Scientific elite revisited: patterns of productivity, collaboration, authorship and impact.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Li J
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7211484 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Researchers collaborate on scientific projects that are often measured by both the quantity and the quality of the resultant peer-reviewed publications. However, not all collaborators contribute to these publications equally, making metrics such as the total number of publications and the H-index insufficient measurements of individual scientific impact. To remedy this, we use an axiomatic approach to assign relative credits to the coauthors of a given paper, referred to as the A-index for its axiomatic foundation. In this paper, we use the A-index to compute the weighted sums of peer-reviewed publications and journal impact factors, denoted as the C- and P-indexes for collaboration and productivity, respectively. We perform an in-depth analysis of bibliometric data for 186 biomedical engineering faculty members and from extensive simulation. It is found that these axiomatically weighted indexes better capture a researcher's scientific caliber than do the total number of publications and the H-index, allowing for fairer and sharper evaluation of researchers with diverse collaborative behaviors.
| S-EPMC3683734 | 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:Transdisciplinary (TD) approaches are increasingly used to address complex public health problems such as childhood obesity. Compared to traditional grant-funded scientific projects among established scientists, those designed around a TD, team-based approach yielded greater publication output after three to five years. However, little is known about how a TD focus throughout graduate school training may affect students' publication-related productivity, impact, and collaboration. The objective of this study was to compare the publication patterns of students in traditional versus TD doctoral training programs. Productivity, impact, and collaboration of peer-reviewed publications were compared between traditional (n = 25) and TD (n = 11) students during the first five years of the TD program. Statistical differences were determined by t-test or chi square test at p < 0.05. The publication rate for TD students was 5.2 ± 10.1 (n = 56) compared to 3.6 ± 4.5 per traditional student (n = 82). Publication impact indicators were significantly higher for TD students vs. traditional students: 5.7 times more citations in Google Scholar, 6.1 times more citations in Scopus, 1.3 times higher journal impact factors, and a 1.4 times higher journal h-index. Collaboration indicators showed that publications by TD students had significantly more co-authors (1.3 times), and significantly more disciplines represented among co-authors (1.3 times), but not significantly more organizations represented per publication compared to traditional students. In conclusion, compared to doctoral students in traditional programs, TD students published works that were accepted into higher impact journals, were more frequently cited, and had more cross-disciplinary collaborations.
| S-EPMC5731691 | biostudies-literature
Project description:In this paper, we estimate the impact of receiving an NIH grant on subsequent publications and citations. Our sample consists of all applications (unsuccessful as well as successful) to the NIH from 1980 to 2000 for standard research grants (R01s). Both OLS and IV estimates show that receipt of an NIH research grant (worth roughly $1.7 million) leads to only one additional publication over the next five years, which corresponds to a 7 percent increase. The limited impact of NIH grants is consistent with a model in which the market for research funding is competitive, so that the loss of an NIH grant simply causes researchers to shift to another source of funding.
| S-EPMC3156466 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Preprints are becoming well established in the life sciences, but relatively little is known about the demographics of the researchers who post preprints and those who do not, or about the collaborations between preprint authors. Here, based on an analysis of 67,885 preprints posted on bioRxiv, we find that some countries, notably the United States and the United Kingdom, are overrepresented on bioRxiv relative to their overall scientific output, while other countries (including China, Russia, and Turkey) show lower levels of bioRxiv adoption. We also describe a set of 'contributor countries' (including Uganda, Croatia and Thailand): researchers from these countries appear almost exclusively as non-senior authors on international collaborations. Lastly, we find multiple journals that publish a disproportionate number of preprints from some countries, a dynamic that almost always benefits manuscripts from the US.
| S-EPMC7384855 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesTo 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.MethodsFor 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.ResultsPapers 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.ConclusionsEnrichment 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
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:Tie strength has been examined as an antecedent of creativity. Although it has been discovered that international collaboration affects scientific performance, the effect of tie strength in the international collaboration network has been largely neglected. Based on international publications of 72 countries/regions published from 1993 to 2013, we combine descriptive and panel regression methods to examine how the bonding of strong collaboration ties contributes to countries’ international scientific performance. Strong ties occur at an average rate of 1 in 4 collaborators, whereas countries/regions share on average 84% of articles with their strong-tie collaborators. Our quantitative results provide an explanation for this phenomenon in international collaboration: the establishment of a strong tie relationship contributes to above-average productivity and citation frequency for countries/regions. To further explore which types of strong ties tend to have stronger citation impact, we analyse the relationship between persistent and stable collaboration and publication citation impact. Experimental results show that international collaborations with greater persistence and moderate stability tend to produce high impact publications. It is noteworthy that when the collaboration period is divided into different time intervals, similar findings can be found after the same analysis procedure is carried out. This indicates that our conclusions are robust. Overall, this study provides quantitative insights into the added value of long-term commitment and social trust associated with strong collaborative partnerships in international collaboration.
| S-EPMC9844855 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Scientific knowledge is an underlying basis for technological innovation in the pharmaceutical industry. Collaboration is the main way to participate in the creation of scientific knowledge for pharmaceutical firms. Will network positions in scientific collaboration affect their technological innovation performance? Moreover, what factors moderate the firms' scientific collaboration network positions and technological innovation link? Using a dataset based on 194 Chinese publicly traded pharmaceutical companies, this paper constructs the dynamic scientific collaboration networks among 1,826 organizations by analyzing 4,092 papers included in CNKI and Web of Science databases. Then we probe the impact and boundaries of positions in the scientific collaboration network of pharmaceutical firms on their technological innovation performance through the negative binomial modeling approach. Our study confirms that degree centrality has an inverted U-shaped impact on pharmaceutical firms' technological innovation performance, while structural holes benefit it. Moreover, this article identifies that the strength of scientific collaboration positively moderates the U-shaped relationship between degree centrality and technological innovation of pharmaceutical firms, the matching of high patent stock and high structural holes can promote their technological innovation performance. The results deepen the present understanding of scientific collaboration in the pharmaceutical industry and offer new insights into the formulation of pharmaceutical firms' scientific collaboration strategies.
| S-EPMC9401607 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Disruptive advancements in science and technology often rely on new ideas and findings, which in turn brings us to focus on the value of novelty in scholarly activities. Using Web of Science publication data from European regions for the period between 2008 and 2017, this study examines, first, the impact of scientific collaboration on novelty of research. Here, five levels of collaboration are considered for each article-country, three levels of regions, and institutions, and novelty is measured with keywords information. Second, we investigate both the effect and moderating effect of research funding on novelty. Our findings show that there is a negative and significant relationship between scientific collaboration and novelty. Furthermore, funded papers show lower novelty than the unfunded, but funding does have a significant moderating effect on the relationship between collaboration and novelty. This study contributes by linking diverse levels of collaboration and funding sources to article's novelty and thus extending the scope of bibliometric research of publications.
| S-EPMC9312390 | biostudies-literature