Educational technologies and elementary level education - A bibliometric review of scopus indexed journal articles

This bibliometric study critically analyses 293 journal articles from the Scopus database, charting the trajectory of educational technology in primary and elementary education from 1986 to 2023. While limited to practical applications within primary or elementary contexts and excluding various scholarly work forms, the research unveils crucial insights. A significant uptick in publications during 2008-2016 and 2018-2023 highlights the growing importance and incorporation of digital technologies in early education. The analysis identifies recurrent themes like teacher education, game-based learning, and collaborative learning, pointing towards future research directions. The study also notes underexplored areas, including technology's role in specific subjects, ethical student engagement, gender and disability dynamics, and contributions from African contexts. It advocates for increased international collaboration, with a focus on partnerships with predominant Chinese institutions. Despite its limitations, this paper is foundational for future research, offering a roadmap for a nuanced understanding of technology's impact on young learners' educational experiences and outcomes globally.

Technology-enhanced higher education: Text mining and bibliometrics

Objectives

Research on technology-enhanced higher education (TEHE) has been active and influential in educational technology. The study had three objectives: (1) to recognize the tendencies in the field and the contributing countries/regions/institutions, (2) to visualize scientific collaborations, and (3) to reveal important research topics, their developmental tendencies, correlations, and distributions across contributing countries/regions/institutions.

Methods

We collected 609 papers in relation to TEHE from 2004 to 2022 and analyzed them using text mining and bibliometric methods. Specifically, we focused on determining article trends, identifying contributing institutions/countries/regions, visualizing scientific collaborations through social network analysis, and revealing the important topics and their conceptual evolutions over time using topic models, Mann-Kendall trend test, hierarchical clustering, and Sankey visualization.

Results

Regarding the first objective, TEHE articles have grown consistently and will continue to expand. This growth was due to the contributions of Spanish universities and institutions from other countries/regions such as the USA, the UK, Australia, Germany, China, and Turkey. Regarding the second objective, the exploration of regional and institutional collaborations through social networks revealed that geographically adjacent institutions tended to foster close collaborations, particularly among those sharing similar research interests. Nevertheless, more cross-regional collaborations are needed to advance TEHE research. Regarding the third objective, the analysis of topics highlighted research hotspots and emerging themes such as Massive Online Open Courses, AI and big data in education, Gamification and engagement, Learning effectiveness and strategies, Social networks and discussion forums, COVID-19 and online learning, and Plagiarism detection and learning analytics.

Conclusions

This bibliometric study comprehensively analyzed the research landscape of TEHE research regarding contributors, collaborations, and research topics, and offers a glimpse into what the future may hold. It can be used as a guide for contributors to the field to identify the current research hotspots and emerging themes.

Inverted U-Shaped relationship between team size and citation impact: Mediating role of responsibility diffusion

Despite the increasing prominence of research collaboration, a growing number of studies have confirmed that increasing team size can have limited performance benefits. However, the mechanism of this phenomenon has yet to be established. This study, therefore, quantified responsibility diffusion based on author contribution information and explored its mediating role in the relationship between collaboration size and citation impact (citation count in a four-year window). The results show the following: (1) An inverted U-shaped relationship exists between team size and citation count. (2) Responsibility diffusion plays a partial mediating role between team size and citation count. (3) As team size increases, the degree of responsibility diffusion increases. Lastly, (4) responsibility diffusion has an inverted U-shaped curvilinear relationship with citation count (e.g., a moderate degree of responsibility diffusion has the highest impact). These findings offer a new understanding of the mechanism by which collaboration size influences research performance. This study also has practical implications for solving research collaboration dilemmas based on a group-cognition perspective.

Science diplomacy in medical physics - an international perspective

Purpose

Science diplomacy in medical physics is a relatively young research field and translational practice that focuses on establishing international collaborations to address some of the questions biomedical professionals face globally. This paper aims to present an overview of science diplomacy in medical physics, from an international perspective, illustrating the ways collaborations within and across continents can lead to scientific and professional achievements that advance scientific growth and improve patients care.

Methods

Science diplomacy actions were sought that promote collaborations in medical physics across the continents, related to professional and scientific aspects alike.

Results

Several science diplomacy actions have been identified to promote education and training, to facilitate research and development, to effectively communicate science to the public, to enable equitable access of patients to healthcare and to focus on gender equity within the profession as well as healthcare provision. Scientific and professional organizations in the field of medical physics across all continents have adopted a number of efforts in their aims, many of them with great success, to promote science diplomacy and to foster international collaborations.

Conclusions

Professionals in medical physics can advance through international cooperation, by building strong communication across scientific communities, addressing rising demands, exchange scientific information and knowledge.

A cross-sectional analysis identified co-authorship networks and scientific collaboration on reporting guidelines for health research

OBJECTIVE

To investigate scientific collaboration and citation metrics of reporting guidelines for health research.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

Cross-sectional analysis of published articles for reporting guidelines for health research. A search of the EQUATOR (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research) Network Library (from inception to January 21, 2021) was supplemented by searching websites of guideline developers. For each article, metadata (e.g., authors, institutions, countries, citations) were extracted from the Web of Science and Scopus (up to October 25, 2021). Descriptive analyses were conducted. Network analyses of collaborations were presented.

