Advertisement

Scientometrics

, 88:311 | Cite as

A new indicator for international visibility: exploring Brazilian scientific community

  • Paula Leite
  • Rogério Mugnaini
  • Jacqueline Leta
Article

Abstract

Brazilian science has increased fast during the last decades. An example is the increasing in the country’s share in the world’s scientific publication within the main international databases. But what is the actual weight of international publications to the whole Brazilian productivity? In order to respond this question, we have elaborated a new indicator, the International Publication Ratio (IPR). The data source was Lattes Database, a database organized by one of the main Brazilian S&T funding agency, which encompasses publication data from 1997 to 2004 of about 51,000 Brazilian researchers. Influences of distinct parameters, such as sectors, fields, career age and gender, are analyzed. We hope the data presented may help S&T managers and other S&T interests to better understand the complexity under the concept scientific productivity, especially in peripheral countries in science, such as Brazil.

Keywords

Brazilian science Scientific publications International publication ratio 

Notes

Acknowledgment

We thank CNPq, especially the support of Silvana M. Cosac, for the database set up for this study and for the PhD fellowship awarded to Paula Leite. This study was supported by CNPq - Process number 483095/2009 - 5.

References

  1. Allison, P. D., & Stewart, J. A. (1974). Productivity differences among scientists: evidence for accumulative advantage. American Sociological Review, 39, 596–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Basu, A. (2010). Does a country’s scientific ‘productivity’ depend critically on the number of country journals indexed? Scientometrics, 82, 507–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Batista, P. D., Campiteli, M. G., Kinouchi, O., & Martinez, A. S. (2006). Is it possible to compare researchers with different scientific interests? Scientometrics, 68, 179–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. BritoCruz, C. H. (2007). Ciência e tecnologia no Brasil. Revista USP, 73, 58–90.Google Scholar
  5. Cohen, J. E. (1991). Size, age and productivity of scientific and technical research groups. Scientometrics, 20, 395–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Costas, I. (2002). Women in science in Germany. Science in Context, 15, 557–576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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, 109–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fox, M. F. (1983). Publication productivity among scientists: a critical review. Social Studies of Science, 13, 285–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Glanzel, W., & Moed, H. (2002). Journal impact measures in bibliometric research. Scientometrics, 53, 171–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Glanzel, W., Leta, J., & Thijs, B. (2006). Science in Brazil. Part 1: a macro-level comparative study. Scientometrics, 67, 67–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Guimaraes, J. A., & Humann, M. C. (1995). Training of human-resources in science and technology in Brazil. The importance of a vigorous postgraduate program and its impact on the development of the country. Scientometrics, 34, 101–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hirsch, J. E. (2005). An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. PNAS, 102(46), 16569–16572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hu, X., Rousseau, R., & Chen, J. (2010). In those fields where multiple authorship is the rule, the h-index should be supplemented by role-based h-indices. Journal of Information Science, 36, 73–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. King, C. (2009). Brazilian science on the rise. ScienceWatch. Available at: http://sciencewatch.com/ana/fea/09julaugFea/.
  15. Lane, J. (2010). Let’s make science metrics more scientific. Nature (Opinion), 464, 488–489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Leite, P., Mugnaini, R., & Leta, J. (2009). International versus national publications: the case of Brazilian scientists. Proceedings ISSI 2009, 2, 962–963.Google Scholar
  17. Leta, J., Glänzel, W., & Thijs, B. (2006). Science in Brazil. Part 2: sectoral and institutional research profiles. Scientometrics, 67, 87–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Morel, R. L. M., & Morei, C. M. (1977). Um estudo sobre a produção científica brasileira, segundo os dados do Institute for Scientific Information (ISI). Ciência da Informação, 6, 99–109.Google Scholar
  19. Pinheiro-Machado, R., & Oliveira, P. L. (2001). The Brazilian investment in science and technology. Brazilian Journal of Medical and Biological Research, 34, 1521–1530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Regalado, A. (2010). Brazilian science: riding a gusher. Science, 330, 1306–1312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Schiebinger, L. (2002). European women in science. Science in Context, 15, 473–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Sikka, P. (1997). Statistical profile of science and technology in India and Brazil. Scientometrics, 39, 185–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Vasconcelos, S. M. R., Batista, P. D., Sant’ana, M. C., Sorenson, M. M., & Leta, J. (2008). Researchers writing competence: A bottleneck in the publication of Latin American science? EMBO Reports, 9, 700–702.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Wallner, B., Fieder, M., & Iber, K. (2003). Age profile, personnel costs and scientific productivity at the University of Vienna. Scientometrics, 58, 143–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Paula Leite
    • 1
  • Rogério Mugnaini
    • 2
  • Jacqueline Leta
    • 1
  1. 1.Federal University of Rio de JaneiroRio de JaneiroBrazil
  2. 2.University of São PauloSão PauloBrazil

Personalised recommendations