Limits...
Measuring the evolution and output of cross-disciplinary collaborations within the NCI Physical Sciences-Oncology Centers Network.

Basner JE, Theisz KI, Jensen US, Jones CD, Ponomarev I, Sulima P, Jo K, Eljanne M, Espey MG, Franca-Koh J, Hanlon SE, Kuhn NZ, Nagahara LA, Schnell JD, Moore NM - Res Eval (2013)

Bottom Line: The results highlight increases in cross-disciplinary authorship collaborations from pre- to post-award years among the primary investigators and confirm that a majority of cross-disciplinary collaborations have resulted in publications with cross-disciplinary content that rank in the top third of their field.With these evaluation data, PS-OC Program officials have provided ongoing feedback to participating investigators to improve center productivity and thereby facilitate a more successful initiative.Future analysis will continue to expand these methods and metrics to adapt to new advances in research evaluation and changes in the program.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Discovery Logic, a Thomson Reuters business, Kelly Government Solutions, Rockville, MD 20852 and Office of Physical Sciences - Oncology, Center for Strategic Scientific Initiatives, Office of the Director, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD 20892, USA.

ABSTRACT
Development of effective quantitative indicators and methodologies to assess the outcomes of cross-disciplinary collaborative initiatives has the potential to improve scientific program management and scientific output. This article highlights an example of a prospective evaluation that has been developed to monitor and improve progress of the National Cancer Institute Physical Sciences-Oncology Centers (PS-OC) program. Study data, including collaboration information, was captured through progress reports and compiled using the web-based analytic database: Interdisciplinary Team Reporting, Analysis, and Query Resource. Analysis of collaborations was further supported by data from the Thomson Reuters Web of Science database, MEDLINE database, and a web-based survey. Integration of novel and standard data sources was augmented by the development of automated methods to mine investigator pre-award publications, assign investigator disciplines, and distinguish cross-disciplinary publication content. The results highlight increases in cross-disciplinary authorship collaborations from pre- to post-award years among the primary investigators and confirm that a majority of cross-disciplinary collaborations have resulted in publications with cross-disciplinary content that rank in the top third of their field. With these evaluation data, PS-OC Program officials have provided ongoing feedback to participating investigators to improve center productivity and thereby facilitate a more successful initiative. Future analysis will continue to expand these methods and metrics to adapt to new advances in research evaluation and changes in the program.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

Categorization of PS-OC Program investigators and trainees into two groups, physical scientists (black) and cancer researchers (gray), using three different methods: (a) progress report data on trainees, (b) an automated classification algorithm inferring discipline based on publication history, and (c) surveys of both investigators and trainees.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection


getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC3814300&req=5

rvt025-F1: Categorization of PS-OC Program investigators and trainees into two groups, physical scientists (black) and cancer researchers (gray), using three different methods: (a) progress report data on trainees, (b) an automated classification algorithm inferring discipline based on publication history, and (c) surveys of both investigators and trainees.

Mentions: The PS-OC Program has supported over 600 trainees and 350 investigator-level scientists over a 3-year period. For program evaluation, investigators and trainees were categorized into two disciplinary groups, physical scientists or cancer researchers, using several methods of data collection and automated classification algorithms. Information on trainees is self-reported by each PS-OC every 6 months through the progress report. The PS-OC Network trainees comprise ∼75% physical scientists and 25% cancer researchers (Fig. 1).Figure 1.


Measuring the evolution and output of cross-disciplinary collaborations within the NCI Physical Sciences-Oncology Centers Network.

Basner JE, Theisz KI, Jensen US, Jones CD, Ponomarev I, Sulima P, Jo K, Eljanne M, Espey MG, Franca-Koh J, Hanlon SE, Kuhn NZ, Nagahara LA, Schnell JD, Moore NM - Res Eval (2013)

Categorization of PS-OC Program investigators and trainees into two groups, physical scientists (black) and cancer researchers (gray), using three different methods: (a) progress report data on trainees, (b) an automated classification algorithm inferring discipline based on publication history, and (c) surveys of both investigators and trainees.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC3814300&req=5

rvt025-F1: Categorization of PS-OC Program investigators and trainees into two groups, physical scientists (black) and cancer researchers (gray), using three different methods: (a) progress report data on trainees, (b) an automated classification algorithm inferring discipline based on publication history, and (c) surveys of both investigators and trainees.
Mentions: The PS-OC Program has supported over 600 trainees and 350 investigator-level scientists over a 3-year period. For program evaluation, investigators and trainees were categorized into two disciplinary groups, physical scientists or cancer researchers, using several methods of data collection and automated classification algorithms. Information on trainees is self-reported by each PS-OC every 6 months through the progress report. The PS-OC Network trainees comprise ∼75% physical scientists and 25% cancer researchers (Fig. 1).Figure 1.

Bottom Line: The results highlight increases in cross-disciplinary authorship collaborations from pre- to post-award years among the primary investigators and confirm that a majority of cross-disciplinary collaborations have resulted in publications with cross-disciplinary content that rank in the top third of their field.With these evaluation data, PS-OC Program officials have provided ongoing feedback to participating investigators to improve center productivity and thereby facilitate a more successful initiative.Future analysis will continue to expand these methods and metrics to adapt to new advances in research evaluation and changes in the program.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Discovery Logic, a Thomson Reuters business, Kelly Government Solutions, Rockville, MD 20852 and Office of Physical Sciences - Oncology, Center for Strategic Scientific Initiatives, Office of the Director, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD 20892, USA.

ABSTRACT
Development of effective quantitative indicators and methodologies to assess the outcomes of cross-disciplinary collaborative initiatives has the potential to improve scientific program management and scientific output. This article highlights an example of a prospective evaluation that has been developed to monitor and improve progress of the National Cancer Institute Physical Sciences-Oncology Centers (PS-OC) program. Study data, including collaboration information, was captured through progress reports and compiled using the web-based analytic database: Interdisciplinary Team Reporting, Analysis, and Query Resource. Analysis of collaborations was further supported by data from the Thomson Reuters Web of Science database, MEDLINE database, and a web-based survey. Integration of novel and standard data sources was augmented by the development of automated methods to mine investigator pre-award publications, assign investigator disciplines, and distinguish cross-disciplinary publication content. The results highlight increases in cross-disciplinary authorship collaborations from pre- to post-award years among the primary investigators and confirm that a majority of cross-disciplinary collaborations have resulted in publications with cross-disciplinary content that rank in the top third of their field. With these evaluation data, PS-OC Program officials have provided ongoing feedback to participating investigators to improve center productivity and thereby facilitate a more successful initiative. Future analysis will continue to expand these methods and metrics to adapt to new advances in research evaluation and changes in the program.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus