麻醉學領域與麻醉部門之書目計量與研究前沿比較分析

Abstract

本研究以書目計量方式探討1995年至2014年麻醉學領域論文與部門論文之書目計量特徵與研究前沿，統計高生產力與影響力之期刊、國家、機構與作者之分布狀況，進一步分析國家間的合著樣態。此外辨識麻醉學領域與麻醉部門論文研究前沿的聚類變化與類型，比較兩者之差異。本研究以2014年Journal Citation Reports（JCR）內麻醉學領域共30本收錄之期刊並於Science Citation Index Expanded（SCI-E）搜尋領域期刊1995至2014年研究型文章（article）作為領域論文研究對象，文章共計有64,199篇；部門發表之論文則利用SCI-E內之地址欄檢索，麻醉部門發表論文共130,801篇論文，據以建立個別研究資料集進行相關分析。 研究結果顯示，在論文產出的整體數量方面，領域整體數量於近10年並無顯著成長，而部門論文數則是持續增長，特別是自2007年後部門論文的成長數量與領域論文數量差距逐漸拉大。部門論文數的成長可見麻醉研究人員的研究仍持續增多與成長，相較之下，部門論文數量較能反映當前麻醉研究現況。在期刊層級方面，領域論文與部門論文主要仍以投稿麻醉學主題期刊為主，領域核心期刊不論在領域或部門的影響力皆很高。然而研究顯示部門人員發表的論文數有許多轉投至其他領域，轉投之非麻醉學之主題類別多元，數量最多的Web of Science主題類別為Surgery；麻醉學主題的期刊文章獲得的被引次數約佔整體的三成，許多麻醉部門高影響力論文刊登於非麻醉學主題，Neuroscience為獲得最多被引次數的非麻醉學主題類別。 在國家層級方面，領域論文與部門論文之論文產出與具高影響力之國家前六國相同，皆以美國為首，雖然前六國佔比高，但在集中度大部分未達寡佔，僅有部門被引次數HHI超過0.30，顯示分布過度集中。觀察東亞部門產出狀況，中國大陸、日本、韓國與臺灣有超過一半部門論文是發表於非麻醉學主題類別期刊。機構及作者層級方面，領域論文與部門論文之高產出與高影響力的機構以美國機構、美國作者為主，特別是在部門的論文的生產力與影響力情形更為顯著。合著方面則發現近10年的合著情形越來越多，美國為主要的合著國家，歐洲也自行成系統密切合作，以美國、英國及德國為主要的合著中心點。 麻醉學領域共計產生18個研究前沿，分布在麻醉醫學及疼痛醫學二個知識架構中；而麻醉部門則產生23個研究前沿，分布在導向性基礎研究、麻醉醫學、疼痛醫學及重症醫學四個知識架構。都顯示各階段的研究前沿相對獨立，主題發展期間短，大部分僅能維持在六年內，僅有少數主題橫貫二階段計12年的時間區間。較能即時反應前沿演進，亦不會陷入找出許多經典文章的偏誤。 根據上述研究結果，由於麻醉部門的書目計量研究結果與麻醉學領域存有差異，在部門的主題類別分析中顯示麻醉研究人員不僅發表主題類別多元，亦具有高影響力。特別是部門的前沿受到其他主題高被引文章的影響，因此知識架構中分布在麻醉醫學及疼痛醫學的前沿主題相對較少。因此對於麻醉學整體的研究表現，除瞭解主題領域的研究成果外，亦需考量納入部門研究的論文表現。建議在未來相關研究中，應該針對不同的研究主題，採用適當的資料來源，才能產生適當的推斷及結論。

Most of bibliometric analysis studies for anesthesiology collected data from journal articles which title contained specific keywords or which subject category indexed as the “anesthesiology” in Journal Citation Reports (JCR) and Science Citation Index-Expanded (SCI-E). In order to realize performance of researchers in the anesthesiology department and compare with which in the anesthesiology subject, this study collected data from SCI-E in which articles published on journals indexed in 2014 Journal Citation Reports (JCR) during 1995-2014 as “subject dataset” and also extracted articles which address columns contained “anesthes* or anaesthes*” as “department dataset”. For the whole 20 years period, there were totally 64,199 articles in the subject dataset; 130,801 articles in the department dataset. These two datasets were further utilized to analyze on journal, country, institute, author levels and co-authorship. In addition, research fronts were also identified based on highly-cited articles in the datasets. The results showed that observing number of articles during the 20-year period, subject articles did not grew as much as department articles. Especially since 2007, the discrepancy of article numbers between subject and department apparently had become larger. In near 10 years, even though anesthesiology journals still the most important publications, more and more researchers preferred and turned to publish on non-anesthesiology journals with higher cited times. In addition, journals indexed in the Surgery subject got most department articles and in which Neurosciences received most citations. The diverse of department’s subject distribution means that department articles are more suitable employed for analyzing performance of researchers than subject ones. Observing research performance of countries in the anesthesiology, the U.S. and EU countries published most “department” and “subject” articles, and both received most citations. Although the U.S. got most articles and citations, by HHI measurement, only citation distribution in the department dataset presented highly concentrated in specific countries with HHI over 0.30. Observing countries in East Asia, China, Japan, Korea, and Taiwan had more than 50% of department articles published in non-anesthesiology subjects. About institute and author levels analysis results, US institutions published most department and subject articles and received more citations compared with other countries. The U.S. was also played as important role in the co-authoring with other countries. EU countries tended to co-author with those also from EU. The U.S., Great Britain and Germany are the three countries with most co-authored subject and department articles. With respect to research front analyses, this study set 4 citation windows to group highly cited articles by bibliographic coupling and identified research fronts for each window. In the subject dataset, 18 research fronts were identified and categorized as anesthesiology and pain medicine; in the department dataset, 23 research fronts categorized as oriented based research, anesthesiology, pain medicine, and critical care medicine. Most of research fronts developed independently in one of four window (i.e. 6 years), and only a few of fronts had connections with that in other windows. Researchers from anesthesiology departments not only published on journals indexed in the anesthesiology but in various subjects. High impact articles in other subject were more presented in the result of department research fronts with more fronts categorized in oriented based research and critical care medicine. In general, this study suggests that due to difference between analyzed results in the subject and department datasets, to have exact illustrations and statements, future study should carefully examine which dataset is suitable based on its objective.