Numbers highlight US dominance in clinical research

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-00755-9

IF: 64.8

2024-03-14

Nature

Abstract:Institutions from the country make unrivaled contributions to high-quality health-sciences research in the Nature Index. Institutions from the country make unrivaled contributions to high-quality health-sciences research in the Nature Index.

multidisciplinary sciences

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

A spotlight on the stark imbalances of global health research

Bec Crew

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-00752-y

IF: 64.8

2024-03-14

Nature

Abstract:An expansion of the Nature Index to include more than 60 medical journals has revealed the clear leaders in the field. An expansion of the Nature Index to include more than 60 medical journals has revealed the clear leaders in the field.

multidisciplinary sciences
The USA is an indisputable world leader in medical and biotechnological research

Ricardo Brito,Alonso Rodríguez-Navarro

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1807.01225

2018-07-03

Digital Libraries

Abstract:A country's research success can be assessed from the power law function that links country and world rank numbers when publications are ordered by their number of citations; a similar function describes the distribution of country papers in world percentiles. These functions allow calculating the ep index and the probability of publishing highly cited papers, which measure the efficiency of the research system and the ability of achieving important discoveries or scientific breakthroughs, respectively. The aim of this paper was to use these metrics and other parameters derived from the percentile-based power law function to investigate research success in the USA, the EU, and other countries in hot medical, biochemical, and biotechnological topics. The results show that, in the investigated fields, the USA is scientifically ahead of all countries and that its research is likely to produce approximately 80% of the important global breakthroughs in the research topics investigated in this study. EU research has maintained a constant weak position with reference to USA research over the last 30 years.
Countries pushing the boundaries of knowledge: the US dominance, China rise, and the EU stagnation

Alonso Rodriguez-Navarro

2024-02-23

Abstract:Knowing which countries contribute the most to pushing the boundaries of knowledge in science and technology has social and political importance. However, common citation metrics do not adequately measure this contribution. This measure requires more stringent metrics appropriate for the highly influential breakthrough papers that push the boundaries of knowledge, which are very highly cited but very rare. Here I used the recently described Rk index, specifically designed to address this issue. I applied this index to 25 countries and the EU across 10 key research topics, five technological and five biomedical, studying domestic and international collaborative papers independently. In technological topics, the Rk indices of domestic papers show that overall, the USA, China, and the EU are leaders; other countries are clearly behind. The USA is notably ahead of China, and the EU is far behind China. The same approach to biomedical topics shows an overwhelming dominance of the USA and that the EU is ahead of China. The analysis of internationally collaborative papers further demonstrates the US dominance. These results conflict with current country rankings based on less stringent indicators.

Digital Libraries,Information Retrieval
Comparing like with like: China ranks first in SCI-indexed research articles since 2018

Junwen Zhu,Weishu Liu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03525-2

IF: 3.801

2020-05-25

Scientometrics

Abstract:China's rising in scientific research output is impressive. The academic community is curious about the time when the cross-over in the number of annual scientific publication production between China and the USA can happen. By using Web of Science Core Collection's Science Citation Index Expanded database, this study finds that China still ranks the second in the production of SCI-indexed publications in 2019 but may leapfrog the USA to be the first in 2020 or 2021, if all document types are considered. Comparatively, China has already overtaken the USA and been the largest SCI-indexed original research article producer since 2018. However, China still lags behind the USA regarding the number of review paper production. In general, quantitative advantage does not equal quality or impact advantage. We think that the USA will continue to be the global scientific leader for a long time.

information science & library science,computer science, interdisciplinary applications
The anatomy of medical research: US and international comparisons

Hamilton Moses 3rd,David H M Matheson,Sarah Cairns-Smith,Benjamin P George,Chase Palisch,E Ray Dorsey

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2014.15939

IF: 11.816

2015-01-13

JAMA

Abstract:Importance: Medical research is a prerequisite of clinical advances, while health service research supports improved delivery, access, and cost. Few previous analyses have compared the United States with other developed countries. Objectives: To quantify total public and private investment and personnel (economic inputs) and to evaluate resulting patents, publications, drug and device approvals, and value created (economic outputs). Evidence review: Publicly available data from 1994 to 2012 were compiled showing trends in US and international research funding, productivity, and disease burden by source and industry type. Patents and publications (1981-2011) were evaluated using citation rates and impact factors. Findings: (1) Reduced science investment: Total US funding increased 6% per year (1994-2004), but rate of growth declined to 0.8% per year (2004-2012), reaching $117 billion (4.5%) of total health care expenditures. Private sources increased from 46% (1994) to 58% (2012). Industry reduced early-stage research, favoring medical devices, bioengineered drugs, and late-stage clinical trials, particularly for cancer and rare diseases. National Insitutes of Health allocations correlate imperfectly with disease burden, with cancer and HIV/AIDS receiving disproportionate support. (2) Underfunding of service innovation: Health services research receives $5.0 billion (0.3% of total health care expenditures) or only 1/20th of science funding. Private insurers ranked last (0.04% of revenue) and health systems 19th (0.1% of revenue) among 22 industries in their investment in innovation. An increment of $8 billion to $15 billion yearly would occur if service firms were to reach median research and development funding. (3) Globalization: US government research funding declined from 57% (2004) to 50% (2012) of the global total, as did that of US companies (50% to 41%), with the total US (public plus private) share of global research funding declining from 57% to 44%. Asia, particularly China, tripled investment from $2.6 billion (2004) to $9.7 billion (2012) preferentially for education and personnel. The US share of life science patents declined from 57% (1981) to 51% (2011), as did those considered most valuable, from 73% (1981) to 59% (2011). Conclusions and relevance: New investment is required if the clinical value of past scientific discoveries and opportunities to improve care are to be fully realized. Sources could include repatriation of foreign capital, new innovation bonds, administrative savings, patent pools, and public-private risk sharing collaborations. Given international trends, the United States will relinquish its historical international lead in the next decade unless such measures are undertaken.
Using ISI's 'Highly Cited Researchers' to obtain a country level indicator of citation excellence

Aparna Basu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-006-0117-x

IF: 3.801

2006-09-01

Scientometrics

Abstract:A high level of citation to an author's work is, in general, a testimony to the fact that the author's work has been noted and used by his peers. High citation is seen to be correlated with other forms of recognition and rewards, and is a key indicator of research performance, among other bibliometric indicators. The Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) defines a 'highly cited researcher' (HCR) as one of 250 most cited authors of journal papers in any discipline. Citation data for 20 years (1981-1999) is used to calculate the share of HCRs for countries in 21 subject areas. We find that the US dominates in all subject areas (US share ~ 40-90%). Based on the number of highly cited researchers in a country, an index of citation excellence is proposed. We find that rank order of countries based on this index is in conformity with our general understanding of research excellence, whereas the more frequently used indicator, citations per paper, gave an unacceptable rank order due to an inherent bias toward very small countries. Additionally, a high value of the index of citation excellence was found to be associated with higher concentration of highly cited researchers in affiliating organizations.

information science & library science,computer science, interdisciplinary applications
A discussion of measuring the top-1 percent most-highly cited publications: Quality and impact of Chinese papers

Caroline S. Wagner,Lin Zhang,Loet Leydesdorff

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2202.00781

2022-02-02

Abstract:The top 1 percent most highly cited articles are watched closely as the vanguards of the sciences. Using Web of Science data, one can find that China had overtaken the USA in the relative participation in the top 1 percent in 2019, after outcompeting the EU on this indicator in 2015. However, this finding contrasts with repeated reports of Western agencies that the quality of Chinese output in science is lagging other advanced nations, even as it has caught up in numbers of articles. The difference between the results presented here and the previous results depends mainly upon field normalizations, which classify source journals by discipline. Average citation rates of these subsets are commonly used as a baseline so that one can compare among disciplines. However, the expected value of the top 1 percent of a sample of N papers is N 100, ceteris paribus. Using the average citation rates as expected values, errors are introduced by using the mean of highly skewed distributions and a specious precision in the delineations of the subsets. Classifications can be used for the decomposition, but not for the normalization. When the data is thus decomposed, the USA ranks ahead of China in biomedical fields such as virology. Although the number of papers is smaller, China outperforms the US in the field of Business and Finance in the Social Sciences Citation Index when p is less than .05. Using percentile ranks, subsets other than indexing based classifications can be tested for the statistical significance of differences among them.

