Annals of Oncology Advance Access originally published online on June 9, 2008
Annals of Oncology 2008 19(11):1962-1968; doi:10.1093/annonc/mdn378
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
oncology practice |
The contribution of countries and world regions in productivity of oncological publication
Institute of Oncology, University of Istanbul, Turkey
* Correspondence to: Dr F. Tas, Onkoloji Enstitusu, Istanbul Universitesi, Capa 34390, Istanbul, Turkey. Tel: +90-212-534 31 31; Fax: +90-212-534 80 78; E-mail: faruktas2002{at}yahoo.com
 |
Abstract |
|---|
 Top Abstract introductionpatients and methodsresultsdiscussionAcknowledgementsReferences |
|---|
Background: To evaluate the contribution of different countries and world regions in scientific research in the field of oncological diseases.
Patients and methods: We carried out an analysis of papers published in the meeting abstracts of ASCO and ESMO and their official journals, JCO and Annals of Oncology (Ann Oncol) during the time period 2000–2006 biennially, years 2000, 2002, 2004, and 2006. All meeting abstracts published in meeting abstract books and journal articles were included.
Results: North America and Europe with equal ratios were responsible for 95% and 80% of published oncological articles and meeting abstracts, respectively. These ratios showed a great difference on the basis of the journal and place of the meeting: American prefers JCO and ASCO and European favors Ann Oncol and ESMO. The number of countries contributed to the production of abstracts was two times more than that of the article production. Generally, there were relationship between the ratios of the majority of the countries in the production of articles and abstracts. However, several countries including Turkey, Korea, Spain, and Brazil have produced more abstracts; others (United States, The Netherlands, France, UK, and Switzerland) had more article production.
Conclusion: Our study shows that developed world regions achieved a higher rate of research productivity than the other world regions.
Key words: abstract, article, oncological productivity, output
|
introduction |
|---|
|
TopAbstractintroductionpatients and methodsresultsdiscussionAcknowledgementsReferences |
|---|
Cancer remains a major health problem and contributes substantially to morbidity and mortality worldwide. Therefore, the societies invest considerably in the research of the oncological diseases in order to achieve scientific progress and develop more effective therapeutic approaches and interventions.
The assessment of the output of research necessarily becomes a priority issue and has progressively developed for the scientific research community. However, quantifying and evaluating the results of researches are accepted difficult. The bibliometric analyses are largely used as an assessment tool of scientific research performance at different levels: discipline oriented, individual, national, or worldwide scale.
Several studies have focused on the scientific production in various biomedical fields, including oncological researches of European Union countries [1–4]. During the past years, several studies published in literature provided an overview of the productivity of oncological research in the European Union, showing results for a number of European and non-European countries [1–4]. In these studies, the field of oncology defined as the collection of papers in journals included in the WoS/Current Contents journal category oncology or study applied a key words search. However, the literature lacks studies estimating the quantity and quality of worldwide research production in oncological diseases.
The aim of this study was to evaluate the contribution of different countries and world regions in scientific research in the field of oncological diseases. We also correlated them with bibliometric parameters such as, general publication, impact factor, patent, and socioeconomic variable, including gross domestic product (GDP) of the countries.
|
patients and methods |
|---|
|
TopAbstractintroductionpatients and methodsresultsdiscussionAcknowledgementsReferences |
|---|
We carried out an analysis of papers published in the meeting abstracts, ASCO, and ESMO and their official journals, JCO and Annals of Oncology (Ann Oncol) during the time period 2000–2006 biennially, including years 2000, 2002, 2004, and 2006. All meeting abstracts published in meeting abstract books and the journal articles were included in this study excluding editorial, letter to the editors, correspondences, and publications in the journal supplements. The country of origin of the first author was considered as the country of origin of the publication.
The paper originating from England, Scotland, Northern Ireland, and Wales were grouped under the UK heading. China and Hong Kong have been considered as one country, and referred to China. The United States and Canada have been considered together, and referred to North America.
