Scientometric analysis of the term 'microbiota' in research publications (1999–2017): a second youth of a century-old concept

International audienceGreat progress in microbiota research during last decades resulted in a growing corpus of publications mentioning the term ‘microbiota’. Specifically, the human microbiota increasingly recognised nowadays as one of the most important health challenges is becoming an emerging research front. By examining over 28 000 microbiota-related papers from the Web of Science database, our study aims to characterise the evolution of publication patterns in this field between 1999 and 2017. The corpus is first analysed in terms of breakdown by journal subject categories, then an additional insight in the structuring of the microbiota research into different topics is provided by means of topic modelling. Our results demonstrate that over time (i) a substantial increase in the publications number is accompanied by a broad diversification of associated journal subject categories; (ii) the research focus moved outside from its primary research field showing successive shifts from dentistry and ecologically centred areas, through agri-food applied topics, towards the most recent clinical applications. The trends in thematic structure of the field presented from a historical perspective suggest that the current systemic approach to host–microbiota relationship inherited from the ecological background of the concept of microbiota has opened up a number of new research directions and perspectives

Publication output of french university hospitals during 2006-2015: trends and position in the national health research landscape

International audienceOBJECTIVE: The aim of the current study is to identify the output of French university hospitals in the Web of Science database and to perform a comparative bibliometric analysis to characterize their position in the national biomedical research landscape.METHODS: The first stage consisted in creating the unified "Organization-Enhanced" records in the Web of Science for 32 university hospitals, in order to ensure the reliable aggregated data. The research output of university hospitals and organizations members of the French National Alliance for Life Sciences and Health (Aviesan) are analyzed using bibliometric indicators, including the number of publications, category normalized citation impact, top one percent and top 10 percent of the most cited papers, international collaboration rate.RESULTS: In terms of publication output, university hospitals rank 3rd in France, after universities and CNRS. They contribute to about 17 % of the total national production and to 2.5 % of the European publications (EU28). Over the 10 years period, the impact of the papers produced by university hospitals grows faster than volume. Visibility and impact comply with the university hospitals' core assignments: teaching, research and knowledge transfer.CONCLUSIONS: This study provides objective data showing a leading position of the university hospitals among the biomedical research organizations in France, playing a major role in patient-based research

Zoom sur l’excellence en recherche biomédicale en France

La production de connaissances et sa reconnaissance par la communauté scientifique sont des critères incontournables de l’évaluation de la qualité d’une recherche. Les indicateurs bibliométriques de plus en plus utilisés par les décideurs pour orienter leur stratégie font toujours l’objet de nombreux débats. Dans cet article, nous analysons la performance de la France en utilisant principalement deux indicateurs sélectifs obtenus à partir de la base de l’Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) : le nombre absolu d’articles et la proportion publiée, dans les journaux ayant un très fort impact - supérieur à 20 - ainsi que dans le Top 1 % des articles biomédicaux les plus cités. À partir de ces données, nous identifions les domaines dominants, les sites les plus actifs pour chacune des spécialités et le réseau de collaborations nationales et internationales. Nos résultats montrent que la recherche biomédicale française contribue fortement aux avancées scientifiques mondiales et que sa qualité atteint les standards internationaux les plus élevés.Among the key benchmarks in assessing research excellence is the production and recognition of scientific discoveries for innovation. Despite the growing use of bibliometric indicators for policy-making purposes, there is still no consensus concerning the appropriate measures of research excellence. In this study, we examine the performance of France in biomedical sciences using several ISI-based indicators. We focus on the results provided by these two selective indicators: the absolute numbers and proportion of papers published in the very high-impact journals (above 20) and in the 1 % of the most highly cited papers. Furthermore, we present the detailed analysis of the Top 1 % French biomedical articles. On this basis we identify the crucial fields, the most active centres per speciality and the networks and the degree of international collaboration resulting from different types of research. These results provide an objective demonstration that the French biomedical research meets with high international standards and contributes to the world core research

: Indicateurs bibliométriques : réalités, mythes et prospective

International audienceThe impact factor of scientific reviews, calculated by the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI), is increasingly used to evaluate the performance of scientists and programmes. Bibliometric indicators, originally designed for other purposes than individual evaluation, are very useful tools provided their interpretation is not extrapolated beyond their limits of validity. Here we present a critical analysis of appropriate uses and misuses of bibliometric data based on case studies. We also outline anticipated consequences of new information technologies, such as electronic journals or open access schemes, on the mode of science production, evaluation and dissemination in biomedical sciences

Indicateurs bibliométriques

Le facteur d’impact, établi par l’Institute for Scientific Information (ISI), est fréquemment utilisé pour évaluer les chercheurs et leurs programmes. Sur la base d’exemples, cet article propose quelques clés pour analyser les conditions et les limites d’interprétation d’indicateurs qui, à l’origine, n’ont pas été conçus pour l’évaluation individuelle. Il présente aussi les consequences prévisibles des nouvelles technologies d’information, en particulier l’avènement de journaux électroniques, sur la production, la publication et l’évaluation des résultats de la recherche dans les sciences biomédicales

Barriers to publishing in biomedical journals perceived by a sample of French researchers: results of the DIAzePAM study

Abstract Background As publishing is essential but competitive for researchers, difficulties in writing and submitting medical articles to biomedical journals are disabling. The DIAzePAM (Difficultés des Auteurs à la Publication d’Articles Médicaux) survey aimed to assess the difficulties experienced by researchers in the AP-HP (Assistance Publique – Hôpitaux de Paris, i.e., Paris Hospitals Board, France), the largest public health institution in Europe, when preparing articles for biomedical journals. The survey also aimed to assess researchers’ satisfaction and perceived needs. Methods A 39-item electronic questionnaire based on qualitative interviews was addressed by e-mail to all researchers registered in the AP-HP SIGAPS (Système d’Interrogation, de Gestion et d’Analyse des Publications Scientifiques) bibliometric database. Results Between 28 May and 15 June 2015, 7766 researchers should have received and read the e-mail, and 1191 anonymously completed the questionnaire (<45 years of age: 63%; women: 55%; physician: 81%; with PhD or Habilitation à Diriger des recherches––accreditation to direct research––: 45%). 94% of respondents had published at least one article in the previous 2 years. 76% of respondents felt they were not publishing enough, mainly because of lack of time to write (79%) or submit (27%), limited skills in English (40%) or in writing (32%), and difficulty in starting writing (35%). 87% of respondents would accept technical support, especially in English reediting (79%), critical reediting (63%), formatting (52%), and/or writing (41%), to save time (92%) and increase high-impact-factor journal submission and acceptance (75%). 79% of respondents would appreciate funding support for their future publications, for English reediting (56%), medical writing (21%), or publication (38%) fees. They considered that this funding support could be covered by AP-HP (73%) and/or by the added financial value obtained by their department from previous publications (56%). Conclusions The DIAzePAM survey highlights difficulties experienced by researchers preparing articles for biomedical journals, and details room for improvement

Additional file 1: of Barriers to publishing in biomedical journals perceived by a sample of French researchers: results of the DIAzePAM study

English version of the DIAzePAM questionnaire. English version of list of items analyzed in the present article. (PDF 169 kb

Identification des végétaux où des structures intéréssantes sont présentes

Atelier de Réflexion Prospective VegAInternational audienc

Identification des végétaux où des structures intéréssantes sont présentes

Atelier de Réflexion Prospective VegAInternational audienc