RESULTS

We included 662 articles published in 332 journals. The BMJ (n=50 articles; 8%), Annals of Internal Medicine (n=29; 4%), and Journal of Clinical Epidemiology (n=24; 4%) published the largest number of articles. 4722 authors, 1647 institutions, and 83 countries were involved. The global productivity was led by the United States (n=456 articles), the United Kingdom (n=414), and Canada (n=306). We found 8 clusters of authors (e.g., one major group with 337 members) and 3 clusters of institutions (e.g., one major group with 256 members). The most prolific authors were affiliated with the Ottawa Hospital Research Institute (Canada), the University of Ottawa (Canada), the University of Oxford (United Kingdom), and Stanford University (United States).

CONCLUSION

Our analysis identified key actors producing reporting guidelines, most intense collaborations, and 'citation classics' in the field. These results could potentially be used to strengthen collaborations for developing and disseminating reporting guidelines for health research.

Differences in scientific collaboration and their effects on research influence: A quantitative analysis of nursing publications in Latin America (Scopus, 2005-2020)

This work is mainly aimed at the detection, visualization and description of the scientific collaboration patterns in the Nursing field in Latin America as a response to the lack of evidence on the implications of collaboration and its effects on the scientific influence in the Nursing field.

For this purpose, a retrospective quantitative analysis was conducted by including all the publications classified under the code 2900 in All Science Journal Classification Codes of Scopus, corresponding to the field of General Nursing during 2005–2020. A total of 40 countries and 362,354 unique publications were analyzed, although the main subset herein consists of 18,371 unique publications authored by Latin-American institutions.

World proportion of Latin-American publications in Nursing is higher than all the publications in the region. This increase is especially remarkable in the latest year of the studied period, which may result from the progressive increase in the numbers of nursing schools, the diversity in the graduate and specialization programs, the creation of scientific societies, and the many conferences carried out recently on Nursing.

Collaboration networks of the implementation science centers for cancer control: a social network analysis

BACKGROUND

Multi-center research initiatives offer opportunities to develop and strengthen connections among researchers. These initiatives often have goals of increased scientific collaboration which can be examined using social network analysis.

METHODS

The National Cancer Institute (NCI)-funded Implementation Science Centers in Cancer Control (ISC3) initiative conducted an online social network survey in its first year of funding (2020) to (1) establish baseline network measures including the extent of cross-center collaboration and (2) assess factors associated with a network member's access to the network such as one's implementation science (IS) expertise. Members of the seven funded centers and NCI program staff identified collaborations in planning/conducting research, capacity building, product development, scientific dissemination, and practice/policy dissemination.

RESULTS

Of the 192 invitees, 182 network members completed the survey (95%). The most prevalent roles were faculty (60%) and research staff (24%). Almost one-quarter (23%) of members reported advanced expertise in IS, 42% intermediate, and 35% beginner. Most members were female (69%) and white (79%). One-third (33%) of collaboration ties were among members from different centers. Across all collaboration activities, the network had a density of 14%, suggesting moderate cohesion. Degree centralization (0.33) and betweenness centralization (0.07) measures suggest a fairly dispersed network (no single or few central member(s) holding all connections). The most prevalent and densely connected collaboration was in planning/conducting research (1470 ties; 8% density). Practice/policy dissemination had the fewest collaboration, lowest density (284 ties' 3% density), and the largest number of non-connected members (n=43). Access to the ISC3 network varied significantly depending on members' level of IS expertise, role within the network, and racial/ethnic background. Across all collaboration activities, most connected members included those with advanced IS expertise, faculty and NCI staff, and Hispanic or Latino and white members.

CONCLUSIONS

Results establish a baseline for assessing the growth of cross-center collaborations, highlighting specific areas in need of particular growth in network collaborations such as increasing engagement of racial and ethnic minorities and trainees or those with less expertise in IS.

Two decades of echinococcosis/hydatidosis research: Bibliometric analysis based on the web of science core collection databases (2000-2019)

Echinococcus granulosus sensu lato and Echinococcus multilocularis are responsible for serious health and economic implications for humans and animals. This study was designed to conduct a bibliometric analysis of global research on echinococcosis/hydatidosis included in the Web of Science Core Collection databases from 2000 to 2019. A total of 7066 relevant articles between 2000 and 2019 were identified. Most articles were published in 2015 (502 articles), 2017 (492 articles) and 2018 (493 articles), with the Veterinary Parasitology journal publishing the largest number of articles (237). Researchers from Xinjiang Medical University, China authored the most articles (388) in the field. Authors Craig, P.S. and Deplazes, P. were the most active in publishing143 and 126 hydatid cyst research papers, respectively. The most echinococcosis/hydatidosis publications originated from Turkey, China and Iran, with 1210, 708 and 531 articles, respectively. The highest levels of research collaboration were evident between China- England, China-France, England-France, China-Australia, and China-Japan. Also, the top researchers in this field had relatively extensive collaborations with each other. Our bibliometric analysis provides a picture of the scientific research into the echinococcosis/hydatidosis field. Further multi-national collaborative research efforts in this field should show promising progress in the future.

Behind the scenes: Scientific networks driving the operationalization of the Social-Ecological System framework

The analytical framework of Social-Ecological Systems (SES) has been endorsed worldwide because of its ability to describe the complex feedback relationships between social and ecological subsystems. The framework promotes multidisciplinarity and interdisciplinarity, with the expectation that studies will be carried out through groups and collaborative networks via the application of mixed research methods. In this study, we conducted a systematic review of the scientific literature to understand whether the operationalization of the SES framework has been achieved in this way. For this, we used the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions and the Scopus database. Based on the results, there is wide methodological plurality, although there are few studies that have opted for mixed methods that capture the complexity of an SES. In terms of scientific networks, we found that the community is composed mainly of consolidated groups of scientists from the Global North in which authors-researchers with betweenness centrality roles were identified, who connect the entire network, reaching the Global South, where peripheral groups, which are barely consolidated and develop their studies, mostly in their own regions, prevail.

The period of insect research in the tropics: a bibliometric analysis

The International Journal of Tropical Insect Science (Int J Trop Insect Sci) is a peer-reviewed journal established in 1980 to promote insect science mainly in the tropics. This study aimed to provide a Bibliometric overview of Int J Trop Insect Sci publications and citations between 2012 and 2020, ending September 2020. A sample of 488 documents extracted from the Web of Science (WoS) was analysed using widely used bioclimatic indicators. The articles were written by 1726 authors. During this period, the most productive authors comprised S Roy, followed by S Ekesi, S Subramanian and M Tamo. The dominant keyword was 'resistance', followed by 'Homoptera'. India took a leading position in Single Country Publications (SCP) while Kenya took the lead in Multiple Country Publications (MCP). Bibliometric analysis reveals vibrant collaboration between African and Western countries and active publication of multi-country authored articles. We conclude that there is an increasing trend for collaboration among different countries on the general topic of insect science. Research in insect science has the potential to impact both academic researchers and practitioners the knowledge use chain. This study will help researchers, journal editors, science policy makers managers, and others working in the biodiversity space and potential research gaps needing for further studies.

Mapping the scientific research on radiology departments: Global trends in publication, collaboration and trending topics

PURPOSE

To characterize the global research trend in radiology departments based on bibliometric indicators.

MATERIAL AND METHOD

As a source of information, Science Citation Index Expanded and Journal Citation Reports from Web of Science Core Collection (WoSCC) were used. Annual trends, journals of publication, subject categories of journals, collaboration indexes between authors and institutions, network of cowords and most cited papers were identified and analysed. The period of study was 2009-2018.

RESULTS

283,587 downloaded papers were analysed. The number of articles was increasing, as well as the percentage of funded works. Papers were published in 7314 different journals, being the most productive Plos One (5077), followed by American Journal of Roentgenology (4602) and European Radiology (3644). Most productive subject categories of journals were Radiology, Nuclear Medicine & Medical Imaging (86,568 papers), Clinical Neurology (29,722) and Surgery (23,564). International collaboration has increased more than 5 points, from 15.2% in 2009 to 20.7% in 2018.

CONCLUSIONS

Most cited articles were published in high impact journals outside the scope of diagnostic imaging. Most influential topics included technical innovations within imaging modalities. MRI replaced conventional radiography and CT as the imaging technique of choice in imaging research.

Evolution of scientific collaboration on COVID-19: A bibliometric analysis

This paper considers the pattens of international collaboration by analysing publications on COVID-19 published in the first 6 months of the pandemic. The data set comprised articles on COVID-19 indexed in the Web of Science Core Collection (WoS CC) downloaded four times between 1 April 2020 and 1 June 2020. The analysis of 5,827 documents revealed that 128 countries, 23,127 authors, and 6,349 institutes published on the pandemic. The data reveal that the three main publishing countries were the USA, China, and England with Italy closely following. Although publication was widely spread, most of the institutions with the highest volume of output were in China. Network analysis showed growth in international cooperation with an average degree of country/region cooperation rising to 23.06 by 1 June. There was also a clear core-periphery structure to international collaboration. Institutional collaboration was shown to be highly regionalized. The data reveal a high and growing incidence of international collaboration on the pandemic.

COVID-19 enabled co-authoring networks: a country-case analysis

In this paper we seek to examine the co-authoring pattern of a select group of researchers that are affiliated with a specific country. By way of making use of standard bibliometric analysis, we explore the publication evolution of all COVID-19-related peer reviewed papers that have been (co)-authored by researchers that are affiliated with Greek institutions. The aim is to identify its advancement over time, the institutions involved and the countries with which the co-authors are affiliated with. The timeframe of the study spans from the moment that WHO Director-General declared the novel coronavirus outbreak a public health emergency of international concern (WHO, 2020. Archived: WHO timeline-covid-19. Retrieved from Archived: Who Timeline-COVID-19. https://www.who.int/news/item/27-04-2020-who-timeline---covid-19. Accessed on 10 May 2020., Archived: WHO timeline-covid-19), January 2020, to October 2020. Findings indicate that there is a steady increase in the number of publications as well as the number of scientific collaborations over time. At a cross-country level, results suggest that the affiliated institutional sectors such as the Higher Education Sector (HES) and the Government Sector (GOV) contributed the most in terms of scientific output. On an international scale, the evolution of the scientific collaboration is imprinted and distributed as a chain of affiliations that linked nations together. Such chains are represented as clusters of countries, in which the scientific connections between different countries can be visualised. It can be reasoned that a significant amount of publications (20%) is affiliated with countries having “traditionally” major scientific impact on the field of Medicine.

Global mapping of overviews of systematic reviews in healthcare published between 2000 and 2020: a bibliometric analysis

OBJECTIVE

To conduct a bibliometric analysis using a large sample of overviews of systematic reviews (OoSRs) and reveal research trends and areas of interest about these studies.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We searched MEDLINE, Scopus and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from 1/1/2000 to 15/10/2020. We used Scopus meta-data and two authors recorded supplementary information independently. We summarized the data using frequencies with percentages.

RESULTS

A total of 1558 studies were considered eligible for analysis. We found that the publications have been increasing yearly and their nomenclature was not uniform (the most frequent label in the title was "overview of systematic reviews"). The largest number of papers and the most cited ones were published by corresponding authors from the UK. The publications were distributed across 737 scholarly journals and many of them were published in the field of complementary/alternative medicine, psychiatry/psychology, nutrition/dietetics, and pediatrics. The co-authorship analysis revealed collaborations among countries. The most common clinical conditions were depression, diabetes, cancer, dementia, pain, cardiovascular disease, stroke, obesity, and schizophrenia.

CONCLUSION

OoSRs have recently become a popular approach of evidence synthesis. International collaborations between overview authors from countries with increased research productivity and countries with less research activity should be encouraged.

Top economics universities and research institutions in Vietnam: evidence from the SSHPA dataset

Economic research is vital for creating more suitable policies to facilitate economic growth. Employing a combination of descriptive and Bayesian analyses, this paper investigates the research landscape of the economics discipline in Vietnam, in particular, the leading affiliations in the field and how these institutions compare to each other in terms of productivity, the number of lead authors, new authors and publications' journal impact factor. We also examine the differences in the authors' productivity based on their age and gender. The dataset extracted from the SSHPA database includes 1,444 articles. The findings show that among top producers of economic research in Vietnam, seven are universities, leaving only one representative of research institutes. These top producers account for 52% of research output among 178 institutes recorded in the database. We also find a correlation between a researcher's affiliation, sex, and scientific productivity in Vietnam's economic discipline. Overall, publications by male researchers outnumber those by female ones in most of the top affiliations. The findings also indicate that 40-44 is the age group with the highest scientific productivity. Researchers' collaboration, which is observed through co-authorship, is on the rise in all of the top eight economic research affiliations. However, the quality of current Vietnam's scientific works in the discipline is questionable. Therefore, it is suggested that in order to sustain scientific productivity, economic researchers might need to balance the quantity and quality of their contributions.

Importance of scientific collaboration in contemporary drug discovery and development: a detailed network analysis

BACKGROUND

Growing evidence shows that scientific collaboration plays a crucial role in transformative innovation in the life sciences. For example, contemporary drug discovery and development reflects the work of teams of individuals from academic centers, the pharmaceutical industry, the regulatory science community, health care providers, and patients. However, public understanding of how collaborations between academia and industry catalyze novel target identification and first-in-class drug discovery is limited.

RESULTS

We perform a comprehensive network analysis on a large scientific corpus of collaboration and citations (97,688 papers with 1,862,500 citations from 170 million scientific records) to quantify the success trajectory of innovative drug development. By focusing on four types of cardiovascular drugs, we demonstrate how knowledge flows between institutions to highlight the underlying contributions of many different institutions in the development of a new drug. We highlight how such network analysis could help to increase industrial and governmental support, and improve the efficiency or accelerate decision-making in drug discovery and development.

CONCLUSION

We demonstrate that network analysis of large public databases can identify and quantify investigator and institutional relationships in drug discovery and development. If broadly applied, this type of network analysis may help to enhance public understanding of and support for biomedical research, and could identify factors that facilitate decision-making in first-in-class drug discovery among academia, the pharmaceutical industry, and healthcare systems.

[Scientific impact and bibliometric contextualisation of Paediatrics compared to other specialities]

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this paper is twofold. On the one hand, to identify and characterise the production, citation, impact and collaboration indicators of the Pediatrics area of the Journal Citation Reports, and on the other hand, to place the journal Anales de Pediatría in the context of the Spanish journals of another twenty areas and medical specialties.

