Geographical trends in research: a preliminary analysis on authors' affiliations

In the last decade, research literature reached an enormous volume with an unprecedented current annual increase of 1.5 million new publications. As research gets ever more global and new countries and institutions, either from academia or corporate environment, start to contribute with their share, it is important to monitor this complex scenario and understand its dynamics. We present a study on a conference proceedings dataset extracted from Springer Nature Scigraph that illustrates insightful geographical trends and highlights the unbalanced growth of competitive research institutions worldwide. Results emerged from our micro and macro analysis show that the distributions among countries of institutions and papers follow a power law, and thus very few countries keep producing most of the papers accepted by high-tier conferences. In addition, we found that the annual and overall turnover rate of the top 5, 10 and 25 countries is extremely low, suggesting a very static landscape in which new entries struggle to emerge. Finally, we highlight the presence of an increasing gap between the number of institutions initiating and overseeing research endeavours (i.e. first and last authors' affiliations) and the total number of institutions participating in research. As a consequence of our analysis, the paper also discusses our experience in working with affiliations: an utterly simple matter at first glance, that is instead revealed to be a complex research and technical challenge yet far from being solved

Temporal Trends in the Impact Factor of European versus USA Biomedical Journals

BACKGROUND: The impact factors of biomedical journals tend to rise over time. We sought to assess the trend in the impact factor, during the past decade, of journals published on behalf of United States (US) and European scientific societies, in four select biomedical subject categories (Biology, Cell Biology, Critical Care Medicine, and Infectious Diseases). METHODS: We identified all journals included in the above-mentioned subject categories of Thomson Reuters Journal Citation Reports® for the years 1999, 2002, 2005, and 2008. We selected those that were published on behalf of US or European scientific societies, as documented in journal websites. RESULTS: We included 167 journals (35 in the subject category of Biology, 79 in Cell Biology, 27 in Critical Care Medicine, and 26 in Infectious Diseases). Between 1999 and 2008, the percentage increase in the impact factor of the European journals was higher than for the US journals (73.7±110.0% compared with 39.7±70.0%, p = 0.049). Regarding specific subject categories, the percentage change in the factor of the European journals tended to be higher than the respective US journals for Cell Biology (61.7% versus 16.3%), Critical Care Medicine (212.4% versus 65.4%), Infectious Diseases (88.3% versus 48.7%), whereas the opposite was observed for journals in Biology (41.0% versus 62.5%). CONCLUSION: Journals published on behalf of European scientific societies, in select biomedical fields, may tend to close the "gap" in impact factor compared with those of US societies. WHAT'S ALREADY KNOWN ABOUT THIS TOPIC?: The impact factors of biomedical journals tend to rise through years. The leading positions in productivity in biomedical research are held by developed countries, including those from North America and Western Europe. WHAT DOES THIS ARTICLE ADD?: The journals from European biomedical scientific societies tended, over the past decade, to increase their impact factor more than the respective US journals

World Wide Web Resources on Obstetrical and Gynecological Infections

Modern information and communications technology has provided medical students and practitioners around the world with a new, valuable, and easy-to-use way to retrieve potentially useful information. Using previously described by our research group methodology, we generated a list of 50 Internet resources in the field of obstetrical and gynecological infections. We believe that the availability of such a list will help in the education of students and clinicians interested in obstetrical and gynecological infections

Multidrug resistant Acinetobacter baumannii: a descriptive study in a city hospital

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Multidrug resistant <it>Acinetobacter baumannii</it>, (MRAB) is an important cause of hospital acquired infection. The purpose of this study is to determine the risk factors for MRAB in a city hospital patient population.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>This study is a retrospective review of a city hospital epidemiology data base and includes 247 isolates of Acinetobacter baumannii (AB) from 164 patients. Multidrug resistant <it>Acinetobacter baumannii </it>was defined as resistance to more than three classes of antibiotics. Using the non-MRAB isolates as the control group, the risk factors for the acquisition of MRAB were determined.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Of the 247 AB isolates 72% (177) were multidrug resistant. Fifty-eight percent (143/247) of isolates were highly resistant (resistant to imipenem, amikacin, and ampicillin-sulbactam). Of the 37 patients who died with Acinetobacter colonization/infection, 32 (86%) patients had the organism recovered from the respiratory tract. The factors which were found to be significantly associated (p ≤ 0.05) with multidrug resistance include the recovery of AB from multiple sites, mechanical ventilation, previous antibiotic exposure, and the presence of neurologic impairment. Multidrug resistant Acinetobacter was associated with significant mortality when compared with sensitive strains (p ≤ 0.01). When surgical patients (N = 75) were considered separately, mechanical ventilation and multiple isolates remained the factors significantly associated with the development of multidrug resistant Acinetobacter. Among surgical patients 46/75 (61%) grew a multidrug resistant strain of AB and 37/75 (40%) were resistant to all commonly used antibiotics including aminoglycosides, cephalosporins, carbepenems, extended spectrum penicillins, and quinolones. Thirty-five percent of the surgical patients had AB cultured from multiple sites and 57% of the Acinetobacter isolates were associated with a co-infecting organism, usually a Staphylococcus or Pseudomonas. As in medical patients, the isolation of Acinetobacter from multiple sites and the need for mechanical ventilation were significantly associated with the development of MRAB.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The factors significantly associated with MRAB in both the general patient population and surgical patients were mechanical ventilation and the recovery of Acinetobacter from multiple anatomic sites. Previous antibiotic use and neurologic impairment were significant factors in medical patients. Colonization or infection with MRAB is associated with increased mortality.</p

