A scientometric analysis of health and population research in South Asia: focus on two research organizations

Antwerp University (UA), IBW, B-2000, Antwerpen, BELGIUM
Malaysian Journal of Library and Information Science (Impact Factor: 0.38). 01/2011; 15:135-147.


In this article we provide a scientometric comparison between two health and population research organizations, namely the International Centre for Diarrhoeal Disease Research in Bangladesh (ICDDR,B) and the National Institute of Cholera and Enteric Diseases (NICED) in India, during the period 1979-2008. We study these two institutes because they conduct similar research and because of their collaboration ties. Data are collected from the Web of Science (WoS) as well as from official records of these two organizations. The analysis presents the evolution of publication activities. Special attention is given to research impact through time series of the institutional h-and R-indices, as well as to the trend in yearly citations received. Types of publications, international collaboration with other countries, top scientists and most cited articles co-authored by scientists from these institutions are highlighted. It is observed that female scientists play a minor role in these two institutes.

Download full-text


Available from: Dilruba Mahbuba, Nov 25, 2014
1 Follower
26 Reads
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This study analyses the research output of four South Asia countries, namely Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and Nepal in S&T during 2001-10 on several parameters including its growth and country publications share in the world’s research output, country publications share in various subjects in the national and global context, geographical distribution of publications, share of international collaborative publications at the national level as well as across subjects and characteristics of high productivity institutions and cited papers. The Scopus Citation Database has been used to retrieve the publication data for 10 years. Concludes that all the four South Asian countries needs to increase their output and bring about improvement in the quality of its research efforts. This can be done by investing much more in R&D expenditure, increase in the deployment of more qualified manpower and in increasing international collaboration and by modernizing and strengthening its research infrastructure.
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Introducing and studying two types of time series, referred to as R1 and R2, we try to enrich the set of time series available for time dependent informetric studies. In a first part we focus on mathematical properties, while in a second part we check if these properties are visible in real data. This practical application uses data in the social sciences related to top Chinese universities. R1 sequences always increase over time, tending relatively fast to one, while R2 sequences have a decreasing tendency tending to zero in practical cases. They can best be used over relatively short periods of time. R1 sequences can be used to detect the rate with which cumulative data increase, while R2 sequences detect the relative rate of development.The article ends by pointing out that these time series can be used to compare innovative activities in firms. Clearly, this investigation is just a first attempt. More studies are needed, including comparisons with other related sequences.
    Journal of Informetrics 07/2013; 7(3):603–610. DOI:10.1016/j.joi.2013.03.006 · 4.23 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In this article we study the relation between first rate scientists and first rate organizations. These notions are operationalized by counting citations (whole counts in the Web of Science) for articles published during the period 2008 to 2011. Care has been taken to obtain clean data by careful institutional name disambiguation. It is found that, especially for large fields, more than 80% of top scientists work at top organizations. This is less the case for smaller fields such as mathematics and computer science. Our research confirms the skewness (elitism) of science, also for the relation between first rate scientists and the organizations to which they belong. We find, moreover, that top institutions have relatively more excellent scientists and relatively fewer researchers with poor performance than the average level of all institutions in a field.
    Malaysian Journal of Library and Information Science 01/2015; 20(1):47-60. · 0.38 Impact Factor