MATERIAL AND METHOD

The sources of information used to obtain the indicators were Science Citation Index-Expanded, Journal Citation Reports, and Scimago Journal & Country Rank. A regression analysis was performed to determine the correlation between the citation and other variables.

RESULTS

Pediatrics ranked 8th in scientific production during the period 2009-2018. In citations per journal it ranks 17th, and the average citations per article approaches 27, occupying, in this case, the 18th position. Below Pediatrics are Emergency Medicine, Rehabilitation, and Primary Health Care. There are no citations for 12.47% of the articles. The average impact factor places the area in 18th place and its h index was 197, reaching 14th position, and standing above seven other areas. The percentage of works carried out with international collaboration was 17.71%, above Primary Health Care (12.88%), Oncology (16.37%), and Emergency Medicine (17.03%). Among the Spanish journals, Anales de Pediatría was the fourth most productive journal, and occupied an intermediate position in terms of the number of citations.

CONCLUSIONS

The indicators of citation and impact of the Pediatrics area tend to be above areas such as Emergency Medicine, Primary Health Care, Dentistry, Oral Surgery & Medicine, and Rehabilitation. Professional practice outside large hospitals, together with poor funding, as well as the low number of clinical trials due to the ethical requirements imposed on studies with children, may be the causes that result in moderate citation and impact indicators.

Global mapping of randomised trials related articles published in high-impact-factor medical journals: a cross-sectional analysis

Background

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) provide the most reliable information to inform clinical practice and patient care. We aimed to map global clinical research publication activity through RCT-related articles in high-impact-factor medical journals over the past five decades.

Methods

We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of articles published in the highest ranked medical journals with an impact factor > 10 (according to Journal Citation Reports published in 2017). We searched PubMed/MEDLINE (from inception to December 31, 2017) for all RCT-related articles (e.g. primary RCTs, secondary analyses and methodology papers) published in high-impact-factor medical journals. For each included article, raw metadata were abstracted from the Web of Science. A process of standardization was conducted to unify the different terms and grammatical variants and to remove typographical, transcription and/or indexing errors. Descriptive analyses were conducted (including the number of articles, citations, most prolific authors, countries, journals, funding sources and keywords). Network analyses of collaborations between countries and co-words are presented.

Results

We included 39,305 articles (for the period 1965–2017) published in forty journals. The Lancet (n = 3593; 9.1%), the Journal of Clinical Oncology (n = 3343; 8.5%) and The New England Journal of Medicine (n = 3275 articles; 8.3%) published the largest number of RCTs. A total of 154 countries were involved in the production of articles. The global productivity ranking was led by the United States (n = 18,393 articles), followed by the United Kingdom (n = 8028 articles), Canada (n = 4548 articles) and Germany (n = 4415 articles). Seventeen authors who had published 100 or more articles were identified; the most prolific authors were affiliated with Duke University (United States), Harvard University (United States) and McMaster University (Canada). The main funding institutions were the National Institutes of Health (United States), Hoffmann-La Roche (Switzerland), Pfizer (United States), Merck Sharp & Dohme (United States) and Novartis (Switzerland). The 100 most cited RCTs were published in nine journals, led by The New England Journal of Medicine (n = 78 articles), The Lancet (n = 9 articles) and JAMA (n = 7 articles). These landmark contributions focused on novel methodological approaches (e.g. the “Bland-Altman method”) and trials on the management of chronic conditions (e.g. diabetes control, hormone replacement therapy in postmenopausal women, multiple therapies for diverse cancers, cardiovascular therapies such as lipid-lowering statins, antihypertensive medications, and antiplatelet and antithrombotic therapy).

Conclusions

Our analysis identified authors, countries, funding institutions, landmark contributions and high-impact-factor medical journals publishing RCTs. Over the last 50 years, publication production in leading medical journals has increased, with Western countries leading in research but with low- and middle-income countries showing very limited representation.

Bowling Together: Scientific Collaboration Networks of Demographers at European Population Conferences

Studies of collaborative networks of demographers are relatively scarce. Similar studies in other social sciences provide insight into scholarly trends of both the fields and characteristics of their successful scientists. Exploiting a unique database of metadata for papers presented at six European Population Conferences, this report explores factors explaining research collaboration among demographers. We find that (1) collaboration among demographers has increased over the past 10 years, however, among co-authored papers, collaboration across institutions remains relatively unchanged over the period, (2) papers based on core demographic subfields such as fertility, mortality, migration and data and methods are more likely to involve multiple authors and (3) multiple author teams that are all female are less likely to co-author with colleagues in different institutions. Potential explanations for these results are discussed alongside comparisons with similar studies of collaboration networks in other related social sciences.

Scientific authorship and collaboration network analysis on malaria research in Benin: papers indexed in the web of science (1996-2016)

Background

To sustain the critical progress made, prioritization and a multidisciplinary approach to malaria research remain important to the national malaria control program in Benin. To document the structure of the malaria collaborative research in Benin, we analyze authorship of the scientific documents published on malaria from Benin.

