Medical Sciences – Research and Impact Analysis


Critical Reviews in Biochemistry and Molecular...

Image via Wikipedia

Every year, scholarly scientific publishers eagerly await (or utterly dread) ISI’s springtime announcement of the release of the updated JCR.  The Journal Citation Reports contain the all-important Impact Factor, as well as several other metrics which provide bragging rights to some journals (which proudly offer press releases announcing their new score) and terror to others (which may be facing tough decisions in the months, weeks or even days ahead).

Librarians use Impact Factor to help them decide on their subscription lists, while scientists use Impact Factor to help them determine to which journal they will submit their own work.  Editors parse every item counted in both the numerator and the denominator of the ratio, contacting ISI’s Publisher Relations department with queries, complaints and demands.  The IF gets slammed in the trades every year – why does one metric get all this attention?

ISI, the Institute for Scientific Information (owned by Thomson Reuters), smiles when asked about the ubiquitous use of this single metric.  “The Impact Factor is one of many available metrics,” they say.  And many other metrics are incorporated into the JCR – from total citation counts to Eigenfactor and others.  But none get the attention that the Impact Factor does, and ISI would like to keep it this way.

But let’s take a look at some of the other data points incorporated into the JCR.  We can learn a lot about a journal (or series of journals) through this dataset.  So I have taken a listing of 27 medical-related subject categories from the 2009 JCR.  I have analyzed the dataset to provide a true picture of which medical-related subject categories actually did have the most impact on research in 2009 (the last year currently available of JCR data).

The Categories

All categories shown are as listed by ISI in the Journal Citation Reports, and do not follow any other classification scheme: 

Alternative & Complementary Medicine; Anesthesiology; Biochemistry & Molecular Biology; Biotechnology & Applied Microbiology; Cardiac & Cardiovascular Systems; Clinical Neurology; Critical Care Medicine; Gastroenterology & Hepatology; Immunology; Infectious Diseases; Medicine, General & Internal; Neurosciences; Nursing; Nutrition & Dietetics; Obstetrics & Gynecology; Oncology; Opthalmology; Orthopedics; Pathology; Pediatrics; Pharmacology & Pharmacy; Physiology; Public, Environmental & Occupational Health; Radiology, Nuclear Medicine & Medical Imaging; Rehabilitation; Sports Science; Surgery

Each category is very different, unique in its own way, and it is not advisable to compare journals within one category against journals in another.  More research, and more citations, occur in the field of Oncology than the field of Pediatrics – it is just the nature of the beast.  But if the #1 Pediatrics journal has the same number of citations as the #79 Oncology journal, does that make them equals?  Certainly not, and anybody performing these types of studies must be very careful when making comparisons across categories.

What is presented here, however, does not contradict the above statement.  The purpose of this article is to compare subject categories against each other to see which offered the most overall scientific impact during the 2009 time frame.

Some factoids from the dataset:

  • The smallest category (Alternative & Complementary Medicine) had 17 journals in the 2009 JCR.  The largest (Biochemistry & Molecular Biology) had 283.  On average, categories had 108 journals.
  • The number of annual articles per journal ranged from 59-169, averaging out at 129.
  • Subject areas ranged from receiving 22,843 total citations in 2009 (Alternative & Complementary Medicine) to 2,658,328 total citations (Biochemistry & Molecular Biology).  On average, categories received 555,461 citations.
  • Impact Factors range from 0.00 to 87.9250, with an average Impact Factor of 2.3452.  (It should be pointed out that this is included only for point of interest – this should not be considered a baseline in any way.)
  • The average Immediacy Index is 0.4626, while the average Cited Half-Life is 6.3 years.  This means that an average subject category received 1 citation in the year of publication for every two articles published.  It also means that half of the citations were to articles published within the prior 6.3 years. (It should be pointed out that ISI indexes a maximum CHL of “>10”.  In such cases the figure of “11” was used for averages only.) 
  • The average Eigenfactor was 0.012611, and the average Article Influence was 0.849381.  These metrics speak to the quality of citations being received, and are not over an arbitrary time frame (as the Impact Factor is).
  • The average journal published 129 articles each year, and the average article received 34 total citations.

       

 ==============================================
 
The Data

Before we look at the Impact Factor and other metrics, attention should be paid to the overall citation patterns of each of these categories.  If cited references imply an article/journal/category had impact on the scientific community, than let’s see exactly how much impact we are really talking about.

Total and journal averages for citations received

Here we see the total cites, and average cites per journal for each subject category during the 2009 year.  The subject Biochemistry & Molecular Biology received the highest total citations – more than twice as many as the nearest competitor, Neurosciences.  (Oncology rounds out the top 3 – each of which received more than 1,000,000 citations during 2009.)

Biochemistry & Molecular Biology is also the largest of the categories examined, with 283 journals, so we might expect to find that they were not at the top of the list in cites per journal, but by far this subject has won the competition.  Biochemistry averaged over 9,000 citations per journal during the course of 2009, almost 35% greater than the nearest competitor, Immunology.  The average journal (across the board) received 4,495 cites.

Nursing, Rehabilitation and Alternative & Complementary Medicine were the bottom three categories in both of these metrics (total cites and cites per journal). 

<The complete list of rankings and counts can be found in the appendix to this article below>

So we might think this gives us a good idea of the overall influence in medical research during 2009, providing us with a ranking we can use, and it is true.  Although many in the industry do focus on Impact Factor alone, we can see that Biochemistry & Molecular Biology had an overall impact (total cites) of more than double any other subject category studied.  In fact, the subject Biochemistry & Molecular Biology alone accounts for 18% of the total citations received by this dataset.

 

 

==============================================

 

Citation Analysis

When looking at little closer at the citations, we can see that there are some commonalities between the subject areas. 

Citation Longevity tells us a lot about a journal (or subject category or country or institution) – how quickly people cite your article, and for how long they continue to do so, are both quite useful information to have.  The Immediacy Index and Cited Half-Life tell us just that.

How much current year articles are being cited; how much older articles are being cited

The Immediacy Index tells us how many citations an article received within a journal during the same year of publication.  So, how many 2009 articles received citations?

We see the subject area of Immunology reach the top of this list, with an average Immediacy Index of 0.845.  This means that for every 100 articles published in the field of Immunology in 2009, 84.5 citations were received during 2009.

Medicine (General & Internal), Oncology and Biochemistry & Molecular Biology both also saw a very immediate response to their articles – doctors and students were citing their articles at a rate of at least 7 times per 10 articles published. 

Cited Half-Life shows us the other side of the coin – while Immediacy Index tells us which articles are “hot, the Cited Half-Life tells us how long those articles remain hot.  (Or, more accurately, the age by which half of the citations are being received.)  At the top of this list are Orthopedics, Sports Sciences and Physiology – three disciplines which probably change little over time.  Average articles in the field of Orthopedics saw half of their citations going to articles published 8 years prior, or older.  (And as this portion of the dataset is only directionally accurate, with capturing only “>10 years” as the maximum option, this number is likely to go much higher.)

By this point we might begin to see some patterns.  The most highly cited categories do seem to match up with those with high Immediacy Index ratings.  There does also seem to be a pattern that a subject area is either strong in Immediacy or strong in Cited Half-Life, but not in both categories.  But ISI includes another metric in its arsenal – developed by the same folks who brought you the Eigenfactor Score is the Article Influence.  Although the Article Influence only incorporates 5 years of data, it is multi-generational, and speaks to the quality of citations being received.

Correlation between Immediacy and Article Influence (citation quality)

From this graph we can actually see the correlation between the different metrics.  Along the X-Axis we see the Immediacy, and along the Y-Axis we see the Cited Half-Life.  The size of the bubbles represents Article Influence scores.

Looking at this graph it seems that there is no correlation between Cited Half-Life and the other two metrics.  While there seem to be a slight downward trend for items with a high Immediacy to have a lower Cited Half-Life, this is not coming out completely in these data points.  However these are all medical sciences – it would be interesting to compare these figures with those of non-medical disciplines, such as Physics and Engineering.

But we do see a very strong correlation here, between Immediacy Index and Article Influence.  Although there are some anomalies, the smaller bubbles (subjects with a small Article Influence) also have a low Immediacy Index.  Medium sized bubbles are found in the middle of the graph, and the larger bubbles float out to the right – where the Immediacy Index is highest.

(This demonstrates fairly well that an Immediacy Index for a subject (or journal) leads to a higher Article Influence, but why might that be?  Because the Article Influence only covers a 5-year time frame, a higher Immediacy does contribute quite a lot.  Think about it.  A journal being cited quickly will then have a second-level citation (somebody citing the article which cited your article) exponentially more quickly than a journal with a low Immediacy.  There is more time for the article to build up both first and second level citations during the 5-year time frame, which directly influences the Article Influence score.)

