Use of H-Index and Other Bibliometric Indicators to Evaluate Research Productivity Outcome on Swine Diseases

 

 

Considering all the infectious agents included in the study, 9 out of 86 (10.5%) classified as zoonotic, 2 out of 19 (10.5%) considered emerging, and 5 out of 24 OIE-listed (20.8%) were in the top 20. The remaining 4 agents in the top 20 were non-zoonotic, non-emerging and nonOIE-listed.

 

About 40% of the 52 diseases contained in the DISCONTOOLS database affect pigs and, therefore, they were included in the present study. Of these, 13 diseases were identified in the list of pathogens with the highest 20 H-indices. Within the ten pathogens with the highest Hindex, eight were included in DISCONTOOLS.

 

The higher the H-index, the more papers sum for the total number of citations. Nevertheless, some pathogens with a low H-index had a high number of citations, since some of the papers within their H-index were highly cited. Thus, E. coli had the highest number of citations (24,023) but the mean of citations for the publications included in its H-index was the fourth (153.01 ± 89.45).

 

Regarding the mean quartile of the journals where papers included in the set of H-indices were published, it ranged from 1.2 ± 0.4 and 2.0 ± 1.2.

 

 

 

The evolution of H-index over time, as well as its average increase by year for the ten pathogens with the highest H-indices is shown in Fig 3. The H-index for these pathogens varied noticeably and three general patterns were defined. First, some pathogens that were initially described some decades ago demonstrated a slow and nearly plain evolution, even exhibiting a plateau shape during a variable time span, but experiencing abrupt and temporary increases -Swine influenza virus (SIV), Foot-and-mouth disease virus (FMDV), Aujeszky’s disease virus (ADV), Classical swine fever virus (CSFV), Streptococcus suis, Salmonella Typhimurium and Actinobacillus pleuropneumoniae-. Second, the H-index for E. coli is constant and gradual, but even in this case there were few abrupt increases (late 1970’s and early 1980s, and in the present decade). Third, for those pathogens that emerged more recently, such as Porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus (PRRSV) or Porcine circovirus type 2 (PCV2), their H-index scores increased steeply in few years, as can be seen in the percentage average annual H-index increase: 4.00% and 5.05%, respectively. Independently of these different shapes of evolution, and with the exception of E. coli, H-index scores for all pathogens were null or very low (<10) before 1980, but experienced an obvious increase during the 1980´s decade and afterwards.

 

 

 

The contribution of a given continent and country to the research productivity on swine diseases was determined by the origin of the first author affiliation of each paper included in each the H-index (Fig 4 and Table 3, respectively). Contribution of countries for the pathogens with the 20 highest H-indices is also detailed in Table 2.

 

When all publications about the 137 studied infectious agents (n = 2,878) were taken into account, Europe coped 45.6% of the papers, whereas North-America hold 38.2%, Asia 10.3% and Oceania 4.6%. South-America and Africa together contributed with less than 1.5% (Fig 4). For each taxonomic group, the observed proportions for every continent were similar to the global percentage reported for that continent, excepting South-America and Africa, where about 50% of the total publications belonged to the group Other.

Fig 4. Distribution by continents (percentage) of papers included in the H-index scores. Bars show percentage of origin of the first author affiliation for the papers included in the H-indices; total papers (n = 2,878) (black), Virus’ papers (n = 1,262) (red), Bacteria’s papers (n = 1,148) (blue) and Other’s papers (n = 468) (green). Above each bar, absolute numbers of publications.

 

Going down into detail, Table 3 shows the 10 countries with the highest number of publications included in the H-indices. Out of 2,878 publications, USA contributed with 915 (31.8%), having a similar weight in all the taxonomies. The second country with the highest contribution was GBR (331; 11.5%), mostly distributed in Virus and Bacteria -13.0 and 12.2% respectively- and only 5.7% in Other. As seen in Table 3, contributions of countries usually depended on the taxonomy.

 

Overall, it is important to remark that only three countries contributed with about 50% of the total publications for each taxonomic group. Thus, for all infectious agents USA, GBR and DEU sum up 49.6% of the total; for Virus USA, GBR and ESP sum up 53.3% of the publications; a 50.8% of the publications in Bacteria corresponded to USA, GBR and DNK; finally, USA, DNK and DEU sum up 49.6% of the publications in Other. When rankings were done within a taxonomic group, some countries that were not listed in the general ranking appeared in the top ten; i.e. Belgium was placed 9th in the ranking of Virus, Switzerland and Sweden were placed 9th and 10th respectively, in Bacteria, and Mexico was placed 8th in Other (data not shown).

 

 

The ten infectious agents with the highest H-index were compared using bibliometric indicators other than H-index, including M quotient, A-index, G-index, HG-index as well as G/H ratio (Table 4).

 

When the publication year of the oldest paper included in the H-index core was taken into account, there were noticeable changes in the ranking, especially for SIV; the divisor was the highest among the top ten pathogens and, therefore, its M quotient was the lowest despite its high H-index (rank for H-index = 4; rank for M quotient = 10). The opposite case was represented by PCV2 and PRRSV, which emerged more recently but reached a high H-index: M quotients 4.25 for PCV2 and 3.96 for PRRSV. Also, Streptococcus suis improved its position in the ranking from 8th to 4th, because the oldest paper included in its H-index core is relatively recent (1975).

 

The prioritization of pathogens using the A-index implied SIV changing its ranking compared to the H-index (from 4th to 1st), since it had the highest average of citations for papers included in its H-index (202.6). The pathogen with the lowest A-index was Streptococcus suis (74.6).

 

The prioritization of pathogens obtained by G-index was very similar to rank by H-index, although in this case, again, SIV clearly improved its figure placing in the second position together with PRRSV and surpassing PCV2.

 

When HG-index scores were calculated from H and G-indices, positions of pathogens in the ranking were practically the same than using H-index alone. On the contrary, G/H ratio produced very different prioritization.

 

 

The research productivity of an individual may be evaluated using several productivity indices. In many cases, the newly described indices try to overcome H-index limitations; however, none of them reflects the importance that publications from a particular author would have within a specific field. In order to quantify the contribution of an individual, either a given author, an institute or a country, in a specific research area or subject, a new index named Dcos (Deciphering Citations Organized by Subject), determined by two ures, is proposed. Dcos index would be defined as the number of publications that a certain author, institute or country (among others) holds within the set of papers included in the H-index of a given area or subject. In order to illustrate it, Dcos per countries was measured for swine infectious agents as shown in Table 3. For instance, USA research contribution in viruses affecting pigs would be Dcos = 425(45); meaning that USA contributed with 425 papers in H-index scores of 45 different virus. Thus, Dcos reflects in just two numbers that USA was a great contributor for quantity and also for a large number of viruses. This fact becomes especially clear if we consider that the H-index for 52 virus includes 1,262 papers. More details, examples and potential applications of Dcos index are discussed below.

 

 

 

 

The use of H-index was originally intended by Hirsch [4] to quantify the output of scientific research for an individual. However, it has been demonstrated that H-index scores may also be useful to rank interest in different pathogens complementing qualitative and other quantitative criteria [14,15,16,39]. However, the method has significant weaknesses and should be accurately applied and interpreted.

 

 

One of the tasks with a crucial impact in the final results is to decide which infectious agents and search terms will be included in the analysis. As previous works recognized, to refine the search terms as well as the output lists is very much needed [14,16]. In the present study, a number of searches generated biased lists, introducing several errors. The main error source was the definition of the search terms, because some pathogen names have changed since their discovery, some of them repeatedly. Synonymy for a particular pathogen/disease is very common, especially when a disease emerges and the causal agent remains unknown; for instance, PRRSV and PRRS were known by several names in the past before a unified nomenclature was adopted [21,40]. Therefore, in order to obtain accurate results, search terms should include not only data from NCBI taxonomy or similar, but also from alternative and complementary sources. A second frequent error is the inclusion of numerous papers not related to the topic in the confectioned lists. Several examples for this error are listed below: the search term “PCV2”, included papers exclusively dedicated to other circoviruses like Chicken anemia virus. Similarly, the search term “PRRS virus” generated papers related to “pattern recognition receptors” and other pig and non-pig pathogens. Finally, the list of papers for SIV included some papers of Simian immunodeficiency virus, even when combined search terms “pig”, “swine” and “porcine” were used. Needless to say that in these cases, the H-index scores could be overestimated. To ensure database accuracy and to minimize the impact of the abovementioned errors or biases, all papers included in the automatically generated list were revised one by one; in some searches, the original generated list was reduced in more than 40%. Obviously, manual revision could be afforded because the amount of terms and organisms to search in the present study was high but limited (2,878 papers overall). In other cases, as in McIntyre and collaborators [16], the number of pathogens analyzed was so high that a strict revision of papers one by one was a Sisyphean task.

 

 

 

The number of organisms in each taxonomic group was quite similar: 52 in Virus, 39 in Bacteria and 46 in Other. For the purposes of this work, helminthes, protozoa, external parasites and fungi were fused in the group Other because were too small separately. As expected, the weight of viruses and bacteria were significantly higher than Other in terms of H-index scores. Although there was no statistical difference, the H-index mean of bacteria was higher than that of viruses, since the number of cases with a low H-index was larger in Virus than in Bacteria. Independently of the general importance of each infectious agent, the reasons why a high proportion of viruses had a low H-index could be related with the year of detection and/or the distribution. Most emerging organisms were viruses, and some of them emerged in a particular area, country or even in a more limited region within a country, as the Bungowannah virus (New South Wales, Australia, 2003) or the Menangle virus (New South Wales and Queensland, Australia, 1997), and did not disperse to other regions of the world [21,23,29,41,42]. These restrictedly distributed agents attract few economic resources leading to low H-index scores. Moreover, a recently emerged or re-emerged infectious agent, even having great interest for the scientific community and generating great concern to the pig industry, may not have a high Hindex score since some time to accumulate large number of citations is needed. An example would be Porcine epidemic diarrhea virus (PEDV). The virus has caused and is still causing severe outbreaks mainly in America and Asia [43]. PEDV was identified as the etiological agent of diarrhea in 1978 [44]; for the following three decades, the infection caused mild outbreaks in Europe and severe outbreaks in Asia only [43,45]. At that time, neither researches nor pig industry, at least not from developed countries, considered PEDV as an important research issue. However, severe large-scale outbreaks related to new PEDV strains were reported in Asia since 2010 and later in the USA and other American countries from 2013 [45]. In Europe, with the single exception of severe outbreaks in Ukraine, outbreaks are milder because PEDV isolates seems to be genetically different compared with those obtained from severe outbreaks in Asia and USA [43]. Nowadays, the international scientific community is doing a great effort to improve the knowledge about highly pathogenic PEDV strains, but some time will be necessary to reflect those efforts in the H-index. Consequently, H-index scores are intrinsically delayed and other measures of the “instant pathogen impact” should be also considered [14].

 

 

 

Most organisms with the highest 20 H-index scores cause endemic diseases in the largest pig producer countries and show a global distribution. Also, a vast majority were included in databases as DISCONTOOLS, reflecting their importance in swine health. Notable examples are PRRSV and PCV2 that have had a tremendous impact in the last two decades in terms of swine health and economic costs by direct losses and control measures [33,46]. Others, like E. coli, S. Typhimurium or SIV, have also zoonotic potential. In addition, the first two pathogens may have a high H-index because they often display antibiotic resistance. It is noteworthy that searches were done at the species level, and there were no differentiation between non-virulent, mild virulent or highly virulent intraspecific strains or variants, such in the case of E. coli, which is the causal agent of different significant diseases and lesions in pigs [21]. On the contrary, other pathogens like CSFV, African swine fever virus (ASFV) or FMDV appeared in the top 20 because they have a remarkable and inarguable impact in swine health and pig production worldwide. Not surprisingly, the most important pig producer countries in the first world are free from those pathogens [47]. In order to ensure this pathogen-free status, these countries apply strict border controls to limit free-movement of animals and semen, while continuous research efforts are devoted to obtain better vaccines and to control the dissemination of pathogens. Finally, and somehow surprisingly, Pig endogenous retrovirus (PERV) was included in the top 20, despite its importance in swine healthy is almost negligible. However, it is a problematic issue in xenotransplantation [48]. Focusing on the group Other, a salient feature is the relatively low importance of helminthes, pathogenic fungi, protozoa and external parasites in swine health and pig production, or at least as an issue of scientific interest, as they are. easily controlled by anti-parasitic and anti-fungal compounds. They are frequently found in poor and developing countries, where hygienic conditions in pig farms generally differ from those from developed countries, which concentrate most investments in swine research. To sum up, to the authors’ opinion, almost all pathogens noticed as important by scientists in swine veterinary medicine because of their direct impact to swine health, pig production, or by their zoonotic potential were listed in the top 20 highest H-index scores.

 

 

 

Most pathogens analyzed in the present study were already analyzed by McIntyre and collaborators [16]. When H-index scores were compared, several differences can be observed. Obviously, one of the main causes is that the present study has been undertaken three years later (January 2012 vs. March 2015). During these three years, H-index scores may be higher, as they usually increase with time. For instance, this could explain the increase observed in Actinobacillus pleuropneumoniae (from 59 in 2012 to 64 in 2015). However, in particular cases, the H-index experienced a marked decrease. The main reason behind this phenomenon could be that the present search was limited to pigs, whereas McIntyre and collaborators (2014) considered domestic, companion and exotic animals used as food sources or pets. Also, it is undeniable that funding differences between only-human and only-animal pathogens are immense. However, other noticeable differences in H-indices obtained between both studies cannot be entirely explained only by these factors. In general, the observed differences pointed out that it is crucial to clearly define the exact search terms and to carefully curate the database afterwards. Interestingly, some pathogens affecting only pigs had a remarkable increase when both studies were compared. Thus, PCV2 and PRRSV improved by 20 and 30 points, respectively, only in three years. Again, the increase may be attributed to the different search dates, but it cannot be discarded that were the result of different search strategies. Similarly, all above discussed may also apply to the prioritization list using H-index described in the EID2 [23]. One weakness of the H-index searches are the presence of not only false positives but also false negatives, caused by not using all search terms for a particular pathogen, or by a non-strict revision of the final list of papers.

 

 

 

