Co-authorship Of Publications Research Articles

Monodisciplinary collaboration disrupts science more than multidisciplinary collaboration

AbstractCollaboration across disciplines is a critical form of scientific collaboration to solve complex problems and make innovative contributions. This study focuses on the association between multidisciplinary collaboration measured by coauthorship in publications and the disruption of publications measured by the Disruption (D) index. We used authors' affiliations as a proxy of the disciplines to which they belong and categorized an article into multidisciplinary collaboration or monodisciplinary collaboration. The D index quantifies the extent to which a study disrupts its predecessors. We selected 13 journals that publish articles in six disciplines from the Microsoft Academic Graph (MAG) database and then constructed regression models with fixed effects and estimated the relationship between the variables. The findings show that articles with monodisciplinary collaboration are more disruptive than those with multidisciplinary collaboration. Furthermore, we uncovered the mechanism of how monodisciplinary collaboration disrupts science more than multidisciplinary collaboration by exploring the references of the sampled publications.

The Danish-American Research Exchange (DARE): a cross-sectional study of a binational research education program

BackgroundMost medical educational programs emphasize clinical observation or clinical skill acquisition, fewer focus upon research. The Danish-American Research Exchange (DARE) program, sponsored by the Lundbeck Foundation, is unique in that the medical student initiates biomedical research collaboration between Danish and US medical institutions. To achieve this, Danish medical students (DARE students) conduct binational mentored research projects while based in the United States for 10 months. In addition, DARE students are introduced to interdisciplinary thinking about how to develop ultra-low-cost healthcare interventions through the ‘$10 Challenge’.MethodsWe conducted a cross-sectional study of DARE alumni over five consecutive years (2015–2020, n = 24). Research metrics included completion of a research project, primary authorship, and co-authorship of publications. The number of publications, prior to and after the DARE program were enumerated. For the first four cohorts, graduation from medical school and acceptance or intention to enter a joint MD-PhD program also were assessed. Two focus groups were conducted using constructivist grounded theory. Discussions were transcribed, redacted, and coded using Dedoose software.ResultsDARE Medical students were 31.2 years (range 24–35), the majority were women (67%;16/24). The majority (17/24;71%) completed a first author publication in a peer-reviewed journal with a median of 3.9 per DARE alumnus. DARE alumnus reported increased proficiency in biostatistics, epidemiology, coding and public speaking as well as stronger research qualities in creativity, critical thinking, comfort in approaching scientist in both the US and Denmark (p < 0.001 for all). Qualitative key themes included: increased confidence, a deepening of research inquiry and linkage to a research network.ConclusionsPreliminarily, this study suggests that medical students can initiate binational collaboration in medicine. Benefits include research productivity, intention to pursue academic medical careers, as well as positive impacts on motivation. This medical student-initiated research model lays the groundwork for using this model across other country pairs to promote binational collaboration.

MULTİPLE SKLEROZ’DA REHABİLİTASYONUN BİLİMSEL HARİTALAMA YÖNTEMİYLE ANALİZİ

This study is about scientific analysis of Multiple sclerosis rehabilitation. For this purpose, scientific mapping method was used in the analysis of publications. Scientific studies published in the Web of Science (WoS) database on rehabilitation in patients with multiple sclerosis between 1986-2021 were analyzed by bibliometric analysis method. VOSviewer package program was used to analyze the data. The data were analyzed in terms of variables such as the author of the publications, countries, active journal, citations, institutions, keywords. As a result of the study, regarding the publications on multiple sclerosis and its rehabilitation; the highest number of studies were published between 2018-2021, with the USA in the first place in this regard; Researchers affiliated with the University of Alabama Birmingham have the most publications on this subject; most publications were published in the journal Disability and Rehabilitation; the researcher who contributed the most to the subject is Robert W. Motl; It was seen that the most cited publication on multiple sclerosis belongs to Kurtzke JF. From Turkey, Idiman E. is at the forefront of the names that contribute to this field. As a result of the findings, it has been observed that the publications on multiple sclerosis and its rehabilitation have increased in recent years. This study can provide researchers with useful information about research directions and limitations, and coauthorship of publications. Focus on research base and collaborations should be increased for high quality multiple sclerosis rehabilitation studies.

Scientific Collaboration Network Views: A Brazilian Computer Science Graduate Programs Case

Scientific collaboration networks can present different views of researchers’ interactions. This work presents SCI-synergy, an online navigable artifact aiming to promote mechanisms and views of scientific collaboration networks. The artifact focuses on the researchers’ interaction in the co-authorship of publications considering intra- and interprogram relationships. SCI-synergy is developed upon the design science research paradigm using scientific publication data available on the large Digital Bibliography &amp; Library Project (DBLP) repository. Official data from the Sucupira repository of six Brazilian graduate program members including Federal University of Minas Gerais (UFMG), State University of São Paulo (USP), Federal University of Rio Grande do Norte (UFRN), Federal University of Amazonas (UFAM), University of Brasília (UnB), and University of Vale do Rio dos Sinos (UNISINOS) is used. Data from these graduate programs illustrate the artifact usage regarding the scientific collaboration network of each program, how each researcher cooperates, and what relationship patterns exist in intra- and inter-programs views. We advocate that, even though it is necessary to consider data from each program’s history and current contextualization regarding politics, economics, and administration, the collaboration network views provided by SCI-synergy might help to understand collaboration network patterns.

408 Network Analysis of Neurosurgical Publication Coauthorship: Centrality Ranking of Authors and Institutions with Correlation to Clinical Activity and Industry Payments

INTRODUCTION: Network analysis has been applied in a number of fields to understand relationships between members of different communities and organizations. METHODS: All publications from January 1, 2017, to April 30, 2020, were queried from 4 neurosurgical journals: Neurosurgery, Journal of Neurosurgery, Journal of Neurosurgery: Pediatrics, and Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine. Publication type excluded editorials, letters, and reviews. Authors with at least 7 publications in these journals were included. Measures of network centrality were calculated after conversion of authorship into a nondirected graph with links weighted by frequency of coauthorship. Latent communities in the network were detected with the Walktrap algorithm. RESULTS: Based on 811 included authors, network topology broadly demonstrated 4 poles related to subspecialties of vascular, spine, pediatrics, and radiosurgery/tumor. Of the top 100 coauthorship links, 42% of the authors were involved in 2 large study groups. We present rankings of neurosurgical authors based on network measures of centrality and evaluate how centrality metrics correlate to individual author h-index, Medicare utilization, and payments from industry sources. We further evaluate network centrality of institutions and examine institutional connectivity to discovered communities within the network. CONCLUSION: While traditional metrics like h-index demonstrate long-term research involvement, network analysis can be applied to understand current relationships between academic authors and evaluate centrality within a publishing network during a given timeframe.

Modern science metrics and methods of its improvement

Objective. The existing approach to assessing the publication activity of scientific, higher educational institutions and scientists (including through the Russian Scientific Citation Index) does not reflect the true effectiveness of their scientific activities. Key indicators for assessing publication activity - the citation index and the Hirsch index are formed on the basis of the data provided by the RSCI and cannot reliably establish the authorship of the publication, the contribution of each coauthor, and the methodology for accruing indicators of scientific activity requires serious adjustment and improvement. The existing methodology for assessing publication activity stimulates multiple coauthorship in publications, to which the co-authors are often not directly related, which distorts the science-metric indicators, stimulates immutation science and increases citation indicators due to unjustified self-citation. In this regard, the subject of the study is the state of scientifometry and the methods used to evaluate publication activity. The aim of the study is to develop a methodology for assessing the publication activity of authors and organizations. Method. As a method of research, system analysis, geometric modeling, and mathematical calculations are used. Result. As a result, a methodology for evaluating scientifometric indicators was developed, a methodology for calculating a new index of publication activity was developed, a geometric and mathematical model of the new index was presented. Conclusion. The developed index of publication activity makes it possible to more accurately take into account all indicators of the effectiveness of scientific activity: the credibility of the journal and the author, the total number of citations; co-authorship; publication activity of the last five years, etc.

An Open Letter to Wildlife Graduate Students: Ideas to Consider When Publishing

An Open Letter to Wildlife Graduate Students: Ideas to Consider When Publishing

How to Determine the Order of Authorship for Social Work Research

Purpose: Coauthorship is a means for assessing each contributor’s effort on a joint publication. This study aims to identify methods to determine publication coauthorship for crediting effort and order. Method: The research team searched for a framework to affirm the decision-making process when preparing for a coauthored publication by analyzing existing literature and published guidelines in authorship determination. Results: Four coauthorship principles—fairness, accountability, transparency, and effort (FATE)—were described with guidelines. The FATE framework helped the team develop a checklist for scholars to document their research productivity in collaborative projects. Examples of questions were derived from the framework to stimulate educational discussions and collaborative research ideas. Discussion: The coauthorship checklist could provide support for mentors to evaluate their protégés’ performance. Further research is needed to justify its application for initiating conversations about coauthorship. Operational guidelines should also be developed to prevent biases in reporting effort contributions.

The Role of Organizational Foci and Physical Proximity in Scientific Collaboration

This paper examines how organizational foci (i.e., shared affiliations within an institution), disciplinary diversity, and physical proximity shape scientific collaboration and research outcomes. We examine scientific collaboration (via publication co-authorship) among 1138 biomedical faculty members over a 10-year period at a medical school in the United States. We use archival data to measure organizational foci (shared institutional affiliations at the medical school such as secondary appointments and center/institute membership), physical proximity (walking distance among collaborators), and disciplinary diversity (different departments). Modeling both the dyadic and team level of analysis, we find that collaborations are more likely to form and persist among faculty with more overlapping organizational foci, and this association is moderated by the physical proximity of collaborators. We also find the positive influence of team disciplinary diversity on publication impact is significantly reduced as the physical proximity among collaborators is reduced. These results support the idea that organizational foci and physical proximity, which can lower the cost of interaction, can alleviate some of the coordination issues that can arise with higher team diversity. We discuss the implications for future research on team science, managerial practice regarding office space allocation, and strategic planning of initiatives aimed at promoting interdisciplinary collaboration.

Enhancing Research Impact in Heritage Conservation

ABSTRACTThis paper examines how research impact is defined, measured, and generated – with a view to understanding how it can be enhanced within heritage conservation. It examines what is meant by ‘impact’ and how it can be promoted within heritage science through effective inter-disciplinary collaboration. Following a general examination of the current discourse concerning research impact, the study examined: (i) active research networks within heritage science; (ii) research planning and evaluation practices within heritage science; and (iii) the experiences of users (i.e. conservators and other heritage professionals) within research collaborations. Terminologies surrounding the notion of impact and the various phases of the research process were reviewed – from the initial identification of a knowledge gap to the eventual application of new findings in practice. Next, the reach and diversity of research collaborations (as identified through publication co-authorship) were studied to characterise the inter-disciplinary nature of heritage science and its connectedness to users. Findings showed substantial growth in international research collaborations over recent years, predominantly involving academic- and research-oriented institutions – although the engagement of heritage institutions has proportionally decreased. In addition, a worldwide survey of institutional planning and evaluation practices revealed a general reliance on processes driven by the interests of researchers – the systematic consideration of stakeholder opinion and evaluation of research outcomes being less common. Finally, a series of semi-structured interviews with senior heritage professionals explored their experience of collaborative research. The results identified key areas where strategic support is needed to promote user participation and enhance impact. These include training for research readiness, engagement, and impact for both researchers and users; better methods for needs and outcome assessment; affordable open access options and greater diversity of knowledge exchange opportunities. Finally, the need for ethical guidelines for responsible research, and greater emphasis on non-academic impact within research rating systems are discussed.

A Research Graph dataset for connecting research data repositories using RD-Switchboard

This paper describes the open access graph dataset that shows the connections between Dryad, CERN, ANDS and other international data repositories to publications and grants across multiple research data infrastructures. The graph dataset was created using the Research Graph data model and the Research Data Switchboard (RD-Switchboard), a collaborative project by the Research Data Alliance DDRI Working Group (DDRI WG) with the aim to discover and connect the related research datasets based on publication co-authorship or jointly funded grants. The graph dataset allows researchers to trace and follow the paths to understanding a body of work. By mapping the links between research datasets and related resources, the graph dataset improves both their discovery and visibility, while avoiding duplicate efforts in data creation. Ultimately, the linked datasets may spur novel ideas, facilitate reproducibility and re-use in new applications, stimulate combinatorial creativity, and foster collaborations across institutions.

La red de co-autores en la Bibliometría mexicana

Se analiza la red de coautorías existentes en las publicaciones sobre las metrías (bibliometría, informetría, cienciometría, patentometría, etc.) en México, desde la década de los 70s hasta diciembre de 2012. Se utilizó el análisis de redes sociales a través del software Ucinet 6.0 y Netdraw. Los análisis muestran una red altamente centralizada. La densidad global de la red indica una red de baja densidad comunicacional que hace una utilización efectiva de una quinta parte de los vínculos reales sobre el total de vínculos posibles entre todos los autores de la red. El grado de centralidad identifica once autores como los componentes estructurales de la red de bibliometría mexicana. Los coeficientes del grado de cercanía indican que tanto la lejanía como la cercanía son homogéneas. En relación con el grado de intermediación se encontró que no existe una red ampliamente extendida sino la dominancia de un pequeño grupo de tres autores. La distancia geodésica identificó un único autor bien conectado a otros autores también muy bien posicionados en la red. No se identificaron cliques ni n-cliques en la red de coautoría de la bibliometría mexicana.

Data From: A Research Graph dataset for connecting research data repositories using RD-Switchboard

This paper describes the open access graph dataset that shows the connections between Dryad, CERN, ANDS and other international data repositories to publications and grants across multiple research data infrastructures. The graph dataset was created using the Research Graph data model and the Research Data Switchboard (RD-Switchboard), a collaborative project by the Research Data Alliance DDRI Working Group (DDRI WG) with the aim to discover and connect the related research datasets based on publication co-Authorship or jointly funded grants. The graph dataset allows researchers to trace and follow the paths to understanding a body of work. By mapping the links between research datasets and related resources, the graph dataset improves both their discovery and visibility, while avoiding duplicate efforts in data creation. Ultimately, the linked datasets may spur novel ideas, facilitate reproducibility and re-use in new applications, stimulate combinatorial creativity, and foster collaborations across institutions. © The Author(s) 2018.

Institution-level collaboration in cardiovascular research in sub-Saharan Africa.

The contribution of sub-Saharan Africa to scientific knowledge on cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention and care is very limited compared to other regions of the world. This underlies the challenge of understanding and addressing the high prevalence of risk factors for CVD in sub-Saharan Africa. The patterns of collaboration between institutions in the region in the area of cardiovascular research are not well documented, although there is evidence of significant collaboration in health research between Africa-based researchers and those in countries outside the region. This study focuses on mapping the linkages between institutions in this region using co-authorship of publications in cardiovascular research from 2005 to 2014. The key institutions in sub-Saharan Africa which engaged in collaboration are identified and the potential of these networks for stimulating the growth of research capacity in this field is discussed.

The Internationalization of Research in Europe

This article focuses on the impact of international research collaboration on individual research productivity in 11 European countries. Research productivity and international publication co-authorship of “internationalists” and “locals” (or academics collaborating and not collaborating internationally) are compared. The article uses a micro-level (individual) approach and relies on the primary data collected in a comparable format through a survey from 17,211 European academics. In all countries and all clusters of academic fields studied, international collaboration in research is strongly correlated with substantially higher research productions. Internationalization increasingly plays a stratifying role, though: More international collaboration tends to mean higher publishing rates and those who do not collaborate internationally may be losing more than ever before in terms of resources and prestige in the process of “accumulative disadvantage.” The competition is becoming a permanent feature of the European research landscape, and local prestige combined with local publications may no longer suffice in the race for resources and academic recognition. Cross-disciplinary and cross-national differences apply but our study shows a powerful role of internationalization of research for both individual research productivity and the competitiveness of national research outputs.

The Internationalization of the Academic Profession in Europe. A Quantitative Study of 11 National Systems

This paper explores various aspects of the internationalization of the academic profession in Europe, using a micro-level (individual) approach which relies on the primary data collected in a comparable format from 17,211 European academics from 11 countries. It focuses, in particular, on 1) the patterns of internationalization of teaching, research, and publishing in hard vs. soft clusters of academic fields and on 2) the role of international research cooperation in individual research productivity. Research productivity and international publication co-authorship of “internationalists” and “locals” (or academics collaborating and not collaborating internationally) across Europe are compared. Finally, policy implications of the study for national research policies are briefly discussed.

Authorship equity in global surgery research from low- and middle-income countries (LMICs)

Background: The field of global surgery has resulted in fostered many collaborations between highand low-/middleincome researchers. Publication co-authorship is one proxy to determine if these relationships are equitable. In this study, we examined the literature to identify potential research authorship inequality. Structure/Method/Design: Web of Science search was used searched to search identify studies conducted in lowand middle-income countries (LMICs) from 2008 to 2013. OnlySearch terms included names of LMICs, was limited to primary research articles and that focused on general surgery (and its subspecialties), obstetrics and gynecology, orthopedics, urology, otorhinolaryngology, ophthalmology, and neurosurgery were included. Search terms included the names of all LMICs. An author was considered local if their affiliations were in the country where the research was conducted. Results (Scientific Abstract)/Collaborative Partners (Programmatic Abstract): 5366 articles were analyzed with a mean percentage of local authors per article of 75%. This proportion varied by region; Central Asia had the highest percentage local authorship (93%) and Sub-Saharan Africa had the lowest (60%) (P < 0.001). Articles from low-income countries had lower proportion of local authorship (43%) compared with upper-middle-income countries (83%, P < 0.001) based on World Bank income zones. However, individual countries’ gross domestic product per capita was not significantly correlated with authorship percentages. Of the articles analyzed, 4120 (77%) had a local first author. Articles with local first authors had a much higher percentage of overall local authorship (94%) compared with articles where the first author was not local (13%). Journal impact factor did not correlate with the proportion of local authors per article in this study. Summary/Conclusion: As global surgery research expands, it is important to promote equal partnerships between local investigators and high-income country collaborators. These findings suggest that surgical researchers in LMICs have been recognized in publication authorship in collaborative studies. Further research is needed to evaluate if this translates into increased or equal research capacity.

Conducting a nationwide nutrition assessment of micronutrient status and intake in Mongolian adult population

Background: The field of global surgery has resulted in fostered many collaborations between highand low-/middleincome researchers. Publication co-authorship is one proxy to determine if these relationships are equitable. In this study, we examined the literature to identify potential research authorship inequality. Structure/Method/Design: Web of Science search was used searched to search identify studies conducted in lowand middle-income countries (LMICs) from 2008 to 2013. OnlySearch terms included names of LMICs, was limited to primary research articles and that focused on general surgery (and its subspecialties), obstetrics and gynecology, orthopedics, urology, otorhinolaryngology, ophthalmology, and neurosurgery were included. Search terms included the names of all LMICs. An author was considered local if their affiliations were in the country where the research was conducted. Results (Scientific Abstract)/Collaborative Partners (Programmatic Abstract): 5366 articles were analyzed with a mean percentage of local authors per article of 75%. This proportion varied by region; Central Asia had the highest percentage local authorship (93%) and Sub-Saharan Africa had the lowest (60%) (P < 0.001). Articles from low-income countries had lower proportion of local authorship (43%) compared with upper-middle-income countries (83%, P < 0.001) based on World Bank income zones. However, individual countries’ gross domestic product per capita was not significantly correlated with authorship percentages. Of the articles analyzed, 4120 (77%) had a local first author. Articles with local first authors had a much higher percentage of overall local authorship (94%) compared with articles where the first author was not local (13%). Journal impact factor did not correlate with the proportion of local authors per article in this study. Summary/Conclusion: As global surgery research expands, it is important to promote equal partnerships between local investigators and high-income country collaborators. These findings suggest that surgical researchers in LMICs have been recognized in publication authorship in collaborative studies. Further research is needed to evaluate if this translates into increased or equal research capacity.

Motif-based success scores in coauthorship networks are highly sensitive to author name disambiguation.

Following the work of Krumov etal. [Eur. Phys. J. B 84, 535 (2011)] we revisit the question whether the usage of large citation datasets allows for the quantitative assessment of social (by means of coauthorship of publications) influence on the progression of science. Applying a more comprehensive and well-curated dataset containing the publications in the journals of the American Physical Society during the whole 20th century we find that the measure chosen in the original study, a score based on small induced subgraphs, has to be used with caution, since the obtained results are highly sensitive to the exact implementation of the author disambiguation task.

Comparison Between Two Five Year Periods (1998/2002 and 2003/2007) on the Production, Impact and co-Authorship of Publications on Tobacco and Smoking by Spanish Authors Using the Science Citation Index

Objective The aim of this study was to compare the production, impact and co-authorship of publications by Spanish authors on smoking and tobacco between two time periods (1998/2002 vs. 2003/2007) using Science Citation Index (SCI). Methods The literature search was performed in the SCI-Expanded on 20 November 2008. All types of documents by Spanish authors were selected. The search was restricted to the title, and the key words used were “smok*” and “tobac*”. The statistical analysis was descriptive (95% CI). Results A total of 588 documents were retrieved, with 399 (67.85%) original papers, 54 (9.18%) letters to the editor and 35 (5.95%) editorials. Productivity increased from the 98/02 to the 03/07 period: 234 (39.8%) documents versus 354 (60.2%), respectively. We have found significant differences between the two periods (98/02 vs. 03/07) in total mean annual documents (47 ± 8 vs. 71 ± 16 [p = 0.024]) and total mean annual original papers (34 ± 6 vs. 46 ± 9 [p = 0.041]). The mean number of citations per document was 14.1 ± 2.1 for the 98/02 period and 5.6 ± 2.5 for the 03/07 period (p = 0.003). The co-authorship annual index had increased, with a mean of 6.77 signatures/document for the 98/02 period to a mean of 6.87 for the 03/07 period. Author and institution network collaborations had increased from one period to the next. Conclusions Spanish scientific production and co-authorship of documents on smoking and tobacco have increased from one period to the next. The documents from the earlier period receive more citations.