 

 

==============================================

 

Impact Metrics

So now that we’ve seen where the citations are going, and how old those articles are, let’s take a look at three citation impact metrics: Impact Factor, Eigenfactor and Cites per Article. 

The 2009 Impact Factor is a simple formula – 2009 Citations to articles/Total articles published in 2007-2008.  The Impact Factor picks up where the Immediacy Index leaves off.  It’s seemingly arbitrary choice of years was intended to maximize the efforts of Life Sciences journals, so these medical subject areas should be well-represented by the Impact Factor.

Minimum ranges down to 0.0000

There is a wide range of Impact Factors for the categories – IFs dip as low as 0.0000 and soar as high as 87.9250.  We can see from the graph on the left that the top IF journal is in the field of Oncology, followed by Medicine (General & Internal) and Immunology, two fields which performed well on total citations and Immediacy.

But there is also a Physiology journal with an outstanding IF – Physiology performed well in Cited Half-Life, as we saw before, but this one journal (Physiology Reviews) performed quite well, despite the patterns for the rest of the category.

Minimum, Average and Maximum Impact Factors by Category

When taking a look at average Impact Factors across the categories, the fields with the best ratings seem to match those with the most citations – Immunology, Oncology and Biochemistry & Molecular Biology are numbers one, two and three respectively on the IF ranking.

These same three subject categories appeared in the same order on the ranking for Immediacy Index, as well as in a different order on the Eigenfactor Scores.  These three categories also appeared in the top 4 when looking at cites per article.

So there would seem to be a strong correlation between average cites per article, Impact Factor and Article Influence.

Due to this strong correlation, we can begin to infer something about the overall impact of the subject categories:  Biochemistry, Oncology and Immunology seem to be the top 3 disciplines in terms of overall contribution to scholarly science. 

Rehabilitation, Nursing and Sports Science, however, to be on the low end of the same totem pole. 

But we’re looking at 27 categories here, and it is still hard to decide which has had the most impact thus far.  But as we know, it is always best to look at as many measures as possible.  Sure, we could say right now that “Oncology has more impact on the scholarly scientific community than Sports Science does” and nobody would blink an eye at you.  But if we really want to see which is the best, we’re going to have to dig deeper.

Impact Factor and Eigenfactor do agree - somewhat

In comes the Eigenfactor.  As with the Article Influence, the Eigenfactor Score measures multiple generations of citations against five years of data.  The Eigenfactor takes the citation quality into account, as well as disciplinary concerns.  And when we look at the Eigenfactor (as mapped against the Impact Factor) we see basically what we expect to see – the top IF categories perform best in Eigenfactor, and vice versa.

But upon closer inspection there are variances.  Immunology, Neurosciences, Oncology and Physiology all relatively outperformed the Eigenfactor with their IF scores.  In other words, these categories are better served by focusing on Impact Factor than Eigenfactor, as they performed relatively better against other categories than they did with the Eigenfactor.

So?  Good news, these categories might say.  The cream has risen to the top – the Impact Factor did its job.  But other important categories might not have the same viewpoint – several would be better suited to focus on Eigenfactor as a key metric.  After all, for Biochemistry & Molecular Biology, Cardiac & Cardiovascular Systems, Medicine (General & Internal) and even Surgery, the Eigenfactor shows them better against their competititon than the Impact Factor does.

So which to use?  Now ISI has added a “5-Year Impact Factor”, intended to appease such disciplines with slower citation rates.  Elsevier totes the H-Index (a completely different measurement which becomes staggering to consider when looking at volumes this large), which ISI has also had to incorporate into their dataset.  (Others abound as well, and ISI has been spending a LOT of time in front of the potential market to determine what they should be including in their new, as yet unnoteworthy, offerings.)

Based on percentile against entire dataset

Maybe the flat number of citations per article is a better system.  (Note that this refers to the total number of citations in 2009 compared against the total number of articles published in 2009.  This is not actually a useful metric if journals are changing their size year after year, but for purposes of this non-scholarly item, with the data I had available, you’re stuck with this.)

So (with the caveat that this data is what it is, as per the disclaimer above) this tells us the number of first-level citations to articles from a journal over the course of history.  Instead of focusing on just two years of content, as does the Impact Factor, this metric would incorporate Immediacy, citation longevity and all the other ranges in between.

