{"id":50926,"date":"2023-09-30T10:36:26","date_gmt":"2023-09-30T10:36:26","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/biomedpharmajournal.org\/?p=50926"},"modified":"2023-10-07T11:31:08","modified_gmt":"2023-10-07T11:31:08","slug":"scientific-publication-of-dengue-fever-research-in-india-based-on-the-web-of-science-database","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/biomedpharmajournal.org\/staging\/vol16no3\/scientific-publication-of-dengue-fever-research-in-india-based-on-the-web-of-science-database\/","title":{"rendered":"Scientific Publication of Dengue Fever Research in India based on the Web of Science Database"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Introduction<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Dengue fever is a common\ninfection having symptoms of high fever, extreme body aches and severe\nheadaches. It is the most common disease that once in a while occurs in the\nform of an infection1<\/sup>. Delhi and parts of North India experienced a\nlarge number of dengue fever cases in 1996, 2003 and 2006. The disease is more\nsevere in young children compared to adults.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Dengue is an arboreal disease transmitted by\nthe bite of the infected female Aedes aegypti <\/em>mosquito. It has mainly affected tropical and subtropical areas as\nit has recently shifted from rural to semi-urban and urban areas2<\/sup>.\nThe World Health Organization has reported an increase in the number of dengue\nfever-affected countries. Dengue fever is spread across more than 128 countries\nin all regions of the WHO, particularly in Southeast Asia and the Western\nPacific3<\/sup>. Dengue fever is a major public health challenge in Delhi.\nOutbreaks have been reported during 2006, 2010, 2013 and 2015; it is quite\nevident that a gap between outbreak years is decreasing4<\/sup>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Scientometrics is the study of the\nquantitative aspects of science as a discipline or economic activity. It is\npart of the sociology and has application to science coverage \u2013 making. In\nrecent years it has come to play a major role in the measurement and assessment\nof research performance5<\/sup>. In this review we consider: indicated\nliterature growth rate and pattern in macro and micro levels; measure the\npublication pattern of all forms of written communication; provides evaluative\nmeasures to indicate individual countries output; level and nature of collaboration\nbetween scientists and disciplines; provides quantitative evaluation of\npublication patterns of all macro and micro subject6<\/sup>. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Literature Review <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

A former study on dengue research was done worldwide and in Arab\npublications. Data related to dengue were collected from the past to December\n31, 2015. Totally 19581 data have been founded in the database. The result\nshows the upward trend with a peak in the year 2014. The Arab countries\nproduced lower publications with lower quality when compared to other world\ncountries7<\/sup>. A bibliometric analysis of dengue research from 1991 to\n2014 examines the relationship between dengue and scientific publications. Most\ndocuments are classified under tropical medicine, virology, infectious\ndiseases, parasitology or immunology. India will soon overtake Thailand in the\nrankings as well. Overall, global collaboration plays a significant role in\ndengue research8<\/sup>. Another paper contributed to future discussions,\ndecision-making and planning on dengue R&D and public health techniques by\nproviding the scientific community, policymakers and public health\npractitioners with a map of the dengue scientific landscape worldwide. The\nresults showed a significant increase in dengue publications over time \u2013 a rise\nin publications in the USA in general, tropical medicine, virology and\ninfectious diseases, with the USA, Brazil and Thailand being the most relevant\ncountries9<\/sup>.Bibliometric analysis of DESIDOC Journal of Library &\nInformation Technology between 2006 and 2010 analyzed the number of articles, authorship pattern,\nsubject matter, distribution of articles, the average number of citations per\narticle, forms of documents cited, annual distribution of cited journals, etc10<\/sup>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A study on present\nresearch topics related to dengue fever in India is being conducted based on\nthe Web of Science Databases. Although some research has already been done on\ndengue fever, there are some different analysis and findings from this research\ncompared to previous research. A scientific quantitative analysis of\nhepatocellular carcinoma Magnetic Resonance Imaging (HCCMRI) for the period of\n2008\u20132017 is studied. In 2008, the number of published articles was 37 and in\n2017 it was 117. Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging has an impact factor of\n3.612 in 2017 and it has published a maximum number of publications which is\n79. HCCMRI research papers have been published in 16211<\/sup>.A study to\nidentify the relative research emphasis of India and world output on\ntheoretical, experimental and applied aspects of Laser research during the\nperiod 1970-1994 was conducted. They found out that Indian scientists had\npublished 952 publications during the study period12<\/sup>. The Scientometric\nanalysis of malariaresearch performance for the period 2010 to 2014 reveals that the\ncollaborative index was 6.07 during the study period. Co-authorship (CAI),\nAverage authors per paper (APP), productivity per paper (PPP) and authorship\npattern were also calculated13<\/sup>. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Objective of Study                           <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

To analyze the growth of the publication of dengue fever in India during 2009-2018 <\/p>\n\n\n\n

To analyses the level of authorship pattern and collaboration. i.e. Single Vs. Multiple authors in the field of dengue fever in Indian research.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

To find out the relative growth Rate (RGR) and doubling Time (DT) of dengue fever in Indian research.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

To analyze the Co-Author Index (CAI) in field of Literature on Dengue fever in Indian Publication; and<\/p>\n\n\n\n

To identify the country-wise research, highly productive journals and institutions with their impact in den\u00adgue fever in Indian publication.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Research\nMethodology<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The study based on Web of Science database from\n2009 to 2018. A total of 960 bibliographic data had been extracted from web of\nscience database (http:\/\/www.webofknowledge.com). The search strategy used the\nkey-word \u201cDengue fever\u201d in the \u201cTitle\u201d, the abstract and key phrases area\nalongside with \u201cIndia\u201d in the country field, and the time period \u201c2009 to 2018\u201d\nwas used for looking out the major publication data used in the study. Each\ndocument includes title, country, author name, year of publication, journal,\ninstitution, keyword, abstract, and more. HistCite and MS-Excel software\npackage were used for data analyses in this evaluation. HistCite is an analysis\nand tabulation tool that helps to find more productivity in any area of\nresearch. MS-Excel software was used to tabulate the picture of the analysis\nand simple statistical techniques were used. In order to analyses the scientific\nproductivity of India the following indicators were used: Relative Growth Rate and Doubling Time,\nTP- Total Publication, TC- Total citation, ACPP–<\/strong>Average citation per\npublication,AAPP -Average Authors per\nPaper, PPA – Productivity per\nAuthor, Co-\nAuthorship Index etc.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Data\nAnalysis and Findings<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Annual\nResearchPublication <\/strong>of Dengue fever Research in India<\/strong><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Figure 1 indicates the year-wise distribution of\npublication on dengue fever of Indian output during the period 2009-2018. Total\n960 publications have been published. The study indicates that the highest\nnumber and lowest productivity acquired during the year of 2018 and 2009\nrespectively.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n
\"\"<\/td>\n\n

Figure 1: Annual Research Publication of Dengue Fever Research in India<\/strong><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Click here to view Figure<\/a><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n\n\n

On\nanalyzing the average citation impact per paper registered by India\u2019s research\nin dengue research, during the year 2010 the highest citation impact is (26.30\ncitation per paper), followed by 2012 (18.22 citation per paper), 2009 and 2011\n(15 citation per paper), 2015 (13.16 citation per paper), 2014 (11.71\ncitation per paper), 2013 (10.67 citation per paper), 2016 (7.99 citation per\npaper), 2017 (5.94 citation per paper) and least during the year of 2018 (2.05\ncitation per paper). Out of 930 publications, a maximum of 133 scholarly\narticles were published in 2018, while a minimum number of 50 articles were\npublished in 2009.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Relative Growth Rate and Doubling time<\/strong>of\nDengue fever Research in India<\/strong><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n
\"\"<\/td>\n\n

Figure 2: Relative Growth Rate and Doubling Time<\/strong><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Click here to view Figure<\/a><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n\n\n

The RGR\nis described as the increase in the number of articles per unit of time. The\ndoubling time (TD) is directly associated to the relative growth rate (RGR) and\nis defined as the time required for articles to double over the present amount.\nFigure 2 indicates the sequential distribution of RGR and doubling time of\ndengue fever research from 2009-to 2018. The RGR decreased from 3.91 to 0.15\ncorrespondingly, and the doubling time of the publication progressively\nincreased from 0.18 in 2009 to 4.65 in 2018.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Table 1: Document-wise of Contribution of dengue fever research in India<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n

SI.No<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Document Type<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

TP<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

TC<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

ACPP<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

1<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Article<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

628<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

8677<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

13.82<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

2<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Letter<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

149<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

545<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

3.66<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

3<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Meeting Abstract<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

82<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

22<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

0.27<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

4<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Review<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

47<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

1254<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

26.68<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

5<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Editorial Material<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

45<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

192<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4.27<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

6<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Article; Proceedings Paper<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

5<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

103<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

20.60<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

7<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Correction<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

3<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

0.75<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Total<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

960<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

10796<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

70.05<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

Note: <\/em>TP- Total Publication, TC- Total citation, ACPP-Average citation per publication<\/p>\n\n\n

Table 1 shows the documents wise publication pattern, a total of 960 records registered in dengue fever exploration, 628 articles (13.82 citation per publication) published in journals. Letter 149 with citation 545 (3.66 citation per publication) followed by Meeting Abstract 82 (0.27 Citation per paper), Review 47 (26.68 Citation per paper), Editorial Material 45 (4.27 citation per publication), Article; Proceedings Paper 5 (20.60 Citation per publication) and correction 4 (0.75 Citation per publication).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Authorship\nPattern<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Table 2: Author Productivity of dengue fever research in India<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n

SI.No<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Year<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Total no. of publications<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Cumulative no. of publications<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Total no. of authors<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Cumulative  No. of authors<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

AAPP<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

PPA<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

1<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

2009<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

50<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

50<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

185<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

185<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

3.70<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

0.27<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

2<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

2010<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

53<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

103<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

253<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

438<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4.77<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

0.21<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

3<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

2011<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

73<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

176<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

321<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

759<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4.40<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

0.23<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

4<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

2012<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

94<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

270<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

455<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

1214<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4.84<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

0.21<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

5<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

2013<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

86<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

356<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

419<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

1633<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4.87<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

0.21<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

6<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

2014<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

112<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

468<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

498<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

2131<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4.45<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

0.22<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

7<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

2015<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

122<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

590<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

686<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

2817<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

5.62<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

0.18<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

8<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

2016<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

113<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

703<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

605<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

3422<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

5.35<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

0.19<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

9<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

2017<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

124<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

827<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

788<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4210<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

6.35<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

0.16<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

10<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

2018<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

133<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

960<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

720<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4930<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

5.41<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

0.18<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

Note:<\/em> AAPP -Average Authors per Paper, PPA – Productivity per Author<\/p>\n\n\n

Table 2 indicates the details about the Author productivity in dengue fever research. In last 10 years (2009-18), the contribution by total authors is 4930 and total publications are 960 in the field of dengue fever research. The most contributing authors were in 2017 with 788. The publications were increased repetitively from 2009 to 2018.  The Average Authors per Paper (AAPP) increased from 6.35 in 2017. It indicated that, the PPA is decreased from 0.27 to 0.18 correspondingly.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Table 3: Degree of Collaboration of dengue fever research in India<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n

SI.No<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Year<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Single Author<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Two Author<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Three Author<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

four author<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

five author<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

six author<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

More author (>6)<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Total output<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

DC<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

1<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

2009<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

16<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

6<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

7<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

7<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

6<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

50<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

0.92<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

2<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

2010<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

1<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

14<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

6<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

9<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

7<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

5<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

11<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

53<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

0.98<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

3<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

2011<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

22<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

9<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

13<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

5<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

6<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

14<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

73<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

0.95<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

4<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

2012<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

6<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

18<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

12<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

18<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

15<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

11<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

14<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

94<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

0.94<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

5<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

2013<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

2<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

21<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

11<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

24<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

6<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

12<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

16<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

92<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

0.98<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

6<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

2014<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

2<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

29<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

18<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

13<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

16<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

7<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

22<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

107<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

0.98<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

7<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

2015<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

8<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

18<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

19<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

16<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

16<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

11<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

34<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

122<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

0.93<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

8<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

2016<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

7<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

15<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

21<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

12<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

14<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

7<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

37<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

113<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

0.93<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

9<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

2017<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

5<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

20<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

16<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

21<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

10<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

13<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

39<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

124<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

0.96<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

10<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

2018<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

16<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

21<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

21<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

18<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

13<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

39<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

132<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

0.97<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n\n\n

Table 3 degree of\ncollaboration in dengue fever research has been measured with the help of no.\nof authors. It\u2019s shown that the degree of collaboration levels from 0.92 to\n0.97. The mean value determined to be 0.96. \n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Table 4: Co- Authorship Index of dengue fever research in India<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n

SI.No<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Year<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Single Author<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

CAI<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Two Author<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

CAI<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

More than two author<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

CAI<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Total output\/ year<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

1<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

2009<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

178.60<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

16<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

162.54<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

30<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

79.12<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

50<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

2<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

2010<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

1<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

42.12<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

14<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

134.17<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

38<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

94.55<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

53<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

3<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

2011<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

122.33<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

22<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

153.08<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

47<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

84.90<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

73<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

4<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

2012<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

6<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

142.50<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

18<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

113.48<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

70<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

98.20<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

94<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

5<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

2013<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

2<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

48.53<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

21<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

115.94<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

69<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

98.90<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

92<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

6<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

2014<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

2<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

41.73<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

29<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

137.67<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

76<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

93.66<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

107<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

7<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

2015<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

8<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

146.40<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

18<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

74.94<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

96<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

103.77<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

122<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

8<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

2016<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

7<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

117.50<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

15<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

57.29<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

91<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

90.23<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

133<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

9<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

2017<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

5<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

90.02<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

20<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

81.93<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

99<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

105.28<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

124<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

10<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

2018<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

67.65<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

16<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

61.57<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

112<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

111.89<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

132<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Total<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

43<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n<\/td>\n\n

189<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n<\/td>\n\n

728<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n<\/td>\n\n

960<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n\n\n

It is observed from table 4\nthat the value of CAI for single author papers in 2009 were the highest (178.60) it began to\ndecline in other years. Correspondingly, for two authored papers, for the period of 2009, <\/strong>the CAI was\n(<\/strong>162.54), and started declining in other years. The CAI for more than twoauthored papers was lowest (<\/strong>84.90)\nin the 2011 year and enhanced to (111.89) in the period from 2018. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Table 5: Most Productive Authors and their Impactof dengue fever research in India<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n

Name of the Author<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Rank<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

TP<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

TC<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

ACPP<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Rank<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Agarwal N<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

1<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

39<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

45<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

1.15<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

1<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Arya SC<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

2<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

37<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

45<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

1.22<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

2<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Benelli G<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

3<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

29<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

963<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

33.21<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

3<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Murugan K<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

27<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

889<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

32.93<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Swaminathan S<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

5<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

26<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

550<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

21.15<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

5<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Khanna N<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

6<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

25<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

519<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

20.76<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

6<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Kumar S<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

7<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

25<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

269<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

10.76<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

7<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Shah PS<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

8<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

22<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

574<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

26.09<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

8<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Cecilia D<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

9<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

21<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

558<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

26.57<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

9<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Jain A<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

10<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

21<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

410<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

19.52<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

10<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Alagarasu K<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

11<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

19<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

255<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

13.42<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

11<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Garg RK<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

12<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

19<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

271<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

14.26<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

12<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Chakravarti A<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

13<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

15<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

232<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

15.47<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

13<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Sharma S<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

14<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

15<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

219<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

14.60<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

14<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Govindarajan M<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

15<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

14<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

429<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

30.64<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

15<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Kumar A<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

16<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

14<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

107<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

7.64<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

16<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Tyagi BK<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

17<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

14<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

322<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

23.00<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

17<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Kumar R<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

18<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

13<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

171<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

13.15<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

18<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Panneerselvam C<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

19<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

13<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

589<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

45.31<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

19<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Dinesh D<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

20<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

12<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

541<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

45.08<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

20<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

Note:<\/em> TP- Total Publication, TC- Total citation, ACPP-Average citation Per publication<\/p>\n\n\n

Table 5 depicts most productive 20 authors who have published more research papers in dengue fever research. The twenty authors together contributed 420 papers during 2009-2018. The analysis shows that the first three highest productive authors identified are: Agarwal N (contributed 39 papers); Arya SC (contributed 37 Papers); and Benelli G (contributed 29 papers). The twenty highest productive authors have received a total of 7958 citations for 420 papers with an average of 18.94 citations per paper. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

It has been identified that\nnine author have recorded higher average citation per publication (ACPP) than\nthe group average. These authors are Panneerselvam C (45.31 citations), Dinesh D (45.08 citations),\nBenelli G (33.21 citations), Murugan K (32.93 citations), Govindarajan M (30.64 citations), Cecilia D (26.57 citations) Shah PS (26.09 citations), Tyagi BK\n(23 citations), and Swaminathan S (21. 15 citations).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Geographical\nDistribution of Dengue Fever Research<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Table 6: Country-wise distribution of Dengue fever Research in India<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n

Name of the Country<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

TP<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

TC<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

ACPP<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Rank<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

India<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

956<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

10761<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

11.26<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

1<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

USA<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

52<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

1207<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

23.21<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

2<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Saudi Arabia<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

32<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

641<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

20.03<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

3<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Italy<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

30<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

972<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

32.40<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Taiwan<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

16<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

324<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

20.25<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

5<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Thailand<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

16<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

220<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

13.75<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

6<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

UK<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

16<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

260<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

16.25<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

7<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Peoples R China<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

15<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

152<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

10.13<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

8<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Malaysia<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

13<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

233<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

17.92<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

9<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Singapore<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

13<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

258<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

19.85<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

10<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

France<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

11<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

213<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

19.36<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

11<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Japan<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

11<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

297<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

27.00<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

12<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Germany<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

10<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

270<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

27.00<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

13<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Brazil<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

9<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

256<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

28.44<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

14<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Switzerland<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

9<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

331<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

36.78<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

15<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Indonesia<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

8<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

289<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

36.13<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

16<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Australia<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

7<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

199<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

28.43<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

17<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Nigeria<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

7<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

20<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

2.86<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

18<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

South Korea<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

7<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

62<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

8.86<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

19<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Myanmar<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

6<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

219<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

36.50<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

20<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

Note:<\/em> TP- Total Publication, TC- Total citation, ACPP-Average citation Per Publication<\/p>\n\n\n

Table 6 shows the distribution of dengue research output using geographical regions, it illustrates the collaboration of different countries. It has been found that 1336 publications came from 58 countries. The majority collaborative contributions was from India, and so is the most productive country with 956 publications and received 10761 citations, the second highest publications dengue fever research output records by USA with 52 publications and received 1207 citations, followed by Saudi Arabia, 32 publications received 641citations, Italy 30 publications received 972 citations, Taiwan 16 publications received 324 citations, Thailand 16 publications received 220 citations respectively.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It has been identified that\nnine countries have the highest average citation per publication (ACPP). These\ncountries are Switzerland (36.78 citation per publication); Myanmar (36.5 citation per\npublication); Indonesia (36.13 citation per publication); Australia (28.43\ncitation per publication); Brazil (28.44 citation per\npublication); Japan and Germany (27 citation per publication); and USA (23. 21 citation\nper publication). The remaining top 20 countries have registered less than 20\ncitations per publication. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Top Most Productive Institutions in Dengue fever Research in India<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Table 7: Institutions wise distribution of Dengue fever Research in India<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n

Name of the Institution<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

TP<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

TC<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

ACPP<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Rank<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

International Centre Genetics Engineering Biotechnology, Italy<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

37<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

720<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

19.46<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

1<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

St Parmanand Hospital, New Delhi<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

36<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

45<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

1.25<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

2<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

All India Institute Medical Science , New Delhi<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

35<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

507<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

14.49<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

3<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

National Institute of Virology, Pune, Maharashtra, India<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

34<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

765<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

22.50<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Bharathiar University, Coimbatore<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

32<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

917<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

28.66<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

5<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

University Pisa, Italy<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

29<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

963<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

33.21<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

6<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Indian Council Medical Research, New Delhi<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

25<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

399<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

15.96<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

7<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Maulana Azad Med College, New Delhi<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

23<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

253<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

11.00<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

8<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

King Saud University, Saudi Arabia<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

22<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

438<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

19.91<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

9<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Annamalai University, Chidambaram, Tamil Nadu<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

19<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

460<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

24.21<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

10<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Christian Medical College & Hospital, Vellore, Tamil Nadu<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

15<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

157<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

10.47<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

11<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Defence Research & Development Establishment, Gwalior, India<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

15<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

135<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

9.00<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

12<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Postgrad Institute Medical Education & Research, Pondicherry<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

14<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

165<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

11.79<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

13<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

King Georges Medical University, Lucknow<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

13<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

118<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

9.08<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

14<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

University Delhi, New Delhi<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

13<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

174<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

13.38<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

15<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

National Institute Malaria Research, New Delhi<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

11<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

68<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

6.18<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

16<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

National Taiwan Ocean University, Taiwan<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

10<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

283<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

28.30<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

17<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Sanjay Gandhi Postgrad Institute Medical Science, Lucknow<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

10<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

123<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

12.30<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

18<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Translational Health Science and Technology Institute, Haryana <\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

10<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

248<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

24.80<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

19<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

University College Medical Science, New Delhi<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

10<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

48<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4.80<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

20<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

Note:<\/em> TP- Total Publication, TC- Total citation, ACPP-Average citation per publication     <\/p>\n\n\n

Table 7 indicating the highly productive institutions. Top twenty most productive institutions contributed on dengue fever research have acquired a total of 6986 citations for 413 papers with an average of 16.91 citations. Table 7 indicates that maximum numbers of publications are contributed by International Centre Genetics Engineering Biotechnology, Italy, with 37 publications and received 720 citations is ranked num\u00adber one in productivity. Second highest productivity is by St Parmanand Hospital, New Delhi with 36 publications which received 45 citations, followed by All India Institute Medical Sciences, New Delhi with 35 publications and received 507 citations, fourth place is National Institute of Virology with 34 publications and received 765 citations, and fifth position is Bharathiar University contributed 32 papers with 917 citations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The\naverage citation per publication (ACPP) registered by using the total papers of\nthese twenty institutions per publication based on the citation received via\nthese institutions’ publications. The most  citations per publication\nwas received by University of Pisa, Italy,\nfollowed by National Taiwan Ocean University with 28.30 citations per publication;\nBharathiar University with 28.66\ncitations per publication, Annamalai University received 24.21 citations per publication, Translational Health Science and Technology Institute with 24.80\ncitations and National\nInstitute of Virology 22.50\ncitation per publication. Remaining institutions among the top 20 have\nregistered less than 20 citations per publication. In countries like Italy,\nTaiwan and Saudi Arabia only four institutions are included in the top twenty\ninstitutions, while the remaining sixteen are Indian institutions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Discussion<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

It is found that the growth of literature in Dengue fever research during the study period.  A total of 10796 citations had been received to the 960 publications with an average of 11.25 citations per publication. It is observed that the value of CAI for single authored and two authored papers is the highest authored index in the year of 2009, more than two authored papers is the highest authored index in the year of 2018.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Out of the total research\nliterature output in dengue fever research, 628 papers with citation 8677,\n(13.82 citations per publication) is in the form of articles followed by 47\npapers; 1254 Citations; 26.68 citation per papers in the form of reviews. The\nnumber of research articles on dengue has increased exponentially since 2013\ncompared to the results showed a significant increase in dengue publications\nover time mostly due to the rise of USA publications (Mota, et al., 2017).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Journal wise distribution of Dengue fever\nResearch shows that the majority of research papers appeared in the Journal of Vector Borne\nDiseases followed by Parasitology Research, International Journal of Infectious\nDiseases, Indian Journal of Medical Research and Indian Journal of Pediatrics.\nThere were very few publications of scholarly articles in virology, infectious\ndiseases, parasitology or immunology (Ho, Siu, and Chuang, 2016)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Conclusion<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The\npresent study evaluated the growth of dengue fever research literature output\nwith a scientometric approach, published from 2009-to 2018.  The researcher conducted the study\ncomprehensively to recognize the growth rate, author\u2019s productivity and geographical\ndistribution. This study explores the traits of dengue fever research in India from\n2009-to 2018 based on the web of science database. This study evidenced that\nthe highest number of publications is in the year 2018 with 133 documents\nhaving a citation of 272 averages per paper of 2.05; the highest number of\ncitations is in the year 2015 with 122 documents having a citation of 1606\naverage per paper of 13.16. The RGR decreased from 3.91 to 0.07\ncorrespondingly, and the doubling time of the publication gradually increased\nfrom 0.18 in 2009 to 9.89 in 2018. The present scientometric study about Dengue\nfever research carried out from 2009-to 2018. Similar research can be carried\nout for specific study periods. The present day research was once confined to\nthe publications included on the Web of Science database. Further, research can\nbe carried out using different bibliographic databases like Scopus or Google\nScholar. In addition, a comparative study of research output via a number of\ndatabases can be carried out.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Based on global sampling data, 33 million clinically apparent dengue cases occur in India annually, contributing to one-third of the worldwide dengue burden (Bhatt et al., 2013)12<\/sup>. Therefore, research on dengue fever in India can be enhanced by the Department of Biotechnology and Translational Health Sciences and Technology Institute, Government of India. Greater awareness of dengue research among people in India can help to reduce dengue fever.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Conflict of Interest<\/strong> <\/p>\n\n\n\n

There are no conflict of interest.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Funding<\/strong> Sources<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

This article has been written with the financial support of RUSA \u2013 Phase 2.0 grant sanctioned vide Letter No. F.24-51 \/ 2014-U, Policy (TNMulti-Gen), Dept. of Edn. Govt. of India, Dt.09.10.2018<\/p>\n\n\n\n

References<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

  1. Majhi V, Paul S, SahaG.Systematic and Symptomatic Review for Parkinson\u2019s Disease. Biomed Pharmacol J., 13(3):1367-80(2020)
    CrossRef<\/a><\/li>
  2. Algameel M. M. M. Predicting Association between Body Weight, Diabetes Mellitus and Hypertension among University Students in Eastern Region of Saudi Arabia. Biomed Pharmacol J., 13 (2):815-20 (2020).
     CrossRef <\/a><\/li>
  3. World Health Organisation. Comprehensive Guidelines for Prevention and Control of dengue and dengue Haemorrhagic Fever, World Health Organization, Regional Office for South-East Asia (2011).<\/li>
  4. Bisht, B., Kumari, R., Nagpal, B. N., Singh, H., Kumar, S., Gupta, A. K., &Tuli, N. R.. Influence of environmental factors on dengue fever in Delhi.International Journal of Mosquito Research, <\/em>6(2): 11-18 (2019).<\/li>
  5. Chandraju S, Nagendraswamy R, Girijanagenrdaswamy, Chidankumar C. S. Studies on the Impact of Irrigation of Distillery Spentwash on the Yields of Tuber\/Root Medicinal Plants. Biomed Pharmacol J., 3(1) : 187-91 (2010)
     CrossRef <\/a> <\/li>
  6. Nordin S. F, Nordin M. L, Osman A. Y, Hamdan R. H, Shaari R, Arshad M. M, Aziz A. R. The Effect of MatricariaChamomilla L on the Growth Performance of Red Hybrid Tilapia. Biomed Pharmacol J., 10(4) :1905-15 (2017)
     CrossRef <\/a><\/li>
  7. Zyoud, S. E. H.Dengue research: a bibliometric analysis of worldwide and Arab publications during 1872\u20132015. Virology journal<\/em>. 13(1): 1-10 (2016).
    CrossRef <\/a><\/li>
  8. Ho, Y. S., Siu, E., & Chuang, K. Y. A bibliometric analysis of dengue-related publications in the Science Citation Index Expanded. Future Virology<\/em>, 11(9): 631-648 (2016).
     CrossRef <\/a><\/li>
  9. Mota, F. B., Fonseca, B. D. P. F., Galina, A. C., & Silva, R. M. D. Mapping the dengue scientific landscape worldwide: a bibliometric and network analysis. Mem\u00f3rias do Instituto Oswaldo Cruz<\/em>, 112; 354-363 (2017).
    CrossRef <\/a><\/li>
  10. Thanuskodi, S. Handbook of Research on Inventive Digital Tools for Collection Management and Development in Modern Libraries. IGI Global<\/em>, xxi-xxix (2015). doi: 10.4018\/978-1-4666-8178-1
    CrossRef <\/a><\/li>
  11. Yang, D. W., Wang, X. P., Wang, Z. C., Yang, Z. H., &Bian, X. F. A scientometric analysis on hepatocellular carcinoma magnetic resonance imaging research from 2008 to 2017. Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery<\/em>, 9(3): 465 (2019).
     CrossRef <\/a><\/li>
  12. Garg, K. C., &Padhi, P. Scientometrics of laser research in India during 1970-1994. Scientometrics<\/em>, 55(2): 215-241 (2002).
    CrossRef<\/a><\/li>
  13. Vijayakumar, R., &Hariharan, R. A Scientometric Analysis of Malaria Research during 2010-2014: A Study. Journal of Advances in Library and Information Science<\/em>, 5(3): 243-247 (2016).<\/li><\/ol>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    Introduction Dengue fever is a common infection having symptoms of […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":15,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[109],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-50926","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-vol16no3"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/biomedpharmajournal.org\/staging\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/50926","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/biomedpharmajournal.org\/staging\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/biomedpharmajournal.org\/staging\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/biomedpharmajournal.org\/staging\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/15"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/biomedpharmajournal.org\/staging\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=50926"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"https:\/\/biomedpharmajournal.org\/staging\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/50926\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":52666,"href":"https:\/\/biomedpharmajournal.org\/staging\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/50926\/revisions\/52666"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/biomedpharmajournal.org\/staging\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=50926"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/biomedpharmajournal.org\/staging\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=50926"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/biomedpharmajournal.org\/staging\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=50926"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}