Literature DB >> 12101192

Total research productivity in a pathology discipline.

A S Wierzbicki1, T M Reynolds.   

Abstract

AIMS: To investigate the research productivity of all staff in chemical pathology.
METHODS: Chemical pathologists or biochemical scientists were identified from publicly available sources. All journals, their impact factors (IFs), and individual publications over the period of 1995 to 1999 were identified from electronic databases. Each publication was subclassified with respect to type of publication, number and position of author, and subspecialty to which the article referred.
RESULTS: Research output over the period comprised 6162 articles, originating from 1399 individuals, 264 of whom were medically qualified. Specialty initiated research accounted for 26% of the total publications and 80% of the research was performed in teaching hospitals. Research output was highly skewed because 49% of individuals published a letter or more, 20% published one original piece of research over five years, but only 4% were research active, as defined by one publication each year. International standard research, defined as one paper each year in journals with IF > 4, was achieved by 1% of the profession, mostly aged > 55 years. Skewed distributions of publication rates were found in all age deciles. The possession of higher research degrees correlated with higher output in all age deciles.
CONCLUSIONS: Those working in chemical pathology are active in initiating and conducting research, although at a low level. Because longterm activity in research correlates with the possession of higher research degrees and the opportunity to carry out research from early in career pathways, priority should be given to encouraging research in training, given the small and ageing profile of international quality research in the profession in the UK.

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12101192      PMCID: PMC1769702          DOI: 10.1136/jcp.55.7.495

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Pathol        ISSN: 0021-9746            Impact factor:   3.411


  6 in total

1.  The physician-scientist: an essential--and fragile--link in the medical research chain.

Authors:  L E Rosenberg
Journal:  J Clin Invest       Date:  1999-06       Impact factor: 14.808

Review 2.  Laboratory medicine: the need for a broader view the "multiple bundle" model of clinical laboratory function.

Authors:  M H Dominiczak
Journal:  Clin Chem Lab Med       Date:  1999-02       Impact factor: 3.694

3.  Misleading, unscientific, and unjust: the United Kingdom's research assessment exercise.

Authors:  G Williams
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1998-04-04

4.  Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research.

Authors:  P O Seglen
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1997-02-15

5.  Staffing of clinical biochemistry laboratories serving the National Health Service.

Authors:  G H Lathe; F L Mitchell
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1966-06-25       Impact factor: 79.321

6.  The universities' research assessment exercise 1992: a second opinion.

Authors:  J G Howie; N C Stott
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1993-09-11       Impact factor: 79.321

  6 in total
  4 in total

1.  Does activity in research correlate with visibility?

Authors:  T M Reynolds; A S Wierzbicki
Journal:  J Clin Pathol       Date:  2004-04       Impact factor: 3.411

2.  Protein Biomarker Research in UK Hospital Clinical Biochemistry Laboratories: A Survey of Current Practice and Views.

Authors:  Sophie Hepburn; Rosamonde E Banks; Douglas Thompson
Journal:  Clin Biochem Rev       Date:  2014-05

3.  25 years of telepathology research: a bibliometric analysis.

Authors:  Vincenzo Della Mea
Journal:  Diagn Pathol       Date:  2011-03-30       Impact factor: 2.644

4.  An audit of research productivity in clinical biochemistry revisited.

Authors:  Tim M Reynolds; Anthony S Wierzbicki
Journal:  JRSM Open       Date:  2019-04-24
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.