Comparison between the three metrics should show a straight line

Yes, for ISI’s purposes, providing IF, Immediacy and Cited Half-Life gives this picture, broken out, it does little to tell us which, overall, is the best resource.  When we look at the variances between IF, EF and Cites per Article, we see an even bigger disparity – the three metrics seem to agree 11 out of the 27 times, meaning that 16 times there was a significant variance as to ranking the categories.

So to put it another way, what we should be seeing is a simple linear or exponential progression between the metrics, with the bubbles getting larger as we move up the curve.  In fact what we’re seeing is a swerving above and below our trend line, with anomalous-sized bubbles appearing at points along the spectrum.

This goes to demonstrate that none of these metrics, taken alone, gives a complete picture of a subject category – or a journal, or an individual, for that matter. 

 

==============================================

 

The Doug Index

I tried several times while at ISI to convince the old bibliometrics management team to incorporate some new metrics.  Not from a bibliometric viewpoint, necessarily, but from more of a statistical and analytic viewpoint.

For example, with all of these datasets, ISI also has access to benchmarks, to percentiles and rankings, and to increasingly varying datatypes (such as patents, proceedings, etc.).  Performing some calculations on these – e.g. Standard Deviation from Category – would actually be simple to program.  There are too many to innumerate here, but the possibilities really are endless.

With their new incoming management (if and when), ISI might choose to take their Web offering into the 21st Century (although from what they say to the market it would seem that they are still encountering quite a bit of difficulty) and offer more options on manipulating their data, giving more power to the people who could use it.  They have thus far purposefully steered clear of rankings as much as possible, allowing others to turn these data into their own systems.

So, to that end, with the goal of identifying the most impactful, the medical subject area having the most influence on scholarly scientific literature, I have created my own formula, the Doug Index.

Metrics used solely for purpose of this analysis

(I name it facetiously because this is not a suggestion for a real metric.  I know that one of the key metrics is totally meaningless (as it appears here), and that a real bibliometrician should actually determine what metrics are chosen and how they may be weighted, but for purposes of this non-scholarly paper I will call it the Doug Index.)

The Doug Index attempts to cut through the variances – even within these fairly closely related subject areas, one metric can be favored over another for any category.  But at the same time, categories performing consistently higher in these metrics need to be ranked higher in the end.

So what I have done is taken all of the relevant, available metrics and incorporated them into one über-metric, the Doug Index.  Incorporated into this Index are the average of the subject categories’ relative percentiles in each of the following categories:

  • Total Citations – even with a lower ratio metric (cites/article, Impact Factor), categories with higher total citations have had a larger influence on the overall scientific community.
  • Average Cites per Journal – this factors in the fact that some categories are larger than others, while still addressing a citation impact relative to its size.
  • Average Impact Factor – is median better than mean?  Perhaps.  In any case, this crucial metric just must be a part of the overall equation. 
  • Average Eigenfactor – another key metric, this demonstrates a more overall picture of impact and influence, over generations.
  • Average Article Influence – the quality of the citations within the journals (and categories) is also important, telling us whether it is more or less influential journals/categories citing ourselves.
  • Average Cites per Article – ideally the “articles” would refer to “all the articles published, ever” but I simply did not have easy access to compile that info.  If this was a true scholarly paper I would do so, but frankly, you’re getting this for free (and if ANYBODY has read this far and can post a comment with the secret word, “ishkabibble”, I will be shocked and amazed).
  • Average Immediacy Index OR Cited Half-Life (whichever is higher) – I chose only the maximum value here, though I debated it for some time.  It is true that a journal which has both a high Immediacy and a high CHL is probably better than one which only has one of those, a metric such as Cites per Article will account for that.  However, some disciplines are better served by one function or another – Physiology, for example, has changed little in the past 100 years, and there is no reason to penalize journals in that category for having a lower Immediacy Index.  But allowing a journal (or subject area) the strength to focus on one of these concepts (timely vs classic) is a useful indicator of overall quality.

