Search

Postcolonial theory can be paired with a values-engaged educative evaluation approach to resist imperialism and colonialism in evaluation spaces, de-Westernize conceptualizations of diversity, equity, and inclusion, and extend the capacity of culturally responsive evaluation. Beyond the joining of the values-engaged educative approach and postcolonial theory, Collaboration Research Network theories offer another distinct but complementary avenue for exploring structural power imbalance and invisible hierarchies in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics evaluation contexts. Using these three theories, values-engaged educative, Collaboration Research Network, and postcolonial theory, this qualitative study examined the perceptions and experiences of faculty and students at three minority-serving institutions participating in a science, technology, engineering, and mathematics Center. This study aims to bridge theories traditionally used in research with evaluation frameworks to reconceptualize concepts of diversity, equity, and inclusion. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Interdisciplinary collaboration fuels research innovation and funders are increasingly offering long-term grants prioritising partnerships. However, a gap remains regarding the effective development, evaluatation, and sustainment of research partnerships; particularly those supporting marginalised populations like sexual and gender minority youth (SGMY). There is a concomitant need to expand research internationally to cross-culturally conceptualise SGMY's experiences, which information and communication technologies (ICTs) may facilitate. The International Partnership for Queer Youth Resilience (INQYR) is a research consortium comprising over 40 academic and community representatives investigating and addressing issues faced by SGMY in Canada, the United Kingdom (UK), United States of America (USA), and Mexico from an interdisciplinary perspective by: (a) conducting and disseminating interventions and exploratory research on SGMY's ICT use, and (b) training cohorts of SGMY scholars and practitioners. This article details INQYR's rationale and formation, including its objectives and organisational framework. Facilitators and barriers are discussed through reflection on INQYR's first operational phase from 2018–2021, considering collaboration with diverse stakeholders and settings; shared goals; language and technology barriers; personal and workload barriers; infrastructure; and power and historical tensions. Implications for other research partnerships and concrete tools such as author guidelines for large-scale research partnership formation, operation, and evaluation are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study examines the influence of homophily on research collaborations across all scientific fields, noting the role of ascribed, acquired, geographical, current career, and educational and career history attributes. Our analysis builds on previous studies by adopting a comparative approach across scientific fields and examining the effect of homophily on repeated collaborations. Our findings reveal physical proximity as a universal driver of collaboration across all scientific fields, both for overall collaborations and as a maintainer of collaborative endeavors. We also note that most attributes that are responsible for overall collaborations are similar to the attributes that play a role in maintaining them, with a few exceptions, notably when it comes to institutional characteristics. Our results also show the complex role of career history attributes, such as job variety and international mobility, in influencing the likelihood of collaboration. This study sheds light on the intricate interplay of different attributes in shaping scientific collaborations, underscoring the need for a multidisciplinary approach in future homophily studies and nuanced strategies for fostering collaborations across different scientific fields. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Any research collaboration can potentially transform the participants' understandings and enhance their professional relationships with one another and with significant others. If this transformation is to eventuate, research collaborators need to exhibit mindfulness with regard to their multiple relationships, as well as to the intentions and effects of their collaborations.These requirements of transformative research collaborations align with, and build on, Macfarlane's (2017a) influential, six-element representation of research collaboration as a moral continuum, through the authors' rationale for adding a seventh element to this representation, centred on the ethically informed fusion of third space (Bhabha, 1994) and creative understanding (Bakhtin, 1986). The authors argue that this fusion enables researchers to move beyond the self-regarding and other-regarding binary underpinning Macfarlane's representation, and also to progress to a new collaboration dimension that is fundamentally democratic in character as well as creative and productive in its effects.The evidence for this argument derives from the first-named author's Doctor of Philosophy thesis (Veles, 2020), which investigated the cross-boundary third space collaboration of university actors, and for which the second-named author was a supervisor/adviser. The authors posit this particular research collaboration as transformative through its creative fusion of third space and creative understanding. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract There is increasing focus to review the societal impact of research through assessment and research excellence frameworks. These often link to financial and reputational incentives within the academic community. However, timeframes to demonstrate impact using these approaches are often long and are not designed to show benefit to service collaborators who require evidence of improvement and change to their services more immediately. Impacts that are measured this way may also miss out on unintended and positive impacts that occur as by-products of research, or through the ‘ripple effect’ that research may have on practice. Importantly, demonstrating how research makes a difference can improve the research culture in services, and motivations in service partners to become, and stay involved in research. This article describes, and provides access to, a tool called VICTOR (making Visible the ImpaCT Of Research) that was developed by a community of practice involving 12 NHS organisations through blending evidence from the literature, practice and service users. We describe the types of impact that have been collected by VICTOR and explore how collecting impact in this way might help research-practice partnerships and inform research methodologies and may be useful to show impacts alongside, and shortly after the research process.

It is a general understanding that higher education has characteristics of an "experience good" because the quality cannot be determined before receiving the service, which induces information asymmetry. In response to reducing the asymmetry, external assessment tools like international accreditations have emerged in higher education, which is especially evident in the field of business and management research. Quality is an integral part of reputation and legitimisation, so business schools actively engage in the accreditation race. In order to ensure legitimacy in the higher education market, business schools pay special attention to their intellectual output. It is reflected in the development of academic policies designed to encourage publication activities. It is pivotal to analyse how international accreditations contribute to the research performance and impact of business schools. The results of the study provide evidence that AACSB accreditation contributes to the research performance, however, it does not contribute to increasing the impact of the papers. Since the signalling research-based reputation is important for business schools, the study places attention on further examination of determinants of impactful research as international accreditation only determines the growth of quantity not the quality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There is increasing focus to review the societal impact of research through assessment and research excellence frameworks. These often link to financial and reputational incentives within the academic community. However, timeframes to demonstrate impact using these approaches are often long and are not designed to show benefit to service collaborators who require evidence of improvement and change to their services more immediately. Impacts that are measured this way may also miss out on unintended and positive impacts that occur as by-products of research, or through the 'ripple effect' that research may have on practice. Importantly, demonstrating how research makes a difference can improve the research culture in services, and motivations in service partners to become, and stay involved in research. This article describes, and provides access to, a tool called VICTOR (making Visible the ImpaCT Of Research) that was developed by a community of practice involving 12 NHS organisations through blending evidence from the literature, practice and service users. We describe the types of impact that have been collected by VICTOR and explore how collecting impact in this way might help research-practice partnerships and inform research methodologies and may be useful to show impacts alongside, and shortly after the research process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Only a small fraction of the Earth's total biodiversity has been described. This is particularly true of parasitic fauna, due to the paucity of taxonomic expertise, funding, and interest in parasites. It is expected that co-extinctions will become the main cause of species loss with potentially half of the parasite species becoming extinct prior to their discovery. This article addresses this issue and highlights case studies from the Otago Museum (OMNZ) (Dunedin, New Zealand), providing examples of successful collaborations between government organisations, museums, and parasitologists in bridging knowledge gaps in parasite diversity. The case studies presented focus on the parasitic helminths from opportunistic necropsies of stranded marine mammals and deceased birds. Collections from these case studies have doubled the size of the parasite collection at the OM, making this institution the most important repository of parasitic helminths in the country. We encourage such collaborations between museums, governing bodies, indigenous communities, ecologists and parasitologists in enhancing our knowledge of parasite diversity. Furthermore, we urge scientists to deposit both host and parasite tissues from surveys, vouchers, along with their respective metadata so that samples can be adequately stored and curated, thus ensuring that parasite collections become a legacy for future generations of scientists. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Refusal remains a core concern in processes of research across the sciences. Drawing on previous anthropological theorisations, this paper contemplates on the manifold 'arts' of refusal during ethnographic research praxis, drawing on diverse thematic experiences and contexts across coastal India, Malaysia, and Uganda. We argue for a concerted engagement with refusal as more than an act of withholding co-operation and as an expression of resistance. While recognizing refusal as a locally situated and historically contingent sensibility, we ask in what other ways might the more generative qualities of refusal be explored, paying particular attention to the performative nature of refusal itself that may entrench as much as reverse power differentials in the 'field'. Drawing on decolonial and post-development epistemologies and diverse experiences as scholars situated and working across different geographies and disciplines, we explore the many entanglements, articulations, and enactments that remain ubiquitous in everyday ethnographic research praxis through several thematic angles. These include the negotiation of uneven (and often violent) forms of research collaboration and cooptation, the enactment of benevolent sexism as an 'ethics of care', and embodied practices such as silence(-ing), together with play and humour in participants' critiques of scientific truth-telling. While illustrating subtler manifestations of refusal across ethnographic research-based encounters, we also contemplate pedagogical practices of un/learning (to 'read') and to teach the arts of identifying and productively working with the many appearances of refusal - both manifest and less visible. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Debate on the need for more fairness in academic research collaborations between actors in Africa (or the ‘Global South’, broadly) and counterparts in the Global North has intensified in recent years, while practice-oriented frameworks and efforts to foster more equitable partnerships have proliferated. Important approaches to recognise and undo asymmetries in concrete collaboration arrangements – division of labour, decision making, access to rewards, capacity building – have been identified. In this provocation we draw on African and other postcolonial, decolonial and feminist scholarship, as well as systems thinking and global science data to argue that such ‘equitable partnerships’ efforts at best sidestep the urgent need for a much more profound rebalancing of the positioning of Africa and ‘Global North’ in the worldwide science and research ecosystem as a whole. We consider why such wider rebalancing is an imperative for both Africa and the global community, propose that research collaborations must be understood as a key entry point for advancing such a systemic shift, and suggest a necessary transformative collaboration mode to this end. We conclude by positing an urgent need to think and act beyond ‘equitable’ partnerships and highlight where responsibilities for action must lie.

Being cited by policy documents is an important indicator for assessing the policy impact of research. The purpose of this paper was to examine the associations between an article's scientific collaborations and its citations received from policy documents. Research articles published between 2000 and 2018 in 86 journals under the category of "Information Science & Library Science" (LIS) in Journal Citation Reports 2020 were selected as the data sample (n = 40,137). The metadata of the articles was extracted from the Web of Science. The outcome variable of this study, policy citations of each article, were obtained from Overton (one of the largest policy citation databases). Standard negative binomial regression models and zero-inflated negative binomial regression models were conducted to examine the dataset. Linear regression models and six selected LIS journals were used to check the robustness of the results. The results revealed that the number of countries had significant and positive associations with policy citations (p < 0.001), the number of authors and the number of affiliations had no significant associations with policy citations, while controlling the other variables. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Large multinational teams of academics and activist-practitioners that span the Global North-South divide have become common in qualitative research because of the reliance of field of peace and conflict studies on “local” knowledge and expertise. Complex global emergencies, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, present the opportunity to (re)shape and (re)consider these endeavors in key some ways. This article focuses on the involvement of South-based activist-practitioners in three large North-South collaborations, one pre-pandemic (Beyond Words: Implementing Latin American Truth Commission Recommendations), one ongoing when the pandemic began (Gender, Justice, and Security Hub), and one launched during the pandemic (Truth Commissions and Sexual Violence: African and Latin American Experiences). Drawing on center-periphery framework, we adopt an autoethnographic approach, to reflect on how the pandemic has not only reinforced existing structural and institutional asymmetries through reduced funding, professional uncertainty, and personal loss and insecurity but also added some new ethical concerns. This reality has tested both our capacity and commitment to work toward the decolonization of knowledge in the field. In making this argument, we seek to contribute to the discussion on research ethics and the politics of knowledge production and sharing in qualitative peace and conflict research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Unlike high-income countries (HICs), there are few early intervention services for psychosis in low-and middle-income countries (LAMICs). In HICs, research spurred the growth of such services. Little is known about the state of EIP research in LAMICs, which we address by examining their research output and collaborations vis-à-vis that of HICs. We conducted a search in Scopus database for early psychosis publications in scientific journals since 1980. Data from each record, including title, author affiliation, and date, were downloaded. For HIC-LAMIC collaborations, data on first, corresponding and last authors' affiliations, and funding were manually extracted. Descriptive statistics and social network analysis were conducted. Globally, early psychosis publications increased from 24 in 1980 to 1297 in 2022. Of 16,942 included publications, 16.1 % had LAMIC authors. 71.3 % involved authors from a single country (regardless of income level). 21.9 % were collaborations between HICs, 6.6 % between HICs and LAMICs, and 0.2 % among LAMICs. For research conducted in LAMICs and involving HIC-LAMIC collaborations, the first, last, and corresponding authors were LAMIC-based in 71.8 %, 60.7 %, and 63.0 %, respectively. These positions were dominated (80 %) by authors from four LAMICs. 29.4 % of the HIC-LAMIC subset was funded solely by LAMIC funders, predominantly two LAMICs. LAMICs are starkly underrepresented in the otherwise flourishing body of early psychosis research. They have far fewer collaborations and less funding than HICs. Closing these gaps in LAMICs where most of the world's youth live is imperative to generate the local knowledge needed to strengthen early psychosis services that are known to improve outcomes. • HICs had 6 times as many early psychosis papers as LAMICs and more collaborations. • HICs collaborated with HICs, with few LAMIC-HIC and inter-LAMIC collaborations. • Only four LAMICs have published 80 % of LAMIC first, last or corresponding papers. • LAMIC funders funded only around 30 % of the HIC-LAMIC early psychosis papers. • There is scarcity of research in LAMICs where knowledge is needed to grow services. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Presently, there are six undergraduate HRSA-funded MCH pipeline training programs (MCHPTP) in the nation and they have gained significant momentum since inception by recruiting, training and mentoring undergraduate students in a comprehensive MCH-focused approach. This article describes the outcomes from the 6 training programs; and primarily Baylor College of Medicine–Texas Southern University (BCM–TSU's) collaborative strategy focusing on the MCH research training and outcomes, which align with HRSA's MCH bureau's missions. Description: Each MCHPTP offers trainees interdisciplinary MCH research experiences through intra/inter-institutional collaborations and partnerships, but BCM–TSU's MCHPTP was the only one with the primary focus to be research. As a case study, the BCM–TSU Program developed an innovative research curriculum integrated with MCH Foundations Course that comprised 2 hour weekly meetings. Students were split into collaborative research groups of 4–5 students, with multidisciplinary peer-mentors, clinical fellows and MCH research faculty from institutions at the world—renowned Texas Medical Center. Assessment: Since the inception of the MCH mentorship programs, all six MCHPTPs have enrolled up to 1890 trainees and/or interns. BCM–TSU Program trainees are defined as undergraduate students in their 1st or 2nd year of college while research interns are upper classmen in their 3rd or 4th year of college. The case study showed that BCM–TSU Program trainees demonstrated outstanding accomplishments in the area of research through primary and co-authorships of 13 peer-reviewed journal publications by 78 trainees, over a period of 3 years, in addition to dozens of presentations at local, regional and national conferences. Conclusions: The research productivity of students in the six MCHPTPs is strongly indicative of the success of integrating MCH research mentoring into MCH didactic training. The development of a diverse and robust MCH mentorship program promotes and strengthens research activities in areas of high priority such as addressing health disparities in MCH morbidity and mortality in the U.S. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In her recent article, Bender offers a timely reflection on research-practice collaborations (RPCs). In this commentary, we expand on Bender's main findings by reflecting on RPCs within the context of broader trends towards knowledge co-production. We offer some ethical reflections on two particular aspects of co-production that are relevant to any collaboration involving 'practice': epistemic equality and community participation. Both are necessary to shift the axis of these collaborations towards a mode of knowledge production that is action-oriented and empowering. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The paper explores the impact of Covid-19 on scientists' collaboration behaviour in the 14 countries with the largest research output. The approach is bibliometric, taking the unit of analysis of collaborations as the individual researchers and the co-authorships in their preprints. The time plot of the data confirms a clear discontinuity in the number of preprint depositions after the Covid-19 outbreak. Less evident is the discontinuity in average number of co-authors per preprint, and also in propensity to collaborate. Investigating further, a multivariate econometric analysis shows that for propensity to national collaboration (both intra- and extramural) there has been a positive "effect" from the pandemic, but negative one on international collaboration. The same analysis conducted by country, however, reveals that these effects are significant only in some countries and often with discordant signs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Youth offending has received significant attention in recent years in Queensland and across Australia. While the voices of young people who are offending or at risk of offending are evident in some studies, other reports do not identify them as key stakeholders. A recent university–industry research collaboration sought to prioritise the voices of young people engaging with The Lighthouse, a diversionary service within Townsville Aboriginal and Islander Heath Services (TAIHS), through the use of qualitative, photovoice methods. The primary aim of this photovoice project was to capture the perceptions and needs of young people currently at risk of offending in order to help shape local service delivery. A thematic analysis enabled the identification of four key themes. Participants felt unsafe and under surveillance in public spaces; they wanted more amenities where they could enjoy being in the community with their peers; they reported that peers and family were very important to them; and they appreciated services on offer at The Lighthouse and acknowledged these services supported behavioural change. The findings provide a unique contribution to policy and service delivery focused on young people at risk of offending and to the literature on the use of photovoice methodologies. IMPLICATIONS Photovoice is a creative, participatory method that value adds to research outcomes through participant skill development. Young people participating in, or at risk of, offending can contribute to research, in turn informing policy and practice to better meet their needs. Seeing through the eyes of young people provides a unique perspective on community inclusion, safe spaces, and transformative practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Geographic proximity is acknowledged to be a key factor in research collaborations. Specifically, it can work as a possible substitute for institutional proximity. The present study investigates the relevance of the "proximity" effect for different types of national research collaborations. We apply a bibliometric approach based on the Italian 2010–2017 scientific production indexed in the Web of Science. On such dataset, we apply statistical tools for analyzing if and to what extent geographical distance between co-authors in the byline of a publication varies across collaboration types, scientific disciplines, and along time. Results can inform policies aimed at effectively stimulating cross-sector collaborations, and also bear direct practical implications for research performance assessments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Bowen and colleagues ask us to re-imagine how to conduct research in academic-practice partnerships, and to develop capacity in the applied research and health workforce to do this. This commentary reinforces their messages, and describes a framework of research capacity development for impact (RCDi) which emphasizes active and continuous experiential learning within research partnerships. The RCDi framework includes the need to focus on multiple levels in the collaboration architecture, and describes principles of working that aims to increase impact on services, and learning opportunities for all partners.

Research collaborations are the norm in science today, and are usually evaluated using co-authorships as the unit of analysis. Research collaborations have been typically analyzed using a mapping perspective that focuses on countries, institutions, or individuals, or by assessments of the determinants of research collaboration, i.e., who engages in collaborations and who collaborates the most. One analytical perspective that has been used less frequently is the homophily perspective, which attempts to understand the likelihood of research collaborations based on the similarity of collaborators' preferences and attributes. In addition, compared to studies focused on the fields of the natural and exact sciences, engineering, and the health sciences, research collaborations in the social sciences have been underexamined in the literature, despite the growing numbers of social scientists who engage in such collaborations. This study assessed homophily with respect to geographical, ascribed, acquired and career-related attributes in co-authorships in the social sciences, based on a co-authorship matrix of 913 higher education researchers. The findings showed that geographic and institutional attributes were by far the most powerful homophilic drivers of collaborations, suggesting the importance of physical proximity, national incentives, and shared culture, language, and identity. Another driver was the similarity of acquired attributes, particularly certain preferences regarding research agendas; these absorbed the residual explanatory power that ascribed attributes such as gender or age had in co-authorship preferences. The study is novel in its analysis of the extent to which similarities in the research agendas of researchers predicted co-authorship. The findings indicate the need for further co-authorship homophily analyses around a broader set of acquired attributes and the trajectories that lead to them. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

With the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, researchers have been faced with challenges in maintaining interdisciplinary research collaborations. The purpose of this article is to apply and expand a previously introduced model to sustaining new interdisciplinary research collaborations: Forging Alliances in Interdisciplinary Rehabilitation Research (FAIRR). FAIRR is a logic model that can be used as a guide to create interdisciplinary rehabilitation research teams. In this article, the authors propose expanding FAIRR by including strategies for sustaining interdisciplinary rehabilitation research collaborations: modifying inputs (resources needed to assemble a team and to conduct research activities), shifting activities (steps taken to move the interdisciplinary collaboration forward), and examining what impacts the fit between inputs and activities. Two examples are used to highlight the application of the FAIRR model to interdisciplinary collaborations during COVID-19. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Fulbright Awards were initiated in 1946 and are designed to increase understanding between people of the United States and other countries through research, teaching, and/or practice. While hundreds of individuals have received such award, little is known about the impact of such engagement. The purpose of this study was to determine the extent and impact of a Fulbright Award by examining the primary publications emanating from research collaborations at one university. The paper presents global use of these primary works (n = 11) from 2012 to 2019 based on a bibliometric analysis of retrieved citations, as well as altmetric analyses. The primary referenced works included quantitative (n = 3), qualitative (n = 2), a review, and 5 discourse papers. Nine databases were searched to determine use of reference works. Analyses revealed that these primary sources were cited 42 times with lead authors most often from the South Africa or the United States. The main disciplines represented by first authors in these citing