José Ignacio de Granda-Orive

¿Qué base de datos debemos emplear para nuestros análisis bibliográficos? Web of Science versus SCOPUS

The importance and the advantages of document databases are well known. These data bases are a group of information structured in registers and stored in an electronic support that is legible with the use of a computer. Until not long ago, the Web of Science ([WoS] ISI, Thomson Reuters) was the only international, multidisciplinary tool available to access the literature of science, technology, biomedicine and other disciplines. Its advantages as well as its limitations are also well-known, and are occasionally the object of controversy. However, some years ago another contender has entered the ring: SCOPUS, a database base founded by Elsevier S.L. en 2004 (http://www.scopus.com/home.url). SCOPUS has recognized advantages, such as the ease in its navigation, the fact that it includes 100% of the indexed documents in MEDLINE, EMBASE and COMPEDEX, offers easy access to cited documents, is open to the Internet, has web pages and patents available as well as links to the web pages of journal editors, etc. For these reasons, the current debate is: which database should we use for our bibliographic analyses? Previous comparisons between the two databases have not revealed a clear winner, as the relative advantages of one over the other depend more on what we specifically want to analyze, the discipline and the period of analysis. López Illescas et al., in analyzing the coverage and the impact of both databases regarding neurology journals, found that SCOPUS covers a greater number of journals, and all those covered by WoS are also in SCOPUS. For the journals indexed in both databases, those in WoS present higher impact factors (IF); in contrast, those that are only covered by SCOPUS present an IF lower than if they are present in both databases. In any event, the differences between the bases regarding citation are much lower than the differences regarding coverage. In another article, they clarify that the oncological journals included in SCOPUS and not in WoS are predominantly national journals, directed at domestic readers and not completely included in international databases, written in languages other than English and with a lower impact. This could be explained by the differing inclusion criteria between the two bases. The ranking by countries is similar in both databases, but there is a difference in number of citations per document, which is poorer in SCOPUS. Kulkarni et al. tell us that WoS, SCOPUS and Google Scholar produce quantitatively and qualitatively different citations for articles published in general medicine journals; SCOPUS includes more registries of non-English journals and review articles. In other fields, such as Chemical Engineering, Escalona et al. came to the conclusion that there is a high similarity between both databases, which makes them complementary and non-exclusive. This same conclusion is reached in the paper by Archambault and Campbell (http://www.science-metrix.com/pdf/Archambault_Jasist_ WoSScopus.pdf). Upon analyzing the production in smoking research (2000-2009), we have found that 90.76% of the documents of WoS are in SCOPUS, while only 66.79% of those of SCOPUS are in WoS. Ball and Tunger (http://juwel.fz-juelich.de:8080/dspace/ bitstream/2128/3233/1/Ball_2007.Science.pdf) explain that the authors should declare what database was used for their analyses because they found that with different databases, different information is obtained. Falagas et al. (http://www.fasebj.org/cgi/ reprint/22/2/338.pdf), when comparing the strengths and the weaknesses of four databases, confirmed that SCOPUS includes a greater number of journals and its analysis of citations is faster than that of WoS; in contrast, the analysis of the citations in WoS is more detailed. In concluding, we can say that WoS covers more space over time, with a majority of journals written in English. SCOPUS covers a greater number of journals with lower impact. Although there is a high correlation between both databases, in the future the authors that generate studies using one of these databases should explain why one was favored over the other.

World-wide collaboration among medical specialties in smoking research: production, collaboration, visibility and influence

The aim of this study was to analyse the network of scientific collaboration generated by the co-authorship of articles on smoking among different specialties on a world-wide level through the Science Citation Index (SCI) in the period 1999–2003. Material and methods: We selected collaboration articles on smoking research among different specialties listed in the SCI (1999–2003). The underlying network of collaboration among specialties was analysed, comparing production, visibility and centrality. Results: Forty-nine different specialties were identified, of which 47 (96%) had produced articles in collaboration (461 articles). The most productive specialty was Psychiatry–Psychology. The specialties that produced more studies in collaboration with others were Respiratory Medicine and Internal Medicine. Respiratory Medicine, however, was the specialty that received the greatest number of citations. Conclusions: Psychiatry–Psychology was the most productive specialty, while Internal Medicine and Respiratory Medicine produced more articles in collaboration. Respiratory Medicine was the specialty that received the greatest number of citations. Copyright , Beech Tree Publishing.

