16
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Análisis cienciométrico de la producción científica del Instituto Nacional de Cancerología Translated title: National Cancer Institute scientific production scientometric analysis

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Resumen Introducción: La cienciometría permite analizar la productividad e impacto de las publicaciones científicas mediante técnicas bibliométricas y computacionales. Objetivo: Proponer una metodología multidimensional para obtener el perfil cienciométrico del Instituto Nacional de Cancerología (INCan), México, y compararlo respecto a otras instituciones nacionales de salud. Método: Con el programa LabSOM y la metodología ViBlioSOM, basada en redes neuronales artificiales, se analizó la producción científica del INCan indexada en la Web of Science entre 2007 y 2017. Se obtuvo el perfil cienciométrico multidimensional del Instituto y se comparó con el de otras instituciones nacionales de salud. Resultados: En productividad, el INCan ocupa el cuarto lugar de las 10 instituciones mexicanas de salud pública indexadas en la Web of Science.; en el ranking de impacto normalizado, el sexto lugar. Aun cuando de 1323 artículos, 683 (51.62 %) no recibieron citas, 11 artículos de excelencia (0.83 %) lograron 24 % de 11 932 citas y, consecuentemente, el impacto normalizado del INCan evidenció una productividad media por arriba de la media mundial. Conclusión: El análisis multidimensional con la red neuronal propuesta permite obtener un perfil cienciométrico institucional absoluto y relativo más fidedigno e integral que el derivado de conteos de variables aisladas.

          Translated abstract

          Abstract Introduction: Scientometrics analyzes scientific publications through bibliometric and computational techniques, whereby productivity and impact indicators are generated. Objective: To propose a multidimensional methodology in order to obtain the scientometric profile of the National Cancer Institute (INCan), Mexico, and rank it with regard to other national health institutions. Method: Using the LabSOM software and the ViBlioSOM methodology based on artificial neural networks, the INCan scientific production indexed in the Web of Science from 2007 to 2017 was analyzed. The multidimensional scientometric profile of the Institute was obtained and compared with that of other national health institutions. Results: In terms of productivity, INCan ranks fourth among the 10 Mexican public health institutions indexed in the Web of Science; in the normalized impact ranking, it ranks sixth. Although out of 1323 articles 683 (51.62 %) did not receive citations, 11 articles classified as excellent (0.83 %) obtained 24 % of 11,932 citations and, consequently, INCan normalized impact rate showed a mean productivity higher than the world mean. Conclusion: Multidimensional analysis with the proposed neural network enables obtaining a more reliable and comprehensive absolute and relative institutional scientiometric profile than that derived from measuring isolated variables.

          Related collections

          Most cited references10

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          The history and meaning of the journal impact factor.

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Understanding the impact of public policy on cancer research: a bibliometric approach.

            With global spend on cancer research from the public sector now in excess of 14 billion euro, as well as the increasing burden of disease in market economies and low-middle income countries through changing demographics (ageing and population growth) cancer is now one of the most complex and global public policy issues. Using novel bibliometrics we have sought to investigate changes in research activity (total output), relative commitment and collaborations between countries/regions with similar healthcare and population and development parameters - United Kingdom, France, Germany, Canada and Sweden - to assess the utility of this policy research approach by analysing two different cohorts (1995-1999 and 2000-2004) to study the impact of changes on research publications as a surrogate for overall research activity. Copyright 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found

              An analysis of research activity in major UK cancer centres

              The organisation of cancer research is critical to its overall creativity and productivity. Cancer centres are a major organisational structure for this research, however, little is known about their effect on research or how national policy-making intersects with this complex policy nexus. This study of the evolution of United Kingdom cancer centres (UKCC), part of a wider European and United States programme, uses a bibliometric analysis of research activity prior to the creation of the NCRI and after its formation (1995-2004/5). In terms of critical research mass UKCC are very heterogeneous with a fourfold difference between the top and bottom quintiles. UK centres published just over one eighth of the total UKCC in 1995 but almost a quarter by 2004. This centrification occurred in the absence of any national strategy. Overall these centres conduct more fundamental (laboratory-based) research than that being conducted in the wider network but this hides major heterogeneity. UKCC collaborate with European investigators in 5-28% of all their outputs and with USA the range is between 6% and 21%. We have also derived new measures of research impact on clinical management and the general public as well as the impact of national policy on research assessment for certain types of cancer research.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                gmm
                Gaceta médica de México
                Gac. Méd. Méx
                Academia Nacional de Medicina de México A.C. (Ciudad de México, Ciudad de México, Mexico )
                0016-3813
                2696-1288
                February 2020
                : 156
                : 1
                : 4-10
                Affiliations
                [3] Ciudad de México orgnameUniversidad Nacional Autónoma de México orgdiv1Facultad de Ciencias orgdiv2Laboratorio de Dinámica no Lineal Mexico
                [1] Ciudad de México orgnameInstituto Nacional de Cancerología orgdiv1Centro de Investigación e Innovación en Tecnologías de la Información y Comunicación México
                [2] Ciudad de México orgnameConsejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología orgdiv1Centro de Investigación e Innovación en Tecnologías de la Información y Comunicación México
                Article
                S0016-38132020000100004 S0016-3813(20)15600100004
                10.24875/gmm.19005103
                32026874
                bddda9f1-0b9e-45a2-bb04-b1bced5ace0f

                This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

                History
                : 21 June 2019
                : 25 February 2019
                Page count
                Figures: 0, Tables: 0, Equations: 0, References: 10, Pages: 7
                Product

                SciELO Mexico

                Categories
                Artículos originales

                Mexico,Investigación en sistemas de salud pública,Medición de resultados,México,Research in public health systems,Outcome measure

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_

                Similar content48

                Cited by5

                Most referenced authors30