Evolution of Coauthorship in Public Health Services and Systems Research

Abstract

Background Public health systems and services research (PHSSR) examines the organization, financing, and delivery of public health services and the impact of these activities on population health. An accurate description of this PHSSR is needed to empower funding agencies and other stakeholders, to coordinate PHSSR activities, and to foster the development of the field. Purpose To characterize the emerging community of researchers engaged in PHSSR. This study 1) describes dynamics of this growing community; and 2) identifies distinct topics being researched, communities of practice within PHSSR, and collaboration among groups. Methods Co-authorship network visualization of selected research publications in the Medline bibliographic database. Results PHSSR has emerged gradually since 1988, with noticeable growth after 1994 and after 2004. The network of PHSSR research has a core-periphery structure. The core of this network includes highly collaborative researchers focusing on topics pertaining directly to PHSSR, such as the public health workforce, quality improvement and performance, law, and information infrastructure. The periphery consists of groups publishing either more generally on various health services research topics, or on epidemiologic, clinical, or health sciences topics. Conclusions While a nucleus group of productive and engaged individuals participate in PHSSR, most authors are also involved in general health services research, issues of population health, or health science topics unrelated to PHSSR. An overview of collaboration in PHSSR is an important step in advancing a coordinated research agenda and attracting sustainable funding streams for this field.

Research collaboration in health management research communities

“…Previous research showed that economic factor will improve the research collaboration [47,48]. And as shown in Figure 6, similar to previous study in oncology or cardiovascular field, those economic powers such as USA, UK are in the center of the network, which play an vital role in the information dissemination and resources control in health management.…”

Scientific authorships and collaboration network analysis on Chagas disease: papers indexed in PubMed (1940-2009)

“…On the other hand, it is important to note some differences as well: although pathologies like Chagas disease, malaria and schistosomiasis have seen an increase in scientific research (COSTA LIMA et al The evolution in the number of co-authors who participate in the papers on this topic has seen exponential growth, a fact consistent with a more general trend of increased collaboration and especially coauthorship throughout the entire biomedical sector (VANZ & STUMPF 2010). However, the rise in collaboration also entails certain negative aspects, including unjustified hyperauthorship as well as other ethically In general, as in other topics, the most productive authors are those who demonstrate a high degree of collaboration (BALES et al 2008;BALES et al 2011). In this sense, it is important to note that although these researchers (identified as those who have published over 49 papers) have established collaborative links with a great number of authors, their stable and consolidated collaborators-that is, those with whom they regularly publish or have disseminated a considerable portion of their scientific output-are a relatively small in number.…”

Evolution of Cooperation Patterns in Psoriasis Research: Co-Authorship Network Analysis of Papers in Medline (1942–2013)

“…This figure suggests that the most common way that research groups are organized depends on the existence of a principal author, who acts as its leader. According to network theory research, these authors are characterized by their collaborative ties with a large number of researchers [ 58 ], their status as highly productive authors [ 59 ], and the lowest geodesic distances registered in the network, which confers on them a leadership role due to their capacity to interact more directly and rapidly with other investigators [ 55 ]. Thus, these are researchers of reference, who are responsible for articulating the development of research in the area and facilitating wider collaborative relationships, the cohesion of scientific community, and the integration of new authors in the research groups.…”