Abstract
Ensuing a previous study of Brazilian sciences production for the period 1981–95, health sciences were taken apart for scrutiny. ISI data was obtained in an aggregate format comprising 40 health research fields recording their yearly number of papers, proportion out of the country, proportion out of the field, and impact relative to field.
Simple linear regression was used to examine time trends in production and impact of research fields. A complementary variable representing growth trend was computed as the regression slope. Data were then analysed by means of Factor and Correspondence Analysis. Results allowed the production of location maps of research fields so that hierarchy and relationships among them could be examined in the form of geometric distances.
It was found that health sciences represent 42% of the Brazilian scientific production and that their trends in both production and impact do not differ from other sciences taken altogether. Measurements of production were found negatively correlated with impact and factor analysis revealed that the major distinction between fields is attributable to production (64% of measurement variations against 19% due to impact). Experimental Biology & Medicine largely exceeds other fields in production, though at ordinary levels of impact. Correspondence analysis refined the study of impact allowing the identification of the best performers as Clinical Immunology & Infectious Diseases, Environmental & Social Medicine, and Radiology & Nuclear Medicine.
The information provided can advise national policy makers on science & technology about priorities concerning the improvement of the country's competitiveness.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Pereira, J. C. R., Escuder, M. M. L., Zanetta, D. M. T. (1998), Brazilian sciences and government funding at the state of São Paulo,Scientometrics, 43(2), 177–188.
OECD (1996),Science Technology Industry Review N o17: Special Issue on Government Technology Foresight Exercises, Paris, OECD.
SIkka, P. (1997), Statistical profile of science and technology in India and Brazil,Scientometrics, 39(2), 185–195.
Leta, J., DeMeis, L. (1996), A profile of science in Brazil,Scientometrics, 35(1), 33–44.
Marton, J., Hulesch, H., Zallar, I. (1998), Intensity breeds effectivity,Scientometrics, 41(3), 411–415.
Meneghini, R. (1996), The key role of collaborative work in the growth of Brazilian science in the last ten years,Scientometrics, 35(3), 367–373.
Hair, J. F. Jr, Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L. (1987),Multivariate Data Analysis, New York, Macmillan Publishing Co., pp. 233–260.
Greenacre, M. J. (1993)Correspondence Analysis in Practice, London, Academic Press.
Sancho, R. (1992), Misjudgements and shortcomings in the measurement of scientific activities in less-developed-countries,Scientometrics, 23(1), 221–233.
Czapski, G. (1997), The use of deciles of the citation impact to evaluate different fields of research in Israel,Scientometrics, 40(3), 437–443.
Seglen, P. O. (1997), Citations and journal impact factors: questionable indicators of research quality,Allergy, 52(11), 1050–1056.
Oppenheim, C. (1997), The correlation between citation counts and the 1992 research assessment exercise ratings for British research in genetics, anatomy and archaeology,J. Documentation, 53(5), 477–487.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Pereira, J.C.R., Escuder, M.M.L. The scenario of Brazilian health sciences in the period of 1981 to 1995. Scientometrics 45, 95–105 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02458470
Received:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02458470