Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28388621›Full record

ArticlePloS one2017

Collaboration patterns in the German political science co-authorship network.

Philip Leifeld, Sandra Wankmüller, Valentin T Z Berger, Karin Ingold, Christiane Steiner

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Intradepartment scientific collaboration in Journal of Research in Medical Sciences: A co-authorship study.Journal of research in medical sciences : the official journal of Isfahan University of Medical Sciences · 2018
    Article
  3. 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

5 authors.

Philip LeifeldSchool of Social and Political Sciences, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6834-5705
Sandra WankmüllerGeschwister Scholl Institute of Political Science, Ludwig-Maximilians-University (LMU Munich), Munich, Germany.
Valentin T Z BergerDepartment of Politics and Public Administration, University of Konstanz, Konstanz, Germany.
Karin IngoldInstitute of Political Science, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Christiane SteinerDepartment of Politics and Public Administration, University of Konstanz, Konstanz, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Research on social processes in the production of scientific output suggests that the collective research agenda of a discipline is influenced by its structural features, such as "invisible colleges" or "groups of collaborators" as well as academic "stars" that are embedded in, or connect, these research groups. Based on an encompassing dataset that takes into account multiple publication types including journals and chapters in edited volumes, we analyze the complete co-authorship network of all 1,339 researchers in German political science. Through the use of consensus graph clustering techniques and descriptive centrality measures, we identify the ten largest research clusters, their research topics, and the most central researchers who act as bridges and connect these clusters. We also aggregate the findings at the level of research organizations and consider the inter-university co-authorship network. The findings indicate that German political science is structured by multiple overlapping research clusters with a dominance of the subfields of international relations, comparative politics and political sociology. A small set of well-connected universities takes leading roles in these informal research groups.

Indexed as

AuthorshipCooperative BehaviorPoliticsGermany

Identifiers

PMID28388621
PMCPMC5384752

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.