IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/rseval/v18y2009i1p3-12.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

World-wide collaboration among medical specialties in smoking research: production, collaboration, visibility and influence

Author

Listed:
  • José Manuel Martínez Albiach

Abstract

The aim of this study was to analyse the network of scientific collaboration generated by the co-authorship of articles on smoking among different specialties on a world-wide level through the Science Citation Index (SCI) in the period 1999–2003. Material and methods: We selected collaboration articles on smoking research among different specialties listed in the SCI (1999–2003). The underlying network of collaboration among specialties was analysed, comparing production, visibility and centrality. Results: Forty-nine different specialties were identified, of which 47 (96%) had produced articles in collaboration (461 articles). The most productive specialty was Psychiatry–Psychology. The specialties that produced more studies in collaboration with others were Respiratory Medicine and Internal Medicine. Respiratory Medicine, however, was the specialty that received the greatest number of citations. Conclusions: Psychiatry–Psychology was the most productive specialty, while Internal Medicine and Respiratory Medicine produced more articles in collaboration. Respiratory Medicine was the specialty that received the greatest number of citations. Copyright , Beech Tree Publishing.

Suggested Citation

  • José Manuel Martínez Albiach, 2009. "World-wide collaboration among medical specialties in smoking research: production, collaboration, visibility and influence," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 18(1), pages 3-12, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:rseval:v:18:y:2009:i:1:p:3-12
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.3152/095820209X393163
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:rseval:v:18:y:2009:i:1:p:3-12. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/rev .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.