The Canadian contribution to the otolaryngology literature: a five year bibliometric analysis

Journal of Otolaryngology-Head & Neck Surgery

Desmond A Nunez¹  Paul White²  Elaheh Akbari¹  June RJ Lin¹  Joshua Gurberg¹ 

[1]Division of Otolaryngology, Diamond Health Care Centre, The University of British Columbia, 4th Floor, 2775 Laurel Street, Vancouver V5Z 1 M9BC, Canada

[2]Department of Engineering Design and Mathematics, The University of the West of England, Bristol, UK

关键词: Canada;    Canadian;    Nationality;    Productivity;    Research;    Otolaryngology;    Bibliometry;   

Others  :  1133160
DOI  :  10.1186/s40463-014-0047-1

 received in 2014-06-13, accepted in 2014-11-03,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Objectives

To assess the 2008–2012 Canadian contribution to the Otolaryngology literature.

Methods

All articles published from January 2008 - December 2012 in 5 Otolaryngology journals were reviewed. Nationality, number of authors, and study type were extracted. The output, number of authors, and study type of Canadian papers were compared to International papers using Mantel-Haenszel Common Odds Ratio Estimate, Pearson’s Chi-Squared or Fishers exact tests.

Results

4519 papers were analyzed. There was a statistically significant decrease in Canadian authored papers from 12.8% in 2008–9 to 10.2% in 2011–12 (Fishers exact, p = .01). Multi-authorship increased in Canadian papers (χ2, p = .01). The types of studies published by Canadian Otolaryngologists did not change over the study period.

Conclusions

Canadian authored papers in a sample of Otolaryngology journals decreased from 2008 to 2012. The increase in multiauthorship, whilst indicating increasing collaboration, suggests reduced per capita publication productivity. These findings warrant further study.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Gurberg et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

Figure 4.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Cimmino MA, Maio T, Ugolini D, Borasi F, Mela GS: Trends in otolaryngology research during the period 1995–2000: a bibliometric approach. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2005, 132:295-302.
• [2]Kulkarni K, Kulkarni M, Ramsden J, Silva P: Are UK otorhinolaryngologists maintaining their research output? J Laryngol Otology 2013, 127:556-561.
• [3]Sandhu GS, Wright A: Publishing trends in otorhinolaryngology from January 1997 to December 1999 in the UK. Clin Otolaryngol Allied Sci 2001, 26:249-252.
• [4]Scarney A, Nunez DA, Nair SB, Hussain SS: Trends in the UK contribution to the otolaryngological literature. Clin Otolaryngol Allied Sci 1999, 24:26-30.
• [5]Svider PF, Mauro KM, Sanghvi S, Setzen M, Baredes S, Eloy JA: Is NIH funding predictive of greater research productivity and impact among academic otolaryngologists? Laryngoscope 2013, 123:118-122.
• [6][http://www.caper.ca/~assets/documents/pdf_2012-13_CAPER_Census.pdf] webcite Canadian Post-M.D. Education Registry 2013. 2012-2013 Annual Census of Post-M.D. Trainees. Retrieved from
• [7][https://www.afmc.ca/pdf/CMES2013-2014-06-04-reduced.pdf] webcite The Association of Faculties of Medicine of Canada. (2013). Canadian Medical Education Statistics 2013. Retrieved from
• [8]Namdari S, Baldwin KD, Weinraub B, Mehta S: Changes in the number of resident publications after inception of the 80-hour work week. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2010, 468:2278-2283.