The ratios of the published total articles and citations were determined by ISI Thomson data during a fixed last 25-year period, from 1981 to 2006 [5]. The rates of contribution of countries to the world patent production were supplied from the data of the US Patent and Trademark Office published in March 2007 [6]. The GDP was retrieved for each country from the year 2006 data of International Monetary Fund published in April 2007 [7].
|
results |
|---|
|
TopAbstractintroductionpatients and methodsresultsdiscussionAcknowledgementsReferences |
|---|
meeting abstracts
Totally, 16 617 abstracts were published in both the meetings (Table 1). The United States alone had the biggest ratio 39.67% with 6592 abstract number. The ratios of the other countries were as follows: Italy, 8.44%; Germany, 6.29%; Japan, 5.15%; France, 4.83; Spain, 4.80; and UK, 4.04%. In total, 95 countries had at least one published abstract, only 14 countries had at least 1% of presented abstracts.
|
ASCO abstracts.
There were 13 085 abstracts in the ASCO meetings. The United States had the highest percent of 48.44 with 6339. The other countries were as follows: Italy, 6.77%; Germany, 5.87%; Japan, 5.65%; and France, 4.41%. Totally, 83 countries had at least one published abstract and only 13 of them had at least 1% of presented abstracts. No difference was found among these ratios along the years.
ESMO abstracts.
Totally, 3532 abstracts were presented in the ESMO meetings. Italy had the highest ratio 14.61% with 516 abstracts. Spain, 9.77%; Germany, 7.87%; United States, 7.16%; and France, 6.37% followed Italy. Totally, 82 countries had at least one published abstract, whereas only 22 had at least 1% of presented abstracts. Similarly, these ratios did not differ during the years.
output of continents.
In the production of total meeting abstracts, the top two continents were North America (42.71%) and Europe (41.48%), accumulated to 
85% (Table 2). While the contribution of Asia was 11.33%, the effects of the other continents were minimal. These ratios differed significantly between the first two on the basis of the place of the meetings. In the ASCO meetings, North America (51.91%) had the highest followed by Europe (32.66%), whereas Europe (74.15%) has the leading position in the ESMO meetings. North America (8.61%) was only the third behind the Asia. No difference was found among the ratios of contributions of other continents through time.
|
preference of ASCO meetings.
The most preference to ASCO meetings was occurred in North America (96%) followed by Oceania (87%), South America (79%), and Asia (77%). These ratios were the lowest in Europe (62%) and Africa (61%). Through years, these ratios were the same for North America and Europe, but decreasing for Asia, South America, and Oceania and increasing for Africa.
articles
In total, 3350 articles were published in both the journals (Table 3). The United States alone had the biggest ratio of 34.93% with 1505 articles. The ratios of other countries were as follows: Italy, 8.69%; France, 6.48%; Germany, 6.06%; UK, 5.61%; The Netherlands, 5.04%; and Canada, 4.09%. Totally, 47 countries had at least one published article and only 14 countries had at least 1% of published articles.
|
JCO articles.
There were 2387 published articles in the JCOs. The United States had the highest percent of 57.44 with 1371. The other countries were as follows: Germany, 5.15%; France, 5.03%; Italy, 4.86%; and Canada, 4.73%. Totally, 37 countries had at least one published article and only 11 of them had at least 1% of published articles. No difference was found among these ratios through years.
Ann Oncol articles.
Totally, 963 articles were published in Ann Oncol. Italy had the highest ratio of 18.17% with 175 articles. The United States, 13.91%; France, 10.07%; UK, 8.52%; and Germany, 8.31% were followed Italy. Totally, 41 countries had at least one published article, whereas only 15 had at least 1% of published articles.
output of continents.
In the production of the total articles, the top two continents were North America (49.01%) and Europe (43.22%), accumulated to 90%–95% (Table 4). While the contribution of Asia was 5.70%, the effects of the other continents were minimal. These ratios differed significantly between the first two on the basis of the journals. In the JCOs, North America (62.17%) had the highest followed by Europe (31.17%), whereas Europe (73.10%) has the leading position followed by North America (16.41%) in the Ann Oncol. The contribution ratios of the other continents were observed higher in Ann Oncol compared with JCO.
|
preference of JCO articles.
The most preference to JCO articles was occurred in North America (90%) followed by Asia (64%) and Oceania (87%). These ratios were the lowest in Europe (51%) and South America (40%). Along the years, these ratios were stable for North America, but increasing for Europe and especially mostly for Oceania.
relationship between abstracts and articles
The number of countries contributed to the production of abstracts was two times more than that of the article production, 95 versus 47 countries (Tables 1, 3 and 5). However, the number of countries had at least 1% of contribution was the same for both: 14 countries. Only three out of 14 countries (Turkey, Korea, and Brazil) had at least 1% of abstracts, were not within the group, and had at least 1% of articles. Similarly, three countries (Switzerland, Austria, and Australia) had at least 1% of article production, were not within the league, and had at least 1% of abstract contribution. The United States and, followed by, Italy were the first two in both categories. Japan, Spain, Korea, and Turkey had more ratio of abstracts than articles, whereas, France, UK, and mostly the United States and The Netherlands had more ratio of articles than abstracts (Table 5).
|
concordance with other parameters
publication (all fields).
Comparing with the ratios of total general publication including all scientific fields, the United States and Italy had more ratios of both abstracts and articles; Spain had more ratio of oncological abstracts and The Netherlands had more ratio of articles (Table 6). Conversely, UK, China, and Japan had fewer ratios of both abstracts and articles, Germany and India had less oncological article ratios. The oncological outputs of the other countries were similar to the ratios of general publication.
|
citation.
Only Italy's ratio of oncological output including both abstracts and articles was higher than general citation ratios. Additionally, Spain for abstract and The Netherlands for articles were found to be more productive than citation ratios. Contrary to this, the United States’ and UK's both oncological publication ratios and Japan's only article ratios were lower than citation ratios.
patent.
Within only eight countries had at least 1% of patent production, the United States has the leading position with 52%. This ratio was higher than oncological output ratios. Similar result was valid for Japan, as the second with 21%. The ratio of Germany was almost identical. The contribution of Taiwan and Korea to oncological publication was significantly less than patent production. The oncological productivities of France, Canada, and UK were found to be higher. This contribution value was found significantly higher in Italy (8% versus 1%).
wealth.
As we looked through 15 countries which had at least 1% contribution to world economy; we observed that the United States, Italy, The Netherlands, and Spain had more contribution ratios of oncological publication than the ratios of their GDPs, whereas Japan and China had less oncological output. The ratios of other countries were found to be equal between oncological outputs and GDP.
|
discussion |
|---|
|
TopAbstractintroductionpatients and methodsresultsdiscussionAcknowledgementsReferences |
|---|
In order to address the geography of cancer research, the authors in previous published articles carried out a quantitative assessment of the scientific output in this field on the basis of the results of Medline search [1–4]. Globally, these analyses may be difficult and biased for several reasons. In these studies, the field oncology defined as the collection of papers in journals included in the WoS/Current Contents journal category oncology or study applied a key words search. The main problems in these studies has evinced are the lack of standardization of key words, and the inaccurate reporting of corresponding authors’ addresses. Our analysis seems to propose a compact picture of current research trends in the oncological field. However, our study has several limitations interpreting the data. Our results consist of an important but only a small part of the oncological scientific publication, because many publications regarding oncological diseases are published in many other journals and meeting abstract books, also. We think that this fact adds no systematic bias in the analysis of our data.
Our study shows that Western World including, the United States and Europe, generates a striking 90% of the world's publication in oncological area. The United States holds the leading position and the North America continues to hold its advantage over Europe in oncology, with 42.7% versus 41.5% for abstracts and 49.0% versus 43.2% for articles production. Additionally, our study shows that oncological publication in both meetings and journals significantly increased from 2000 to 2006. These findings were similar to the previous studies [1–4].
