IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pbio00/1002448.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

“One Health” or Three? Publication Silos Among the One Health Disciplines

Author

Listed:
  • Kezia R Manlove
  • Josephine G Walker
  • Meggan E Craft
  • Kathryn P Huyvaert
  • Maxwell B Joseph
  • Ryan S Miller
  • Pauline Nol
  • Kelly A Patyk
  • Daniel O’Brien
  • Daniel P Walsh
  • Paul C Cross

Abstract

The One Health initiative is a global effort fostering interdisciplinary collaborations to address challenges in human, animal, and environmental health. While One Health has received considerable press, its benefits remain unclear because its effects have not been quantitatively described. We systematically surveyed the published literature and used social network analysis to measure interdisciplinarity in One Health studies constructing dynamic pathogen transmission models. The number of publications fulfilling our search criteria increased by 14.6% per year, which is faster than growth rates for life sciences as a whole and for most biology subdisciplines. Surveyed publications clustered into three communities: one used by ecologists, one used by veterinarians, and a third diverse-authorship community used by population biologists, mathematicians, epidemiologists, and experts in human health. Overlap between these communities increased through time in terms of author number, diversity of co-author affiliations, and diversity of citations. However, communities continue to differ in the systems studied, questions asked, and methods employed. While the infectious disease research community has made significant progress toward integrating its participating disciplines, some segregation—especially along the veterinary/ecological research interface—remains."One Health" is a global initiative fostering interdisciplinary collaborations to address health challenges. Although an empirical analysis of published disease models shows a rapid growth in cross-disciplinary "One Health" collaborations, the continued segregation of medical, veterinary, and ecological communities poses an ongoing challenge.Author Summary: A cohesive reaction to emerging threats requires the efficient dissemination of knowledge and methodologies across multiple disciplinary boundaries. A “One Health” approach has been advocated to facilitate cross-disciplinary communication and research in responding to challenges in human, animal, and environmental health. We empirically describe collaboration networks surrounding one aspect of this One Health initiative: infectious disease transmission models. A systematic literature review and social network analysis showed that dynamic disease modelling grew faster than most biological and natural science disciplines over the last 25 y, yet the field remains somewhat compartmentalized. Many researchers contribute to a broad, cross-disciplinary group of journals, but publications from veterinarians and ecologists remain segregated into relatively discrete communities. While the veterinary and ecological communities regularly reference the broad, cross-disciplinary group, they only rarely cite each other; furthermore, the highest-tiered medical journals contributed very few papers to our search. Therefore, our results are somewhat mixed: while One Health may have precipitated a great deal of research interest in infectious disease, it has not fully overcome the barriers that segregate its contributing disciplines.

Suggested Citation

  • Kezia R Manlove & Josephine G Walker & Meggan E Craft & Kathryn P Huyvaert & Maxwell B Joseph & Ryan S Miller & Pauline Nol & Kelly A Patyk & Daniel O’Brien & Daniel P Walsh & Paul C Cross, 2016. "“One Health” or Three? Publication Silos Among the One Health Disciplines," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(4), pages 1-14, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pbio00:1002448
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1002448
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1002448
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1002448&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pbio.1002448?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jodi E. Basner & Katrina I. Theisz & Unni S. Jensen & C. David Jones & Ilya Ponomarev & Pawel Sulima & Karen Jo & Mariam Eljanne & Michael G. Espey & Jonathan Franca-Koh & Sean E. Hanlon & Nastaran Z., 2013. "Measuring the evolution and output of cross-disciplinary collaborations within the NCI Physical Sciences--Oncology Centers Network," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 22(5), pages 285-297, October.
    2. Marco Pautasso, 2012. "Publication Growth in Biological Sub-Fields: Patterns, Predictability and Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 4(12), pages 1-14, November.
    3. Pamela R. Bishop & Schuyler W. Huck & Bonnie H. Ownley & Jennifer K. Richards & Gary J. Skolits, 2014. "Impacts of an interdisciplinary research center on participant publication and collaboration patterns: A case study of the National Institute for Mathematical and Biological Synthesis," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 23(4), pages 327-340.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Leahey, Erin & Barringer, Sondra N., 2020. "Universities’ commitment to interdisciplinary research: To what end?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(2).
    2. Hackett, Edward J. & Leahey, Erin & Parker, John N. & Rafols, Ismael & Hampton, Stephanie E. & Corte, Ugo & Chavarro, Diego & Drake, John M. & Penders, Bart & Sheble, Laura & Vermeulen, Niki & Vision,, 2021. "Do synthesis centers synthesize? A semantic analysis of topical diversity in research," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(1).
    3. Saad Ahmed Javed & Sifeng Liu, 2018. "Predicting the research output/growth of selected countries: application of Even GM (1, 1) and NDGM models," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 115(1), pages 395-413, April.
    4. Lutz Bornmann & Rüdiger Mutz, 2015. "Growth rates of modern science: A bibliometric analysis based on the number of publications and cited references," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 66(11), pages 2215-2222, November.
    5. Milojević, Staša, 2015. "Quantifying the cognitive extent of science," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 9(4), pages 962-973.
    6. Natalia Hanazaki, 2015. "Why are we so attached to the “ethno” prefix in Brazil?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 103(2), pages 545-554, May.
    7. Francesco Giovanni Avallone & Alberto Quagli & Paola Ramassa, 2022. "Interdisciplinary research by accounting scholars: An exploratory study," FINANCIAL REPORTING, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 2022(2), pages 5-34.
    8. Jennifer A. Byrne & Cyril Labbé, 2017. "Striking similarities between publications from China describing single gene knockdown experiments in human cancer cell lines," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 110(3), pages 1471-1493, March.
    9. Joshua Borycz & Robert Olendorf & Alison Specht & Bruce Grant & Kevin Crowston & Carol Tenopir & Suzie Allard & Natalie M. Rice & Rachael Hu & Robert J. Sandusky, 2023. "Perceived benefits of open data are improving but scientists still lack resources, skills, and rewards," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 10(1), pages 1-12, December.
    10. Chan, Ho Fai & Frey, Bruno S. & Gallus, Jana & Torgler, Benno, 2014. "Academic honors and performance," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(C), pages 188-204.
    11. Stephen Webb, 2016. "Twitter use in physics conferences," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 108(3), pages 1267-1286, September.
    12. Carlos Olmeda-Gómez & Carlos Romá-Mateo & Maria-Antonia Ovalle-Perandones, 2019. "Overview of trends in global epigenetic research (2009–2017)," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 119(3), pages 1545-1574, June.
    13. Ducharme, Lori J. & Fujimoto, Kayo & Kuo, Jacky & Stewart, Jonathan & Taylor, Bruce & Schneider, John, 2024. "Collaboration and growth in a large research cooperative: A network analytic approach," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 102(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:plo:pbio00:1002448. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: plosbiology (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/ .

    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.