Dataset Information

Orthodontic research output from iran in international and national journals.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE: The number of scientific papers is a conventional metric to measure a country's research performance in a particular area. The aim of this survey was to demonstrate statistical information about orthodontic research published in international and national journals. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Pubmed as an international and IranMedex and SID as national databases were searched between1997 and 2012. The keyword searching method was used in English and Persian. Abstracts were reviewed and unrelated articles were omitted. Data were obtained and transferred to Microsoft Excel to survey the scintometric indicators. RESULTS: According to the defined criteria, a total of 733 papers were found showing a considerable increase. Five hundred papers (68.2%) were published in domestic journals, and 233 (31.8%) were published in PubMed indexed journals. Most of the orthodontic articles originated from Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences (22.9%). The Journal of Dental School, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences published most of the national papers (27.8%) and the Australian Orthodontic Journal published the majority of international papers (9.9%) In terms of study design, 52.5% of the articles were observational and 39.4% were interventional. CONCLUSION: Orthodontic research production in Iran has made significant strides in the recent years and researchers should focus on the quality of the study in this field in order to apply research production in evidence base dentistry.

SUBMITTER: Badri S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4037268 | biostudies-other | 2014 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Orthodontic research output from iran in international and national journals.

Badri Samareh S Akhoundi Mohammad Sadegh Ahmad MS Fard Mohammad JavadKharrazi MJ Momeni Nafiseh N Hedayati Zohreh Z Vakili Vajihe V

Journal of dentistry (Tehran, Iran) 20140131 1

<h4>Objective</h4>The number of scientific papers is a conventional metric to measure a country's research performance in a particular area. The aim of this survey was to demonstrate statistical information about orthodontic research published in international and national journals.<h4>Materials and methods</h4>Pubmed as an international and IranMedex and SID as national databases were searched between1997 and 2012. The keyword searching method was used in English and Persian. Abstracts were rev ...[more]

PMID: 24910678

Similar Datasets

Project description:Purpose: Research output of once-leading countries in surgical journals is decreasing despite an overall increase of scientific publications by 8% per year. We aimed to assess research outputs of German, Dutch, and Israeli pediatric surgeons in dedicated pediatric surgical journals in order to get insight into trends in pediatric surgical research.Methods: We collected bibliographic information on all original articles in the Journal of Pediatric Surgery, European Journal of Pediatric Surgery, and Pediatric Surgery International in 1985–1988, 2000–2003, and 2015–2018 that had a German, Dutch or Israeli last author from a department of pediatric surgery. Citation counts were obtained from the Web of Science.Results: Research output of German pediatric surgery decreased from 19 manuscripts in 1988 (0.1/surgeon/year) to eight manuscripts in 2017 (0.02/surgeon/year), whereas those of the Netherlands increased from two manuscripts in 1985 (0.08/surgeon/year) to 12 manuscripts in 2016 (0.3/surgeon/year). The declining German research output negatively correlated with increasing numbers of specialist pediatric surgeons for total (? = ?0.54; P = 0.0156) and manuscripts per surgeon (? = ?0.79; P = 0.0001), resulting in a negative trend over time (?2 = 11.845, P = 0.0006). Analyses of citation patterns revealed that manuscripts by Dutch pediatric surgeons and those published in the Journal of Pediatric Surgery had higher absolute citation counts than the reference category of a German manuscript in the European Journal of Pediatric Surgery. Age-corrected citation rates resembled this result by increasing from 2000 to 2003 (x˜ = 0.799, range: 0–3.368) to 2015–2018 (x˜ = 2, range: 0–5) (P = 0.035) for the Netherlands. Assessment of manuscript types revealed that the proportion of prospective studies increased in the German sample (?2 = 5.05, P = 0.0246), but remained the lowest among the comparators. Surprisingly, the proportion of non-clinical manuscripts from Germany also increased over time (?2 = 4.001, P = 0.0455), whereas it remained constant in both the Netherlands and Israel.Conclusion: German pediatric surgical research output decreased in the last thirty years based on the sample of dedicated pediatric surgical journals, while Dutch productivity increased. Citation rates—as a measure of scientific impact—were associated and increased with Dutch manuscripts. The involved factors remain to be determined and whether this represents a shift toward other journals or mirrors a general development.

