Social Report 2016
Embrapa
Home
Report 2016
Highlights
Impacts
More productivity
More value
Lower costs
Production in new areas
Cultivars
Society and the Environment
More Jobs
Methodology
Database of Social Actions
Awards
Portuguese Version
Reports of previous years
Embrapa in Brazil
Suggestions to the editor

Embrapa's Social Report: 20 years of history and new perspectives

One of the big questions that usually presents itself to public research institutions, both in Brazil as in other countries, is the need to justify their existence to administrators, legislators and the society at large. This happens because the research activity requires large long-term investments to produce, often, slow maturation results. A large part of the annual budget comes from government resources, and the sale of technologies, products and services usually, represent a small fraction of the total budget.

Facing this reality, questioning from Government and opinion leaders and various social sectors are unavoidable: What is the real value of these institutions to society? Which and where are the results that these institutions should generate? What are the environmental, social and economic impacts of the work performed by them? Among the solutions found to answer these questions is the creation and publication of Social Reports.

In the history of Embrapa, the Social Report is the result of the convergence of two processes: the evaluation studies of impacts in the 80's and the profound organizational changes that have occurred in the corporation after 1990, which lead to the setting up of a communication policy. Both processes are closely linked to the institution profile and trajectory, created in 1973 as a public corporation under private law. Its creation was motivated by the development model adopted by Brazil at that time, aimed at the replacement of imports with the increase of its agricultural production.

Technology Impact Assessment

Due to its model of state-owned corporation, Embrapa has always been asked by the Federal Government to assess the impacts of its results as to highlight the high level returns of public investments. Thus, in the early 80's the first impact assessment studies were launched, based on estimates of production of basic seeds (for cultivars) and by Embrapa's local or regional research teams for technologies studies. Since then, the corporation has become increasingly demanded by the Government to justify the results of its activities.

In the first two decades, the theoretical orientation adopted in these impact works was based on the economic dimension, in search of returns generated by the technologies. However, from the year 2000, this approach was expanded to a multidimensional vision, with initial focus on three dimensions of impact: economic, social and environmental. This work went on to involve all Embrapa research centers with the adoption of a common methodology for economic assessment as to the environmental and social impact assessments called Ambitec, developed by Embrapa Environment. This multidimensional approach to social, environmental and economic impacts of a technology has become a trademark of Embrapa’s Social Report and a major factor that differentiates it from other existing impact assessment tools.

The origins of the Social Report

A Social Report is a document published annually by public and private organizations, for their internal and external audiences, bringing together a collection of information about its projects, benefits and social actions. Through this publication they demonstrate what they do for its professionals, dependents, employees, communities and society in general. It is a strategic tool created to evaluate and present the social responsibility of the institutions. The first international initiatives in this sense dates back to the mid-20th century, but its adoption in Brazil received a great boost with the emergence, in 1993, of the Citizenship action against poverty and for life, also known as the Campaign Against Hunger.

Led by the sociologist Herbert Jose de Souza, through the Brazilian Institute of Social and Economic Analyses (Ibase), this campaign promoted an approximation with a part of the business sector to relevant Brazilian social problems. This articulation happened through the COEP - Committee of Entities in the Fight Against Hunger and For Life, created by the Federal Government bringing together various Federal institutions, such as Embrapa. In 1997 the Ibase and the COEP conducted a campaign to promote the voluntary disclosure of Social Reports on the part of companies. In the same year, Embrapa prepared the first edition of its Social Report and published it in April 1998, during the corporation's anniversary week.

The peculiarities of research institutions

The Embrapa Social Report is an adaptation of the model suggested by Ibase. The difference compared to the original proposal is due to the appropriateness of some of their indicators, then created specifically for for-profit organizations, together with the inclusion of socio-economic data of the technologies generated by the corporation already incorporated into the agribusiness production process. In the first case, although it was founded as public corporation to circumvent some bureaucratic restraints of the Brazilian public sector, Embrapa was not created to generate financial profits but rather the so-called "social profit" due to its contribution to the development of Brazilian agriculture. The biggest challenge of the Social Report consists, therefore, of demonstrating the role of agricultural research as a strategic effort for the country. To do this, one needs to incorporate to the publication, as well as social indicators, those indicators arising from studies of technologi cal impacts that already have been traditionally carried out since the 80's.

Due to this need to demonstrate data and evidence that Embrapa, as a public research institution, requires long-term investments to produce, in general, results of slow maturation, the Embrapa's Social Report has acquired its own characteristics. These characteristics distinguish it from the standard of most accountability publications currently in force in Brazil, such as the Ibase model itself, the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) and the Ethos Institute models. Those are not suitable for the mission of public Sc&T institutions. In this case, Embrapa’s Social Report has a well-defined profile: it is a document that, above all, is part of its accountability process to the Government and the Brazilian society about the returns of investments made in agricultural research.

The Embrapa model: national and international reference in Sc&T

Despite this narrower profile, this Social Report has been serving as a reference to many other similar research institutions, such as the Paulista Agency of Agribusiness Technology (APTA-SP), the Capixaba's Institute of Research, Technical Assistance and Rural Extension (Incaper), the Corporation for Agricultural Research and Rural Extension of Santa Catarina (Epagri) and the Instituto Nacional de Investigacion Agropecuaria (INIA) of Uruguay. In 2016, the Corporacion Colombiana de Investigacion Agropecuaria (Corpoica) went on to adopt the methodology of Embrapa’s Social Report through an international cooperation agreement. It is already preparing to launch its first Social Report for the year 2017. Similarly, the institutions of agricultural research participants to the Cooperative Program for the Technological Development of Agrifood and Agribusiness of Southern Cone (Procisur) are committed to adapt this same methodology to their respective realities, as is being handled by the Executive Secretariat of that program. In addition, in a recent study conducted by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Embrapa's experience in the assessment of impacts of agricultural research and in the development of its Social Report was placed on the same level as similar iniciatives of prestigious similar institutions from other countries such as the Agricultural Research Service (ARS/USDA) of the United States, the National Institute for Agricultural Research (INRA) of France and the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO) of Australia, or supranational institutions such as the 15 research centers of the international consortium of agricultural research (CGIAR). The OECD proposes in this document the formation of a working group to standardize these experiences at the international level.

This initiative by Embrapa to perform multidimensional impact assessment of its technologies, documented via the Social Report continuously for 20 years, can be considered a pioneering and successful experience in the context of national and international organizations of agricultural research. This success is largely due to its ability to incorporate in their editions, when needed, new themes and methodologies, in accordance with the ongoing transformations in the corporation's internal and external environments. In this sense, this Social Report can be considered a living organism, in permanent evolution.

Embrapa's Social Report methodology

Since the creation of the Social Report in 1997 its methodology has been enhanced in order to express with the greatest possible fidelity the results, benefits and impacts of the work developed by Embrapa in the communities, the market and the Brazilian society. As can be seen in Table 1, there was an evolution of the methodology, since the first editions that covered a limited number of impact assessments, such as the social actions developed by the corporation, the economic impacts of their technologies and its social profit. Over the period were added to the publication information such as the environmental and social impacts of technologies, the generation of jobs, awards and recognition by the society. More recently were incorporated the success stories, the estimation of the internal rate of return (IRR) of the technologies, the impact of public policies and the analysis of the corporation contributions to the scientific community. Also were included information about the actions of gender and race equity promotion held by the institution.

Table 1. Embrapa's Social Report Evolution from 1997 to 2016:

Themes\Year 1997 2003 2008 2011 2014 2016
Social Actions X X X X X X
Net Operational Revenues (NR) X X X X X X
Operating Income (OI) X X X X X X
Economic Impacts X X X X X X
Social Profit X X X X X X
NR/Impacts X X X X X X
NR/Social Profit X X X X X X
Environmental Impacts   X X X X X
Social Impacts   X X X X X
Jobs Generated   X X X X X
Recognition from society   X X X X X
Success Stories     X X X X
Internal Rate of Return - IRR       X X X
Impacts on Public Policies         X X
Impacts on Scientific Knowledge         X X
Gender/race equity actions         X X
Wealth Valuation           X

Completing 20 years the Social Report has reached its maturity and today is a synthetic document which highlights the impacts of Embrapa in multiple dimensions, applying a common methodology of economic impacts assessment that allows comparisons with previous years, as it follows a group of 100 technologies assessments developed and adopted, already considered success stories of the corporation. Such technologies are also evaluated from the point of view of the social and environmental impacts through common methodology called Ambitec. In this case, the assessment is based on 14 social criteria and 13 environmental criteria in field data collection, in a sample of at least 10 users of every technological innovation.

Main impacts of agricultural research

The year of 2016 was prolific enough to Embrapa and its partners, to record a series of benefits provided by the agricultural research. Among them is the increased production and visibility of Embrapa scientific production in relation to the global production of Brazilian science, the recognition of the results and the use of Crop, Livestock, Forests Farming Integration System (ILPF) developed by the corporation as well as the adding of a new indicator of impact of agricultural research to be used by Embrapa, which is the creation of wealth given the innovations generated by the corporation.

ILPF system makes Brazil more productive and reduces greenhouse gas emissions

Embrapa has just been recognised by the results and positive impacts of an unprecedented and revolutionary initiative first proposed over 30 years ago. This is the Crop, Livestock, Forests Farming System Integration (ILPF), initiated in the 80's (Barreirao and Santa Fe Systems) with crop-livestock integration experiments and, in 2000, with the aggregation of the forestry component. The viability of this technology demonstrated since his first experiments, linked to the success of its implementation in recent years, led to the creation, in 2012, of the IPLF fostering network comprised of 19 Embrapa units in partnership with the private sector. This network currently supports 97 Technological Reference Units (URT), that rely on the support of specific publications and a unique theme page on the Internet (www. embrapa.br/tema-integracao-lavoura-pecuaria- floresta-ilpf).

In a recent study commissioned by the IPLF fostering network to the Kleffman Consulting Group and released by the magazine Globo Rural in November 2016, it was calculated that the area occupied with this technology in Brazil already reaches 11,500,000 hectares and offers several benefits. Among them, what stands out is the environmental component. These numbers show that Brazil did fullfil the international commitment undertaken at the United Nations Conference on Climate Change (COP 21) in December 2015, to incorporate 5 million hectares to the ILPF until 2030. In this way, the country contributes to a reduction in 37% of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions until 2025 and 43% by 2030. This is because the ILPF is able to hijack 35,100,000 tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) equivalent in the soil. Every 4 million hectares, there is a mitigation of 18 million to 22 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent. The GHG reduction, however, is just one of the consequences of the adoption of the ILPF, which offers many other advantages.

The main feature of the Crop, Livestock, Forests Farming Integration System is the articulation of food production systems, fiber, energy, wood and non-wood products, made in the same area, on cultivation consortiuns, in succession or in rotation, to optimize the biological cycles of plants and animals, and their waste. This technology provides the maintenance and restoration of forest cover, recovery of degraded areas, adoption of good agricultural practices (GAP) and increased agricultural efficiency in the use of machinery, equipment and labor, enabling the generation of employment and income, as well as the improvement of social conditions in rural areas and the reduction of environmental impacts, including the reduction of GHG emissions. Under the productive aspect, the ILPF can provide up to four crops a year in the same area: soy, corn, beef and brachiaria, not counting a partial harvest of eucalyptus, when there is a forest.

