Zacca GG

Language: Spanish
References: 17
Page: 1-18
PDF size: 854.06 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Health research is the cornerstone of effective, efficient health systems. Its evaluation should therefore include an assessment of the country's scientific output. The purpose of the study was to characterize the Cuban scientific output about medicine in terms of its topic distribution, productivity, impact and international collaboration. To achieve this end, a bibliometric study was conducted about medicine and the categories making it up. The database used was SCImago Institutions Rankings based on Scopus data from the period 2012-2017. The bibliometric indicators found were quantitative (based on document counts), impact (based on the number of citations) and international collaboration (co-authorships with overseas authors). Cuban scientific output about medicine consists of a total 6 191 contributions, of which 83.4% are original papers and 7.40% are review papers. The best represented categories are public health, occupational and environmental medicine (17.56%), health policies (10.73%), allergy and immunology (7.30%) and infectious diseases (6.69%). Family medicine is scantly represented. Clinical neurology, microbiology and infectious diseases stand out in terms of impact and international collaboration. It is concluded that the country makes a greater effort in the categories of health sciences. Considering the leadership of primary health care in the national health system and the leading causes of death, it is necessary to enhance the actions aimed at strengthening publication in the fields of cardiology and oncology.

REFERENCES

1. Etienne C, Abbasi K, Cuervo LG. Research for health in the Americas. BMJ [Internet]. 2018 [acceso: 12/05/2020];362:2944. Disponible en: Disponible en: https://www.bmj.com/content/362/bmj.k2944

2. Giménez Toledo E. La evaluación de la producción científica: breve análisis crítico. Relieve [Internet]. 2015;21(1). DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7203/relieve.21.1.5160

3. Elsevier. Scopus Content Coverage Guide. Elsevier; 2020 [acceso: 12/05/2020]. Disponible en: Disponible en: https://www.elsevier.com/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/69451/Scopus_ContentCoverage_Guide_WEB.pdf

4. SCImago Institutions Rankings [Internet]. Base de datos. 2020 [acceso: 01/03/2020]. Disponible en: Disponible en: http://www.scimagoir.com

5. Zacca-González G, Vargas-Quesada B, Chinchilla-Rodríguez Z, Moya-Anegón F. Producción científica cubana en Medicina y Salud Pública. Scopus 2003-2011. Transinformação. 2014;26(3):281-93.

6. Zacca-González G, Chinchilla-Rodríguez Z, Vargas-Quesada B, Moya-Anegón F. Patrones de comunicación e impacto de la producción científica cubana en salud pública. Rev Cubana Salud Públ. 2015;41(2):2.

7. Chinchilla-Rodríguez Z, Zacca-González G, Vargas-Quesada B, Moya-Anegón F. Benchmarking scientific performance by decomposing leadership of Cuban and Latin American institutions in Public Health. Scientometrics. 2016;106(3):1239-64. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1831-z

8. Rehn C, Kronman U, Wadskog D. Bibliometric indicators - definitions and usage at Karolinska Institutet Version 1.0. Estocolomo: Karolinska Institutet University Library; 2008

9. Glänzel W, Thijs B, Schubert A, Debackere K. Subfield-specific normalized relative indicators and a new generation of relational charts: Methodological foundations illustrated on the assessment of institutional research performance. Scientometrics. 2009;78(1):165-88

10. Abramo G, D'Angelo CA, Viel F. Peer review research assessment: a sensitivity analysis of performance rankings to the share of research product evaluated. Scientometrics. 2010;85:705-20.

11. Zacca-González G, Chinchilla-Rodríguez Z, Vargas-Quesada B. Medical scientific output and specialization in Latin American countries. Scientometrics. 2018 [acceso:03/06/2020];96(3). Disponible en: Disponible en: http://dx.doi.org/doi 10.1007/s11192-018-2717-7

12. Chien TW, Wang HY, Kan WC, Su SB. Whether article types of a scholarly journal are different in cited metrics using cluster analysis of MeSH terms to display. Medicine[Internet]. 2019 [acceso:03/06/2020];98:43(e17631).

13. Arencibia-Jorge R, Vega-Almeida R, Chinchilla-Rodríguez Z, Corera-Álvarez E, Moya-Anegón F. Patrones de especialización de la investigación cubana en salud. Rev Cubana Salud Pública [Internet]. 2012 [acceso: 03/06/2020];38(Suppl 5): [aprox. 7 p.]. Disponible en: Disponible en: http://scielo.sld.cu/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0864-34662012000500007&lng=es

14. Ministerio de Salud Pública. Dirección de Registros Médicos y Estadísticas de Salud. Anuario Estadístico de Salud 2019 [Internet]. La Habana: Ministerio de Salud Pública; 2020 [acceso: 20/05/2020]. Disponible en: Disponible en: https://temas.sld.cu/estadisticassalud/2020/05/13/pubicado-el-anuario-estadistico-de-salud-2019/

15. Bu Y, Murray DS, Ding Y, Huang Y, Zhao Y. Measuring the stability of scientific collaboration. Scientometrics. 2017 [acceso: 20/05/2020];114(2). Disponible en: Disponible en: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2599-0

16. Gazni A, Sugimoto CR, Didegah F. Mapping world scientific collaboration: Authors, institutions, and countries. J Am Soc Inform Scie Technol. 2012;63(2):323-35.

17. Aksnes DW, Sivertsen G. A Criteria-based Assessment of the Coverage of Scopus and Web of Science. J Data Informat Sci. 2019;4(1):1-21. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/jdis-2019-0001