Dataset Information

Visualization of knowledge flow in interpersonal scientific collaboration network endocrinology and metabolism research institute.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

Research collaborations can help to increase scientific productivity. The purpose of the present study was to draw up the knowledge flow network of the Endocrinology and Metabolism Research Institute (EMRI) affiliated to Tehran University of Medical Sciences.

Methods

The present study is a descriptive cross-sectional study on the publications of the EMRI. Web of Science Core collection databases were searched for the EMRI publications between 2002 to November 2019. Besides, publications were classified and visualized based on authorships (institutes and country of affiliation), and keywords (co-occurrence and trend). Scientometric methods including VOSviewer and HistCite were used for descriptive statistics and data analysis.

Results

Total citations to the records were 47,528 and papers were published in 916 journals. The annual growth rate of publications and the citation was 14.2% and 18.9%, respectively. A total of 9466 authors from 136 countries collaborated in the publications. The co-authorship patterns showed that the average co-authorship and collaboration coefficient was 3.3 and 0.19.

Conclusion

Knowledge flow between EMRI researchers with international collaborations, engagement with leading countries, and interdisciplinary collaborations have an increasing trend. To develop a full picture of co-authorship, using social network analysis indicators are suggested for future studies.

SUBMITTER: Shahmoradi L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8212232 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Domain analysis by means of scientific collaboration enables evidencing aspects that are involved in the establishment of relationships between researchers and institutions, such as the influence of institutional management models for the development of collaborative networks. This article aims to analyze the domain through the scientific collaboration network of the National Institute of the Atlantic Forest (INMA), a research unit currently affiliated to the Brazilian Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation (MCTI), formerly known as the Professor Mello Leitão Museum of Biology (MBML), in order to acknowledge the institutional research identity in its historical journey as a public institution. It is thus analyzed how co-authorship constitutes this network and what research profile it reveals. Co-authorship analysis is adopted as a methodology, as well as the analysis of administrative documents with the survey and categorization of employees, regarding their types of ties to the institution, combined with searches in the Scopus database for the corroboration of institutional affiliations. A corpus of 138 articles published by 41 researchers from 1993 to 2019 is consolidated in this base, which represents 44% of the Institute's total research collaborators (93 collaborators). Of these 41, 92.5% have temporary links, such as scholarship holders and/or volunteers, with the remaining being public workers. It is recognized that the citation impact of the scientific production of scholarship holders, consigned to the Institute, is less than the citation impact of the volunteers' and public workers' production. It is evidenced that eight of the ten publications with the greatest impact and thematic prominence correspond to the field of zoology, with emphasis on the fields of herpetology and primatology. Macro-level collaborative relations are more intense with the United States, in both areas mentioned, covering 16% of the total corpus of articles in cooperation with that country. Zoology, besides its greater impact, accounts for more than half of the corpus production (65.9%).On the other hand, botany is responsible for 30.4% of the corpus, with its dispersed international cooperation in a broad variety of countries. Individual authorship articles are 57% consigned to botany. In summary, the accomplished analysis will contribute to the development of institutional domain analysis methodologies that present scientific collaboration as a basic procedure.

Project description:ObjectiveScientific authorship is a vital marker of achievement in academic careers and gender equity is a key performance metric in research. However, there is little understanding of gender equity in publications in biomedical research centres funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR). This study assesses the gender parity in scientific authorship of biomedical research.DesignDescriptive, cross-sectional, retrospective bibliometric study.SettingNIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre (BRC).DataData comprised 2409 publications that were either accepted or published between April 2012 and March 2017. The publications were classified as basic science studies, clinical studies (both trial and non-trial studies) and other studies (comments, editorials, systematic reviews, reviews, opinions, book chapters, meeting reports, guidelines and protocols).Main outcome measuresGender of authors, defined as a binary variable comprising either male or female categories, in six authorship categories: first author, joint first authors, first corresponding author, joint corresponding authors, last author and joint last authors.ResultsPublications comprised 39% clinical research (n=939), 27% basic research (n=643) and 34% other types of research (n=827). The proportion of female authors as first author (41%), first corresponding authors (34%) and last author (23%) was statistically significantly lower than male authors in these authorship categories (p<0.001). Of total joint first authors (n=458), joint corresponding authors (n=169) and joint last authors (n=229), female only authors comprised statistically significant (p<0.001) smaller proportions, that is, 15% (n=69), 29% (n=49) and 10% (n=23) respectively, compared with male only authors in these joint authorship categories. There was a statistically significant association between gender of the last author with gender of the first author (p<0.001), first corresponding author (p<0.001) and joint last author (p<0.001). The mean journal impact factor (JIF) was statistically significantly higher when the first corresponding author was male compared with female (Mean JIF: 10.00 vs 8.77, p=0.020); however, the JIF was not statistically different when there were male and female authors as first authors and last authors.ConclusionsAlthough the proportion of female authors is significantly lower than the proportion of male authors in all six categories of authorship analysed, the proportions of male and female last authors are comparable to their respective proportions as principal investigators in the BRC. These findings suggest positive trends and the NIHR Oxford BRC doing very well in gender parity in the senior (last) authorship category. Male corresponding authors are more likely to publish articles in prestigious journals with high impact factor while both male and female authors at first and last authorship positions publish articles in equally prestigious journals.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Text mining (TM) methods have been used extensively to extract relations and events from the literature. In addition, TM techniques have been used to extract various types or dimensions of interpretative information, known as Meta-Knowledge (MK), from the context of relations and events, e.g. negation, speculation, certainty and knowledge type. However, most existing methods have focussed on the extraction of individual dimensions of MK, without investigating how they can be combined to obtain even richer contextual information. In this paper, we describe a novel, supervised method to extract new MK dimensions that encode Research Hypotheses (an author's intended knowledge gain) and New Knowledge (an author's findings). The method incorporates various features, including a combination of simple MK dimensions. METHODS:We identify previously explored dimensions and then use a random forest to combine these with linguistic features into a classification model. To facilitate evaluation of the model, we have enriched two existing corpora annotated with relations and events, i.e., a subset of the GENIA-MK corpus and the EU-ADR corpus, by adding attributes to encode whether each relation or event corresponds to Research Hypothesis or New Knowledge. In the GENIA-MK corpus, these new attributes complement simpler MK dimensions that had previously been annotated. RESULTS:We show that our approach is able to assign different types of MK dimensions to relations and events with a high degree of accuracy. Firstly, our method is able to improve upon the previously reported state of the art performance for an existing dimension, i.e., Knowledge Type. Secondly, we also demonstrate high F1-score in predicting the new dimensions of Research Hypothesis (GENIA: 0.914, EU-ADR 0.802) and New Knowledge (GENIA: 0.829, EU-ADR 0.836). CONCLUSION:We have presented a novel approach for predicting New Knowledge and Research Hypothesis, which combines simple MK dimensions to achieve high F1-scores. The extraction of such information is valuable for a number of practical TM applications.

Project description:Background Limited knowledge and unclear underlying biology of many rare diseases pose significant challenges to patients, clinicians, and scientists. To address these challenges, there is an urgent need to inspire and encourage scientists to propose and pursue innovative research studies that aim to uncover the genetic and molecular causes of more rare diseases and ultimately to identify effective therapeutic solutions. A clear understanding of current research efforts, knowledge/research gaps, and funding patterns as scientific evidence is crucial to systematically accelerate the pace of research discovery in rare diseases, which is an overarching goal of this study. Methods To semantically represent NIH funding data for rare diseases and advance its use of effectively promoting rare disease research, we identified NIH funded projects for rare diseases by mapping GARD diseases to the project based on project titles; subsequently we presented and managed those identified projects in a knowledge graph using Neo4j software, hosted at NCATS, based on a pre-defined data model that captures semantics among the data. With this developed knowledge graph, we were able to perform several case studies to demonstrate scientific evidence generation for supporting rare disease research discovery. Results Of 5001 rare diseases belonging to 32 distinct disease categories, we identified 1294 diseases that are mapped to 45,647 distinct, NIH-funded projects obtained from the NIH ExPORTER by implementing semantic annotation of project titles. To capture semantic relationships presenting amongst mapped research funding data, we defined a data model comprised of seven primary classes and corresponding object and data properties. A Neo4j knowledge graph based on this predefined data model has been developed, and we performed multiple case studies over this knowledge graph to demonstrate its use in directing and promoting rare disease research. Conclusion We developed an integrative knowledge graph with rare disease funding data and demonstrated its use as a source from where we can effectively identify and generate scientific evidence to support rare disease research. With the success of this preliminary study, we plan to implement advanced computational approaches for analyzing more funding related data, e.g., project abstracts and PubMed article abstracts, and linking to other types of biomedical data to perform more sophisticated research gap analysis and identify opportunities for future research in rare diseases. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13023-021-02120-9.