Caracterización bibliométrica y temática de los grupos de investigación de Archivos de Bronconeumología (2003–2007)

INTRODUCTION Scientific cooperation is essential for the advance of biomedical research. Scientists set up informal groups to work together on common issues, who are the main units in the research funding system. Bibliometric and Social Network Analysis methods allow informal groups in scientific papers to be identified and characterised. The objective of the study is to identify research groups in Archivos de Bronconeumología between 2003 and 2007 period with the aim of characterizing their scientific collaboration patterns and research areas. METHODS Co-authorships, institutional collaboration relationships and the main research areas of papers published in Archivos de Bronconeumología have been identified. Co-authorship networks and institutional collaboration networks have been constructed by using Pajek software tool. RESULTS A total of 41 research groups involving 171 investigators have been identified. The Collaboration Index for articles was 5.59 and the Transcience Index was 73.11%. There was institutional collaboration in 60.33% of papers. The collaboration between institutions of the same region prevails (41.03%), followed by collaborations between departments, services or units of the same institution (39.74%), inter-regional collaboration (14,97%) and international collaboration (6.83%). A total of 83.03% of articles were cited. The main research areas covered by groups were chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, asthma, lung neoplasm, bronchogenic carcinoma, smoking and pulmonary embolism. CONCLUSIONS The scientific production of a large number of Respiratory System Spanish research groups is published in Archivos de Bronconeumología. A notable collaboration and citation rate has been observed. Nevertheless, it is still essential to encourage inter-regional and international collaboration.

Redes de colaboración científica internacional en tabaquismo: análisis de coautorías mediante el Science Citation Index durante el periodo 1999-2003

OBJECTIVE The aim of this study was to analyze patterns of scientific collaboration and the visibility generated by coauthorship of articles on smoking among different countries on a world-wide basis through the Science Citation Index-Expanded (SCI-expanded) from 1999 to 2003. MATERIAL AND METHODS We selected articles on smoking resulting from collaboration among different countries in the SCI-Expanded (1999-2003). The underlying networks of collaboration among countries were analyzed by comparing production (number of articles published), visibility (number of citations received) and centrality (node degree, intermediation and proximity). RESULTS A total of 3,484 articles were obtained, in which 5,008 institutions from 79 countries participated. The most productive country was the United Kingdom, with Germany and France in the second and third places. The United Kingdom also published the largest number of articles with inter-institutional collaboration (570 articles), with the USA and Germany in second and third places. The USA published the largest number of articles with international collaboration with the United Kingdom and France in the second and third places. All countries received a greater number of citations for articles resulting from international and inter-institutional collaboration than for those performed without collaboration. Networks of collaboration were completely connected through a single component and the annual increase in size of these inter-country networks was due to new countries joining the periphery of the network. CONCLUSIONS We found a positive correlation between international and inter-institutional collaboration and the number of citations received by articles on smoking research. The number of citations per year remained constant throughout the 5-year study period.

Budgetary impact analysis on funding smoking-cessation drugs in patients with COPD in Spain

The aim of the study was to assess the budgetary impact of funding smoking-cessation drugs in COPD patients in Spain. A hybrid model (cohort and Markov) was developed for a 5-year time horizon. Only approved cessation drugs (varenicline, bupropion, and nicotine replacement therapy) were considered. Irrespective of the drug, the model allowed for an initial cessation attempt, and up to three additional attempts in case of failure or smoking relapse during a 5-year period. Drug effectiveness was based on controlled clinical trials. National Health System perspective was applied; therefore, only medical resources were included. The pharmaceutical costs for smoking-cessation drugs, extra medical follow-up as a consequence of public reimbursement, and annual savings for health costs avoided due to stopping smoking were considered. The model estimated that 17,756 COPD patients would stop smoking if public funding was available, compared with 1,303 without reimbursement. In the reimbursement scenario, the savings accounted for a total of €48.0 million, compensating for expenditures on drugs and medical visits (€40.4 million). Accumulated total additional savings in 5 years (€4.3 million) compared with the scenario without reimbursement was shown. Sensitivity analyses supported the results robustness. Funding smoking-cessation drugs in COPD patients seems to be an efficient option and a National Health System drug reimbursement scheme would represent a cost-saving policy in Spain.

A Study of the Bibliometry and Areas of the Research Groups of Archivos de Bronconeumología (2003–2007)

Introduction Scientific cooperation is essential for the advance of biomedical research. Scientists set up informal groups to work together on common issues, who are the main units in the research funding system. Bibliometric and Social Network Analysis methods allow informal groups in scientific papers to be identified and characterised. The objective of the study is to identify research groups in Archivos de Bronconeumologia between 2003 and 2007 period with the aim of characterizing their scientific collaboration patterns and research areas.

Network of international scientific collaboration on smoking: analysis of coauthorship through the Science Citation Index (1999-2003)

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to analyze patterns of scientific collaboration and the visibility generated by coauthorship of articles on smoking among different countries on a world-wide basis through the Science Citation Index-Expanded (SCI-expanded) from 1999 to 2003. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We selected articles on smoking resulting from collaboration among different countries in the SCI-Expanded (1999-2003). The underlying networks of collaboration among countries were analyzed by comparing production (number of articles published), visibility (number of citations received) and centrality (node degree, intermediation and proximity). RESULTS: A total of 3,484 articles were obtained, in which 5,008 institutions from 79 countries participated. The most productive country was the United Kingdom, with Germany and France in the second and third places. The United Kingdom also published the largest number of articles with inter-institutional collaboration (570 articles), with the USA and Germany in second and third places. The USA published the largest number of articles with international collaboration with the United Kingdom and France in the second and third places. All countries received a greater number of citations for articles resulting from international and inter-institutional collaboration than for those performed without collaboration. Networks of collaboration were completely connected through a single component and the annual increase in size of these inter-country networks was due to new countries joining the periphery of the network. CONCLUSIONS: We found a positive correlation between international and inter-institutional collaboration and the number of citations received by articles on smoking research. The number of citations per year remained constant throughout the 5-year study period.

