日本研究资金状况与临床研究论文被引影响力之间的关联：一项横断面文献计量学研究。
The association between research funding status and clinical research papers' citation impact in Japan: A cross-sectional bibliometric study.
作者信息
Morisawa Fumito, Nishizaki Yuji, Devos Patrick, Yanagisawa Naotake, Matsuyama Kotone, Homma Yasuhiro, Ueda Rieko, Sekine Miwa, Daida Hiroyuki, Minamino Tohru, Sanada Shoji
机构信息
Department of Cardiovascular Biology and Medicine, Juntendo University Graduate School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan.
Rare Disease Medical Affairs, Pfizer Japan Inc., Tokyo, Japan.
出版信息
Front Med (Lausanne). 2022 Oct 19;9:978174. doi: 10.3389/fmed.2022.978174. eCollection 2022.
INTRODUCTION
Studies have not sufficiently clarified the differences in citation impact between funded and non-funded clinical research papers. Hence, this study seeks to evaluate the relation between research funding status and clinical research papers' citation impact in different research fields using multiple evaluation indices.
METHODS
In this cross-sectional bibliometric study, clinical research papers published by core clinical research hospitals in Japan were compared retrospectively in terms of times cited (TC), category normalized citation impact (CNCI), citation percentile (CP), journal impact factor (JIF), the Software to Identify, Manage, and Analyze Scientific Publications (SIGAPS) category, and whether they were the funded clinical research. The association between research funding status or the SIGAPS category and CNCI ≥ 2 was analyzed using logistic regression analysis.
RESULTS
11 core clinical research hospitals published 553 clinical research papers, of which 120 were non-funded and 433 were funded (public institution-funded and industry-funded). The study found that funded clinical research papers (public institution-funded and industry-funded) had significantly higher TC, CNCI, CP, and JIF than non-funded ones [TC: 8 (3-17) vs. 14 (8-31), < 0.001; CNCI: 0.53 (0.19-0.97) vs. 0.87 (0.45-1.85), < 0.001; CP: 51.9 (24.48-70.42) vs. 66.7 (40.53-88.01), < 0.001; JIF: 2.59 (1.90-3.84) vs. 2.93 (2.09-4.20) = 0.008], while the proportion of A or B rank clinical research papers of the SIGAPS category was not significantly different between the two groups (30.0 vs. 34.9%, = 0.318). In the logistic regression analysis, having a CNCI ≥ 2 was significantly associated with research funding (public institution-funded and industry-funded) and publication in A or B rank journals of the SIGAPS category [research funding: Estimate 2.169, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.153-4.083, = 0.016; SIGAPS category A/B: Estimate 6.126, 95% CI 3.889-9.651, < 0.001].
CONCLUSION
Analysis multiple indicators including CNCI and the SIGAPS category, which allows for a comparison of the papers' citation impact in different research fields, found a positive relation between research funding status and the citation impact of clinical research papers.
引言
关于资助型和非资助型临床研究论文的引用影响力差异，此前的研究尚未充分阐明。因此，本研究旨在使用多种评估指标，评估不同研究领域中研究资助状况与临床研究论文引用影响力之间的关系。
方法
在这项横断面文献计量学研究中，对日本核心临床研究医院发表的临床研究论文进行回顾性比较，比较指标包括被引次数（TC）、类别标准化引用影响力（CNCI）、引用百分位数（CP）、期刊影响因子（JIF）、科学出版物识别、管理和分析软件（SIGAPS）类别以及是否为资助型临床研究。使用逻辑回归分析研究资助状况或SIGAPS类别与CNCI≥2之间的关联。
结果
11家核心临床研究医院发表了553篇临床研究论文，其中120篇为非资助型，433篇为资助型（公共机构资助和行业资助）。研究发现，资助型临床研究论文（公共机构资助和行业资助）的TC、CNCI、CP和JIF显著高于非资助型论文[TC：8（3-17）对14（8-31），<0.001；CNCI：0.53（0.19-0.97）对0.87（0.45-1.85），<0.001；CP：51.9（24.48-70.42）对66.7（40.53-88.01），<0.001；JIF：2.59（1.90-3.84）对2.93（2.09-4.20），P = 0.008]，而SIGAPS类别中A或B级临床研究论文的比例在两组之间无显著差异（30.0%对34.9%，P = 0.318）。在逻辑回归分析中，CNCI≥2与研究资助（公共机构资助和行业资助）以及在SIGAPS类别A或B级期刊上发表显著相关[研究资助：估计值2.169，95%置信区间（CI）1.153-4.083，P = 0.016；SIGAPS类别A/B：估计值6.126，95%CI 3.889-9.651，<0.001]。
结论
通过对包括CNCI和SIGAPS类别在内的多个指标进行分析，该分析允许比较不同研究领域论文的引用影响力，发现研究资助状况与临床研究论文的引用影响力之间存在正相关关系。
Zotero 插件