Whatever the final H-index score, there is no information regarding the time needed to reach that particular value. When temporal evolution of the H-index is analyzed, crucial features for a particular pathogen could be observed and analyzed, including severe outbreaks, zoonotic outbreaks, emergence in a given country or region, etc. [14]. However, calculations are arduous and extremely time-consuming, because time series of H-index scores must be measured year by year. An alternative and faster method to evaluate the impact of time on H-index is the M quotient. M quotient is simply obtained dividing the H-index score by the years passed since the publication of the oldest paper included in the H-index core. It was proposed to overcome with the temporal H-index dependence, which does not take into account the "age" of the articles. It is especially useful when measuring research impact of young scientists and also for those researchers that remain silent, after producing a number of significant articles in the past or they are currently inactive or retired [4]. Likewise, a compound, a researcher or a pathogen/ disease could be classified and defined using its M quotient [13,14,49]. In the present study, PCV2 and PRRSV can be clearly defined as hot topics, since they reached very high H-index scores in relatively few years, showing the highest M-quotients (>3). The exact limits to define a hot topic could be quite subjective [13], but both viruses attract enormous research efforts considering their huge impact in swine health and production. PCV2 reached a high H-index characterized by a constant, sustained increase, despite very efficient PCV2 vaccines appeared worldwide in 2007. Apparently, the description of new variants and the evaluation of different vaccination protocols to improve the protection in piglets could be responsible for the H-index constant increase since then [50]. Regarding PRRSV, its raise to reach the second rank position is easy to understand since: 1) there has been a continuous emergence of new strains that cause severe outbreaks [40,51], 2) commercially available vaccines do not confer full-protection against the infection [52,53], 3) it is considered the major threat for pig production worldwide [21,33], and 4) there are still important gaps in immunology and epidemiology knowledge [53,54]. Quite the opposite, SIV, FMDV and Salmonella Typhimurium, could be defined as sleeping beauties, since their H-index remained almost inalterable during years, but suffered radical increases within short periods. For SIV, H-index remained almost invariable during decades and had a constant and relatively low annual increase until 2009. Afterwards, in just four years (from 2009 to 2012), its H-index had a relative increase of 25 points. Most probably, this rapid increase was due to the interest of international community related to the global pandemic flu H1N1 [55]. Similarly, FMDV outbreaks in 2001 and 2007 in UK [56] could explain the rapid increase of its H-index related to pig in the last years. Regarding Salmonella Typhimurium, its H-index experienced a constant and remarkable increase in the 21st century when the H-index score raised in parallel with the clinical importance of this pathogen [57–59]. Additionally, national control programs applied in some countries might have improved the H-index in this particular case [60,61]. Finally, Streptococcus suis improved its rank four positions when H-index and M quotient were compared. This pathogen was firstly described more than 60 years ago [62], but the first paper included in its H-index core was “only” 40 year-old. It seems that H-index for S. suis has reached a high rate recently because it reflects the increase of human outbreaks in Asia during the last decade [63].

 

In the present study, H-index scores for nearly all infectious agents with the highest H-indices clearly experienced increases during the 1980´s decade and afterwards, independently of their previous evolution patterns. Radical changes in pig production like artificial insemination, movement of animals, genetics improvement, the continuous industrialization process of farms, changes in management, international trading, etc., have facilitated the spread of pathogens, but also raised research funds for those pathogens affecting pigs. Considering the entire exposed above, plus the improvement of diagnostic tools and reagents currently available for swine research (like PCR, sequencing, ELISA and monoclonal antibodies among others), may explain H-indices increases in swine pathogens experienced during 1980’s and afterwards.

 

 

 

The fact that publication impact factor is not considered when measuring H-index is one of the main criticisms of this indicator. In order to consider the impact factor of publications included in the H-index scores, the journal quartile for each published paper accounted in the H-index core was analyzed. However, mean quartile scores among taxonomic groups did not reveal significant differences; neither when the emergence, the zoonotic potential or the OIE declaration was considered (data not shown). A possible explanation may be related to the research area of the journal. A paper about a particular swine pathogen can be submitted to a journal within more than a single research area besides Veterinary Sciences (Virology, Microbiology, etc.). Therefore, similar impact factors may lead to quite different quartiles depending on the research area considered, even more because a given journal can be classified in different quartiles depending on the area of research. Future bibliometric calculations may also analyze the impact factor of the journal and the mean impact factor of the area of research where each paper is published, since it might be a more realistic measure to evaluate the pathogen impact in regards of impact factor of the publications.

 

 

 

The first author’s affiliation was considered as representative of the geographic origin of the paper authorship. Obviously, this assumption could introduce a bias in the results; however, to the authors’ knowledge, this is the first time that the country of origin of the swine veterinary medicine papers in the H-index cores has been analyzed. The top 20 list of pathogens with the highest H-indices revealed that three countries published more than 50% of the papers included in each H-index. In some cases, like ASFV or PERV, three countries grab more than 90% of the publications. Obviously, research budgets may explain the contribution of each country; besides, the higher the importance of pig industry in a continent or a country, the higher the investment in swine research.

 

The major contributor to H-index publications in the world was USA, the dominant country in agriculture and food products R&D investment during the last decades [64]. In addition, the weight of pig industry in USA is high, with a census of 6 million of breeding sows in 2014 [65]. But, what can be expected in the future? Certainly, changes in R&D investments should modify the contribution of countries in publications from the H-index core. During the period 2009–2014, a single change in the global R&D investment ranking was reported; China surpassed Japan as 2nd contributor. Besides, the absolute and relative R&D budget has increased only in Southeast Asia, and this trend is expected to continue till the end of the present decade. Actually, if current rates of R&D investment continue for the next years, it is expected that China’s total research budget will exceed that of the USA in about seven years, and the combined of Europe’s 34 countries in only three years [64]. Obviously, this aggressive politics in R&D investment have, and will boost, the impact of China in general research, and specifically in the Veterinary field. According to the SCImago Journal & Country Rank website [66], China has increased by 2500% the number of publications in food animal research area in the period 2000–2014. During the same period, Spain, Germany and USA improved their numbers by 280%, 29% and 38%, respectively. It can be expected that during the next years China’s figures in publications included in the H-index cores of swine pathogens will increase. In addition, it is the major worldwide pig producer with a census of almost 50 million of breeding sows in 2014 [65].

 

The social-economic situation of a country can also influence its research contribution. As example, R&D budget in Spain is far behind other European countries [67]; however, it is one of the major pig producers in Europe, holding the 2nd largest census in the continent [65,68]. To the authors’ opinion, this panorama could explain why Spain climbed up until position 7th in the general rank of contributors to H-index cores. It is noteworthy that Spain contributed with almost 50% of the papers in the H-index core of ASFV. Currently, Spain is officially recognized as an ASFV-free country, but suffered the disease in the past [69]. That situation, together with the vicinity to Africa could have influenced the scientific and government interest on this particular pathogen, improving the impact of Spain in the ASFV’s H-index. Similarly, most developing countries with a traditional or residual pig production contributed only in the pathogens of their interest. This is especially true for pathogens included in Other; several countries in Africa, Asia and South-America appeared only in H-indices of Other, where helminthes and, in general, parasites (some of them with a local distribution) are common.

 

 

 

Alternative bibliometrics to H-index have been proposed to overcome H-index weaknesses and limitations [70]. To the authors’ knowledge, this is the first time that several indices have been measured and compared to H-index in order to assess the impact of pathogens. Among them, one of the most known is the G-index. This index tackles one of the H-index limitations, in which the number of citations to each individual publication is ignored [37,38]. As proposed, the G-index gives more weight to those highly cited articles [38] and avoids the weakness of H-index concerning the possibility of “scientists resting on their laurels, since the number of citations received might increase–and consequently their H-index as well -, even if no new papers are published” [3]. G-index takes into account all those citations which exceed the H-index for a given publication and all those citations in papers that do not reach the index. Nevertheless, no significant changes when comparing H-index and G-index rankings were found in the present study. Specifically, only those pathogens that could be involved in zoonotic outbreaks as SIV improved their relative G-index, since some particular papers included in their H-index core accumulated hundreds of citations. In the same way, this phenomenon also influenced the A-index (mean number of citations in the H-index core). Overall, the HG-index rank was almost the same when compared with H-index. On the contrary, the G/H ratio rank, directly influenced by G-index, was quite different. In summary, except for the G/H ratio, that expresses the relation between G and H-indices, and the M quotient, that are related to time to pathogen emergence, the ranking calculated with the H-index is quite similar and representative compared to the other indices measured in the present study.

 

Several indices have been proposed since Hirsch’s paper coined the H-index [4]. However, none of them captures the significance in terms of the impact that the publication would have within a specific issue. In order to measure it, we propose here a new index named Dcos (Deciphering Citations Organized by Subject). Using the H-index core of a pathogen, compound, etc., the Dcos claims to measure the contribution that a given author, institute or country would have in a specific research area or subject. For that, authorship of publications that compose the H-index core should be analyzed. The Dcos index would be determined by two values as stated in the following example: for the total of swine infectious agents, the Research Center for Animal Health in Barcelona (CReSA) had a Dcos = 43(11), where 43 are the number of publications that CReSA’s scientists had in the H-index core of a total of 11 different swine infectious agents. Going down into detail, CReSA’s scientists have 38(7) in swine viruses, 5(4) in swine bacteria and 0(0) for Other. The Dcos score for Spain in swine pathogens would be 111(36), which can be further divided into 83(18) for virus, 17(13) for bacteria and 11(5) for Other. Bearing this in mind it could be concluded that: 1) in general, CReSA swine research impact could be considered as high in virus, low in bacteria and null in Other; 2) this trend is similar to that observed in the whole country; and 3) CReSA’s weight in Spain swine research accounted for about one third for virus and bacteria, but null for Other. Dcos can be also detailed to the minimum level, in this case, to a particular pathogen. Using the same example, it can be concluded that research at CReSA, or at least the impact of the research done according to H-indices, seems to be quite concentrated in few pathogens, since its Dcos for swine pathogens was composed by: 15 papers in the H-index core of PCV2, 12 in that of TTSuV, 4 in PRRSV, 2 in HEV, 2 in Porcine torovirus, 2 in ADV, 2 in Mycoplasma hyopneumoniae and 6 other publications in the rest of H-indices. Also, the index can be applied to individual researchers. In this last case, Dcos would summarize in just two numbers the impact of a particular scientist in his/her field of research. To illustrate it, the Dcos for the authors of the present study was measured: I. Díaz 4(2), M. Cortey 5(2), A. Olvera 5(2) and J. Segalés 35(9). Regarding the first value, it must be reminded that such a number, even being low, represents only those papers within H-index core of a given pathogen, implying papers with the highest number of citations in a particular subject. Obviously, the higher the H-index of a pathogen, the more competitive and the more complicated would be a hit in the final list. Regarding the second value, placed in parentheses, the higher the number, the higher the capacity to conduct a diversified and successful research in different subjects.

 

 

 

 

 

In general, H-index can be used to prioritize the impact of swine pathogens at least for scientific interest. Also, individual evolution of H-index may be useful because reveals important events related to pig production or zoonotic outbreaks. However, the H-index method has important weaknesses, already recognized by Hirsch (2005). When it is applied to rank pathogens, the H-index could be affected by trends in research or funding interest and regional biases, independently of the significance of the agent. Nevertheless, because of its limitations, the H-index method could be used as a preliminary selection in the prioritization of pathogens for investment, or to determine interest on diseases. Moreover, it should be always combined with other methods such as committees of experts and other data to establish a sounder prioritization. In the particular case of swine veterinary medicine, different parameters compared with humans need to be considered to prioritize pathogens. Some of these parameters, which may or may not be reflected in the H-index final score are severity of disease, death rate, economic losses derived from infection or disease, zoonotic potential, spread, persistence and emergence in a given country or in the world. As a final contribution, the Dcos index was proposed, which aims to reflect in just two figures the contribution in a specific research area or subject according to H-index cores of this subject, and if this contribution is focused or diversified.

 

 

 

We would like to thank CONPRRS (platform created with the aim of developing PRRS control programs in Spain composed by researchers from UAB, UdL, UCM and IRTA, and supported by Hipra, Merial, MSD and SYVA) and W. Wolfe for technical support and advice.

 

 

 

Conceived and designed the experiments: ID MC AO JS. Performed the experiments: ID MC. Analyzed the data: ID MC. Contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools: ID MC. Wrote the paper: ID MC AO JS.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. Bornmann L, Daniel HD. What do we know about h index? J Assoc Inf Sci Technol. 2007; 58: 1381– 1385.

 

2. Cole S. Citations and the evaluation of individual scientists. Trends Biochem Sci. 1989; 14: 9–13.

 

3. Glänzel W. On the opportunities and limitations of the H-index. Science Focus 2006; 1: 10–11.

 

4. Hirsch JE. An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2005; 102: 16569–16572. PMID: 16275915

 

5. Anon. Data point. Science 2005; 309: 1181.

 

6. Ball P. Index aims for fair ranking of scientists. Nature 2005; 436: 900. PMID: 16107806

 

7. Bornmann L, Daniel HD. Does the h-index for ranking of scientists really work? Scientometrics 2005; 65: 391–392.

 

8. Van Raan. Comparison of the Hirsch-index with standard bibliometric indicators and with peer judgment for 147 chemistry research groups. Arxiv:physics/0511206. 2005. Available: http://arxiv.org/ftp/ physics/papers/0511/0511206.pdf.

 

9. Alonso S, Cabrerizo FJ, Herrera-Viedma E, Herrera F. H-index: a review focused in its variants, computation and standardization for different scientific fields. J Informetr. 2009; 3:4 273–289.

 

10. Rousseau R. New developments related to the Hirsch index. Science Focus 2006; 1: 23–25.

 

11. Braun T, Glänzel W, Schubert A. A Hirsch-type index for journals. The Scientist 2005; 19: 8.

 

12. Csajbók E, Berhidi A, Vasas L, Schubert A. Hirsch-index for countries based on essential science indicators data. Scientometrics 2007; 73: 91–117.

 

13. Banks MG. An extension of the Hirsch index: Indexing scientific topics and compounds. Scientometrics 2006; 69: 161–168.

 

14. Cox R, McIntyre KM, Sanchez J, Setzkorn C, Baylis M, Revie CW. Comparison of the h-Index Scores Among Pathogens Identified as Emerging Hazards in North America. 0 Transbound Emerg Dis. 2014; doi: 10.1111/tbed.12221

 

15. McIntyre KM, Hawkes I, Waret-Szkuta A, Morand S, Baylis M. The H-index as a quantitative indicator of the relative impact of human diseases. PLoS One 2011; 6(5):e19558. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone. 0019558 PMID: 21625581

 

16. McIntyre KM, Setzkorn C, Hepworth PJ, Morand S, Morse AP, Baylis M. A quantitative prioritisation of human and domestic animal pathogens in Europe. PLoS One 2014; 9(8):e103529. doi: 10.1371/ journal.pone.0103529 PMID: 25136810

 

17. Kwong JC, Crowcroft NS, Campitelli MA, Ratnasingham S, Daneman N, Deeks SL, et al. Ontario Burden of Infectious Disease Study (ONBOIDS): An OAHPP/ICES Report. Ontario Agency for Health Protection and Promotion, Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences. 2010. Available: http://www. publichealthontario.ca/.

 

18. Bornmann L, Daniel HD. The state of the H index research. EMBO reports 2009; 10:2–6. doi: 10.1038/ embor.2008.233 PMID: 19079129

 

19. Jin BH, Liang LM, Rousseau R, Egghe L. The R- and AR-indices: Complementing the h-index. Chinese Science Bulletin 2007; 52: 855–863.

 

20. Alonso S, Cabrerizo FJ, Herrera-Viedma E, Herrera F. Hg-index: A new index to characterize the scientific output of researchers based on the h- and g- indices. Scientometrics 2010; 82: 391–400.

 

21. Zimmerman JJ, Karriker LA, Ramirez A, Schwartz KJ, Stevenson GW, editors. Diseases of swine. 10th edn, Wiley-Blackwell, Ames, Iowa. 2012.

 

22. World Organization for Animal Health (OIE): OIE-listed diseases, infectious and infestations in force, 2015. 2015. Available: http://www.oie.int/en/animal-health-in-the-world/oie-listed-diseases-2015. Accessed 15 Feb 2015.

 

23. ERA ENV-HEALTH programme (ENHanCE project) and FP7 QWeCI and ICONZ projects: ENHanCEd Infectious Diseases database (EID2). 2011. Available: http://www.zoonosis.ac.uk/EID2/. Accessed 1 March 2015.

 

24. Anon DISCONTOOLS project. Available: http://www.discontools.eu/home/index. Accessed 1 March 2015.

 

25. National Institute for Public Health and the Environment: Emerging Zoonoses Information and Priority systems, EZIPs. 2010. Available: http://www.ezips.rivm.nl. Accessed 1 March 2015.

 

26. State of Queensland. Department of Agriculture and Fisheries. A-Z list of significant animal pests and diseases. 2014. Available: https://www.daf.qld.gov.au/animal-industries/animal-health-and-diseases/ a-z-list. Accessed 1 March 2015.

 

27. Public Health Information and Resources: Public Health Source: Zoonotic diseases. 2014. Available: http://www.phsource.us/PH/ZD/Zoonotic_Disease_Table.htm. Accessed 1 March 2015.

 

28. Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp: The Merck veterinary manual. 2015. Available: http://www. merckvetmanual.com/mvm/index.html. Accessed 1 March 2015.

 

29. Meng XJ. Emerging and re-emerging swine viruses. Transbound Emerg Dis. 2012; 1:85–102.

 

30. Thomson Reuters: Overview–Web of Science v.5.16.1. 2015. Available: https://apps.webofknowledge. com. Accessed 15 March 2015.

 

31. National Center for Biotecnology Information: Taxonomy browser. 2015. Available: http://www.ncbi. nlm.nih.gov/Taxonomy/taxonomyhome.html. Accessed 1 March 2015.

 

32. International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses (ICTV): Virus Taxonomy: Current Release. 2015. Available: http://www.ictvonline.org/virusTaxonomy.asp. Accessed 1 March 2015.

 

33. Holtkamp DJ, Kliebenstein JB, Neumann EJ, Zimmerman JJ, Rotto HF, Yoder TK, et al. Assessment of the economic impact of porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus on United States pork producers. J Swine Health Prod. 2013; 21: 72–84.

 

34. Thomson Reuters: Journal Citation Reports. 2014. Available: http://thomsonreuters.com/en/productsservices/scholarly-scientific-research/research-management-and-evaluation/journal-citation-reports. html. Accessed 15 April 2015.

 

35. US Natinal Library of Medicine: PubMed. 2015. Available: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/. Accessed 15 March 2015.

 

36. International Organization for Standardization (ISO): Online Browsing Platform. Country codes. 2015. https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#search/code/. Accessed 15 May 2015.

 

37. Egghe L. An improvement of the h-index: The g-index. ISSS Newsletter 2006; 2: 8–9.

 

38. Egghe L. Theory and practice of the g-index. Scientometrics 2006; 69: 131–152.

 

39. Murray CJL. Quantifying the burden of disease: the technical basis for disability adjusted life years. Bullet. World Health Org. 1994; 72: 429–445.

 

40. Lunney JK, Benfield DA, Rowland RR. Porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus: an update on an emerging and re-emerging viral disease of swine. Virus Res. 2010; 154: 1–6. doi: 10.1016/j. virusres.2010.10.009 PMID: 20951175

 

41. Kirkland PD, Frost MJ, Finlaison DS, King KR, Ridpath JF, Gu X. Identification of a novel virus in pigs— Bungowannah virus: a possible new species of pestivirus. Virus Res. 2007; 129: 26–34. PMID: 17561301

 

42. Philbey AW, Kirkland PD, Ross AD, Davis RJ, Gleeson AB, Love RJ, et al. An apparently new virus (family Paramyxoviridae) infectious for pigs, humans, and fruit bats. Emerg Infect Dis. 1998; 4: 269– 271. PMID: 9621197

 

43. Carvajal A, Argüello H, Martínez-Lobo FJ, Costillas S, Miranda R. Porcine epidemic diarrhoea: new insights into an old disease. PHM. 2015; 1:12.

 

44. Chasey D, Cartwright SF. Virus-like particles associated with porcine epidemic diarrhoea. Res Vet Sci. 1978; 25: 255–256. PMID: 103154

 

45. Jung K, Saif LJ. Porcine epidemic diarrhea virus infection: Etiology, epidemiology, pathogenesis and immunoprophylaxis. Vet J. 2015; 204: 134–143. doi: 10.1016/j.tvjl.2015.02.017 PMID: 25841898

 

46. Segalés J, Kekarainen T, Cortey M. The natural history of porcine circovirus type 2: from an inoffensive virus to a devastating swine disease? Vet Microbiol. 2013; 165: 13–20. doi: 10.1016/j.vetmic.2012.12. 033 PMID: 23380460

 

47. World Organization for Animal Health (OIE): OIE A-Z. 2015. Available: http://www.oie.int/fileadmin/ vademecum/OIE_A-Z_2015.html. Accessed 15 April 2015.

 

48. Gola J, Mazurek U. Detection of porcine endogenous retrovirus in xenotransplantation. Reprod Biol. 2014; 14: 68–73. doi: 10.1016/j.repbio.2014.01.006 PMID: 24607257

 

49. Derrick GE, Haynes A, Chapman S, Hall WD. The association between four citation metrics and peer rankings of research influence of Australian researchers in six fields of public health. PLoS One 2011; 6: e18521. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0018521 PMID: 21494691

 

50. Segalés J. Best practice and future challenges for vaccination against porcine circovirus type 2. Expert Rev Vaccines 2015; 14: 473–487. doi: 10.1586/14760584.2015.983084 PMID: 25400216

 

51. Murtaugh MP, Stadejek T, Abrahante JE, Lam TT, Leung FC. The ever-expanding diversity of porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus. Virus Res. 2010; 154: 18–30. doi: 10.1016/j.virusres. 2010.08.015 PMID: 20801173

 

52. Huang YW, Meng XJ. Novel strategies and approaches to develop the next generation of vaccines against porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus (PRRSV). Virus Res. 2010; 154: 141– 149. doi: 10.1016/j.virusres.2010.07.020 PMID: 20655962

 

53. Mateu E, Diaz I. The challenge of PRRS immunology. Vet J 2008; 177: 345–351. PMID: 17644436

 

54. Perez AM, Davies PR, Goodell CK, Holtkamp DJ, Mondaca-Fernández E, Poljak Z, et al. Lessons learned and knowledge gaps about the epidemiology and control of porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus in North America. J Am Vet Med Assoc. 2015; 246: 1304–1317. doi: 10.2460/ javma.246.12.1304 PMID: 26043128

 

55. Kahn RE, Ma W, Richt JA. Swine and influenza: a challenge to one health research. Curr Top Microbiol Immunol 2014; 385: 205–218. doi: 10.1007/82_2014_392 PMID: 25005926

 

56. Knight-Jones TJ, Rushton J. The economic impacts of foot and mouth disease—what are they, how big are they and where do they occur? Prev Vet Med. 2013; 112: 161–173. doi: 10.1016/j.prevetmed. 2013.07.013 PMID: 23958457

 

57. Foley SL, Lynne AM, Nayak R. Salmonella challenges: prevalence in swine and poultry and potential pathogenicity of such isolates. J Anim Sci. 2008; 86: E149–62. PMID: 17911227

 

58. Foley SL, Lynne AM. Food animal-associated Salmonella challenges: pathogenicity and antimicrobial resistance. J Anim Sci. 2008; 86: E173–187. PMID: 17878285

 

59. Van Duijkeren E, Wannet WJ, Houwers DJ, van Pelt W. Serotype and phage type distribution of salmonella strains isolated from humans, cattle, pigs, and chickens in the Netherlands from 1984 to 2001. J Clin Microbiol 2002; 40: 3980–3985. PMID: 12409362

 

60. Mousing J, Jensen PT, Halgaard C, Bager F, Feld N, Nielsen B, e. Nation-wide Salmonella enterica surveillance and control in Danish slaughter swine herds. Prev Vet Med. 1997; 29: 247–261. PMID: 9234434

 

61. Paiba G, Armstrong D, Wight A. National control programme for Salmonella in pigs. Vet Rec. 2012; 169:396.

 

62. Goyette-Desjardins G, Auger JP, Xu J, Segura M, Gottschalk M. Streptococcus suis, an important pig pathogen and emerging zoonotic agent-an update on the worldwide distribution based on serotyping and sequence typing. Emerg Microbes Infect. 2014; 3(6):e45. doi: 10.1038/emi.2014.45 PMID: 26038745

 

63. Jansen EJ and Van Dorssen CA. Meningoencephalitis bij varkens door streptococcen. Tijdschr Diergeneeskd 1951; 76: 815–832.

 

64. R&D magazine: 2014 R&D Magazine Global Funding Forecast. 2013. Available: http://www.rdmag. com/articles/2013/12/2014-r-d-magazine-global-funding-forecast. Accessed 15 June 2015.

 

65. Pig333.com: Annual pig census—Breeding sows. 2014. Available: https://www.pig333.com/pigproduction-data. Accessed 15 June 2015.

 

66. SCImago Journal & Country Rank: Country Rankings. 2015. Available: http://www.scimagojr.com/ countryrank.php. Accessed 15 June 2015.

 

67. Eurostat Statistics Explained: R & D expenditure. 2015. Available: http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/ statistics-explained/index.php/R_%26_D_expenditure. Accessed 15 June 2015.

 

68. Eurostat Statistics Explained: Pig farming sector—statistical portrait 2014. Available: http://ec.europa. eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Pig_farming_sector_-_statistical_portrait_2014. Accessed 15 June 2015.

 

69. Sánchez-Vizcaíno JM, Mur L, Martínez-López B. African swine fever: an epidemiological update. Transbound Emerg Dis. 2012; 59: 27–35. doi: 10.1111/j.1865-1682.2011.01293.x PMID: 22225967

 

70. Bornmann L, Mutz R, Daniel HD. Are there better indices for evaluation purposes than the h index? A comparison of nine different variants of the h index using data from biomedicine. J Assoc Inf Sci Technol. 2008; 59: 830–837.