articles were nursing (n = 28, 66.6%), followed by midwifery (n = 11, 26.1%) and psychology/psychiatry (n = 8, 19%). Central keywords focused on healthcare systems, concept analysis, relationships, nursing/midwifery, and relationship centered. Citing articles were primarily quantitative (n = 15), qualitative (n = 11), reviews (n = 6), mixed methods (n = 1), and discourse papers which included concept analyses and policy papers n = 10). All papers demonstrated team science. Additional secondary analysis was conducted to identify the non-scientific use and potential impact of primary sources; three works demonstrated significant downstream utilization which correlated with those referenced citations with high citation counts. Determination of the extent to which scholarly works emanating from collaborative work by researchers impacted scientific and non-scientific sources provides powerful evidence of the value of a Fulbright Award. Additional qualitative research is needed to determine the less than obvious impact of presentations and non-scientific uses on Fulbright collaborations.

Bowen and colleagues ask us to re-imagine how to conduct research in academic-practice partnerships, and to develop capacity in the applied research and health workforce to do this. This commentary reinforces their messages, and describes a framework of research capacity development for impact (RCDi) which emphasizes active and continuous experiential learning within research partnerships. The RCDi framework includes the need to focus on multiple levels in the collaboration architecture, and describes principles of working that aims to increase impact on services, and learning opportunities for all partners. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Using a longitudinal dataset of research collaborations over 15 years at Stanford University, we build a theory of intraorganizational task relationships that distinguishes the different factors associated with the formation and persistence of network ties. We highlight six factors: shared organizational foci, shared traits and interests, tie advantages from popularity, tie reinforcement from third parties, tie strength and multiplexity, and the instrumental returns from the products of ties. Findings suggest that ties form when unfamiliar people identify desirable and matching traits in potential partners. By contrast, ties persist when familiar people reflect on the quality of their relationship and shared experiences. The former calls for shallow, short-term strategies for assessing a broad array of potential ties; the latter calls for long-term strategies and substantive assessments of a relationship’s worth so as to draw extended rewards from the association. This suggests that organizational activities geared toward sustaining persistent intraorganizational task relationships need to be different from activities aimed at forging new ones. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Against a backdrop of historic inequities between Northern and Southern scholars, the UK's Global Challenges Research Fund (GCRF) calls for "meaningful and equitable" research partnerships between UK-based academics and partners in the Global South. This paper draws on qualitative data from three workshops in the Ethiopia, Rwanda and the UK to interrogate GCRF funding criteria from the perspectives of African-based research partners. The GCRF criteria are considered with respect to African partners' experiences of, and aspirations from, such international research partnerships in order to enrich and extend ongoing debates about power relations in development research. The study finds that GCRF criteria do address many of the familiar historic concerns of African partners, while also identifying ways in which this and similar funding schemes may unintentionally reproduce structural inequities within the South. In highlighting these less visible equity concerns, the paper draws lessons for funders, academics and others concerned with establishing genuinely equitable research partnerships. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article outlines the main developments in Nordic film and television production studies in the 2000s, focusing on recent publications as well as the value of research collaborations, centres and conferences. The article also highlights current trends such as an ongoing interest in creating stronger connections between production and audience studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: On 31 January 2020, the United Kingdom (UK) formally left the European Union (EU). Only a short transition period, until 31 December 2020, is available to negotiate collaborations for research in biomedical sciences and health care. Within the European scientific community, two opinions are common: 1) Brexit is an opportunity to obtain more funding at the expense of the departing British; and 2) UK colleagues should continue to collaborate in EU scientific efforts, including Horizon Europe and Erasmus+. To provide evidence for more informed negotiations, we sought to determine the contribution of the UK to EU's research in biomedical sciences. Methods: We performed a macro level scientometric analysis to estimate the contribution of the UK and EU member states, including those associated with EU-funding (EU+) namely Albania, Armenia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Faroe Islands, Georgia, Iceland, Israel, Macedonia, Moldova, Montenegro, Norway, Serbia, Switzerland, Tunisia, Turkey, and Ukraine, to preclinical, clinical and health sciences. We searched the Web of Science database to count the total number of scientific publications and the top 1% most cited publications in the world between 2008 and 2017, calculated the performance efficiency by dividing the top 1% by the total number, and calculated the odds ratios to create a ranking of performance efficiency. We then compared the contribution of the UK to all the EU+ -based publications and the top 1% to the contributions of the ten EU member states with the largest biomedical research output and also compared the respective contributions to EU+ publications that resulted from collaborations with other regions in the world. Results: We found 2,991,016 biomedical publications from EU+ during 2008-2017, of which 19,019 (0.64%) were in the world's top 1% of the most cited publications. The UK produced 665,467 (22.3%) of these publications and had over two and a half times more top 1% most cited publications than the EU+ (odds ratio 2.79, 95% CI 2.71-2.88, p< 0.001). The UK's share in the EU+ co-publications with regions outside Europe ranged between 23.0% for the Arab League and 50.6% for Australia and New Zealand and its share of the top 1% ranged between 48.6% for the USA and Canada and 70.7% for the African Union. Conclusions: The UK contributed far more highly cited publications than the rest of the EU+ states and strongly contributed to European collaborations with the rest of the world during 2008-2017. This suggests that if the UK ceases to participate in EU scientific collaborations as a result of Brexit, the quantity and quality of EU's research in biomedical sciences will be adversely affected. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Compared to other topics, cybercrime is a relatively new addition to the criminological literature. Interest in the topic has grown over the past decade, with a handbill of scholars leading efforts to generate empirical understanding about the topic. Common conclusions reached in these studies are that more research is needed, cybercrime is interdisciplinary in nature, and cybercrime should be addressed as an international problem. In this study, we examine a sample of 593 prior cybercrime scholarly articles to identify the types of research strategies used in them, the patterns guiding those strategies, whether the research is interdisciplinary, and the degree to which scholars engage in international cybercrime studies. Attention is also given to co-authorship as well citation patterns. Implications for future research are provided. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The literature suggests that academic researchers with dual-appointment contracts, i.e. those employed concurrently by a university and an organization outside academia, have the potential to be more engaged in research collaborations with non-academic partners than colleagues contractually linked to a university only. Our results suggest that this relationship is not simple. Based on a sample of 7773 academic researchers in Europe, our findings show that the relationship between dual appointments and research collaborations is negative when the appointment involves an organization in the private sector and positive when the dual appointment is with an organization in the public sector. Our results also highlight that the profiles of academic researchers in dual appointments differ from those of academics mostly involved in research collaborations with non-academic organizations. The main differences relate to the academic researchers' educational paths, international mobility experiences and contractual status. The implications of these findings for research collaborations between the academic and non-academic sectors are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Inter-personal ties have long been recognized as relevant not only for interaction between individuals, but also for knowledge transfer and other important outcomes of business activities. This applies in particular to East Asian countries such as South Korea where informal social networks are widely prevalent in business and society. However, less is known about their role in inter-organizational collaboration efforts, such as research collaborations. This exploratory study examines the relevance of inter-personal ties and inter-organizational tie strength for interaction quality and outcomes of research collaborations in South Korea. Two types of research collaborations are studied: new product development (NPD) collaborations between companies and university-industry research collaborations (UICs). Inter-personal ties are found in a majority of both types of collaborations being studied. However, whereas inter-organizational tie strength is positively related to outcomes of these research collaborations, inter-personal ties are not. Managers should thus not primarily rely on inter-personal ties for partner selection and the management of research collaborations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• We study the impact of research collaboration on the character of resulting publications. • Specialized publications more frequently the fruit of international collaboration. • Domestic collaborations are more likely associated with diversified research. • The number of co-authors does not significantly affect the trait of publications. • Exceptions are observed at the level of the individual disciplines. The present work investigates the relations between amplitude and type of collaboration (intramural, extramural domestic or international) and output of specialized versus diversified research. By specialized or diversified research, we mean within or beyond the author's dominant research topic. The field of observation is the scientific production over five years from about 23,500 academics. The analyses are conducted at the aggregate and disciplinary level. The results lead to the conclusion that in general, the output of diversified research is no more frequently the fruit of collaboration than is specialized research. At the level of the particular collaboration types, international collaborations weakly underlie the specialized kind of research output; on the contrary, extramural domestic and intramural collaborations are weakly associated with diversified research. While the weakness of association remains, exceptions are observed at the level of the individual disciplines. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We use a two-sided matching framework to analyze collaboration between heterogeneous academics and firms. We consider both horizontal and vertical characteristics--those related to affinity (e.g., preferences for a type of scientific research) and those related to ability (e.g., capacity to produce high-quality scientific output). We build a unique data set based on the teams of academics and firms that proposed research projects to the UK's Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council. Our results are suggestive of positive assortative matching in terms of ability and type, while the matching is negative assortative in terms of their interactions. The most able and the most applied academics are the ones that are more likely to propose collaborative as opposed to noncollaborative projects. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A bibliometric approach to assess trends in global tea research using literature in the Science Citation Index Expanded database from 1991 to 2014 has been conducted. Articles were analysed by scientific output and research performances of countries and institutions. The distribution of keywords in the articles' titles, author-supplied keywords and KeyWords Plus as well as citation and publication trends of tea-related articles was used to evaluate the research trends. The research output devoted to tea science increased greatly after the year 2002 indicating a paradigm shift that demonstrated that researchers became increasingly keen on biochemical relevance of active compounds in tea in mitigating emergent health challenges over classical tea research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A total of 1 917 publications of drinking water research in Africa from 1991 to 2013 were identified from the data hosted in online version of SCI-Expanded, Thomson Reuters Web of Science, for bibliometric analysis. The analysis included publication output, distribution of keywords, journals and subject areas, and performances of countries, institutions, and authors. Citation trends and highly-cited publications are also reported. We found that the publication output of related documents increased over the entire period of study. The results showed that 'water', 'drinking water', and 'oxidative stress' were the most frequent terms in publication titles, authors' keywords and KeyWords Plus. The top three subject areas were 'water resources', 'environmental science', and 'environmental and occupational public health'. The ten most productive institutions were located in South Africa and Egypt, and the University of Pretoria was the overall most productive institution. Thus, a quarter of all of the articles published were from South Africa. It was found that articles became increasingly collaborative with greater numbers of authors, page counts and bibliographies. More than half of the internationally collaborative articles were co-authored with researchers from Europe. French and US institutions contributed to the highest number of collaborative articles. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Increasing specialization, changes in the institutional incentives for publication, and a host of other reasons have brought about a marked trend towards co-authored articles among researchers. These changes have impacted Science and Technology (S&T) policies worldwide. Co-authorship is often considered to be a reliable proxy for assessing research collaborations at micro, meso, and macro levels. Although co-authorship in a scholarly publication brings numerous benefits to the participating authors, it has also given rise to issues of publication integrity, such as ghost authorships and honorary authorships. The code of conduct of bodies such as the American Psychological Association (APA) and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) make it clear that only those who have significantly contributed to the study should be on the authorship list. Those who have contributed little have to be appropriately “acknowledged” in footnotes or in the acknowledgement section. However, these principles are sometimes transgressed, and a complete solution still remains elusive.

Funding multi-institution centers of research excellence (CREs) has become a common means of supporting collaborative partnerships to address specific research topics. However, there is little guidance for those planning or managing a multi-institution CRE, which faces specific challenges not faced by single-institution research centers. We conducted qualitative research to identify the challenges faced by an Australian program of multiinstitution CREs with a view to identifying lessons for the future. This paper describes two of the most significant challenges: administrative complexity and investigator engagement. Administrative tasks (e.g.: establishing partner contracts and recruitment) were significantly more complex and time-consuming in the multi-institution CREs than single-institution research centers. Investigator engagement was hampered by a range of factors, including differing expectations within the investigator team and between the team and the funding body in relation to investigator roles as well as investigator capacity. We conclude with a discussion of key strategies that cut across the challenges: 1) early planning, 2) communication and 3) management capacity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]