A new approach to defining a multidisciplinary field of science: The case of cardiovascular biology
- 83 Downloads
Appropriate sections of a hierarchical subject classification scheme, Medical Subject Headings (MeSH), were developed into a “MeSH filter” through which papers indexed in MEDLINE were screened.
A panel of cardiovascular experts reviewed the core set of classification terms, identifying irrelevant and missing areas, facilitating the development of a more sophisticated “filter”.
The definition was validated using publication lists from research departments with a known interest in cardiovascular research.
This iterative process resulted in a definition of the field which captured basic and clinical research papers from the international biomedical research community and which was recognisable to experts in the field of cardiovascular research. Importantly, the field boundary also excluded publications which were not relevant to cardiovascular research. The process of involving experts in shaping the field definition also yielded two intangible, but key benefits: (a) it lent credibility to subsequent analyses, the results of which were to be presented to policy-makers in cardiovascular biology, and (b) it served to shape consensus among the cardiovascular experts on the full range of scientific disciplines that are relevant to their field.
Analysis of international publishing in cardiovascular research revealed that whilst the UK and US dominate in total numbers of papers, the relative emphasis on cardiovascular research in these countries (as a proportion ofall biomedical publishing) is actually quite low, and declining. Japan and Germany in contrast appear to give greater emphasis to cardiovascular research in their national portfolios of biomedical science, and between 1988–1991 Japan established a marked increase in activity.
KeywordsMeSH Bibliometric Analysis Medical Subject Heading Field Boundary Cardiovascular Research
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.P. Jones, Report on the 1989 research assessment exercise, Universities Funding Council, December 1989.Google Scholar
- 2.J. A. McGinnety, A. G. Thomas, The efficiency of research council grants, Mimeo, Natural Environment Research Council, Swindon, 1989.Google Scholar
- 3.P. O. Williams, Report to the Director of Research and Development, Review of the role of DH-funded research units. Strategies for long-term funding of Research and Development, Department of Health, March 1992.Google Scholar
- 4.B. R. Martin, The bibliometric assessment of the UK scientific performance: a reply to Braun, Glänzel and Schubert,Scientometrics, 20 (1991) 333–357.Google Scholar
- 5.WHO annual health statistics International Classification of Diseases (410–414) (1990).Google Scholar
- 6.OPCS, Mortality Statistics 1988, DH2 no. 15, HMSO (1990).Google Scholar
- 7.Health of the Nation. A consultative document for Health in England, Department of Health, HMSO, 1991.Google Scholar
- 8.P. Isard, J. Forbes, The cost of stroke to the NHS in Scotland,Cerebrovascular Diseases, (1992) (in press).Google Scholar
- 9.The Health of the Nation. A strategy for health in England. Department of Health, HMSO, 1992.Google Scholar
- 10.M. Peckham, Research and development for the National Health Service,The Lancet, 338 (1991) 367–371.Google Scholar
- 11.MRC Cardiovascular Working Group Report, 1990, Professor A. Henderson personal communication.Google Scholar
- 12.B. Balmer, B. R. Martin, Who's doing what in human genome research,Scientometrics, 22 (1991) 369–377.Google Scholar
- 13.H. Small, E. Sweeney, Clustering the Science Citation Index using co-citations, Part I, A comparison of methods,Scientometrics, 7 (1985) 393–409.Google Scholar
- 14.H. Small, E. Sweeney, E. Greenlee, Clustering the Science Citation Index, II, Mapping science,Scientometrics, 8 (1985) 321–340.Google Scholar
- 15.S. E. Cozzens, Literature-based data in research evaluation: a managers guide to bibliometrics, SPSG Concept Paper II, 1990.Google Scholar
- 16.K. Stevens, F. Narin, National Citation Indicators based on citing year: the citation time anomaly, CHI Research Inc., memo to science literature indicator users, May, 1989.Google Scholar
- 17.H. G. Small, B. C. Griffith, The structure of scientific literatures I: Identifying and graphing specialties,Science Studies, 4 (1974) 17–40.Google Scholar
- 18.D. Sullivan, D. Hywel-White, E. J. Barboni, Co-citation analyses of science: an evaluation,Social Studies of Science, 7 (1977) 223–240.Google Scholar
- 19.M. Callon, J. Law, A. Rip (Eds),Mapping the Dynamics of Science and Technology: Sociology of Science in the Real World, London, Macmillan, 1986.Google Scholar
- 20.P. Healey, H. Rothman, P. K. Hoch, An experiment in science mapping for research planning,Research Policy, 15 (1986) 233–251.Google Scholar
- 21.J. Law, J. Whittaker, Mapping acidification research: a test of the co-word method,Scientometrics, 23 (1992) 417–461.Google Scholar
- 22.National Library of Medicine News, 46 (1991), July–August.Google Scholar
- 23.National Library of Medicine, Index Medicus Review (1991).Google Scholar
- 24.National Library of Medicine, US Department of Health and Human Services, Medical Subject Headings, 1–2 (1991).Google Scholar
- 25.J. Anderson, P. M. D. Collins, J. Irvine, P. A. Isard, B. R. Martin, F. Narin, K. Stevens, On-Line approaches to measuring national scientific output: A cautionary tale,Science and Public Policy, 15 (1988) 153–161.Google Scholar
- 26.F. Narin, The Japan Technology 50, Venture Economics Inc., 1988.Google Scholar
- 27.J. Irvine, B. R. Martin, International comparisons of scientific performance revisited,Scientometrics, 15 (1989) 369–392.Google Scholar
- 28.S. Le Minor, P. Dostatni, A bibliometric study of publications of the National Institute for Health and Medical Research (INSERM),Scientometrics, 22 (1991) 41–62.Google Scholar
- 29.B. R. Martin, J. Irvine, Assessing basic research: some partial indicators of scientific progress in radio astronomy,Research Policy, 12 (1983) 61–90.Google Scholar
- 30.S. M. Lawani, On the relationship between quantity and quality of a country's research productivity,Journal of Information Science, 5 (1982) 143–145.Google Scholar
- 31.F. Narin, Bibliometric techniques in the evaluation of research programs,Science and Public Policy, 14 (1987) 99–106.Google Scholar
- 32.A. Schubert, W. Glänzel, T. Braun, Against absolute methods: relative scientometric indicators and relational charts as evaluation tools,Handbook of Quantitative Studies of Science and Technology,A. J. F. Van Raan (Ed.), 1988, p. 137–176.Google Scholar
- 33.O. Persson, Measuring scientific output by online techniques,Handbook of Quantitative Studies of Science and Technology,A. J. F. Van Raan (Ed.), 1988, p. 229–254.Google Scholar
- 34.T. Braun, W. Glänzel, A. Schubert, Assessing assessments of British Science: some facts and figures to accept or decline,Scientometrics, 15 (1989) 165–170.Google Scholar
- 35.B. R. Martin, J. Irvine, F. Narin, C. Sterritt, K. A. Stevens, Recent trends in the output and impact of British science,Science and Public Policy, 17 (1990) 14–26.Google Scholar
- 36.Sciencewatch, March 2 (1991) 2–8.Google Scholar