Costa Rican scientific output in health sciences indexed in Scopus, 2006–2025: a bibliometric study
Main Article Content
Keywords
Bibliometrics, Publishing, Citation Analysis, International Cooperation, Costa Rica, Health Sciences, Databases Bibliographic
Abstract
Objectives. To describe Costa Rican scientific output in health sciences indexed in Scopus between 2006 and 2025, and to explore bivariate associations between citation counts and international collaboration, publication language, and document type. Methodology. Observational bibliometric study with bivariate analyses. An advanced search was performed in Scopus on 01/10/2026 using: AFFILCOUNTRY("Costa Rica") AND (SUBJAREA(MEDI) OR SUBJAREA(NURS) OR SUBJAREA(DENT) OR SUBJAREA(HEAL)) AND PUBYEAR > 2005 AND PUBYEAR < 2026 AND (DOCTYPE(ar) OR DOCTYPE(re) OR DOCTYPE(le)). A total of 4,952 records were retrieved; 4,813 records with “Costa Rica” explicitly stated in affiliations were included, and 123 were excluded due to inconsistencies in affiliation metadata. Temporal trends and distributions by document type and language were described. Citations (Cited by) were summarized using medians and interquartile ranges. Bivariate analyses were stratified by five-year periods using nonparametric tests (Mann–Whitney U and Kruskal–Wallis) with effect sizes (Cliff’s delta and epsilon-squared). Analyses were conducted in R. Results. Across all five-year periods, international collaboration was associated with higher citation counts (p<0.001). English-language documents had higher citation counts than Spanish-language documents (p<0.001). Reviews showed higher citation counts than articles and letters (p<0.001). Conclusions. In Scopus-indexed Costa Rican health sciences publications (2006–2025), citation counts were consistently associated with international collaboration, publication in English, and the review document type in five-year period–stratified bivariate analyses.
References
2. Bengoechea JA, Bamford CG. SARS-CoV-2, bacterial co-infections, and AMR: the deadly trio in COVID-19? EMBO Mol Med. 2020;12(7):e12560. doi:10.15252/emmm.202012560
3. Lamers MM, Beumer J, van der Vaart J, Knoops K, Puschhof J, Breugem TI, et al. SARS-CoV-2 productively infects human gut enterocytes. Science. 2020;369(6499):50-4. doi:10.1126/science.abc1669
4. Zhou F, Yu T, Du R, Fan G, Liu Y, Liu Z, et al. Clinical course and risk factors for mortality of adult inpatients with COVID-19 in Wuhan, China: a retrospective cohort study. Lancet. 2020;395(10229):1054-62. Disponible en: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30566-3/fulltext
5. Naseef HA, Mohammad U, Al-Shami N, Sahoury Y, Abukhalil AD, Dreidi M, et al. Bacterial and fungal co-infections among ICU COVID-19 hospitalized patients in a Palestinian hospital: a retrospective cross-sectional study [Internet]. F1000Research. 2022 [citado 19 dic 2024]. Disponible en: https://f1000research.com/articles/11-30
6. Seglen PO. The skewness of science. J Am Soc Inf Sci. 1992;43(9):628-638.
7. Katz JS, Martin BR. What is research collaboration? Res Policy. 1997;26(1):1-18.
8. Wuchty S, Jones BF, Uzzi B. The increasing dominance of teams in production of knowledge. Science. 2007;316(5827):1036-1039.
9. Larivière V, Sugimoto CR, Tsou A, Gingras Y. Team size matters: Collaboration and scientific impact since 1900. J Assoc Inf Sci Technol. 2015;66(7):1323-1332.
10. Montgomery SL. Does science need a global language? English and the future of research. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 2013.
11. Packer AL. SciELO: a model for cooperative electronic publishing in developing countries. D-Lib Mag. 2000;6(10).
12. Latindex. Características de calidad del Catálogo 2.0 (Metodología). Versión 8, 18 de junio de 2025 [Internet]. Latindex; 2025 [citado 2025 Dic 27]. Disponible en: https://www.latindex.org/latindex/postulacion/postulacionCatalogo
13. Falagas ME, Pitsouni EI, Malietzis GA, Pappas G. Comparison of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar: strengths and weaknesses. FASEB J. 2008;22(2):338-342.
