Global research productivity of N-acetylcysteine use in paracetamol overdose

2015 ◽  
Vol 34 (10) ◽  
pp. 1006-1016 ◽  
Author(s):  
SH Zyoud ◽  
SW Al-Jabi ◽  
WM Sweileh ◽  
R Awang ◽  
WS Waring
Keyword(s):  
Research Productivity ◽  
Research Output ◽  
The United States ◽  
Scientific Output ◽  
Paracetamol Overdose ◽  
Research Activity ◽  
H Index ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Number Of Citations ◽  
Bibliometric Studies

Purpose: The main objective of this study was to examine the publication pattern of N-acetylcysteine (NAC) research output for paracetamol overdose at the global level. Methods: Data were searched for documents that contained specific words regarding NAC and paracetamol as keywords in the title and/or abstract and/or keywords. Scientific output 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 per capita. Results: The criteria were met by 367 publications from 33 countries. The highest number of articles associated with the use of NAC in paracetamol overdose was from the United States of America (USA; 39.78%), followed by the United Kingdom (UK; 11.99%). After adjusting for economy and population power, USA (2.822), Iran (1.784) and UK (1.125) had the highest research productivity. The total number of citations at the time of data analysis (14 March 2014) was 8785 with an average of 23.9 citations per document and a median (interquartile range) of 6 (1–22). The h-index of the retrieved documents was 48. The highest h-index was 32 for USA, followed by 20 for UK. Furthermore, the highest number of collaborations with international authors for each country was held by USA with 11 countries, followed by Canada with 7 countries. Conclusion: The amount of NAC-based research activity was low in some countries, and more effort is needed to bridge this gap and to promote better evaluation of NAC use worldwide. Our findings demonstrate that NAC use for paracetamol overdose remains a hot issue in scientific research and may have a larger audience compared with other toxicological aspects. Editors and authors in the field of toxicology might usefully promote the submission of work on NAC in future to improve their journal’s impact.

Worldwide research productivity of paracetamol (acetaminophen) poisoning

2014 ◽  
Vol 34 (1) ◽  
pp. 12-23 ◽  
Author(s):  
SH Zyoud ◽  
SW Al-Jabi ◽  
WM Sweileh
Keyword(s):  
Research Productivity ◽  
Research Output ◽  
The United States ◽  
Scientific Output ◽  
Asia Pacific ◽  
Paracetamol Poisoning ◽  
Authorship Pattern ◽  
Entire Study ◽  
The Us ◽  
The World

Purpose: There is a lack of data concerning the evaluation of scientific research productivity in paracetamol poisoning from the world. The purposes of this study were to analyse the worldwide research output related to paracetamol poisoning and to examine the authorship pattern and the citations retrieved from the Scopus database for over a decade. Methods: Data were searched for documents with specific words regarding paracetamol poisoning as ‘keywords’ in the title or/and abstract. Scientific output 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: There were 1721 publications that met the criteria during study period from the world. All retrieved documents were published from 72 countries. The largest number of articles related to paracetamol poisoning was from the United States (US; 30.39%), followed by India (10.75%) and the United Kingdom (UK; 9.36%). The total number of citations at the time of data analysis was 21,109, with an average of 12.3 citations per each documents and median (interquartile range) of 4 (1–14). The h-index of the retrieved documents was 57. After adjusting for economy and population power, India (124.2), Nigeria (18.6) and the US (10.5) had the highest research productivity. Countries with large economies, such as the UK, Australia, Japan, China and France, tended to rank relatively low after adjustment for GDP over the entire study period. Conclusion: Our study demonstrates evidence that research productivity related to paracetamol poisoning has increased rapidly during the recent years. The US obviously dominated in research productivity. However, certain smaller country such as Nigeria has high scientific output relative to their population size and GDP. A highly noticeable increase in the contributions of Asia-Pacific and Middle East regions to scientific literature related to paracetamol poisoning was also observed.

Scientometric Analysis of the Research Output of Physics and Astronomy of Guru Nanak Dev University during 2006-15

2017 ◽  
Vol 37 (5) ◽  
pp. 337
Author(s):  
Sunaina Khanna ◽  
Neeraj Kumar Singh ◽  
Deepika Tewari ◽  
Harinder Singh Saini
Keyword(s):  
Research Productivity ◽  
Research Output ◽  
Citation Impact ◽  
Scientometric Analysis ◽  
H Index ◽  
Average Citation ◽  
Publication Number ◽  
International Collaborations ◽  
The University ◽  
Number Of Citations

<div class="page" title="Page 1"><div class="layoutArea"><div class="column"><p><span>The study attempts to analyse research contributions of the Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar in physics and astronomy during the period 2006-15. The data for this study was extracted from Scopus. The study analyses the </span><span>year-wise research productivity, national and international collaborations, top collaborating institutions, most prolific </span><span>authors, journals used for communication, most preferred journals for publication, number of citations received by the University during the period under study. This paper analyses that the university has published 652 papers in physics and astronomy. The University had registered the average citation impact per paper of 7.01 per cent and 6 publications received 51 to 100 citations. Among the Indian universities, University stood at 23</span><span>rd </span><span>rank in term of publications output (652) and h-index (29), 16</span><span>th </span><span>rank in average citation per paper (7.01 per cent) and 18</span><span>th </span><span>rank in share of high cited papers (1 per cent) and 19</span><span>th </span><span>rank in terms of international collaborative papers (27.45 per cent) during 2006-15. Around 68.71 per cent publications of the University in physics and astronomy were in national collaboration between GNDU and several other Indian organisations. The study clearly indicates that journals are the most preferred form of publication to communicate research works by the researchers. </span></p></div></div></div>

scholarly journals Assessment of the NIH-supported relative citation ratio as a measure of research productivity among 1687 academic neurological surgeons

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-8
Author(s):  
Vamsi Reddy ◽  
Arjun Gupta ◽  
Michael D. White ◽  
Raghav Gupta ◽  
Prateek Agarwal ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Research Productivity ◽  
Research Output ◽  
Academic Rank ◽  
H Index ◽  
Relative Citation ◽  
Retrospective Data Analysis ◽  
Author Productivity ◽  
Doctor Of Philosophy ◽  
Male Sex ◽  
Number Of Citations

OBJECTIVEPublication metrics such as the Hirsch index (h-index) are often used to evaluate and compare research productivity in academia. The h-index is not a field-normalized statistic and can therefore be dependent on overall rates of publication and citation within specific fields. Thus, a metric that adjusts for this while measuring individual contributions would be preferable. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) has developed a new, field-normalized, article-level metric called the “relative citation ratio” (RCR) that can be used to more accurately compare author productivity between fields. The mean RCR is calculated as the total number of citations per year of a publication divided by the average field-specific citations per year, whereas the weighted RCR is the sum of all article-level RCR scores over an author’s career. The present study was performed to determine how various factors, such as academic rank, career duration, a Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) degree, and sex, impact the RCR to analyze research productivity among academic neurosurgeons.METHODSA retrospective data analysis was performed using the iCite database. All physician faculty affiliated with Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME)–accredited neurological surgery programs were eligible for analysis. Sex, career duration, academic rank, additional degrees, total publications, mean RCR, and weighted RCR were collected for each individual. Mean RCR and weighted RCR were compared between variables to assess patterns of analysis by using SAS software version 9.4.RESULTSA total of 1687 neurosurgery faculty members from 125 institutions were included in the analysis. Advanced academic rank, longer career duration, and PhD acquisition were all associated with increased mean and weighted RCRs. Male sex was associated with having an increased weighted RCR but not an increased mean RCR score. Overall, neurological surgeons were highly productive, with a median RCR of 1.37 (IQR 0.93–1.97) and a median weighted RCR of 28.56 (IQR 7.99–85.65).CONCLUSIONSThe RCR and its derivatives are new metrics that help fill in the gaps of other indices for research output. Here, the authors found that advanced academic rank, longer career duration, and PhD acquisition were all associated with increased mean and weighted RCRs. Male sex was associated with having an increased weighted, but not mean, RCR score, most likely because of historically unequal opportunities for women within the field. Furthermore, the data showed that current academic neurosurgeons are exceptionally productive compared to both physicians in other specialties and the general scientific community.

Trends in Academic Achievement Within Otolaryngology: Does Fellowship Training Impact Research Productivity?

2021 ◽  
pp. 194589242110547
Author(s):  
David C. Moffatt ◽  
Andrew M. Ferry ◽  
Jared M. Stuart ◽  
Jesse D. Supernaw ◽  
Alex E. Wright ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Research Productivity ◽  
Research Output ◽  
The United States ◽  
Fellowship Training ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
H Index ◽  
Cross Sectional Analysis ◽  
Scholarly Impact ◽  
Sectional Analysis

