Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26719978›Full record

ArticlePLoS neglected tropical diseases2015

Using Co-authorship Networks to Map and Analyse Global Neglected Tropical Disease Research with an Affiliation to Germany.

Max Ernst Bender, Suzanne Edwards, Peter von Philipsborn, Fridolin Steinbeis, Thomas Keil, Peter Tinnemann

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS neglected tropical diseases, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Bibliometric Analysis for Medical Research.Indian journal of psychological medicine · 2023
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. A bibliometric analysis on waste electrical and electronic equipment research.Environmental science and pollution research international · 2019
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Network-based assessment of collaborative research in neuroscience.Alzheimer's & dementia (New York, N. Y.) · 2018
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Social Network Analysis As a Tool for Research Policy.PLoS neglected tropical diseases · 2015
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Max Ernst BenderInstitute for Social Medicine, Epidemiology and Health Economics, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Suzanne EdwardsDepartment of Health Care Management, Berlin University of Technology, Berlin, Germany.
Peter von PhilipsbornUniversities Allied for Essential Medicines Europe e.V. (UAEM), Berlin, Germany.
Fridolin SteinbeisUniversities Allied for Essential Medicines Europe e.V. (UAEM), Berlin, Germany.
Thomas KeilInstitute for Social Medicine, Epidemiology and Health Economics, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Peter TinnemannInstitute for Social Medicine, Epidemiology and Health Economics, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundResearch on Neglected Tropical Diseases (NTDs) has increased in recent decades, and significant need-gaps in diagnostic and treatment tools remain. Analysing bibliometric data from published research is a powerful method for revealing research efforts, partnerships and expertise. We aim to identify and map NTD research networks in Germany and their partners abroad to enable an informed and transparent evaluation of German contributions to NTD research. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL

findingsA SCOPUS database search for articles with German author affiliations that were published between 2002 and 2012 was conducted for kinetoplastid and helminth diseases. Open-access tools were used for data cleaning and scientometrics (OpenRefine), geocoding (OpenStreetMaps) and to create (Table2Net), visualise and analyse co-authorship networks (Gephi). From 26,833 publications from around the world that addressed 11 diseases, we identified 1,187 (4.4%) with at least one German author affiliation, and we processed 972 publications for the five most published-about diseases. Of those, we extracted 4,007 individual authors and 863 research institutions to construct co-author networks. The majority of co-authors outside Germany were from high-income countries and Brazil. Collaborations with partners on the African continent remain scattered. NTD research within Germany was distributed among 220 research institutions. We identified strong performers on an individual level by using classic parameters (number of publications, h-index) and social network analysis parameters (betweenness centrality). The research network characteristics varied strongly between diseases. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: The share of NTD publications with German affiliations is approximately half of its share in other fields of medical research. This finding underlines the need to identify barriers and expand Germany's otherwise strong research activities towards NTDs. A geospatial analysis of research collaborations with partners abroad can support decisions to strengthen research capacity, particularly in low- and middle-income countries, which were less involved in collaborations than high-income countries. Identifying knowledge hubs within individual researcher networks complements traditional scientometric indicators that are used to identify opportunities for collaboration. Using free tools to analyse research processes and output could facilitate data-driven health policies. Our findings contribute to the prioritisation of efforts in German NTD research at a time of impending local and global policy decisions.

Indexed as

AuthorshipBibliometricsBiomedical ResearchNeglected DiseasesTropical MedicineAcademies and InstitutesBrazilDatabases, FactualGermanyHumansInternational CooperationPublicationsResearch Personnel

Identifiers

PMID26719978
PMCPMC4703140

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.