Lewison G, Devey M E
Unit for Policy Research in Science and Medicine, The Wellcome Trust, London.
Rheumatology (Oxford). 1999 Jan;38(1):13-20. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/38.1.13.
This study uses bibliometric methods to evaluate the magnitude and quality of publications in arthritis research in the UK and compare this with that of other countries. Arthritis research was defined by publication in a specialist journal or by specific title key words or address. Outputs from 13 countries between 1988 and 1995 were analysed by number, research level (from clinical to basic) and potential impact on other researchers (from low to high). The UK has a strong presence in arthritis research and the highest relative commitment of all the countries studied. UK output was more clinical than that of other countries, except Spain, and was of relatively high impact. A second study examined UK arthritis papers supported by different funding sources, including government, private-non-profit and industry. Papers with funding acknowledgements were of significantly higher impact and less clinical than those without. The Arthritis Research Campaign was the leading funder in the UK with high-impact papers which, over the 8 yr period, have become more clinical than those supported by other funding sources, except hospital trusts.
本研究采用文献计量学方法评估英国关节炎研究出版物的数量和质量,并将其与其他国家进行比较。关节炎研究通过发表在专业期刊上或通过特定的标题关键词或地址来定义。分析了1988年至1995年间13个国家的研究成果,包括数量、研究水平(从临床到基础)以及对其他研究人员的潜在影响(从低到高)。英国在关节炎研究方面表现突出,在所研究的所有国家中相对投入最高。英国的研究成果比其他国家(西班牙除外)更偏向临床,且影响力相对较高。第二项研究考察了由不同资金来源(包括政府、私人非营利组织和行业)资助的英国关节炎论文。有资金致谢的论文影响力显著更高,且比没有资金致谢的论文临床性更低。关节炎研究运动是英国的主要资助者,其资助的论文影响力较高,在8年期间,这些论文比其他资金来源(医院信托除外)资助的论文更偏向临床。