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

Challenges to forming and tracking cross-disciplinary collaborations. (A) Summary of survey responses from PS-OC investigators and trainees on difficulties experienced during the cross-disciplinary collabroation. The average severity score for each difficulty is listed in parantheses (Scale: 1–5, 5 is most severe) (B) A summary of the continuity of collaborations reported by investigators in the progress reports every 6 months. Each line represents continuity of the same collaboration across two progress report periods.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection


getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC3814300&req=5

rvt025-F7: Challenges to forming and tracking cross-disciplinary collaborations. (A) Summary of survey responses from PS-OC investigators and trainees on difficulties experienced during the cross-disciplinary collabroation. The average severity score for each difficulty is listed in parantheses (Scale: 1–5, 5 is most severe) (B) A summary of the continuity of collaborations reported by investigators in the progress reports every 6 months. Each line represents continuity of the same collaboration across two progress report periods.

Mentions: Survey respondents were asked to choose the most significant challenge in establishing effective cross-disciplinary collaborations and to assign a severity score (1–5, with 1 being the least severe to 5 being the most severe) to each of 17 presented challenges (Fig. 7A). The most commonly identified and highest severity concern was a lack of funds to support the collaboration. Other common challenges were related to team interaction and function, including differences in goals, lack of defined roles, and difficulty in communicating across disciplines.Figure 7.


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)

Challenges to forming and tracking cross-disciplinary collaborations. (A) Summary of survey responses from PS-OC investigators and trainees on difficulties experienced during the cross-disciplinary collabroation. The average severity score for each difficulty is listed in parantheses (Scale: 1–5, 5 is most severe) (B) A summary of the continuity of collaborations reported by investigators in the progress reports every 6 months. Each line represents continuity of the same collaboration across two progress report periods.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

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

rvt025-F7: Challenges to forming and tracking cross-disciplinary collaborations. (A) Summary of survey responses from PS-OC investigators and trainees on difficulties experienced during the cross-disciplinary collabroation. The average severity score for each difficulty is listed in parantheses (Scale: 1–5, 5 is most severe) (B) A summary of the continuity of collaborations reported by investigators in the progress reports every 6 months. Each line represents continuity of the same collaboration across two progress report periods.
Mentions: Survey respondents were asked to choose the most significant challenge in establishing effective cross-disciplinary collaborations and to assign a severity score (1–5, with 1 being the least severe to 5 being the most severe) to each of 17 presented challenges (Fig. 7A). The most commonly identified and highest severity concern was a lack of funds to support the collaboration. Other common challenges were related to team interaction and function, including differences in goals, lack of defined roles, and difficulty in communicating across disciplines.Figure 7.

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