Advertisement

Scientometrics

, Volume 98, Issue 2, pp 1401–1416 | Cite as

Do networking centres perform better? An exploratory analysis in Psychiatry and Gastroenterology/Hepatology in Spain

  • Fernanda Morillo
  • Adrián A. Díaz-Faes
  • Borja González-Albo
  • Luz Moreno
Article

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.

Keywords

Networking centres Research performance Collaboration Impact HJ-Biplot Psychiatry Gastroenterology/Hepatology 

Notes

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.

References

  1. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beaver, D. deB. (2001). Reflections on scientific collaboration (and its study): Past, present, and future. Scientometrics, 52(3), 365–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 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.Google Scholar
  5. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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.Google Scholar
  7. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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.
  10. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Franceschet, M., & Costantini, A. (2010). The effect of scholar collaboration on impact and quality of academic papers. Journal of Informetrics, 4(4), 540–553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gabriel, K. R. (1971). The biplot graphic display of matrices with application to principal component analysis. Biometrika, 58(3), 453–467.CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  16. Galindo, M. P. (1986). Una alternativa de representación simultánea: HJ Biplot. Qüestioó, 10(1), 13–23.Google Scholar
  17. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Laudel, G. (2002). What do we measure by co-authorships? Research Evaluation, 11(1), 3–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 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.
  22. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 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.Google Scholar
  24. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 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.
  27. Woolf, S. H. (2008). The meaning of translational research and why it matters. The Journal of the American Medical Association, 299(2), 211–213.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Fernanda Morillo
    • 1
  • Adrián A. Díaz-Faes
    • 1
  • Borja González-Albo
    • 1
  • Luz Moreno
    • 1
  1. 1.Instituto de Estudios Documentales sobre Ciencia y Tecnología (IEDCYT)Centre for Human and Social Sciences (CCHS), Spanish National Research Council (CSIC)MadridSpain

Personalised recommendations