**3. Results**

#### **3.1 World-wide science and pharmacology**

World-wide scientific output, as listed in the Scopus database for the period running from 1996 to 2009, came to 21 100 138 papers. The total citations received by those papers during the

<sup>2</sup> http://www.scimago.es/. 20.08.2011

A Multi-Level Analysis of World Scientific Output in Pharmacology 343

Table 1. Pharmacological scientific output, citations and domestic citations by region

The behaviour of the domestic citations indicator merits comment. In North America, these citations accounted for over 80 % percent of the total. The number of domestic citations was likewise very high in Western Europe; in both regions most of the citations were found in articles published in the same country as the paper cited. Consequently, in these two regions, the large number of domestic citations led to an inordinately large number of total

The regions with smaller numbers of citations also had a smaller proportion of domestic citations. In other words, their output was acknowledged primarily by other regions, while domestic citations were less frequent. The region that best illustrates this observation is

The number of citations per paper was also highest in North America and Western Europe, with the Pacific Region ranking a close third. Central Africa's low scientific output in pharmacology was only scantly acknowledged, with only 5.46 citations per paper on average. Asia, Eastern Europe, Latin America and Northern Africa had similar citations per

The pharmacological output by regions over the period 1996 to 2009 is shown in Figure 2. The three most productive regions in that period were Western Europe (red), North America (blue) and Asia (green). Asia had a higher growth rate in the latter years of the period and was the most productive region in 2009. This rise may have been the result of greater participation in the pharmacology, particularly in countries that in those years began

The basic unit for the regions listed above was defined as the individual country. A total of 194 countries published pharmacological research in the period studied. The analysis conducted of their output provided greater insight into the values found for the regional

Northern Africa, where only 23.92 % of the citations received were domestic.

(Scopus, 1996-2009)

paper values, which ranged from 8 to 9.

to adopt a very active role in the field.

**3.3 Countries and pharmacology** 

citations.

indicators.

**Region Output Citations Domestic citations %Domestic citations Citations per paper** North America 155373 2714951 2209503 81.38 17.47 Western Europe 159512 2383236 1671534 70.14 14.94 Asia 113741 1095409 626665 57.21 9.63 Eastern Europe 21951 178157 57830 32.46 8.12 Latin America 18122 164264 78623 47.86 9.06 Pacific Region 11802 161126 45651 28.33 13.65 Middle East 10256 105817 27329 25.83 10.32 Southern Africa 2167 23987 7406 30.88 11.07 Central Africa 2035 11101 4650 41.89 5.46 Northen Africa 827 7559 1808 23.92 9.14

same period amounted to 217 388 448, for a mean of 10.03 citations per paper. The absolute numbers for pharmacology, as one of the 27 subject areas established by Scopus, were logically much smaller. The totals were 564 914 papers and 6 266 408 citations. The mean number of citations in pharmacology was therefore higher than the world average, at 11.09. The growth rate for this subject area was 4.76 %, reflecting the growth in its scientific output.

Figure 1 shows the percentage contribution of the Scopus subject areas to world-wide scientific output during the period studied. Medicine played a predominant role in the international scientific scenario, with a mean yearly contribution of over 20 %. Decision science and dentistry stood at the other extreme, with a mean yearly output of 0.35 %, shown on the figure as very thin lines. The mean yearly contribution of pharmacology to international scientific output in the period was 2.7 %, shown in red on the right half of the graph. When pooled, all the subject areas with relative outputs of under 4 %, which include pharmacology, earth and planet sciences, immunology and microbiology, accounted for 34.83 % of the scientific papers published world-wide.

Fig. 1. World output by subject areas (%) (Scopus, 1996-2009)

#### **3.2 Pharmacology by region**

While scientific output by region is an important indicator to determine regional contributions to pharmacology, quantitative information alone is incomplete and must be supplemented with data on the impact of these papers on the scientific community. Table 1 gives the vales of some of the indicators described earlier for a number of regions, along with colour bar graphs for readier interpretation.

same period amounted to 217 388 448, for a mean of 10.03 citations per paper. The absolute numbers for pharmacology, as one of the 27 subject areas established by Scopus, were logically much smaller. The totals were 564 914 papers and 6 266 408 citations. The mean number of citations in pharmacology was therefore higher than the world average, at 11.09. The growth

Figure 1 shows the percentage contribution of the Scopus subject areas to world-wide scientific output during the period studied. Medicine played a predominant role in the international scientific scenario, with a mean yearly contribution of over 20 %. Decision science and dentistry stood at the other extreme, with a mean yearly output of 0.35 %, shown on the figure as very thin lines. The mean yearly contribution of pharmacology to international scientific output in the period was 2.7 %, shown in red on the right half of the graph. When pooled, all the subject areas with relative outputs of under 4 %, which include pharmacology, earth and planet sciences, immunology and microbiology, accounted for

rate for this subject area was 4.76 %, reflecting the growth in its scientific output.

34.83 % of the scientific papers published world-wide.

Fig. 1. World output by subject areas (%) (Scopus, 1996-2009)

with colour bar graphs for readier interpretation.

While scientific output by region is an important indicator to determine regional contributions to pharmacology, quantitative information alone is incomplete and must be supplemented with data on the impact of these papers on the scientific community. Table 1 gives the vales of some of the indicators described earlier for a number of regions, along

**3.2 Pharmacology by region** 


Table 1. Pharmacological scientific output, citations and domestic citations by region (Scopus, 1996-2009)

The behaviour of the domestic citations indicator merits comment. In North America, these citations accounted for over 80 % percent of the total. The number of domestic citations was likewise very high in Western Europe; in both regions most of the citations were found in articles published in the same country as the paper cited. Consequently, in these two regions, the large number of domestic citations led to an inordinately large number of total citations.

The regions with smaller numbers of citations also had a smaller proportion of domestic citations. In other words, their output was acknowledged primarily by other regions, while domestic citations were less frequent. The region that best illustrates this observation is Northern Africa, where only 23.92 % of the citations received were domestic.

The number of citations per paper was also highest in North America and Western Europe, with the Pacific Region ranking a close third. Central Africa's low scientific output in pharmacology was only scantly acknowledged, with only 5.46 citations per paper on average. Asia, Eastern Europe, Latin America and Northern Africa had similar citations per paper values, which ranged from 8 to 9.

The pharmacological output by regions over the period 1996 to 2009 is shown in Figure 2. The three most productive regions in that period were Western Europe (red), North America (blue) and Asia (green). Asia had a higher growth rate in the latter years of the period and was the most productive region in 2009. This rise may have been the result of greater participation in the pharmacology, particularly in countries that in those years began to adopt a very active role in the field.

#### **3.3 Countries and pharmacology**

The basic unit for the regions listed above was defined as the individual country. A total of 194 countries published pharmacological research in the period studied. The analysis conducted of their output provided greater insight into the values found for the regional indicators.

A Multi-Level Analysis of World Scientific Output in Pharmacology 345

and France, and the Netherlands and Spain in some years. Only one Latin American country

United States 154941 2516137 1221126 17.38 293 Japan 47322 543692 164265 11.38 139 United Kingdom 40531 644728 143933 16.9 195 China 36079 178269 80870 6.34 84 Germany 34443 442517 106046 13.49 157 India 23323 144862 59885 9.22 91 Italy 22593 304775 75527 14.88 128 France 21925 320578 64831 15.28 148 Canada 18667 297798 61608 17.18 143 Spain 14232 165910 41389 12.66 101 Table 2. Pharmacological scientific output, domestic citations, citations per document and H

**1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009**

USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA Japan Japan Japan Japan Japan Japan Japan Japan Japan Japan China China China China U.K. U.K. U.K. U.K. U.K. U.K. U.K. U.K. U.K. China Japan Japan U.K. India Germany Germany Germany Germany Germany Germany Germany Germany Germany U.K. U.K. U.K. Japan U.K. France France France France France France Italy China China Germany Germany Germany India Japan

Italy Italy Italy Italy Italy Italy France France Italy Italy India India Germany Germany

China China China Spain India Spain Netherlands Spain Netherlands Spain Spain Brazil South Korea South Korea

Figures 3 and 4 show the relationship between international collaboration and citations per paper in countries publishing at least 1 000 papers. The position occupied by the countries in each region is shown in both figures, but only Western European and North American countries are depicted in Figure 3. All the Asian, Eastern European and Latin American countries are shown in Figure 4, although only the BRIC countries (Brazil, Russia, India,

Canada Canada Canada Canada China China China Italy France India Italy Italy Italy Italy Spain Spain Netherlands China Canada Canada Canada Canada Canada France France France France France Netherlands Netherlands Spain Netherlands Spain Netherlands India India India Canada Canada Canada Canada Canada

**citations**

**Citations per paper**

**H Index**

was among the most productive during the period: Brazil, in 2007.

**Country Output Citations Domestic** 

index for the 10 most productive countries (Scopus, 1996-2009)

Table 3. Country position by output (Scopus, 1996-2009)

China) are labelled.

Fig. 2. Pharmacological scientific output by region (Scopus, 1996-2009)

The ten most productive countries accounted for around 71 % of world-wide pharmacological output in the period studied. These ten countries are listed in Table 2, which shows their total output in the period, the number of total and domestic citations received, the citations per paper and the H index. The list is headed by the United States, which had the largest output and number of citations, although the number per paper should be interpreted bearing in mind the impact of the large number of domestic citations identified. At 293, its H index was likewise high, indicating that 293 papers were cited in 293 other articles.

Table 3 ranks the countries whose overall data for the entire period are given in Table 2, year by year across the period. Grey shading indicates that the country changed its position from the preceding year and maroon shading that the country joined the top ten in the year in question.

The regional study showed the enormous progress in Asia in the latter years of the period. That growth was the result of greater participation in the subject area by Asian countries. Although until 2005 Japan was the second largest producer in pharmacology, from 2006 onward it was overtaken by an emerging neighbour: China. In the three earliest years China ranked tenth; in the intermediate years it gradually climbed to higher positions and finally reached second place in 2006. While still among the most productive countries, Japan's position slid, denoting its tendency to contribute less and less to pharmacological output. In the last year of the series, 2009, four of the ten most productive countries were Asian (China, India, Japan and South Korea).

The United States maintained its lead throughout the period. That leadership and Canada's contribution, from lower but still productive positions, made North America the sole region with an output comparable to Asia's in the latter years. All the other most productive countries in pharmacology were from Western Europe: United Kingdom, Germany, Italy

Fig. 2. Pharmacological scientific output by region (Scopus, 1996-2009)

likewise high, indicating that 293 papers were cited in 293 other articles.

in question.

India, Japan and South Korea).

The ten most productive countries accounted for around 71 % of world-wide pharmacological output in the period studied. These ten countries are listed in Table 2, which shows their total output in the period, the number of total and domestic citations received, the citations per paper and the H index. The list is headed by the United States, which had the largest output and number of citations, although the number per paper should be interpreted bearing in mind the impact of the large number of domestic citations identified. At 293, its H index was

Table 3 ranks the countries whose overall data for the entire period are given in Table 2, year by year across the period. Grey shading indicates that the country changed its position from the preceding year and maroon shading that the country joined the top ten in the year

The regional study showed the enormous progress in Asia in the latter years of the period. That growth was the result of greater participation in the subject area by Asian countries. Although until 2005 Japan was the second largest producer in pharmacology, from 2006 onward it was overtaken by an emerging neighbour: China. In the three earliest years China ranked tenth; in the intermediate years it gradually climbed to higher positions and finally reached second place in 2006. While still among the most productive countries, Japan's position slid, denoting its tendency to contribute less and less to pharmacological output. In the last year of the series, 2009, four of the ten most productive countries were Asian (China,

The United States maintained its lead throughout the period. That leadership and Canada's contribution, from lower but still productive positions, made North America the sole region with an output comparable to Asia's in the latter years. All the other most productive countries in pharmacology were from Western Europe: United Kingdom, Germany, Italy


and France, and the Netherlands and Spain in some years. Only one Latin American country was among the most productive during the period: Brazil, in 2007.



Table 3. Country position by output (Scopus, 1996-2009)

Figures 3 and 4 show the relationship between international collaboration and citations per paper in countries publishing at least 1 000 papers. The position occupied by the countries in each region is shown in both figures, but only Western European and North American countries are depicted in Figure 3. All the Asian, Eastern European and Latin American countries are shown in Figure 4, although only the BRIC countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China) are labelled.

A Multi-Level Analysis of World Scientific Output in Pharmacology 347

Measuring their scientific status in terms of citations per paper and international collaboration values, the BRIC countries still have room for improvement. Three of those four countries were positioned very close to the origin on the graph. Of the four, only Brazil

The analysis of the journals that published pharmacological papers included the data for the periodicals that published at least one such paper in 2009. Under that criterion, a total of 482 journals were identified, 61 of which had been recently added to the database and

Of the remaining 421 (that had published more than one paper and had an SJR index), 110 were edited in the United States, although a fair number were also published in other countries: Netherlands (87), United Kingdom (75), Germany (25), China (12), India (12),

The remaining journals were published in a total of 33 countries, each with less than six

Annual Review of Pharmacology and Toxicology 3.56 19 1429 22.94 2367 124.58 United States Pharmacological Reviews 3.3 19 1433 17.16 6531 343.74 United States Nature Reviews Drug Discovery 2.68 202 5827 15.67 7865 38.94 United Kingdom Trends in Pharmacological Sciences 1.64 84 2588 9.56 5718 68.07 Netherlands Drug Resistance Updates 1.52 16 530 11.79 1836 114.75 United States DNA Repair 1.44 169 2237 4.15 10528 62.3 Netherlands Pharmacology and Therapeutics 1.22 104 3367 9.23 20152 193.77 United States Current Opinion in Pharmacology 1.14 117 2138 7.57 6206 53.04 Netherlands Advanced Drug Delivery Reviews 1.1 143 4030 12.34 15219 106.43 Netherlands

Bioorganic and Medicinal Chemistry Letters 0.21 1546 10591 2.72 39742 25.71 Netherlands Pharmaceutical Journal 0.03 1058 124 0.1 972 0.92 United Kingdom Deutsche Apotheker Zeitung 0.02 967 11 0.02 1440 1.49 Germany Bioorganic and Medicinal Chemistry 0.2 910 7859 2.88 34194 37.58 Netherlands Chemosphere 0.15 905 11704 3.41 32003 35.36 Netherlands European Journal of Pharmacology 0.27 619 6875 2.76 26762 43.23 Netherlands British Journal of Pharmacology 0.6 616 6819 5.29 28480 46.23 United Kingdom Medical Hypotheses 0.12 612 1835 1.55 16902 27.62 United States Japanese Journal of Cancer and Chemotherapy 0.03 611 163 0.09 889 1.45 Japan International Journal of Pharmaceutics 0.19 528 5930 3.33 17075 32.34 Netherlands Table 4. Pharmacology journals: SJR, output, citations, citations per paper, references,

**Citations (3years)**

**Citations (3years)**

**Citations per paper (2years)**

**Citations per paper (2years)**

**Refs Ref per** 

**Refs Ref per** 

**doc Country**

**doc Country**

showed values close to the results recorded for Turkey.

consequently lacked the data needed to calculate their SJR.

**10 top journals by SJR value SJR Ouput (2009)**

**10 top journals by total documents in 2009 SJR Ouput (2009)**

references per paper and country of publication (Scopus), 2009

Japan (11), Spain (11), France (8), Switzerland (7) and New Zealand (6).

**3.4 Pharmacology in journals** 

journals.

Fig. 3. International collaboration and citations per paper in North American and Western European countries (www.scimagoir.com), 2003-2009.

Fig. 4. International collaboration and citations per paper in BRIC countries (www.scimagoir.com), 2003-2009.

The country in Figure 3 with the smallest number of citations per paper and least intense international collaboration was Turkey. With 6.18 citations per paper and an international co-authorship percentage of 16.12, it stood at the low end of its region, Western Europe, and had lower citation values than Latin America or Eastern Europe. In Western Europe, Sweden and Belgium were the two countries both in that region and the world with the highest international collaboration indices and a mean of 12 citations per paper. Both, as well as other countries, also had higher values than the USA (in terms of international collaboration) and Canada.

Measuring their scientific status in terms of citations per paper and international collaboration values, the BRIC countries still have room for improvement. Three of those four countries were positioned very close to the origin on the graph. Of the four, only Brazil showed values close to the results recorded for Turkey.

#### **3.4 Pharmacology in journals**

346 Pharmacology

Fig. 3. International collaboration and citations per paper in North American and Western

Fig. 4. International collaboration and citations per paper in BRIC countries

The country in Figure 3 with the smallest number of citations per paper and least intense international collaboration was Turkey. With 6.18 citations per paper and an international co-authorship percentage of 16.12, it stood at the low end of its region, Western Europe, and had lower citation values than Latin America or Eastern Europe. In Western Europe, Sweden and Belgium were the two countries both in that region and the world with the highest international collaboration indices and a mean of 12 citations per paper. Both, as well as other countries, also had higher values than the USA (in terms of international

(www.scimagoir.com), 2003-2009.

collaboration) and Canada.

European countries (www.scimagoir.com), 2003-2009.

The analysis of the journals that published pharmacological papers included the data for the periodicals that published at least one such paper in 2009. Under that criterion, a total of 482 journals were identified, 61 of which had been recently added to the database and consequently lacked the data needed to calculate their SJR.

Of the remaining 421 (that had published more than one paper and had an SJR index), 110 were edited in the United States, although a fair number were also published in other countries: Netherlands (87), United Kingdom (75), Germany (25), China (12), India (12), Japan (11), Spain (11), France (8), Switzerland (7) and New Zealand (6).

The remaining journals were published in a total of 33 countries, each with less than six journals.


Table 4. Pharmacology journals: SJR, output, citations, citations per paper, references, references per paper and country of publication (Scopus), 2009

A Multi-Level Analysis of World Scientific Output in Pharmacology 349

The pharmaceutical industry, in addition to being one of the most profitable, is also one of the most globalised and fastest growing lines of business. Moreover, its large investment in research makes it an innovation-intensive activity. This innovation is the result of the direct or indirect interaction of a large number of actors: different types of companies, research institutes, financial institutions, public bodies and authorities, public and private universities, research centres, regulating bodies, governments, health systems, consumers

The industry comprises three categories of companies. The first covers (primarily North American and European) multinational companies that operate globally and invest huge sums in R&D, which is centralised in some cases and decentralised with laboratories in many countries and on many continents in others. The second category consists of small companies that supply their domestic markets with drugs that require no substantial R&D investment. The third includes firms that specialise in biotechnology and invest

In 2010, biopharmaceutical companies invested an estimated 67.4 **billion** dollars in pursuit of new drugs (Figure 6). The total R&D spending by Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) members, including industry majors such as AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer, Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers, Squibb, Eli Lilly, Genzyme, GlaxoSmithKline, Hoffmann-La Roche, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, and Sanofi-Aventis, as well

Fig. 6. Biopharmaceutical company R&D and PhRMA member R&D: 1995–2010 (Sources: Burrill and Company, analysis for PhRMA, 2005–2011 (Includes PhRMA research associates

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

PhRMA member R&D spending Entire pharmaceuticals industry

29.8 31.0

34.5 37.0 39.9

51.80

43.4

56.10

47.9 47.4 46.4

63.20 63.70 65.90 67.40

49.4 47.60

and non-members); PhRMA, PhRMA Annual Member Survey, 1996-2010)

26.0

**3.5 Scientometric indicators for pharmaceutical companies** 

considerable sums in research despite their small size.

as non-members, are shown in the figure.

15.2 16.9 19.0 21.0 22.7

0

10

20

30

40

**Spending (Billions of Dolars \$)**

50

60

70

80

and physicians, to name a few.

The large and unwieldy original table was abbreviated to build Table 4, which gives the values for only the journals with the 10 highest SJR and the 10 scientific journals that published the largest number of pharmacological articles in the last year of the series. Note that none of these journals appears on both lists.

Of the scientific journals with the highest SJR, two were published in the US, *Annual Review of Pharmacology and Toxicology* and *Pharmacological Review*, and one in the United Kingdom, *Nature Reviews and Drug Discovery*. These three journals had SJR scores of 3.56, 3.3 and 2.68, respectively. That means that they received large numbers of citations, but also that since they are weighted by journal prestige to calculate the indicator, those citations appeared in other high quality journals. Neither of the US journals was very productive, with only 19 papers each in 2009, compared to a much larger output by the English periodical, which published a total of 202 articles.

The scientific journals with the highest output in pharmacology were The Netherlands' *Bioorganic and Medicinal Chemistry Letters*, with 1 546 papers, followed by the UK's *Pharmaceutical Journal*, with 1 058 and Germany's *Deutsche Apotheker Zeitung*, with 967. Their SJR indices were lower than for the journals mentioned in the preceding paragraph, however, with scores of 0.21, 0.03 and 0.02, respectively. In other words, in the period calculated for the SJR index (three years), either the absolute number of citations received by this group of more productive journals was very low or the citations were published in lower quality journals.

Each country's contribution to pharmacological scientific output can be analysed from two perspectives: as specified earlier, by the contribution made by its scientists through their published papers, or by the journals edited in the country. These two factors are compared in Figure 5. Each country's scientific output is shown in red and its publishing activity in blue. Many countries, such as the United States, show similar percentages for both types of contribution, while in others the values vary widely. A case in point is The Netherlands, whose scientific output was a mere 2 % while its journals published over 20 % of the pharmacological articles.

Fig. 5. Percentage of pharmacology-related journals and papers published by country (Scopus, 2009)

The large and unwieldy original table was abbreviated to build Table 4, which gives the values for only the journals with the 10 highest SJR and the 10 scientific journals that published the largest number of pharmacological articles in the last year of the series. Note

Of the scientific journals with the highest SJR, two were published in the US, *Annual Review of Pharmacology and Toxicology* and *Pharmacological Review*, and one in the United Kingdom, *Nature Reviews and Drug Discovery*. These three journals had SJR scores of 3.56, 3.3 and 2.68, respectively. That means that they received large numbers of citations, but also that since they are weighted by journal prestige to calculate the indicator, those citations appeared in other high quality journals. Neither of the US journals was very productive, with only 19 papers each in 2009, compared to a much larger output by the English periodical, which

The scientific journals with the highest output in pharmacology were The Netherlands' *Bioorganic and Medicinal Chemistry Letters*, with 1 546 papers, followed by the UK's *Pharmaceutical Journal*, with 1 058 and Germany's *Deutsche Apotheker Zeitung*, with 967. Their SJR indices were lower than for the journals mentioned in the preceding paragraph, however, with scores of 0.21, 0.03 and 0.02, respectively. In other words, in the period calculated for the SJR index (three years), either the absolute number of citations received by this group of more productive journals was very low or the citations were published in lower quality journals.

Each country's contribution to pharmacological scientific output can be analysed from two perspectives: as specified earlier, by the contribution made by its scientists through their published papers, or by the journals edited in the country. These two factors are compared in Figure 5. Each country's scientific output is shown in red and its publishing activity in blue. Many countries, such as the United States, show similar percentages for both types of contribution, while in others the values vary widely. A case in point is The Netherlands, whose scientific output was a mere 2 % while its journals published over 20 % of the

Fig. 5. Percentage of pharmacology-related journals and papers published by country

that none of these journals appears on both lists.

published a total of 202 articles.

pharmacological articles.

0

United States

Netherlands

United Kingdom

Germany

China

India

Japan

Spain

France

Switzerland

New Zealand

Brazil

Croatia

Italy

Belgium

Canada

Poland

Turkey

Australia

Cuba

Czech Republic

Iran

%Journal %Output

Pakistan

Russian Federation

South Korea

Argentina

Austria

Bangladesh

Bulgaria

Chile

Denmark

Finland

Greece

Hungary

Israel

Mexico

Nigeria

Romania

Saudi Arabia

Slovakia

Slovenia

Taiwan

United Arab Emirates

Venezuela

5

10

15

**%**

20

25

(Scopus, 2009)

#### **3.5 Scientometric indicators for pharmaceutical companies**

The pharmaceutical industry, in addition to being one of the most profitable, is also one of the most globalised and fastest growing lines of business. Moreover, its large investment in research makes it an innovation-intensive activity. This innovation is the result of the direct or indirect interaction of a large number of actors: different types of companies, research institutes, financial institutions, public bodies and authorities, public and private universities, research centres, regulating bodies, governments, health systems, consumers and physicians, to name a few.

The industry comprises three categories of companies. The first covers (primarily North American and European) multinational companies that operate globally and invest huge sums in R&D, which is centralised in some cases and decentralised with laboratories in many countries and on many continents in others. The second category consists of small companies that supply their domestic markets with drugs that require no substantial R&D investment. The third includes firms that specialise in biotechnology and invest considerable sums in research despite their small size.

In 2010, biopharmaceutical companies invested an estimated 67.4 **billion** dollars in pursuit of new drugs (Figure 6). The total R&D spending by Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) members, including industry majors such as AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer, Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers, Squibb, Eli Lilly, Genzyme, GlaxoSmithKline, Hoffmann-La Roche, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, and Sanofi-Aventis, as well as non-members, are shown in the figure.

Fig. 6. Biopharmaceutical company R&D and PhRMA member R&D: 1995–2010 (Sources: Burrill and Company, analysis for PhRMA, 2005–2011 (Includes PhRMA research associates and non-members); PhRMA, PhRMA Annual Member Survey, 1996-2010)

A Multi-Level Analysis of World Scientific Output in Pharmacology 351

18.21 for Hoffmann-La Roche in Switzerland). These findings suggest substantial differences

Pfizer Inc. USA 2476 12.4 18.54 1.55 79.36 Merck & Co., Inc. USA 1759 14.34 18.08 1.74 83.63 Eli Lilly and Company USA 820 16.13 25.24 1.68 81.1 GlaxoSmithKline. United States USA 788 15.17 29.7 1.77 86.68

Kigdom GBR 781 13.76 42.77 1.74 85.66 Bristol-Myers Squibb Company USA 677 12.97 13 1.58 87.59 Novartis CHE 595 16.82 66.72 1.8 77.98

States USA 571 14.75 12.61 1.65 88.27 Amgen USA 497 12.27 16.9 1.59 77.46 F. Hoffmann-La Roche. Ltd. USA 452 14.81 21.46 1.84 83.19 Pfizer Ltd GBR 379 14.8 43.54 1.73 79.16 Bayer AG DEU 362 10.46 36.74 1.34 64.36

Pharmaceutical Research USA 356 13.45 18.54 1.68 87.64 AstraZeneca R&D SWE 294 14.64 57.82 1.8 87.07 F. Hoffmann-La Roche. Ltd. CHE 272 18.21 55.15 1.86 83.09 Sanofi-Aventis. S.A. FRA 224 15.64 43.75 1.55 66.52 Laboratoires SERVIER FRA 200 17.16 37.5 1.71 91.5

Hanover USA 192 16.2 34.9 1.89 73.96 AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals. LP USA 188 15.77 30.85 1.69 75

GmbH DEU 167 9.26 26.35 0.95 57.49

Institute USA 165 12.8 12.73 1.46 86.67 AstraZeneca GBR 161 18.47 40.37 1.81 77.64

Biomedical Research USA 161 12.93 60.87 1.77 84.47 Laboratoires Pierre Fabre. S.A. FRA 155 10.18 23.23 1.17 81.94 Novo Nordisk A/S DNK 153 12.77 46.41 1.32 77.12 Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Ltd. IND 150 8.47 7.33 0.88 59.33 H. Lundbeck A/S DNK 150 18.11 45.33 1.73 91.33 GlaxoSmithKline. Italy ITA 127 11.52 66.14 1.57 81.89 Dow Chemical Company USA 125 7.86 34.4 0.9 66.4

Pharmaceuticals is generally agreed to be one of the industries whose research is most intensely internationalised, defining that to mean the proportion of the research conducted outside the headquarters country. The industry's business has become more international since the nineteen nineties as a result of the convergence of a number of processes. New industrial activities have cropped up around biotechnological research, primarily in the US;

Table 5. Bibliometric performance indicators for pharmaceutical firms, 2003-2009

**Citations per paper**

**International collaboration**

**Normalised Citation**

**% Output in Q1**

in the visibility or quality of firms' scientific knowledge.

**Organisation Country Output**

GlaxoSmithKline. United

Abbott Laboratories United

Johnson & Johnson

Novartis Pharma SA. East

Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland

Schering-Plough Research

Novartis Institutes for

(www.scimagoir.com)

Figure 7 shows the R&D spending by PhRMA members in and outside the United States. The total R&D investment by pharmaceutical companies has continued to rise. In 2010 PhRMA members invested 49.4 **billion** dollars, up 6 % from 2009 and 90 % since 2009.

PhRMA members spent most of their R&D budgets (76.1 %) in the United States, Western Europe (16.6 %) and Japan (1.5 %), while spreading the rest across other countries around the world (PhRMA, 2011).

Fig. 7. R&D spending by Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) members, 1975-2010 (PhRMA, 2011)

Bibliometric indicators can be constructed for the pharmaceutical industry on the grounds of the research results made public by the authors. As noted earlier, the industry has been gradually internationalising its high research and innovation potential since the mid nineteen seventies (McMillan and Hamilton, 2000).

The values of the bibliometric parameters for the pharmaceutical majors are given in Table 5. The data, which cover a seven-year period and are based on these companies' research publications, reveal a number of interesting differential characteristics. The ranking criterion followed was scientific output defined as the number of papers published in 2003-2009, initially disaggregated, although some of the companies listed had parent-subsidiary relationships.

The first significant result was the volume of scientific papers published by these companies. These elite, all of whose members published at least 125 papers in the period considered, was headed by the Pfizer headquarters site, which averaged 353 papers yearly throughout the period, followed by Merck with a yearly mean of 251.

The second statistic of interest was the citations per paper, which ranged from fairly low (7.86 for Dow Chemical Co., 8.47 for the Indian firm Dr Reddy´s and 9.26 for Sanofi-Aventis GmbH in Germany) to very high values (18.47 for Astra Zeneca in the United Kingdom and

Figure 7 shows the R&D spending by PhRMA members in and outside the United States. The total R&D investment by pharmaceutical companies has continued to rise. In 2010 PhRMA members invested 49.4 **billion** dollars, up 6 % from 2009 and 90 % since 2009.

PhRMA members spent most of their R&D budgets (76.1 %) in the United States, Western Europe (16.6 %) and Japan (1.5 %), while spreading the rest across other countries around

Fig. 7. R&D spending by Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA)

1991

R&D spending in the USA R&D spending outside in the USA

1993

1995

1997

1999

2001

2003

2005

2007

2009

Bibliometric indicators can be constructed for the pharmaceutical industry on the grounds of the research results made public by the authors. As noted earlier, the industry has been gradually internationalising its high research and innovation potential since the mid

The values of the bibliometric parameters for the pharmaceutical majors are given in Table 5. The data, which cover a seven-year period and are based on these companies' research publications, reveal a number of interesting differential characteristics. The ranking criterion followed was scientific output defined as the number of papers published in 2003-2009, initially disaggregated, although some of the companies listed had parent-subsidiary

The first significant result was the volume of scientific papers published by these companies. These elite, all of whose members published at least 125 papers in the period considered, was headed by the Pfizer headquarters site, which averaged 353 papers yearly

The second statistic of interest was the citations per paper, which ranged from fairly low (7.86 for Dow Chemical Co., 8.47 for the Indian firm Dr Reddy´s and 9.26 for Sanofi-Aventis GmbH in Germany) to very high values (18.47 for Astra Zeneca in the United Kingdom and

throughout the period, followed by Merck with a yearly mean of 251.

the world (PhRMA, 2011).

members, 1975-2010 (PhRMA, 2011)

0

1975

1977

1979

1981

1983

1985

1987

1989

5000

10000

15000

20000

**Million dollars**

25000

30000

35000

40000

relationships.

nineteen seventies (McMillan and Hamilton, 2000).


18.21 for Hoffmann-La Roche in Switzerland). These findings suggest substantial differences in the visibility or quality of firms' scientific knowledge.

Table 5. Bibliometric performance indicators for pharmaceutical firms, 2003-2009 (www.scimagoir.com)

Pharmaceuticals is generally agreed to be one of the industries whose research is most intensely internationalised, defining that to mean the proportion of the research conducted outside the headquarters country. The industry's business has become more international since the nineteen nineties as a result of the convergence of a number of processes. New industrial activities have cropped up around biotechnological research, primarily in the US;

A Multi-Level Analysis of World Scientific Output in Pharmacology 353

During the period studied, certain emerging countries such as Brazil or India joined the list of top ten producers, while China, which was already on the list, climbed almost to the summit. As might be expected, the countries in the most productive regions occupied the highest positions throughout the period analysed, but the appearance of these BRIC countries should prompt reflection on their scientific potential in the field of pharmacology. The most productive journals, i.e., the ones that publish the largest number of pharmacological articles, do not generally earn high SJR impact values. These values are attained by journals publishing smaller numbers of papers. Consequently, journal quality and the number of papers published are inversely related. An analysis relating papers published and journals edited in each country showed that intense pharmacological publishing is not necessarily attendant upon the presence of numerous researchers working in the field (The Netherlands). US publishing in pharmacology, by contrast, is as

Companies carry specific weight in pharmacology. Their investment and innovative capacity are mirrored by the scientific results attained, primarily by US and European

The authors wish to thank Scimago Lab for its generous assistance in compiling the data used.

Biglu, M.H. and Omidi, Y. (2010). Scientific profile of Pharmacology, Toxicology and

Braun, T.; Glänzel, W. and Schubert, A. Scientometric indicators: a 32-country comparative

Congressional Budget Office. (2006). *A CBO Study: Research and Development in hte* 

Fingerman, S. (2006). Web of Science and Scopus: current features and capabilities. Issues in

Gambardella, A. (1995). *Science and innovation: the US pharmaceutical industry during the 1980s.* 

González-Pereira, B.; Guerrero-Bote, V. and Moya-Anegón, F. (2009). The SJR indicator: A

Gorraiz, J. and Schloegl, C. (2008). A bibliometric analysis of pharmacology and pharmacy

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/76xx/doc7615/10-02-DrugR-D.pdf

from http://www.istl.org/06-fall/electronic2.html

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0912/0912.4141.pdf

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN: 0521451183

Pharmaceutics fields in Middle East Countries: Impacts of Iranian Scientists. *International Journal of Advances in Pharmaceutical Sciences*, Vol. 1, pp. 122-127, ISSN

evaluation of *publishing performance and citation impact.* Singapore, Philadelphia:

*Pharmaceutical Industry*. Congress of the United States. 20/08/2011. Available from

*Science and Technology Librarianship*, Fall, ISSN 1092-1206, 20/08/2011, Available

new indicator of journals' scientific prestige. *Arxiv Preprint* arXiv:0912.4141,

journals: Scopus versus Web of Science. *Journal of Information Science*, Vol. 34, No. 5,

predominant in the area as its research community.

pharmaceutical laboratories.

**5. Acknowledgement** 

0976-1055

World Scientific, 1985, 425 p.

02/08/2011, Available from

pp. 715-725, ISSN 0165-5515

**6. References** 

market dynamics with a view to capitalising on research incentives has favoured the location of new laboratories in different countries; global excellence centres with research responsibilities have been created; and inter- and intra-firm networking has been intensified.

When companies were ranked in descending order of the percentage of their papers involving international collaboration, two different patterns emerged, one for European and the other for North American companies. The percentages were higher in the former than in the latter. Several explanations can be given for this difference between countries on the two sides of the Atlantic. The United States is the critical location for pharmaceutical alliances as a result of the quality of the research conducted there, but especially of the size of its research base, i.e., the number and size of universities, companies and research departments. Other factors that distinguish the European and US include the latter's easy financing and marketing terms and fairly large number of start-up incubators and venture capitalists.

The result is that companies based in the US have lower percentages of internationally coauthored papers than European companies: Abbott Laboratories 12.67 %, Schering-Plough Research Institute, 12.73 %, Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, 13 %.

Switzerland's Novartis, by contrast, co-authored 66.72 % of its papers with other countries. Its US subsidiary had a collaboration rate of 69.87 %, while the figure for the French firm Sanofi-Aventis was 43.75 %.

The final indicator analysed was normalised citation, which measures a company's impact on the scientific community as a whole and compares the quality of the research conducted by organisations of different sizes. The highest score was obtained by Swiss Novartis' North American subsidiary, with a mean citation value 89 % higher than the world-wide mean (1.89). It was followed by its parent company, which had a mean citation value 86 % higher than the world-wide mean, and the Swiss subsidiary of North America's F. Hoffman La Roche, with a score of 84 %. The lowest values were recorded for Dow Chemical's pharmaceuticals division (US) and the Dr. Reddy laboratories in India, whose citation values were below the international average.

## **4. Conclusions**

This chapter reports on a multi-level analysis of scientific results in pharmacology. The findings confirmed that despite its scant weight in world-wide science, pharmacological scientific output is characterised by high quality and has citation per paper values higher than the mean for international scientific output as a whole.

Two regions of the world have traditionally occupied the leading positions in terms of pharmacological scientific output, North America and Western Europe. Moreover, the impact of this output is high, measured in terms of citations in other papers. When only citations outside the home region are considered, however, other regions, such as Northern Africa, prove to have higher values. The regions with the largest absolute number of citations also have the highest percentage of domestic citations. By contrast, since the regions with smaller numbers of citations in absolute terms receive fewer domestic citations, the acknowledgement coming primarily from countries outside their own region carries much heavier weight.

During the period studied, certain emerging countries such as Brazil or India joined the list of top ten producers, while China, which was already on the list, climbed almost to the summit. As might be expected, the countries in the most productive regions occupied the highest positions throughout the period analysed, but the appearance of these BRIC countries should prompt reflection on their scientific potential in the field of pharmacology.

The most productive journals, i.e., the ones that publish the largest number of pharmacological articles, do not generally earn high SJR impact values. These values are attained by journals publishing smaller numbers of papers. Consequently, journal quality and the number of papers published are inversely related. An analysis relating papers published and journals edited in each country showed that intense pharmacological publishing is not necessarily attendant upon the presence of numerous researchers working in the field (The Netherlands). US publishing in pharmacology, by contrast, is as predominant in the area as its research community.

Companies carry specific weight in pharmacology. Their investment and innovative capacity are mirrored by the scientific results attained, primarily by US and European pharmaceutical laboratories.

## **5. Acknowledgement**

The authors wish to thank Scimago Lab for its generous assistance in compiling the data used.
