Dataset Information

Evaluating the research domain and achievement for a productive researcher who published 114 sole-author articles: A bibliometric analysis.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Team science research includes authors from various fields collaborating to publish their work on certain topics. Despite the numerous papers that discussed the ordering of author names and the contributions of authors to an article, no paper evaluatedIn addition, few researchers publish academic articles without co-author collaboration. Whether the bibliometric indexes (eg, h-/x-index) of sole-author researchers are higher than those of other types of multiple authors is required for comparison. We aimed to evaluate a productive author who published 114 sole-author articles with exceptional RA and RD in academics. METHODS:By searching the PubMed database (Pubmed.com), we used the keyword of (Taiwan[affiliation]) from 2016 to 2017 and downloaded 29,356 articles. One physician (Dr. Tseng from the field of Internal Medicine) who published 12 articles as a single author was selected. His articles and citations were searched in PubMed. A comparison of various types of author ordering placements was conducted using sensitivity analysis to inspect whether this sole author earns the highest metrics in RA. Social network analysis (SNA), Gini coefficient (GC), pyramid plot, and the Kano diagram were applied to gather the following data for visualization: RESULTS:: We observed that CONCLUSIONS:: The metrics on RA are high for the sole author studied. The author's RD can be denoted by the MeSH terms and measured by the GC. The author-weighted scheme is required for quantifying author credits in an article to evaluate the author's RA. Social network analysis incorporating the Kano diagrams provided insights into the relationships between actors (eg, coauthors, MeSH terms, or journals). The methods used in this study can be replicated to evaluate other productive studies on RA and RD in the future.

SUBMITTER: Liu MY

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7249850 | biostudies-literature | 2020 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Evaluating the research domain and achievement for a productive researcher who published 114 sole-author articles: A bibliometric analysis.

Liu Mei-Yuan MY Chou Willy W Chien Tsair-Wei TW Kuo Shu-Chun SC Yeh Yu-Tsen YT Chou Po-Hsin PH

Medicine 20200501 21

<h4>Background</h4>Team science research includes authors from various fields collaborating to publish their work on certain topics. Despite the numerous papers that discussed the ordering of author names and the contributions of authors to an article, no paper evaluatedIn addition, few researchers publish academic articles without co-author collaboration. Whether the bibliometric indexes (eg, h-/x-index) of sole-author researchers are higher than those of other types of multiple authors is requ ...[more]

PMID: 32481321

Similar Datasets

Project description:Analyses of author collaborations and keyword co-occurrences are frequently used in bibliographic research. However, no studies have introduced a straightforward yet effective approach, such as utilizing ChatGPT with Code Interpreter (ChatGPT_CI) or the R language, for creating cluster-oriented networks. This research aims to compare cluster analysis methods in ChatGPT_CI and R, visualize country-specific author collaborations, and then demonstrate the most effective approach. The research focused on articles and review pieces from Medicine (Baltimore) published in 2023. By August 20, 2023, we had gathered metadata for 1976 articles using the Web of Science core collections. The efficiency and effectiveness of cluster displays between ChatGPT_CI and R were compared by evaluating their time consumption. The best method was then employed to present a series of visualizations of country-specific author collaborations, rooted in social network and cluster analyses. Visualization techniques incorporating network charts, chord diagrams, circle bar plots, circle packing plots, heat dendrograms, dendrograms, and word clouds were demonstrated. We further highlighted the research profiles of 2 prolific authors using timeline visuals. The research findings include that (1) the most active contributors were China, Nanjing Medical University (China), the Medical School Department, and Dr Chou from Taiwan when considering countries, institutions, departments, and individual authors, respectively; (2) the highest cited articles originated from Medicine (Baltimore) accounting for 4.53%: New England Journal of Medicine, PLOS ONE, LANCET, and The Journal of the American Medical Association, with respective contributions of 3.25%, 2.7%, 2.52%, and 1.54%; (3) visual cluster analysis in R proved to be more efficient and effective than ChatGPT_CI, reducing the time taken from 1 hour to just 3 minutes; (4) 7 cluster-focused networks were crafted using R on a custom platform; and (5) the research trajectories of 2 prominent authors (Dr Brin from the United States and Dr Chow from Taiwan) and articles themes in Medicine 2023 were depicted using timeline visuals. This research highlighted the efficient and effective methods for conducting cluster analyses of author collaborations using R. For future related studies, such as keyword co-occurrence analysis, R is recommended as a viable alternative for bibliographic research.

Project description:OBJECTIVES:Effective researcher assessment is key to decisions about funding allocations, promotion and tenure. We aimed to identify what is known about methods for assessing researcher achievements, leading to a new composite assessment model. DESIGN:We systematically reviewed the literature via the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols framework. DATA SOURCES:All Web of Science databases (including Core Collection, MEDLINE and BIOSIS Citation Index) to the end of 2017. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: (1) English language, (2) published in the last 10 years (2007-2017), (3) full text was available and (4) the article discussed an approach to the assessment of an individual researcher's achievements. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS:Articles were allocated among four pairs of reviewers for screening, with each pair randomly assigned 5% of their allocation to review concurrently against inclusion criteria. Inter-rater reliability was assessed using Cohen's Kappa (ĸ). The ĸ statistic showed agreement ranging from moderate to almost perfect (0.4848-0.9039). Following screening, selected articles underwent full-text review and bias was assessed. RESULTS:Four hundred and seventy-eight articles were included in the final review. Established approaches developed prior to our inclusion period (eg, citations and outputs, h-index and journal impact factor) remained dominant in the literature and in practice. New bibliometric methods and models emerged in the last 10 years including: measures based on PageRank algorithms or 'altmetric' data, methods to apply peer judgement and techniques to assign values to publication quantity and quality. Each assessment method tended to prioritise certain aspects of achievement over others. CONCLUSIONS:All metrics and models focus on an element or elements at the expense of others. A new composite design, the Comprehensive Researcher Achievement Model (CRAM), is presented, which supersedes past anachronistic models. The CRAM is modifiable to a range of applications.

Project description:BackgroundDeciphering the amount of work provided by different co-authors of a scientific paper has been a recurrent problem in science. Despite the myriad of metrics available, the scientific community still largely relies on the position in the list of authors to evaluate contributions, a metric that attributes subjective and unfounded credit to co-authors. We propose an easy to apply, universally comparable and fair metric to measure and report co-authors contribution in the scientific literature.MethodsThe proposed Author Contribution Index (ACI) is based on contribution percentages provided by the authors, preferably at the time of submission. Researchers can use ACI to compare the contributions of different authors, describe the contribution profile of a particular researcher or analyse how contribution changes through time. We provide such an analysis based on contribution percentages provided by 97 scientists from the field of ecology who voluntarily responded to an online anonymous survey.ResultsACI is simple to understand and to implement because it is based solely on percentage contributions and the number of co-authors. It provides a continuous score that reflects the contribution of one author as compared to the average contribution of all other authors. For example, ACI(i) = 3, means that author i contributed three times more than what the other authors contributed on average. Our analysis comprised 836 papers published in 2014-2016 and revealed patterns of ACI values that relate to career advancement.ConclusionThere are many examples of author contribution indices that have been proposed but none has really been adopted by scientific journals. Many of the proposed solutions are either too complicated, not accurate enough or not comparable across articles, authors and disciplines. The author contribution index presented here addresses these three major issues and has the potential to contribute to more transparency in the science literature. If adopted by scientific journals, it could provide job seekers, recruiters and evaluating bodies with a tool to gather information that is essential to them and cannot be easily and accurately obtained otherwise. We also suggest that scientists use the index regardless of whether it is implemented by journals or not.

Dataset Information

Evaluating the research domain and achievement for a productive researcher who published 114 sole-author articles: A bibliometric analysis.

Publications

Evaluating the research domain and achievement for a productive researcher who published 114 sole-author articles: A bibliometric analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets