Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24509520›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2014

The use and significance of a research networking system.

Maninder Kahlon, Leslie Yuan, John Daigre, Eric Meeks, Katie Nelson, Cynthia Piontkowski, Katja Reuter, Rachael Sak, Brian Turner, Griffin M Weber and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Maninder KahlonUniversity of California, San Francisco, Clinical & Translational Science Institute, San Francisco, CA, United States. mini.kahlon@ucsf.edu.
Leslie Yuan
John Daigre
Eric Meeks
Katie Nelson
Cynthia Piontkowski
Katja Reuter
Rachael Sak
Brian Turner
Griffin M Weber
Anirvan Chatterjee

Funding

Harvard Clinical and Translational Science CenterUL1TR001102 · NCATS · HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL · PI NADLER, LEE MARSHALL · 2013 to 2017
$106.2M
Engaging University of California Stakeholders for Biorespository ResearchUL1TR000004 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI GRANDIS, JENNIFER RUBIN · 2012 to 2015
$78.0M
NCATS NIH HHS 1UL1 TR001102-01NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR000004NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR001102
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundUniversities have begun deploying public Internet systems that allow for easy search of their experts, expertise, and intellectual networks. Deployed first in biomedical schools but now being implemented more broadly, the initial motivator of these research networking systems was to enable easier identification of collaborators and enable the development of teams for research.

objectiveThe intent of the study was to provide the first description of the usage of an institutional research "social networking" system or research networking system (RNS).

methodsNumber of visits, visitor location and type, referral source, depth of visit, search terms, and click paths were derived from 2.5 years of Web analytics data. Feedback from a pop-up survey presented to users over 15 months was summarized.

resultsRNSs automatically generate and display profiles and networks of researchers. Within 2.5 years, the RNS at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) achieved one-seventh of the monthly visit rate of the main longstanding university website, with an increasing trend. Visitors came from diverse locations beyond the institution. Close to 75% (74.78%, 208,304/278,570) came via a public search engine and 84.0% (210 out of a sample of 250) of these queried an individual's name that took them directly to the relevant profile page. In addition, 20.90% (214 of 1024) visits went beyond the page related to a person of interest to explore related researchers and topics through the novel and networked information provided by the tool. At the end of the period analyzed, more than 2000 visits per month traversed 5 or more links into related people and topics. One-third of visits came from returning visitors who were significantly more likely to continue to explore networked people and topics (P<.001). Responses to an online survey suggest a broad range of benefits of using the RNS in supporting the research and clinical mission.

conclusionsReturning visitors in an ever-increasing pool of visitors to an RNS are among those that display behavior consistent with using the tool to identify new collaborators or research topics. Through direct user feedback we know that some visits do result in research-enhancing outcomes, although we cannot address the scale of impact. With the rapid pace of acquiring visitors searching for individual names, the RNS is evolving into a new kind of gateway for the university.

Indexed as

Information Seeking BehaviorHumansInformation ServicesInternetResearchSan FranciscoSearch EngineSocial NetworkingUniversitiesinformation seeking behaviorinterprofessional relationsmultidisciplinary communicationsearch enginesocial networking

Identifiers

PMID24509520
PMCPMC3936277

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.