The United States alone had almost half (45%) of the published articles regarding oncology followed by Italy with 8%. Both North America and Europe with equal ratios achieved 95% of published oncological articles. However, these contribution ratios showed a great difference on the basis of the journal. American prefers JCO and conversely, European favors Ann Oncol. Similarly, we determined that while the nearly 90% of articles produced by Americans were published in JCO; the ratio was only 50% for Europeans. These results have been carried out within the limits of known data and expectations.
Similar findings are also valid for abstract production. But, the share of the United States and North America/Europe in abstract production dropped slightly to 80% and 85%, respectively. This is an expected outcome and it can be explained by more attendance of the countries to the meetings. Similar to articles, these contribution ratios showed major discrepancies. American prefers ASCO meetings and conversely, European favors ESMO meetings. Concordantly, 95% of abstracts presented by American were presented in the ASCO meetings. This ratio was found 60% for European countries.
Nearly two times more countries contributed in production of abstract compared with article production. However, the number of country contributed at least 1% in both sides was found same and less (14 countries). This is an expected finding. Generally, there were relationship ratios between articles and abstracts in the majority of countries. However, several countries were not concordance with the others. For example, while the countries including Turkey, Korea, Spain, and Brazil have produced more abstracts, others (United States, The Netherlands, France, UK, Switzerland, Australia and Austria) had more article production compared with others.
The ratio of oncological papers to all medical literature was the highest in the United States and Italy and the lowest in China, Japan and UK. This ratio was also higher in Spain for abstracts and in The Netherlands for articles. Italy was the highest and United States, and UK were the lowest in ratio of oncological output to citation report. Likewise, the ratio was higher in Spain for abstracts and in The Netherlands for articles. When we compared with patent production, the ratios of oncological publication of the countries such as, United States, Japan, Korea, and Taiwan were found to be lower. The highest ratio was determined in France, Canada, UK, and especially Italy. United States, Italy, The Netherlands, and Spain showed the highest ratios between oncological publication and GDP. However, Japan and China had lower ratios compared with GDP.
In conclusion, we evaluated the worldwide trends of research productivity in the field of cancer diseases during a 4-year recent period. The results of our study showed a known trend; the fact that developed world regions achieved a higher rate of research productivity than the other world regions.
|
Acknowledgements |
|---|
|
TopAbstractintroductionpatients and methodsresultsdiscussionAcknowledgementsReferences |
|---|
I am grateful to Nihan Aksoy and Dr Meltem Selam for expert technical assistance.
Received for publication April 12, 2008. Revision received April 26, 2008. Accepted for publication May 7, 2008.
|
References |
|---|
|
TopAbstractintroductionpatients and methodsresultsdiscussionAcknowledgementsReferences |
|---|
1. Ugolini D, Mela GS. Oncological research overview in the European Union. A 5-year survey. Eur J Cancer (2003) 39:1888–1894.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
2. Mela GS, Cimmino MA, Ugolini D. Impact assessment of oncology research in the European Union. Eur J Cancer (1999) 35:1182–1186.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
3. Grossi F, Belvedere O, Rosso R. Geography of clinical cancer research publications from 1995 to 1999. Eur J Cancer (2003) 39:1065–111.
4. Lopez-Illescas C, de Moya-Anegon F, Moed HF. The actual citation impact of European oncological research. Eur J Cancer (2008) 44:228–236.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
5. http://scientific.thomson.com/products/rsg.
6. All Technologies Report 1 January 1963—31 December 2006 (2007) US Patent and Trademark Office Electronic Information Products Division Alexandria, VA, USA.
7. Data for the Year 2006 (2007) International Monetary Fund, World Economic Outlook Database Washington, DC, USA.
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  B. Seruga, P. C. Hertz, L. W. Le, and I. F. Tannock Global drug development in cancer: a cross-sectional study of clinical trial registries Ann. Onc., October 8, 2009; (2009) mdp403v1. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||