, Volume 121, Issue 2, pp 1019–1043 | Cite as

Measuring the Cuban scientific output in scholarly journals through a comprehensive coverage approach

  • Ernesto Galbán-RodríguezEmail author
  • Déborah Torres-Ponjuán
  • Yohannis Martí-Lahera
  • Ricardo Arencibia-Jorge


The Cuban scientific output in Cuban and foreign indexed academic journals was analyzed. Total output and longitudinal trends were identified through a multi-database unified record approach considering thirteen databases and indexes for foreign and national journals (Scopus, Web of Science Core Collection, Biosis, Current Contents Connect, Zoological Record, Pubmed/Medline, SciELO Citation Index, Pascal and Francis, CABI Websites, CLASE and PERIÓDICA, and AGRIS), three open access databases (SciELO, Redalyc and Dialnet), two Cuban digital libraries of scholarly journals (Health Virtual Library (BVS) and InfoAgro) and 200 national certified academic journals. Cuban journals were analyzed mainly from publishers’ collections, library services or open access databases. From 2000 to 2016, it was found that the national output doubled from 2000 until 2015 (over 8000 articles) and close below that mark in 2016. Overall, the Cuban scientific output in Cuban journals increased, both by space of publication available (journals) and by article production. By the contrary, it stabilized in indexed foreign journals since 2014 on, with a slight tendency to grow until 2018. Scopus and Web of Science Core Collection accounted for 66.74 and 61.68%, respectively, of the output in foreign journals. It is shown for the first time that roughly 22% of the Cuban yearly scientific output is published in foreign journals, whilst the highest quality and most visible part of it by indexing. This is the first study approaching the entire Cuban output in scholarly journals, regardless journal origin.


Bibliometrics Country scientific output Scholarly journals Databases Indexing Cuban scholarly journals 



The authors thank to the Center for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology of Havana, CIGB, for the technological support provided while conducting part of this research. Also to José Enrique Alfonso Manzanet, MSc., and Lázaro Yunier Dunán Mesa from the SciELO Cuba platform; Enrique Iglesias Pérez, PhD., from the CIGB; María del Carmen González, PhD., from the National Library of Medicine of Cuba; Roberto Zayas Mujica, M.D., Director of ECIMED, Cuba; the José Martí National Library of Cuba, and all the publishers contacted while conducting this study, for aiding on the access to information sources. The views, interpretations and statements are solely of the authors and cannot be regarded by no means as official nor institutional statements. This work is part of a Ph.D. Thesis Project at the Faculty of Communication, University of Havana, Cuba. The authors also thank the two anonymous reviewers and the handling editor for the detailed and helpful peer-review made which contributed to improve the quality and scope of the submitted manuscript.


