IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v113y2017i2d10.1007_s11192-017-2491-y.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Oncology research in late twentieth century and turn of the century Portugal: a scientometric approach to its institutional and semantic dimensions

Author

Listed:
  • Oriana Rainho Brás

    (University of Lisbon
    ASPIC-Portuguese Association for Cancer Research)

  • Jean-Philippe Cointet

    (INRA-Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique)

  • Alberto Cambrosio

    (McGill University)

  • Leonor David

    (ASPIC-Portuguese Association for Cancer Research
    IPATIMUP-Institute of Molecular Pathology and Immunology of the University of Porto
    University of Porto
    i3S-Instituto de Investigação e Inovação em Saúde, Universidade do Porto)

  • João Arriscado Nunes

    (University of Coimbra
    University of Coimbra)

  • Fátima Cardoso

    (ASPIC-Portuguese Association for Cancer Research
    Champalimaud Foundation)

  • Carmen Jerónimo

    (ASPIC-Portuguese Association for Cancer Research
    Portuguese Oncology Institute of Porto (IPO Porto)
    ICBAS UP-Institute of Biomedical Sciences Abel Salazar, University of Porto)

Abstract

This paper analyses the developmental dynamics of oncology research in Portugal during the second half of the twentieth century and early twenty first century. Grounding its conclusions in a scientometric analysis of a database of publications covering the period 1976–2015, the paper shows how the expansion of oncology research from the end of the 1990s through the 2000s is closely related to science and technology policy decisions in the country. The main actors of the institutional evolution of the field are public organizations, both hospital and academia/research-based, frequently working together. Portuguese oncology research focused especially on organ-based cancers, underlining the strong link between the laboratory and the clinic. Accordingly, translational research is a major trend in oncology research, as evidenced by the analysis of publications in major journals and inter-citation maps. Networks of institutional co-authorships show the importance of regional and international collaborations. The collaboration patterns over time reveal the importance of national and European collaborations during the initial years covered by our publication database, in line with the major impact of Portugal’s integration into the European Union, and a growing importance of regional collaborations, as well as with North and South American institutions in more recent years. Portugal provides a case study of how twentieth century policies at the national and European levels have impacted on the evolution of oncology research in countries from southern Europe.

