Dataset Information

Countries' Biomedical Publications and Attraction Scores. A PubMed-based assessment.

ABSTRACT: Studying publication volumes at the country level is key to understanding and improving a country's research system. PubMed is a public search engine of publications in all life sciences areas. Here, we show how this search engine can be used to assess the outputs of life science-related research by country. We have measured the numbers of publications during different time periods based on the country of affiliation of the first authors. Moreover, we have designed scores, which we have named Attraction Scores, to appraise the relative focus either toward particular types of studies, such as clinical trials or reviews, or toward specific research areas, such as public health and pharmacogenomics, or toward specific topics, for instance embryonic stem cells; we have also investigated a possible use of these Attraction Scores in connection with regulatory policies. We have weighed the statistics against general indicators such as country populations and gross domestic products (GDP). During the 5-year period 2008-2012, the United States was the country with the highest number of publications and Denmark the one with the highest number of publications per capita. Among the 40 countries with the highest GDPs, Israel had the highest publications-to-GDP ratio. Among the 20 countries with the most publications, Japan had the highest Attraction Score for induced pluripotent stem (iPS) cells and Italy the highest proportion of review publications. More than 50% of publications in English were from countries in which English is not the primary language. We show an assorted and extensive collection of rankings and charts that will inform scholars and policymakers in studying and improving the research systems both at the national and international level.

SUBMITTER: Xu Q

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4566288 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:PurposeArthroscopy is an established sub-speciality in orthopaedics. With advancing technology, instrumentation and implants, this sub-speciality has seen an explosion of knowledge and techniques since its inception. The indications for arthroscopic management are increasing and, hence, the number of publications on this topic. There has been no study looking into the bibliometrics of all publications within this speciality. The purpose of this study was to look into the trends of published articles on arthroscopy from PubMed and Scopus including studying their citation numbers.Materials and methodsWe set out to look into the number of publications from the earliest up to 2019 and their trends and citation numbers in PubMed and Scopus. We also performed a VOS viewer analysis of MeSH terms and titles of publications to look at research trends over time.ResultsThere were 41,149 articles published on PubMed since 1955 and 50,373 articles on Scopus since 1939. The total number of citations were 912,630 for 38,338 cited articles. With 2864 publications in 2019, there was a more than four-fold increase from the number published in the year 2000. The knee joint was the most frequently published joint with an increasing trend in hip arthroscopy. Cohort studies were the most common with 13,180 articles followed by Reviews with 5746 articles. The top 10 authors, universities and journals were listed along with citation numbers. We analysed the trends of publications for each joint and compared them. Yearly citations have progressively increased to reach a maximum of 45,407 in 2007. Arthroscopy was the most published and cited journal on this topic. The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (JBJS) (Am) had the most citations per article. The USA and Hospital for Special Surgery, New York were the most published country and university, respectively.ConclusionsThere is a healthy growth of publications on the subject of arthroscopy with a steep increase in the number of publications and citations in recent years. VOS Viewer analysis showed an evolution of research and practice in the field of arthroscopy. Recommendations were made for databases and search engines to improve on the search and analysis of such studies in the future.Level of evidence4.

Project description:BackgroundJupyter notebooks facilitate the bundling of executable code with its documentation and output in one interactive environment, and they represent a popular mechanism to document and share computational workflows, including for research publications. The reproducibility of computational aspects of research is a key component of scientific reproducibility but has not yet been assessed at scale for Jupyter notebooks associated with biomedical publications.ApproachWe address computational reproducibility at 2 levels: (i) using fully automated workflows, we analyzed the computational reproducibility of Jupyter notebooks associated with publications indexed in the biomedical literature repository PubMed Central. We identified such notebooks by mining the article's full text, trying to locate them on GitHub, and attempting to rerun them in an environment as close to the original as possible. We documented reproduction success and exceptions and explored relationships between notebook reproducibility and variables related to the notebooks or publications. (ii) This study represents a reproducibility attempt in and of itself, using essentially the same methodology twice on PubMed Central over the course of 2 years, during which the corpus of Jupyter notebooks from articles indexed in PubMed Central has grown in a highly dynamic fashion.ResultsOut of 27,271 Jupyter notebooks from 2,660 GitHub repositories associated with 3,467 publications, 22,578 notebooks were written in Python, including 15,817 that had their dependencies declared in standard requirement files and that we attempted to rerun automatically. For 10,388 of these, all declared dependencies could be installed successfully, and we reran them to assess reproducibility. Of these, 1,203 notebooks ran through without any errors, including 879 that produced results identical to those reported in the original notebook and 324 for which our results differed from the originally reported ones. Running the other notebooks resulted in exceptions.ConclusionsWe zoom in on common problems and practices, highlight trends, and discuss potential improvements to Jupyter-related workflows associated with biomedical publications.

Project description:BackgroundWe investigate the accuracy of different similarity approaches for clustering over two million biomedical documents. Clustering large sets of text documents is important for a variety of information needs and applications such as collection management and navigation, summary and analysis. The few comparisons of clustering results from different similarity approaches have focused on small literature sets and have given conflicting results. Our study was designed to seek a robust answer to the question of which similarity approach would generate the most coherent clusters of a biomedical literature set of over two million documents.MethodologyWe used a corpus of 2.15 million recent (2004-2008) records from MEDLINE, and generated nine different document-document similarity matrices from information extracted from their bibliographic records, including titles, abstracts and subject headings. The nine approaches were comprised of five different analytical techniques with two data sources. The five analytical techniques are cosine similarity using term frequency-inverse document frequency vectors (tf-idf cosine), latent semantic analysis (LSA), topic modeling, and two Poisson-based language models--BM25 and PMRA (PubMed Related Articles). The two data sources were a) MeSH subject headings, and b) words from titles and abstracts. Each similarity matrix was filtered to keep the top-n highest similarities per document and then clustered using a combination of graph layout and average-link clustering. Cluster results from the nine similarity approaches were compared using (1) within-cluster textual coherence based on the Jensen-Shannon divergence, and (2) two concentration measures based on grant-to-article linkages indexed in MEDLINE.ConclusionsPubMed's own related article approach (PMRA) generated the most coherent and most concentrated cluster solution of the nine text-based similarity approaches tested, followed closely by the BM25 approach using titles and abstracts. Approaches using only MeSH subject headings were not competitive with those based on titles and abstracts.

Dataset Information

Countries' Biomedical Publications and Attraction Scores. A PubMed-based assessment.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets