I K Moppett1, J G Hardman. 1. Division of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, University of Nottingham, Queen's Medical Centre Campus, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, Nottingham NG7 2UH, UK. iain.moppett@nottingham.ac.uk
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Bibliometrics provide surrogate measures of the quality and quantity of research undertaken by departments and individuals. Previous reports have suggested that academic anaesthesia research in the UK is in decline. We wished to provide a comprehensive description of current and historical published output of UK anaesthesia researchers. METHODS: Bibliometric indices (Web of Science(®)) were calculated for anaesthesia researchers in the UK for the whole period covered by the database, and for 2004-8. A parallel search was made using the Scholarometer™ tool, which parses output from Google Scholar™. Calculated indices included total number of publications; total number of citations; citations per paper; h-index; g-index; and modified impact index. RESULTS: One hundred and four individuals and 23 academic departments were identified. Median values (inter-quartile range) for the indices were: total papers 57 (24-95) (individuals for the whole period), 11 (6-20) (individuals 2004-8), 50 (30-70) (departments 2004-8); total number of citations 571 (175-1328), 93 (38-207), 383 (239-845); h-index 13 (8-20), 6 (3-8), 11 (9-14). Four departments were ranked in the top 5 for all indices. CONCLUSIONS: The general distribution of bibliometric data is similar to that seen in other specialities in Europe and North America. Four departments contribute to more than 50% of published anaesthesia research output in this data set. These data provide useful comparative tools for individuals, departments, and national bodies.
BACKGROUND: Bibliometrics provide surrogate measures of the quality and quantity of research undertaken by departments and individuals. Previous reports have suggested that academic anaesthesia research in the UK is in decline. We wished to provide a comprehensive description of current and historical published output of UK anaesthesia researchers. METHODS: Bibliometric indices (Web of Science(®)) were calculated for anaesthesia researchers in the UK for the whole period covered by the database, and for 2004-8. A parallel search was made using the Scholarometer™ tool, which parses output from Google Scholar™. Calculated indices included total number of publications; total number of citations; citations per paper; h-index; g-index; and modified impact index. RESULTS: One hundred and four individuals and 23 academic departments were identified. Median values (inter-quartile range) for the indices were: total papers 57 (24-95) (individuals for the whole period), 11 (6-20) (individuals 2004-8), 50 (30-70) (departments 2004-8); total number of citations 571 (175-1328), 93 (38-207), 383 (239-845); h-index 13 (8-20), 6 (3-8), 11 (9-14). Four departments were ranked in the top 5 for all indices. CONCLUSIONS: The general distribution of bibliometric data is similar to that seen in other specialities in Europe and North America. Four departments contribute to more than 50% of published anaesthesia research output in this data set. These data provide useful comparative tools for individuals, departments, and national bodies.