ArticlePloS one2015
Evolution of Cooperation Patterns in Psoriasis Research: Co-Authorship Network Analysis of Papers in Medline (1942-2013).
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 15 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
15 citing papers in PubMed.
- Mapping the Momentum : Evaluating Research Productivity and Collaborative Networks in Bioethics Across the Eastern Mediterranean Region.Journal of bioethical inquiry · 2026Article
- Cross-site collaboration on infection prevention and control research-room for improvement? A 7-year comparative study in five European countries.Antimicrobial resistance and infection control · 2022Article
- Research in Cerebrospinal Fluid Leak (Rhinorrhea and Otorrhea): A Bibliometric Analysis From 1945 to 2018.Cureus · 2022Article
- Visualizing Research Trends on Culture Neuroscience (2008-2021): A Bibliometric Analysis.Frontiers in psychology · 2022Review
- A decade of evolution in Indonesian orthopedic publication: A bibliographic report.Journal of clinical orthopaedics and trauma · 2021Review
- Bibliometric Analysis of the English Musculoskeletal Literature over the Last 30 Years.TheScientificWorldJournal · 2021Article
- Bibliometric and authorship trends over a 30 year publication history in two representative US sports medicine journals.Heliyon · 2020Article
- From cut-points to key players in co-authorship networks: a case study in ventilator-associated pneumonia research.Scientometrics · 2020Article
- A snapshot of pneumonia research activity and collaboration patterns (2001-2015): a global bibliometric analysis.BMC medical research methodology · 2019Review
- Article
- Network-based assessment of collaborative research in neuroscience.Alzheimer's & dementia (New York, N. Y.) · 2018Article
- Areas of research and clinical approaches to the study of liver abscess.World journal of gastroenterology · 2017Article
- Productivity trends and collaboration patterns: A diachronic study in the eating disorders field.PloS one · 2017Article
- Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAlthough researchers have worked in collaboration since the origins of modern science and the publication of the first scientific journals in the eighteenth century, this phenomenon has acquired exceptional importance in the last several decades. Since the mid-twentieth century, new knowledge has been generated from within an ever-growing network of investigators, working cooperatively in research groups across countries and institutions. Cooperation is a crucial determinant of academic success.
objectiveThe aim of the present paper is to analyze the evolution of scientific collaboration at the micro level, with regard to the scientific production generated on psoriasis research.
methodsA bibliographic search in the Medline database containing the MeSH terms "psoriasis" or "psoriatic arthritis" was carried out. The search results were limited to articles, reviews and letters. After identifying the co-authorships of documents on psoriasis indexed in the Medline database (1942-2013), various bibliometric indicators were obtained, including the average number of authors per document and degree of multi-authorship over time. In addition, we performed a network analysis to study the evolution of certain features of the co-authorship network as a whole: average degree, size of the largest component, clustering coefficient, density and average distance. We also analyzed the evolution of the giant component to characterize the changing research patterns in the field, and we calculated social network indicators for the nodes, namely betweenness and closeness.
resultsThe main active research clusters in the area were identified, along with their authors of reference. Our analysis of 28,670 documents sheds light on different aspects related to the evolution of scientific collaboration in the field, including the progressive increase in the mean number of co-authors (which stood at 5.17 in the 2004-2013 decade), and the rise in multi-authored papers signed by many different authors (in the same decade, 25.77% of the documents had between 6 and 9 co-authors, and 10.28% had 10 or more). With regard to the network indicators, the average degree gradually increased up to 10.97 in the study period. The percentage of authors pertaining to the largest component also rose to 73.02% of the authors. The clustering coefficient, on the other hand, remained stable throughout the entire 70-year period, with values hovering around 0.9. Finally, the average distance peaked in the decades 1974-1983 (8.29) and 1984-2003 (8.12) then fell over the next two decades, down to 5.25 in 2004-2013. The construction of the co-authorship network (threshold of collaboration ≥ 10 co-authored works) revealed a giant component of 161 researchers, containing 6 highly cohesive sub-components.
conclusionsOur study reveals the existence of a growing research community in which collaboration is increasingly important. We can highlight an essential feature associated with scientific collaboration: multi-authored papers, with growing numbers of collaborators contributing to them, are becoming more and more common, therefore the formation of research groups of increasing depth (specialization) and breadth (multidisciplinarity) is now a cornerstone of research success.
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.