Abstract
Science has become progressively more complex, requiring greater integration and collaboration between individuals, institutions and areas. Networking research establishes common rules and offers a suitable framework for this cooperation. Therefore, it is a good choice for both scientists and policy-makers. The objective of this study is to know whether the scientists perform better within these structures than outside them. As an example, we analysed the Biomedical Research Networking Centres in Spain and, for the exploratory investigation, we selected two disciplines (Psychiatry and Gastroenterology/Hepatology). The results showed that in every situation of networking research there were higher collaboration and impact rates. Furthermore, the main differences found between disciplines were related to the scope of cooperation, carried out at a more local level in Gastroenterology/Hepatology. Besides, HJ-Biplot technique allowed us to conclude that the outcomes may vary somewhat depending on the types of centres where the scientists work. Although further investigation is needed, the findings of this study might anticipate possible scenarios in which networking research could be the most natural way of collaboration.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
This indicator is calculated by subtracting from 1 the ratio between the position of a journal in a JCR discipline and the total number of journals in the discipline concerned.
References
Abramo, G., D’Angelo, C. A., & Solazzi, M. (2011a). Are researchers that collaborate more at the international level top performers? An investigation on the Italian university system. Journal of Informetrics, 5(1), 204–213.
Abramo, G., D’Angelo, C. A., & Solazzi, M. (2011b). The relationship between scientists’ research performance and the degree of internationalization of their research. Scientometrics, 86(3), 629–643.
Beaver, D. deB. (2001). Reflections on scientific collaboration (and its study): Past, present, and future. Scientometrics, 52(3), 365–377.
Bordons, M., & Gómez, I. (2000). Collaboration Networks in Science. In B. Cronin & H. B. Atkins (Eds.), The web of knowledge. A festschrift in honor of Eugene Garfield. Medford, NJ: ASIS Monograph.
Breschi, S., & Cusmano, L. (2004). Unveiling the texture of a European research area: Emergence of oligarchic networks under EU framework programmes. International Journal of Technology Management, 27(8), 747–772.
Cárdenas, O., Galindo, M. P., & Vicente-Villardón, J. L. (2007). Los métodos Biplot: Evolución y aplicaciones. Revista Venezolana de Análisis de Coyuntura, 13(1), 279–303.
Delgado Rodríguez, M. (2012). CIBERESP: Un instrumento para la promoción y la difusión de la investigación de excelencia española. Gaceta Sanitaria, 26(5), 393–394.
Demotes-Mainard, J., & Ohmann, C. (2005). European clinical research infrastructures network: Promoting harmonisation and quality in European clinical research. The Lancet, 365(9454), 107–108.
Díaz-Faes, A. A.; Benito García, N.; Martín Rodero, H.; & Vicente Villardón, J. L. (2011). Propuesta de aplicabilidad del método multivariante gráfico Biplot a los estudios bibliométricos en biomedicina. In: Actas XIV Jornadas Nacionales de Información y Documentación en Ciencias de la Salud,. Cádiz, España: Biblioteca Virtual del Sistema Sanitario Público de Andalucía. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/10760/15998. Accessed 12 Nov 2013.
Díaz-Faes, A. A., González-Albo, B., Galindo, M. P., & Bordons, M. (2013). HJ-Biplot como herramienta de inspección de matrices de datos bibliométricos. Revista Española de Documentación Científica, 36(1), e001. doi:10.3989/redc.2013.1.988.
Fanaroff, A. A., Hack, M., & Walsh, M. C. (2003). The NICHD neonatal research network: Changes in practice and outcomes during the First 15 Years. Seminars in Perinatology, 27(4), 281–287.
Fernández, M. F., Sunyer, J., Grimalt, J., Rebagliato, M., Ballester, F., Ibarluzea, J., et al. (2007). The Spanish environment and childhood research network (INMA study). International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health, 210(3), 491–493.
Font, D., Gomis, R., Trilla, A., Bigorra, J., Piqué, J. M., & Rodés, J. (2008). Organización y modelo de funcionamiento de las estructuras de investigación biomédica. Situación y retos de futuro. Medicina Clínica, 130(13), 510–516.
Franceschet, M., & Costantini, A. (2010). The effect of scholar collaboration on impact and quality of academic papers. Journal of Informetrics, 4(4), 540–553.
Gabriel, K. R. (1971). The biplot graphic display of matrices with application to principal component analysis. Biometrika, 58(3), 453–467.
Galindo, M. P. (1986). Una alternativa de representación simultánea: HJ Biplot. Qüestioó, 10(1), 13–23.
Garner, J., Porter, A. L., Newman, N. C., & Crowl, T. A. (2012). Assessing research network and disciplinary engagement changes induced by an NSF program. Research Evaluation, 21(2), 89–104.
Ibáñez, A., Bielza, C., & Larrañaga, P. (2013). Relationship among research collaboration, number of documents and number of citations: a case study in Spanish computer science production in 2000–2009. Scientometrics, 95(2), 689–716.
Laudel, G. (2002). What do we measure by co-authorships? Research Evaluation, 11(1), 3–15.
Liao, C. H. (2011). How to improve research quality? Examining the impacts of collaboration intensity and member diversity in collaboration networks. Scientometrics, 86(3), 747–761.
Méndez Vásquez, R. I., Suñén Pinyol, E., Olivé Vázquez, G., Cervelló González, R. & Camí, J. (2009). Caracterización bibliométrica de la producción en Epidemiología y Salud Pública (EPI-SP) de España, 1997–2006. Barcelona. Retrieved from http://bac.fundaciorecerca.cat/ciberesp/docs/Bibliometria_CIBERESP.pdf. Accessed 12 Nov 2013.
Morillo, F., & Aparicio, J. (2011). Características y disparidades entre sub-especialidades: Un estudio de caso con grupos de Biotecnología. Revista Española de Documentación Científica, 34(4), 563–580.
Morillo, F., Santabárbara, I., & Aparicio, J. (2013). The automatic normalisation challenge: Detailed addresses identification. Scientometrics, 95(3), 953–966. doi:10.1007/s11192-013-0965-0.
Rank, D., & Williams, D. (1999). Partial benefit/cost in the evaluation of the Canadian networks of centres of excellence. Evaluation and Program Planning, 22(1), 121–129.
Valderrama-Zurián, J. C., González-Alcaide, G., Valderrama-Zurián, F., Aleixandre-Benavent, R., & Miguel-Dasit, A. (2007). Redes de coautorías y colaboración institucional en REVISTA ESPAÑOLA DE CARDIOLOGÍA. Revista Española de Cardiología, 60(2), 117–130.
Vicente Villardón, J. L. (2010). Multbiplot: a packaged for multivariate analysis using Biplots. Departamento de Estadística, Universidad de Salamanca. (Version 1.0) [Software]. Retrieved from http://biplot.dep.usal.es/classicalbiplot/. Accessed 12 Nov 2013.
Woolf, S. H. (2008). The meaning of translational research and why it matters. The Journal of the American Medical Association, 299(2), 211–213.
Acknowledgments
This work is supported by the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation (Grant CSO2011-25102). Adrián A. Díaz-Faes is granted with a JAE predoctoral fellowship by the Spanish National Research Council (CSIC). We want to thank Purificación Galindo for her valuable suggestions about statistics methodology.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Morillo, F., Díaz-Faes, A.A., González-Albo, B. et al. Do networking centres perform better? An exploratory analysis in Psychiatry and Gastroenterology/Hepatology in Spain. Scientometrics 98, 1401–1416 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-013-1183-5
Received:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-013-1183-5