, Volume 74, Issue 3, pp 425–437 | Cite as

Increasing discrepancy between absolute and effective indexes of research output in a Brazilian academic department



We investigate possible effects from a strong encouragement for a large number of publications on the scientific production of a Brazilian cell biology department. An average increase in individual absolute production and a concomitant decrease in individual participation in each paper were detected by traditional bibliometric parameters, such as number of publications, citations, impact factors and h index, combined to their “effective” versions, in which co-authorship is taken into consideration. The observed situation, which might well represent a national trend, should be considered as a strong warning against current criteria of scientific evaluation heavily based on uncritical counting of publications.


Impact Factor Research Output Scientific Production Effective Index Single Department 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    J. E. Hirsh, An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 102 (2005): 16569–16572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    D. Adam, The counting house, Nature, 415 (2002): 726–729.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    A. R. Weale, M. Bailey, P. A. Lear, The level of non-citation of articles within a journal as a measure of quality: a comparison to the impact factor, BMC Medical Research Methodology, 4 (2004): 14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    E. Garfield, The history and meaning of the journal impact factor, JAMA, 295 (2006): 90–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    C. D. Kelly, M. D. Jennions, The h index and career assessment by numbers, Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 21 (2006): 167–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    H. L. Roediger, III, The h index in science: A new measure of scholarly contribution, The Academic Observer, 19.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    P. D. Batista, M. G. Campbell, O. Kinouchi, A. S. Martinez, Is it possible to compare researchers with different scientific interests? Scientometrics, 68 (2006): 169–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    M. Hermes-lima, A. C. Alencastro, N. C. Santos, C. A. Navas, R. O. Beleboni, The relevance and recognition of latin american science. Introduction for the fourth issue of CBP-Latin America, Comp. Biochem. Phys. C, 146 (2007): 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    W. Glänzel, J. Leta, B. Thijs, Science in Brazil. Part 1: A macro-level comparative study, Scientometrics, 67 (2006): 67–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    J. Leta, W. Glänzel, B. Thijs, Science in Brazil. Part 2: Sectoral and institutional research profiles, Scientometrics, 67 (2006): 87–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    A. S. Melo, L. Bini, P. Carvalho, Brazilian articles in international journals on limnology, Scientometrics, 67 (2006): 187–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    M. Hermes-Lima, N. Santos, A. Alencastro, S. T. Ferreira, Wither Latin America? Trends and challenges of science in Latin America, IUBMB Life, 59 (2007): 199–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    R. Meneghini, The key role of collaborative work in the growth of brazilian science in the last ten years, Scientometrics, 35 (1996): 367–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    J. Leta, H. Chaimovich, Recognition of international collaboration: the Brazilian case, Scientometrics, 53 (2002): 325–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    J. M. Russell, The increasing role of international-cooperation in science and technology research in Mexico, Scientometrics, 34 (1995): 46–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    J. Cohen, Scientific collaboration — Latin America elite looks north for scientific partners, Science, 267 (1995): 809–810.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    F. Narin, K. Stevens, E. S. Whitlow, Scientific co-operation in europe and the citation of multinationally authored papers, Scientometrics, 91 (1991): 313–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    J. S. Katz, B. R. Martin, What is research collaboration? Research Policy, 26 (1997): 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    W. Glänzel, A. Schubert, H. J. Czerwon, A bibliometric analysis of international scientific cooperation of the European Union (1985–1995), Scientometrics, 45 (1999): 185–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    W. Glänzel, A. Schubert, Double effort = double impact? a critical view at international co-authorship in chemistry, Scientometrics, 50 (2001): 199–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    D. R. S. Bailey (Ed.), Martial epigrams vol. 1 book III epigram 43, Harvard University Press, The Loeb Classical Library (1993).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Laboratório de Biologia Teórica, Departamento de Biologia CelularUniversidade de BrasíliaBrasíliaBrazil

Personalised recommendations