Productividad de la investigación en los diferentes países

Comparison between two five year periods (1998/2002 and 2003/2007) on the production, impact and co-authorship of publications on tobacco and smoking by Spanish authors using the Science Citation Index

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to compare the production, impact and co-authorship of publications by Spanish authors on smoking and tobacco between two time periods (1998/2002 vs 2003/2007) using Science Citation Index (SCI).

METHODS

The literature search was performed in the SCI-Expanded on 20 November 2008. All types of documents by Spanish authors were selected. The search was restricted to the title, and the key words used were "smok*" and "tobac*". The statistical analysis was descriptive (95% CI).

RESULTS

A total of 588 documents were obtained, with 399 (67.85%) original papers, 54 (9.18%) letters to the editor, and 35 (5.95%) editorials. Productivity increased between the 98/02 to 03/07 periods: 234 (39.8%) documents versus 354 (60.2%). We have found significant differences between the two periods (98/02 vs 03/07) in total mean annual documents (47 ± 8 vs 71 ± 16 [p=0.024]) and total mean annual original papers (34 ± 6 vs 46 ± 9 [p=0.041]). The mean number of citations per document was 14.1 ± 2.1 for 98/02 period and 5.6 ± 2.5 for 03/07 period (p=0.003). The co-authorship annual index had increased; with a mean of 6.77 signatures/document for 98/02 period to a mean of 6.87 for 03/07 period. Authors and institution networks collaborations had increased between the two periods.

CONCLUSIONS

Spanish production and co-authorship of documents on smoking and tobacco have increased between these two periods. The earlier period documents received more citations.

[The long pilgrimage of Spanish biomedical journals toward excellence. Who helps? Quality, impact and research merit]

Biomedical journals must adhere to strict standards of editorial quality. In a globalized academic scenario, biomedical journals must compete firstly to publish the most relevant original research and secondly to obtain the broadest possible visibility and the widest dissemination of their scientific contents. The cornerstone of the scientific process is still the peer-review system but additional quality criteria should be met. Recently access to medical information has been revolutionized by electronic editions. Bibliometric databases such as MEDLINE, the ISI Web of Science and Scopus offer comprehensive online information on medical literature. Classically, the prestige of biomedical journals has been measured by their impact factor but, recently, other indicators such as SCImago SJR or the Eigenfactor are emerging as alternative indices of a journal's quality. Assessing the scholarly impact of research and the merits of individual scientists remains a major challenge. Allocation of authorship credit also remains controversial. Furthermore, in our Kafkaesque world, we prefer to count rather than read the articles we judge. Quantitative publication metrics (research output) and citations analyses (scientific influence) are key determinants of the scientific success of individual investigators. However, academia is embracing new objective indicators (such as the "h" index) to evaluate scholarly merit. The present review discusses some editorial issues affecting biomedical journals, currently available bibliometric databases, bibliometric indices of journal quality and, finally, indicators of research performance and scientific success.