Growth of the hepatitis literature over the period 1976–2015: What can the relative priority index teach us?

Sangam, S. L.; Arali, Uma B.; Patil, C. G.; Rousseau, Ronald

doi:10.1007/s11192-018-2668-z

Cited by 11 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Furthermore, the Relative Priority Index (RPI) 28,29 was applied to analyze the relative production of a country taking into account the world publications. The RPI is defined as…”

Section: Production Trendsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Production Trends, Collaboration, and Main Topics of the Integrative and Complementary Oncology Research Area: A Bibliometric Analysis

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: The prevalence of cancer has increased over time worldwide. Nevertheless, the number of deaths has been reduced during the past 2 decades. Thus, one-third of the cancer patients are users of complementary and alternative therapies, looking for other types of interventions. The main aim of the present study is to understand the current status of the research in integrative and complementary oncology. Three different aspects were analyzed: production trends, country collaboration, and leading research topics. Methods: The dataset was obtained from the documents indexed under the Integrative and Complementary Medicine category of the Web of Science database from 1976 to 2017. VOSviewer and SciMAT software were employed to perform the bibliometric analysis. Results: The Journal of Ethnopharmacology , China Medical University and the People’s Republic of China are the leading producers in the field. Regarding the collaboration, the United States and China present a close connection. The scientific community is focused on the following topics: apoptosis, breast cancer, oxidative stress, chemotherapy, and nuclear factor-Kappa-B (NF-Kappa-B). Conclusions: The present article shows potentially important information that allows understanding of the past, present, and future of research in integrative and complementary oncology. It is a useful evidence-based framework on which to base future research actions and academic directions.

show abstract

“…Furthermore, the Relative Priority Index (RPI) 28,29 was applied to analyze the relative production of a country taking into account the world publications. The RPI is defined as…”

Section: Production Trendsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Production Trends, Collaboration, and Main Topics of the Integrative and Complementary Oncology Research Area: A Bibliometric Analysis

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Contrary to the case of hepatitis A and B, there is no vaccine against hepatitis C available. Because of these facts it is no surprise that recently more articles are published related to hepatitis C, than to hepatitis A or B (Sangam et al, 2018).…”

Section: Physiology or Medicine: Harvey J Alter Michael Houghton And Charles M Ricementioning

confidence: 99%

“Sparking” and “Igniting” Key Publications of 2020 Nobel Prize Laureates

Rousseau

2021

Journal of Data and Information Science

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeThis article aims to determine the percentage of “Sparking” articles among the work of this year’s Nobel Prize winners in medicine, physics, and chemistry.Design/methodology/approachWe focus on under-cited influential research among the key publications as mentioned by the Nobel Prize Committee for the 2020 Noble Prize laureates. Specifically, we extracted data from the Web of Science, and calculated the Sparking Indices using the formulas as proposed by Hu and Rousseau in 2016 and 2017. In addition, we identified another type of igniting articles based on the notion in 2017.FindingsIn the fields of medicine and physics, the proportions of articles with sparking characteristics share 78.571% and 68.75% respectively, yet, in chemistry 90% articles characterized by “igniting”. Moreover, the two types of articles share more than 93% in the work of the Nobel Prize included in this study.Research limitationsOur research did not cover the impact of topic, socio-political, and author’s reputation on the Sparking Indices.Practical implicationsOur study shows that the Sparking Indices truly reflect influence of the best research work, so it can be used to detect under-cited influential articles, as well as identifying fundamental work.Originality/valueOur findings suggest that the Sparking Indices have good applicability for research evaluation.

show abstract

“…Ramakrishnan and Thavamani (2015) used the basic activity index in a study of the contribution of India to the field of leptospirosis. Further, Sangam et al (2017) show that the AI (they use the term relative priority index) depends on the used database. Concretely, they study hepatitis research and compare results obtained from data retrieved from PubMed, Web of Science (WoS), and a sub-database of the WoS consisting of fields in the life sciences.…”

Section: A Short Literature Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Nagpaul and Sharma (1995) use the term (relative) priority index, but with the same meaning as the AI. This terminology has also been used by Bhattacharya (1997) and in the already mentioned publication by Sangam et al (2017). The revealed comparative advantage (RCA) or Balassa Index (Balassa, 1965) is an index used in international economics for calculating the relative advantage or disadvantage of a certain country in a certain class of goods or services as evidenced by trade flows.…”

Section: A Short Literature Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

The F-measure for Research Priority

Rousseau

2018

Journal of Data and Information Science

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: In this contribution we continue our investigations related to the activity index (AI) and its formal analogs. We try to replace the AI by an indicator which is better suited for policy applications.Design/methodology/approach: We point out that fluctuations in the value of the AI for a given country and domain are never the result of that country's policy with respect to that domain alone because there are exogenous factors at play. For this reason we introduce the F-measure. This F-measure is nothing but the harmonic mean of the country's share in the world's publication output in the given domain and the given domain's share in the country's publication output. Findings:The F-measure does not suffer from the problems the AI does. Research limitations:The indicator is not yet fully tested in real cases. R&D policy management:In policy considerations, the AI should better be replaced by the F-measure as this measure can better show the results of science policy measures (which the AI cannot as it depends on exogenous factors). Originality/value:We provide an original solution for a problem that is not fully realized by policy makers.

show abstract

Growth of the hepatitis literature over the period 1976–2015: What can the relative priority index teach us?

Cited by 11 publications

References 8 publications

Production Trends, Collaboration, and Main Topics of the Integrative and Complementary Oncology Research Area: A Bibliometric Analysis

Production Trends, Collaboration, and Main Topics of the Integrative and Complementary Oncology Research Area: A Bibliometric Analysis

“Sparking” and “Igniting” Key Publications of 2020 Nobel Prize Laureates

The F-measure for Research Priority

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About