<One last disclaimer before we continue.   “Quality” as used above is simply a measure based on the imperfect metrics I have presented above, and is not intended to mean true Quality.  (If you would like to discuss this matter further, please first read Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance and I will be happy to talk “Quality” with you.)  Also, I am well aware of the actual quality level of this very article, so there is no need to point out the irony.  But, again – you get what you pay for.  If a Library and Information Science program is interested in seeing this item turn into a Master’s thesis, I would be happy to adjust it accordingly.  But as this Web environment has a peer-review process of one, namely myself, anyone who has an issue with this can go to Hell.  (Again, “ishkabibble”.  I’ll be shocked.  I really will.)>

So as we saw in the graph above, the Doug Index really does seem to cut through the different metrics to give us a real idea of the standing of each subject category.  It would work equally well at an institutional, country or journal level – at least due to dataset size.  (Actually pulling that information from ISI would be a bit more difficult, or at least expensive … )  By combining all of the available metrics in a reasonable way, we can make the argument that we now know which Medical subject categories were the most influential on scholarly scientific literature in the year 2009.  Drumroll please …

The 2009 Doug Index Ranking of Subject Categories

  1. Biochemistry & Molecular Biology
  2. Immunology
  3. Medicine, General & Internal
  4. Neurosciences
  5. Oncology
  6. Physiology
  7. Cardiac & Cardiovascular Systems
  8. Infectious Diseases
  9. Gastroenterology & Hepatology
  10. Clinical Neurology
  11. Biotechnology & Applied Microbiology
  12. Pharmacology & Pharmacy
  13. Radiology, Nuclear Medicine & Medical Imaging
  14. Public, Environmental & Occupational Health
  15. Anesthesiology
  16. Nutrition & Dietetics
  17. Pathology
  18. Surgery
  19. Opthalmology
  20. Critical Care Medicine
  21. Orthopedics
  22. Pediatrics
  23. Obstetrics & Gynecology
  24. Sports Science
  25. Rehabilitation
  26. Nursing
  27. Alternative & Complementary Medicine

 

Subjects arranged in order of contribution to overall scholarly knowledge, as ranked by the Doug Index

==============================================

==============================================

APPENDICES – SUBJECT RANKINGS

Appendix A – Total Citations Ranking

  1. Biochemistry & Molecular Biology
  2. Neurosciences
  3. Oncology
  4. Pharmacology & Pharmacy
  5. Medicine, General & Internal
  6. Immunology
  7. Surgery
  8. Clinical Neurology
  9. Biotechnology & Applied Microbiology
  10. Cardiac & Cardiovascular Systems
  11. Radiology, Nuclear Medicine & Medical Imaging
  12. Critical Care Medicine
  13. Physiology
  14. Public, Environmental & Occupational Health
  15. Gastroenterology & Hepatology
  16. Infectious Diseases
  17. Pediatrics
  18. Nutrition & Dietetics
  19. Orthopedics
  20. Obstetrics & Gynecology
  21. Pathology
  22. Opthalmology
  23. Sports Science
  24. Anesthesiology
  25. Nursing
  26. Rehabilitation
  27. Alternative & Complementary Medicine

Appendix B – Cites per Journal Ranking

  1. Biochemistry & Molecular Biology
  2. Immunology
  3. Medicine, General & Internal
  4. Oncology
  5. Neurosciences
  6. Cardiac & Cardiovascular Systems
  7. Physiology
  8. Gastroenterology & Hepatology
  9. Infectious Diseases
  10. Anesthesiology
  11. Surgery
  12. Clinical Neurology
  13. Radiology, Nuclear Medicine & Medical Imaging
  14. Orthopedics
  15. Opthalmology
  16. Biotechnology & Applied Microbiology
  17. Pharmacology & Pharmacy
  18. Critical Care Medicine
  19. Nutrition & Dietetics
  20. Obstetrics & Gynecology
  21. Public, Environmental & Occupational Health
  22. Pediatrics
  23. Pathology
  24. Sports Science
  25. Rehabilitation
  26. Alternative & Complementary Medicine
  27. Nursing

Appendix C – Immediacy Index Ranking

  1. Immunology
  2. Medicine, General & Internal
  3. Biochemistry & Molecular Biology
  4. Oncology
  5. Neurosciences
  6. Infectious Diseases
  7. Cardiac & Cardiovascular Systems
  8. Gastroenterology & Hepatology
  9. Physiology
  10. Anesthesiology
  11. Nutrition & Dietetics
  12. Pharmacology & Pharmacy
  13. Biotechnology & Applied Microbiology
  14. Clinical Neurology
  15. Public, Environmental & Occupational Health
  16. Pathology
  17. Critical Care Medicine
  18. Radiology, Nuclear Medicine & Medical Imaging
  19. Opthalmology
  20. Rehabilitation
  21. Obstetrics & Gynecology
  22. Alternative & Complementary Medicine
  23. Pediatrics
  24. Surgery
  25. Sports Science
  26. Orthopedics
  27. Nursing

