Sri Lanka in global medical research: a scientific analysis of the Sri Lankan research output during 2000-2009

BMC Research Notes

Prasad Katulanda²  Ranil Jayawardena¹  Priyanga Ranasinghe² 

[1]School of Human Movement Studies, Institute of Health and Biomedical Innovation, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, QLD, Australia

[2]Diabetes Research Unit, Department of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Colombo, Colombo, Sri Lanka

关键词: Analysis;    Publication;    Medical research;    Sri Lanka;   

Others  :  1166623
DOI  :  10.1186/1756-0500-5-121

 received in 2011-11-21, accepted in 2012-02-24,  发布年份 2012

【 摘 要 】

Background

Scientific research is an essential component in guiding improvements in health systems. There are no studies examining the Sri Lankan medical research output at international level. The present study evaluated the Sri Lankan research performance in medicine as reflected by the research publications output between years 2000-2009.

Methods

This study was based on Sri Lankan medical research publication data, retrieved from the SciVerse Scopus^® from January 2000 to December 2009. The process of article selection was as follows: Affiliation - 'Sri Lanka' or 'Ceylon', Publication year - 'January 2000 to December 2009' and Subject area - 'Life and Health Sciences'. The articles identified were classified according to disease, medical speciality, institutions, major international collaborators, authors and journals.

Results

Sri Lanka's cumulative medical publications output between years 2000-2009 was 1,740 articles published in 160 different journals. The average annual publication growth rate was 9.1%. Majority of the articles were published in 'International' (n = 950, 54.6%) journals. Most articles were descriptive studies (n = 611, 35.1%), letters (n-345, 19.8%) and case reports (n = 311, 17.9%). The articles were authored by 148 different Sri Lankan authors from 146 different institutions. The three most prolific local institutions were Universities of; Colombo (n = 547), Kelaniya (n = 246) and Peradeniya (n = 222). Eighty four countries were found to have published collaborative papers with Sri Lankan authors during the last decade. UK was the largest collaborating partner (n = 263, 15.1%).

Malaria (n = 75), Diabetes Mellitus (n = 55), Dengue (n = 53), Accidental injuries (n = 42) and Lymphatic filariasis (n = 40) were the major diseases studied. The 1,740 publications were cited 9,708 times, with an average citation of 5.6 per paper. The most cited paper had 203 citations, while there were 597 publications with no citations. The Sri Lankan authors' contribution to the global medical research output during the last decade was only 0.086%.

Conclusion

The Sri Lankan medical research output during the last decade is only a small fraction of the global research output. There it is a necessity to setup an enabling environment for research, with a proper vision, support, funds and training. In addition, collaborations across the region need to be strengthened to face common regional health challenges.

【 授权许可】

   
2012 Ranasinghe et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Department of Census and Statistics-Sri Lanka: [http://www.statistics.gov.lk/Pocket%20Book/index.html] webciteStatistical Pocket Book 2010.
• [2]Country Health Profile: Sri Lanka [Global Health Observatory]
• [3]Epidemiology Unit SriLanka (Ed): Sri Lanka Epidemiological Bulletin: Third Quarter, 2010. Colombo: Ministry of Health Sri Lanka; 2010.
• [4]World Health Organization: The Global Burden of Disease: Update. [http:/ / www.who.int/ healthinfo/ global_burden_disease/ GBD_report_2004update_full.pdf] webciteGeneva; 2004.
• [5]Wasserman D, Cheng Q, Jiang G: Global suicide rates among young people aged 15-19. World Psychiatr 2005, 4(2):114.
• [6]Ministry of Health Care and Nutrition: Medical Institutions and Bed Strength In Sri Lanka: By Hospital Type. 2010.
• [7]Commission on Health Research for Development (Ed): Health research: essential link to equity in development. New York: Oxford University Press; 1990.
• [8]Sri Lanka Department of Health Service (Ed): Annual Health Bulletin Colombo: Ministry of Health; 2002.
• [9]WHO South-East Asia Regional Office: Review of national health research systems: Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Maldives, Nepal, Sri Lanka. In 27th Session of WHO South-East Asia Advisory Committee on Health Research. Dhaka; 2002.
• [10]Ranasinghe P, Perera Y, Abeygunasekera A: The process and costs of publishing medical journals in Sri Lanka: an economic evaluation. BMJ Open 2011, 1(1):e000057.
• [11]Rahman M, Fukui T: Biomedical publication-global profile and trend. Pub Health 2003, 117(4):274-280.
• [12]Hirsch JE: An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2005, 102(46):16569-16572.
• [13]National Research Council Sri Lanka: National Statistics on Research Publications. [http:/ / www.nrc.gov.lk/ index.php?option=com_content&view=a rticle&id = 7&Itemid = 586] webcite
• [14]Cho M, Gastel B, Marusic A, Mandel JS, Morcos A: Publishing in Developing Countries: Problems and Solutions. CBE Views 1999, 22(6):198.
• [15]Scheidt B, Tunger D, Haustein S, Holzke C: Bibliometric Analysis Asia-Pacific Research Area. Bonn: International Bureau of the Federal Ministry of Education and Research; 2011.
• [16]Lee KP, Boyd EA, Holroyd-Leduc JM, Bacchetti P, Bero LA: Predictors of publication: characteristics of submitted manuscripts associated with acceptance at major biomedical journals. Med J Aus 2006, 184(12):621-626.
• [17]Stevens P: Diseases of poverty and the 10/90 gap. In Diseases of poverty and the 10/90 gap. 1st edition. Edited by Network IP. Great Britain: International Policy Network; 2004.
• [18]Filion KB, Pless IB: Factors related to the frequency of citation of epidemiologic publications. Epidemiol Perspect Innov 2008, 5:3. BioMed Central Full Text
• [19]Jacso P: As we may search--Comparison of major features of the Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar citation-based and citation-enhanced databases. Curr Sci 2005, 89(9):1537-1542.
• [20]Falagas ME, Pitsouni EI, Malietzis GA, Pappas G: Comparison of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar: strengths and weaknesses. FASEB J 2008, 22(2):338-342.
• [21]Costas R, Bordons M: The h-index: advantages, limitations and its relation with other bibliometric indicators at the micro level. J Informetr 2007, 1:193-203.