Cuban scientific production in Medicine and Public Health: Scopus 2003-2011

El objetivo de este trabajo fue analizar la evolución del volumen y la visibilidad de la producción científica cubana en Salud Pública y en Medicina para determinar si siguen los mismos patrones de comunicación, y recomendar buenas prácticas de publicación. Se aplicaron indicadores bibliométricos de volumen, visibilidad y colaboración extraídos del portal SCImago Institutions Rankings a partir de datos de Scopus, para el área temática Medicine y la categoría Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health, período 2003-2011. Cuba tiene una posición relativamente alta en los rankings de volumen de producción científica tanto en Medicina como en Salud Pública en los contextos internacionales y regionales, mientras que en impacto está entre los últimos países. La tendencia de la producción es al crecimiento, aunque en Salud Pública es más acelerado. El liderazgo es alto, pero la colaboración internacional está por debajo de lo esperado. La publicación en revistas de alto impacto (primer cuartil) y los artículos en el 10% más citado (excelencia) son escasos. Se concluye que el volumen y el impacto de la publicación no están acorde al potencial científico de salud cubana. Se recomienda incrementar la colaboración científica, la publicación de artículos en revistas de alto impacto, la preparación de los recursos humanos y seguir las recomendaciones internacionales sobre las buenas prácticas de edición y publicación científica.The aim of this study was to analyze the evolution of the quantity and visibility of Cuban scientific production in Public Health and Medicine to determine if they follow the same patterns of scientific communication and the recommended best practices for publication. Bibliometric indicators of quantity, visibility and cooperation were extracted from the SCImago Institutions Rankings website, which is based on Scopus data, in the field of Medicine and category of Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health from 2003 to 2011.Cubahas a relatively high position in the rankings of scientific production in both Medicine and Public Health within the international and regional contexts, but its impact is ranked among the last countries. The production trend of both fields has increased, but public health is increasing faster. Leadership is high, but international collaboration is below expectations. Publication in high impact journals (first quartile) and articles in the set 10% most cited documents (excellence) are scarce. Thus, it may be concluded that the volume and impact of publication are not in accordance with the scientific potential of Cuban health. We recommend increasing scientific cooperation, publishing articles in high impact journals, training human resources and following the international recommendations for good editorial and scientific publication practices

Benchmarking scientific performance by decomposing leadership of Cuban and Latin American institutions in Public Health

This is a post-peer-review, pre-copyedit version of an article published in Scientometrics. The final authenticated version is available online at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1831-z”.Comparative benchmarking with bibliometric indicators can be an aid in decision-making with regard to research management. This study aims to characterize scientific performance in a domain (Public Health) by the institutions of a country (Cuba), taking as reference world output and regional output (other Latin American centers) during the period 2003–2012. A new approach is used here to assess to what extent the leadership of a specific institution can change its citation impact. Cuba was found to have a high level of specialization and scientific leadership that does not match the low international visibility of Cuban institutions. This leading output appears mainly in non-collaborative papers, in national journals; publication in English is very scarce and the rate of international collaboration is very low. The Instituto de Medicina Tropical Pedro Kouri stands out, alone, as a national reference. Meanwhile, at the regional level, Latin American institutions deserving mention for their high autonomy in normalized citation would include Universidad de Buenos Aires (ARG), Universidade Federal de Pelotas (BRA), Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Cientı´ficas y Te´cnicas (ARG), Instituto Oswaldo Cruz (BRA) and the Centro de Pesquisas Rene Rachou (BRA). We identify a crucial aspect that can give rise to misinterpretations of data: a high share of leadership cannot be considered positive for institutions when it is mainly associated with a high proportion of non-collaborative papers and a very low level of performance. Because leadership might be questionable in some cases, we propose future studies to ensure a better interpretation of findings.This work was made possible through financing by the scholarship funds for international mobility between Andalusian and IberoAmerican Universities and the SCImago GroupPeer reviewe