A bibliometric analysis of the top 50 NIH-Funded colleges of pharmacy using two databases

Scholarly productivity is an essential component of college of pharmacy activities and may depend on university rank, faculty type, faculty rank and department. Bibliometric measures provide a means to analyze scholarly productivity from colleges of pharmacy while accounting for these various factors.

To analyze bibliometric data from two databases based on Carnegie Research Classification and NIH-funding rank; provide descriptions of bibliometric data based on department type and faculty classification; and examine the distribution of publications in the top 50 NIH-funded Colleges of Pharmacy.

Faculty rosters were gathered for the top 50 NIH-funded colleges of pharmacy, and names were searched in Scopus and Web of Science to establish bibliometric records. Bibliometric indices were compared based on Carnegie Basic Classification and between the NIH funding ranks 1-25 versus 26-50 using WOS bibliometric data. Descriptive statistics were presented, and Pareto distributions were developed for total publications across all schools included.

Schools in the top 25 for NIH funding and schools with a Carnegie R1 classification had significantly higher bibliometric measures compared to schools ranked 26-50 and schools classified as R2, respectively. For faculty members with a bibliometric record (i.e., at least one publication), 20% provide approximately 60% of the publications. Additionally, approximately 90% of publications are provided by 50% of faculty records. Faculty records from basic science departments, as compared to clinical pharmacy departments, represent the highest contributing groups in the Pareto analysis.

Bibliometric indices are higher at colleges of pharmacy with greater NIH funding or an R1 Carnegie classification. A minority of faculty provides most publications in colleges of pharmacy, which is composed of members from basic science departments. The descriptive data provided here is useful for understanding readily available bibliometric data based on department type and faculty classification and rank.