Search

Objective: The objective of this study was to conduct a survey of the academic contribution and influence of Chinese scholars in the field of burns.Method: The PubMed database was searched to obtain literature items originating from various countries and Chinese provinces from 1985 to 2014. The citation data were collected through the Google Scholar engine.Results: A total of 1037 papers published in 256 journals were included in this survey. China was second only to the USA in the number of publications on burns since 2010. In addition, the annual number of papers has increased significantly since 2001. The journal Burns published the most number of articles, but its proportion has been decreasing. Of the papers included in the survey, 58.34% were published in journals with a 5-year impact factor between 1 and 2, whereas only 3.66% were published in journals with an impact factor >5. Both total citations and citations per paper have decreased in the past decade. Randomized controlled trials or systematic reviews merely accounted for a small proportion. Twenty-nine provinces including 64 cities contributed one paper at least. The publications from Taiwan, Beijing, Chongqing, Shanghai, and Guangdong were high in both quantity and quality.Conclusion: The Chinese academic contribution to the field of burns is now on a rise. Although the quality of papers is lagging behind quantity, scholars and academies are dedicated to improving China's academic level. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article examines the role and challenges of scientific self-governance and standardization in inter-continental clinical research partnerships in stem cell medicine. The paper shows that – due to a high level of regulatory diversity – the enactment of internationally recognized standards in multi-country stem cell trials is a complex and highly situation-specific achievement. Standardization is imposed on a background of regulatory, institutional and epistemic-cultural heterogeneity, and implemented exclusively in the context of select clinical projects. Based on ethnographic data from the first trans-continental clinical trial infrastructure in stem cell medicine between China and the USA, the article demonstrates that locally evolved and international forms of experimental clinical research practices often co-exist in the same medical institutions. Researchers switch back and forth between these schemas, depending on the purposes of their research, the partners they work with, the geographic scale of research projects, and the contrasting demands for regulatory review, that result from these differences. Drawing on Birch's analysis of the role of standardization in international forms of capital production in the biosciences, the article argues that the integration of local knowledge institutions into the global bioeconomy does not necessarily result in the shutting down of localized forms of value production. In emerging fields of medical research, that are regulated in highly divergent ways across geographical regions, the coexistence of distinct modes of clinical translation allows also for the production of multiple forms of economic value, at varying spatial scales. This is especially so in countries with lenient regulations. As this paper shows, the long-standing absence of a regulatory framework for clinical stem cell applications in China, permits the situation-specific adoption of internationally recognized standards in some contexts, while enabling the continuation of localized forms of value production in others. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]