ArticlePloS one2015
Author Credit for Transdisciplinary Collaboration.
Article in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Starstruck by journal prestige and citation counts? On students' bias and perceptions of trustworthiness according to clues in publication references.Scientometrics · 2022Article
- Interdisciplinary collaboration from diverse science teams can produce significant outcomes.PloS one · 2022Article
- Bridging the Gap with Clinicians: The Issue of Underrecognition of Pathologists and Radiologists as Scientific Authors in Contemporary Medical Literature.Science and engineering ethics · 2020Article
- "One Health" or Three? Publication Silos Among the One Health Disciplines.PLoS biology · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Transdisciplinary collaboration is the key for innovation. An evaluation mechanism is necessary to ensure that academic credit for this costly process can be allocated fairly among coauthors. This paper proposes a set of quantitative measures (e.g., t_credit and t_index) to reflect authors' transdisciplinary contributions to publications. These measures are based on paper-topic probability distributions and author-topic probability distributions. We conduct an empirical analysis of the information retrieval domain which demonstrates that these measures effectively improve the results of harmonic_credit and h_index measures by taking into account the transdisciplinary contributions of authors. The definitions of t_credit and t_index provide a fair and effective way for research organizations to assign credit to authors of transdisciplinary publications.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.