Background Scholarly productivity and research output vary among different subspecialties. The h-index was developed as a more wholesome metric that measures an author's contribution to literature. Objective Through a web-based cross-sectional analysis, we investigated the differences in scholarly impact and influence of both fellowship and nonfellowship-trained academic otolaryngologists in the United States. A secondary objective was to further understand the output among the larger fellowship fields. Methods A cross-sectional analysis was performed for active faculty otolaryngologists. A total of 1704 otolaryngologists were identified as faculty in residency training programs across the United States. Their h-index and publication data were gathered using the Scopus database. The data were obtained in August 2019 and analysis occurred in January 2020. Results Head and neck surgical faculty (25.5%) had the highest representation with fellowship experience. Among all faculty, there was no statistical difference in the overall average h-index scores when comparing faculty that had fellowship training with those who did not (12.6 and 12.1, respectively, P = .498). Rhinologists had the highest publication output per year at 3.90. Among fellowship-trained faculty, the highest average h-index and total publications were seen in head & neck surgery, while facial plastics had the lowest averages ( P < .001). Conclusions In this study, fellowship-trained faculty had a greater but not significant scholarly impact than nonfellowship faculty. Furthermore, there were significant variations in output among the various subspecialties of otolaryngology. Growing fields, as academic rhinology, are continuing to flourish in robust research productivity and output. This study further demonstrates the potential, growing influence of fellowship training on research involvement and academic advancement within the otolaryngology subspecialties.

scholarly journals Research Output and International Cooperation Among Countries During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Scientometric Analysis

10.2196/24514 ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 22 (12) ◽  
pp. e24514
Author(s):  
Nadja Grammes ◽  
Dominic Millenaar ◽  
Tobias Fehlmann ◽  
Fabian Kern ◽  
Michael Böhm ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Web Application ◽  
Research Output ◽  
Large Data ◽  
The United States ◽  
Scientific Output ◽  
Scientometric Analysis ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Collaborative Efforts

Background The COVID-19 pandemic, caused by the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2, has instigated immediate and massive worldwide research efforts. Rapid publication of research data may be desirable but also carries the risk of quality loss. Objective This analysis aimed to correlate the severity of the COVID-19 outbreak with its related scientific output per country. Methods All articles related to the COVID-19 pandemic were retrieved from Web of Science and analyzed using the web application SciPE (science performance evaluation), allowing for large data scientometric analyses of the global geographical distribution of scientific output. Results A total of 7185 publications, including 2592 articles, 2091 editorial materials, 2528 early access papers, 1479 letters, 633 reviews, and other contributions were extracted. The top 3 countries involved in COVID-19 research were the United States, China, and Italy. The confirmed COVID-19 cases or deaths per region correlated with scientific research output. The United States was most active in terms of collaborative efforts, sharing a significant amount of manuscript authorships with the United Kingdom, China, and Italy. The United States was China’s most frequent collaborative partner, followed by the United Kingdom. Conclusions The COVID-19 research landscape is rapidly developing and is driven by countries with a generally strong prepandemic research output but is also significantly affected by countries with a high prevalence of COVID-19 cases. Our findings indicate that the United States is leading international collaborative efforts.

Scientometric Analysis of the Research Output of Physics and Astronomy of Guru Nanak Dev University during 2006-15

2017 ◽  
Vol 37 (5) ◽  
pp. 337
Author(s):  
Sunaina Khanna ◽  
Neeraj Kumar Singh ◽  
Deepika Tewari ◽  
Harinder Singh Saini
Keyword(s):  
Research Productivity ◽  
Research Output ◽  
Citation Impact ◽  
Scientometric Analysis ◽  
H Index ◽  
Average Citation ◽  
Publication Number ◽  
International Collaborations ◽  
The University ◽  
Number Of Citations

<div class="page" title="Page 1"><div class="layoutArea"><div class="column"><p><span>The study attempts to analyse research contributions of the Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar in physics and astronomy during the period 2006-15. The data for this study was extracted from Scopus. The study analyses the </span><span>year-wise research productivity, national and international collaborations, top collaborating institutions, most prolific </span><span>authors, journals used for communication, most preferred journals for publication, number of citations received by the University during the period under study. This paper analyses that the university has published 652 papers in physics and astronomy. The University had registered the average citation impact per paper of 7.01 per cent and 6 publications received 51 to 100 citations. Among the Indian universities, University stood at 23</span><span>rd </span><span>rank in term of publications output (652) and h-index (29), 16</span><span>th </span><span>rank in average citation per paper (7.01 per cent) and 18</span><span>th </span><span>rank in share of high cited papers (1 per cent) and 19</span><span>th </span><span>rank in terms of international collaborative papers (27.45 per cent) during 2006-15. Around 68.71 per cent publications of the University in physics and astronomy were in national collaboration between GNDU and several other Indian organisations. The study clearly indicates that journals are the most preferred form of publication to communicate research works by the researchers. </span></p></div></div></div>

scholarly journals Research Output and International Cooperation Among Countries During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Scientometric Analysis (Preprint)

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nadja Grammes ◽  
Dominic Millenaar ◽  
Tobias Fehlmann ◽  
Fabian Kern ◽  
Michael Böhm ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Web Application ◽  
Research Output ◽  
Large Data ◽  
The United States ◽  
Scientific Output ◽  
Scientometric Analysis ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Collaborative Efforts

BACKGROUND The COVID-19 pandemic, caused by the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2, has instigated immediate and massive worldwide research efforts. Rapid publication of research data may be desirable but also carries the risk of quality loss. OBJECTIVE This analysis aimed to correlate the severity of the COVID-19 outbreak with its related scientific output per country. METHODS All articles related to the COVID-19 pandemic were retrieved from Web of Science and analyzed using the web application SciPE (science performance evaluation), allowing for large data scientometric analyses of the global geographical distribution of scientific output. RESULTS A total of 7185 publications, including 2592 articles, 2091 editorial materials, 2528 early access papers, 1479 letters, 633 reviews, and other contributions were extracted. The top 3 countries involved in COVID-19 research were the United States, China, and Italy. The confirmed COVID-19 cases or deaths per region correlated with scientific research output. The United States was most active in terms of collaborative efforts, sharing a significant amount of manuscript authorships with the United Kingdom, China, and Italy. The United States was China’s most frequent collaborative partner, followed by the United Kingdom. CONCLUSIONS The COVID-19 research landscape is rapidly developing and is driven by countries with a generally strong prepandemic research output but is also significantly affected by countries with a high prevalence of COVID-19 cases. Our findings indicate that the United States is leading international collaborative efforts. CLINICALTRIAL

scholarly journals The dominance of big teams in China’s scientific output

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-13
Author(s):  
Linlin Liu ◽  
Jianfei Yu ◽  
Junming Huang ◽  
Feng Xia ◽  
Tao Jia
Keyword(s):  
Natural Science ◽  
Research Output ◽  
Modern Science ◽  
Scientific Work ◽  
The United States ◽  
Scientific Output ◽  
Large Size ◽  
Global Trend ◽  
Innovative Work ◽  
Small Team

Modern science is dominated by scientific productions from teams. A recent finding shows that teams of both large and small sizes are essential in research, prompting us to analyze the extent to which a country’s scientific work is carried out by big or small teams. Here, using over 26 million publications from Web of Science, we find that China’s research output is more dominated by big teams than the rest of the world, which is particularly the case in fields of natural science. Despite the global trend that more papers are written by big teams, China’s drop in small team output is much steeper. As teams in China shift from small to large size, the team diversity that is essential for innovative work does not increase as much as that in other countries. Using the national average as the baseline, we find that the National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) supports fewer small teams than the National Science Foundation (NSF) of the United States does, implying that big teams are preferred by grant agencies in China. Our finding provides new insights into the concern of originality and innovation in China, which indicates a need to balance small and big teams.

Research Productivity and International Collaboration: A Study of Ecuadorian Science

2018 ◽  
Vol 19 (4) ◽  
pp. 369-387 ◽  
Author(s):  
José Antonio Castillo ◽  
Michael A. Powell
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Latin American ◽  
International Collaboration ◽  
Research Productivity ◽  
Research Output ◽  
Scientific Productivity ◽  
The United States ◽  
The Past ◽  
The Government ◽  
Latin American Countries

Ecuador’s research output relative to other Latin American countries has been low historically; however, over the last 10 years, the government has put various policies in place to help remedy this situation. This is an analysis of Ecuadorian research productivity from 2006 to 2015. The scientific productivity of Ecuador has increased 5.16 times over the past years, exceeding Latin American growth. Over 80% of Ecuadorian publications include international collaboration mainly with the United States and some European and Latin American countries.

scholarly journals Should Google Scholar be used for benchmarking against the professoriate in education?

2020 ◽  
Vol 125 (3) ◽  
pp. 2505-2522 ◽  
Author(s):  
Margaret K. Merga ◽  
Sayidi Mat Roni ◽  
Shannon Mason
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
United States Of America ◽  
The United States ◽  
Job Security ◽  
Google Scholar ◽  
Data Reliability ◽  
H Index ◽  
The United Kingdom

AbstractIn the neoliberal environment of contemporary academia, an individual’s research rankings and outputs can shape their career security and progression. When applying for ongoing employment and promotional opportunities, academics may benchmark their performance against that of superior colleagues to demonstrate their performance in relation to their discipline. The H-index and citation rates are commonly used to quantify the value of an academic’s work, and they can be used comparatively for benchmarking purposes. The focus of this paper is to critically consider if Google Scholar be used for benchmarking against the professoriate in education, by weighting up issues of data reliability and participation. The Google Scholar profiles of full professors at top ranked universities in Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States of America are analysed to explore how widespread Google Scholar use is in the education professoriate. Quartiles of impact are established in relation to H-index, with exploration of how gender is distributed across these quartiles. Limitations of using Google Scholar data are highlighted through a taxonomy of quality confounders, and the utility of Google Scholar as a legitimate tool for benchmarking against the professoriate in education is strongly challenged. As metrics continue to rise in their importance for academics’ job security and promotional prospects, reliance on metrics of dubious quality and uneven participation must be questioned.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document