Autocitación: ¿debemos penalizarla?

Archivos de Bronconeumología has once again been listed in the Journal Citation Report of this year,1 thus reinstating its impact factor (IF) with a self-citation rate of 20%. Citation of articles for documentation purposes is a common and necessary practice.2 By including relevant and appropriate citations, authors can situate their work within the current state of the art in that specific area. Notwithstanding, both the principles of communication of knowledge and publishing ethics make it unacceptable for an article to be based primarily on self-citation. Arguments for and against self-citation are numerous.3 The problem emerges when we try to assign value to citations, and the use of citations as the yardstick by which the scientific community measures and evaluates the work of its members has only served to aggravate the situation. It is logical that self-citations do not have the same value as external citations, i.e., citations from other authors.3 In this respect, a distinction must be made between self-citation by journals and publishers and self-citation by authors and co-authors who reference their own previously published papers. Attempts by publishers to force authors to increase the number of self-citations in their journals (Coercive Journal Self Citation) are frowned upon, but it nevertheless remains a common practice in some circles. There are numerous examples, not only of direct requests to the author for self-citation, but also of arrangements between journals to cite each other’s publications.4 Impact indexes that exclude self-citation are already available: 2 YIF (2-yearly IF), the Eigenfactor Score, the Article Influence Score5 and the Crown Indicator,6 and self-citation can also be excluded from the 5 YIF (5-yearly IF). Perhaps these are better tools for measuring impact. Self-citation by authors is in itself neither good nor bad. Self-citation is known to peak rapidly in the first years after a publication, more so for authors than for co-authors, while external citation comes later. Articles with more citations and a greater IF tend to generate fewer self-citations, and self-citation does not appear to contribute decisively to achieving a higher IF.7 Collaboration, whether national or international, between authors leads to a marked increase in external citations, but the effect on self-citation is moderate.7 Fowler and Aksnes8 found that more self-citation led over time to a greater percentage of external citations; each

Comparison Between Two Five Year Periods (1998/2002 and 2003/2007) on the Production, Impact and co-Authorship of Publications on Tobacco and Smoking by Spanish Authors Using the Science Citation Index

Abstract Objective The aim of this study was to compare the production, impact and co-authorship of publications by Spanish authors on smoking and tobacco between two time periods (1998/2002 vs. 2003/2007) using Science Citation Index (SCI). Methods The literature search was performed in the SCI-Expanded on 20 November 2008. All types of documents by Spanish authors were selected. The search was restricted to the title, and the key words used were “smok*” and “tobac*”. The statistical analysis was descriptive (95% CI). Results A total of 588 documents were retrieved, with 399 (67.85%) original papers, 54 (9.18%) letters to the editor and 35 (5.95%) editorials. Productivity increased from the 98/02 to the 03/07 period: 234 (39.8%) documents versus 354 (60.2%), respectively. We have found significant differences between the two periods (98/02 vs. 03/07) in total mean annual documents (47 ± 8 vs. 71 ± 16 [p = 0.024]) and total mean annual original papers (34 ± 6 vs. 46 ± 9 [p = 0.041]). The mean number of citations per document was 14.1 ± 2.1 for the 98/02 period and 5.6 ± 2.5 for the 03/07 period (p = 0.003). The co-authorship annual index had increased, with a mean of 6.77 signatures/document for the 98/02 period to a mean of 6.87 for the 03/07 period. Author and institution network collaborations had increased from one period to the next. Conclusions Spanish scientific production and co-authorship of documents on smoking and tobacco have increased from one period to the next. The documents from the earlier period receive more citations.

Literatura científica en el ámbito del tabaquismo y el sistema respiratorio: repercusión y colaboración

AIM To analyze the distribution of the production, repercussion and co-authorship of articles on smoking in the «respiratory system» category through the Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-E) and their inclusion in the first quartile of the Journal Citation Report (JCR). METHODS The literature search was performed in the SCI-E. Articles were selected for 2001-2010 for «respiratory system» using the descriptors «smok*» and «tobac*». RESULTS We found 1,858 articles (ignoring collaboration) on the topic of smoking. The median number of published articles by five-year period was higher for the 2006-2010 period vs. the 2001-2005 period; in contrast, the number of citations and the citation index was higher for documents published in the first five-year period. Some 40.47% (ignoring collaboration) of the articles (752 documents, ignoring collaboration) were published in first quartile journals. We found very well established and cohesive co-authorship networks. CONCLUSIONS Articles on smoking in the area of respiratory medicine increased in this time period, with 40% of the total documents in journals in the first quartile of the JCR. The citation rate was high, with the EU-27 countries having higher impact and repercussion. We found very well established and cohesive co-authorship networks.