Coauthor Country Affiliations in International Collaborative Research Funded by the US National Institutes of Health, 2009 to 2017

The power of partnership: Exploring collaboration dynamics in U.S. transplant research

INTRODUCTION

Collaboration is one of the hallmarks of academic research. This study analyzes collaboration patterns in U.S. transplant research, examining publication trends, productive institutions, co-authorship networks, and citation patterns in high-impact transplant journals.

METHODS

4,265 articles published between 2012 and 2021 were analyzed using scientometric tools, logistic regression, VantagePoint software, and Gephi software for network visualization.

RESULTS

16,003 authors from 1,011 institutions and 59 countries were identified, with Harvard, Johns Hopkins, and University of Pennsylvania contributing the most papers. Odds of international collaboration significantly increased over time (OR 1.03; p ​= ​0.040), while odds of citation in single-institution collaborations decreased (OR 0.99; p ​= ​0.016). Five major scientific communities and central institutions (Harvard University and University of Pittsburgh) connecting them were identified, revealing interconnected research clusters.

CONCLUSIONS

Collaboration enhances knowledge exchange and research productivity, with an increasing trend of institutional and international collaboration in U.S. transplant research. Understanding this community is essential for promoting research impact and forming strategic partnerships.

Global Health Perspectives on Race in Research: Neocolonial Extraction and Local Marginalization

Best practices in global health training prioritize leadership and engagement from investigators from low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), along with conscientious community consultation and research that benefits local participants and autochthonous communities. However, well into the 20th century, international research and clinical care remain rife with paternalism, extractive practices, and racist ideation, with race presumed to explain vulnerability or protection from various diseases, despite scientific evidence for far more precise mechanisms for infectious disease. We highlight experiences in global research on health and illness among indigenous populations in LMICs, seeking to clarify what is both scientifically essential and ethically desirable in research with human subjects; we apply a critical view towards race and racism as historically distorting elements that must be acknowledged and overcome.

The association between research funding status and clinical research papers’ citation impact in Japan: A cross-sectional bibliometric study

Introduction

Studies have not sufficiently clarified the differences in citation impact between funded and non-funded clinical research papers. Hence, this study seeks to evaluate the relation between research funding status and clinical research papers’ citation impact in different research fields using multiple evaluation indices.

Methods

In this cross-sectional bibliometric study, clinical research papers published by core clinical research hospitals in Japan were compared retrospectively in terms of times cited (TC), category normalized citation impact (CNCI), citation percentile (CP), journal impact factor (JIF), the Software to Identify, Manage, and Analyze Scientific Publications (SIGAPS) category, and whether they were the funded clinical research. The association between research funding status or the SIGAPS category and CNCI ≥ 2 was analyzed using logistic regression analysis.

Results

11 core clinical research hospitals published 553 clinical research papers, of which 120 were non-funded and 433 were funded (public institution-funded and industry-funded). The study found that funded clinical research papers (public institution-funded and industry-funded) had significantly higher TC, CNCI, CP, and JIF than non-funded ones [TC: 8 (3–17) vs. 14 (8–31), p < 0.001; CNCI: 0.53 (0.19–0.97) vs. 0.87 (0.45–1.85), p < 0.001; CP: 51.9 (24.48–70.42) vs. 66.7 (40.53–88.01), p < 0.001; JIF: 2.59 (1.90–3.84) vs. 2.93 (2.09–4.20) p = 0.008], while the proportion of A or B rank clinical research papers of the SIGAPS category was not significantly different between the two groups (30.0 vs. 34.9%, p = 0.318). In the logistic regression analysis, having a CNCI ≥ 2 was significantly associated with research funding (public institution-funded and industry-funded) and publication in A or B rank journals of the SIGAPS category [research funding: Estimate 2.169, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.153–4.083, p = 0.016; SIGAPS category A/B: Estimate 6.126, 95% CI 3.889–9.651, p < 0.001].

Conclusion

Analysis via multiple indicators including CNCI and the SIGAPS category, which allows for a comparison of the papers’ citation impact in different research fields, found a positive relation between research funding status and the citation impact of clinical research papers.

Ethical Perspectives of Chinese and United States Physicians at Initiation of a Research Collaborative

Variances in perceived standards regarding research integrity appear to exist between China and the U.S. An established joint institute for translational and clinical research between one Chinese and one U.S. health system provides a valuable venue in which to evaluate these perceptions better. We therefore undertook a survey of 209 physicians at the two institutions in 2013-14. The vast majority of physicians from both institutions understood the necessity of obtaining informed consent from research participants, the need to provide a description of the risks of participation, and the voluntary nature of research participation. However, there were differences in responses between the two sites in willingness to report plagiarism (U.S. 95.65% vs. Chinese 40.21%; p < .0001) and data falsification (U.S. 100% vs. Chinese 81.25%; p < .0001) and in willingness to attend biomedical industry-funded promotional events (U.S. 11.0% vs. Chinese 74.0%; p < .0001). When planning to conduct collaborative clinical research across cultures, particularly when uncertainty regarding the similarity of research cultures exists, exploration of cultural and ethical norms in research may be informative regarding educational needs and the risks of research and academic misconduct.

Advancing science and education through a novel collaboration platform between the University of Michigan and Peking University Health Science Center

Research in China has been advancing over the past decade with increasing investments from government and private entities. Collaboration with Chinese investigators and those in the United States has also increased as reflected in the growth of scientific papers with Chinese authors. Collaborations are more commonly based on faculty‐to‐faculty relationships which can be challenged by institutional or governmental policies. This paper reports on an institution‐to‐ institution collaboration, the Joint Institute for Translational and Clinical Research initiated in 2010 between the University of Michigan Medical School and Peking University Health Science Center, to enable and support collaborative faculty‐initiated research. Concomitant education and training programs have also been co‐developed. Beginning in 2011, 190 proposals from faculty‐to‐faculty partnerships have been submitted from which 59 have been selected for funding. These projects have involved over 138,000 patient subjects and resulted in 86 peer‐reviewed publications to date. Pilot data has been leveraged to secure $27.3 million dollars of extramural funding outside of China. Faculty and trainee exchanges take place regularly including an annual symposium with mechanisms to link faculty who are seeking partnerships by utilizing each other's complementary strengths and resources. As the collaboration enters its second decade, both institutions believe that the model offers a unique platform to promote faculty‐initiated collaborative research. Next steps include funding studies in prioritized scientific themes, and promoting access to high‐quality cohorts to attract industry partners and to develop sustainable financial models.