, Volume 105, Issue 2, pp 991–1003 | Cite as

Analysis of the Czech and Hungarian physiology publications 1994–2011

  • Ondřej Pecha
  • Jiří Vaněček


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.


Web 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.


  1. Eurostat. (2015). Total intramural R&D expenditure (GERD) by sectors of performance. Last update: 2 July 2015, retrieved: 20 July 2015.
  2. Glänzel, W. (2001). National characteristics in international scientific co-authorship. Scientometrics, 51, 69–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Glänzel, W. (2009). A new generation of relational charts for comparative assessment of citation impact.
  4. Narin, F., Stevens, K., & Whitlow, E. S. (1991). Scientific co-operation in Europe and the citation of multinationally authored papers. Scientometrics, 21, 313–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Radosevic, S. (2004). A two-tier or multi-tier Europe? Assessing the innovation capacities of Central and East European countries in the enlarged EU. Journal of Common Market Studies, 42(3), 641–666.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Schubert, A., & Glänzel, W. (2007). A systematic analysis of Hirsch-type indices for journals. Journal of Informetrics, 1, 179–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2010). Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics, 84, 523–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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
  9. van Raan, A. F. J. (1998). The influence of international collaboration on the impact of research results—Some simple mathematical considerations concerning the role of self-citations. Scientometrics, 42, 423–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Vanecek, J. (2008). Bibliometric analysis of the Czech research publications from 1994 to 2005. Scientometrics, 77, 345–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Vanecek, J. (2014). The effect of performance-based research funding on output of R&D results in the Czech Republic. Scientometrics, 98, 657–681.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Waaijer, C. J. F., van Bochove, C. A., & van Eck, N. J. (2011). On the map: Nature and Science editorials. Scientometrics, 86, 99–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Technology Centre ASCRPrague 6Czech Republic

Personalised recommendations