Citation analysis of orthopaedic literature; 18 major orthopaedic journals compared for Impact Factor and SCImago

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>One of the disadvantages of the Impact Factor (IF) is self-citation. The SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) indicator excludes self-citations and considers the quality, rather than absolute numbers, of citations of a journal by other journals. The present study re-evaluated the influence of self-citation on the 2007 IF for 18 major orthopaedic journals and investigated the difference in ranking between IF and SJR.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The journals were analysed for self-citation both overall and divided into a general group (n = 8) and a specialized group (n = 10). Self-cited and self-citing rates, as well as citation densities and IFs corrected for self-citation (cIF), were calculated. The rankings of the 18 journals by IF and by SJR were compared and the absolute difference between these rankings (ΔR) was determined.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Specialized journals had higher self-citing rates (p = 0.01, Δmedian = 9.50, 95%CI -19.42 to 0.42), higher self-cited rates (p = 0.0004, Δmedian = -10.50, 95%CI -15.28 to -5.72) and greater differences between IF and cIF (p = 0.003, Δmedian = 3.50, 95%CI -6.1 to 13.1). There was no significant correlation between self-citing rate and IF for both groups (general: r = 0.46, p = 0.27; specialized: r = 0.21, p = 0.56). When the difference in ranking between IF and SJR was compared between both groups, sub-specialist journals were ranked lower compared to their general counterparts (ΔR: p = 0.006, Δmedian = 2.0, 95%CI -0.39 to 4.39).</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Citation analysis shows that specialized orthopaedic journals have specific self-citation tendencies. The correlation between self-cited rate and IF in our sample was large but, due to small sample size, not significant. The SJR excludes self-citations in its calculation and therefore enhances the underestimation in ranking of specialized journals.</p

Mapping Health Literacy Research in the European Union: A Bibliometric Analysis

Background: To examine and compare the research productivity on selected fields related to health literacy of the curren

Bibliometrics of systematic reviews : analysis of citation rates and journal impact factors

Background: Systematic reviews are important for informing clinical practice and health policy. The aim of this study was to examine the bibliometrics of systematic reviews and to determine the amount of variance in citations predicted by the journal impact factor (JIF) alone and combined with several other characteristics. Methods: We conducted a bibliometric analysis of 1,261 systematic reviews published in 2008 and the citations to them in the Scopus database from 2008 to June 2012. Potential predictors of the citation impact of the reviews were examined using descriptive, univariate and multiple regression analysis. Results: The mean number of citations per review over four years was 26.5 (SD +/-29.9) or 6.6 citations per review per year. The mean JIF of the journals in which the reviews were published was 4.3 (SD +/-4.2). We found that 17% of the reviews accounted for 50% of the total citations and 1.6% of the reviews were not cited. The number of authors was correlated with the number of citations (r = 0.215, P =5.16) received citations in the bottom quartile (eight or fewer), whereas 9% of reviews published in the lowest JIF quartile (<=2.06) received citations in the top quartile (34 or more). Six percent of reviews in journals with no JIF were also in the first quartile of citations. Conclusions: The JIF predicted over half of the variation in citations to the systematic reviews. However, the distribution of citations was markedly skewed. Some reviews in journals with low JIFs were well-cited and others in higher JIF journals received relatively few citations; hence the JIF did not accurately represent the number of citations to individual systematic reviews

Centre selection for clinical trials and the generalisability of results: a mixed methods study.

BACKGROUND: The rationale for centre selection in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is often unclear but may have important implications for the generalisability of trial results. The aims of this study were to evaluate the factors which currently influence centre selection in RCTs and consider how generalisability considerations inform current and optimal practice. METHODS AND FINDINGS: Mixed methods approach consisting of a systematic review and meta-summary of centre selection criteria reported in RCT protocols funded by the UK National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) initiated between January 2005-January 2012; and an online survey on the topic of current and optimal centre selection, distributed to professionals in the 48 UK Clinical Trials Units and 10 NIHR Research Design Services. The survey design was informed by the systematic review and by two focus groups conducted with trialists at the Birmingham Centre for Clinical Trials. 129 trial protocols were included in the systematic review, with a total target sample size in excess of 317,000 participants. The meta-summary identified 53 unique centre selection criteria. 78 protocols (60%) provided at least one criterion for centre selection, but only 31 (24%) protocols explicitly acknowledged generalisability. This is consistent with the survey findings (n = 70), where less than a third of participants reported generalisability as a key driver of centre selection in current practice. This contrasts with trialists' views on optimal practice, where generalisability in terms of clinical practice, population characteristics and economic results were prime considerations for 60% (n = 42), 57% (n = 40) and 46% (n = 32) of respondents, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Centres are rarely enrolled in RCTs with an explicit view to external validity, although trialists acknowledge that incorporating generalisability in centre selection should ideally be more prominent. There is a need to operationalize 'generalisability' and incorporate it at the design stage of RCTs so that results are readily transferable to 'real world' practice