Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35905116›Full record

ArticlePloS one2022

The evolution and co-evolution of a primary care cancer research network: From academic social connection to research collaboration.

Debbie Vermond, Esther de Groot, Valerie A Sills, Georgios Lyratzopoulos, Fiona M Walter, Niek J de Wit, Greg Rubin

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

7 authors.

Debbie VermondJulius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, Utrecht University, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-9552-2340
Esther de GrootJulius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, Utrecht University, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, Netherlands.
Valerie A SillsDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, The Primary Care Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Georgios LyratzopoulosDepartment of Behavioural Science and Health, UCL, London, United Kingdom.
Fiona M WalterDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, The Primary Care Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Niek J de WitJulius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, Utrecht University, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, Netherlands.
Greg RubinPopulation Health Sciences Institute, University of Newcastle, Newcastle, United Kingdom.

Funding

Cancer Research UK 18180Cancer Research UK C8640/A23385
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Academic networks are expected to enhance scientific collaboration and thereby increase research outputs. However, little is known about whether and how the initial steps of getting to know other researchers translates into effective collaborations. In this paper, we investigate the evolution and co-evolution of an academic social network and a collaborative research network (using co-authorship as a proxy measure of the latter), and simultaneously examine the effect of individual researcher characteristics (e.g. gender, seniority or workplace) on their evolving relationships. We used longitudinal data from an international network in primary care cancer research: the CanTest Collaborative (CanTest). Surveys were distributed amongst CanTest researchers to map who knows who (the 'academic social network'). Co-authorship relations were derived from Scopus (the 'collaborative network'). Stochastic actor-oriented models were employed to investigate the evolution and co-evolution of both networks. Visualizing the development of the CanTest network revealed that researchers within CanTest get to know each other quickly and also start collaborating over time (evolution of the academic social network and collaborative network respectively). Results point to a stable and solid academic social network that is particularly encouraging towards more junior researchers; yet differing for male and female researchers (the effect of individual researcher characteristics). Moreover, although the academic social network and the research collaborations do not grow at the same pace, the benefit of creating academic social relationships to stimulate effective research collaboration is clearly demonstrated (co-evolution of both networks).

Indexed as

Biomedical ResearchNeoplasmsAuthorshipBibliometricsFemaleHumansMalePrimary Health CareResearch Personnel

Identifiers

PMID35905116
PMCPMC9337668

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.