Toward a science of translational science

Bibliometric and social network analysis of a Clinical and Translational Resource awardee: An Oklahoma experience 2014-2021

Background

Social Network Analysis is a method of analyzing coauthorship networks or relationships through graph theory. Institutional Development Award (IDeA) Networks for Clinical and Translational Research (IDeA-CTR) was designed to expand the capability for clinical and translational research to enhance National Institutes of Health funding.

Methods

All publications from a cohort of clinical and translational scientists in Oklahoma were collected through a PubMed search for 2014 through 2021 in October 2022. For this study's bibliometric portion, we pulled the citations from iCite in November of 2022.

Results

There were 2,391 articles published in 1,019 journals. The number of papers published by year increased from 56 in 2014 to 448 in 2021. The network had an average of 6.4 authors per paper, with this increasing by year from 5.3 in 2014 to 6.9 in 2021. The average journal impact factor for the overall network was 7.19, with a range from 0.08 to 202.73. The Oklahoma Shared Clinical and Translational Resources (OSCTR) network is a small world network with relatively weak ties.

Conclusions

This study provides an overview of coauthorship in an IDeA-CTR collaboration. We show the growth and structure of coauthorship in OSCTR, highlighting the importance of understanding and fostering collaboration within research networks.

One size does not fit all: an exploratory interview study on how translational researchers navigate the current academic reward system

Introduction

Translational research is a subfield of the biomedical life sciences that focuses on clinically driven healthcare innovations. The workforce of this subfield, i.e., translational researchers, are diversely specialized and collaborate with a multitude of stakeholders from diverse disciplines in and outside academia in order to navigate the complex path of translating unmet clinical needs into research questions and ultimately into advancements for patient care. Translational researchers have varying responsibilities in the clinical, educational, and research domains requiring them to split their time two- or three-ways. Working between these domains and alongside peers who do not split their time as such, raises questions about the academic reward system used to recognize their performance, which mainly focuses on publication metrics within the research domain. What is unclear is how combining research tasks with tasks in the clinical and/or educational domains effects translational researchers and how they navigate the academic reward system.

Methods

In this exploratory interview study, semi-structured interviews were conducted to gain a deeper understanding of the current academic reward system for translational researchers. Stratified purposeful sampling was used to recruit 14 translational researchers from varying countries, subspecialties, and career stages. The interviews were coded after data collection was complete and arranged into three overarching result categories: intrinsic motivation, extrinsic factors, and ideal academic reward system and advice.

Results

We found that these 14 translational researchers were intrinsically motivated to achieve their translational goals while working in settings where clinical work was reported to take priority over teaching which in turn took priority over time for research. However, it is the latter that was explained to be essential in the academic reward system which currently measures scientific impact largely based on publications metrics.

Conclusion

In this study, translational researchers were asked about their thoughts regarding the current academic reward system. Participants shared possible structural improvements and ideas for specialized support on an individual, institutional, and also international level. Their recommendations focused on acknowledging all aspects of their work and led to the conclusion that traditional quantitative academic reward metrics do not fully align with their translational goals.

Methods for identifying biomedical translation: a systematic review

Translational medicine is an important area of biomedicine, and has significantly facilitated the development of biomedical research. Despite its relevance, there is no consensus on how to evaluate its progress and impact. A systematic review was carried out to identify all the methods to evaluate translational research. Seven methods were found according to the established criteria to analyze their characteristics, advantages, and limitations. They allow us to perform this type of evaluation in different ways. No relevant advantages were found between them; each one presented its specific limitations that need to be considered. Nevertheless, the Triangle of Biomedicine could be considered the most relevant method, concerning the time since its publication and usefulness. In conclusion, there is still a lack of a gold-standard method for evaluating biomedical translational research.

How 3D Printing Is Reshaping Translational Research

"Translational Research" has traditionally been defined as taking basic scientific findings and developing new diagnostic tools, drugs, devices and treatment options for patients, that are translated into practice, reach the people and populations for whom they are intended and are implemented correctly. The implication is of a unidirectional flow from "the bench to bedside". The rapidly emergent field of additive manufacturing (3D printing) is contributing to a major shift in translational medical research. This includes the concept of bidirectional or reverse translation, early collaboration between clinicians, bio-engineers and basic scientists, and an increasingly entrepreneurial mindset. This coincides with, and is strongly complemented by, the rise of systems biology. The rapid pace at which this type of translational research can occur brings a variety of potential pitfalls and ethical concerns. Regulation surrounding implantable medical devices is struggling to keep up. 3D printing has opened the way for personalization which can make clinical outcomes hard to assess and risks putting the individual before the community. In some instances, novelty and hype has led to loss of transparency of outcomes with dire consequence. Collaboration with commercial partners has potential for conflict of interest. Nevertheless, 3D printing has dramatically changed the landscape of translational research. With early recognition and management of the potential risks, the benefits of reshaping the approach to translational research are enormous. This impact will extend into many other areas of biomedical research, re-establishing that science is more than a body of research. It is a way of thinking.

Content Analysis of Dissertations for Examination of Priority Areas of Nursing Science

BACKGROUND

Based on current and future research priorities to inform Ph.D. education, emerging and priority areas were developed through the Idea Festival Advisory Committee of the Council for the Advancement of Nursing Science.

PURPOSE

The Purpose of this study was to examine the bibliographic, methodologic, study topic characteristics, and emerging and priority areas of two randomly selected samples of nursing doctoral dissertations from the Proquest Digital Dissertations and Theses database between January 2017 and September 2018.

METHODS

Using human- (N = 101) and computer-coding (N = 242), we analyzed text data using descriptive statistics and data visualization.

FINDINGS

Health behavior (32.7%) and quantitative sciences (17.8%) were the most common emerging and priority areas, and translation science and -omics/microbiome were absent. Health, practice, education, and leadership were four study topic themes.

DISCUSSION

This approach may serve as a metric for the state of Ph.D. nursing education. A replication study is recommended in three to five years.

A Bibliometric Measure of Translational Science

Science funders are increasingly requiring evidence of the broader impacts of even basic research. Initiatives such as NIH's CTSA program are designed to shift the research focus toward more translational research. However, tracking the effectiveness of such programs depends on developing indicators that can track the degree to which basic research is influencing clinical research. We propose a new bibliometric indicator, the TS score, that is relatively simple to calculate, can be implemented at scale, is easy to replicate, and has good reliability and validity properties. This indicator is broadly applicable in settings where the goal is to estimate the degree to which basic research is used in more applied downstream research, relative to use in basic research. The TS score should be of use for a variety of policy analysis and research evaluation purposes.

Speed of Online and Print Peer-Reviewed Ophthalmology Publications and Correlation to Journal Bibliometric Measures

Objective This study aimed to explore the relationship between publishing speeds and peer-reviewed journal bibliometric measures in ophthalmology.

Methods Journal Citation Reports and Scopus Database were accessed for identification of journal bibliometric measures in ophthalmology. Twelve randomly selected articles from 2018 for all identified journals were studied. All outcome measures were extracted from the full text of articles and correlated with journal bibliometric measures. Statistical analysis was performed on measured parameters in comparison to a previous study.

Main Outcomes and Measures Journal impact factor, Eigenfactor score, and CiteScore were correlated with time from submission or acceptance of manuscripts to online and print publication. The correlation between study design and publishing speeds was also assessed.

Results A total of 55 journals were included for a total of 657 articles. Online publications were significantly faster than print publications for almost every journal (p < 0.001). Laboratory experimental studies had significantly shorter times from submission to online publication (p = 0.002) and acceptance to online publication (p < 0.001) compared with observational and interventional studies. Journal impact factor was positively correlated to publishing speed from acceptance to online publication (p = 0.034). CiteScore was positively correlated to speed from submission to print publication (p = 0.04), acceptance to print publication (p = 0.013), and acceptance to online publication (p = 0.003). Eigenfactor score was not statistically significant when correlated with any outcome measures.

Conclusion Online publication has increased speed of dissemination of knowledge in the ophthalmology literature. Despite reporting higher numbers of submissions every year, ophthalmology journals with higher bibliometric measures of impact tend to publish peer-reviewed articles faster than journals with lower impact scores. Study design of an article may affect its speed to publication.