Download PDF
Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2019; 67(06): 488-493
DOI: 10.1055/s-0038-1661004
Special Report
Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Comparison of Scientific Publications from Three Different Clinical Disciplines of German Universities

Michael Schwarzer
1   Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, University Hospital Jena, Jena, Germany
,
Leonhard Alscher
1   Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, University Hospital Jena, Jena, Germany
,
Torsten Doenst
1   Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, University Hospital Jena, Jena, Germany
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

21 March 2018

20 April 2018

Publication Date:
28 June 2018 (online)

   Permissions and Reprints All articles of this category

Abstract

Background Scientific publications are important for the advancement in medicine. Surgical disciplines including cardiac surgery are frequently considered not scientifically leading. However, a specific comparison between surgical and nonsurgical disciplines has not yet been performed. We thus compared scientific output of German departments of cardiac surgery with nonsurgical cardiology departments and surgical departments not addressing the heart (general surgery) of 34 universities in Germany.

Methods For each university, the personnel working at the different departments were identified on the internet homepage in 2014. We searched for publications of these persons in 2011 to 2013 on PubMed, identified author position, coauthors, and type of article, as well as journal impact factor (JIF).

Results There were 931 academic persons in cardiac surgery, 1,486 in general surgery, and 1,814 in cardiology with 12,096 publications related to these persons on PubMed. Cardiology published most manuscripts, including manuscripts from research conducted (first author), initiated (senior author), or both. Cardiac surgery had the least publications and had fewer authors from other departments or institutions. The average JIF was higher in cardiology compared with the two surgical disciplines. However, relating the number of publications to the number of employees in the departments, the differences were no longer apparent.

Conclusion We conclude that the number of publications in German universities appears to be a function of the number of academic personnel and not of the discipline. The lower JIFs in surgery may be due to the smaller surgical fields and/or due to less high impact interdisciplinary/interinstitutional publications in surgery.

Keywords

scientific output - university - research

Supplementary Material

 

  • References

  • 1 May RM. The scientific wealth of nations. Science 1997; 275: 793-796
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 King DA. The scientific impact of nations. Nature 2004; 430 (6997): 311-316
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Doenst T, Schlensak C, Schibilsky D, Faerber G. Do we need basic research in cardiac surgery?. Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2018; 66 (01) 2-6
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Weber S, Haverich A. [Pioneering surgical innovations in Germany: part 2: public funding and origins of surgical innovations]. Chirurg 2016; 87 (05) 433-437
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Weber S, Haverich A. [Pioneering surgical innovations in Germany: part 1: generation of medical evidence]. Chirurg 2016; 87 (05) 423-432
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Bretschneider HJ, Hübner G, Knoll D, Lohr B, Nordbeck H, Spieckermann PG. Myocardial resistance and tolerance to ischemia: physiological and biochemical basis. J Cardiovasc Surg (Torino) 1975; 16 (03) 241-260
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Hagl C, Schilling T, Khaladj N, Haverich A. Zwischen zwei Welten? Der Chirurg in Klinik und Forschung. Zeitschrift für Herz-, Thorax- und Gefäßchirurgie 2011; 25: 45-50
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 AWMF-Kommission “Bibliometrie”. Bibliometrie - eine Methode der Leistungsevaluation von Forschung; 2000
    PubMed
  • 9 DFG Senatskommission. Empfehlungen zu einer »Leistungsorientierten Mittelvergabe« (LOM) an den Medizinischen Fakultäten. 2004
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Kaltenborn KF, Kuhn K. [The journal impact factor as a parameter for the evaluation of researchers and research]. Med Klin 2003; 98: 153-169
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 The PLoS Medicine Editors. The impact factor game. It is time to find a better way to assess the scientific literature. PLoS 2006; 3: e291
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Seglen PO. Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research. BMJ 1997; 314 (7079): 498-502
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Seglen PO. Citation rates and journal impact factors are not suitable for evaluation of research. Acta Orthop Scand 1998; 69 (03) 224-229
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Tsay M-y, Chen Y-l. Journals of general & internal medicine and surgery: an analysis and comparison of citation. Scientometrics 2005; 64: 17-30
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Fox CW, Paine CET, Sauterey B. Citations increase with manuscript length, author number, and references cited in ecology journals. Ecol Evol 2016; 6: 7717-7726
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Glänzel W, Thijs B. Does co-authorship inflate the share of self-citations?. Scientometrics 2004; 61: 395-404
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Slyder JB, Stein BR, Sams BS. , et al. Citation pattern and lifespan: a comparison of discipline, institution, and individual. Scientometrics 2011; 89: 955-966
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Falagas ME, Zarkali A, Karageorgopoulos DE, Bardakas V, Mavros MN. The impact of article length on the number of future citations: a bibliometric analysis of general medicine journals. PLoS One 2013; 8 (02) e49476
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Castellano C, Radicchi F. On the fairness of using relative indicators for comparing citation performance in different disciplines. Arch Immunol Ther Exp (Warsz) 2009; 57 (02) 85-90
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Cleaton-Jones P, Myers G. A method for comparison of biomedical publication quality across ISI discipline categories. J Dent Educ 2002; 66 (06) 690-696
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Batista PD, Campiteli MG, Kinouchi O, Martinez AS. Is it possible to compare researchers with different scientific interests?. Scientometrics 2006; 68: 179-189
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Bordons M, Zulueta Ma. Comparison of research team activity in two biomedical fields. Scientometrics 1997; 40: 423-436
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Vanclay JK. Impact factor: outdated artefact or stepping-stone to journal certification?. Scientometrics 2012; 92: 211-238
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Dorta-González P, Dorta-González MI. Comparing journals from different fields of science and social science through a JCR subject categories normalized impact factor. Scientometrics 2013; 95: 645-672
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Mehta RH, Leimberger JD, van Diepen S. , et al; LEVO-CTS Investigators. Levosimendan in patients with left ventricular dysfunction undergoing cardiac surgery. N Engl J Med 2017; 376 (21) 2032-2042
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar