scholarly journals Bibliometrics approach to evaluating the research impact of CTSAs: A pilot study

2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (4) ◽  
pp. 336-344
Author(s):  
Fei Yu ◽  
Allison Alicia Van ◽  
Tanha Patel ◽  
Nandita Mani ◽  
Andrea Carnegie ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Network Analysis ◽  
Research Collaboration ◽  
Research Output ◽  
Citation Impact ◽  
Research Impact ◽  
Analysis Tool ◽  
Sampled Data ◽  
Research Collaborations ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Bibliometric Measures

AbstractIntroduction:To enhance the performance evaluation of Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) hubs, we examined the utility of advanced bibliometric measures that go beyond simple publication counts to demonstrate the impact of translational research output.Methods:The sampled data included North Carolina Translational and Clinical Science Institute (NC TraCS)-supported publications produced between September 2008 and March 2017. We adopted advanced bibliometric measures and a state-of-the-art bibliometric network analysis tool to assess research productivity, citation impact, the scope of research collaboration, and the clusters of research topics.Results:Totally, 754 NC TraCS-supported publications generated over 24,000 citation counts by April 2017 with an average of 33 cites per article. NC TraCS-supported research papers received more than twice as many cites per year as the average National Institute of Health-funded research publications from the same field and time. We identified the top productive researchers and their networks within the CTSA hub. Findings demonstrated the impact of NC TraCS in facilitating interdisciplinary collaborations within the CTSA hub and across the CTSA consortium and connecting researchers with right peers and organizations.Conclusion:Both improved bibliometrics measures and bibliometric network analysis can bring new perspectives to CTSA evaluation via citation influence and the scope of research collaborations.

scholarly journals Effect of Undergraduate Research Output on Faculty Scholarly Research Impact

2017 ◽  
Vol 12 (4) ◽  
pp. 199
Author(s):  
Adriana Popescu ◽  
Radu Popescu
Keyword(s):  
Undergraduate Student ◽  
Research Output ◽  
Statistical Significance ◽  
Citation Impact ◽  
Research Impact ◽  
Academic Departments ◽  
Faculty Research ◽  
Data Set ◽  
Citation Counts ◽  
The Impact

Abstract Objective – In the context of the ongoing discourse about the role of Institutional Repositories (IRs), the objective of the study is to investigate if there is any evidence of a relation between undergraduate student activity in an IR and the impact of faculty research. Methods – The data used for the study is representative of six academic departments of the College of Science and Mathematics (CSM) at California Polytechnic State University (Cal Poly). Digital Commons@Cal Poly (DC) is the IR supported by the library. Regression analysis was used to investigate the interdependence between faculty research impact (dependent variable) and undergraduate student repository activity (independent variable). For each department, faculty research impact was quantified as a measure of the citation counts for all faculty publications indexed in Web of Science (WoS) between January 2008 and May 2017. Student repository activity was quantified for each department in two ways: (1) total number of student projects deposited in DC since 2008 (Sp) and (2) total number of student project downloads from DC (Sd). The dependent variable was regressed against each of the two elements of student repository activity (Sp and Sd), and the resulting statistics (sample correlation coefficients, coefficients of determination, and linear regression coefficients) were calculated and checked for statistical significance. Results – The statistical analysis showed that both components of student repository activity are positively and significantly correlated with the impact of faculty research quantified by a measure of the citation counts. It was also found that faculty repository activity, although positively correlated with faculty research impact, has no significant effect on the correlation between student repository activity and faculty research impact. Conclusion – The analysis considers two distinct groups of publications: one group of student publications (senior projects) from six academic departments, which are deposited in an open repository (DC), and one group of publications (not necessarily represented in DC) of faculty affiliated with the same six departments and whose citation impact is believed to be affected by the first group. The statistical correlation between student repository activity and faculty research impact can be seen as an indication that an active, open IR centered on collecting, preserving, and making discoverable student research output has a positive impact on faculty’s research impact. More research that includes additional factors and uses a larger data set is necessary to arrive at a definitive conclusion.

Research output of Indian universities in sciences (2015–2019): a scientometric analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol ahead-of-print (ahead-of-print) ◽  
Author(s):  
Avijit Mahala ◽  
Rajesh Singh
Keyword(s):  
Research Output ◽  
Citation Impact ◽  
Science Research ◽  
Research Impact ◽  
Scientometric Analysis ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Research Areas ◽  
Institute Of Technology ◽  
The University ◽  
The Impact

PurposeThe present study aims to trace out the science research output of top Indian universities from 2015 to 2019, as reflected in the Web of Science (WOS) database.Design/methodology/approachThe present study has selected the Science Citation Index (SCI) of WOS core collection for selecting top Indian universities in terms of total publications in the last five years (2015–2019). The University of Delhi (DU), Banaras Hindu University (BHU), Anna University (AU), Jadavpur University (JU) and Punjab University (PU) have been selected. The study identified the most prolific authors, collaborating countries, collaborating institutions and the impact of their output in terms of citations per paper (CPP) and relative citation impact (RCI). For visualizing purposes, VOSviewer was used. The study also identified frequently used keywords and channels used for communicating research results.FindingsThe authors retrieved 26,173 documents consisting of journal articles, review papers and proceeding papers. The consistent growth of science research output has been observed. The University of Delhi (DU) has the maximum science publications. The study reflects that multi-authored papers have more research impact in terms of citation received. The USA, South Korea and Germany are the most collaborating countries. The top Indian Universities have a major collaboration with Anna University, Indian Institute of Technology, Center for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) of India.Originality/valueThe present study reveals how the science research output of top Indian universities has grown in the last few years. The findings of the study can be used for identifying specific science research areas where special attention can be given.

Cross-CTSA Evaluation of KL2 Scholars' Scholarly Productivity Using Bibliometrics and Federal Follow-on Funding (Preprint)

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kelli Qua ◽  
Fei Yu ◽  
Tanha Patel ◽  
Gaurav Dave ◽  
Katherine Cornelius ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Research Collaboration ◽  
Early Stage ◽  
Citation Rate ◽  
Citation Impact ◽  
Federal Funding ◽  
The Other ◽  
Scholarly Productivity ◽  
Training Success ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Time Point

BACKGROUND Evaluating outcomes of a Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) hub’s clinical and translational research (CTR) training (e.g., KL2 program) requires selecting reliable, accessible, and standardized measures. Since measures of scholarly success usually focus on publication output and extramural funding, CTSA hubs have started to use bibliometrics to evaluate the impact of their supported scholarly activities. However, the evaluation of KL2 programs across CTSAs is limited, and the use of bibliometrics and follow-on funding is minimal. OBJECTIVE This study sought to evaluate scholarly productivity, impact, and collaboration using bibliometrics and federal follow-on funding of KL2 scholars from three CTSA hubs and define and assess CTR training success indicators. METHODS The sample included KL2 scholars from three CTSA institutions (A-C). Bibliometric data for each scholar in the sample were collected from both SciVal and iCite, including scholarly productivity, citation impact, and research collaboration. Three federal follow-on funding measures (at the five-year, eight-year, and overall time point) were collected internally and confirmed by examining NIH RePORTER. Both descriptive and inferential statistical analysis were computed using SPSS to assess bibliometrics results and federal follow-on funding of KL2 scholars. RESULTS A total of 143 KL2 scholars were included in the sample with relatively equal groups across three CTSA institutions (A-C). The included KL2 scholars produced more publications and citation counts at the eight-year than the five-year time point (3.4 vs. 3.75 publications per year on average; 26.16 and 26.44 citations per year respectively). Overall, the KL2 publications from all three institutions were cited twice as much as others in their fields based on NIH Relative Citation Ratio. KL2 scholars published work with researchers from other US institutions over two times (five-year point) or three and a half times (eight-year point) more than others in their research fields. Within five-year and eight-year post-matriculation, 44% (n = 63) and 52% (n = 74) of KL2 scholars achieved federal funding respectively. Institution C's KL2-scholars had a significantly higher citation rate per publication than the other institutions (p < .001). Institution A had a significantly lower rate of nationally field-weighted collaboration compared to the other institutions (p < .001). Institution B Scholars were more likely to have received federal funding than scholars at Institution A or C (p < .001). CONCLUSIONS Multi-institutional data showed a high level of scholarly productivity, impact, collaboration, and federal follow-on funding achieved by KL2 scholars. This study provided insights on using bibliometric and federal follow-on funding data to evaluate CTR training success across institutions. CTSA KL2 programs and other CTR career training programs can benefit from these findings in terms of understanding metrics of career success and using that knowledge to develop highly targeted strategies to support early-stage CTR investigators' career development.

scholarly journals Evaluating the implications of Brexit for research collaboration and policy: a network analysis and simulation study

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (9) ◽  
pp. e025025
Author(s):  
George Garas ◽  
Isabella Cingolani ◽  
Vanash M Patel ◽  
Pietro Panzarasa ◽  
Ara Darzi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Research Collaboration ◽  
Research Impact ◽  
Collaboration Network ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Short Term ◽  
Research And Innovation ◽  
Strategic Relationships ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The Impact ◽  
The Eu

ObjectiveTo evaluate the role of the European Union (EU) as a research collaborator in the UK’s success as a global leader in healthcare research and innovation and quantify the impact that Brexit may have.DesignNetwork and regression analysis of scientific collaboration, followed by simulation models based on alternative scenarios.SettingInternational real-world collaboration network among all countries involved in robotic surgical research and innovation.Participants772 organisations from industry and academia nested within 56 countries and connected through 2397 collaboration links.Main outcome measuresResearch impact measured through citations and innovation value measured through the innovation index.ResultsGlobally, the UK ranks third in robotic surgical innovation, and the EU constitutes its prime collaborator. Brokerage opportunities and collaborators’ geographical diversity are associated with a country’s research impact (c=211.320 and 244.527, respectively; p<0·01) and innovation (c=18.819 and 30.850, respectively; p<0·01). Replacing EU collaborators with US ones is the only strategy that could benefit the UK, but on the condition that US collaborators are chosen among the top-performing ones, which is likely to be very difficult and costly, at least in the short term.ConclusionsThis study suggests what has long been argued, namely that the UK-EU research partnership has been mutually beneficial and that its continuation represents the best possible outcome for both negotiating parties. However, the uncertainties raised by Brexit necessitate looking beyond the EU for potential research partners. In the short term, the UK’s best strategy might be to try and maintain its academic links with the EU. In the longer term, strategic relationships with research powerhouses, including the USA, China and India, are likely to be crucial for the UK to remain a global innovation leader.

Quantifying the research impact of the Sustainable Forest Management Network in the social sciences: a bibliometric study

2010 ◽  
Vol 40 (11) ◽  
pp. 2248-2255 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicole L. Klenk ◽  
Anna Dabros ◽  
Gordon M. Hickey
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Forest Management ◽  
Sustainable Forest Management ◽  
Research Output ◽  
Research Impact ◽  
Funded Research ◽  
Principal Investigators ◽  
The Social ◽  
Research Standards ◽  
The Impact

This research note presents the results of a bibliometric analysis that was conducted to better understand the impact that Sustainable Forest Management Network (SFMN) funded research had in the forest-related social and Aboriginal research communities. We applied two indicators of research impact: (i) research outputs and (ii) citations. Our results suggest that the SFMN’s research outputs were highest in the fields of economics, sociology, and political science and law. The number of research articles that acknowledged the SFMN was 30% of the total research output of the SFMN-funded Principal Investigators. These articles represented 3% of the social science articles published in the Forestry Chronicle (the journal most frequently used by SFMN-funded Principal Investigators). Research output related to Aboriginal forestry indicated that the SFMN had a significant influence on the development of the field. Our citation analysis indicated that the average number of citations per SFMN-acknowledged publication in the social sciences was approximately the same as the international impact standard in the field. These results suggest that the SFMN-funded research in the social sciences compared very well with the international research standards in forest-related social sciences.

scholarly journals The Nexus between Funding and Research Output: A Case Study in Universiti Teknologi MARA

2018 ◽  
Vol 7 (3.15) ◽  
pp. 187
Author(s):  
Caroline Henry ◽  
Nor Azura Md Ghani ◽  
Halilah Haron ◽  
Umi Marshida Abd Hamid ◽  
Ahmad Naqiyuddin Bakar ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Research Productivity ◽  
Web Of Science ◽  
Clinical Medicine ◽  
Research Output ◽  
Research Impact ◽  
Higher Learning ◽  
Learning Institutions ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Continuous Problem

Financial sustainability has been a continuous problem that Higher Learning Institutions (HLI) have to face. In addition, funding has always played a role in the process of research as many have proven that there is a relationship between funding and research impact. This study highlights the impact of funding on UiTM’s research productivity. Publications published by UiTM in 2012 to 2016 from Web of Science (WoS) were used to compare the impact of both funded and unfunded publications. The findings showed that 32.53% of the publications published from 2007 to 2016 were funded. Funded publications published in high impact journals have higher citations compared to unfunded publications particularly for Medical and Science & Technology related fields such as Clinical Medicine and Chemistry. This proves that financial assistance is key to drive quality research and produce impactful publications as it indirectly increases the institution’s research productivity.  

Geographical visualization of research collaborations of library science in China

2018 ◽  
Vol 36 (3) ◽  
pp. 414-429 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jiming Hu ◽  
Ruhua Huang ◽  
Yubo Wang
Keyword(s):  
Social Network ◽  
Social Network Analysis ◽  
Network Analysis ◽  
Research Collaboration ◽  
Library Science ◽  
Collaboration Network ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Research Collaborations ◽  
Topological Network ◽  
Research Communities

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to visualize the collaboration network among regions in library science (LS) in China. Using various methods and tools of social network analysis and geographical visualization, results were obtained, showing the structure and patterns of research collaborations in topological and geographical views, as well as the geographical distributions of contribution. Design/methodology/approach The sample includes all studies published in the top journal in library science in China from 2006 to 2015. First, co-occurrence data representing collaborations among regions was extracted from author affiliations. Second, the topological network of collaboration was generated by applying social network analysis tools and descriptive statistics, network indicators of the collaboration network and research communities were calculated. Third, the topological network was projected into a geographical map with corresponding coordinates and distances using geographical tools. Finally, the topological network maps and the geographical maps were produced for visualization. Findings The levels of contribution are very unbalanced between regions, and overall research collaboration is low. Beijing, Hubei and several other areas are central and significant regions in China; other regions are mostly connected with central ones through direct collaborations. Research collaborations in LS research in China are mostly distributed in the east and south of China, being centralized in the “Beijing–Hubei–Shanghai” triangle zone, as well as within the triangle’s extending zones. Finally, there are three distinct research communities that connect closely within themselves and loosely between them. The Beijing community is relatively centralized in geography, while other communities are scattered. Originality/value This study applied various methods and tools of social network analysis and geographical mapping analysis to reveal the collaboration structure and patterns among regions in LS research in China. Visualized maps in topological and geographical views help shed new light on research efforts.

scholarly journals Research Collaboration Patterns in Sustainable Mining—A Co-Authorship Analysis of Publications

2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (11) ◽  
pp. 4756
Author(s):  
Magdalena Bemke-Świtilnik ◽  
Aneta Drabek ◽  
Anna Małgorzata Kamińska ◽  
Adam Smoliński
Keyword(s):  
Research Collaboration ◽  
Mining Industry ◽  
Sustainable Mining ◽  
Network Analyses ◽  
Research Collaborations ◽  
Funding Agencies ◽  
Bibliographic Data ◽  
The One ◽  
The Impact

This article quantitatively examines the patterns of collaborative research in the field of sustainable development of the mining sector. The study is based on bibliographic data of 4420 Scopus index research articles published in the period 1983–2018. Both trend and network analyses were employed in this investigation. The results show a rise in the number of joint articles and in the average number of the authors per joint article. Moreover, no increase in the relative numbers of interinstitutional, international, and cross-sector articles was observed. The collaborative efforts, in terms of the co-authorships, were taken mostly among authors affiliated with the one sector—namely, science and research institutions. This indicates that funding agencies should foster more intensively the cross-sector research collaborations for sustainable mining. However, the most collaborative countries formed cross-continental clusters, thus indicating the global character of research collaboration for sustainable mining. This, in turn, can support solving mining issues with long-term implications, especially the impact of the mining industry on the environment.

Stakeholder Identification and Salience After 20 Years: Progress, Problems, and Prospects

2018 ◽  
Vol 60 (1) ◽  
pp. 196-245 ◽  
Author(s):  
Donna J. Wood ◽  
Ronald K. Mitchell ◽  
Bradley R. Agle ◽  
Logan M. Bryan
Keyword(s):  
Network Analysis ◽  
Qualitative Analysis ◽  
Stakeholder Theory ◽  
Analysis Tool ◽  
Stakeholder Identification ◽  
Current State ◽  
Main Path Analysis ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Quantitative Tool ◽  
Do So

To contribute to the continuing challenge of explaining how managers identify stakeholders and assess their salience, in this article, we chronicle the history, assess the impact, and evaluate the possibilities opened by Mitchell, Agle, and Wood (MAW-1997). We do so through two types of qualitative analysis, and also through utilizing a quantitative network analysis tool. The first qualitative analysis categorizes the major contributions of the most influential papers succeeding MAW-1997; the second identifies and compares the relevant issues with MAW-1997 at the time of initial publication and today. We apply main path analysis, a quantitative tool, to map how this scholarly domain has evolved. These three analyses robustly depict the impact of MAW-1997 and the ensuing scholarly conversation, and they enable us to illustrate the current state and trajectory of stakeholder identification and salience scholarship. We close by discussing pressing topics related to the broader body of stakeholder theory literature.

Knowledge co-production in academic-practitioner research collaboration: An expanded perspective on power

2021 ◽  
pp. 135050762098843
Author(s):  
Angela McCabe ◽  
Tom Osegowitsch ◽  
Rachel Parker ◽  
Stephen Cox
Keyword(s):  
Boundary Condition ◽  
Research Council ◽  
Research Collaboration ◽  
Business Schools ◽  
Research Impact ◽  
Practitioner Research ◽  
Production Theory ◽  
Current Form ◽  
Research Collaborations ◽  
The Relationship

Knowledge co-production within academic-practitioner research collaborations is a promising means to address the pressing issue of research impact. Yet current theorising is hampered by a limited appreciation of power in the relationship between research partners. In this study, we explore various types of power and their effects on knowledge co-production in government-funded research collaborations. Drawing on interviews with academics and practitioners working on Australian Research Council Linkage Scheme projects, we initially document the prominence of structural and normative types of power, alongside resource power. We further show that both structural and normative power fail to conform to key principles of knowledge co-production. As a result, many of the projects studied fell short of the knowledge co-production ideal. Our investigation leads us to identify a boundary condition: knowledge co-production theory in its current form is bounded by resource power conditions. Our expanded perspective provides for an elaboration of knowledge co-production theory. We also explore the implications of our findings for business schools in search of impact.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document