Project description:BackgroundIn the past few decades Arab countries had witnessed several intra-regional conflicts and civil wars that led to the creation of millions of refugees and migrants. Assessment of research activity is an indicator of national and international efforts to improve the health of those millions of war victims. Therefore, the aim of this study was to analyze published literature in international Arab migrants.MethodsLiterature in international Arab migrants published during the past three decades (1988-2017) was retrieved using Scopus database. A bibliometric analysis methodology was implemented on the retrieved data. Author keywords were mapped using VOSviewer program.ResultsIn total, 1186 documents were retrieved. More than half (658; 55.5%) were published in the last five years (2013-2017). Retrieved documents received an average of 8.6 citations per document and an h-index of 45. The most frequently encountered author keywords were refugees and mental health-related terms. Three countries in the Middle East; Jordan, Lebanon, and Turkey, were among the most active countries. In total, 765 (63.7%) documents were about refugees, 421 (35.5%) were about migrant workers, 30 (2.5%) were about asylum seekers, and 7 (0.6%) were about trafficked and smuggled people. When data were analyzed for the nationality of migrants being investigated, 288 (24.3%) documents were about Syrians, 214 (18.0%) were about Somali, 222 (18.7%) were about Arab or Middle Eastern in general, and 147 (12.4%) were about Palestinians. The American University of Beirut ranked first with 45 (2.4%) publications. The most active journal in publishing research in this field was Journal of Immigrant and Minority Health (35; 3.0%) followed by Journal of Refugee Studies (23, 1.9%), The Lancet (19, 1.6%) and BMC Public Health (16, 1.3%). Publications from Jordan and Lebanon had the highest percentage of international research collaboration.ConclusionResearch in international Arab migrants showed a dramatic increase in the last few years mostly due to the Syrian war. Both mental health and Syrian refugees dominated the literature of international Arab migrants. Research in infectious diseases was relatively low. Research on non-refugee migrants such as workers, trafficked victims, and asylum seekers was also relatively low.

Project description:BackgroundIn the present COVID-19 crisis, one of the greatest challenges for research funding at both the international and national level is selecting the best research topic to achieve efficiency and equity in health research and to address the knowledge gap urgently raised due to the event. Despite international recommendations, countries should consider their context-specific situation and define local research priorities. We aimed to exercise a priority-setting activity to identify the knowledge gaps and suggest research priorities in response to the COVID-19 epidemic in Iran.MethodsFirst, we tried to identify the contextual knowledge gaps based on an online survey, performing key informant interviews (i.e. health professionals, policy-makers and managers) and media analysis. We also performed a literature review and considered international research priorities for COVID-19. Subsequently, we prepared a list of research questions and challenges to respond to the COVID-19 crisis in Iran using a systems approach. Then we mapped approved COVID-19 research projects in the country to research questions. Finally, we compared the identified research questions (not challenges) with the prioritized research from international organizations and then prioritized them for Iran.ResultsWe found risk factors and epidemiological dissemination patterns of the virus and its consequences in an epidemiology domain, implementation of clinical and hygiene in a clinical management domain, genetic studies for targeting prevention and treatment in a candidate treatment and vaccine research and development (R&D) knowledge domain, examination of the manifestations of ethics in society instead of ethics in research in an ethics domain, "care, access and health system" and "public health and participation in response to public health and clinical research" as two sub-domains of a social sciences domain, and finally, no new questions in either the virology, transmission, diagnosis or animal and environmental domain.ConclusionsIn the event of global health crises like COVID-19, prioritization of research questions can be done globally, but some of the research priorities are context-specific and may vary by regional needs. To better manage research resources, researchers must respond to the challenges faced in each country based on its political, economic, social and cultural characteristics, and to make evidence-informed decisions, global knowledge gaps must be customized in each country.

