Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Biotechnology profile analysis in Colombia

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

It is widely accepted that biotechnology is a globally significant and growing research field. Because of its biodiversity, Colombia has a comparative advantage to innovate and commercialize biotechnological products and services. The aim of this study is to obtain a research profile and intellectual structure of the country in the biotechnology field by using bibliometric methods. These methods are needed to monitor the capacities and the compliance of national policies in biotechnology. By using records extracted from the ISI WoK database, this study describes the biotechnology publication trend, productivity and collaboration among institutions and countries, preferred journals, and the intellectual structure at the research subject area. Although, a growing trend in biotechnology publication was observed, the productivity is still low when compared to other countries in the region and the world. On the other hand, researchers seem to show a preference for international over domestic collaboration. The results suggest two elements: first, policy has not had the expected outcome in the short term, and second, a lack of internal collaboration could therefore reflect low endogenous capacities. The bibliometric methods used in this study can be applied to a wide range of research fields other than biotechnology.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Records per capita are calculated based on the country population and have an order of magnitude of 10−6. The information was consulted the 29th of March (2014) on the website of the World Bank http://datos.bancomundial.org/indicador/SP.POP.TOTL. We thank a reviewer for this suggestion.

  2. Argentina, Brazil, Mexico, Chile, Peru, Venezuela, Costa Rica, and Ecuador.

  3. In Fig. 2b are observed only the top 30 countries. This avoids the clutter in the figure and improves its understanding.

  4. Universities in Colombia are Higher Education Institutions classified according to their legal nature in public and private institutions. The private universities should be organized as legal entities of public utility, nonprofit, organized as corporations, foundations and institutions of solidarity economy. Public universities have special autonomy in terms of recruitment, special regime to pay their teachers, special handling in budgetary matters, and have special contributions to be maintained by the National Government.

  5. International Center for Tropical Agriculture. Although, the CIAT has its headquarters in Colombia, its impact is wider involving more than 200 scientist working in Latin America and the Caribbean as well as 29 countries in sub-Saharan Africa and 5 in South East Asia.

  6. High Council of Scientific Research. CSIC is the main public research institution in Spain. This institution coordinates, develops, and diffuses the research and technology towards knowledge generation and economic development. One of their main functions is the diffusion and contribution of the Spanish research at the international landscape.

References

  • Aksnes, D. W., Olsen, T. B., & Seglen, P. O. (2000). Validation of bibliometric indicators in the field of microbiology: A Norwegian case study. Scientometrics, 49(1), 7–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arvanitis, R., Waast, R., & Gaillard, J. (2000). Science in Africa: A bibliometric Panorama using PASCAL database. Scientometrics, 47(3), 457–473.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Asknes, D. W., & Taxt, R. E. (2004). Peers reviews and bibliometric indicators: A comparative study at Norwegian University. Research Evaluation, 21(1), 33–41.

  • Bajwa, R. S., & Yaldram, K. (2013). Bibliometric analysis of biotechnology research in Pakistan. Scientometrics, 95, 529–540.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bayer, E. A., & Folger, J. (1996). Some correlates of a citation measure of productivity in science. Sociology of Education, 39(4), 381–390.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Braun, T., Schubert, A. P., & Kostoff, R. N. (2000). Growth and trends of fullerene research as reflected in its journal literature. Chemical Reviews, 100(1), 23–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, K., & Guan, J. (2011). A bibliometric investigation of research performance in emerging nanobiopharmaceuticals. Journal of Informetrics, 5(2), 233–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • COLCIENCIAS (2008). Colombia siembra futuro: Política Nacional de Fomento a la Investigación y la Innovación. Bogotá.

  • Dannenberg, A. L. (1985). Use of epidemiology in medical specialties: An examination by citation analysis. American Journal of Epidemiology, 121(1), 140–151.

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, J. C., & Gonzalez, J. C. (2003). Scholarly journal articles about the Asian Tiger Economies: Authors, journals and research fields, 1986–2001. Asian-Pacific Economic Literature, 17(2), 51–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DNP (2009). Política Nacional de Ciencia, Tecnología e Innovación. (Conpes-3582). Bogotá.

  • DNP (2011). Política para el desarrollo comercial de la biotecnología a partir del uso sostenible de la biodiversidad. (Conpes-3697). Bogotá.

  • Estrabooks, C. A., Winther, C., & Derksen, L. (2004). Mapping the field: A bibliometric analysis of the research utilization literature in nursing. Nursing Research, 53(5), 293–303.

  • Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (2000). The dynamics of innovation: From National Systems and “Mode 2” to a Triple Helix of university–industry–government relations. Research Policy, 29(2), 109–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frenken, K., Holzl, W., & Vor, F. (2005). The citation impact of research collaborations: The case of European biotechnology e applied microbiology (1998–2002). Journal of Engineering Management and Technology, 22(1–2), 9–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Furman, J. L., Porter, M. E., & Stern, S. (2002). The determinants of national innovative capacity. Research Policy, 31(6), 899–933.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gaulthier, E. (1998). Bibliometric analysis of scientific and technological research: A user’s guide to the methodology. Observatoire des Sciences et des Technologies (CIRST): Science and Technology Redesign Project.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gay, B., & Dousset, B. (2005). Innovation and network structural dynamics: Study of the alliance network of a major sector of the biotechnology industry. Research Policy, 34(10), 1457–1475.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glanzel, W., & Zhow, P. (2011). Publication activity, citation impact and bi-directional links between publications and patents in biotechnology. Scientometrics, 86(2), 505–525.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gomez-Costa, B. M., Silva-Pedro, E., & Ribeiro-de-Macedo, G. (2013). Scientific collaboration in biotechnology: The case of the northeast region in Brazil. Scientometrics, 95(2), 571–592.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hawkins, D. T. (1977). Unconventional uses of on-line information retrieval systems: On-line bibliometric studies. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 28(1), 13–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacobs, D., & Ingwersen, P. (2000). A bibliometric study of the publication patterns in the sciences of south African Scholars 1981–96. Scientometrics, 47(1), 75–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jeong, S., & Kim, H. G. (2010). Intellectual structure of biomedical informatics reflected in scholarly events. Scientometrics, 85(2), 541–551.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Junquera, B., & Mitre, M. (2007). Value of bibliometric analysis for research policy: A case study of Spanish research into innovation and technology management. Scientometrics, 71(3), 443–454.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, M. J. (2007). A bibliometric analysis of the effectiveness of Korea’s Biotechnology Stimulation Plans, with a comparison with other four Asian nations. Scientometrics, 72(3), 371–388.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krampen, G., von Eye, A., & Schui, G. (2012). Forecasting trends of development of psychology from a bibliometric perspective. Scientometrics, 87(3), 687–694.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kumar, P. S., & Chand, P. (2005). Biotechnology research profile of India. Scientometrics, 63(3), 583–597.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leydesdorff, L., & Gauthier, E. (1996). The evaluation of national performance in selected priority areas using scientometric methods. Research Policy, 25(3), 431–450.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li, L., Ding, G., Feng, N., Wang, M., & Ho, Y. (2008). Global stem cell research trend: Bibliometric analysis as a tool for mapping of trends from 1991 to 2006. Scientometrics, 80(1), 39–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martinez, H., Jaime, A., & Camacho, J. (2012). Relative absorptive capacity: A research profiling. Scientometrics, 92(3), 657–674.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCain, K. W. (1995). The structure of biotechnology R & D. Scientometrics, 32(2), 153–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McMillan, G., Narin, F., & Deeds, D. L. (2000). An analysis of the critical role of public science in innovation: The case of biotechnology. Research Policy, 29(1), 1–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Molatudi, M., & Pouris, A. (2006). Assesing the knowledge base for biotechnology in South Africa—a bibliometric analysis of South African microbiology and molecular biology and genetics research. Scientometrics, 68(1), 97–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Novak, J. D. (2010). Earning, creating, and using knowledge: Concept maps as facilitative tools in schools and cooperations (2nd ed.). New York: Taylor & Francis.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD (2011). Biotechnology R&D OECD science, technology and industry scoreboard 2011. Paris: OECD Publishing.

  • OECD (2013). OECD patent database, October 2013. Retrieved the 14th of March of 2014. http://www.oecd.org/innovation/inno/keybiotechnologyindicators.htm.

  • Pritchar, A. (1969). Statistical bibliography or bibliometrics. Journal of Documentation, 25(4), 348–349.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rahman, M., Haque, T. L., & Fukui, T. (2005). Research articles published in clinical radiology journals: Trend of contribution from different countries. Academic Radiology, 12(7), 825–829.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rajendram, R., Lewison, G., & Preedy, V. R. (2006). Worldwide alcohol-related research and the disease burden. Alcohol and Alcoholism, 41(1), 99–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schummer, J. (2007). The global institutionalization of nanotechnology research: A bibliometric approach to the assessment of science policy. Scientometrics, 70(3), 669–692.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Senthilkumaran, P., & Amudhavalli, A. (2007). Mapping of spices research in Asian countries. Scientometrics, 73(2), 149–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shaw, M. W. (1993). The biodiversity of microorganisms and invertebrates: Its role in sustainable agriculture. Experimental Agriculture, 29(1), 133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, K. (1994). Interactions in knowledge systems: Foundations, policy implications and empirical methods. STEP Report.

  • Su, H.-N., & Lee, P.-C. (2010). Mapping knowledge structure by keyword co-occurrence: A first look at journal papers in Technology Foresight. Scientometrics, 85(1), 65–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yuthavong, Y. (1986). Bibliometric indicators of scientific activity in Thailand. Scientometrics, 9(3–4), 139–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, W., Qian, W., & Ho, Y. (2009). A bibliometric analysis of research related to ocean circulation. Scientometrics, 80(2), 305–316.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zilberman, D., Ameden, H., Graff, G., & Qaim, M. (2004). Agricultural biotechnology: Productivity, biodiversity, and intellectual property rights. Journal of Agricultural & Food Industrial Organization, 2(3), 1–16.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the reviewers of this paper for making many valuable suggestions and thoughtful comments. Besides, we thank Professors Luis E. Becerra and Piedad Arenas for their valuable feedback. We also thank the Universidad Industrial de Santander for its support in the provision of specialized analytic tools (software) needed to obtain the data.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Center for Technology and Innovation Management Research–Innotec, Universidad Industrial de Santander, Vicerrectoría Administrativa, Cra. 27 Calle 9, Bucaramanga, Colombia

    H. Martinez & J. Camacho

  2. Knowledge Transfer Office, Vicerrectoría de Investigaciones–Oficina de Transferencia de Conocimiento, Universidad Industrial de Santander (UIS), Cra. 27 Calle 9, Bucaramanga, Colombia

    A. Jaime

Authors
  1. H. Martinez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. A. Jaime
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. J. Camacho
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to H. Martinez.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Martinez, H., Jaime, A. & Camacho, J. Biotechnology profile analysis in Colombia. Scientometrics 101, 1789–1804 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-014-1408-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-014-1408-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation