Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31163118›Full record

ArticleJournal of the Royal Society of Medicine2019

Collaborative patterns, authorship practices and scientific success in biomedical research: a network analysis.

Vanash M Patel, Pietro Panzarasa, Hutan Ashrafian, Tim S Evans, Ali Kirresh, Nick Sevdalis, Ara Darzi, Thanos Athanasiou

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. 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 · 2021
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Data sharing and opening up research.Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine · 2019
    Review
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

8 authors.

Vanash M Patel1 Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London W2 1NY, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-9579-8227
Pietro Panzarasa2 School of Business and Management, Queen Mary University of London, London E1 4NS, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-7596-4806
Hutan Ashrafian1 Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London W2 1NY, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-1668-0672
Tim S Evans3 Department of Physics, Imperial College London, London, SW7 2AZ, UK.
Ali Kirresh1 Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London W2 1NY, UK.
Nick Sevdalis1 Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London W2 1NY, UK.
Ara Darzi1 Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London W2 1NY, UK.
Thanos Athanasiou1 Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London W2 1NY, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

AuthorshipPublicationsBiomedical ResearchCooperative BehaviorHumansSocial BehaviorUnited KingdomMedical careersmedical educationmedical management

Identifiers

PMID31163118
PMCPMC6552387

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.