scholarly journals A large National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Biomedical Research Centre facilitates impactful cross-disciplinary and collaborative translational research publications and research collaboration networks: a bibliometric evaluation study

2021 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Vasiliki Kiparoglou ◽  
Laurence A. Brown ◽  
Helen McShane ◽  
Keith M. Channon ◽  
Syed Ghulam Sarwar Shah

Abstract Background The evaluation of translational health research is important for various reasons such as the research impact assessment, research funding allocation, accountability, and strategic research policy formulation. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the research productivity, strength and diversity of research collaboration networks and impact of research supported by a large biomedical research centre in the United Kingdom (UK). Methods Bibliometric analysis of research publications by translational researchers affiliated with the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Oxford Biomedical Research Centre (BRC) from April 2012 to March 2017. Results Analysis included 2377 translational research publications that were published during the second 5-year funding period of the NIHR Oxford BRC. Author details were available for 99.75% of the publications with DOIs (2359 of 2365 with DOIs), and the number of authors per publication was median 9 (mean  = 18.03, SD  = 3.63, maximum  = 2467 authors). Author lists also contained many consortia, groups, committees, and teams (n  = 165 in total), with 1238 additional contributors, where membership was reported. The BRC co-authorship i.e., research collaboration network for these publications involved 20,229 nodes (authors, of which 1606 nodes had Oxford affiliations), and approximately 4.3 million edges (authorship linkages). Articles with a valid DOIs (2365 of 2377, 99.5%) were collectively cited more than 155,000 times and the average Field Citation Ratio was median 6.75 (geometric mean  = 7.12) while the average Relative Citation Ratio was median 1.50 (geometric mean  = 1.83) for the analysed publications. Conclusions The NIHR Oxford BRC generated substantial translational research publications and facilitated a huge collaborative network of translational researchers working in complex structures and consortia, which shows success across the whole of this BRC funding period. Further research involving continued uptake of unique persistent identifiers and the tracking of other research outputs such as clinical innovations and patents would allow a more detailed understanding of large research enterprises such as NIHR BRCs in the UK.

2014 ◽  
Vol 52 ◽  
pp. 130-140 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jiang Bian ◽  
Mengjun Xie ◽  
Umit Topaloglu ◽  
Teresa Hudson ◽  
Hari Eswaran ◽  
...  

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vincent Schubert R Malbas

Collaboration forms an integral aspect of global research endeavors, where co-authorship derived from bibliographic records provides the building block for mapping research collaboration networks. Bibliometric techniques and social network analysis tools were applied to measure the scope and depth of collaboration in biomedical research in Southeast Asia during the period 2005-2009. In particular, centrality scores and draw network maps were calculated for both country and institutional levels of aggregation. In the field of biomedical research, Thailand and Singapore are the most productive and collaborative countries in Southeast Asia during the period studied. Using network analysis, there was strong correlation of research productivity by a country or institution with the number of collaboration and its group influence, and weak correlation with maximal data flow within the research network. There were specific clusters of connected institutions in subnetworks for neoplasm, diabetes, and tuberculosis research. Given the observed frequency of regional collaboration in Southeast Asia, in comparison to foreign collaboration, it is argued that increasing the number of collaborations within Southeast Asia will help advance the region’s efforts on domestic and regional health issues.


PLoS ONE ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 9 (11) ◽  
pp. e111928 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jiang Bian ◽  
Mengjun Xie ◽  
Teresa J. Hudson ◽  
Hari Eswaran ◽  
Mathias Brochhausen ◽  
...  

Rheumatology ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 60 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Eleanor Hawkins ◽  
Tracy Hyndman ◽  
Raj Amarnani ◽  
James Kimpton ◽  
Su-Ann Yeoh ◽  
...  

Abstract Background/Aims  Patient and public involvement (PPI) initiatives are important to ensure patient-centered research. However, traditional focus groups can present challenges including the recruitment and retention of patient partners. Additional challenges to patient involvement have also arisen due to the coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19). The University College London (UCL) Patient Partners in Rheumatology Research initiative has been developed to explore novel ways to boost patient involvement and foster an active collaboration between basic researchers and patient partners. Methods  Two online surveys were designed to obtain information with regards to the expectations and practicalities of this initiative. One survey was sent to patients who had registered an interest in being patient partners and the other survey to rheumatology researchers at UCL and University College London Hospital (UCLH). Results  We received responses from 25 researchers and 21 patients. The majority of patients who responded (71%) had not previously been involved in PPI. Most of the researchers (84%) had previously utilised PPI, however 20% of those had some difficulty accessing it. Most patients (86%) were interested in becoming a patient partner. Amongst those with reservations, one stated that “I don't think I have the qualifications to be involved with scientists and researchers”. Over half of patients (52%) were happy to participate in PPI more than five times a year and most researchers (84%) expressed that five times a year was acceptable. Patients favoured (52%) conducting PPI meetings after office hours (5-8pm) during the working week. Due to social restrictions because of COVID-19, we asked both patients and researchers their preferred mode of meeting. Both groups favoured a mixed (virtual and face to face) meeting arrangement (81% for patients and 68% for researchers). A third of patients (38%) expressed that they would need technical assistance accessing a virtual meeting. Almost all patients (95%) were happy to contribute to lay summary reviews remotely via email. Conclusion  Based on the insights gained from the survey results, our PPI initiative meetings will be hosted in a hybrid virtual/face to face format. These will be held at a time and frequency that is convenient for the patient partners to increase participation across wider demographics. This survey has highlighted that we have to be mindful of certain patient perceptions of PPI which creates a barrier to patient involvement and that some individuals may require further support in accessing virtual meetings. By designing a PPI initiative that creatively addressed the needs of both the researchers and patient partners we hope to create a platform for productive dialogue and collaboration to ensure patient-centred research, despite the changes brought about by the COVID-19 pandemic. Disclosure  E. Hawkins: Other; funded by National Institute of Health Research, Clinical Research Network. T. Hyndman: None. R. Amarnani: None. J. Kimpton: None. S. Yeoh: Other; University College London Hospital National Institute of Health Research Biomedical Research Centre, UCLH Charities, Royal College of Physicians and Rosetrees Trust. M. Castelino: Other; University College London Hospitals National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre.


PLoS ONE ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 15 (10) ◽  
pp. e0239589
Author(s):  
Lorna R. Henderson ◽  
Syed Ghulam Sarwar Shah ◽  
Pavel V. Ovseiko ◽  
Rinita Dam ◽  
Alastair M. Buchan ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document