Analysis of the Czech and Hungarian physiology publications 1994–2011
- 416 Downloads
We have analyzed in detail the physiology field in the Czech Republic and Hungary. Apart from classic descriptive bibliometric analysis we have also tried to compare research directions and topics inside the physiology field in the Czech Republic and Hungary with the world trends. For this purpose we have employed bibliometric mapping using the computer program VOSviewer. In conclusion, the Czech physiology field is quickly growing and catching up with the world average in respect of the publication production. Hungarian physiology field is growing only moderately. Citation impact of publications of both countries is lagging behind the field standards. International collaboration rate of the publications (co)authored by the Czech researchers has been considerably lower than that of Hungarian or other comparable European researchers. VOSviewer mapping indicated that Czech and Hungarian authors have been involved in less than 25 % of the physiology topics. The research topics of both countries have been considerably different; the share of the phrases with participation of both countries ranged from about 2 % in 1994 to 9 % in 2009. The analysis also indicates that low citation impact of the Czech and Hungarian publications is not due to the selection of less-cited research topics by the domestic researchers.
KeywordsWeb of science Physiology field Publication and citation analysis Bibliometric mapping
This research was supported by the project “Science and Technology for Society (LO1407)” funded by the Czech Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports.
- Eurostat. (2015). Total intramural R&D expenditure (GERD) by sectors of performance. Last update: 2 July 2015, retrieved: 20 July 2015. http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=rd_e_gerdtot&lang=en.
- Glänzel, W. (2009). A new generation of relational charts for comparative assessment of citation impact. https://www.ecoom.be/sites/ecoom.be/files/downloads/03_Leuven_27_11.pdf.
- van Eck, N. J., Waltman, L., van Raan, A. F. J., Klautz, R. J. M., & Peul, W. C. (2013). Citation analysis may severely underestimate the impact of clinical research as compared to basic research. PLoS ONE, 8, 1–6.Google Scholar