Analysis of New Zealand's research productivity in ophthalmology and vision science: 1993-2002

Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology

Volumn 32, Issue 6, 2004, Pages 607-613

  Pon, Jo Anne M C ^a   Carroll, Stuart C ^a   McGhee, Charles N J ^a  

^a THE UNIVERSITY OF AUCKLAND   (New Zealand)

Author keywords

New Zealand; Ophthalmology; Research; Research productivity; Vision science

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CLINICAL RESEARCH; COHORT ANALYSIS; CONTROLLED STUDY; DATA BASE; GEOGRAPHY; INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION; MEDICAL SCHOOL; MEDLINE; NEW ZEALAND; OPHTHALMOLOGY; OPTOMETRY; PEER REVIEW; POPULATION SIZE; PRODUCTIVITY; PUBLICATION; PUBLISHING; SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE; VISION;

BIBLIOMETRICS; BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES; BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; DATABASES, FACTUAL; HUMANS; NEW ZEALAND; OPHTHALMOLOGY; PERIODICALS; PUBLICATIONS; VISION;

EID: 11344291349     PISSN: 14426404     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1442-9071.2004.00934.x     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. Ellwein LB, Khachab M, Waldman RH. Assessing research productivity: evaluating journal publication across academic departments. Acad Med 1989; 64: 319-25.
2. Davis M, Wilson CS. Research contributions in ophthalmology: Australia's productivity. Clin Experiment Ophthalmol 2003; 31 286-93.
3. McMenamin P. Research productivity in Australian ophthalmology. Clin Experiment Ophthalmol 2003; 31: 281-3.
4. Askew DA. Research output of Australian general practice: a comparison with medicine, surgery and public health. Med J Aust 2001; 175: 77-80.
5. Pon J. New Zealand ophthalmologists' research productivity. Clin Experiment Ophthalmol 2003; 31: 459-60.
6. Jayasundera T, Fisk M, McGhee CN. Attitudes to research and research training among ophthalmologists and ophthalmology trainees in New Zealand. Clin Experiment Ophthalmol 2003; 31: 294-9.
7. Sherwin T. In search of the clinical scientist. Clin Experiment Ophthalmol 2003; 31: 284-5.
8. Institute for Scientific Information. Science Citation Index. In: Journal Citation Reports. Philadelphia: Institute for Scientific Information, 2002. Available from: http://isiknowledge.com
9. Kelley WN, Stross JK. Faculty tracks and academic success. Ann Intern Med 1992; 116: 654-9.
10. Rosenberg LE. The physician-scientist. An essential, and fragile, link in the medical research chain. J Clin Invest 1999; 103: 1621-6.
11. Ryan SJ, Hinton DR, Ogden TE, Rao N. Translational research in ophthalmology. Arch Ophthalmol 2002; 120: 389-90.
12. Weinreb RN. Clinician-scientists in ophthalmology. Arch Ophthalmol 2001; 119: 277-9.
13. Wyngaarden JB. The clinical investigator as an endangered species. N Engl J Med 1979; 301: 1254-9.
14. Rosenberg LE. Physician-scientists: endangered and essential. Science 1999; 283: 331-2.
15. Mansour AM, Lawrence TL. Trends in the ophthalmic literature, 1949-89. Arch Ophthalmol 1992; 110: 1223-4.
16. De Villiers FPR. Publish or perish: the growing trend towards multiple authorship. S Afr Med J 1984; 66: 882-3.
17. Scheible W, Resnick D, Brahame F, Forrest J, André M. 'Author inflation' or 'CV creep'. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1985; 144 863.
18. Bland CJ, Ruffin IVMT. Characteristics of a productive research environment: literature review. Acad Med 1992; 67: 385-97.
19. Perneger T. Relation between online 'hit counts' and subsequent citations: prospective study of research papers in the BMJ. BMJ 2004; 329: 546-7.
20. Seglen PO. Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research. BMJ 1997; 314: 498-502.
21. Sims JL, McGhee CN. Citation analysis and journal impact factors in ophthalmology and vision science journals. Clin Experiment Ophthalmol 2003; 31: 14-22.
22. Nahata MC. Research productivity and funding. DICP 1991; 25: 669-70.