ArticlePloS one2022
Scientific collaboration, research funding, and novelty in scientific knowledge.
Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Making scientific publishing more balanced and reversing the current dangerous drift to better support global environmental conservation and planetary health.Research integrity and peer review · 2026Article
- A digital archive reveals how a funding agency cooperated with academics to support the nascent field of genomics.Nature communications · 2026Article
- Charting the landscape and evolution of research on cell death in acute lymphoblastic leukemia: a comprehensive bibliometric analysis (1990-2024).Discover oncology · 2025Review
- Scientometric Study of Mpox and Vaccine Research: Dynamics, Emerging Patterns, and Networking.Health science reports · 2025Article
- Working in biocuration: contemporary experiences and perspectives.Database : the journal of biological databases and curation · 2025Article
- Research priorities and trends in pulmonary tuberculosis in Latin America: A bibliometric analysis.Heliyon · 2024Article
- Challenges of biomedical research collaboration in India: Perceptions of Indian and international researchers.PloS one · 2024Article
- The landscape of biomedical research funding in Brazil: a current overview.International braz j urol : official journal of the Brazilian Society of UrologyReview
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Disruptive advancements in science and technology often rely on new ideas and findings, which in turn brings us to focus on the value of novelty in scholarly activities. Using Web of Science publication data from European regions for the period between 2008 and 2017, this study examines, first, the impact of scientific collaboration on novelty of research. Here, five levels of collaboration are considered for each article-country, three levels of regions, and institutions, and novelty is measured with keywords information. Second, we investigate both the effect and moderating effect of research funding on novelty. Our findings show that there is a negative and significant relationship between scientific collaboration and novelty. Furthermore, funded papers show lower novelty than the unfunded, but funding does have a significant moderating effect on the relationship between collaboration and novelty. This study contributes by linking diverse levels of collaboration and funding sources to article's novelty and thus extending the scope of bibliometric research of publications.
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.