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

(A) Force-directed network graphs of reported collaborations generated using iTRAQR. Nodes represent a physical scientist (light gray), cancer researcher (dark gray), or unknown discipline, respectively. Edges represent all types of reported collaborations (non-publication, publication, project for within and outside the network) with the weight equal to the total number reported for that particular pair of researchers. (B) Normalized betweeness centrality value for the top 100 key nodes in the entire network diagrams for physical scientists and cancer researchers after 6 months (2010) and 3 years (2012).
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection


getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC3814300&req=5

rvt025-F3: (A) Force-directed network graphs of reported collaborations generated using iTRAQR. Nodes represent a physical scientist (light gray), cancer researcher (dark gray), or unknown discipline, respectively. Edges represent all types of reported collaborations (non-publication, publication, project for within and outside the network) with the weight equal to the total number reported for that particular pair of researchers. (B) Normalized betweeness centrality value for the top 100 key nodes in the entire network diagrams for physical scientists and cancer researchers after 6 months (2010) and 3 years (2012).

Mentions: Network graphs generated in iTRAQR were used to measure changes in collaborations since the start of the PS-OC award. Disciplines for the 262 key PS-OC investigators, 47 participants in the broader PS-OC network (assigned using the automated classification algorithm), and the self-reported disciplines of 677 trainees involved in the PS-OC Program over 3 years were used to color code the graphs. Figure 3A displays collaborations for one center that were reported in each of the three grant years. Strong growth is indicated in this center’s network from 2010 to 2012 with three or four centralized collaboration activities involving interactions between physical scientists and cancer researchers. Within this one center from 2010 to 2012, there are 133 new people, 645 more collaborations, and 91 more cross-disciplinary collaborations.Figure 3.


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)

(A) Force-directed network graphs of reported collaborations generated using iTRAQR. Nodes represent a physical scientist (light gray), cancer researcher (dark gray), or unknown discipline, respectively. Edges represent all types of reported collaborations (non-publication, publication, project for within and outside the network) with the weight equal to the total number reported for that particular pair of researchers. (B) Normalized betweeness centrality value for the top 100 key nodes in the entire network diagrams for physical scientists and cancer researchers after 6 months (2010) and 3 years (2012).
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

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

rvt025-F3: (A) Force-directed network graphs of reported collaborations generated using iTRAQR. Nodes represent a physical scientist (light gray), cancer researcher (dark gray), or unknown discipline, respectively. Edges represent all types of reported collaborations (non-publication, publication, project for within and outside the network) with the weight equal to the total number reported for that particular pair of researchers. (B) Normalized betweeness centrality value for the top 100 key nodes in the entire network diagrams for physical scientists and cancer researchers after 6 months (2010) and 3 years (2012).
Mentions: Network graphs generated in iTRAQR were used to measure changes in collaborations since the start of the PS-OC award. Disciplines for the 262 key PS-OC investigators, 47 participants in the broader PS-OC network (assigned using the automated classification algorithm), and the self-reported disciplines of 677 trainees involved in the PS-OC Program over 3 years were used to color code the graphs. Figure 3A displays collaborations for one center that were reported in each of the three grant years. Strong growth is indicated in this center’s network from 2010 to 2012 with three or four centralized collaboration activities involving interactions between physical scientists and cancer researchers. Within this one center from 2010 to 2012, there are 133 new people, 645 more collaborations, and 91 more cross-disciplinary collaborations.Figure 3.

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