Skip to main content
NCBI home page
CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association Journal logoLink to CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association Journal
. 2000 Jan 11;162(1):37–40.

A quantitative ranking of Canada's research output of original human studies for the decade 1989 to 1998

R E Gagnon 1, A J Macnab 1, F A Gagnon 1
PMCID: PMC1232227  PMID: 11216196

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Since 1987 research articles have been catalogued with the author's affiliation address in the 40 databases of the Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System (MEDLARS) of the National Library of Medicine, Bethesda, Md. The present study was conducted to examine the Canadian entries in MEDLARS to interpret past and future trends and to combine the MEDLARS demographic data with data from other sources to rank Canadian research output of human studies both nationally and internationally. METHODS: The PubMed Web site of the National Library of Medicine was used to count medical articles archived in MEDLARS and published from Jan. 1, 1989, through Dec. 31, 1998. The articles attributed to Canadian authors were compared by country, province, city, medical school, hospital, article type, journal and medical specialty. RESULTS: During the study period Canadian authors contributed on average 3% (standard deviation [SD] 0.2%) of the worldwide MEDLARS content each year, which translated to a mean of 11,067 (SD 1037) articles per year; 49% were human studies, of which 13% were clinical or controlled trials, and 55% involved people aged 18 years or less. In total, 68% of the articles were by authors affiliated with Canadian medical schools; those affiliated with the University of Toronto accounted for the greatest number (8604), whereas authors affiliated with McGill University had the greatest rate of annual increase in the quantity published (8%). Over one-third (38%) of the articles appeared in Canadian journals. When counted by specialty, 17% of the articles were by authors with clinical specialties, 5% by those with surgical specialties and 3% by those with laboratory specialties. INTERPRETATION: The annual rate of increase in research output for Canada was more than 3 times higher than that seen world wide. Canada is now ranked seventh among countries contributing human studies to MEDLARS. The increase indicates that Canada's medical schools are productive, competitive in making contributions to medical science and are supporting Canadian journals.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (195.9 KB).

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Budd J. M., Sievert M., Schultz T. R. Phenomena of retraction: reasons for retraction and citations to the publications. JAMA. 1998 Jul 15;280(3):296–297. doi: 10.1001/jama.280.3.296. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Campbell F. M. National bias: a comparison of citation practices by health professionals. Bull Med Libr Assoc. 1990 Oct;78(4):376–382. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Cullen D. J., Macaulay A. Consistency between peer reviewers for a clinical specialty journal. Acad Med. 1992 Dec;67(12):856–859. doi: 10.1097/00001888-199212000-00013. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Deurenberg R. Journal deselection in a medical university library by ranking periodicals based on multiple factors. Bull Med Libr Assoc. 1993 Jul;81(3):316–319. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Gallagher E. J., Barnaby D. P. Evidence of methodologic bias in the derivation of the Science Citation Index impact factor. Ann Emerg Med. 1998 Jan;31(1):83–86. doi: 10.1016/s0196-0644(98)70286-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Garfield E. How can impact factors be improved? BMJ. 1996 Aug 17;313(7054):411–413. doi: 10.1136/bmj.313.7054.411. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Garfield E. Which medical journals have the greatest impact? Ann Intern Med. 1986 Aug;105(2):313–320. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-105-2-313. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Larson J. S., Kershaw R. Rating journals in health care administration by the textbook citation method. Med Care. 1993 Nov;31(11):1057–1061. doi: 10.1097/00005650-199311000-00007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Meenen N. M. Der Impact-Faktor--ein zuverlässiger scientometrischer Parameter? Unfallchirurgie. 1997 Aug;23(4):128–136. doi: 10.1007/BF02630217. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Ramsey S. D., Hillman A. L., Renshaw L. R., Kimberly J. R., Pauly M. V., Schwartz J. S. How important is the scientific literature in guiding clinical decisions? The case of magnetic resonance imaging. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1993 Spring;9(2):253–262. doi: 10.1017/s0266462300004475. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Sittig D. F., Kaalaas-Sittig J. A quantitative ranking of the Biomedical Informatics serials. Methods Inf Med. 1995 Sep;34(4):397–340. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Taddio A., Pain T., Fassos F. F., Boon H., Ilersich A. L., Einarson T. R. Quality of nonstructured and structured abstracts of original research articles in the British Medical Journal, the Canadian Medical Association Journal and the Journal of the American Medical Association. CMAJ. 1994 May 15;150(10):1611–1615. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. de Jong J. W., Schaper W. The international rank order of clinical cardiology. Eur Heart J. 1996 Jan;17(1):35–42. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.eurheartj.a014689. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from CMAJ: Canadian Medical Association Journal are provided here courtesy of Canadian Medical Association

RESOURCES