The evolution of your success lies at the centre of your co-authorship network.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Servia-Rodriguez S
PROVIDER: S-EPMC4356565 | biostudies-literature | 2015
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
The evolution of your success lies at the centre of your co-authorship network.
Servia-Rodríguez Sandra S Noulas Anastasios A Mascolo Cecilia C Fernández-Vilas Ana A Díaz-Redondo Rebeca P RP
PloS one 20150311 3
Collaboration among scholars and institutions is progressively becoming essential to the success of research grant procurement and to allow the emergence and evolution of scientific disciplines. Our work focuses on analysing if the volume of collaborations of one author together with the relevance of his collaborators is somewhat related to his research performance over time. In order to prove this relation we collected the temporal distributions of scholars' publications and citations from the ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:Introduction: Breast cancer is one of the highest reasons of deaths for people in the world. The objective of current study is to analyze and visualize the trend of global scientific activities in the field of breast cancer during a period of 10 years through 2006-2015. Methods: The current study was performed by utilizing the scientometrics analysis and mapping the co-authorship and co-organization networks. The Web of Science Core Collection (WoS-CC)database was used to extract all papers indexed as a topic of breast cancer through 2006 to 2015. Research productivity was measured through analysis several parameters, including: the number and time course of publications, the journal and language of publications, the frequency and type of publications, as well as top 20 active sub-categories together with country contribution. The extracted data were transferred into the Excel charts and plotted as diagrams. The Science of Science (Sci2) and CiteSpace softwares were used as tools for mapping the co-authorship and co-organization networks of the published papers. Results: Analysis of data indicated that the number of publications in the field of breast cancer has linearly increased and correlated with the time-course of the study. The number of publication indexed in WoS-CC in 2015 was two times greater than that of 2006, which reached from 15 229 documents in 2006 to 30 667 documents in 2015. English Language accounted for 98% of total publications as the most dominant language. The vast majority of publications' type was in the form of original journal articles (64.7%). Based on Bradford scatterings law, the journal of "Cancer Research" was the most productive journal among the core journals, while the USA, China, and England were the most prolific countries in the field. The co-organization network indicated the dominant role of Harvard University in the field. Conclusion: The integrity of network indicated that scientists in the field of breast cancer working collaboratively to tackle the number one threat in women health.
| S-EPMC5326669 | biostudies-other
Project description:Interdisciplinary research collaboration is needed to perform transformative science and accelerate innovation. The Science of Team Science strives to investigate, evaluate, and foster team science, including institutional policies that may promote or hinder collaborative interdisciplinary research and the resources and infrastructure needed to promote team science within and across institutions. Social network analysis (SNA) has emerged as a useful method to measure interdisciplinary science through the evaluation of several types of collaboration networks, including co-authorship networks. Likewise, research administrators are responsible for conducting rigorous evaluation of policies and initiatives. Within this paper, we present a case study using SNA to evaluate inter-programmatic collaboration (evidenced by co-authoring scientific papers) from 2007-2014 among scientists who are members of four formal research programs at an NCI-designated Cancer Center, the Markey Cancer Center (MCC) at the University of Kentucky. We evaluate change in network descriptives over time and implement separable temporal exponential-family random graph models (STERGMs) to estimate the effect of author and network variables on the tendency to form a co-authorship tie. We measure the diversity of the articles published over time (Blau's Index) to understand whether the changes in the co-authorship network are reflected in the diversity of articles published by research members. Over the 8-year period, we found increased inter-programmatic collaboration among research members as evidenced by co-authorship of published scientific papers. Over time, MCC Members collaborated more with others outside of their research program and outside their initial dense co-authorship groups, however tie formation continues to be driven by co-authoring with individuals of the same research program and academic department. Papers increased in diversity over time on all measures with the exception of author gender. This inter-programmatic research was fostered by policy changes in cancer center administration encouraging interdisciplinary research through both informal (e.g., annual retreats, seminar series) and formal (e.g., requiring investigators from more than two research programs on applications for pilot funding) means. Within this cancer center, interdisciplinary co-authorship increased over time as policies encouraging this collaboration were implemented. Yet, there is room for improvement in creating more interdisciplinary and diverse ties between research program members.
| S-EPMC6703830 | biostudies-literature
Project description:This paper analyzes the effects of the co-authorship and bibliographic coupling networks on the citations received by scientific articles. It expands prior research that limited its focus on the position of co-authors and incorporates the effects of the use of knowledge sources within articles: references. By creating a network on the basis of shared references, we propose a way to understand whether an article bridges among extant strands of literature and infer the size of its research community and its embeddedness. Thus, we map onto the article--our unit of analysis--the metrics of authors' position in the co-authorship network and of the use of knowledge on which the scientific article is grounded. Specifically, we adopt centrality measures--degree, betweenneess, and closeness centrality--in the co-authorship network and degree, betweenness centrality and clustering coefficient in the bibliographic coupling and show their influence on the citations received in first two years after the year of publication. Findings show that authors' degree positively impacts citations. Also closeness centrality has a positive effect manifested only when the giant component is relevant. Author's betweenness centrality has instead a negative effect that persists until the giant component--largest component of the network in which all nodes can be linked by a path--is relevant. Moreover, articles that draw on fragmented strands of literature tend to be cited more, whereas the size of the scientific research community and the embeddedness of the article in a cohesive cluster of literature have no effect.
| S-EPMC4049820 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo investigate the relationship between biomedical researchers' collaborative and authorship practices and scientific success.DesignLongitudinal quantitative analysis of individual researchers' careers over a nine-year period.SettingA leading biomedical research institution in the United Kingdom.ParticipantsFive hundred and twenty-five biomedical researchers who were in employment on 31 December 2009.Main outcome measuresWe constructed the co-authorship network in which nodes are the researchers, and links are established between any two researchers if they co-authored one or more articles. For each researcher, we recorded the position held in the co-authorship network and in the bylines of all articles published in each three-year interval and calculated the number of citations these articles accrued until January 2013. We estimated maximum likelihood negative binomial panel regression models.ResultsOur analysis suggests that collaboration sustained success, yet excessive co-authorship did not. Last positions in non-alphabetised bylines were beneficial for higher academic ranks but not for junior ones. A professor could witness a 20.57% increase in the expected citation count if last-listed non-alphabetically in one additional publication; yet, a lecturer suffered from a 13.04% reduction. First positions in alphabetised bylines were positively associated with performance for junior academics only. A lecturer could experience a 8.78% increase in the expected citation count if first-listed alphabetically in one additional publication. While junior researchers amplified success when brokering among otherwise disconnected collaborators, senior researchers prospered from socially cohesive networks, rich in third-party relationships.ConclusionsThese results help biomedical scientists shape successful careers and research institutions develop effective assessment and recruitment policies that will ultimately sustain the quality of biomedical research and patient care.
| S-EPMC6552387 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Networks that represent connections between individuals can be valuable analytic tools. The Social Network Cytoscape app is capable of creating a visual summary of connected individuals automatically. It does this by representing relationships as networks where each node denotes an individual and an edge linking two individuals represents a connection. The app focuses on creating visual summaries of individuals connected by co-authorship links in academia, created from bibliographic databases like PubMed, Scopus and InCites. The resulting co-authorship networks can be visualized and analyzed to better understand collaborative research networks or to communicate the extent of collaboration and publication productivity among a group of researchers, like in a grant application or departmental review report. It can also be useful as a research tool to identify important research topics, researchers and papers in a subject area.
| S-EPMC4760270 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAlcohol's effects on heart health is the site of a major scientific controversy. We conducted a co-authorship network analysis of systematic reviews on the impacts on alcohol on cardiovascular disease (CVD) in order to investigate patterns of co-authorship in the literature, with particular attention given to industry funding.MethodsWe used Epistemonikos to identify systematic reviews. Review characteristics, influential authors, co-authorship subnetworks, prior histories of alcohol industry funding, study outcomes and citations were investigated.Results60 systematic reviews with 231 unique authors met our inclusion criteria. 14 systematic reviews were undertaken by authors with histories of alcohol industry funding, including 5 that were funded directly by the alcohol industry itself. All 14 such reviews identified a cardioprotective effect of alcohol. These formed distinct co-authorship subnetworks within the literature. Of reviews by authors with no prior histories of alcohol industry funding, the findings were mixed, with 54% (25/46) concluding there was evidence of health protective effects. These two groups of reviews differed in other respects. Those with industry funding were more likely to study broader outcomes such as 'cardiovascular disease' or 'coronary heart disease' as opposed to specific CVD issues such as hypertension or stroke (93% [13/14] versus 41% [19/46]) (chi-squared 12.4, p < 0.001) and have more included studies (mean of 29 versus 20). They were also more widely cited by others. Over time the proportions of systematic reviews on CVD and alcohol undertaken by authors with no prior histories of alcohol industry funding has increased.ConclusionsSystematic reviews undertaken by authors with histories of alcohol industry funding were more likely to study broader outcomes, and be cited more widely, and exclusively reported favorable conclusions.
| S-EPMC8586735 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background: Collaboration is a common occurrence among Vietnamese scientists; however, insights into Vietnamese scientific collaborations have been scarce. On the other hand, the application of social network analysis in studying science collaboration has gained much attention all over the world. The technique could be employed to explore Vietnam's scientific community. Methods: This paper employs network theory to explore characteristics of a network of 412 Vietnamese social scientists whose papers can be found indexed in the Scopus database. Two basic network measures, density and clustering coefficient, were taken, and the entire network was studied in comparison with two of its largest components. Results: The networks connections are very sparse, with a density of only 0.47%, while the clustering coefficient is very high (58.64%). This suggests an inefficient dissemination of information, knowledge, and expertise in the network. Secondly, the disparity in levels of connection among individuals indicates that the network would easily fall apart if a few highly-connected nodes are removed. Finally, the two largest components of the network were found to differ from the entire networks in terms of measures and were both led by the most productive and well-connected researchers. Conclusions: High clustering and low density seems to be tied to inefficient dissemination of expertise among Vietnamese social scientists, and consequently low scientific output. Also low in robustness, the network shows the potential of an intellectual elite composed of well-connected, productive, and socially significant individuals.
| S-EPMC5590089 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The authorship attribution is a problem of considerable practical and technical interest. Several methods have been designed to infer the authorship of disputed documents in multiple contexts. While traditional statistical methods based solely on word counts and related measurements have provided a simple, yet effective solution in particular cases; they are prone to manipulation. Recently, texts have been successfully modeled as networks, where words are represented by nodes linked according to textual similarity measurements. Such models are useful to identify informative topological patterns for the authorship recognition task. However, there is no consensus on which measurements should be used. Thus, we proposed a novel method to characterize text networks, by considering both topological and dynamical aspects of networks. Using concepts and methods from cellular automata theory, we devised a strategy to grasp informative spatio-temporal patterns from this model. Our experiments revealed an outperformance over structural analysis relying only on topological measurements, such as clustering coefficient, betweenness and shortest paths. The optimized results obtained here pave the way for a better characterization of textual networks.
| S-EPMC5863954 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The position of an author on the byline of a paper affects the inferences readers make about their contributions to the research. We examine gender differences in authorship in the ecology literature using two datasets: submissions to six journals between 2010 and 2015 (regardless of whether they were accepted), and manuscripts published by 151 journals between 2009 and 2015. Women were less likely to be last (i.e., "senior") authors (averaging ~23% across journals, years, and datasets) and sole authors (~24%), but more likely to be first author (~38%), relative to their overall frequency of authorship (~31%). However, the proportion of women in all authorship roles, except sole authorship, has increased year-on-year. Women were less likely to be authors on papers with male last authors, and all-male papers were more abundant than expected given the overall gender ratio. Women were equally well represented on papers published in higher versus lower impact factor journals at all authorship positions. Female first authors were less likely to serve as corresponding author of their papers; this difference increased with the degree of gender inequality in the author's home country, but did not depend on the gender of the last author. First authors from non-English-speaking countries were less likely to serve as corresponding author of their papers, especially if the last author was from an English-speaking country. That women more often delegate corresponding authorship to one of their coauthors may increase the likelihood that readers undervalue their role in the research by shifting credit for their contributions to coauthors. We suggest that author contribution statements be more universally adopted and that these statements declare how and/or why the corresponding author was selected for this role.
| S-EPMC6303722 | biostudies-literature
Project description:To develop a method for investigating co-authorship patterns and author team characteristics associated with the publications in high-impact journals through the integration of public MEDLINE data and institutional scientific profile data.For all current researchers at Columbia University Medical Center, we extracted their publications from MEDLINE authored between years 2007 and 2011 and associated journal impact factors, along with author academic ranks and departmental affiliations obtained from Columbia University Scientific Profiles (CUSP). Chi-square tests were performed on co-authorship patterns, with Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons, to identify team composition characteristics associated with publication impact factors. We also developed co-authorship networks for the 25 most prolific departments between years 2002 and 2011 and counted the internal and external authors, inter-connectivity, and centrality of each department.Papers with at least one author from a basic science department are significantly more likely to appear in high-impact journals than papers authored by those from clinical departments alone. Inclusion of at least one professor on the author list is strongly associated with publication in high-impact journals, as is inclusion of at least one research scientist. Departmental and disciplinary differences in the ratios of within- to outside-department collaboration and overall network cohesion are also observed.Enrichment of co-authorship patterns with author scientific profiles helps uncover associations between author team characteristics and appearance in high-impact journals. These results may offer implications for mentoring junior biomedical researchers to publish on high-impact journals, as well as for evaluating academic progress across disciplines in modern academic medical centers.
| S-EPMC4260991 | biostudies-literature