Because of their economic, social and environmental benefits, the ILPF was included among the technologies that make up the plan for the consolidation of a low-carbon economy in agriculture (ABC), created by the Federal Government in 2010 and coordinated by the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Food Supply (MAPA). In addition, resulted in the institution, in 2013, of a National Policy of Crop, Livestock, Forests Farming Integration. The ranchers and the middle-sized properties are those that adopted more this technology in its different possible arrangements: crop, livestock integration (ILP) crop, livestock, forest integration (ILPF), livestock, forest integration (IPF) and crop, forest integration (ILF). According to the survey, 10% of the farmers have adopted the full arrangement, with the forestry component. In the last five years, the adoption of the system grew 10% between ranchers and 1% between farmers. Among the ranchers, 82% adopted the ILP system, 9% ILPF and 7% IPF, and most of them are those who already deal with innovative technologies. The grain producers try to diversify production to increase profitability and reduce the financial risks. In this group 99% adopted the ILP strategy.

Given the high adoption rate of the ILPF system today in Brazil, in more than 11 million ha, and the economic additional liquid gains observed by the ILPF Network, the impacts of this system tend to be among the most significant ever recorded in the Social Report. In the coming years efforts will be made within the framework of Embrapa and the ILPF Network in order to monitor such impacts, aiming at the valuation of their economic gains. In other words, the ILPF system generates a series of multidimensional impacts (economic, social and environmental) involving various production chains, that qualify as another success story of the Brazilian Agricultural Research Corporation, Embrapa.

The role of research in rural wealth valuation

The 2016/17 harvest was a record, reaching approximately 220 million tons of grain. This production, according to the National Agriculture Confederation (CNA), should generate an income of around BRL 240 billion for the Brazilian economy, with extremely positive impacts, especially for the generation of foreign exchange and the control of the inflation. This strength of agribusiness shows another indicator of impact of agricultural research, not yet measured by Embrapa: valuing rural wealth in addition to income. This issue is already object of study by institutions like the United States Department of Agriculture and the World Bank.

For wealth valuation shall be considered the real gains that occurred on the values of the land, the buildings and improvements associated with the expansion of agriculture in the country. This phenomenon is already being discussed in world literature, and particularly by the United States Department of Agriculture, but the role of the Brazilian agricultural research institutions in that process hasn't been treated in depth as yet. Preliminary data collected by Embrapa about the valuation of rural properties in Brazil in recent decades, indicate that the values of the lands passed from about 400 billion dollars in 1992 to more than 1.4 trillion dollars in 2015. On the other hand, it is estimated that, as a result of technological advances in the field, the values of machinery, of equipment and of the herd, evolved from about 200 billion to more than 700 billion dollars in the same period.

Although these estimates still require further analysis, which it turns out preliminarily is that the contribution of agricultural research is at the heart of this valuation. An example in this impact is the modernization of agriculture in the region of the Cerrado with due appreciation of the lands. If Embrapa is directly linked to the transformation of this biome in a national barn with the incorporation of many of its technologies, then the institution also holds an important role in the increase of prices of rural farms in terms of wealth.

From this evidence, it is clear that the subject of wealth valuation should be explored in feature Social Reports, including on the grounds of public recognition of this phenomenon evidenced by institutions such as the CNA, particularly on the relationship between agricultural research and wealth valuation in Brazil, which has occurred in recent decades. Thus, in the future, this new indicator should join to traditional economic impacts derived from the generation of additional income with the adoption of Embrapa's technology, as well as the environmental impact (reduction in the use of agrochemicals and in the emission of gases, for example) and social (jobs, among others).

Impact of Brazil's scientific production on Web of Science and the Embrapa's contribution

In 2016, Embrapa's Secretariat of Management and Institutional Development (SGI) conducted a comprehensive study on the Web of Science with the aim of evaluating the corporation's contribution to Brazilian scientific production. For that purpose, researchers analysed 354,000 Web of Science (WoS) records published between 2005 and 2015, whose authors indicated Brazil in their affiliation. All articles including review articles were analysed. Both types are referred to as "articles". The numbers of this Brazil sample indicate an important growth in national production coming out of 17,414 articles in 2005 to overcome the barrier of 20,000 articles in 2007, of the 30,000 in 2009 and of 40,000 in 2013, reaching 43,386 articles in 2015.

Of the top ten places in the production of articles in Brazil just two institutions, Embrapa and Oswaldo Cruz Foundation (Fiocruz), are not universities. Among the top 50 places, 39 are higher learning institutions in Brazil, seven are Brazilian non-university institutions and four are foreign organizations. The non universities Brazilian institutions, in addition to the two institutions already mentioned, are APTA-SP, the National Institute for Space Research (INPE), the National Nuclear Energy Commission (CNEN), the National Institute for Amazonian Research (INPA) and the Brazilian Center for Physics Research (CBPFis-BR). Of the four foreign institutions, two are institutions of higher learning, Harvard University and the University of Illinois and the other two are funding institutions, the National Council for Scientific Research (CNRS) of France and the Superior Council of Scientific Research (CSIC-SPA) of Spain.

The University of Sao Paulo (USP) produces the biggest quantity of scientific papers in Brazilis, responding for more than the double of the production of the second institution, the Paulista State University (Unesp). The following are the University of Campinas (Unicamp), Federal University of Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ), Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS), Federal University of Minas Gerais (UFMG), Federal University of Sao Paulo (Unifesp), Federal University of Santa Catarina (UFSC) and Federal University of Parana (UFPR). See more details in Table 2 below.

Table 2. Production of articles per year by the first 50 Brazilian institutions and foreign partners from 2005 to 2015.

Class. Organization\Year 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Total
1 USP-Univ Sao Paulo 4.381 4.905 6.066 6.832 7.258 7.369 7.815 8.472 8.645 8.867 9.177 79.787
2 Unesp 1.312 1.486 1.995 2.454 2.661 2.759 3.135 3.276 3.438 3.687 3.647 29.850
3 Unicamp 1.726 1.965 2.059 2.355 2.371 2.511 2.549 2.826 2.915 2.867 2.971 27.115
4 UFRJ 1.490 1.584 1.852 2.034 2.147 2.220 2.309 2.600 2.653 2.773 2.799 24.461
5 UFRGS 1.024 1.149 1.427 1.915 1.852 1.976 2.140 2.321 2.424 2.564 2.528 21.320
6 UFMG 908 1.079 1.249 1.525 1.549 1.634 1.854 2.103 2.228 2.243 2.366 18.738
7 Unifesp 640 778 1.063 1.235 1.340 1.482 1.517 1.672 1.743 1.753 1.773 14.996
8 Embrapa 478 561 834 1.043 1.080 1.102 1.290 1.350 1.489 1.513 1.466 12.206
9 Fiocruz 523 645 786 1.011 1.128 1.160 1.180 1.252 1.302 1.406 1.425 11.818
10 UFSC 485 551 648 841 905 1.020 1.056 1.202 1.321 1.325 1.440 10.794
11 UFPR 454 519 666 816 916 953 1.067 1.241 1.281 1.356 1.400 10.669
12 UFV 360 455 545 735 860 874 998 1.035 1.067 1.095 1.090 9.114
13 UnB-BR 430 442 585 633 783 809 869 983 1.055 1.060 1.177 8.826
14 UFPE 448 447 518 659 732 780 896 1.008 1.055 1.071 1.113 8.727
15 UFSCar 491 508 565 712 747 740 797 955 946 1.018 1.003 8.482
16 UFC 375 392 507 570 703 697 811 929 966 907 975 7.832
17 UFSM 271 339 437 669 689 711 827 853 985 935 1.042 7.758
18 UERJ 338 378 513 670 649 677 763 779 902 830 898 7.397
19 UFF 311 354 485 591 636 628 758 817 909 914 977 7.380
20 UEM 259 322 361 534 537 532 614 654 709 747 794 6.063
21 UFBA 308 303 403 453 470 543 589 615 735 724 781 5.924
22 UFLA 175 186 343 443 544 514 636 647 609 655 636 5.388
23 UFG 196 181 223 375 438 514 563 632 730 752 751 5.355
24 UFPB 196 207 288 332 432 484 512 606 632 710 703 5.102
25 UFRN 214 229 259 316 349 411 492 591 626 764 796 5.047
26 UFPel 113 139 231 368 373 433 481 494 623 658 724 4.637
27 UFU 154 186 241 310 395 407 482 521 622 589 621 4.528
28 UEL 151 194 299 351 353 409 448 539 612 555 610 4.521
29 UFPA 141 169 206 242 320 351 461 457 580 530 588 4.045
30 APTA 171 189 369 336 363 350 436 361 375 382 386 3.718
31 UFES 105 131 154 220 278 317 391 469 516 539 561 3.681
32 Univ PUC RS 158 229 247 300 266 348 357 374 381 405 402 3.467
33 UFRPE 69 91 160 243 329 363 395 429 425 408 443 3.355
34 UFJF 84 113 140 185 203 246 325 492 463 488 594 3.333
35 Univ PUC RJ 204 222 230 250 245 251 267 348 382 411 389 3.199
36 INPE-BR 257 247 244 271 279 271 288 275 296 346 257 3.031
37 UFABC 1 48 154 219 277 372 472 495 466 514 3.018
38 CNEN 236 236 249 279 265 287 261 312 291 343 255 3.014
39 UFRRJ 95 96 183 267 267 265 327 332 330 369 355 2.886
40 CNRS-FR 135 139 121 134 146 223 290 430 358 390 478 2.844
41 UFMT 59 69 102 123 216 241 295 300 400 411 452 2.668
42 Univ Harvard 104 99 133 141 163 170 231 357 379 385 501 2.663
43 UFS 46 67 115 132 141 231 299 320 372 402 392 2.517
44 UFCG 98 86 135 137 220 222 254 276 305 358 307 2.398
45 UTFPR 35 58 70 102 153 155 220 282 369 377 537 2.358
46 CSIC-SPA 65 76 78 93 93 154 249 362 325 380 452 2.327
47 INPA-BR 99 108 123 174 207 197 219 262 291 321 310 2.311
48 UENF 130 133 172 224 223 240 247 222 212 228 265 2.296
49 CBPFis-BR 121 113 133 158 119 146 197 322 312 317 322 2.260
50 Univ Illinois 99 82 97 114 122 158 252 345 298 316 367 2.250


The characteristics of the Brazilian scientific production


A curious fact in this survey is that the Brazilian scientific articles present in an international database such as the WoS are in absolute majority published in the English language. In the latter case, 85% of 354,000 articles were written in English, 14% in Portuguese and 1% in other languages.

In terms of countries involved in the production of these items the list includes, in order, the United States, United Kingdom, France, Germany, Spain, Italy, Canada, Portugal, Argentina and Australia. See more details in Table 3 below.

Table 3. Production of articles per year by the 30 main countries partners from 2005 to 2015.

Class. Country\Year 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Total
1 United States of America 1.959 2.168 2.506 2.767 3.023 3.205 3.598 4.201 4.519 5.093 5.598 38.637
2 United Kingdom 664 706 833 867 922 1.033 1.264 1.578 1.739 1.896 2.229 13.731
3 France 718 764 764 936 1.025 1.141 1.227 1.605 1.634 1.785 1.994 13.593
4 Germany 645 684 706 782 785 974 1.161 1.407 1.499 1.678 1.863 12.184
5 Spain 306 409 480 610 684 829 1.019 1.371 1.493 1.734 2.028 10.963
6 Italy 326 424 418 490 534 644 777 1.015 1.197 1.349 1.587 8.761
7 Canada 370 382 401 560 671 612 730 911 995 1.129 1.323 8.084
8 Portugal 207 300 236 374 418 494 649 883 963 1.137 1.261 6.922
9 Argentina 346 357 401 512 492 538 622 727 716 790 862 6.363
10 Australia 163 183 226 259 313 349 434 705 797 910 1.062 5.401
11 Netherlands 208 220 216 286 323 351 454 672 685 825 925 5.165
12 China 149 140 130 169 206 306 423 646 680 772 858 4.479
13 Switzerland 123 168 186 194 224 306 454 670 665 672 812 4.474
14 Mexico 145 169 175 223 236 282 361 455 571 557 615 3.789
15 Chile 141 168 193 208 249 277 340 458 482 579 662 3.757
16 Russia 178 173 178 204 199 257 353 542 511 556 586 3.737
17 Colombia 85 105 126 212 221 299 405 507 505 528 667 3.660
18 Japan 208 237 204 204 219 266 348 419 429 510 563 3.607
19 India 134 135 157 168 199 258 336 387 448 553 576 3.351
20 Belgium 117 136 156 169 201 265 333 382 441 508 595 3.303
21 Sweden 135 151 164 210 188 231 283 438 424 462 543 3.229
22 Poland 69 82 80 97 113 167 294 477 456 459 490 2.784
23 Czech Republic 76 105 87 116 121 152 259 424 354 355 425 2.474
24 Austria 63 80 74 85 114 174 247 387 347 381 414 2.366
25 Denmark 56 76 75 81 95 133 189 314 305 353 470 2.147
26 South Korea 80 80 89 105 134 177 228 288 297 283 315 2.076
27 South Africa 44 51 48 81 84 114 172 281 294 304 370 1.843
28 Greece 26 43 36 41 43 114 180 336 303 297 340 1.759
29 Turkey 26 34 40 37 39 89 162 323 298 358 351 1.757
30 Hungary 34 53 48 52 52 109 180 309 274 284 340 1.735

The four most cited Brazilian articles were published between 2005 and 2012 and have more than 3,000 citations. The first was published in 2008, in the New England Journal of Medicine, a scientific journal of the United States. This scientific journal has an even better score: the fourth most cited article and other three articles between the ten most cited are published by it. The other scientific journals in this select level are: Physics Letters B, from the United Kingdom, with two articles (the second and the third most cited), Ecography, Science and Lancet with an article each. Brazilian institutions taking part in these four most cited articles are USP, with two articles; Unesp, UFRJ, Rio de Janeiro State University (UERJ), Federal Universities of Juiz de Fora (UFJF), of Sao Joao del Rei (UFSJR), of the ABC (UFABC), the CBPFis-BR, the Brazilian National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq) and Santa Casa de Sao Paulo Hospital (Hosp Sta Casa SP) with an article each.

The following are brief references of these four articles::

  • (3825) Llovet, Josep M. et all. Sorafenib in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma; NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE; JUL 24; 2008

  • (3516) Aad, G. et all. Observation of a new particle in the search for the Standard Model Higgs boson with the ATLAS detector at the LHC; PHYSICS LETTERS B; SEP 17; 2012

  • (3338) Chatrchyan, S. et all. Observation of a new boson at a mass of 125 GeV with the CMS experiment at the LHC; PHYSICS LETTERS B; SEP 17; 2012

  • (3332) Shepherd, FA. et all. Erlotinib in previously treated non-small-cell lung cancer; NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE; JUL 14; 2005.

As to the funding institutions, the CNPq, the Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel (Capes), the Sao Paulo State Research Foundation (Fapesp), the Minas Gerais State Research Foundation (Fapemig), the Rio de Janeiro State Research Foundation (Faperj) and the Funding Authority for Studies and Projects (Finep) appear in the top six places followed by the European Community , the National Institutes of Science and Technology (INCTs), the National Science Foundation of the United States (US NSF), the National Institute of Health of the United States (US NIH), the Government of Spain and the Rio Grande do Sul State Research Foundation (Fapergs).


Brazilian Agricultural Research Corporation (Embrapa)
Secretariat of Management and Institutional Development
Secretariat for Communications

Parque Estação Biológica - PqEB s/n°.
Brasília, DF - Brasil - Zip Code 70770-901
Phone: (5561) 3448-4433 - Fax: (5561) 3347-1041