Project description:PurposeThere is a general inquisition regarding the monetary value of a research output, as a substantial amount of funding in modern academia is essentially awarded to good research presented in the form of journal articles, conferences papers, performances, compositions, exhibitions, books and book chapters etc., which, eventually leads to another question if the value varies across different disciplines. Answers to these questions will not only assist academics and researchers, but will also help higher education institutions (HEIs) make informed decisions in their administrative and research policies.Design and methodologyTo examine both the questions, we applied the United Kingdom's recently concluded national research assessment exercise known as the Research Excellence Framework (REF) 2014 as a case study. All the data for this study is sourced from the openly available publications which arose from the digital repositories of REF's results and HEFCE's funding allocations.FindingsA world leading output earns between £7504 and £14,639 per year within the REF cycle, whereas an internationally excellent output earns between £1876 and £3659, varying according to their area of research. Secondly, an investigation into the impact rating of 25315 journal articles submitted in five areas of research by UK HEIs and their awarded funding revealed a linear relationship between the percentage of quartile-one journal publications and percentage of 4* outputs in Clinical Medicine, Physics and Psychology/Psychiatry/Neuroscience UoAs, and no relationship was found in the Classics and Anthropology/Development Studies UoAs, due to the fact that most publications in the latter two disciplines are not journal articles.Practical implicationsThe findings provide an indication of the monetary value of a research output, from the perspectives of government funding for research, and also what makes a good output, i.e. whether a relationship exists between good quality output and the source of its publication. The findings may also influence future REF submission strategies in HEIs and ascertain that the impact rating of the journals is not necessarily a reflection of the quality of research in every discipline, and this may have a significant influence on the future of scholarly communications in general.OriginalityAccording to the author's knowledge, this is the first time an investigation has estimated the monetary value of a good research output.

Project description:The National Institute of Academic Anaesthesia (NIAA) was founded in 2008 to lead a UK strategy for developing academic anaesthesia. We aimed to assess the distribution of applications and quantify the academic returns of NIAA-supported research grants, as this has hitherto not been analysed. We sought data on the baseline characteristics of all grant applicants and recipients. Every grant recipient from 2008 to 2015 was contacted to ascertain the status of their supported research projects. We also examined Google Scholar, Scopus® database and InCites Journal Citation Reports for citation, author and journal metrics, respectively. In total, 495 research project applications were made, with 150 grants being awarded. Data on 121 out of 150 (80.7%) grant awards, accounting for £3.5 million, were collected, of which 91 completed studies resulted in 140 publications and 2759 citations. The median (IQR [range]) time to first or only publication was 3 (2-4 [0-9]) years. The overall cost per publication was £14,970 (£7457-£24,998 [£2212-£73,755]) and the cost per citation was £1515 (£323-£3785 [£70-£36,182]), with 1 (0-2 [0-8]) publication and 4 (0-25 [0-265]) citations resulting per grant. The impact factor of journals in which publications arose was 4.7 (2.5-6.2 [0-47.8]), with the highest impact arising from clinical and basic science studies, particularly in the fields of pain and peri-operative medicine. Grants were most frequently awarded to clinical and basic science categories of study, but in terms of specialty, critical care medicine and peri-operative medicine received the greatest number of grants. Superficially, there seemed a geographical disparity, with 123 (82%) grants being awarded to researchers in England, London receiving 48 (32%) of these. However, this was in proportion to the number of grant applications received by country or city of application, such that there was no significant difference in overall success rates. There was no significant difference in productivity in terms of publications and citations from grants awarded to each city. The 150 grants were awarded to 107 recipients (identified as the most senior applicant for each grant), 27 of whom received ≥ two grants. Recipients had a median career total of 21 (8-76 [0-254]) publications and 302 (44-1320 [0-8167]) citations, with an h-index of 8 (3-22 [0-54]). We conclude that a key determinant of grant success is simply applying. This is the first study to report the distribution and scholarly output of individual anaesthesia research grants, particularly from a collaborative body such as the NIAA, and can be used as a benchmark to further develop academic anaesthesia in the UK and beyond.

Dataset Information

Orthodontic research output from iran in international and national journals.

Publications

Orthodontic research output from iran in international and national journals.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets