ArticleJournal of the Royal Society of Medicine2019
Collaborative patterns, authorship practices and scientific success in biomedical research: a network analysis.
Article in Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Musculoskeletal injury research in sub-Saharan Africa : a ten-year bibliometric analysis of research outputs from Malawi, South Africa, and Tanzania.Bone & joint open · 2026Article
- Evaluation of Publication Growth in Pediatric Dentistry From 2005 to 2024: A Bibliometric Analysis.Cureus · 2026Review
- The Influence of Geographic Region on Hip and Knee Arthroplasty Literature From 1988 to 2018.Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Global research & reviews · 2021Article
- Gender parity in scientific authorship in a National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre: a bibliometric analysis.BMJ open · 2021Article
- Equal Co-authorship Practices: Review and Recommendations.Science and engineering ethics · 2020Review
- Survey of equal contributions in biomedical research publications.Accountability in research · 2020Article
- Data sharing and opening up research.Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo investigate the relationship between biomedical researchers' collaborative and authorship practices and scientific success.
designLongitudinal quantitative analysis of individual researchers' careers over a nine-year period.
settingA leading biomedical research institution in the United Kingdom.
participantsFive hundred and twenty-five biomedical researchers who were in employment on 31 December 2009.
main outcome measuresWe constructed the co-authorship network in which nodes are the researchers, and links are established between any two researchers if they co-authored one or more articles. For each researcher, we recorded the position held in the co-authorship network and in the bylines of all articles published in each three-year interval and calculated the number of citations these articles accrued until January 2013. We estimated maximum likelihood negative binomial panel regression models.
resultsOur analysis suggests that collaboration sustained success, yet excessive co-authorship did not. Last positions in non-alphabetised bylines were beneficial for higher academic ranks but not for junior ones. A professor could witness a 20.57% increase in the expected citation count if last-listed non-alphabetically in one additional publication; yet, a lecturer suffered from a 13.04% reduction. First positions in alphabetised bylines were positively associated with performance for junior academics only. A lecturer could experience a 8.78% increase in the expected citation count if first-listed alphabetically in one additional publication. While junior researchers amplified success when brokering among otherwise disconnected collaborators, senior researchers prospered from socially cohesive networks, rich in third-party relationships.
conclusionsThese results help biomedical scientists shape successful careers and research institutions develop effective assessment and recruitment policies that will ultimately sustain the quality of biomedical research and patient care.
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.