Bibliometric analysis of scientific publications in respiratory journals from China and other top‐ranking countries between 2007 and 2017
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Respiratory disease remains one of the leading causes of mortality and morbidity worldwide. OBJECTIVES: In this study, we aimed to compare the quantity and quality of scientific publications in the field of respirology from the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, Canada and China. METHODS: Articles published in 58 respiratory journals from 2007 to 2017 were screened with Science Citation Index Expanded database. The number of total and annual articles, article types, impact factor (IF), h-index, citations and articles in the high-impact journals from the corresponding country were collected for quantity and quality comparisons. The correlation of socioeconomic factors and annual publications was also analysed. RESULTS: A total of 93078 articles were published worldwide in respiratory journals from 2007 to 2017. The United States contributed the largest proportion (34399 (37.0%)), followed by the United Kingdom (9494 (10.2%)), Germany (6918 (7.4%)) and Canada (6574 (7.1%)). Publications from China represented the 6th, but this quantity is rapidly increasing. The United States occupies the dominant place in all kinds of article types under investigation in the study, except in the category of meta-analysis. For total and average citations, China still lags behind the other 4 countries in the study. The annual numbers of articles from China, Canada and the United States were positively correlated with gross domestic product (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The United States has played predominant role in respiratory research for the last 11 years. Although China has made great progress in the number of published articles over the past decade, the quality of these publications needs further improvement.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.050 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.030 | 0.055 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".