Collaborative patterns, authorship practices and scientific success in biomedical research: a network analysis. (June 2019)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Patel, Vanash M; Panzarasa, Pietro; Ashrafian, Hutan; Evans, Tim S; Kirresh, Ali; Sevdalis, Nick; Darzi, Ara; Athanasiou, Thanos
• Is Part Of: Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine. Volume 112:Number 6(2019)
• Page Start: 245
• Page End: 257
• Publication Date: 2019-06
• Subjects: Medical careers -- medical education -- medical management; Medicine -- Periodicals; Medicine -- Great Britain -- Periodicals; Periodicals; 610.5
• DOI: 10.1177/0141076819851666
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0410-0768

Abstract

Summary: Objective: To investigate the relationship between biomedical researchers' collaborative and authorship practices and scientific success. Design: Longitudinal quantitative analysis of individual researchers' careers over a nine-year period. Setting: A leading biomedical research institution in the United Kingdom. Participants: Five hundred and twenty-five biomedical researchers who were in employment on 31 December 2009. Main outcome measures: We constructed the co-authorship network in which nodes are the researchers, and links are established between any two researchers if they co-authored one or more articles. For each researcher, we recorded the position held in the co-authorship network and in the bylines of all articles published in each three-year interval and calculated the number of citations these articles accrued until January 2013. We estimated maximum likelihood negative binomial panel regression models. Results: Our analysis suggests that collaboration sustained success, yet excessive co-authorship did not. Last positions in non-alphabetised bylines were beneficial for higher academic ranks but not for junior ones. A professor could witness a 20.57% increase in the expected citation count if last-listed non-alphabetically in one additional publication; yet, a lecturer suffered from a 13.04% reduction. First positions in alphabetised bylines were positively associated with performance for junior academics only. A lecturer could experience a 8.78% increase in the expected citation count if first-listed alphabetically in one additional publication. While junior researchers amplified success when brokering among otherwise disconnected collaborators, senior researchers prospered from socially cohesive networks, rich in third-party relationships. Conclusions: These results help biomedical scientists shape successful careers and research institutions develop effective assessment and recruitment policies that will ultimately sustain the quality of biomedical research and patient care.