Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30912999›Full record

ArticlePublic health reports (Washington, D.C. : 1974)

Co-Authorship Network Analysis of Prevention Research Centers: An Exploratory Study.

Rose A Marcelin, Kristina M Rabarison, Monika K Rabarison

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Public health reports (Washington, D.C. : 1974). The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Anaemia in Children and Adolescents: A Bibliometric Analysis of BRICS Countries (1990-2020).International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

3 authors.

Rose A Marcelin1 Division of Population Health, Association of Schools and Programs of Public Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Public Health Fellow, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Kristina M Rabarison2 Division of Population Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Monika K Rabarison4 Department of Economics and Finance, Robert C. Vackar College of Business and Entrepreneurship, University of Texas Rio Grande Valley, Brownsville, TX, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-7191-5783

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Prevention Research Centers (PRCs) collaborate on public health activities with community agencies and organizations. We evaluated these collaborations by studying the relationships between co-authors from the PRCs and community agencies that published at least 1 article together in the first year of the program.

methodsWe identified all the authors of articles published by PRCs and collaborating members in peer-reviewed journals between September 2014 and September 2015 and constructed a network showing the links between and among all the authors. We characterized the network with 4 measures of social structure (network components, network density, average clustering coefficient, average distance) and 3 measures of individual author performances (degree-, betweenness-, and closeness-centrality).

resultsThe 413 articles had 1804 individual authors and 7995 co-authorship relationships (links) in 212 peer-reviewed journals. These authors and co-authors formed 44 separate, nonoverlapping groups (components). The largest "giant" component containing most of the links involved 66.3% (n = 1196) of the authors and 73.7% (n = 5889) of the links. We identified 136 "information brokers" (authors with high closeness centrality: those who have the shortest links to the most authors). Two authors with high betweenness centrality (who had the highest number of co-authors; 104 and 107) had the greatest ability to mediate co-authorships. Network density was low; only 0.5% of all potential co-authorships were realized (7995 actual co-authorship/1 628 110 potential co-authorships).

conclusionInformation brokers and co-authorship mediators should be encouraged to communicate more with each other to increase the number of collaborations between network members and, hence, the number of co-authorships.

Indexed as

AuthorshipCooperative BehaviorPeer Review, ResearchAcademies and InstitutesCenters for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S.Health Services ResearchHumansPeer ReviewPreventive Health ServicesUnited Statescitation network analysiscollaborationdisease preventionevaluationhealth promotionprevention research centerssocial network analysis

Identifiers

PMID30912999
PMCPMC6505325

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.