Table Of Content

International r comparisons or research outputs Cardiovascular research 198 1— 1991 PRISM Unitfor Policy Research in Scienceand Medicine INTERNATIONAL COMPARISONS OF RESEARCH OUTPUTS Cardiovascular research 1981-1991 PRISM Report No. 2 & M Anderson, L Rogers O'Driscoll J April 1994 Digitized by the Internet Archive 2014 in https://archive.org/details/b20456463 CONTENTS PREFACE 4 SUMMARY 5 INTRODUCTION 1 6 I.I Objectives ofthe study 6 1.2 Background to the cardiovascular study 6 1.3 Assessing research output: a bibliometric approach 7 METHODOLOGY 2 8 2.1 Bibliometric analysis 8 2.2 Defining the field: what constitutes cardiovascular research? 8 2.3 Construction ofa MeSH filter for cardiovascular research 9 2.4 Analysing international trends in cardiovascular research 10 2.5 Analysing cardiovascular research by subfield 11 2.6 Citation analysis - assessing impact 11 2.7 Identifying cardiovascular researchers in the UK 11 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 3 13 3.1 Cardiovascular research in the biomedical field 13 3.2 International comparisons 13 3.3 Trends in cardiovascular research 14 3.4 The impact ofcardiovascular research 15 3.5 International collaboration in cardiovascular research 16 3.6 International comparison ofthe emphasis on different subfields 17 3.7 Distribution ofcardiovascular research activity in the UK 18 4 CO/~\NXTCLTUTSTCITO/~\NXTSC 22 A 11 Solving the problem offield definition 22 The contribution ofcardiovascular research to the biomedical field 22 4.3 International comparison ofproductivity 22 4.4 Citation impact ofcardiovascular papers 23 4.5 Prominence ofcardiovascular research 23 4.6 Co-authorship patterns 23 4.7 Cardiovascular research activity in the UK 24 REFERENCES 25 This report presents the findings of a detailed bibliographic analysis of several thousands of publications in the field of cardiovascular research. The studywas part ofa larger experimental foresight project on the future ofcardiovascular research in the UK. The authors would like to thank the project Steering Committee and expert advisory group for their valuable contributions to this study (Dr M B Davis, Professor A Henderson, Professor P Poole-Wilson, Dr DJulian and Dr L Smaje). This study was funded by the Wellcome Trust, the British Heart Foundation and the Medical Research Council. SUMMARY This report presents the findings ofa bibliometric study ofcardiovascular research outputs. The study was part of a wider project on foresight analysis which included a large-scale survey of scientists on issues concerning the future ofcardiovascular research in the UK. The analysis focused on cardiovascular research published in refereed journals and covered several thousand papers. The five countries considered were the UK, the USA, Germany, France and Japan. Cardiovascular research activity in the UK was considered in more detail to identify the most active institutions and individuals. A key step was the development ofa novel method to define the field of cardiovascular research and to identify papers published in this area. The study employed two data sources - the Science Citation Index (SCI) and Medline - which together cover thousands of biomedical journals. The Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) index was used to identify a set of papers ofrelevance to cardiovascular research. This set was then validated by an iterative process which incorporated the views ofan expert Steering Committee. This process resulted in a definition of the cardiovascular field that captured basic and clinical research papers drawn from a wide range of biomedical disciplines, a sample that effectively represented the total production of papers in this field worldwide. The sample was then analysed to give information on publishing productivity, impact (as measured by citations), and collaboration patterns. Main findings • Ofallbiomedical paperspublishedworldwide, 1 in 5 wasfoundtobe relevantto cardiovascularresearch. • The USA dominated cardiovascular research in terms ofthe number ofpapers published worldwide. Japan was the second most prolific publisher, and in recent years increased its lead over the UK. However, the UK produced more cardiovascular papers than did the two other European nations, Germany and France. • Cardiovascular research did not stand out as a specially active field within the UK'snational researchportfolio, unlike inJapanandGermany. • Japan appears to have conducted little research on cardiovascular surgery and emphasised researchwith a focusoncardiovascularagents. • Using citations as a measure ofimpact, the US and UK have had the highest impact internationally. Citation rates for cardiovascular papers were higher in these countries than the world norm for this field. In Germany, Japan and France, however,citation rateswerebelowaverage. • The UK collaborated more than might be expected with Germany and France, given the level of research activity in these countries. Geographic proximity mightbean importantdeterminantin researchcollaboration. • Within the UK, London dominated cardiovascular research in terms ofactivity levels. Between 1988 and 1991, 60 ofthe top 100 authors ofcardiovascular researchwerebasedin thecapital. 5 INTRODUCTION 1. I.I Objectives ofthe study The study was commissioned by the British Heart Foundation, the Medical Research Council and the Wellcome Trust, the three main UK funding bodies with an interest in cardiovascular biology. It aimed to provide data on the published outputs ofthe UK cardiovascular research community together with international comparisons. Representatives from each of the three funding bodies formed a Steering Committee for the project. They were mainly senior cardiovascular research scientists and administrators who served as both customers for the project and as a source ofexpert advice. The study set out to assess international activity in cardiovascular research using a bibliometric approach that measured research outputs in the form of publications. The aim was to look in detail at the output of cardiovascular research and its place in biomedical research as a whole. The five countries chosen for inclusion in the study were the UK, Germany, France, Japan and the USA. As well as measuring absolute numbers of publications, the study also aimed to measure the relative importance ofcardiovascular research in the five countries, to assess the level ofcollaboration between countries and to UK review topics ofkey importance. In addition, the cardiovascular scene was studied in more detail to show areas ofgreatest activity. .2 Background to the Internationally, cardiovascular disorders are a major health problem in the 1 cardiovascular study developed world.1 In the UK, cardiovascular disease remains the single most common cause ofdeath. According to the latest available figures in England and Wales, 'circulatory disease' caused 21% of all deaths in people up to the age of 65 in 1988.2 The financial cost is also high. In 1986/87, circulatory disease accounted for 13% of National Health Service expenditure in England and Wales, almost double that ofcancer and second only to mental illness.3 In Scotland, 4% oftotal NHS costs in 1988 were due to stroke alone.4 It was against this background that cardiovascular research was selected by the UK Government as a key area in the 1992 Health of the Nation white paper5 as well as a research and development priority in the National Health Service.6 In 1990, a Medical Research Council joint working group was set up to review the biology of cardiovascular disorders. Concluding that future funding decisions and strategy would have to be based on broader consultation and more comprehensive data, the group agreed to support an experimental 'foresight' study in the field of cardiovascular research. The aim was not to attempt to make predictions as such, but to examine key areas of research that may be of significance in the future and to identify trends, nationally and internationally. 6 The work presented here formed part of that larger foresight project on the future of cardiovascular research in the UK. The foresight project comprised a number of components, including a poll of expert opinion on issues of concern to both users and practitioners of cardiovascular research, the results ofwhich are reported elsewhere.7 This present study attempted to provide a basis for discussions on the future ofthe field, by UK describing previous patterns of research activity in the and internationally. 1.3 Assessing research output: The most widely employed method ofevaluating research is peer review, a bibliometric approach in which experts in the field assess the quality ofthe research and identify strengths and weaknesses.8 Bibliometric analysis provides a mechanism of supporting this qualitative method of assessment with quantitative data about research outputs. Several studies have addressed the issue ofhow to measure outputs,' 17 the most common measures to date being counts of inventions, patents, publications, citations, prizes and research grants or contracts. The work presented in this report employed analysis of research publications to examine the international output of cardiovascular research, trends in cardiovascular research and subfields, citation impact and patterns ofcollaboration between researchers in different countries. 7 METHODOLOGY 2. 2.1 Bibliometric analysis A number of assumptions underpin bibliometric techniques, and recent reviews ofthe use ofbibliometrics in research evaluation have highlighted its limitations.181'' It presupposes, firstly, that the output ofscientific research is consistently represented by publications; secondly, that the number of citations is an indicator of impact; thirdly, that accurate databases are available.20 However, a survey of 24 studies in which bibliometric measures were compared with other non-literature measures found a high correlation between bibliometric statistics and other indices.21 A study by Narin in 1987 concluded that the results of bibliometrics are 'seldom counter- intuitive'.14 In addition, a survey of academics' views of the quantitative assessment of departmental research found cautious acceptance of bibliometrics on the part ofacademic scientists, although the importance ofconsulting with members ofthe research community under study was emphasised.22 The study reported here addressed this last concern by the extensive use of a group of cardiovascular research scientists and administrators from each ofthe three funding bodies involved.* Three key stages may be identified in bibliometric analysis: • definitionofthesubjectfield (in thiscase, cardiovascularresearch) • constructionofabibliographyconfinedtoappropriatetypesofpublication • analysisofthe results 2.2 Defining the field: what The first stage in the assessment of research output of a particular constitutes cardiovascular discipline is to set the boundaries ofthat discipline. This poses particular research? difficulties with a field such as cardiovascular biology, which is multidisciplinary and encompasses basic and clinical science. Previous bibliometric studies have employed a number ofmethods offield definition and each of these was considered for this study. One such method is to define a field through a set of journals. The Science Literature Indicators Database (SLID), derived from the Science Citation Index produced by CHI Research Inc., is divided into research subfields on this basis; in 1986, the cardiovascular subfield comprised publications from international journals. However, use of a fixed number ofjournals inevitably excludes a wide range ofnon-specialist journals which can carry papers of relevance to cardiovascular biology. This could be a serious omission, for example, in the case ofjournals such as the British Medical Journal, the Lancetor Nature. • Members ofthe Steering Group were Professor Andrew Henderson (University ofWales, Cardiff), Dr Megan Davies and Dr Jane Rogers (Medical Research Council, London), Professor Desmond Julian (British Heart Foundation, London), Professor Philip A Poole-Wilson (National Heart and Lung Institute, London) and Dr Laurence Smaje (the Wellcome Centre for Medical Science, London). 8