Cimmino, MA; Tiziana; Maio; Ugolini, D; Borasi, F; Mela, GS. "Trends in otolaryngology research during the period 1995-2000: A bibliometric approach " OTOLARYNGOLOGY-HEAD AND NECK SURGERY 132 (2). FEB 2005. p.295-302

[Eugene Garfield]

Marco Cimmino : marco.cimmino at libero.it

TITLE:          Trends in otolaryngology research during the period 1995-
                2000: A bibliometric approach (Article, English)

AUTHOR:         Cimmino, MA; Tiziana; Maio; Ugolini, D; Borasi, F; Mela,
                GS

SOURCE:         OTOLARYNGOLOGY-HEAD AND NECK SURGERY 132 (2). FEB 2005.
                p.295-302 MOSBY, INC, ST LOUIS



ABSTRACT:       OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the distribution and scope of
papers published in the world in otolaryngology (ORL) journals and to
compare the impact of this research among different countries.

METHODS: Papers published in the 29 ORL journals screened by the
Institute for Scientific Information (ISI, Philadelphia, PA, USA) in the
6-year period 1995-2000 were considered. The journal impact factor (IF),
the source country population, and gross domestic product (GDP) were
recorded. All key words, both those assigned by the authors and those
attributed by ISI, were identified and their frequency was calculated
using a special-purpose program.

RESULTS: The total number of papers in the ORL literature during the
period 1995-2000 increased from 2036 to 3705. A percentage varying
between 47.7% (1995) and 36.1% (2000) was published by EU authors whereas
the USA accounted for a percentage varying between 28.1% (1995) and 38.8%
(2000). In 2000, the leading countries were the USA, the EU, Japan,
Canada, and Australia. In Europe the UK (28.5% of papers), Germany
(26.2%), Italy (7.2%), Sweden (5.8 %), France (5.5%), and the Netherlands
(4.9%) showed a very good performance trend. In the same year, the mean
IF of EU papers was 0.8 in comparison with 1.1 for Australia and the USA
and 0.9 for the world. In 1997, 1341 key words attributed by the authors
and 696 attributed by ISI appeared in the ORL literature. Less than a
tenth of them were cited more than twice. The leading key words were
"cancer" for disease and "surgery" for treatment.

CONCLUSIONS: Bibilometric findings are useful to follow research trends.
Our data show high scientific production of relatively small countries.
Dispersion of key words should be avoided and journal editors should
promote their standardization.

AUTHOR ADDRESS: MA Cimmino, Univ Genoa, Dipartimento Med Interna &
                Specialta Med, Clin Reumatol, Viale Benedetto 15 6, I-16132
                Genoa, Italy