berghe, R., Sanz-Valero, J., & Wanden-Berghe, C. (2012). Medical subject headings versus American Psychological Association Index Terms: indexing eating disorders. Scientometrics, 94(1), 305-311. doi:10.1007/s11192-012-0866-7Soh, N., Walter, G., Touyz, S., Russell, J., Malhi, G. S., & Hunt, G. E. (2012). Food for thought: Comparison of citations received from articles appearing in specialized eating disorder journals versus general psychiatry journals. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 45(8), 990-994. doi:10.1002/eat.22036Theander, S. S. (2004). Trends in the literature on eating disorders over 36 years(1965-2000): terminology, interpretation and treatment. European Eating Disorders Review, 12(1), 4-17. doi:10.1002/erv.559Kawamura, M., Thomas, C. D. L., Tsurumoto, A., Sasahara, H., & Kawaguchi, Y. (2000). Lotka’s law and productivity index of authors in a scientific journal. Journal of Oral Science, 42(2), 75-78. doi:10.2334/josnusd.42.75Lawani SM. Quality, collaboration and citations in cancer research: A bibliometric study. PhD thesis. Florida State University, Tallahassee. 1980.Watts, D. J., & Strogatz, S. H. (1998). Collective dynamics of ‘small-world’ networks. Nature, 393(6684), 440-442. doi:10.1038/30918Jacomy, M., Venturini, T., Heymann, S., & Bastian, M. (2014). ForceAtlas2, a Continuous Graph Layout Algorithm for Handy Network Visualization Designed for the Gephi Software. PLoS ONE, 9(6), e98679. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0098679Pike, K. M., & Dunne, P. E. (2015). The rise of eating disorders in Asia: a review. Journal of Eating Disorders, 3(1). doi:10.1186/s40337-015-0070-2El Ghoch, M., Soave, F., Calugi, S., & Dalle Grave, R. (2013). Eating Disorders, Physical Fitness and Sport Performance: A Systematic Review. Nutrients, 5(12), 5140-5160. doi:10.3390/nu5125140Jones, A. W. (2007). The distribution of forensic journals, reflections on authorship practices, peer-review and role of the impact factor. Forensic Science International, 165(2-3), 115-128. doi:10.1016/j.forsciint.2006.05.013Baker, T., Hatsukami, D., Lerman, C., O’Malley, S., Shields, A., & Fiore, M. (2003). Transdisciplinary science applied to the evaluation of treatments for tobacco use. Nicotine & Tobacco Research, 5(6), 89-99. doi:10.1080/14622200310001625564González-Alcaide, G., Melero-Fuentes, D., Aleixandre-Benavent, R., & Valderrama-Zurián, J.-C. (2013). Productivity and Collaboration in Scientific Publications on Criminology. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 24(1), 15-37. doi:10.1080/10511253.2012.664153López-Muñoz, F., Alamo, C., Rubio, G., García-García, P., Martín-Agueda, B., & Cuenca, E. (2003). Bibliometric analysis of biomedical publications on SSRI during 1980-2000. Depression and Anxiety, 18(2), 95-103. doi:10.1002/da.10121González-Alcaide, G., Aleixandre-Benavent, R., Navarro-Molina, C., & Valderrama-Zurián, J. C. (2008). Coauthorship networks and institutional collaboration patterns in reproductive biology. Fertility and Sterility, 90(4), 941-956. doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2007.07.1378González-Alcaide, G., Park, J., Huamaní, C., Belinchón, I., & Ramos, J. M. (2015). Evolution of Cooperation Patterns in Psoriasis Research: Co-Authorship Network Analysis of Papers in Medline (1942–2013). PLOS ONE, 10(12), e0144837. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0144837Bordons, M., & Ángeles Zulueta, M. (2002). La interdisciplinariedad en los grupos españoles de investigación en el área cardiovascular. Revista Española de Cardiología, 55(9), 900-912. doi:10.1016/s0300-8932(02)76728-6Chan, H. F., Önder, A. S., & Torgler, B. (2015). The first cut is the deepest: repeated interactions of coauthorship and academic productivity in Nobel laureate teams. Scientometrics, 106(2), 509-524. doi:10.1007/s11192-015-1796-yBordons, M., Aparicio, J., González-Albo, B., & Díaz-Faes, A. A. (2015). The relationship between the research performance of scientists and their position in co-authorship networks in three fields. Journal of Informetrics, 9(1), 135-144. doi:10.1016/j.joi.2014.12.001Newman, M. E. J. (2001). The structure of scientific collaboration networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 98(2), 404-409. doi:10.1073/pnas.98.2.404Fatt, C. K., Ujum, E. A., & Ratnavelu, K. (2010). The structure of collaboration in the Journal of Finance. Scientometrics, 85(3), 849-860. doi:10.1007/s11192-010-0254-0Kretschmer, H. (2004). Author productivity and geodesic distance in bibliographic co-authorship networks, and visibility on the Web. Scientometrics, 60(3), 409-420. doi:10.1023/b:scie.0000034383.86665.22Yan, E., Ding, Y., & Zhu, Q. (2009). Mapping library and information science in China: a coauthorship network analysis. Scientometrics, 83(1), 115-131. doi:10.1007/s11192-009-0027-9Yin, L., Kretschmer, H., Hanneman, R. A., & Liu, Z. (2006). Connection and stratification in research collaboration: An analysis of the COLLNET network. Information Processing & Management, 42(6), 1599-1613. doi:10.1016/j.ipm.2006.03.021Lambiotte, R., & Panzarasa, P. (2009). Communities, knowledge creation, and information diffusion. Journal of Informetrics, 3(3), 180-190. doi:10.1016/j.joi.2009.03.007Leydesdorff, L. (2012). World shares of publications of the USA, EU-27, and China compared and predicted using the new Web of Science interface versus Scopus. El Profesional de la Informacion, 21(1), 43-49. doi:10.3145/epi.2012.ene.06Bartol, T., Budimir, G., Dekleva-Smrekar, D., Pusnik, M., & Juznic, P. (2013). Assessment of research fields in Scopus and Web of Science in the view of national research evaluation in Slovenia. Scientometrics, 98(2), 1491-1504. doi:10.1007/s11192-013-1148-8López-Illescas, C., de Moya-Anegón, F., & Moed, H. F. (2008). Coverage and citation impact of oncological journals in the Web of Science and Scopus. Journal of Informetrics, 2(4), 304-316. doi:10.1016/j.joi.2008.08.001Warren, C. S., Gleaves, D. H., Cepeda-Benito, A., Fernandez, M. del C., & Rodriguez-Ruiz, S. (2005). Ethnicity as a protective factor against internalization of a thin ideal and body dissatisfaction. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 37(3), 241-249. doi:10.1002/eat.20102Prince, R., & Thebaud, E. F. (1983). Is Anorexia Nervosa a Culture-Bound Syndrome? Transcultural Psychiatric Research Review, 20(4), 299-302. doi:10.1177/136346158302000419Miller, M. N., & Pumariega, A. J. (2001). Culture and Eating Disorders: A Historical and Cross-Cultural Review. Psychiatry: Interpersonal and Biological Processes, 64(2), 93-110. doi:10.1521/psyc.64.2.93.1862

Comunicación científica (XXVI). Cómo aumentar la difusión y el impacto de los trabajos pediátricos participando en la ciencia abierta

La ciencia abierta (open science) es el movimiento que preten- de hacer accesible a todos los niveles la investigación científi- ca y la difusión de los datos. Implica la publicación en abierto (open access) y la publicación y reutilización de los datos gene- rados en las investigaciones (open research data). Participar en la ciencia abierta y compartir las publicaciones y los datos de investigación estimula el trabajo científico, aumenta su cita- ción e impacto y contribuye al avance de la ciencia. Las principales estrategias para aumentar la difusión y el impacto de los trabajos son las siguientes: 1) publicar trabajos de calidad; 2) publicar en las mejores revistas; 3) publicar en abierto; 4) publicar y compartir los datos brutos de investiga- ción; 5) incluir los trabajos en Google Scholar y crear un perfil en Google Scholar Citations, y 6) aprovechar las herramientas de la web 2.0, como incluir contenidos en las wikis, participar en redes sociales, colgar vídeos profesionales en la red, difun- dir una web y un blog propio, compartir referencias y presenta- ciones de diapositivas, participar en listas de distribución y disponer de un perfil en ORCID.Aleixandre Benavent, R.; Ferrer Sapena, A.; Alonso-Arroyo, A.; Domínguez, RL. (2015). Comunicación científica (XXVI). Cómo aumentar la difusión y el impacto de los trabajos pediátricos participando en la ciencia abierta. Acta Pediátrica Española. 73(8):203-210. http://hdl.handle.net/10251/64794S20321073

Uso y abuso de abreviaturas y siglas entre atención primaria, especializada y hospitalaria

La publicación original está disponible en: http://www.sedom.es/3_papeles/index.jsp[ES] [Introducción] Las abreviaciones se utilizan en todos los documentos asistenciales creando serios problemas de comunicación entre los profesionales y con los pacientes. El objetivo de este trabajo es analizar las abreviaciones aparecidas en los documentos de intercambio de información entre los diversos niveles asistenciales: hojas de urgencias del hospital, hojas de alta hospitalaria, hojas de interconsulta de especializada e Informes clínicos de especializada. [Material y métodos] Cinco médicos del Centro de Salud de Xàtiva analizaron, desde el 11 de abril al 11 de mayo de 2005, 87 documentos identificando las abreviaciones que contenían. En cada abreviación se calculó su frecuencia y se buscó su significado, procedencia (atención primaria, especializada u hospitalaria), servicio, así como la existencia de siglas polisémicas. [Resultados] Se recogieron 433 abreviaciones diferentes en las 1.253 registradas, de las que 25 aparecían 10 o más veces. Las más frecuentes fueron “h”, “AP” y “a”. La mayor parte procedían de Urgencias Hospitalarias (72%), Medicina Interna- Ingreso hospitalario (6,2%) y Atención primaria (5,8%). Algunas eran polisémicas, como “h” (que puede significar “hora”, “historia” y “hemograma”) y otras veces se utilizan diferentes formas para abreviar un mismo concepto. [Discusión] Las abreviaciones en los documentos clínicos suelen utilizarse para economizar espacio y tiempo y para evitar el empleo de enfermedades o procesos graves, incurables o vergonzosos. Muchas de ellas no están consensuadas por la comunidad y son inventadas, por lo que resultan difíciles de entender y entorpecen el flujo de comunicación entre los diversos niveles asistenciales y la correcta transmisión del conocimiento.[EN] [Introduction] Abbreviations are used in all the welfare documents creating serious problems of communication among and as well as with patients. The objective of this work is to analyze the abbreviations appeared in the information exchange documents among the diverse welfare levels: emergency room records, hospital discharge summary, consultation reports and clinical reports addressed to specialists. [Method] Five doctors of the primary care health center of Xàtiva (Spain) analyzed, 87 documents from April 11th to May 11 th, 2005, identifying the abbreviations that contained. The frequency of each abbreviation was calculated and what did they stand for, origin (primary care health, specialized care or hospital care), department, as well as the existence of polysemic acronyms. [Results] 433 different abbreviations were collected in the 1.253 registered, 25 of them appearing 10 or more times. The most frequent were “h”, “AP” and “a”. The majority of them came from hospital emergencies (72%), internal medicine hospital admission (6,2%) and primary care health (5,8%). Some them were polysemic, as “h” (that may have different meanings as “hour”, “history” and “hemogram”) and some different forms are used to shorten the same concept. [Discussion] The abbreviations in clinical documents are usually used to save space and time and to avoid naming of illnesses, incurable or shameful processes. Many of them are not agreed by the community and they are made up, that is why they are difficult to understand and they hinder the flow of communication among different welfare levels and the correct transmission of the knowledge.Peer reviewe

Archivos de Bronconeumología: una de las 3 revistas médicas españolas con mayor factor de impacto nacional