Digital Libraries,Applications
A Discussion of Measuring the Top-1% Most-Highly-Cited Publications: the Case of China

Caroline Wagner,Lin Zhang,Koen Jonkers,Loet Leydesdorff

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3846583

2021-01-01

Abstract:The top-1% most-highly-cited articles are watched closely as the vanguards of the sciences. Using Web-of-Science data, one can find that China had overtaken the USA in the relative participation in the top-1% (PP-top1%) in 2019, after outcompeting the EU on this indicator in 2015. However, this finding contrasts with repeated reports of Western agencies that the quality of China’s output in science is lagging other advanced nations, even as it has caught up in numbers of articles. The difference between the results presented here and the previous results depends mainly upon field normalizations, which classify source journals by discipline. Average citation rates of these subsets are commonly used as a baseline so that one can compare among disciplines. However, the expected value of the top-1% of a sample of N papers is N / 100, ceteris paribus. Using the average citation rates as expected values, however, errors are introduced by (1) using the mean of highly skewed distributions and (2) a specious precision in the delineations of the subsets. Classifications can be used for the decomposition, but not for the normalization. When the data is thus decomposed, the USA ranks ahead of China in biomedical fields such as virology. Although the number of papers is smaller, China outperforms the US in the field of Business and Finance (in the Social Sciences Citation Index; (p<.05). Using percentile ranks, subsets other than indexing-based classifications can also be tested for the statistical significance of differences among them.
A Discussion of Measuring the Top-1% Most-Highly Cited Publications: Quality and Impact of Chinese Papers.

Wagner Caroline S.,Zhang Lin,Leydesdorff Loet

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-022-04291-z

IF: 3.801

2022-01-01

Scientometrics

Abstract:The top-1% most-highly-cited articles are watched closely as the vanguards of the sciences. Using Web of Science data, one can find that China had overtaken the USA in the relative participation in the top-1% (PP-top1%) in 2019, after outcompeting the EU on this indicator in 2015. However, this finding contrasts with repeated reports of Western agencies that the quality of China’s output in science is lagging other advanced nations, even as it has caught up in numbers of articles. The difference between the results presented here and the previous results depends mainly upon field normalizations, which classify source journals by discipline. Average citation rates of these subsets are commonly used as a baseline so that one can compare among disciplines. However, the expected value of the top-1% of a sample of N papers is N / 100, ceteris paribus. Using the average citation rates as expected values, errors are introduced by (1) using the mean of highly skewed distributions and (2) a specious precision in the delineations of the subsets. Classifications can be used for the decomposition, but not for the normalization. When the data is thus decomposed, the USA ranks ahead of China in biomedical fields such as virology. Although the number of papers is smaller, China outperforms the US in the field of Business and Finance (in the Social Sciences Citation Index; p < .05). Using percentile ranks, subsets other than indexing-based classifications can be tested for the statistical significance of differences among them.
Is the United States losing ground in science? A global perspective on the world science system

Loet Leydesdorff,Caroline Wagner

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.0911.1042

2009-11-05

Abstract:Based on the Science Citation IndexExpanded webversion, the USA is still by far the strongest nation in terms of scientific performance. Its relative decline in percentage share of publications is largely due to the emergence of China and other Asian nations. In 2006, China has become the second largest nation in terms of the number of publications within this database. In terms of citations, the competitive advantage of the American domestic market is diminished, while the European Union EU is profiting more from the enlargement of the database over time than the US. However, the USA is still outperforming all other countries in terms of highly cited papers and citationpublication ratios, and it is more successful than the EU in coordinating its research efforts in strategic priority areas like nanotechnology. In this field, the Peoples Republic of China PRC has become second largest nation in both numbers of papers published and citations behind the USA.

Physics and Society
The United States Of America And Scientific Research

Gregory J. Hather,Winston Haynes,Roger Higdon,Natali Kolker,Elizabeth A. Stewart,Peter Arzberger,Patrick Chain,Dawn Field,B. Robert Franza,Biaoyang Lin,Folker Meyer,Vural Ozdemir,Charles V. Smith,Gerald van Belle,John Wooley,Eugene Kolker

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0012203

IF: 3.7

2010-01-01

PLoS ONE

Abstract:To gauge the current commitment to scientific research in the United States of America (US), we compared federal research funding (FRF) with the US gross domestic product (GDP) and industry research spending during the past six decades. In order to address the recent globalization of scientific research, we also focused on four key indicators of research activities: research and development (R&D) funding, total science and engineering doctoral degrees, patents, and scientific publications. We compared these indicators across three major population and economic regions: the US, the European Union (EU) and the People's Republic of China (China) over the past decade. We discovered a number of interesting trends with direct relevance for science policy. The level of US FRF has varied between 0.2% and 0.6% of the GDP during the last six decades. Since the 1960s, the US FRF contribution has fallen from twice that of industrial research funding to roughly equal. Also, in the last two decades, the portion of the US government R&D spending devoted to research has increased. Although well below the US and the EU in overall funding, the current growth rate for R&D funding in China greatly exceeds that of both. Finally, the EU currently produces more science and engineering doctoral graduates and scientific publications than the US in absolute terms, but not per capita. This study's aim is to facilitate a serious discussion of key questions by the research community and federal policy makers. In particular, our results raise two questions with respect to: a) the increasing globalization of science: "What role is the US playing now, and what role will it play in the future of international science?''; and b) the ability to produce beneficial innovations for society: "How will the US continue to foster its strengths?''
High-income countries remain overrepresented in highly ranked public health journals: a descriptive analysis of research settings and authorship affiliations

Dominika Plancikova,Predrag Duric,Fiona O’May

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09581596.2020.1722313

2020-02-04

Critical Public Health

Abstract:Scientific contribution in high-impact journals is largely from authors affiliated with institutions in high-income countries (HICs). Publication of papers by contribution of individual countries to leading journals can provide a picture of the most influential countries in a particular discipline. The aim of the study was to identify changes in the patterns in authorship and origin of original research articles in relation to countries' income level in the field of public health in 2016 in comparison to previous studies. A descriptive analysis was conducted based on articles published in highly ranked public health journals in 2016. Based on the inclusion criteria, 368 research articles were identified. Over 80% of these studies were conducted in HICs. Authors were mainly based in HICs (84%), especially in the USA. The majority of first, last, and corresponding authors were affiliated with HICs (over 90%). Our study might serve as a prompt for editorial and advisory boards of the leading international journals to provide more opportunities for researchers based in low and middle-income countries.

public, environmental & occupational health,social sciences, biomedical
International Performance of Chinese Institutes in Different Disciplines——A Bibliometric View

ZHONG Yongfeng,ZHOU Ping

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1002-1965.2012.04.015

IF: 3.1759

2012-01-01

Journal of Intelligence

Abstract:With the development of scientific research,effective evaluation of institutes' achievements becomes one of the great challenges that decision makers face.Based on the analysis of SCImago Institutions Rankings World Report 2010 in health sciences,life sciences,physical sciences and social sciences humanities,the status of Chinese institutes in the world are discussed by analyzing various indicators like output,international collaboration,high quality publications,normalized impact and the correlations between them.Chinese institutes perform quiet well in output but still not catch up that of the America.In terms of international collaboration,they are much less active than the European countries,which attach great importance to global cooperation.In addition,there are still great difference between China and leading countries in other two indicators of high quality publications and normalized impact.Therefore with keeping the high quantity of papers,Chinese institutes should also aim to improve their quality by making stronger international links and encouraging scientific researchers to submit their papers to high quality academic journals,so as to strengthen the communication with prominent author group.
Release of the National Healthcare Big Data in China: a Historic Leap in Clinical Research

Zhongheng Zhang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.21037/amj.2017.02.03

