Use of Bibliometric Analysis to Assess the Scientific Productivity and Impact of the Global Emerging Infections Surveillance and Response System Program, 2006–2012. Issue 5 (1st May 2017)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Reaves, Erik J.; Valle, Ruben; Chandrasekera, Ruvani M.; Soto, Giselle; Burke, Ronald L.; Cummings, James F.; Bausch, Daniel G.; Kasper, Matthew R.
• Is Part Of: Military medicine. Volume 182:Issue 5/6(2017)
• Page Start: e1749
• Page End: e1756
• Publication Date: 2017-05-01
• Subjects: Surgery, Military -- Societies, etc; Medicine, Military -- Societies, etc; Medicine, Military -- Periodicals; Surgery, Military -- Periodicals; Medicine, Military; Surgery, Military; Military Medicine -- Periodicals; Periodicals; Electronic journals; 616.98023
• DOI: 10.7205/MILMED-D-16-00276
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0026-4075

Abstract

ABSTRACT: Background: Scientific publication in academic literature is a key venue in which the U.S. Department of Defense's Global Emerging Infections Surveillance and Response System (GEIS) program disseminates infectious disease surveillance data. Bibliometric analyses are tools to evaluate scientific productivity and impact of published research, yet are not routinely used for disease surveillance. Our objective was to incorporate bibliometric indicators to measure scientific productivity and impact of GEIS-funded infectious disease surveillance, and assess their utility in the management of the GEIS surveillance program. Methods: Metrics on GEIS program scientific publications, project funding, and countries of collaborating institutions from project years 2006 to 2012 were abstracted from annual reports and program databases and organized by the six surveillance priority focus areas: respiratory infections, gastrointestinal infections, febrile and vector-borne infections, antimicrobial resistance, sexually transmitted infections, and capacity building and outbreak response. Scientific productivity was defined as the number of scientific publications in peer-reviewed literature derived from GEIS-funded projects. Impact was defined as the number of citations of a GEIS-funded publication by other peer-reviewed publications, and the Thomson Reuters 2-year journal impact factor. Indicators were retrieved from the Web of Science and Journal Citation Report. To determine the global network of international collaborations between GEIS partners, countries were organized by the locations of collaborating institutions. Results: Between 2006 and 2012, GEIS distributed approximately US $330 million to support 921 total projects. On average, GEIS funded 132 projects (range 96–160) with $47 million (range $43 million–$53 million), annually. The predominant surveillance focus areas were respiratory infections with 317 (34.4%) projects and $225 million, and febrile and vector-borne infections with 274 (29.8%) projects and $45 million. The number of annual respiratory infections-related projects peaked in 2006 and 2009. The number of febrile and vector-borne infections projects increased from 29 projects in 2006 to 58 in 2012. There were 651 articles published in 147 different peer-reviewed journals, with an average Thomson Reuters 2-year journal impact factor of 4.2 (range 0.3–53.5). On average, 93 articles were published per year (range 67–117) with $510, 000 per publication. Febrile and vector-borne, respiratory, and gastrointestinal infections had 287, 167, and 73 articles published, respectively. Of the 651 articles published, 585 (89.9%) articles were cited at least once (range 1–1, 045). Institutions from 90 countries located in all six World Health Organization regions collaborated with surveillance projects. Conclusions: These findings summarize the GEIS-funded surveillance portfolio between 2006 and 2012, and demonstrate the scientific productivity and impact of the program in each of the six disease surveillance priority focus areas. GEIS might benefit from further financial investment in both the febrile and vector-borne and sexually transmitted infections surveillance priority focus areas and increasing peer-reviewed publications of surveillance data derived from respiratory infections projects. Bibliometric indicators are useful to measure scientific productivity and impact in surveillance systems; and this methodology can be utilized as a management tool to assess future changes to GEIS surveillance priorities. Additional metrics should be developed when peer-reviewed literature is not used to disseminate noteworthy accomplishments.