Objetivo: El análisis de citas permite conocer los patrones de consumo de información de los colectivos profesionales. El objetivo de este trabajo es presentar el resultado del análisis de citas de 87 revistas médicas españolas, de las que se han calculado el factor de impacto e índice de inmediatez en 2001, y estimar la relevancia de Archivos de Bronconeumología en el marco de la medicina española. Material y método: Se seleccionaron 87 revistas médicas españolas incluidas en la base de datos Índice Médico Español y que circulaban al menos en una de las siguientes bases de datos: MEDLINE, BIOSIS, EMBASE, Science Citation Index. Se analizaron las referencias bibliográficas de 1999 a 2001 incluidas en los artículos citables de 2001. Se calcularon, de acuerdo con la metodología del Institute for Scientific Information, el factor de impacto y el índice de inmediatez nacionales. Resultados: Las revistas que obtuvieron un mayor factor de impacto nacional fueron Revista Española de Quimioterapia (0,894), Medicina Clínica (0,89) y Archivos de Bronconeumología (0,732); el porcentaje de autocitas de esta última fue del 18,3% y su índice de inmediatez de 0,033. Conclusiones: El factor de impacto obtenido por Archivos de Bronconeumología confirma su importancia en la medicina española y avala su inclusión como revista fuente en el Science Citation Index y Journal Citation Reports

Bibliometrics and indicators of scientific activity (VI). Collaboration indicators (2). Analysis of social networks applied to Pediatrics

[EN] The social network analysis was originated in the field of sociology as an analysis tool which has been acquiring an important theoretical methodological apparatus making it usable in many fields of science. This work aims at describing the analysis of social networks and those main factors most needed in order to understand and interpret a network. It includes the different networks typologies which may be observed, the elements of the graphs that make up a network, the levels of analysis that can be applied and the indicators of centrality that can be calculated. In addition, some of the studies that can be done using this tool are offered. Several examples in the field of Pediatrics are exposed such as the analysis of scientific collaboration (co-authoring between authors and institutions) and the analysis of co-occurrence (measure of the presence of researchers, keywords or institutions in a document).[ES] El análisis de redes sociales partió del ámbito de la Sociología como una herramienta de análisis que ha ido adquiriendo un importante aparato teórico-metodológico aplicado a numerosos campos de la ciencia. Este trabajo es una descripción somera del análisis de redes sociales y sus factores más importantes para poder entender e interpretar una red. Se especifican las tipologías de redes que se pueden observar, los elementos de los grafos que conforman una red, los niveles de análisis que se pueden aplicar y los indicadores de centralidad que se pueden calcular. Además, se detallan algunos de los estudios que se pueden realizar mediante esta herramienta. De ellos, se exponen unos ejemplos, dentro del campo de la pediatría, de análisis de la colaboración científica (coautoría entre autores e instituciones) y de copresencia o coocurrencia (presencia en el mismo documento de investigadores, palabras clave o instituciones).Castelló-Cogollos, L.; A. Sixto-Costolla; R. Lucas-Domínguez; Victor Agulló Calatayud; J. González de Dios; Aleixandre-Benavent, R. (2017). Bibliometría e indicadores de actividad científica (VI). Indicadores de colaboración (2). Análisis de redes sociales aplicado a la Pediatría. Acta pediátrica española. 75(11-12):127-135. http://hdl.handle.net/10251/103518S1271357511-1

Factor de impacto nacional e internacional de Revista Española de Cardiología

El objetivo de este trabajo es presentar los indicadores bibliométricos de Revista Española de Cardiología obtenidos del estudio «Factor de impacto potencial de las revistas médicas españolas en 2001», financiado por el Ministerio de Educación Cultura y Deporte español. Siguiendo una metodología similar a la que emplea el Institute for Scientific Information, se han obtenido las citas de Revista Española de Cardiología y su factor de impacto e índice de inmediatez nacionales e internacionales. Los indicadores nacionales tienen en cuenta únicamente las citas procedentes de 87 revistas españolas seleccionadas como fuentes, mientras que para el cálculo de los indicadores internacionales se han sumado a las citas anteriores las que proceden de las revistas fuente extranjeras del Science Citation Index. Revista Española de Cardiología ha obtenido un factor de impacto nacional de 0,719 y un factor de impacto internacional de 0,837, lo que la sitúa en posiciones de liderazgo en la medicina español

Global trends in scientific production in enology and viticulture in selected emerging economies (BRIC)

[EN] The aim of this study was to analyse the scientific productivity of the BRIC countries (Brazil, Russia, India and China) in viticulture and oenology through bibliometric analyses of articles in the Science Citation Index Expanded database for the period 1993-2012. A total of 1067 research articles were published in 363 domestic and international journals. We highlight important growth during the mentioned period in the published research papers, particularly in China and Brazil over the last 5 years. Papers have been published in numerous journals in a number of subject areas, such as Revista Brasileira de Fruticultura and Pesquisa Agropecuaria Brasileira, which are the most productive among the BRIC countries. A social network analysis of collaboration between each of the four BRIC countries was also performed.Aleixandre Benavent, JL.; Aleixandre Tudo, J.; Bolaños-Pizarro, M.; Aleixandre-Benavent, R. (2015). Global trends in scientific production in enology and viticulture in selected emerging economies (BRIC). Scientometrics. 103(2):649-668. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1543-46496681032Albornoz, M. (2014). Política Científica y Tecnológica: Una visión desde América Latina. Revista Iberoamericana de Ciencia, Tecnología, Sociedad e Innovación. Nº 1. http://www.oei.es/revistactsi/numero1/albornoz.htm . Accessed 28 January, 2014Aleixandre, J. L., Bordeu, E., Aleixandre-Tudó, J. L., Bolaños, M., & Aleixandre-Benavent, R. (2013). Scientific productivity and collaboration in viticulture and enology in Latin American countries. Ciencia e Investigación Agraria, 40, 429–443.Aleixandre-Benavent, R., Aleixandre-Tudó, J. L., González Alcaide, G., Ferrer Sapena, A., Aleixandre, J. L., & Du Toit, W. (2012). Bibliometric analysis of publications by South African viticulture and oenology research centres. South African Journal of Science, 108, 74–84.Aleixandre-Benavent, R., Valderrama Zurian, J. C., & González Alcaide, G. (2007). The impact factor of scientific journals: Limitations and alternative indicators (vol. 16, pp. 4–11).Babini, D. (2011). Acceso abierto a la producción científica de América Latina y el Caribe. Revista Iberoamericana de Ciencia, Tecnología y Sociedad, 17, 1–24.Cassi, L., Morrison, A. & Rabellotti, R. (2014). Proximity and scientific collaboration: Evidence from the global wine industry. Papers in Evolutionary Economic Geography, 14(05). Accessed 1 December, 2014. http://econ.geo.uu.nl/peeg/peeg1405.pdfCassi, L., Morrison, A., & Ter Wal, A. L. J. (2012). The evolution of trade and scientific collaboration networks in the global wine sector: A longitudinal study using network analysis. Ecomomic Geography, 83, 311–334.CIA World Factbook. (2011): Statistic. On line, 25th May 2011. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/br.html . Accessed 22 November, 2013Cunningham, S. J., & Dillon, S. M. (1997). Authorship patterns in information systems. Scientometrics, 39, 19–27.Cusmano, L., Morrison, A., & Rabellotti, R. (2010). Catching-up trajectories in the wine sector: A comparative study of Chile, Italy and South Africa. World Development, 38, 1588–1602.Glänzel, W., & Veugelers, R. (2006). Science for wine: A bibliometric assessment for wine and grape research for wine-producing and consuming countries. American Journal of Enology and Viticulture, 57, 23–32.González-Alcaide, G., Alonso Arroyo, A., González de Dios, J., Pérez Sempere, A., Valderrama-Zurian, J. C., & Aleixandre-Benavent, R. (2008a). Coauthorship networks and institutional collaboration in Revista de Neurología. Revista de Neurologia, 46, 642–651.González-Alcaide, G., Valderrama-Zurian, J. C., & Aleixandre-Benavent, R. (2008b). Research fronts and collaboration patterns in Reproductive Biology. Coauthorship networks and institutional collaboration. Fertility and Sterility, 90, 941–956.Guilford, J. M., & Pezzuto, J. M. (2011). Wine and health: A review. American Journal of Enology and Viticulture, 62, 471–486.Katz, J. S., & Martin, B. R. (1997). What is research collaboration? Research Policy, 26, 1–18.Kretschmer, H. (1994). Coautorship network of invisible-college and institutionalized communities. Scientometrics, 30, 363–369.Newman, M. E. J. (2004). Coauthorship networks and patterns of scientific collaboration. Proceeding of the National Academy of Science, USA, 101, 5200–5205.O’Neill, J., & Stopnytska A. (2011). Linking GDP growth and equity return. Goldman Sachs. Monthly insights from the office of the chairman.OIV. (2007). International organization of vine and wine. Paris: Statistics.Pichon-Riviere, A., Ceballos, R. M., & Briones, E. (2009). Health technology assessment in Latin-America and the Caribbean, facilitators and barriers for international collaboration: A survey. Value in Health, 12, 488–2009.Rojas-Sola, J. I., & Jordá-Albiñana, B. (2009). Análisis bibliométrico de las publicaciones científicas españolas en la categoría materials science, ceramics de la base de datos JCR (SCI) (1997–2008). Boletín de la Sociedad Española de Ceramica y Vidrio, 48, 255–260.Sánchez Sosa, J. J. (2008). Professional collaboration between psychologists and other health professionals in healthcare settings in Latin America. International Journal of Psychology, 43, 171–179.Scherngell, T., & Hu, Y. (2011). Collaborative knowledge production in China. Regional evidence from a gravity model approach. Regional Studies, 45(6), 755–772.Sidone, O., Haddad, E., & Mena-Chalco, J. (2014). Scholarly publication and collaboration in Brazil: The role of geography. ERSA Conference Papers, 14, 187. Accessed 01 December, 2014. http://www.usp.br/nereus/wp-content/uploads/TD_Nereus_01_2014.pdfSlobodniková, O., & Nagyová, R. (2011). Global influence of the BRIC countries. In The scale of globalization. Think globally, act locally, change individually in the 21st century (pp. 303–311). Ostrava: University of Ostrava.Vera-Villarroel, P., López-López, W., Lillo, S., & Silva, L. (2011). La producción científica en psicología latinoamericana: Un análisis de la investigación por países. Revista Latinoamericana de Psicología, 43, 95–104.White, H. D., & McCain, K. (1989). Bibliometrics. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 24, 119–186.World Bank. (2011). Data Word Bank. http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.C

Bibliometrics and indicators of scientific activity (II). Indicators of scientific production in pediatrics

[EN] The bibliometric indicators of scientific production measure the results of the research, as published in journals or scientific books. The most used indicator is the number of papers published by an author, institution, country, journal or subject area, since it allows to know and to follow the activity from the publications. This paper presents the main bibliometric indicators of scientific production, discusses the normal productivity and fractional productivity and justifies the necessary normalization of the data mined from bibliographic databases. The need to relativize absolute indicators is explained in terms of some variables that influence their development, such as the number of inhabitants, the gross domestic product or the number of projects awarded. Finally, the main limitations of these indicators are discussed.[ES] Los indicadores bibliométricos de producción científica miden los resultados de la investigación, tal como se divulgan en las publicaciones. El indicador más utilizado es el número de trabajos publicados por un autor, institución, país, revista o área temática, pues permite conocer y seguir la actividad a partir de las publicaciones. En este trabajo se exponen los principales indicadores bibliométricos de producción científica, se plantea el debate en torno a la productividad normal y la productividad fraccionada, y se justifica la necesaria normalización de los datos extraídos de las bases de datos bibliográficas. Se expone la necesidad de relativizar los indicadores absolutos en función de algunas variables que influyen en su desarrollo, como el número de habitantes, el producto interior bruto o el número de proyectos concedidos. Por último, se comentan las principales limitaciones de estos indicadores.Aleixandre-Benavent, R.; González De Dios, J.; Castelló-Cogollos, L.; Navarro Molina, C.; Alonso Arroyo, A.; Vidal-Infer, A.; Lucas-Domínguez, R. (2017). Bibliometría e indicadores de actividad científica (II). Indicadores de producción científica en pediatría. Acta pediátrica española. 75(3-4):44-50. http://hdl.handle.net/10251/103704S4450753-