  1. ACTAF. (2017). Portal Informativo de la ACTAF. Biblioteca. Retrieved September 11, 2017.
  2. Aksnes, D. W., & Sivertsen, G. (2019). A criteria-based assessment of the coverage of Scopus and web of science. Journal of Data and Information Science, 4(1), 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alperin, J. P. (2014). South America: Citation databases omit local journals. Nature, 511(7508), 155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Araújo-Ruiz, J. A., Torricella-Morales, R. G., Van Hooydonk, G., & Arencibia-Jorge, R. (2005). Cuban scientific articles in ISI citation indexes and CubaCiencias databases (1988–2003). Scientometrics, 65(2), 161–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Arber, G., Barrere, R., & Anlló, G. (2008). Measuring R&D in developing countries: Measurement priorities and methodological issues in Latin America. Working paper prepared for the UIS, UNESCO Institute for Statistics, Montreal.Google Scholar
  6. Arencibia-Jorge, R., Corera-Álvarez, E., Chinchilla-Rodríguez, Z., & de Moya-Anegón, F. (2013). Intersectoral relationships, scientific output and national policies for research development: A case study on Cuba 2003–2007. Acimed, 24(3), 243–254.Google Scholar
  7. Arencibia-Jorge, R., Corera-Álvarez, E., Chinchilla-Rodríguez, Z., & Moya-Anegón, F. (2016). Scientific output of the emerging Cuban biopharmaceutical industry: A scientometric approach. Scientometrics, 108(3), 1621–1636.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Arencibia-Jorge, R., & de Moya-Anegón, F. (2010). Challenges in the study of Cuban scientific output. Scientometrics, 83(3), 723–737.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bramer, W. M., Giustini, D., de Jonge, G. B., Holland, L., & Bekhuis, T. (2016). De-duplication of database search results for systematic reviews in EndNote. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 104(3), 240–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cañedo Andalia, R., Nodarse Rodríguez, M., Guerrero Pupo, J. C., Amell Muñoz, I., Small Chapman, M. C., & Milord Ramírez, L. J. (2014). Producción científica en salud de Cuba en bases de datos internacionales. Revista Cubana de Información en Ciencias de la Salud, 25(4), 442–451.Google Scholar
  11. Casate Fernández, R., Pérez Piñero, B., & Mena Díaz, N. (2008). Desarrollo de un portal de recursos electrónicos de acceso abierto a partir de la base de datos bibliográfica CUBACIENCIA. Ciencias de la Información, 39(1), 87–93.Google Scholar
  12. Casate-Fernández, R., & Senso-Ruiz, J. A. (2017). Producción científica cubana en acceso abierto en Scopus en el período 2010–2014. Revista Cubana de Información en Ciencias de la Salud, 28(1), 2–25.Google Scholar
  13. Chinchilla-Rodríguez, Z., Arencibia-Jorge, R., de Moya-Anegón, F., & Corera-Álvarez, E. (2015). Some patterns of Cuban scientific publication in Scopus: The current situation and challenges. Scientometrics, 103(3), 779–794.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. De Bellis, N. (2004). History and evolution of (biblio) metrics. In B. Cronin & C. R. Sugimoto (Eds.), Beyond bibliometrics. Harnessing multidimensional indicators of scholarly impact. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  15. de Solla Price, D. (1965). Little science, big science. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  16. ECIMED. (2017). SciELO Cuba. Retrieved January 15, 2018.
  17. FAO. (2017). AGRIS: International information system for the agricultural science and technology. Retrieved September 17, 2017.
  18. García Capote, E. (2017). Taller sobre la situación de las publicaciones científicas cubanas. Boletín del Secretariado de la Academis de Ciencias de Cuba, (2), 4.Google Scholar
  19. Godin, B. (2003). The emergence of science and technology indicators: Why did governments supplement statistics with indicators? Research Policy, 32(4), 679–691.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gu, X., & Blackmore, K. L. (2016). Recent trends in academic journal growth. Scientometrics, 108(2), 693–716.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Guzmán-Sánchez, M. V., Piñón-Lora, M., Villaseñor-García, E. A., Jiménez Andrade, J. L., & Carrillo-Calvet, H. (2018). Characterization of the Cuban biopharmaceutical industry from collaborative networks. Scientometrics, 115(3), 1533–1548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Herrera-Vallejera, D., Sanchéz, R., Rosario, M., & Rodríguez, Y. (2017). Estudio cienciométrico de la actividad científica de Cuba en las Ciencias Naturales e Ingeniería y Matemática-Ciencias de la Computación. Investigación Bibliotecológica, 72(31), 113–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Infomed, & CNICM. (2017). Biblioteca Virtual en Salud. Revistas cubanas. 19992019. Retrieved July 14, 2017.
  24. INIST, & CNRS (2017). Free access to Pascal and Francis. Retrieved June 18, 2017.
  25. Jiang, Y., Lin, C., Meng, W., Yu, C., Cohen, A. M., & Amalheiser, N. R. (2014). Rule-based deduplication of article records from bibliographic databases. Database.Google Scholar
  26. Khan, K. I. (2018). Copy Urls Expert. (2.6.1 ed.).Google Scholar
  27. Lin, D. (2015). ScrapBook X. (1.12.0a46.1-signed ed.).Google Scholar
  28. Mansfield, R. (2010). Mastering VBA for Microsoft ® Office 2010. Indianapolis: Wiley Publishing Inc.Google Scholar
  29. Moed, H. K. (2005). Citation analysis in research evaluation. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  30. Moed, H. K. (2017). Applied evaluative informetrics. Amsterdam: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Mongeon, P., & Paul-Hus, A. (2016). The journal coverage of web of science and Scopus: A comparative analysis. Scientometrics, 106(1), 213–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. OECD, & SCImago. (2016). Compendium of bibliometric science indicators. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  33. Palacios-Callender, M., Roberts, S. A., & Roth-Berghofer, T. (2016). Evaluating patterns of national and international collaboration in Cuban science using bibliometric tools. Journal of Documentation, 72(2), 362–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Perlin, M. S., Santos, A. A. P., Imasato, T., Borenstein, D., & Da Silva, S. (2017). The Brazilian scientific output published in journals: A study based on a large CV database. Journal of Informetrics, 11(1), 18–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. RICYT. (2018). El Estado de la Ciencia Principales indicadores de ciencia y tecnología Iberamericanos/Interamericanos 2018. Buenos Aires: Red de Indicadores de Ciencia y Tecnología – Iberoamericana e Interamericana.Google Scholar
  36. Riggio Olivares, G. (2017). Indicadores bibliométricos de la actividad científica de la República Dominicana. Universidad Carlos III de Madrid, Getafe. Retrieved October 24, 2018.
  37. Rodríguez Sanchez, Y., Mesa Fleitas, M. E., & Solórzano Álvarez, E. (2006). Cubaciencia y Cumed: Dos fuentes para la obtención de indicadores bibliométricos en el área de la salud Acimed, 14(5). Retrieved October 11, 2018.
  38. Sancho, R. (1992). Misjudgments and shortcomings in the measurement of scientific activities in less developed countries. Scientometrics, 23(1), 221–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Sancho, R., Bernal, G., & Gálvez, L. (1993). Approach to the Cuban scientific activity by using publication based quantitative indicators (1985–1989). Scientometrics, 28(3), 297–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Schwarz Rodriguez, R., & Abadal, E. (2014). Ibero-American journals in Scopus and web of science. Learned Publishing, 27(1), 56–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Spinak, E. (1996). Diccionario Enciclopédico de Bibliometría, Cienciometría e Informetría. Caracas: UNESCO.Google Scholar
  42. Strehl, L., Calabro, L., Souza, D. O., & Amaral, L. (2016). Brazilian science between national and foreign journals: Methodology for analyzing the production and impact in emerging scientific communities. PLoS ONE, 11(5), e0155148. Scholar
  43. UAEM. (2018). Sistema de Información Científica Redalyc. Red de Revistas Científicas de América Latina y el Caribe, España y Portugal. Retrieved October 11, 2018.
  44. UIS. (2010). Measuring R&D: Challenges faced by developing countries. Technical paper no. 5. Montreal: UNESCO Institute for Statistics-UIS.Google Scholar
  45. UNAM. (2018). Latindex. Sistema Regional de Información en Línea para Revistas Científicas de América Latina, el Caribe, España y Portugal. Retrieved October 18, 2018.
  46. Zibareva, I. V., & Soloshenko, N. S. (2011). Russian scientific publications 2005–2009 in the science citation index, Scopus, and chemical abstracts databases. Scientific and Technical Information Processing, 38(3), 212–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Elfos Scientiae Publisher, Center for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology, CIGBHavanaCuba
  2. 2.Faculty of CommunicationUniversity of HavanaHavanaCuba
  3. 3.Direction of Scientific and Technological Information, Ruben Martínez Villena Central Academic LibraryUniversity of HavanaHavanaCuba
  4. 4.Empresa de Tecnologías de la Información, ETIHavanaCuba

Personalised recommendations