The impact of market forces on the sustainability of the biotechnology industry

his paper contains a warning for investors, executives, analysts and scientists about the sustainability of the biotechnology industry. The study upon which the paper is based examines the impact of market forces on the biotechnology industry and argues that the short-term focus of market driven policies and practices impacts on the sustainability of firms operating in the industry. The market is represented by the National Association of Securities Dealers, Automated Quotations Market (NASDAQ), considered to be one of the vehicles of the promotion of ''new economy'' companies and principles. Through the application of bibliometric data (using both refereed and non-refereed papers), matched with the long term tracking of the NASDAQ Biotechnology Index, the authors provide a clear indication that the short-term investment thinking is leading an industry that is characterised by long R&D cycles. There is an incompatibility between the shorter-term investment considerations and the long-term scientific developments the biotechnology industry is attempting to achieve. Graphs and illustrations are provided to portray the comparative data.

A bibliographic snapshot of the telemedicine citation literature

There appear to have been no previous literature-based or literature-oriented studies in telemedicine which have analysed raw citation data. Using a simple search strategy, the Web of Science was analysed up to the end of 2005 to give a snapshot of the field, and to identify matters which would need to be considered in larger scale bibliometric studies. Of the 3673 telemedicine documents retrieved, 2213 (60%) had been cited. Of 56,875 citation records, 32,460 unique citation formats were found. The most-cited paper, and the paper with the greatest annual citation rate, was Perednia and Allen's review article in JAMA, 1995. The two specialist telemedicine journals published 40% of all papers retrieved. In the general literature (i.e. excluding the two specialist journals) there were 1556 citations to their 1374 'citable' articles, apportioned in the ratio 76:24, almost exactly in accordance with the distribution of the articles themselves. However, each of the two specialist telemedicine journals cited itself in a proportion higher than its share of original articles, with an 'excess' of self-citations of 14% in the journal of Telemedicine and Telecare, and 19% in the Telemedicine journal and E-Health. Despite certain technical difficulties, there is considerable scope for bibliometric research in telemedicine.