Reflexiones sobre investigación y publicaciones. ¿Por qué publica poco la gastroenterología argentina? Consideraciones sobre un análisis bibliométrico de publicaciones argentinas en gastroenterología

BARREYRO FJ; KRABSHUIS J; PLANZER DEL CAMPO M; BAI JC

ACTA GASTROENTEROLOGICA LATINOAMERICANA.

Lugar: Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires; Año: 2009 vol. 39 p. 9 - 17

0300-9033

The publication of scientific findings is the main way to communicate advances. Our aim was to perform a bibliometric and comparative analysis of the Argentinean gastroenterological research output. We analyzed Argentinean gastroenterological publications selectively retrieved from LILACS (between years 1982-2006) and EMBASE (1996-2007) databases by means of specially constructed filter based on author address and subject headings. The global Argentinean scientific research output is far below that of developed countries and has been affected in direct manner by economic, political and social disturbances in the country. The gastroenterological research output from Argentina represent about 6% of national biomedical research. While 54% belongs to gastroenterology and 46% to hepatology, 65% are based on clinical research and 67% were originally contributions. Only 11% have been published in high impact factor journals. The comparative analysis within countries with health indicators similarities has shown a low biomedical and gastroenterology research output, however, the rate of acceptance at the 18 top gastroenterological journals is acceptable (15%). The contributions of registered specialists were lower for gastroenterologists compared with those from hepatologists (8.7% and 16.4% respectively). The research projects at public hospital funded by the pharmaceutical industry overcome those funded independently. Indeed, it seems that the independent research is being progressively replaced by that supported by the industry due to economic benefits for researchers even when there is a very low participation rate in publications (3%) by Argentinean researchers. We conclude that the Argentinean biomedical and gastroenterological research output is scanty compared with developed countries and countries with comparable health indicators. Our analysis suggests that efforts must be taken to attain objectives directed to develop and improve the Argentinean biomedical and gastroenterological scientific work and publication.