IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/rseval/v19y2010i2p129-144.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The evaluation of Russian cancer research

Author

Listed:
  • Grant Lewison
  • Valentina Markusova

Abstract

This article asks two questions: first, is there enough cancer research in Russia and does it reflect the health needs of the country? and second, how does its quality or impact compare with world standards? Cancer is a serious and growing problem in Russia, but the amount of cancer research, based on papers in journals covered by the Web of Science from 1997 to the present, appears to be inadequate, nor is it well distributed by disease site. However it is quite clinical in character and appears to be well regarded on a number of indicators, although insufficiently publicised. A study of the funding acknowledgements on 2009 papers revealed that cancer research in Russia is almost totally dependent on the state, although there is now foreign support through international co-authorship, including some from private-non-profit and commercial sources. Copyright , Beech Tree Publishing.

Suggested Citation

  • Grant Lewison & Valentina Markusova, 2010. "The evaluation of Russian cancer research," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 19(2), pages 129-144, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:rseval:v:19:y:2010:i:2:p:129-144
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.3152/095820210X510098
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

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

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Cristian Mejia & Yuya Kajikawa, 2018. "Using acknowledgement data to characterize funding organizations by the types of research sponsored: the case of robotics research," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 114(3), pages 883-904, March.
    2. Sameer Kumar & Jariah Mohd. Jan, 2014. "Research collaboration networks of two OIC nations: comparative study between Turkey and Malaysia in the field of ‘Energy Fuels’, 2009–2011," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 98(1), pages 387-414, January.
    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. Adèle Paul-Hus & Adrián A Díaz-Faes & Maxime Sainte-Marie & Nadine Desrochers & Rodrigo Costas & Vincent Larivière, 2017. "Beyond funding: Acknowledgement patterns in biomedical, natural and social sciences," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(10), pages 1-14, October.
    5. Grant Lewison & Valentina Markusova, 2011. "Female researchers in Russia: have they become more visible?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 89(1), pages 139-152, October.
    6. Adèle Paul-Hus & Nadine Desrochers & Rodrigo Costas, 2016. "Characterization, description, and considerations for the use of funding acknowledgement data in Web of Science," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 108(1), pages 167-182, July.
    7. John Rigby, 2013. "Looking for the impact of peer review: does count of funding acknowledgements really predict research impact?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 94(1), pages 57-73, January.
    8. Grant Lewison & Philip Roe, 2012. "The evaluation of Indian cancer research, 1990–2010," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 93(1), pages 167-181, October.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:oup:rseval:v:19:y:2010:i:2:p:129-144. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/rev .

    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.