Charting the Publication and Citation Impact of the NIH Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) Program From 2006 Through 2016

Llewellyn, Nicole; Carter, Dorothy R.; Rollins, Latrice; Nehl, Eric J.

doi:10.1097/acm.0000000000002119

Cited by 23 publications

(50 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…CTSA-wide citation influence has been reported in the past (Frechtling, Raue, Michie, Miyaoka, & Spiegelman, 2012; Leshner et al, 2013; Steketee et al, 2012) but not with respect to disciplinary area. Because current citation influence metrics are benchmarked against other publications from the same research areas (Hutchins, Yuan, Anderson, & Santangelo, 2016; Llewellyn et al, 2018; Reuters, 2014), it is important to understand the disciplinary context within which articles are compared. This study utilizes multiple article- and journal-level citation metrics to triangulate aggregate and field-specific citation influence, allowing for a nuanced consideration of influence within and across research areas.…”

Section: Relative Influence Of Research Areasmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Thus far, descriptions of the CTSA consortium’s overall publication and citation activity over the first 5 and 10 years of the program have been reported (Llewellyn, Carter, Rollins, & Nehl, 2018; Steketee, Frechtling, Cross, & Schnell, 2012). These studies showed that the quantity of publications supported by CTSA hubs is robust and accelerating over time and that their citation influence is consistently well above global averages for their fields and years of publication.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Scope, Influence, and Interdisciplinary Collaboration: The Publication Portfolio of the NIH Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) Program From 2006 Through 2017

et al. 2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) program sponsors an array of innovative, collaborative research. This study uses complementary bibliometric approaches to assess the scope, influence, and interdisciplinary collaboration of publications supported by single CTSA hubs and those supported by multiple hubs. Authors identified articles acknowledging CTSA support and assessed the disciplinary scope of research areas represented in that publication portfolio, their citation influence, interdisciplinary overlap among research categories, and characteristics of publications supported by multihub collaborations. Since 2006, CTSA hubs supported 69,436 articles published in 4,927 journals and 189 research areas. The portfolio is well distributed across diverse research areas with above-average citation influence. Most supported publications involved clinical/health sciences, for example, neurology and pediatrics; life sciences, for example, neuroscience and immunology; or a combination of the two. Publications supported by multihub collaborations had distinct content emphasis, stronger citation influence, and greater interdisciplinary overlap. This study characterizes the CTSA consortium’s contributions to clinical and translational science, identifies content areas of strength, and provides evidence for the success of multihub collaborations. These methods lay the foundation for future investigation of the best policies and priorities for fostering translational science and allow hubs to understand their progress benchmarked against the larger consortium.

show abstract

Section: Relative Influence Of Research Areasmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Scope, Influence, and Interdisciplinary Collaboration: The Publication Portfolio of the NIH Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) Program From 2006 Through 2017

et al. 2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This identification demonstrated that NC TraCS continues to support the mission of NCATS. The topic mapping metrics of NC TraCS-supported publications go beyond the scope of bibliometrics by measuring the foci of translational science activities at an institution [16,38].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It is a validated method to quantify the influence of a research article [31]. With a customizable benchmarking feature, RCRs can be used to compare research performance across different fields and research groups [16,30].…”

Section: Data Toolsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The recent advancements of bibliometrics resources and information technology allow us to shift from basic bibliometrics (process-level measures) such as publications or citation counts to field-and time-normalized "comparative" approaches (impact-level measures) such as snowball metrics, benchmarking, and outputs in top percentiles [14,15]. Research-supporting institutions are now able to gain a more nuanced picture of the citation impact of research than can be captured in raw citation counts alone [4,16]. One of CTSA consortium-led evaluation workgroups has explored the feasibility and utility of both basic and improved bibliometric approaches.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Bibliometrics approach to evaluating the research impact of CTSAs: A pilot study

Van

Patel

et al. 2020

J. Clin. Trans. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: To enhance the performance evaluation of Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) hubs, we examined the utility of advanced bibliometric measures that go beyond simple publication counts to demonstrate the impact of translational research output. Methods: The sampled data included North Carolina Translational and Clinical Science Institute (NC TraCS)-supported publications produced between September 2008 and March 2017. We adopted advanced bibliometric measures and a state-of-the-art bibliometric network analysis tool to assess research productivity, citation impact, the scope of research collaboration, and the clusters of research topics. Results: Totally, 754 NC TraCS-supported publications generated over 24,000 citation counts by April 2017 with an average of 33 cites per article. NC TraCS-supported research papers received more than twice as many cites per year as the average National Institute of Health-funded research publications from the same field and time. We identified the top productive researchers and their networks within the CTSA hub. Findings demonstrated the impact of NC TraCS in facilitating interdisciplinary collaborations within the CTSA hub and across the CTSA consortium and connecting researchers with right peers and organizations. Conclusion: Both improved bibliometrics measures and bibliometric network analysis can bring new perspectives to CTSA evaluation via citation influence and the scope of research collaborations.

show abstract

The AI field needs translational Ethical AI research

Borg

2022

AI Magazine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Calls for Ethical AI have become urgent and pervasive, especially as ethical issues surrounding AI products at tech companies are increasingly scrutinized by the public. Yet even after a first wave of responses to these calls coalesced around Ethical AI principles to guide decision-making and a second wave generated technical tools to mitigate specific ethical issues, multiple lines of evidence indicate that these Ethical AI principles and technical tools have only a limited impact on the daily practices of AI users and producers. In other words, there is a big gap between what we publish in academic papers and what AI creators need to generate AI products that reflect society's values. Ethical AI is by no means the only field to have this problem. However, when medical and ecology fields documented similar gaps between their fields' scientific discoveries and the practices and products that people actually use, they invested tremendous resources into subfields that developed evidence about how to translate what was done in the lab to adopted solutions. I argue in this commentary that it is our research community's moral duty to invest in our own subfield of "Translational Ethical AI" that will determine how best to ensure AI practitioners can implement the Ethical AI technical tools we publish in academic venues in production settings. Further, I offer concrete steps for doing that, drawing on insights gleaned from other translational fields. Closing the "Ethical AI Publication-to-Practice gap" will be a considerable transdisciplinary challenge, but one of the AI research community has the unique expertise, political leverage, and moral responsibility to tackle.

show abstract

Charting the Publication and Citation Impact of the NIH Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) Program From 2006 Through 2016

Cited by 23 publications

References 21 publications

Scope, Influence, and Interdisciplinary Collaboration: The Publication Portfolio of the NIH Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) Program From 2006 Through 2017

Scope, Influence, and Interdisciplinary Collaboration: The Publication Portfolio of the NIH Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) Program From 2006 Through 2017

Bibliometrics approach to evaluating the research impact of CTSAs: A pilot study

The AI field needs translational Ethical AI research

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About