Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34103540›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2021

Cooperation patterns of members in networks during co-creation.

Kunhao Yang, Itsuki Fujisaki, Kazuhiro Ueda

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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.

Kunhao YangGraduate School of Arts and Sciences, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, 153-8902, Japan. yangkunhao@g.ecc.u-tokyo.ac.jp.
Itsuki FujisakiGraduate School of Arts and Sciences, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, 153-8902, Japan.
Kazuhiro UedaGraduate School of Arts and Sciences, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, 153-8902, Japan. ueda@gregorio.c.u-tokyo.ac.jp.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Cooperation (i.e., co-creation) has become the principal way of carrying out creative activities in modern society. In co-creation, different participants can play two completely different roles based on two different behaviours: some participants are the originators who generate initial contents, while others are the revisors who provide revisions or coordination. In this study, we investigated different participants' roles (i.e., the originator vs. the revisor) in co-creation and how these roles affected the final cooperation-group outcome. By using cooperation networks to represent cooperative relationships among participants, we found that peripheral members (i.e., those in the periphery of the cooperation networks) and core members (i.e., those in the centre of the cooperation networks) played the roles of originators and revisors, respectively, mainly affecting the quantity versus the quality of their creative outcomes. These results were robust across the three different datasets and the three different indicators defining core and peripheral members. Previous studies have considered cooperation behaviours to be homogeneous, ignoring that different participants may play different roles in co-creation. This study discusses patterns of cooperation among participants based on a model in which different roles in co-creation are considered. Thus, this research advances the understanding of how co-creation occurs in networks.

Indexed as

Community NetworksCooperative BehaviorCreativityModels, PsychologicalHumans

Identifiers

PMID34103540
PMCPMC8187372

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.