Methods

We collected bibliographic data from the Web Of Science on malaria research in Benin from January 1996 to December 2016. From the collected data, a mulitigraph co-authorship network with authors representing vertices was generated. An edge was drawn between two authors when they co-author a paper. We computed vertex degree, betweenness, closeness, and eigenvectors among others to identify prolific authors. We further assess the weak points and how information flow in the network. Finally, we perform a hierarchical clustering analysis, and Monte-Carlo simulations.

Results

Overall, 427 publications were included in this study. The generated network contained 1792 authors and 116,388 parallel edges which converted in a weighted graph of 1792 vertices and 95,787 edges. Our results suggested that prolific authors with higher degrees tend to collaborate more. The hierarchical clustering revealed 23 clusters, seven of which form a giant component containing 94% of all the vertices in the network. This giant component has all the characteristics of a small-world network with a small shortest path distance between pairs of three, a diameter of 10 and a high clustering coefficient of 0.964. However, Monte-Carlo simulations suggested our observed network is an unusual type of small-world network. Sixteen vertices were identified as weak articulation points within the network.

Conclusion

The malaria research collaboration network in Benin is a complex network that seems to display the characteristics of a small-world network. This research reveals the presence of closed research groups where collaborative research likely happens only between members. Interdisciplinary collaboration tends to occur at higher levels between prolific researchers. Continuously supporting, stabilizing the identified key brokers and most productive authors in the Malaria research collaborative network is an urgent need in Benin. It will foster the malaria research network and ensure the promotion of junior scientists in the field.

A bibliometric analysis of natural language processing in medical research

Background

Natural language processing (NLP) has become an increasingly significant role in advancing medicine. Rich research achievements of NLP methods and applications for medical information processing are available. It is of great significance to conduct a deep analysis to understand the recent development of NLP-empowered medical research field. However, limited study examining the research status of this field could be found. Therefore, this study aims to quantitatively assess the academic output of NLP in medical research field.

Methods

We conducted a bibliometric analysis on NLP-empowered medical research publications retrieved from PubMed in the period 2007–2016. The analysis focused on three aspects. Firstly, the literature distribution characteristics were obtained with a statistics analysis method. Secondly, a network analysis method was used to reveal scientific collaboration relations. Finally, thematic discovery and evolution was reflected using an affinity propagation clustering method.

Results

There were 1405 NLP-empowered medical research publications published during the 10 years with an average annual growth rate of 18.39%. 10 most productive publication sources together contributed more than 50% of the total publications. The USA had the highest number of publications. A moderately significant correlation between country’s publications and GDP per capita was revealed. Denny, Joshua C was the most productive author. Mayo Clinic was the most productive affiliation. The annual co-affiliation and co-country rates reached 64.04% and 15.79% in 2016, respectively. 10 main great thematic areas were identified including Computational biology, Terminology mining, Information extraction, Text classification, Social medium as data source, Information retrieval, etc.

Conclusions

A bibliometric analysis of NLP-empowered medical research publications for uncovering the recent research status is presented. The results can assist relevant researchers, especially newcomers in understanding the research development systematically, seeking scientific cooperation partners, optimizing research topic choices and monitoring new scientific or technological activities.

South-south collaboration on HIV/AIDS prevention and treatment research: when birds of a feather rarely flock together

BACKGROUND

South-south collaboration on health and development research is a critical mechanism for social and economic progress. It allows sharing and replicating experiences to find a "southern solution" to meet shared health challenges, such as access to adequate HIV/AIDS prevention and treatment. This study aimed to generate evidence on the dynamics of south-south collaboration in HIV/AIDS research, which could ultimately inform stakeholders on the progress and nature of collaboration towards increased research capacities in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC).

METHODS

Bibliometric and social network analysis methods were used to assess the 10-year (2006-2015) scientific contribution of LMIC, through the analysis of scientific publications on HIV/AIDS prevention and/or treatment. Five dimensions oriented the study: knowledge production, co-authorship analysis, research themes mapping, research types classification and funding sources.

RESULTS

Publications involving LMIC have substantially increased overtime, despite small expression of south-south collaboration. Research themes mapping revealed that publication focus varied according to collaborating countries' income categories, from diagnosis, opportunistic infections and laboratory-based research (LMIC single or LMIC-LMIC) to human behavior and healthcare, drug therapy and mother to child transmission (LMIC-HIC). The analysis of research types showed that south-south collaborations frequently targeted social sciences issues. Funding agencies acknowledged in south-south collaboration also showed diverse focus: LMIC-based funders tended to support basic biomedical research whereas international/HIC-based funders seem to cover predominantly social sciences-oriented research.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the global environment has fostered an increasing participation of LMIC in collaborative learning models, south-south collaboration on HIV/AIDS prevention and/or treatment research seemed to be lower than expected, stressing the need for strategies to foster these partnerships. The evidence presented in this study can be used to strengthen a knowledge platform to inform future policy, planning and funding decisions, contributing to the development of enhanced collaboration and a priority research agenda for LMICs.

