Dataset Information

The Impact of International Research Collaborations on the Citation Metrics and the Scientific Potential of South American Palliative Care Research: Bibliometric Analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Progress in palliative care (PC) requires scientific advances which could potentially be catalyzed by international research collaboration (IRC). It is currently not known how often IRC occurs with PC investigators in South America.

Objectives

To evaluate the percentage of South America journal articles on PC involving IRCs and the impact of these collaborations on the scientific potential the studies and on their citations.

Methods

This was a bibliometric analysis of studies published between January 1, 1998, and December 31, 2017. A search of Pubmed, Embase, Lilacs, and Web of Science (WOS) was performed using the terms "palliative care," "hospice care," "hospices" and "terminal care," combined with the name of South America countries. The scientific potential was assessed by analyzing study design, characteristics of the journal and funding. IRCs were further subdivided in internal (within South America countries) and external (with countries outside South America).

Findings

Of the 641 articles, 117 (18.2%) involved IRCs (internal: 18, 2.8%; external: 110, 17.2%). Articles with IRCs had higher median two-year citations in WOS (2 vs. 1, p < 0.001), Scopus (3 vs. 1, p < 0.001) and Google Scholar (4.5 vs. 2, p < 0.001) compared to articles without IRC. Moreover, they were more often funded (40.7% vs. 9.7%, p < 0.001), published in Pubmed-indexed (76.1% vs. 41.6%; p < 0.001) and in WOS-indexed (70.1% vs. 29.6%; p < 0.001) journals, and with study designs most often classified as clinical trial (5.1% vs. 1.0%; p = 0.002) and cohort (10.3% vs. 2.9%; p < 0.001) compared to articles without IRC.

Conclusions

Studies with international research collaborations, both internal and external to South America, are more frequently cited and have characteristics with greater scientific potential than do studies without international collaborations.

SUBMITTER: de Lima C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8015710 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Scientometrics enables scholars to assess and visualize emerging research trends and hot-spots in the scientific literature from a quantitative standpoint. In the last decades, Africa has nearly doubled its absolute count of scholarly output, even though its share in global knowledge production has dramatically decreased. The still-ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has profoundly impacted the way scholarly research is conducted, published, and disseminated. However, the COVID-19-related research focus, the scientific productivity, and the research collaborative network of African researchers during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic remain to be elucidated. This study aimed to clarify the COVID-19 research patterns among African researchers and estimate the strength of collaborations and partnerships between African researchers and scholars from the rest of the world during the COVID-19 pandemic, collecting data from electronic scholarly databases such as Web of Science (WoS), PubMed/MEDLINE and African Journals OnLine (AJOL), the largest and prominent platform of African-published scholarly journals. We found that COVID-19-related collaboration patterns varied among African regions. For instance, most of the scholarly partnerships occurred with formerly colonial countries (such as European or North-American countries). In other cases, scholarly ties of North African countries were above all with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. In terms of number of publications, South Africa and Egypt were among the most productive countries. Bibliometrics and, in particular, scientometrics can help scholars identify research areas of particular interest, as well as emerging topics, such as the COVID-19 pandemic. With a specific focus on the still-ongoing viral outbreak, they can assist decision- and policy-makers in allocating funding and economic-financial, logistic, organizational, and human resources, based on the specific gaps and needs of a given country or research area.

Project description:BackgroundPublication metrics have been traditionally used to compare research productivity amongst academic faculty. However, traditional bibliometrics lack field-normalization and are often biased towards time-dependent publication factors. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) has developed a new, field-normalized, article-level metric, known as the "relative citation ratio" (RCR), that can be used to make accurate self, departmental, and cross-specialty comparisons of research productivity. This study evaluates the use of the RCR amongst academic orthopedic spine surgery faculty and analyzes physician factors associated with RCR values.MethodsA retrospective data analysis was performed using the iCite database for all fellowship trained orthopedic spine surgery (OSS) faculty associated with Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME)-accredited orthopedic surgery residency program. Mean RCR, weighted RCR, and total publication count were compared by sex, career duration, academic rank, and presence of additional degrees. A value of 1.0 is the NIH-funded field-normalized standard. Student t-tests were used for two-group analyses whereas the analysis of variance tests (ANOVA) was used for between-group comparisons of three or more subgroups. Statistical significance was achieved at P < 0.05.ResultsA total of 502 academic OSS faculty members from 159 institutions were included in the analysis. Overall, OSS faculty were highly productive, with a median RCR of 1.62 (IQR 1.38-2.32) and a median weighted RCR of 68.98 (IQR 21.06-212.70). Advancing academic rank was associated with weighted RCR, career longevity was associated with mean RCR score, and male sex was associated with having increased mean and weighted RCR scores. All subgroups analyzed had an RCR value above 1.0.ConclusionsAcademic orthopedic spine surgery faculty produce impactful research as evidenced by the high median RCR relative to the standard value set by the NIH of 1.0. Our data can be used to evaluate research productivity in the orthopedic spine community.

Project description:IntroductionHealth research is one mechanism to improve population-level health and should generally match the health needs of populations. However, there have been limited data to assess the trends in national-level cardiovascular research output, even as cardiovascular disease [CVD] has become the leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide.Materials and methodsWe performed a time trends analysis of cardiovascular research publications (1999-2008) downloaded from Web of Knowledge using a iteratively-tested cardiovascular bibliometric filter with >90% precision and recall. We evaluated cardiovascular research publications, five-year running actual citation indices [ACIs], and degree of international collaboration measured through the ratio of the fractional count of addresses from one country against all addresses for each publication.Results and discussionGlobal cardiovascular publication volume increased from 40 661 publications in 1999 to 55 284 publications in 2008, which represents a 36% increase. The proportion of cardiovascular publications from high-income, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development [OECD] countries declined from 93% to 84% of the total share over the study period. High-income, OECD countries generally had higher fractional counts, which suggest less international collaboration, than lower income countries from 1999-2008. There was an inverse relationship between cardiovascular publications and age-standardized CVD morbidity and mortality rates, but a direct, curvilinear relationship between cardiovascular publications and Human Development Index from 1999-2008.ConclusionsCardiovascular health research output has increased substantially in the past decade, with a greater share of citations being published from low- and middle-income countries. However, low- and middle-income countries with the higher burdens of cardiovascular disease continue to have lower research output than high-income countries, and thus require targeted research investments to improve cardiovascular health.