ArticlePloS one
Analysis of co-authorship networks among Brazilian graduate programs in computer science.
Article in PloS one. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The growth and popularization of platforms on scientific production has been the subject of several studies, producing relevant analyses of co-authorship behavior among groups of researchers. Researchers and their scientific productions can be analysed as co-authorship social networks, so researchers are linked through common publications. In this context, co-authoring networks can be analysed to find patterns that can describe or characterize them. This work presents the analysis and characterization of co-authorship networks of academic Brazilian graduate programs in computer science. Data from Brazilian researchers were collected and modeled as co-authoring networks among the graduate programs that researchers take part in. Each network topology was analysed with complex network measurements and three proposed qualitative indices that evaluate the publication's quality. In addition, the co-authorship networks of the computer science graduate programs were characterized in relation to the assessment received by CAPES, which attributes a qualitative grade to the graduate programs in Brazil. The results show the most relevant topological measurements for the program's characterization and the evaluations received by the programs in different qualitative degrees, relating the main topological patterns of the co-authorship networks and the CAPES grades of the Brazilian graduate programs in computer science.
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.