Tackling the "so what" problem in scientific research: a systems-based approach to resource and publication tracking

Network-based assessment of collaborative research in neuroscience

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this study was to describe collaborative research in neuroscience within the context of the Center for Neurodegeneration and Translational Neuroscience (CNTN), a Center of Biomedical Research Excellence supported by the National Institute of General Medical Science. Drawing upon research on the science of team science, this study investigated the way that interactions around research emerged over the course of establishing a new research center. The objectives were to document changes in research activity and describe how human research support infrastructure functioned to support the production of science.

METHODS

Social network analyses were used to model coauthorship relationships based on publication histories from baseline (2014) through the current grant year (2017) for key personnel (n = 12), as well as survey data on collaborative engagement among CNTN members (n = 59).

RESULTS

Exponential random graph models indicated that over time, CNTN members were increasingly likely to form coauthorship relationships. Community detection algorithms and brokerage analyses suggested that the CNTN was functioning as intended to support scientific development.

DISCUSSION

Assessment of team science efforts is critical to evaluating and developing appropriate support structures that facilitate successful team science efforts in translational neuroscience.

Charting the Publication and Citation Impact of the NIH Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) Program From 2006 Through 2016

PURPOSE

The authors evaluated publication and citation patterns for articles supported by Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) hub investment over the first decade of the CTSA program. The aim was to elucidate a pivotal step in the translational process by providing an account of how time, hub maturity, and hub attributes were related to productivity and influence in the academic literature.

METHOD

In 2017, the authors collected bibliometric data from PubMed, Web of Science InCites, and National Institutes of Health (NIH) iCite for articles citing any CTSA hub grants published from hub inception through 2016. They compiled data on publication and citation rates and indices of relative citation impact aggregated by hub funding year cohort. They compared hub-level bibliometric activity by multi- versus single-institution structure and total monetary award sums, compiled from NIH RePORTER.

RESULTS

From 2006-2016, CTSA hubs supported over 66,000 publications, with publication rates accelerating as hubs matured. These publications accumulated over 1.2 million citations, with some articles cited over 1,000 times. Indices of relative citation impact indicated CTSA-supported publications were cited more than twice as often as expected for articles of their publication years and disciplines. Multi-institutional hubs and those awarded higher grant sums exhibited significantly higher publication and citation activity.

CONCLUSIONS

The CTSA program is yielding a robust and growing body of influential research findings with consistently high indices of relative citation impact. Preliminary evidence suggests multi-institutional collaborations and more monetary resources are associated with elevated bibliometric activity and, therefore, may be worth their investment.

Clinician-Investigator Training and the Need to Pilot New Approaches to Recruiting and Retaining This Workforce

Clinician-investigators, also called physician-scientists, offer critical knowledge and perspectives that benefit research on basic science mechanisms, improved diagnostic and therapeutic approaches, population and outcomes medicine, health policy, and health services, yet few clinically trained health professionals pursue a research career. Sustaining this workforce requires attention to the unique challenges faced by investigators who must achieve clinical and research competence during training and their careers. These challenges include the duration of required clinical training, limited or discontinuous research opportunities, high levels of educational debt, balancing the dual obligations and rewards of clinical care and research, competition for research funding, and the need for leadership development after training. Women and individuals from underrepresented racial and ethnic groups comprise a small percentage of this workforce.The authors summarize the recent literature on training for clinician-investigators, emphasizing approaches with encouraging outcomes that warrant broader implementation. Using this overview as background, they convened three workshops at the National Institutes of Health in 2016 to identify and refine key priorities for potential new pilot programs to recruit and retain the clinician-investigator workforce. From these workshops emerged three priorities for future pilot programs: (1) support for research in residency, (2) new research on-ramps for health professionals at multiple career stages, and (3) national networks to diversify and sustain clinician-investigator faculty. Implementation of any pilot program will require coordinated commitment from academic health centers, medical licensing/certification boards, professional societies, and clinician-investigators themselves, in addition to support from the National Institutes of Health.