Skip to main content
Log in

Profile of the Mexican health sciences elite: A bibliometric analysis of research performance

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The most prestigious award in Mexico, the “National Prize for Science and Art” has been awarded to 33 health scientists. An exercise was carried out to assess their performance to answer the question: why them?

The laureates' profile was based on data retrieved from MEDLINE andScience Citation Index Expanded available on the WWW as well as the ISI's 15-year (1981–1995) cumulative impact factor lists. The laureates published 2,049 papers and were cited 50,834 times.

Our results showed the scientific pre-eminence of laureates. We concluded that bibliometric data could complement other indicators of research performance. Bibliometrics could insure the Prize committee against error and the operationalization of the Matthew Effect could be minimized to honor only the most creative researchers.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. H. Zuckerman, Proliferation of scientific prizes reinforces Nobel's distinguished honor,The Scientist, 10(22) (1966), 10.

    Google Scholar 

  2. H. Zuckerman, The proliferation of prizes: Nobel complements and Nobel surrogates in the reward system of science,Theoretical Medicine, 13 (1992), 217–231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. R. Finn, Eponymous prizes honor scientists, but draw criticism,The Scientist, 12(8) (1998), 12.

    Google Scholar 

  4. B. A. Palevitz, R. Lewis, Show me the data: a Nobel lesson in the process of science,The Scientist, 11(24) (1997), 8.

    Google Scholar 

  5. R. Horton, Prizes, publications, and promotion,Lancet, 348(9039) (1996), 1398.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. R.K. Merton, The Matthew Effect in science,Science, 159 (1968), 56–63.

    Google Scholar 

  7. J. Ortega Y Gasset,La Rebelión de las Masas. 33 ed. Revista de Occidente, Madrid, 1959, p. 167–168.

    Google Scholar 

  8. S. Cole, G.S. Meyer, Little science, big science revisited,Scientometrics, 7 (1985), 443–458.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. N. Wade, No Nobel prize this year? Try footnote counting [online] 1997. Available from: http.www.isinet.com/whatshot/nytimes.html.

  10. Premio Nacional de Ciencias y Artes (1945–1990). Secretaría de Educación Pública, Fondo de Cultura Económica, México, 1991, 509 p.

  11. E. Garfield, Long-term vs. short-term journal impact: Does it matter?,The Scientist, 12 (3) (1998), 11–12.

    Google Scholar 

  12. E. Garfield, Long-term vs. short-term impact: Part II,The Scientist, 12(14) (1998), 12–13.

    Google Scholar 

  13. B. Cronin, J. Licea de Arenas, The geographic distribution of Mexican health sciences research,Scientometrics, 17 (1989), 39–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. H. Zuckerman, The sociology of the Nobel Prizes,Scientific American, 217 (1967), 25–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. S. Sri Kantha, The question of nepotism in the award of Nobel prizes: a critique of the view of Hans Krebs,Medical Hypotheses, 34 (1991), 28–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

de Arenas, J.L., Valles, J. & Arenas, M. Profile of the Mexican health sciences elite: A bibliometric analysis of research performance. Scientometrics 46, 539–547 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02459610

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02459610

Keywords

Navigation