Bibliometric analysis of global trends for research productivity in microbiology

  • P. I. Vergidis
  • A. I. Karavasiou
  • K. Paraschakis
  • I. A. Bliziotis
  • M. E. FalagasEmail author
Concise Article


In order to expand upon the limited literature estimating the quantity and quality of worldwide research production in the field of microbiology, a bibliometric analysis was conducted for the period 1995–2003 using the PubMed and Journal Citation Reports databases. By searching the “microbiology” category of the Journal Citation Reports database, a total of 74 journals were identified that were also included in PubMed. From these journals, a total of 89,527 articles were identified for analysis, and data on the country in which the research originated was available for 88,456 (98.8%) of them. The individual countries were separated into nine world regions. In terms of research production for the period studied, Western Europe exceeded all other world regions, with the USA ranking second. The mean impact factor was highest for the USA at 3.4, while it was 2.8 for Western Europe and 2.4 for the rest of the world combined. The research productivity per unit of expenditure for research and development was higher for Canada and Western Europe than for the USA. The three regions in which research productivity increased the most were Asia, Latin America, and Eastern Europe.


Gross Domestic Product Impact Factor Research Productivity World Region Journal Citation Report 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    Ramos JM, Gutierrez F, Masia M, Martin-Hidalgo A (2004) Publication of European Union research on infectious diseases (1991-2001): a bibliometric evaluation. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 23:180–184Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Institute for Scientific Information (2004) SCI: Science Citation Index-Journal Citation Reports. The Institute for Scientific Information, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    PubMed database (2004) National Library of Medicine, Bethesda, MD. Scholar
  4. 4.
    United Nations (2004) United Nations Statistical Yearbook, 48th issue, Part 2. United Nations, New York, pp 33–132Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    World Development Indicators Online (2004) The World Bank, Washington, D.C. Scholar
  6. 6.
    Winkmann G, Schweim HG (2000) Medical-bioscientific databanks and the impact factor. Dtsch Med Wochenschr 125:1133–1141Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Whitehouse GH (2002) Impact factors: facts and myths. Eur Radiol 12:715–717Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Seglen PO (1997) Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research. BMJ 314:498–502Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Barnaby DP, Gallagher EJ (1998) Alternative to the Science Citation Index impact factor as an assessment of emergency medicine’s scientific contributions. Ann Emerg Med 31:78–82Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Garfield E (1955) Citation indexes for science; a new dimension in documentation through association of ideas. Science 122:108–111Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Luukkonen T (1990) Bibliometrics and evaluation of research performance. Ann Med 22:145–150Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Boldt J, Haisch G, Maleck WH (2000) Changes in the impact factor of anesthesia/critical care journals within the past 10 years. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 44:842–849Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jemec GB (2001) Impact factors of dermatological journals for 1991–2000. BMC Dermatol 1:7Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gensini GF, Conti AA (1999) The impact factor: a factor of impact or the impact of a (sole) factor? The limits of a bibliometric indicator as a candidate for an instrument to evaluate scientific production. Ann Ital Med Int 14:130–133Google Scholar

Copyright information

©  2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • P. I. Vergidis
    • 1
  • A. I. Karavasiou
    • 1
  • K. Paraschakis
    • 1
  • I. A. Bliziotis
    • 1
  • M. E. Falagas
    • 2
    Email author
  1. 1.Alfa Institute of Biomedical Sciences (AIBS)MarousiGreece
  2. 2.Tufts University School of MedicineBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations