Academic Cross-Pollination: The Role of Disciplinary Affiliation in Research Collaboration.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Dhand A
PROVIDER: S-EPMC4711942 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundThe evaluation of translational health research is important for various reasons such as the research impact assessment, research funding allocation, accountability, and strategic research policy formulation. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the research productivity, strength and diversity of research collaboration networks and impact of research supported by a large biomedical research centre in the United Kingdom (UK).MethodsBibliometric analysis of research publications by translational researchers affiliated with the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Oxford Biomedical Research Centre (BRC) from April 2012 to March 2017.ResultsAnalysis included 2377 translational research publications that were published during the second 5-year funding period of the NIHR Oxford BRC. Author details were available for 99.75% of the publications with DOIs (2359 of 2365 with DOIs), and the number of authors per publication was median 9 (mean = 18.03, SD = 3.63, maximum = 2467 authors). Author lists also contained many consortia, groups, committees, and teams (n = 165 in total), with 1238 additional contributors, where membership was reported. The BRC co-authorship i.e., research collaboration network for these publications involved 20,229 nodes (authors, of which 1606 nodes had Oxford affiliations), and approximately 4.3 million edges (authorship linkages). Articles with a valid DOIs (2365 of 2377, 99.5%) were collectively cited more than 155,000 times and the average Field Citation Ratio was median 6.75 (geometric mean = 7.12) while the average Relative Citation Ratio was median 1.50 (geometric mean = 1.83) for the analysed publications.ConclusionsThe NIHR Oxford BRC generated substantial translational research publications and facilitated a huge collaborative network of translational researchers working in complex structures and consortia, which shows success across the whole of this BRC funding period. Further research involving continued uptake of unique persistent identifiers and the tracking of other research outputs such as clinical innovations and patents would allow a more detailed understanding of large research enterprises such as NIHR BRCs in the UK.
| S-EPMC8626935 | biostudies-literature
Project description:During the last decade, the challenges of an ageing society became focus for extensive scientific, public and political discussions. From discussions in scientific fora within each discipline, there is now a shift towards cross-disciplinary scientific approaches. The aim of this article is therefore, to collect and describe different scientific viewpoints in this regard and to point out research gaps to be addressed in the future. The article is based on a number of review articles and keynote lectures given by the author, and complemented with informal interviews of experts from different scientific fields engaged in the field of technology and ageing. Results show that research has emerged from being technology-focussed to scenario-based taking different scientific perspectives into account. However, the biggest challenge still is to accommodate the need for a holistic integrated service which means to provide personalised services and adapt technology and content to individual needs of different stakeholders. Further, cross-disciplinary research is needed that relates informatics and technology to different stages of the aging process and that evaluates the effects of proposed technical solutions.
| S-EPMC3793263 | biostudies-other
Project description:Carcinoid heart disease (CaHD) is an important complication among patients with metastatic neuroendocrine tumors and carcinoid syndrome (CS). CS patients (25%-65%) eventually develop CaHD; these patients face a significantly increased risk of morbidity and mortality. Guidance papers (eg, clinical practice guidelines, consensus guidelines, and expert statements) have been established by major organizations across the disciplines of cardiology and oncology; however, these recommendations are not routinely implemented. The aim of this article is to encourage the integration of current recommendations from national societies into clinical practice. Early screening upon recognition of CS and prior to the development of CaHD symptoms is paramount, as no existing therapies are approved to reverse the fibrotic damage to the heart once it occurs. Valvular replacement is the only definitive treatment for CaHD once it has developed. When patients are noted to have urinary 5-hydroxyindoleacetic acid (5-HIAA) levels ≥300 µmol/24 h and/or serum N-terminal pro B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) levels >260 pg/mL, echocardiography is recommended. Systemic approaches to control tumor growth and hormonal secretion include somatostatin analogs (SSAs), followed by options including peptide receptor radiotherapy (PRRT), everolimus and liver embolization. Telotristat is the primary choice for control of diarrhea refractory to SSA. Diuretics are the mainstay of heart failure symptom management for patients who develop CaHD. Considerations for future research are discussed, including the ongoing TELEHEART (TELotristat Ethyl in a HEART biomarker study) trial involving telotristat and not yet activated CHARRT (Carcinoid Heart disease And peptide Receptor Radiotargetted Therapy) study involving PRRT with lutetium 177 (177Lu) dotatate.
| S-EPMC10322126 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Breaches of research integrity have shocked the academic community. Initially explanations were sought at the level of individual researchers but over time increased recognition emerged of the important role that the research integrity climate may play in influencing researchers' (mis)behavior. In this study we aim to assess whether researchers from different academic ranks and disciplinary fields experience the research integrity climate differently. We sent an online questionnaire to academic researchers in Amsterdam using the Survey of Organizational Research Climate. Bonferroni corrected mean differences showed that junior researchers (PhD students, postdocs and assistant professors) perceive the research integrity climate more negatively than senior researchers (associate and full professors). Junior researchers note that their supervisors are less committed to talk about key research integrity principles compared to senior researchers (MD = -.39, CI = -.55, -.24). PhD students perceive more competition and suspicion among colleagues (MD = -.19, CI = -.35, -.05) than associate and full professors. We found that researchers from the natural sciences overall express a more positive perception of the research integrity climate. Researchers from social sciences as well as from the humanities perceive less fairness of their departments' expectations in terms of publishing and acquiring funding compared to natural sciences and biomedical sciences (MD = -.44, CI = -.74, -.15; MD = -.36, CI = -.61, -.11). Results suggest that department leaders in the humanities and social sciences should do more to set fairer expectations for their researchers and that senior scientists should ensure junior researchers are socialized into research integrity practices and foster a climate in their group where suspicion among colleagues has no place.
| S-EPMC6338411 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Funding agencies are increasingly seeking team-based approaches to tackling complex research questions, but there is a need to mobilize translational teams and create shared visions and strategic action plans long before specific funding opportunities are considered or even released. This is particularly evident for teams who want to pursue large-scale grants, where cross-disciplinary synergy is often required. In response, we created Research Jams, which are engaging yet structured brainstorming sessions that bring together groups for the first time to collectively generate novel research ideas, critically map the future of initiatives, prioritize opportunities and next steps, and build community. Research Jams leveraged various aspects of design thinking, including divergence and convergence, visual thinking, and amplifying diversity. We piloted seven Research Jams for a collective 129 researchers, staff, and partners across 50 University of Michigan units and external organizations. Feedback was overwhelmingly positive, with the vast majority of survey respondents indicating that the sessions were helpful for surfacing shared ideas or visions and that opportunities emerged they would like to pursue. Research Jams were ideal for cross-disciplinary groups who wanted to collaboratively ideate and strategize around complex problems in translational research. Importantly, these models have the potential for implementation with groups in any disciplinary domain who want to spur collaborations to address challenging problems. Our ultimate goal is for Research Jams to be the first intervention within a comprehensive support pathway that extends from early brainstorming all the way to grant submission.
| S-EPMC8596062 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionThe medical education research field operates at the crossroads of two distinct academic worlds: higher education and medicine. As such, this field provides a unique opportunity to explore new forms of cross-disciplinary knowledge exchange.MethodsCross-disciplinary knowledge flow in medical education research was examined by looking at citation patterns in the five journals with the highest impact factor in 2017. To grasp the specificities of the knowledge flow in medical education, the field of higher education was used as a comparator. In total, 2031 citations from 64 medical education and 41 higher education articles published in 2017 were examined.ResultsMedical education researchers draw on a narrower range of knowledge communities than their peers in higher education. Medical education researchers predominantly cite articles published in health and medical education journals (80% of all citations), and to a lesser extent, articles published in education and social science journals. In higher education, while the largest share of the cited literature is internal to the domain (36%), researchers cite literature from across the social science spectrum. Findings suggest that higher education scholars engage in conversations with academics from a broader range of communities and perspectives than their medical education colleagues.DiscussionUsing Pierre Bourdieu's concepts of doxa and field, it is argued that the variety of epistemic cultures entering the higher education research space contributes to its interdisciplinary nature. Conversely, the existence of a relatively homogeneous epistemic culture in medicine potentially impedes cross-disciplinary knowledge exchange.
| S-EPMC9240116 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic has had an unprecedented impact on humanity as well as research activities in life sciences and medicine. Between January and August 2020, the number of coronavirus-related scientific articles was roughly 50 times more than that of articles published in the entire year of 2019 in PubMed. It is necessary to better understand the dynamics of research on COVID-19, an emerging topic, and suggest ways to understand and improve the quality of research. We analyze the dynamics of coronavirus research before and after the outbreaks of SARS, MERS, and COVID-19 by examining all the published articles from the past 25 years in PubMed. We delineate research networks on coronaviruses as we identify experts' background in terms of topics of previous research, affiliations, and international co-authorships. Two distinct dynamics of coronavirus research were found: 1) in the cases of regional pandemics, SARS and MERS, the scope of cross-disciplinary research remained between neighboring research areas; 2) in the case of the global pandemic, COVID-19, research activities have spread beyond neighboring disciplines with little transnational collaboration. Thus, COVID-19 has transformed the structure of research on coronaviruses as an emerging issue. Knowledge on COVID-19 is distributed across the widest range of disciplines, transforming research networks well beyond the field of medicine but within national boundaries. Given the unprecedented scale of COVID-19 and the nationalization of responses, the most likely way forward is to accumulate local knowledge with the awareness of transdisciplinary research dynamics.
| S-EPMC8350321 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThere is increasing cross-disciplinary research on the relationship between individuals' social, cultural and community engagement (SCCE) and mental health. SCCE includes engagement in the arts, culture and heritage, libraries and literature, sports and nature activities, volunteering, and community groups. Research has demonstrated the effects of these activities both on the prevention and management of mental illness. However, it remains unclear whether current research is focusing on the research questions that are of most immediate urgency and relevance to policy and practice.AimsThe current project was funded as part of the UK Research and Innovation cross-disciplinary mental health network programme to develop and co-produce a new cross-disciplinary research agenda on SCCE and mental health.MethodEstablished processes and principles for developing health research agendas were followed, with a six-phase design including engagement with over 1000 key stakeholders, consultations, integration of findings and collective prioritisation of key questions.ResultsWe identified four core themes: the mode of engagement, process of engagement, impact of engagement and infrastructure required to facilitate engagement. There were many points of agreement across all stakeholder groups on the priority questions within these themes, but also some specific questions of relevance to different sectors.ConclusionsThis agenda is particularly timely given the extreme pressure on mental health services predicted to follow the current COVID-19 pandemic. It is important to identify how resources from other sectors can be mobilised, and what research questions are going to be most important to fund to support SCCE for mental health.
| S-EPMC7791563 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundMore than half of deaths in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) result from conditions that could be treated with emergency care - an integral component of universal health coverage (UHC) - through timely access to lifesaving interventions.MethodsThe World Health Organization (WHO) aims to extend UHC to a further 1 billion people by 2023, yet evidence supporting improved emergency care coverage is lacking. In this article, we explore four phases of a research prioritisation setting (RPS) exercise conducted by researchers and stakeholders from South Africa, Egypt, Nepal, Jamaica, Tanzania, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Colombia, Ethiopia, Iran, Jordan, Malaysia, South Korea and Phillipines, USA and UK as a key step in gathering evidence required by policy makers and practitioners for the strengthening of emergency care systems in limited-resource settings.ResultsThe RPS proposed seven priority research questions addressing: identification of context-relevant emergency care indicators, barriers to effective emergency care; accuracy and impact of triage tools; potential quality improvement via registries; characteristics of people seeking emergency care; best practices for staff training and retention; and cost effectiveness of critical care - all within LMICs.ConclusionsConvened by WHO and facilitated by the University of Sheffield, the Global Emergency Care Research Network project (GEM-CARN) brought together a coalition of 16 countries to identify research priorities for strengthening emergency care in LMICs. Our article further assesses the quality of the RPS exercise and reviews the current evidence supporting the identified priorities.
| S-EPMC7457362 | biostudies-literature
Project description:As research teams are increasingly comprised of members from multiple disciplines, ranging from the physical sciences, life sciences, social and behavioral sciences to the arts and humanities, it is important to revisit how research is conducted at several levels. Coupled with the national concern over rigor and reproducibility in research, it is therefore crucial to ensure that all members of such multidisciplinary teams view the need for ethics in the conduct of research in similar ways. Towards this end, Wayne State University developed a course in the Responsible Conduct of Research (RCR) which was mandatory for all its 1500 doctoral students across all disciplines in its 75 PhD programs. We found that student perceptions of the validity, applicability and usefulness of the course varied by discipline. This was in spite of iterative changes made to the course by faculty in those disciplines to make the content palatable to all. The findings show that more work needs to be done to fully incorporate the needs of social sciences and humanities disciplines in a comprehensive university course. This is especially important as these students become members of large multidisciplinary research teams in order to uphold the highest levels of rigor, reproducibility and ethics.
| S-EPMC6881010 | biostudies-literature