Suggested Citation

  • Oriana Rainho Brás & Jean-Philippe Cointet & Alberto Cambrosio & Leonor David & João Arriscado Nunes & Fátima Cardoso & Carmen Jerónimo, 2017. "Oncology research in late twentieth century and turn of the century Portugal: a scientometric approach to its institutional and semantic dimensions," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 113(2), pages 867-888, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:113:y:2017:i:2:d:10.1007_s11192-017-2491-y
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-017-2491-y
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-017-2491-y
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11192-017-2491-y?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Nicola Grassano & Daniele Rotolo & Joshua Hutton & Frédérique Lang & Michael M. Hopkins, 2017. "Funding Data from Publication Acknowledgments: Coverage, Uses, and Limitations," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 68(4), pages 999-1017, April.
    2. Heitor, Manuel & Horta, Hugo & Mendonça, Joana, 2014. "Developing human capital and research capacity: Science policies promoting brain gain," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 6-22.
    3. Grant Lewison & Guillermo Paraje, 2004. "The classification of biomedical journals by research level," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 60(2), pages 145-157, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. José Alberto Molina & Alfredo Ferrer & David Iñiguez & Alejandro Rivero & Gonzalo Ruiz & Alfonso Tarancón, 2020. "Network analysis to measure academic performance in economics," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 58(3), pages 995-1018, March.
    2. Juste Raimbault, 2019. "Exploration of an interdisciplinary scientific landscape," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 119(2), pages 617-641, May.
    3. Carlos Olmeda-Gómez & Carlos Romá-Mateo & Maria-Antonia Ovalle-Perandones, 2019. "Overview of trends in global epigenetic research (2009–2017)," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 119(3), pages 1545-1574, June.
    4. José Alberto Molina & David Iñiguez & Gonzalo Ruiz & Alfonso Tarancón, 2018. "The Nobel Prize in Economics: individual or collective merits?," Boston College Working Papers in Economics 966, Boston College Department of Economics.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Nadine Desrochers & Adèle Paul‐Hus & Jen Pecoskie, 2017. "Five decades of gratitude: A meta‐synthesis of acknowledgments research," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 68(12), pages 2821-2833, December.
    2. Boyack, Kevin W. & Patek, Michael & Ungar, Lyle H. & Yoon, Patrick & Klavans, Richard, 2014. "Classification of individual articles from all of science by research level," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 8(1), pages 1-12.
    3. Grant Lewison & Richard Sullivan, 2015. "Conflicts of interest statements on biomedical papers," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 102(3), pages 2151-2159, March.
    4. Gianluca Fabiano & Andrea Marcellusi & Giampiero Favato, 2020. "Public–private contribution to biopharmaceutical discoveries: a bibliometric analysis of biomedical research in UK," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 124(1), pages 153-168, July.
    5. Nyame-Asiamah, Frank & Amoako, Isaac Oduro & Amankwah-Amoah, Joseph & Debrah, Yaw A., 2020. "Diaspora entrepreneurs’ push and pull institutional factors for investing in Africa: Insights from African returnees from the United Kingdom," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 152(C).
    6. Joana Mendonça & Christoph Grimpe, 2016. "Skills and regional entrepreneurship capital formation: a comparison between Germany and Portugal," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 41(6), pages 1440-1456, December.
    7. Belén Álvarez-Bornstein & Fernanda Morillo & María Bordons, 2017. "Funding acknowledgments in the Web of Science: completeness and accuracy of collected data," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 112(3), pages 1793-1812, September.
    8. Simone Belli & Joan Baltà, 2019. "Stocktaking scientific publication on bi-regional collaboration between Europe 28 and Latin America and the Caribbean," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 121(3), pages 1447-1480, December.
    9. Maresch, Daniela & Harms, Rainer & Kailer, Norbert & Wimmer-Wurm, Birgit, 2016. "The impact of entrepreneurship education on the entrepreneurial intention of students in science and engineering versus business studies university programs," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 172-179.
    10. João M. Santos & Hugo Horta, 2015. "The generational gap of science: a dynamic cluster analysis of doctorates in an evolving scientific system," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 104(1), pages 381-406, July.
    11. Roberto Camerani & Daniele Rotolo & Nicola Grassano, 2018. "Do Firms Publish? A Multi-Sectoral Analysis," SPRU Working Paper Series 2018-21, SPRU - Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex Business School.
    12. Jon Schmid & Sergey A Kolesnikov & Jan Youtie, 2018. "Plans versus experiences in transitioning transnational education into research and economic development: a case study," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 45(1), pages 103-116.
    13. Bar-Ilan, Judit, 2008. "Informetrics at the beginning of the 21st century—A review," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 2(1), pages 1-52.
    14. Ohid Yaqub & Dmitry Malkov & Josh Siepel, 2023. "How unpredictable is research impact? Evidence from the UK’s Research Excellence Framework," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 32(2), pages 273-285.
    15. R. Fileto Maciel & P. Saskia Bayerl & Marta Macedo Kerr Pinheiro, 2019. "Technical research innovations of the US national security system," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 120(2), pages 539-565, August.
    16. Santos, João M. & Horta, Hugo & Heitor, Manuel, 2016. "Too many PhDs? An invalid argument for countries developing their scientific and academic systems: The case of Portugal," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 113(PB), pages 352-362.
    17. Kashif Iqbal & Yichu Wang & Khurshaid Khurshaid & Muhammad Haroon Shah & Muhammad Sohaib, 2021. "Current Trend and Determinants of Intentions to Migrate: Evidence From China," SAGE Open, , vol. 11(1), pages 21582440211, March.
    18. Alberto Baccini & Eugenio Petrovich, 2022. "Normative versus strategic accounts of acknowledgment data: The case of the top-five journals of economics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(1), pages 603-635, January.
    19. Ma, Jing & Abrams, Natalie F. & Porter, Alan L. & Zhu, Donghua & Farrell, Dorothy, 2019. "Identifying translational indicators and technology opportunities for nanomedical research using tech mining: The case of gold nanostructures," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 767-775.
    20. Anckaert, Paul-Emmanuel & Cassiman, David & Cassiman, Bruno, 2020. "Fostering practice-oriented and use-inspired science in biomedical research," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(2).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:113:y:2017:i:2:d:10.1007_s11192-017-2491-y. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.