Appendix D – Cited Half-Life Ranking

  1. Orthopedics
  2. Sports Science
  3. Physiology
  4. Surgery
  5. Opthalmology
  6. Rehabilitation
  7. Pathology
  8. Pediatrics
  9. Public, Environmental & Occupational Health
  10. Medicine, General & Internal
  11. Radiology, Nuclear Medicine & Medical Imaging
  12. Nursing
  13. Critical Care Medicine
  14. Nutrition & Dietetics
  15. Clinical Neurology
  16. Anesthesiology
  17. Biochemistry & Molecular Biology
  18. Obstetrics & Gynecology
  19. Biotechnology & Applied Microbiology
  20. Neurosciences
  21. Immunology
  22. Pharmacology & Pharmacy
  23. Gastroenterology & Hepatology
  24. Oncology
  25. Cardiac & Cardiovascular Systems
  26. Infectious Diseases
  27. Alternative & Complementary Medicine

Appendix E – Article Influence Ranking

  1. Immunology
  2. Biochemistry & Molecular Biology
  3. Oncology
  4. Neurosciences
  5. Medicine, General & Internal
  6. Physiology
  7. Infectious Diseases
  8. Biotechnology & Applied Microbiology
  9. Pathology
  10. Public, Environmental & Occupational Health
  11. Cardiac & Cardiovascular Systems
  12. Gastroenterology & Hepatology
  13. Clinical Neurology
  14. Pharmacology & Pharmacy
  15. Nutrition & Dietetics
  16. Radiology, Nuclear Medicine & Medical Imaging
  17. Critical Care Medicine
  18. Opthalmology
  19. Obstetrics & Gynecology
  20. Anesthesiology
  21. Pediatrics
  22. Surgery
  23. Rehabilitation
  24. Orthopedics
  25. Sports Science
  26. Nursing
  27. Alternative & Complementary Medicine

Appendix F – Impact Factor Ranking

  1. Immunology
  2. Oncology
  3. Biochemistry & Molecular Biology
  4. Neurosciences
  5. Physiology
  6. Infectious Diseases
  7. Gastroenterology & Hepatology
  8. Pharmacology & Pharmacy
  9. Biotechnology & Applied Microbiology
  10. Medicine, General & Internal
  11. Cardiac & Cardiovascular Systems
  12. Clinical Neurology
  13. Pathology
  14. Nutrition & Dietetics
  15. Anesthesiology
  16. Public, Environmental & Occupational Health
  17. Radiology, Nuclear Medicine & Medical Imaging
  18. Opthalmology
  19. Critical Care Medicine
  20. Obstetrics & Gynecology
  21. Surgery
  22. Pediatrics
  23. Rehabilitation
  24. Orthopedics
  25. Sports Science
  26. Alternative & Complementary Medicine
  27. Nursing

Appendix G – Eigenfactor Ranking

  1. Biochemistry & Molecular Biology
  2. Immunology
  3. Oncology
  4. Neurosciences
  5. Cardiac & Cardiovascular Systems
  6. Medicine, General & Internal
  7. Infectious Diseases
  8. Gastroenterology & Hepatology
  9. Physiology
  10. Biotechnology & Applied Microbiology
  11. Clinical Neurology
  12. Radiology, Nuclear Medicine & Medical Imaging
  13. Opthalmology
  14. Critical Care Medicine
  15. Anesthesiology
  16. Pharmacology & Pharmacy
  17. Surgery
  18. Public, Environmental & Occupational Health
  19. Nutrition & Dietetics
  20. Obstetrics & Gynecology
  21. Pathology
  22. Pediatrics
  23. Orthopedics
  24. Sports Science
  25. Rehabilitation
  26. Alternative & Complementary Medicine
  27. Nursing

Advertisements
Comments
2 Responses to “Medical Sciences – Research and Impact Analysis”
Trackbacks
Check out what others are saying...
  1. […] This does not cover other medical publications categorized under medical specialties, such as Oncology, Anesthesiology or Pediatrics.  (To see an analysis of these medical categories for 2009, please see the article “Medical Sciences – Research and Impact Analysis”.) […]

  2. […] Medical Sciences – Research and Impact Analysis (dougnewmanpro.wordpress.com) […]



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

  • Archives

  • Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

    Join 8 other followers

%d bloggers like this: