A bibliometric analysis of toxicology research productivity in Middle Eastern Arab countries during a 10-year period (2003–2012)

Health Research Policy and Systems

Rahmat Awang¹  Waleed M Sweileh³  Samah W Al-Jabi²  Sa’ed H Zyoud¹ 

[1] WHO Collaborating Centre for Drug Information, National Poison Centre, Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM), Penang 11800, Malaysia;Department of Clinical and Community Pharmacy, College of Medicine and Health Sciences, An-Najah National University, Nablus 44839, Palestine;Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology, College of Medicine and Health Sciences, An-Najah National University, Nablus 44839, Palestine

关键词: Toxicology;    Scopus;    Middle Eastern Arab;    Impact factor;    Bibliometric;   

Others  :  804914
DOI  :  10.1186/1478-4505-12-4

 received in 2013-12-25, accepted in 2014-01-07,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

Bibliometric studies are increasingly being used for research assessment by involving the application of statistical methods to scientific publications to obtain the bibliographics for each country. The main objective of this study was to analyse the research productivity originating from 13 Middle Eastern Arab (MEA) countries with articles published in toxicology journals.

Methods

Data from January 1, 2003 till December 31, 2012 were searched for documents with specific words in the toxicology field as a “source title” in any one of the 13 MEA countries. Research productivity was evaluated based on a methodology developed and used in other bibliometric studies. Research productivity was adjusted to the national population and nominal gross domestic product (GDP) per capita.

Results

Documents (n = 1,240) were retrieved from 73 international peer-reviewed toxicology journals. The h-index of the retrieved documents was 39. Of the 73 journal titles, 52 (69.9%) have their IF listed in the ISI Journal Citation Reports 2012; 198 documents (16.0%) were published in journals that had no official IF. After adjusting for economy and population power, Egypt (193.6), Palestine (18.1), Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) (13.0), and Jordan (11.5) had the highest research productivity. Countries with large economies, such as the Kuwait, United Arab Emirates (UAE), and Oman, tended to rank relatively low after adjustment of GDP. The total number of citations at the time of data analysis (August 4, 2013) was 10,991, with a median (interquartile range) of 4 (1–11). MEA collaborated more with countries in the MEA regions (16.7%), especially KSA, Egypt, and UAE, followed by Europe (14.4%), especially with the United Kingdom and Germany.

Conclusions

The present data show a promising rise and a good start for toxicology research activity in toxicology journals in the Arab world. Research output is low in some countries, which can be improved by investing in more international and national collaborative research projects in the field of toxicology.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Zyoud et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Wallin JA: Bibliometric methods: pitfalls and possibilities. Basic Clin Pharmacol Toxicol 2005, 97(5):261-275.
• [2]Bissar-Tadmouri N, Tadmouri GO: Bibliometric analyses of biomedical research outputs in Lebanon and the United Arab Emirates (1988–2007). Saudi Med J 2009, 30(1):130-139.
• [3]Lin JY, Rosenblatt D: Shifting patterns of economic growth and rethinking development. J Econ Policy Reform 2012, 15(3):171-194.
• [4]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.
• [5]Sweileh WM, Zyoud SH, Sawalha AF, Abu-Taha A, Hussein A, Al-Jabi SW: Medical and biomedical research productivity from Palestine, 2002–2011. BMC Res Notes 2013, 6:41. BioMed Central Full Text
• [6]Benamer HT, Bredan A, Bakoush O: Scientific publication productivity of Libyan medical schools: a bibliometric study of papers listed in PubMed, 1988–2007. Educ Health (Abingdon) 2009, 22(2):310.
• [7]Diab MM, Taftaf RM, Arabi M: Research productivity in Syria: quantitative and qualitative analysis of current status. Avicenna J Med 2011, 1(1):4-7.
• [8]Tadmouri GO, Tadmouri NB: Biomedical research in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (1982–2000). Saudi Med J 2002, 23(1):20-24.
• [9]Afifi M: Egyptian biomedical publications in PubMed, 1996–2005. J Egypt Public Health Assoc 2007, 82(1–2):91-104.
• [10]Tadmouri GO, Bissar-Tadmouri N: Biomedical publications in an unstable region: the Arab world, 1988–2002. Lancet 2003, 362(9397):1766.
• [11]Miro O, Montori E, Ramos X, Galicia M, Nogue S: Trends in research activity in toxicology and by toxicologists in seven European countries. Toxicol Lett 2009, 189(1):1-4.
• [12]Biglu MH, Omidi Y: Scientific profile of pharmacology, toxicology and pharmaceutics fields in Middle East countries: impacts of Iranian scientists. Inter J Adv Pharmaceut Sci 2010, 1:122-127.
• [13]Delirrad M, Rashidi A, Karimi S: A bibliometric analysis of toxicology publications of Iran and Turkey in ISI web of science. Iranian J Toxicol 2013, 6(19):735-745.
• [14]Jones AW: Impact of JAT publications 1981–2003: the most prolific authors and the most highly cited articles. J Anal Toxicol 2004, 28(7):541-545.
• [15]Bird SB: Journal impact factors, h indices, and citation analyses in toxicology. J Med Toxicol 2008, 4(4):261-274.
• [16]Zyoud SH, Al-Jabi SW, Sweileh WM, Awang R: A bibliometric analysis of research productivity of Malaysian publications in leading toxicology journals during a 10-year period (2003–2012). Hum Exp Toxicol 2013. Article in Press
• [17]De Battisti F, Salini S: Robust analysis of bibliometric data. Stat Methods Appl 2013, 22(2):269-283.
• [18]Milat AJ, Bauman AE, Redman S, Curac N: Public health research outputs from efficacy to dissemination: a bibliometric analysis. BMC Public Health 2011, 11:934. BioMed Central Full Text
• [19]Tan J, Fu H-Z, Ho Y-S: A bibliometric analysis of research on proteomics in science citation index expanded. Scientometrics 2013.
• [20]Tess BH, Furuie SS, Castro RC, BarretoMdo C, Nobre MR: Assessing the scientific research productivity of a Brazilian healthcare institution: a case study at the Heart Institute of Sao Paulo, Brazil. Clinics (Sao Paulo) 2009, 64(6):571-576.
• [21]Kira A, Glover M, Bullen C, Viehbeck S: Publications as an indicator of increased tobacco control research productivity (quantity and quality) in New Zealand. Nicotine Tob Res 2011, 13(6):474-478.
• [22]McDonald PW, Viehbeck S, Robinson SJ, Leatherdale ST, Nykiforuk CI, Jolin MA: Building research capacity for evidence-informed tobacco control in Canada: a case description. Tob Induc Dis 2009, 5(1):12. BioMed Central Full Text
• [23]Scopus: SciVerse Scopus fact sheet. SciVerse® Scopus. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier B.V; [http://info.sciencedirect.com/UserFiles/sciverse_scopus_content_coverage_0.pdf webcite] Accessed on 19 October, 2012
• [24]Burnham JF: Scopus database: a review. Biomed Digit Libr 2006, 3:1. BioMed Central Full Text
• [25]World Bank Group: Countries and Economies 2012. 2013. [http://data.worldbank.org/country webcite] Accessed on 25 November, 2013
• [26]De Granda-Orive JI, Alonso-Arroyo A, Roig-Vazquez F: Which data base should we use for our literature analysis? Web of science versus SCOPUS. Arch Bronconeumol 2011, 47(4):213.
• [27]Tadmouri GO, Bissar-Tadmouri N: A major pitfall in the search strategy on PubMed. Saudi Med J 2004, 25(1):7-10.
• [28]Kulkarni AV, Aziz B, Shams I, Busse JW: Comparisons of citations in web of science, scopus, and google scholar for articles published in general medical journals. JAMA 2009, 302(10):1092-1096.
• [29]Benamer HT, Bakoush O: Arab nations lagging behind other Middle Eastern countries in biomedical research: a comparative study. BMC Med Res Methodol 2009, 9:26. BioMed Central Full Text
• [30]Bredan A, Benamer H, Bakoush O: Visibility of Arab countries in the world biomedical literature. Libyan J Med 2011, 6:6325.
• [31]Shaban SF, Abu-Zidan FM: A quantitative analysis of medical publications from Arab countries. Saudi Med J 2003, 24(3):294-296.
• [32]Cheng T, Zhang G: Worldwide research productivity in the field of rheumatology from 1996 to 2010: a bibliometric analysis. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2013, 52(9):1630-1634.
• [33]Soteriades ES, Falagas ME: A bibliometric analysis in the fields of preventive medicine, occupational and environmental medicine, epidemiology, and public health. BMC Public Health 2006, 6:301. BioMed Central Full Text
• [34]Jang DH, Rusyniak DE: Hard impact: journal impact factor and JMT. J Med Toxicol 2011, 7(4):256-258.
• [35]Ioannidis JP: Concentration of the most-cited papers in the scientific literature: analysis of journal ecosystems. PLoS One 2006, 1:e5.
• [36]Callaham M, Weber E, Wears R: Citation characteristics of research published in emergency medicine versus other scientific journals. Ann Emerg Med 2001, 38(5):513-517.
• [37]World Health Organization: WHO Report on the Global Tobacco Epidemic, 2011: Warning About the Dangers of Tobacco. 2011. [http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2011/9789240687813_eng.pdf webcite] Accessed on 23 September 2013
• [38]Afshari R: What is the “Best Research” for low income countries? Asia Pacific J Med Toxicol 2013, 2(1):1.
• [39]Afshari R: A new horizon to medical toxicology in Asia Pacific region. Asia Pacific J Med Toxicol 2012, 1(1):2.
• [40]Kidd M, Hubbard C: Introducing Journal of Medical Case Reports. J Med Case Rep 2007, 1:1. BioMed Central Full Text
• [41]Jones AW: Impact factors of forensic science and toxicology journals: what do the numbers really mean? Forensic Sci Int 2003, 133(1–2):1-8.
• [42]Dawson AH: Comment on editorial; best research for low income countries. Asia Pacific J Med Toxicol 2013, 2(2):76.
• [43]Figg WD, Dunn L, Liewehr DJ, Steinberg SM, Thurman PW, Barrett JC, Birkinshaw J: Scientific collaboration results in higher citation rates of published articles. Pharmacotherapy 2006, 26(6):759-767.
• [44]Lee S, Bozeman B: The impact of research collaboration on scientific productivity. Social Studies Sci 2005, 35(5):673-702.
• [45]Abramo G, D’Angelo CA, Di Costa F: Research collaboration and productivity: is there correlation? High Educ 2009, 57(2):155-171.
• [46]Hoffman RJ: Knowledge, not funding is the most important research resource. Asia Pacific J Med Toxicol 2013, 2(2):77.