IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/rseval/v21y2012i5p392-405.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Social network analysis comparing researcher collaborations in two cardiovascular cohort studies

Author

Listed:
  • Matthew Eblen
  • Richard R. Fabsitz
  • Jean L. Olson
  • Katrina Pearson
  • Lindsay R. Pool
  • Mona Puggal
  • Charles Wu
  • Robin M. Wagner

Abstract

The development of social network analysis techniques and comprehensive online bibliographic databases has led to studies of scientific co-authorship networks. This study compares collaboration among researchers associated with two epidemiological cohort studies, the Cardiovascular Health Study (CHS) and the Strong Heart Study (SHS), using journal article citations published from 1990 through 30 June 2011. Descriptive analyses of their publications and authors were computed, network graphs were produced, and network statistics were calculated. While similar in scientific methodology, these studies differed in ways that influenced researcher collaboration and entry into the networks. As a result, the number of unique authors for the CHS was three times greater than for the SHS (1,749 versus 571, respectively), driven by the CHS' larger number of research institutions and the higher influx of non-formally affiliated authors into its network. The CHS network had more ports of entry and also had more components, or collections of authors collaborating independently from the main network. In contrast, even at similar sizes, the SHS network was denser, indicating a greater cohesiveness than the CHS. The SHS had higher network centralization scores, suggesting the network contained relatively more authors that acted as gatekeepers. Indeed, the SHS had the majority of authors with the highest individual centrality scores, a measure of their collaborative prominence in the network. Differences in the studies' designs, populations, and organizations; funding mechanisms and policies; and awardee institutions likely explain these findings.This work provides a preliminary glimpse into understanding the mechanisms of collaboration among research studies. Copyright , Oxford University Press.

Suggested Citation

  • Matthew Eblen & Richard R. Fabsitz & Jean L. Olson & Katrina Pearson & Lindsay R. Pool & Mona Puggal & Charles Wu & Robin M. Wagner, 2012. "Social network analysis comparing researcher collaborations in two cardiovascular cohort studies," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 21(5), pages 392-405, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:rseval:v:21:y:2012:i:5:p:392-405
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/reseval/rvs030
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Elizabeth M Ginexi & Grace Huang & Michael Steketee & Sophia Tsakraklides & Keith MacAllum & Julie Bromberg & Amanda Huffman & Douglas A Luke & Scott J Leischow & Janet M Okamoto & Todd Rogers, 2017. "Social network analysis of a scientist–practitioner research initiative established to facilitate science dissemination and implementation within states and communities," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 26(4), pages 316-325.
    2. Chen, Shenwen & Ren, Siqiao & Zheng, Lei & Yang, Hanxin & Du, Wenbo & Cao, Xianbin, 2022. "A comparison study of educational scientific collaboration in China and the USA," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 585(C).

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:rseval:v:21:y:2012:i:5:p:392-405. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/rev .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.