medigraphic.com
ISSN 0016-3813 (Print)

2019, Number 3

<< Back Next >>

Gac Med Mex 2019; 155 (3)

Análisis bibliométrico de las revistas médicas del Sistema de Clasificación de Revistas Mexicanas de Ciencia y Tecnología

Barajas-Ochoa A, Barajas-Ochoa Z, Ramos-Remus C

Language: Spanish
References: 20
Page: 258-265
PDF size: 176.88 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Introduction: CONACYT’s Mexican Science and Technology Journals Classification System (SCRMCYT) includes the area of medicine and health sciences (M&HS). Objective: A bibliometric analysis of M&HS journals listed in SCRMCYT in 2018 was performed. Method: Twelve characteristics related to indexation in the Web of Science Core Collection (WoSCC), Scopus, and PubMed databases were analyzed. Indexed journals were analyzed on whether they had recent indexed publications (2017 and 2018). Indexed journals' 50 most-cited articles in WoSCC and Scopus were analyzed. Results: Of the 35 M&HS journals included in the 2018 SCRMCYT list, 31 (89 %) were indexed in Scopus (22 with indexed publications in 2017; 18 in 2018), 17 (49 %) in PubMed (10 with indexed publications in 2017 and 2018), and 12 (34 %) in WoSCC (12 with indexed publications in 2017; 8 in 2018). The 50 most-cited articles had been published only in 4 journals indexed in WoSCC and 5 in Scopus; 60 % were review articles. Conclusions: Approximately half the 2018 SCRMCYT M&HS journals lack publications indexed in 2018; this suggests that national and international relevance of these journals can be improved.


REFERENCES

  1. Sistema de Clasificación de Revistas Mexicanas de Ciencia y Tecnología [sitio web]. México: Conacyt; 2018.

  2. Bibliometrics and Citation Analysis [sitio web]. EE. UU.: University of Wisconsin-Madison Libraries; 2018.

  3. Ellegaard O, Wallin JA. The bibliometric analysis of scholarly production: how great is the impact? Scientometrics. 2015;105:1809-1831.

  4. Chang MT, Schwam ZG, Schutt CA, Kamen EM, Paskhover B. The 50 most cited articles in facial plastic surgery. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2017; 41:1202-1207.

  5. Tang X, Gong W, Yuan F, Li R, Han X, Huang S, et al. Top-cited articles in digestive system disease from 1950 to 2013. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2016;31:107-111.

  6. Tao T, Zhao X, Lou J, Bo L, Wang F, Li J, et al. The top cited clinical research articles on sepsis: a bibliometric analysis. Crit Care. 2012; 16:R110.

  7. Gu W, Yuan Y, Yang H, Qi G, Jin X, Yan J. A bibliometric analysis of the 100 most influential papers on COPD. Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis. 2015;10:667-676.

  8. Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología [sitio web]. Sistema de Clasificación de Revistas Mexicanas de Ciencia y Tecnología Revistas de Medicina y Ciencias de la Salud. México: Conacyt; 2018.

  9. Consorcio Nacional de Recursos de Información Científica y Tecnológica [sitio web]. Listado de revistas del Sistema de Clasificación de Revistas Mexicanas de Ciencia y Tecnología. México: Conacyt; 2018.

  10. Alanis AJ. Resistance to antibiotics: are we in the post-antibiotic era? Arch Med Res. 2005;36:697-705.

  11. Gluber DJ. The global emergence/resurgence of arboviral diseases as public health problems. Arch Med Res. 2002;33:330-342.

  12. Wiener N, Rosenblueth A. The mathematical formulation of the problem of conduction of impulses in a network of connected excitable elements, specifically in cardiac muscle. Arch Inst Cardiol Mex. 1946; 16:205-265.

  13. Archambault É, Campbell D, Gingras Y, Lariviere V. Comparing bibliometric statistics obtained from the Web of Science and Scopus. J Assoc Inf Sci Technol. 2009;60:1320-1326.

  14. Mongeon P, Paul-Hus A. The journal coverage of Web of Science and Scopus: a comparative analysis. Scientometrics. 2016;106:213-228.

  15. Ellegaard O, Wallin JA. The bibliometric analysis of scholarly production: how great is the impact? Scientometrics. 2015;105:1809-1831.

  16. Kokol P, Vošner HB. Discrepancies among Scopus, Web of Science, and PubMed coverage of funding information in medical journal articles. J Med Libr Assoc. 2018;106:81-86.

  17. Falagas ME, Pitsouni EI, Malietzis GA, Pappas G. Comparison of Pub- Med, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar: strengths and weaknesses. FASEB J. 2008;22:338-42.

  18. Akhigbe RE. Scientific journals: indexation and impact factor. Lung India. 2012;29:300-301.

  19. Michigan State University? [sitio web]. So which is better: PubMed, Web of Science, or Google Scholar. EE. UU.: Michigan State University; 2019.

  20. Clarivate Analytics [sitio web]. Web of Science Core Collection. EE. UU.: Clarivate Analytics; 2019.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com