Marco Aurélio Romano-Silva, Humberto Correa
Department of Mental Health, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais (UFMG), Belo Horizonte, MG, Brasil
Maria Christina Lopes Oliveira, Isabel Gomes Quirino
Department of Pediatrics, UFMG, Belo Horizonte, MG, Brasil
Enrico Antonio Colosimo
Department of Statistics, UFMG, Belo Horizonte, MG, Brasil.
Daniella Reis Martelli
Programa de Pós-Graduação em Ciências da Saúde, Universidade Estadual de Montes Claros (Unimontes), Montes Claros, MG, Brasil.
Mariana Guerra Duarte
Department of Pediatrics, UFMG, Belo Horizonte, MG, Brasil.
Leonardo Santos Lima
Programa de Pós-Graduação em Ciências da Saúde, Universidade Estadual de Montes Claros (Unimontes), Montes Claros, MG, Brasil.
Ana Cristina Simões e Silva
Department of Pediatrics, UFMG, Belo Horizonte, MG, Brasil.
Hercílio Martelli-Júnior
Programa de Pós-Graduação em Ciências da Saúde, Universidade Estadual de Montes Claros (Unimontes), Montes Claros, MG, Brasil.
Eduardo Araujo Oliveira
Department of Pediatrics, UFMG, Belo Horizonte, MG, Brasil.
Abstract:
Background: Several studies have examined the scientific production of National Counsel of Technological and Scientific Development (CNPq) researchers in various areas of knowledge. However, specific data about the main Brazilian researchers in Neurosciences are scarce. Objective: Evaluate the scientific production of researchers in the field of Neurosciences who receives productivity grant from the CNPq. Methods: The Lattes Curriculum of 58 researchers with active grants in the years from 2006 to 2008 were included in the analysis. The variables of interest were: gender, affiliation, human resources training, and scientific production. Grants categories/levels were classified according to CNPq database. Results: There was predominance of grants level 1 (55.2%). Researchers published 6,526 articles (median of 90). Of these, 61% were indexed in the ISI database. There was no significant difference between the categories regarding the number of articles (P = 0.12). The median h-index was 10.5 and the median m-index was 0.77. There was no significant difference in m-index between the categories (P = 0.28). Discussion: Strategies to qualitatively improve the scientific output possibly can be enhanced by the knowledge of the profile of researchers in the field of Neurosciences.
Keywords:Researcher performance evaluation systems, neurosciences, impact factor.