2017-01-01

AME Medical Journal

Abstract:At the beginning of 2017, the National scientific data sharing platform for population and health (NSDSPPH) released 49.1 TB data on Chinese population and health. The data comprise 280 million observations involving the fields of biomedicine, basic medicine, clinical medicine, public health, traditional Chinese medicine, pharmacology, population and reproductive health (http://www.ncmi.cn/1). NSDSPPH is a major project of the national science and technology infrastructure. It was launched in 2003. Clinical investigators may be interested in clinical data contained in NSDSPPH. The clinical data center is jointly established by Peking Union medical college hospital and Chinese PLA general hospital. After more than 10 years of endeavor, the clinical data center has become more and more sophisticated. Clinical data were collected from hospitals nationwide with strict criteria for data entry. Data are presented in several forms such as raw data, summary data and statistical report. The clinical data are accessible to the public and researchers. Additionally, the center also provides services of statistical analysis and data mining. Numerous scientific papers have been published using the database. Some examples include the correlation between waist circumference and respiratory function in teenagers (1), epidemiological study on coexisting prehypertension and prediabetes in northern China (2), and the Association between γ-glutamyltransferase and prehypertension (3).
Chinese science still has room to grow

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-01600-9

IF: 64.8

2024-06-06

Nature

Abstract:Strengths in chemistry and the physical sciences have propelled the country to the top of the Nature Index. But there is untapped potential in other subject areas. Strengths in chemistry and the physical sciences have propelled the country to the top of the Nature Index. But there is untapped potential in other subject areas.

multidisciplinary sciences
Clinical research in Latin America: scientific production in high impact clinical research journals from 2000 to 2010

Emmanuel Coronel,Felipe Fregni

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5455/2349-3259.ijct20150501

2015-01-01

International Journal of Clinical Trials

Abstract:Background: Scientific production has long been dominated by a few countries such as the United States, Europe and Japan. Historically Latin American countries have contributed marginally to the world’s scientific production, however important changes are now taking place in the geography of scientific research. Methods: In order to determine the current contribution of Latin America to global clinical research and whether the region has been participating in the growth of internationally collaborative research we reviewed the literature in 10 high-impact medical journals between 2000 and 2010. We manually searched original articles in 10 journals that have a strong focus on clinical research and had the highest impact factors in their fields during the study period. We identified a total of 1047 original articles published. Results: Our results show that Latin America was a minor contributor of research published in high impact journals with only 4 (0.38%) of the articles citing a corresponding author affiliated with a Latin American institution. Furthermore, only 23 articles (2.2%) cited non-corresponding authors from Latin America in contrast to 358 articles (34.2%) in which all the authors were affiliated with US institutions. Conclusions: Although these results show limited contribution from Latin America to the production of health and clinical research, it also shows that Latin America is represented in the most competitive journals given the relative lack of research infra-structure, training and challenges with language. Factors such as GDP and investment in research may play a significant role, but may not be the only contributing factors for this scenario.
Citation impact of papers published from six prolific countries: A national comparison based on InCites data

Lutz Bornmann,Loet Leydesdorff

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1205.0680

2012-05-03

Digital Libraries

Abstract:Using the InCites tool of Thomson Reuters, this study compares normalized citation impact values calculated for China, Japan, France, Germany, United States, and the UK throughout the time period from 1981 to 2010. The citation impact values are normalized to four subject areas: natural sciences; engineering and technology; medical and health sciences; and agricultural sciences. The results show an increasing trend in citation impact values for France, the UK and especially for Germany across the last thirty years in all subject areas. The citation impact of papers from China is still at a relatively low level (mostly below the world average), but the country follows an increasing trend line. The USA exhibits a relatively stable pattern of high citation impact values across the years. With small impact differences between the publication years, the US trend is increasing in engineering and technology but decreasing in medical and health sciences as well as in agricultural sciences. Similar to the USA, Japan follows increasing as well as decreasing trends in different subject areas, but the variability across the years is small. In most of the years, papers from Japan perform below or approximately at the world average in each subject area.
Assessing the national productivity in subspecialty critical care medicine journals: A bibliometric analysis

Zhi Li,Li-Xin Qiu,Fei-Xiang Wu,Li-Qun Yang,Yu-Ming Sun,Zhi-Jie Lu,Wei-Feng Yu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrc.2012.03.002

