Search

In order to improve individual research achievements (IRA), this study investigates which affiliated countries and authors earn the most cited IRAs and whether those types of articles are associated with the number of cited papers on schizophrenia from a leading journal in the field. The Kano model was used for displaying the IRAs. Clusters of medical subject headings (MeSH) were applied to explore the core concepts of a given journal. This study aimed to apply social network analysis (SNA) and an authorship-weighted scheme (AWS) to inspect the association between MeSH terms and IRA. About 2,008 abstracts published between 2012 and 2016 in the journal Schizophrenia Research were downloaded from Pubmed Central using the keyword (Schizophr Res)[Journal] on September 20, 2018. The MeSH terms were clustered by using SNA to separate the core concepts and compare the differences in bibliometric indices (i.e., h, Ag, x and author impact factor or AIF). Visual dashboards were shown on Google Maps. Results indicate that (1) the US, the UK, and Canada earn the highest x-index; (2) the top one author from the US has the highest x-index (= 5.73 with x-core at cited = 16.44 and citable = 2); (3) the article type of schizophrenic psychology shows distinctly higher frequencies than others; and (4) article types are associated with the number of cited papers. Four approaches of the Kano model, SNA, MeSH terms, and AWS can be accommodated to display IRAs, classify article types, and quantify coauthor contributions in the article byline, respectively, and applied to other scientific disciplines in the future, not just in this specific journal. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives This pilot study explores the conditions that support or hinder information professionals' participation in interdisciplinary research teams. Methods We undertook a preliminary grounded theory study investigating factors that impact on information professionals' participation in interdisciplinary research. Four biomedical information professionals working in academic universities and teaching hospitals in Canada participated in semi-structured interviews. Grounded theory methods guided the data collection and analysis. Results Participants identified the conditions that support or hinder research participation as belonging to four distinct overlapping domains: client-level factors including preconceptions and researcher resistance; individual-level factors such as research readiness; opportunities that are most often made not found; and organisational supports. Conclusions Creating willingness, building preparedness and capitalising on opportunity appear crucial to successful participation in interdisciplinary research. Further exploration of the importance of educational, collegial and organisational supports may reveal additional data to support the development of a grounded theory regarding the facilitation of information professionals' engagement in interdisciplinary research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]