scholarly journals CollaborationViz: Interactive Visual Exploration of Biomedical Research Collaboration Networks

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


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.


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.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document