Trends in Brain Research: A Bibliometric Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Bibliometrics methods have allowed researchers to assess the popularity of brain research through the ever-growing number of brain-related research papers. While many topics of brain research have been covered by previous studies, there is no comprehensive overview of the evolution of brain research and its various specialties and funding practices over a long period of time. OBJECTIVE: This paper aims to (1) determine how brain research has evolved over time in terms of number of papers, (2) countries' relative and absolute positioning in terms of papers and impact, and (3) how those various trends vary by area. METHODS: Using a list of validated keywords, we extracted brain-related articles and journals indexed in the Web of Science over the 1991-2020 period, for a total of 2,467,708 papers. We used three indicators to perform: number of papers, specialization, and research impact. RESULTS: Our results show that over the past 30 years, the number of brain-related papers has grown at a faster pace than science in general, with China being at the forefront of this growth. Different patterns of specialization among countries and funders were also underlined. Finally, the NIH, the European Commission, the National Natural Science Foundation of China, the UK Medical Research Council, and the German Research Foundation were found to be among the top funders. CONCLUSION: Despite data-related limitations, our findings provide a large-scope snapshot of the evolution of brain research and its funding, which may be used as a baseline for future studies on these topics.

National differences in dissemination and use of open access literature.

Open Access (OA) dissemination has been gaining a lot of momentum over the last decade, thanks to the implementation of several OA policies by funders and institutions, as well as the development of several new platforms that facilitate the publication of OA content at low or no cost. Studies have shown that nearly half of the contemporary scientific literature could be available online for free. However, few studies have compared the use of OA literature across countries. This study aims to provide a global picture of OA adoption by countries, using two indicators: publications in OA and references made to articles in OA. We find that, on average, low-income countries are publishing and citing OA at the highest rate, while upper middle-income countries and higher-income countries publish and cite OA articles at below world-average rates. These results highlight national differences in OA uptake and suggest that more OA initiatives at the institutional, national, and international levels are needed to support wider adoption of open scholarship.

The effect of data sources on the measurement of open access: A comparison of Dimensions and the Web of Science.

With the growing number of open access (OA) mandates, the accurate measurement of OA publishing is an important policy issue. Existing studies have provided estimates of the prevalence of OA publications ranging from 27.9% to 53.7%, depending on the data source and period of investigation. This paper aims at providing a comparison of the proportion of OA publishing as represented in two major bibliometric databases, Web of Science (WoS) and Dimensions, and assesses how the choice of database affects the measurement of OA across different countries. Results show that a higher proportion of publications indexed in Dimensions are OA than those indexed by WoS, and that this is particularly true for publications originating from outside North America and Europe. The paper concludes with a discussion of the cause and consequences of these differences, motivating the use of more inclusive databases when examining OA, especially for publications originating beyond North America and Europe.