Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36684663›Full record

ArticleScientometrics2023

Continued collaboration shortens the transition period of scientists who move to another institution.

Liyin Zhang, Yuchen Qian, Chao Ma, Jiang Li

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientometrics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

4 authors.

Liyin ZhangSchool of Information Management, Nanjing University, Nanjing, 210032 China.
Yuchen QianSchool of Information Management, Nanjing University, Nanjing, 210032 China.
Chao MaSchool of Economics and Management, Southeast University, Nanjing, 211189 China.
Jiang LiSchool of Information Management, Nanjing University, Nanjing, 210032 China.ORCID 0000-0001-5769-8647

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Scientific collaboration plays a significant role in scientists' research performance. When scientists move from one institution to another and leave the team they belong to or lead, they may continue collaborating with the former team because engaging in or building a new team takes time. In this study, we collected data from the Open Researcher and Contributor ID (ORCID) website on 2,922 scientists who published first-tier journal papers defined by the Chinese Academy of Science (CAS) before they moved to a new institution. By applying a Poisson regression model to the dataset, we explored the correlation between continued collaboration and the transition period after scientists moved, which is defined as the time span between the year of the move and the year when they published their first top-tier journal paper after moving. Our findings indicated that: (1) continued collaboration significantly shortens the transition period by 27.2%; (2) continued collaboration significantly shortens the transition period of senior scientists to a larger extent than that of junior scientists; (3) continued collaboration significantly shortens the transition period of social scientists to a larger extent than that of natural scientists; (4) the transition period is shorter after moves for scientists with higher inherent potential; and (5) there is no evidence that the transition period is associated with culture-related differences between the origin country and the destination country after the move, or whether they had lived in the destination country before.

Indexed as

Continued collaborationGlobal mobilityScientistsTransition period

Identifiers

PMID36684663
PMCPMC9838457

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.