Charisse Madlock-Brown
ABSTRACT
This paper presents collaboration trends for five Clinical and Translational Science Awardee (CTSA) institution to demonstrate the need for new evaluation metrics. Translational science, a methodology that bridges gaps between fundamental and applied science, has gained attention from both the medical research community and government funding agencies. To facilitate interdisciplinary research it is important to understand what aspects of the process act as a bottleneck and limit its effectiveness. Cultural norms within the scientific community make communication between disciplines difficult [1]. CTSAs are meant to help ease burdens and foster an environment where clinicians and basic scientists work together [2]. In 2013, NCATS director, Dr. Chris Austin, said the CTSAs operated "without particular encouragement or direction from the NIH, and this in a disjointed and uncoordinated fashion" [3]. Our intention is to highlight areas of concern and to demonstrate the need and potential for bibliometric translational indicators to help alleviate some of the difficulties with CTSA evaluation by determining the importance of basic scientists in research networks, discussing patterns of co-authorship by institution, and presenting two translational indicators, which can help institutions and funding agencies compare CTSA collaborative patterns.
- L. L. Restifo and G. R. Phelan, "The cultural divide: exploring communication barriers between scientists and clinicians," Dis. Model. Mech., vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 423--426, Jul. 2011.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- W. M. Trochim, D. M. Rubio, and V. G. Thomas, Evaluation Key Function Committee of the CTSA Consortium, "Evaluation Guidelines for the Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSAs)," Clin. Transl. Sci., vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 303--309, Aug. 2013.Google ScholarCross Ref
- M. Wadman, "Translational research: Medicine man," Nature, vol. 494, no. 7435, pp. 24--26, Feb. 2013.Google ScholarCross Ref
- NWB Team, Network Workbench Tool. NWB Team. (2006). Network Workbench Tool. Indiana University, Northeastern University, and University of Michigan, http://nwb.slis.indiana.edu, 2006.Google Scholar
- J. M. Kleinberg, "Hubs, Authorities, and Communities," ACM Comput Surv, vol. 31, no. 4es, Dec. 1999. Google ScholarDigital Library
- V. D. Blondel, J.-L. Guillaume, R. Lambiotte, and E. Lefebvre, "Fast unfolding of communities in large networks," J. Stat. Mech. Theory Exp., vol. 2008, no. 10, p. P10008, Oct. 2008.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Assessing the Translational Capacity of Five CTSA Institutions
Recommendations
Research Collaborations in Multidisciplinary Institutions: a Case Study of iSchools
WWW '16 Companion: Proceedings of the 25th International Conference Companion on World Wide WebAlthough closely related, multidisciplinarity and interdisciplinarity are different. The former indicates the co-existence of multiple disciplines while the latter is more about the integration among various areas. As collaboration between researchers ...
The effect of collaborators on institutions' scientific impact
The effect of collaborators on institutions scientific impact was examined for 81 institutions with different degrees of impact and collaboration. Not only collaborators including both core and peripheral collaborators cite each other more than non-...
Important institutions of interinstitutional scientific collaboration networks in materials science
Interinstitutional scientific collaboration plays an important role in knowledge production and scientific development. Together with the increasing scale of scientific collaboration, a few institutions that positively participate in interinstitutional ...
Comments