Citation Records Show U.S.'s Top Schools In Clinical Medicine Research

Medicine Research Editor's Note: Recently, the newsletter Science Watch-published by the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) in Philadelphia-analyzed the citation records of clinical medicine papers published by scientists at federally funded universities between 1990 and 1994 (6:8, September 1995). The report was an update of a similar Science Watch study of the literature for 1986 to 1990 (2:7, November/December 1991). Following is Science Watch's report, reprinted here with permission of the newsletter and ISI. For more information on the citation databases discussed in the article, contact Christopher King, editor of Science Watch, ISI, 3501 Market St., Philadelphia, Pa. 19104; (800) 523-1850, Ext. 1341. Fax: (215) 387-1266. E-mail: cking@isinet.com. Sidebars: Highest-Ranking U.S. Universities in Clinical Medicine Research, 1990-1994 Change in Citation Impact for U.S. Universities Conducting Clnical Medicine Research, 1990-94 VS 1981-85. Perennial research heavyweights Harvard University and Stanford University take top honors in Science Watch's latest review of influential United States universities active in the area of clinical medicine, but the University of Texas, San Antonio, is showing increasing strength. For this analysis, Science Watch turned to the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI)'s University Science Indicators on Diskette database, which contains publication and citation statistics on the top 100 federally funded United States universities in 22 fields. The field of clinical medicine is defined by the approximately 900 specialty journals indexed annually by ISI for Current Contents/Clinical Medicine. Science Watch examined only universities that published 1,000 or more papers, which includes articles, reviews, and notes, in these clinical-medicine journals from 1990 to 1994. This works out to be universities that produced at least 200 clinical-medicine papers per year. The table at top right shows the institutions that produced the greatest number of papers in clinical-medicine journals from 1990 through 1994, and the institutions that packed the greatest per-paper punch, as measured by citations per paper during the same period. This second measure is called the citation impact. Harvard ranked first in output and second in impact, while Stanford placed 16th in output but first in citation impact. This ranking updates a previous look at the top 50 U.S. universities in clinical medicine for the years 1986 to 1990 (Science Watch, 2:7, November/December 1991). In that ranking, Harvard rated highest in impact, followed by Cornell University; Stanford; the University of California, San Francisco; and the University of Washington. This time, Tufts University rose into the top five, up from seventh position in the 1986-90 ranking, while the University of California, San Diego, ranked 10th previously, has climbed into the No. 3 position. Other institutions significantly bettered their standing over their 1986-90 performances. The University of Texas, San Antonio, stood out, rising from 42nd in the previous ranking to its current perch at ninth. Other institutions whose rankings rose dramatically: the University of Chicago climbed from 24th to 12th, Columbia University from 28th to 15th, and the University of Utah from 34th to 19th. The table at bottom right features all the universities surveyed but illustrates their performance in another way: by comparing the percent change in citation impact for 1981-85 vs. 1990-94. In this analysis, the University of Texas, San Antonio, showed the greatest improvement in citation impact, with a change in impact of 78 percent. The average increase in impact in the field of clinical medicine during this period was 16 percent. By comparison, San Antonio is ranked 36th out of 50 in output but ninth in impact between 1990 and 1994. Ranking just behind San Antonio in terms of improved performance was the Oregon Health Sciences University with a citations-per-paper score 74 percent higher than its 1981-85 tally. Other significant improvers: the State University of New York, Stony Brook (70 percent higher), Louisiana State University (65 percent higher), and the University of Nebraska (63 percent higher). On the other hand, the University of California, Los Angeles, managed only a 5 percent increase, while the University of Colorado; the State University of New York, Buffalo; and the University of Texas, Dallas, actually lost ground in impact. As noted, the University of Texas, San Antonio, distinguished itself by being among the institutions that garnered a high impact score despite a comparatively modest output of papers. Similarly, Tufts, while ranked 42nd in output, with 1,824 papers, placed fourth in impact. The University of Chicago; the University of California, San Diego; and Stanford also made the most of their paper production, with impact rankings of 12th, third, and first, respectively. Some institutions, however, fielded a sizable number of papers but did not see comparable reward in impact. The University of California, Los Angeles, for example, made a top-five showing in output but ranked 22nd in impact. The University of Michigan, despite its top-10 showing in output, placed at 26th in impact. And the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, was 20th in output but 47th in the citations-per-paper tally. It should be emphasized that this study does not purport to compare the performance of medical schools; rather, the analysis presented concerns the performance of universities in the field of clinical medicine. Papers published in journals of basic biology, biochemistry, and molecular biology and genetics-many of which come out of university medical schools-were not examined in this survey if they were not published in a journal of clinical medicine. (The Scientist, Vol:9, #21, pg.14 , October 30, 1995) (Copyright © The Scientist, Inc.)

Citation Records Show U.S.'s Top Schools In Clinical Medicine Research

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of