Scientific publications in nursing journals from Mainland China, Taiwan, and Hong Kong: a 10-year survey of the literature

Abstract

Background: China has witnessed remarkable progress in scientific performance in recent years. However, the quantity and quality of nursing publications from three major regions (Mainland China, Taiwan, and Hong Kong) have not been reported. This study aimed to investigate the characteristics of scientific research productivity from Mainland China, Taiwan, and Hong Kong in the field of nursing. Methods: Articles published in the 110 nursing journals originating from Mainland China, Taiwan, and Hong Kong between 2005 and 2014 were retrieved from the Web of Science. The total number of articles published, the impact factor, and the citation count were analyzed. Results: There were 2,439 publications between 2005 and 2014 from China, including 438 from Mainland China, 1,506 from Taiwan, and 495 from Hong Kong. There was a significant increase in publications for these three regions (p < 0.05), especially for Mainland China, with a 59.50-fold increase experienced. From 2011, the number of publications from Mainland China exceeded that from Hong Kong. Taiwan had the highest total journal impact factor (2,142.81), followed by Hong Kong (720.39) and Mainland China (583.94). The mean journal impact factor from Hong Kong (1.46) was higher than that from Taiwan (1.42) and Mainland China (1.33). Taiwan had the highest total citation count (8,392), followed by Hong Kong (3,785) and Mainland China (1,493). The mean citation count from Hong Kong (7.65) was higher than that from Taiwan (5.57) and Mainland China (3.41). The Journal of Clinical Nursing was the most popular journal in the three regions. Discussion: Chinese contributions to the field of nursing have significantly increased in the past ten years, particularly from Mainland China. Taiwan is the most productive region in China. Hong Kong had the highest-quality research output, according to mean journal impact factor and mean citation count.

Contribution of Italian nursing professors to international Literature: 2000 - 2016 review

“…Our findings provide evidence of a steady growth in publications by INAs, especially in the last few years. This positive trend in Italy's scientific production in the field of nursing appears to be consistent with reviews on nursing academics' production in other countries (Adejumo & Lekalakala-Mokgele, 2009;Bjørn et al, 2008;Dornik et al, 2005;Higgins & Farrelly, 2007;Huang, Ho, & Chuang, 2006;Khalaf, 2013;Li et al 2009;Maree, Herbert, & Huiskamp, 2017;Mendoza-Parra et al, 2009;Peng & Hui, 2011;Yarcheski, Mahon, & Yarcheski, 2012;Zhang et al, 2016). Several factors inside and outside the academic world may be driving this steady growth.…”

“…The most often chosen international nursing journals are consistent with those suggested in international reviews (Adejumo & Lekalakala-Mokgele., 2009;Alhusaini et al, 2016;Borbasi et al, 2002;Cecil et al, 2006;Higgins & Farrelly, 2007;Li et al 2009;Maree et al, 2017;Peng & Hui, 2011;Wilkes et al 2002;Zhang et al 2016). They have an IF ranging between 0.186 and 3.561, with higher-IF journals publishing the majority of the articles in our sample.…”

“…Other studies analyzed the methods and content of a sample of articles randomly selected from nursing journals (Borbasi et al, 2002;Polit & Beck, 2009;Zanotti, 1999). Some authors have described nursing academics' clinical outputs referring to specific areas (e.g., mental health nursing; Crowe and Carlyle, 2007;Higgins & Farrelly, 2007), or to specific countries, e.g., Australia (Borbasi et al, 2002;Wilkes et al, 2002), Africa and the Middle East (Adejumo & Lekalakala-Mokgele, 2009;Alhusaini, Sun, & Larson, 2016), UK (Cecil, Thompson, & Parahoo, 2006), Slovenia (Dornik, Vidmar, & Zumer, 2005), Jordan (Khalaf, 2013), China, Taiwan and Hong Kong (Li, Wei, Liu, & Tang, 2009;Peng & Hui, 2011;Zhang et al, 2016), Latin America (Mendoza-Parra, Paravic-Klijn, Munoz-Munoz, Barriga, & Jimenez-Contreras, 2009), Iran (Tahamtan et al, 2014), and Italy (Pecile & Zanotti, 2002). Other reports have specifically examined nursing research published in nursing journals, taking a global approach in painting an overall picture of nursing research internationally (Dougherty, Lin, McKenna, & Seers, 2004;Dougherty, Lin, McKenna, Seers, & Keeney, 2011;Oermann et al, 2008;Polit & Beck, 2009).…”

Nursing Research Literature Production in Terms of the Scope of Country and Health Determinants: A Bibliometric Study

“…The positive trend in PRF ratio was also found by Huang and Huang () across all disciplines for the period 2009 to 2014. The positive trends could be attributed to many factors, like the growing number of nursing journals (Pfeifer & Hercová, ), pressure to “publish or perish” (Rolfe, ), and increased productivity in Asian countries (Zhang et al, ).…”

Global nursing research activity from 2009 to 2020: A bibliometric analysis

“…The trend of the ratio of funded papers was positive over the years, except for the years of 2014–2015 and 2019–2020. The positive trend may be associated with the growing number of nursing journals (Pfeifer & Hercová, 2015), the increased productivity of Asian countries (Zhang et al, 2016) and an emphasis on relatively less‐funded subject fields by government agencies (Huang & Huang, 2018). However, there was a negative trend of nursing publications funded in 2014–2015 and 2019–2020.…”