ArticleAdoption & fostering2017
The emergence of team science: Understanding the state of adoption research through social network analysis.
Article in Adoption & fostering, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Barriers and facilitators of conducting research with team science approach: a systematic review.BMC medical education · 2023Pooled it
- Risk network analysis and simulation research in municipal engineering projects contracted by China in Saudi Arabia.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Bibliometric and social network analysis of a Clinical and Translational Resource awardee: An Oklahoma experience 2014-2021.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2024Article
- Global Research Trends on the Treatment of Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma: A Bibliometric and Visualized Study.Journal of Cancer · 2022Article
- Great minds think alike, or do they often differ? Research topic overlap and the formation of scientific teams.Journal of informetrics · 2021Article
- Fostering interdisciplinary collaboration: A longitudinal social network analysis of the NIH mHealth Training Institutes.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2021Article
- Research Progress of Ferroptosis: A Bibliometrics and Visual Analysis Study.Journal of healthcare engineering · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The notion of team science has recently gained popularity in European and American health sciences considering increasing evidence that scientific collaboration produces higher-impact research and that complex scientific problems are better investigated by interdisciplinary teams. While publication metrics indicate adoption research is expanding, the comprehensive structure of adoption studies as a scientific field has not been formally evaluated for collaborative and cross-disciplinary activity. This article aims to elucidate the structure, composition, and dynamics of scientific relationships within adoption research that may inform research and practice strategies, competencies, and cohesion within the field. Using social network analysis, we extracted bibliographic data on 2767 peer-reviewed adoption-related articles from 1930s to 2014 and evaluated the resulting co-authorship and co-citation networks. We found that adoption research has grown substantially over the last 25 years, and is conducted in varied disciplines, with increasing collaboration across geography and disciplinary areas. The co-authorship and co-citation networks are approaching numeric thresholds and structural configurations distinctive of well-established and more institutionalized fields of study. These findings reveal the maturation of adoption studies as a team science and argue for the development of institutional mechanisms that support such evolution. Implications for professional and research planning are discussed.
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.