Bibliometric analysis of global trends for research productivity in microbiology
- 15 April 2005
- journal article
- Published by Springer Nature in European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases
- Vol. 24 (5), 342-346
- https://doi.org/10.1007/s10096-005-1306-x
Abstract
In order to expand upon the limited literature estimating the quantity and quality of worldwide research production in the field of microbiology, a bibliometric analysis was conducted for the period 1995–2003 using the PubMed and Journal Citation Reports databases. By searching the “microbiology” category of the Journal Citation Reports database, a total of 74 journals were identified that were also included in PubMed. From these journals, a total of 89,527 articles were identified for analysis, and data on the country in which the research originated was available for 88,456 (98.8%) of them. The individual countries were separated into nine world regions. In terms of research production for the period studied, Western Europe exceeded all other world regions, with the USA ranking second. The mean impact factor was highest for the USA at 3.4, while it was 2.8 for Western Europe and 2.4 for the rest of the world combined. The research productivity per unit of expenditure for research and development was higher for Canada and Western Europe than for the USA. The three regions in which research productivity increased the most were Asia, Latin America, and Eastern Europe.This publication has 11 references indexed in Scilit:
- Publication of European Union Research on Infectious Diseases (1991?2001): A Bibliometric EvaluationEuropean Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases, 2004
- Impact factors: facts and mythsEuropean Radiology, 2002
- Medizinisch-biowissenschaftliche Datenbanken und der Impact-FaktorDeutsche Medizinische Wochenschrift (1946), 2000
- Retracted: Changes in the impact factor of anesthesia/critical care journals within the past 10 yearsActa Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica, 2000
- [The impact factor: a factor of impact or the impact of a (sole) factor? The limits of a bibliometric indicator as a candidate for an instrument to evaluate scientific production].1999
- Alternative to the Science Citation Index Impact Factor as an Assessment of Emergency Medicine's Scientific ContributionsAnnals of Emergency Medicine, 1998
- Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating researchBMJ, 1997
- The rationing debate: Defining a package of healthcare services the NHS is responsible for The case forBMJ, 1997
- Invited Review Article: Bibliometrics and Evaluation of Research PerformanceAnnals of Medicine, 1990
- Citation Indexes for ScienceScience, 1955