Saving the Birds: Oliver L. Austin's Collaboration with Japanese Scientists in Revising Wildlife Policies in US-Occupied Japan, 1946-1950

In postwar Tokyo, ornithologist Oliver L. Austin's leadership of the Wildlife Branch of the Natural Resources Section (NRS) for the Supreme Commander of the Allied Powers (SCAP) serves as an intriguing lens into the reconstruction of Japanese conservation activities. His experiences as a scientist working on wildlife policies in US-occupied Korea (1945-1946) and Japan (1946-1949) illuminate the war's impact on individuals and their environment. Austin collaborated closely with elite Japanese colleagues, despite their ruined laboratories, burnt collections, inadequate shelter, and despair. Science and conservation provided a common language for intimate connections. Why did these collaborations fail in Korea, but succeed in Japan? How did postwar political realities shape scientific research, conservation, and environmental policies? I propose that what anthropologist and occupation official John W. Bennett calls "colleagueship" (citing sociologist Everett Hughes), or "the establishing of intellectual links across political and cultural boundaries in the modern world," offers a useful model for understanding the revival of these oftentimes trans-war relationships.

With whom do researchers collaborate and why?

Although research collaboration has been studied extensively, we still lack understanding regarding the factors stimulating researchers to collaborate with different kinds of research partners including members of the same research center or group, researchers from the same organization, researchers from other academic and non-academic organizations as well as international partners. Here, we provide an explanation of the emergence of diverse collaborative ties. The theoretical framework used for understanding research collaboration couples scientific and technical human capital embodied in the individual with the social organization and cognitive characteristics of the research field. We analyze survey data collected from Slovenian scientists in four scientific disciplines: mathematics; physics; biotechnology; and sociology. The results show that while individual characteristics and resources are among the strongest predictors of collaboration, very different mechanisms underlie collaboration with different kinds of partners. International collaboration is particularly important for the researchers in small national science systems. Collaboration with colleagues from various domestic organizations presents a vehicle for resource mobilization. Within organizations collaboration reflects the elaborated division of labor in the laboratories and high level of competition between different research groups. These results hold practical implications for policymakers interested in promoting quality research.

The stability of co-authorship structures

This article examines the structure of co-authorship networks’ stability in time. The goal of the article is to analyse differences in the stability and size of groups of researchers that co-author with each other (core research groups) formed in disciplines from the natural and technical sciences on one hand and the social sciences and humanities on the other. The cores were obtained by a pre-specified blockmodeling procedure assuming a multi-core–semi-periphery–periphery structure. The stability of the obtained cores was measured with the Modified Adjusted Rand Index. The assumed structure was confirmed in all analysed disciplines. The average size of the cores obtained is higher in the second time period and the average core size is greater in the natural and technical sciences than in the social sciences and humanities. There are no differences in average core stability between the natural and technical sciences and the social sciences and humanities. However, if the stability of cores is defined by the splitting of cores and not also by the percentage of researchers who left the cores, the average stability of the cores is higher in disciplines from the scientific fields of Engineering sciences and technologies and Medical sciences than in disciplines of the Humanities, if controlling for the networks’ and disciplines’ characteristics. The analysis was performed on disciplinary co-authorship networks of Slovenian researchers in two time periods (1991–2000 and 2001–2010).

Forging a link between mentoring and collaboration: a new training model for implementation science

Background

Training investigators for the rapidly developing field of implementation science requires both mentoring and scientific collaboration. Using social network descriptive analyses, visualization, and modeling, this paper presents results of an evaluation of the mentoring and collaborations fostered over time through the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) supported by Implementation Research Institute (IRI).

Methods

Data were comprised of IRI participant self-reported collaborations and mentoring relationships, measured in three annual surveys from 2012 to 2014. Network descriptive statistics, visualizations, and network statistical modeling were conducted to examine patterns of mentoring and collaboration among IRI participants and to model the relationship between mentoring and subsequent collaboration.

Results

Findings suggest that IRI is successful in forming mentoring relationships among its participants, and that these mentoring relationships are related to future scientific collaborations. Exponential random graph network models demonstrated that mentoring received in 2012 was positively and significantly related to the likelihood of having a scientific collaboration 2 years later in 2014 (p = 0.001). More specifically, mentoring was significantly related to future collaborations focusing on new research (p = 0.009), grant submissions (p = 0.003), and publications (p = 0.017). Predictions based on the network model suggest that for every additional mentoring relationships established in 2012, the likelihood of a scientific collaboration 2 years later is increased by almost 7 %.

Conclusions

These results support the importance of mentoring in implementation science specifically and team science more generally. Mentoring relationships were established quickly and early by the IRI core faculty. IRI fellows reported increasing scientific collaboration of all types over time, including starting new research, submitting new grants, presenting research results, and publishing peer-reviewed papers. Statistical network models demonstrated that mentoring was strongly and significantly related to subsequent scientific collaboration, which supported a core design principle of the IRI. Future work should establish the link between mentoring and scientific productivity. These results may be of interest to team science, as they suggest the importance of mentoring for future team collaborations, as well as illustrate the utility of network analysis for studying team characteristics and activities.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13012-016-0499-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Analysis of scientific collaboration in Chinese psychiatry research

BACKGROUND

In recent decades, China has changed profoundly, becoming the country with the world's second-largest economy. The proportion of the Chinese population suffering from mental disorder has grown in parallel with the rapid economic development, as social stresses have increased. The aim of this study is to shed light on the status of collaborations in the Chinese psychiatry field, of which there is currently limited research.

METHODS

We sampled 16,224 publications (2003-2012) from 10 core psychiatry journals from Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) and WanFang Database. We used various social network analysis (SNA) methods such as centrality analysis, and Core-Periphery analysis to study collaboration. We also used hierarchical clustering analysis in this study.

RESULTS

From 2003-2012, there were increasing collaborations at the level of authors, institutions and regions in the Chinese psychiatry field. Geographically, these collaborations were distributed unevenly. The 100 most prolific authors and institutions and 32 regions were used to construct the collaboration map, from which we detected the core author, institution and region. Collaborative behavior was affected by economic development.

CONCLUSION

We should encourage collaborative behavior in the Chinese psychiatry field, as this facilitates knowledge distribution, resource sharing and information acquisition. Collaboration has also helped the field narrow its current research focus, providing further evidence to inform policymakers to fund research in order to tackle the increase in mental disorder facing modern China.

Scientific collaboration between 'old' and 'new' member states: Did joining the European Union make a difference?

This paper provides new insights on the effects of the enlargement of the European Union (EU) and European integration by investigating the issue of scientific collaboration within the new EU member states vis-à-vis the old EU member states. The question addressed is whether the EU membership following the two enlargement waves 2004 and 2007 has significantly increased the co-publication intensity of the new member states with other member countries. The empirical results based on data collected from the Web of Science database and Difference-in-Difference estimations point towards a conclusion that joining the EU indeed has had an additional positive impact on the co-publication intensity between the new and old member states and, in particular, within the new member states themselves. These results give tentative support for the successfulness of the EU’s science policies in achieving a common ‘internal market’ in research. We also find evidence for early anticipation effects of the consecutive EU accession.

Scientific collaboration and team science: a social network analysis of the centers for population health and health disparities

The past decade has seen dramatic shifts in the way that scientific research is conducted as networks, consortia, and large research centers are funded as transdisciplinary, team-based enterprises to tackle complex scientific questions. Key investigators (N = 167) involved in ten health disparities research centers completed a baseline social network and collaboration readiness survey. Collaborative ties existed primarily between investigators from the same center, with just 7 % of ties occurring across different centers. Grants and work groups were the most common types of ties between investigators, with shared presentations the most common tie across different centers. Transdisciplinary research orientation was associated with network position and reciprocity. Center directors/leaders were significantly more likely to form ties with investigators in other roles, such as statisticians and trainees. Understanding research collaboration networks can help to more effectively design and manage future team-based research, as well as pinpoint potential issues and continuous evaluation of existing efforts.

Scientific collaboration dynamics in a national scientific system

This paper examines the collaboration structures and dynamics of the co-authorship network of all Slovenian researchers. Its goal is to identify the key factors driving collaboration and the main differences in collaboration behavior across scientific fields and disciplines. Two approaches to modelling network dynamics are combined in this paper: the small-world model and the mechanism of preferential attachment, also known as the process of cumulative advantage. Stochastic-actor-based modelling of co-authorship network dynamics uses data for the complete longitudinal co-authorship networks for the entire Slovenian scientific community from 1996 to 2010. We confirmed the presence of clustering in all fields and disciplines. Preferential attachment is far more complex than a single global mechanism. There were two clear distinctions regarding collaboration within scientific fields and disciplines. One was that some fields had an internal national saturation inhibiting further collaboration. The second concerned the differential impact of collaboration with scientists from abroad on domestic collaboration. In the natural, technical, medical, and biotechnical sciences, this promotes collaboration within the Slovenian scientific community while in the social sciences and humanities this inhibits internal collaboration.

Understanding the assembly of interdisciplinary teams and its impact on performance

Interdisciplinary teams are assembled in scientific research and are aimed at solving complex problems. Given their increasing importance, it is not surprising that considerable attention has been focused on processes of collaboration in interdisciplinary teams. Despite such efforts, we know less about the factors affecting the assembly of such teams in the first place. In this paper, we investigate the structure and the success of interdisciplinary scientific research teams. We examine the assembly factors using a sample of 1,103 grant proposals submitted to two National Science Foundation interdisciplinary initiatives during a 3-year period, including both awarded and non-awarded proposals. The results indicate that individuals' likelihood of collaboration on a proposal is higher among those with longer tenure, lower institutional tier, lower H-index, and with higher levels of prior co-authorship and citation relationships. However, successful proposals have a little bit different relational patterns: individuals' likelihood of collaboration is higher among those with lower institutional tier, lower H-index, (female) gender, higher levels of prior co-authorship, but with lower levels of prior citation relationships.