Gamba G

Language: Spanish
References: 6
Page: 420-435
PDF size: 240.68 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Background. There is no data about the performance of scientific researchers in biomedicine in our environment that can be use by individual subjects to compare their execution with their pairs. Material and methods. Using the Scopus browser the following data from 115 scientific researchers in biomedicine were obtained: actual institution, number of articles published, place on each article within the author list as first, last or unique author, total number of citations, percentage of citations due to the most cited paper, and h-index. Results were analyzed with descriptive statistics and simple lineal regressions. Results. Most of scientific researches in the sample are from the National Institutes of the Health Ministry or some of the research institutes or faculties at the Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. Total number of publications was ‹ 50 in 26%, from 50 to 100 in 36.5%, from 101 to 150 in 18.2%, from 151 to 200 in 9.5%, and more than 200 papers in 9.5%. The researcher was considered to be the main author, by being the first, the last or the unique author, from the 22 to 91% of the papers, with 75% being main author in more than 50% of the manuscripts. Total citations varied from 240 to 10,866. There is a significant correlation between the number of papers and citations, with R2 of 0.46. In the most cited paper, the researchers were considered the main author in 43%. The h-index varied from 7 to 57. Eight researchers had h-index of less than 10. Most are between 11 and 20, 25% are between 21 and 0 and only 10.4% had an h-index of more than 30. There is a significant correlation between number of published papers and h-index, with R2 of 0.57. Conclusions. This work provides an analysis of scientific publications in a sample of 115 scientific researchers in biomedicine in Mexico City, which can be used to compare the productivity of individual subjects with their pairs.

REFERENCES

1. 1 Siegel R, Naishadham D, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2013. CA: Cancer J Clin 2013; 63(1): 11-30.

2. Xu B, English JM, Wilsbacher JL, Stippec S, Goldsmith EJ, Cobb MH. WNK1, a novel mammalian serine/threonine protein kinase lacking the catalytic lysine in subdomain II. J Biol Chem 2000; 275(22): 16795-801.

3. Wilson FH, Disse-Nicodeme S, Choate KA, Ishikawa K, Nelson- Williams C, Desitter I, Gunel M, et al. Human hypertension caused by mutations in WNK kinases. Science 2001; 293(5532): 1107-12.

4. Alberts B. Impact factor distortions. Science 2013; 340(6134): 787.

5. Lipsky PE. The lack of impact of the ‘impact factor’ in clinical medicine. Nature Clin Preact Rheum 2007; 3(4): 189.

6. Hirsch JE. An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. Proc Nat Acad Sci USA 2005; 102(46): 16569-72.