IF: 4.298

2012-01-01

Journal of Critical Care

Abstract:PURPOSE:In recent years, significant growth has been seen in the subspecialty critical care medicine. However, the national productivity to the subspecialty critical care medicine remains unknown. We therefore intended to reveal the national contribution in the subspecialty critical care medicine journals. MATERIALS AND METHODS:Articles published in 20 highly cited journals in subspecialty critical care medicine from 2006 to 2010 were retrieved from Web of Science and PubMed. The number of total articles and randomized, controlled trials, the per capita numbers, total impact factors (IFs), and citations were tabulated to assess the contribution of different countries. RESULTS:A total number of 17,667 articles were published in the 20 journals from 2006 to 2010 worldwide. North America, West Europe, and East Asia were the most productive regions. High-income countries published 89.68% of the total articles. The United States published the most number of articles in 2006 to 2010 (6659/17,667, or 37.69%), followed by United Kingdom, Germany, France, and Australia. Besides, the United States also had the most number of randomized, controlled trials (260), the highest total impact factors (27,206.55), and the highest total citations (84,170). When normalized to population size, Australia had the highest number of articles per million population, followed by Netherlands, Switzerland, Austria, and Belgium. CONCLUSION:The United States is the most productive country in the subspecialty critical care medicine. When normalized to population size, Australia and some European countries might be more productive.
CIDS country rankings: comparing documents and citations of USA, UK and China top researchers

Francisco M Couto

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1310.5597

2013-10-21

Digital Libraries

Abstract:This technical report presents a bibliometric analysis of the top 30 cited researchers from USA, UK and China. The analysis is based on Google Scholar data using CIDS. The researchers were identified using their email suffix: edu, uk and cn. This na\"{i}ve approach was able to produce rankings consistent with the SCImago country rankings using mininal resources in a fully automated way.
Macro-indicators of Citation Impacts of Six Prolific Countries: InCites Data and the Statistical Significance of Trends.

Lutz Bornmann,Loet Leydesdorff

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0056768

IF: 3.7

2013-01-01

PLoS ONE

Abstract:Using the InCites tool of Thomson Reuters, this study compares normalized citation impact values calculated for China, Japan, France, Germany, United States, and the UK throughout the time period from 1981 to 2010. InCites offers a unique opportunity to study the normalized citation impacts of countries using (i) a long publication window (1981 to 2010), (ii) a differentiation in (broad or more narrow) subject areas, and (iii) allowing for the use of statistical procedures in order to obtain an insightful investigation of national citation trends across the years. Using four broad categories, our results show significantly increasing trends in citation impact values for France, the UK, and especially Germany across the last thirty years in all areas. The citation impact of papers from China is still at a relatively low level (mostly below the world average), but the country follows an increasing trend line. The USA exhibits a stable pattern of high citation impact values across the years. With small impact differences between the publication years, the US trend is increasing in engineering and technology but decreasing in medical and health sciences as well as in agricultural sciences. Similar to the USA, Japan follows increasing as well as decreasing trends in different subject areas, but the variability across the years is small. In most of the years, papers from Japan perform below or approximately at the world average in each subject area.

Numbers highlight US dominance in clinical research

A spotlight on the stark imbalances of global health research

The USA is an indisputable world leader in medical and biotechnological research

Countries pushing the boundaries of knowledge: the US dominance, China rise, and the EU stagnation

Comparing like with like: China ranks first in SCI-indexed research articles since 2018

The anatomy of medical research: US and international comparisons

Using ISI's 'Highly Cited Researchers' to obtain a country level indicator of citation excellence

A discussion of measuring the top-1 percent most-highly cited publications: Quality and impact of Chinese papers

A Discussion of Measuring the Top-1% Most-Highly-Cited Publications: the Case of China

A Discussion of Measuring the Top-1% Most-Highly Cited Publications: Quality and Impact of Chinese Papers.

Is the United States losing ground in science? A global perspective on the world science system

The United States Of America And Scientific Research

High-income countries remain overrepresented in highly ranked public health journals: a descriptive analysis of research settings and authorship affiliations

International Performance of Chinese Institutes in Different Disciplines——A Bibliometric View

Release of the National Healthcare Big Data in China: a Historic Leap in Clinical Research

Chinese science still has room to grow

Clinical research in Latin America: scientific production in high impact clinical research journals from 2000 to 2010

Citation impact of papers published from six prolific countries: A national comparison based on InCites data

Assessing the national productivity in subspecialty critical care medicine journals: A bibliometric analysis

CIDS country rankings: comparing documents and citations of USA, UK and China top researchers

Macro-indicators of Citation Impacts of Six Prolific Countries: InCites Data and the Statistical Significance of Trends.