Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Qualitative and quantitative analyses of anatomists’ research: evaluation of multidisciplinarity and trends in scientific production

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Our aim was to evaluate the impact of anatomy as a multidisciplinary area and to identify trends in research by anatomists over time. Data from three main sources were analyzed: SCImago Journal & Country Rank (SJR), using the number of total documents as indicator; MEDLINE (PubMed) database (1898 through October 2012), using the keyword “anatomy” in the “affiliation” field; and the Journal Citation Report (JCR), gathering impact factor and quartile data. The number of publications by anatomists increased between 1898 and 1941, followed by a reduction until 1961 and then by a marked rise to reach 36,686 between 2002 and 2012. After 1941, anatomists began to publish in journals from JCR categories other than “Anatomy & Morphology”, especially after 1962. Between 2007 and 2012, only 22.23 % of articles by anatomists in JCR-indexed journals were in the “Anatomy & Morphology” area and 77.77 % in journals from other categories; 58 % of their articles were in journals in the first and second quartiles. The contribution of anatomists to scientific knowledge is high quality and considerably greater than indicated by the SJR database. This input is especially relevant in the Neurosciences, Cell Biology, and Biology categories. In addition, more than two-thirds of manuscripts by anatomists appear in JCR-ranked publications, and more than half in the top two quartiles of the impact factor ranking. Our results show that the scientific production of anatomists has improved the quantity and quality of multi-disciplinary scientific activity in different knowledge areas.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bergstrom, C. T. (2007). Eigenfactor: Measuring the value and prestige of scholarly journals. College and Research Libraries News, 68, 314–316.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blaxter, M. (1996). Criteria for evaluation of qualitative research. Medical Sociology News, 22, 68–71.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boulton, M., & Fitzpatrick, R. (1994). Qualitative methods for assessing health care. Quality in Health Care, 3, 107–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burrow, J. W. (2001). La crisis de la razón: El pensamiento europeo 1848–1914. Barcelona: Editorial Crítica.

    Google Scholar 

  • Camí, J. (2001). Evaluación de la investigación biomédica. Medicina Clínica (Barcelona), 117, 510–513.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Castro Nogueira, L., Castro Nogueira, M. A., & Morales Navarro, J. (2005). Metodología de las ciencias sociales: Una introducción crítica. Madrid: Tecnos.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garfield, E. (1999). Journal impact factor: A brief review. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 161, 979–980.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garfield, E. (2006). The history and meaning of the journal impact factor. JAMA, 295, 90–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garfield, E., & Welljams-Dorof, A. (1992). Citation data: their use as quantitative indicators for science and technology evaluation and policy-making. Science & Public Policy, 19, 321–327.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harding, G., & Gantley, M. (1998). Qualitative methods: Beyond the cookbook. Family Practice, 15, 76–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hirsch, J. E. (2005). An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. Proceedings of National Academy of Science of the United States of America, 102, 16569–16572.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoeffel, C. (1998). Journal impact factors. Allergy, 53, 1225.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Joseph, K. S. (2003). Quality of impact factors of general medical journals. British Medical Journal, 326, 283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karageorgopoulos, D. E., Lamnatou, V., Sardi, T. A., Gkegkes, I. D., & Falagas, M. E. (2011). Temporal trends in the impact factor of European versus USA biomedical journals. PLoS ONE, 6, e16300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lippi, G., Favaloro, E. J., & Guidi, G. C. (2009). The impact factor and journals in laboratory medicine. Clinical Laboratory, 55, 49–52.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lucas Marín, A., & García Ruiz, P. (2002). Sociología de las Organizaciones. Madrid: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martín Gómez, T. (2008). Estudio del flujo de información sobre taxanos en el tratamiento sistémico del cáncer de mama. Doctoral Thesis: University of Salamanca.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mays, N., & Pope, C. (1996). Rigour in qualitative research. In N. Mays & C. Pope (Eds.), Qualitative research in healthcare. London: BMJ Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mays, N., & Pope, C. (2000). Qualitative research in health care: Assessing quality in qualitative research. British Medical Journal, 320, 50–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moravcsik, M. J. (1989). ¿Cómo evaluar la ciencia y los científicos? Revista Española de Documentación Científica, 12, 313–325.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neff, B. D., & Olden, J. D. (2010). Not so fast: Inflation in impact factors contributes to apparent improvements in journal quality. BioScience, 60, 455–459.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parak, W. J. (2010). Characterizing the multidisciplinarity of nanoscience research. ACS Nano, 4, 4333–4334.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Price, D. J. S. (1965). Networks of scientific papers. Science, 149, 510–515.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Retzer, V., & Jurasinski, G. (2009). Towards objectivity in research evaluation using bibliometric indicators: A protocol for incorporating complexity. Basic and Applied Ecology, 10, 393–400.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reuters, T. (2010). Journal Citation Reports. http://thompsonreuters.com/products_services/science/science_products/a-z/journal_citation_reports/. Accessed 16 Sept 2010.

  • Rogers, Y., Scaife, M., & Rizzo, A. (2005). Interdisciplinarity: An emergent or engineered process? In S. Derry, C. D. Schunn, & M. A. Gernsbacher (Eds.), Interdisciplinary collaboration: An emerging cognitive science (pp. 265–286). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rueda-Clausen Gómez, C. F.-, Villarroel Gutiérrez, C., & Clausen Pinzón, C. E. (2005). Indicadores bibliométricos: Origen, aplicación, contradicción y nuevas propuestas. MedUNAB, 8, 29–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruiz Limón, R. (2006). Historia y evolución del pensamiento científico. México: Ed. Eurler Ruiz.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sancho, R. (1990). Indicadores bibliométricos utilizados en la evaluación de la ciencia y la tecnología: Revisión bibliográfica. Revista Española de Documentación Científica, 13, 842–865.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stock, W. G. (2009). The inflation of impact factors of scientific journals. ChemPhysChem, 10, 2193–2196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Urbizagástegui, R. (2005). The scientific productivity of authors: an application model of Lotka′s law by the generalized inverse power method. Información, Cultura y Sociedad, 12, 51–73.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vinther, S., & Rosenberg, J. (2012). Impact factor trends for general medical journals: Non-english-language journals are lagging behind. Swiss Medical Weekly, 142, w13572.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ziman, J. (1980). La fuerza del Conocimiento: La dimensión científica de la sociedad. Madrid: Ed. Alianza.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank Beatriz Valero Aguilera for her assistance in the biostatistician analysis.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Basic Cardiovascular Research Section, Human Anatomy and Embryology Department, Faculty of Medicine, Regenerative Biomedicine Institute (IBIMER), University of Granada, 18012, Granada, Spain

    Pablo Álvarez, Houria Boulaiz, Celia Vélez, Fernando Rodríguez-Serrano, Raul Ortiz, Consolación Melguizo, Esmeralda Carrillo, Antonio Martínez-Amat & Jose Prados

Authors
  1. Pablo Álvarez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Houria Boulaiz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Celia Vélez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Fernando Rodríguez-Serrano
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Raul Ortiz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Consolación Melguizo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Esmeralda Carrillo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Antonio Martínez-Amat
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Jose Prados
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jose Prados.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Álvarez, P., Boulaiz, H., Vélez, C. et al. Qualitative and quantitative analyses of anatomists’ research: evaluation of multidisciplinarity and trends in scientific production. Scientometrics 98, 447–456 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-013-1006-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-013-1006-8

Keywords

Mathematics Subject Classification

Search

Navigation