Productivity of CNPq Researchers from Different Fields in Biomedical Sciences: The Need for Objective Bibliometric Parameters—A Report from Brazil

In Brazil, the CNPq (National Council for Scientific and Technological Development) provides grants, funds and fellowships to productive scientists to support their investigations. They are ranked and categorized into four hierarchical levels ranging from PQ 1A (the highest) to PQ 1D (the lowest). Few studies, however, report and analyse scientific productivity in different sub-fields of Biomedical Sciences (BS), e.g., Biochemistry, Pharmacology, Biophysics and Physiology. In fact, systematic comparisons of productivity among the PQ 1 categories within the above sub-fields are lacking in the literature. Here, the scientific productivity of 323 investigators receiving PQ 1 fellowships (A to D levels) in these sub-fields of BS was investigated. The Scopus database was used to compile the total number of articles, citations, h-index values and authorship positions (first-, co- or last-listed author) in the most cited papers by researchers granted CNPq fellowships. We found that researchers from Pharmacology had the best performance for all of the parameters analysed, followed by those in Biochemistry. There was great variability in scientific productivity within the PQ 1A level in all of the sub-fields of BS, but not within the other levels (1B, 1C and 1D). Analysis of the most cited papers of PQ 1(A–D) researchers in Pharmacology revealed that the citations of researchers in the 1C and 1D levels were associated with publications with their senior supervisors, whereas those in the 1B level were less connected with their supervisors in comparison to those in 1A. Taken together, these findings suggest that the scientific performance of PQ 1A researchers in BS is not homogenous. In our opinion, parameters such as the most cited papers without the involvement of Ph.D. and/or post-doctoral supervisors should be used to make decisions regarding any given researcher’s fellowship award level.

[1]  Daniel Henrique Roos,et al.  Brazilian scientific production in areas of biological sciences: a comparative study on the modalities of full doctorate in Brazil or abroad , 2013, Scientometrics.

[2]  Qinghai Huang,et al.  China's Growing Contribution to Global Intracranial Aneurysm Research (1991–2012): A Bibliometric Study , 2014, PloS one.

[3]  R. Meneghini Citations to papers from Brazilian institutions: a more effective indicator to assess productivity and the impact of research in graduate programs. , 2011, Brazilian journal of medical and biological research = Revista brasileira de pesquisas medicas e biologicas.

[4]  Dimitri Gagliardi,et al.  International mobility: Findings from a survey of researchers in the EU , 2015 .

[5]  Marton Demeter Author Productivity Index: Without Distortions , 2018, Sci. Eng. Ethics.

[6]  Alexander W A Kellner,et al.  H-index in the Brazilian Academy of Sciences: comments and concerns. , 2008, Anais da Academia Brasileira de Ciencias.

[7]  Eustache Mêgnigbêto,et al.  International collaboration in scientific publishing: the case of West Africa (2001–2010) , 2013, Scientometrics.

[8]  Seema Rawat,et al.  Publish or perish: Where are we heading? , 2014, Journal of research in medical sciences : the official journal of Isfahan University of Medical Sciences.

[9]  Jiantong Zhang,et al.  Online classified advertising: a review and bibliometric analysis , 2017, Scientometrics.

[10]  J. E. Hirsch,et al.  The meaning of the h-index , 2014 .

[11]  Letícia Strehl,et al.  Brazilian Science between National and Foreign Journals: Methodology for Analyzing the Production and Impact in Emerging Scientific Communities , 2016, PloS one.

[12]  Ming-yueh Tsay,et al.  Bibliometric analysis of the journal literature on women’s studies , 2017, Scientometrics.

[13]  A. Packer,et al.  Comparison of scientists of the Brazilian Academy of Sciences and of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA on the basis of the h-index. , 2008, Brazilian journal of medical and biological research = Revista brasileira de pesquisas medicas e biologicas.

[14]  J. Kamdem,et al.  Scientific Performance of Brazilian Researchers in Pharmacology with grants from CNPq: A comparative study within the Brazilian categories. , 2016, Anais da Academia Brasileira de Ciencias.

[15]  Hernán Astudillo,et al.  The Scientometric Bubble Considered Harmful , 2016, Sci. Eng. Ethics.

[16]  I. D. de Menezes,et al.  Comparative research performance of top universities from the northeastern Brazil on three pharmacological disciplines as seen in scopus database , 2017, Journal of Taibah University Medical Sciences.

[17]  José Alexandre F. Diniz-Filho,et al.  Drivers of academic performance in a Brazilian university under a government-restructuring program , 2016, J. Informetrics.

[18]  Rodrigo Costas,et al.  Unravelling the performance of individual scholars: Use of Canonical Biplot analysis to explore the performance of scientists by academic rank and scientific field , 2015, J. Informetrics.

[19]  Judit Bar-Ilan,et al.  Citations to the “Introduction to informetrics” indexed by WOS, Scopus and Google Scholar , 2010, Scientometrics.

[20]  Melissa Anderson,et al.  The new geography of scientific collaborations , 2012, EMBO reports.

[21]  Anne-Wil Harzing,et al.  Google Scholar, Scopus and the Web of Science: a longitudinal and cross-disciplinary comparison , 2015, Scientometrics.

[22]  Lucio Bertoli-Barsotti,et al.  The h-index as an almost-exact function of some basic statistics , 2017, Scientometrics.

[23]  M. H. Freitas Avaliação da produção científica: considerações sobre alguns critérios , 1998 .

[24]  K. Camargo [Scientific output: quality assessment or an accountant's tale?]. , 2013, Cadernos de saude publica.

[25]  L. de Meis,et al.  The growing competition in Brazilian science: rites of passage, stress and burnout. , 2003, Brazilian journal of medical and biological research = Revista brasileira de pesquisas medicas e biologicas.