Advertisement

Scientometrics

, Volume 115, Issue 1, pp 351–368 | Cite as

Growth of the hepatitis literature over the period 1976–2015: What can the relative priority index teach us?

  • S. L. Sangam
  • Uma B. Arali
  • C. G. Patil
  • Ronald Rousseau
Article
  • 129 Downloads

Abstract

This study has a double purpose: a fact-finding one and a methodological one. The fact-finding part consists of two elements. First we study the growth of the hepatitis literature in the World and in particular in India over the latest 30 years (1986–2015). Second we determine the priority given to hepatitis studies in a number of leading countries, distributed over five continents. This part compares the periods (1976–1995) and (1996–2015). The methodological part studies the stability of the relative priority or activity index by calculating it with respect to different databases. Data are collected from PubMed, the Web of Science (WoS) and the WoS, restricted to the area Life Sciences Biomedicine, denoted as WoS (LS). Data collection in PubMed is more difficult than in the WoS, leading to possibly approximate results. Attention spent to publishing hepatitis research is measured with the Relative Priority Index (RPI). Initially the rise in the number of Indian publications is slow. Yet, the number of publications on hepatitis has substantially increased over time so that since 2008 India’s cumulative number of publications has more than doubled. As to the methodological problem we found that different databases lead to different results, showing that results based on the RPI must be interpreted with care. We, moreover, draw the reader’s attention to hepatitis itself, including information about it and its deadly consequences.

Keywords

Hepatitis India Bibliometrics Growth rate Relative priority index 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Raf Guns (Univ. Antwerp) for useful remarks leading to a better manuscript. We also thank the reviewers for useful comments.

References

  1. Aksnes, D. W., van Leeuwen, T. N., & Sivertsen, G. (2014). The effect of booming countries on changes in the relative specialization index (RSI) on country level. Scientometrics, 101(2), 1391–1401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Amaral, L. A. N., Gopikrishnan, P., Matia, K., Plerou, V., & Stanley, H. E. (2001). Application of statistical physics methods and concepts to the study of science & technology systems. Scientometrics, 51(1), 9–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Frame, J. D. (1977). Mainstream research in Latin America and the Caribbean. Interciencia, 2(3), 143–148.Google Scholar
  4. GBD 2015 Disease and Injury Incidence and Prevalence Collaborators. (2016). Global, regional, and national incidence, prevalence, and years lived with disability for 310 diseases and injuries, 1990–2015: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2015. The Lancet, 388(10053), 1545–1602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Global Hepatitis Report 2017 (2017). Geneva: World Health Organization.Google Scholar
  6. Government of India. (2011). Operational guidelines for hepatitis B vaccine introduction in Universal Immunization Programme. New Delhi: Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India.Google Scholar
  7. Kumar, M., & Sarin, S. K. (2014). Viral hepatitis eradication in India by 2080—Gaps, challenges & targets. Indian Journal of Medical Research, 140, 1–4.Google Scholar
  8. Liang, L. M., Havemann, F., Heinz, M., & Wagner-Döbler, R. (2006). Structural similarities between science growth dynamics in China and in western countries. Scientometrics, 66(2), 311–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Nagpaul, P. S., & Sharma, L. (1995). Science in the eighties: A typology of countries based on inter-field priorities. Scientometrics, 34(2), 263–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Rousseau, R. (2012). Thoughts about the activity index and its formal analogues. ISSI Newsletter, 8(4), 73–75.Google Scholar
  11. Rousseau, R. (2018). The F-measure for research priority. Journal of Data and Information Science, 3(1) [to appear].Google Scholar
  12. Rousseau, R., & Yang, L. Y. (2012). Reflections on the Activity Index and Related Indicators. Journal of Informetrics, 6(3), 413–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Schubert, A., & Braun, T. (1986). Relative indicators and relational charts for comparative assessment of publication output and citation impact. Scientometrics, 9(5), 281–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. WHO (2002). Prevention of Hepatitis B in India: An overview. World Health Organization, Regional Office for South-East Asia, New Delhi. SEA-Hepat.-5; SEA-EPI-141.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Library and Information ScienceKarnatak UniversityDharwadIndia
  2. 2.Government First Grade CollegeHaliyalIndia
  3. 3.Department of BotanyKarnatak Science CollegeDharwadIndia
  4. 4.Facultair Onderzoekscentrum ECOOMKU LeuvenLouvainBelgium
  5. 5.Faculty of Social SciencesUniversity of AntwerpAntwerpBelgium

Personalised recommendations