UCSF Profiles coauthorship networks, by degree

We’re using UCSF Profiles data to explore whether co-authorship networks are a good way to show the connections between researchers at UCSF.

We can start off by looking at immediate co-authorship connections. I was surprised at how few current UCSF co-authors most users have. The flip side of co-authoring widely outside of one’s institution is that there are fewer internal co-authors:

Avg # contacts, 1 degree away

Continue reading

UCSF dentistry co-authorships, internal vs. external (by institutions)

What does a typical UCSF publication look like, in terms of the number of internal co-authors vs. the number of external co-authoring institutions? Here’s a breakdown among dentistry-related publications by UCSF researchers published in 2013. (This is the same analysis as yesterday, but looking at the number of external institutions, vs. the number of external people.)

Again, I was surprised to see so many co-authorships between a single UCSF researcher and one or researchers from one or more external institutions (the very top row of results), which accounts for 52% of the papers we looked at.

UCSF vs External Co-Authoring InstitutionsView as PDF Continue reading

UCSF dentistry co-authorships, internal vs. external

What does a typical UCSF publication look like, in terms of internal vs. external co-authors? Here’s a breakdown of each type of co-author, among dentistry-related publications by UCSF researchers published in 2013.

Three immediate take-aways:

  • I was surprised to see so many co-authorships between a single UCSF researcher and one or more external researchers — the very top row of results. By volume, this accounts for 52% of the papers we looked at.
  • When every author is internal to UCSF, there’s an average of 3.5 UCSF co-authors
  • When there’s an external collaboration, there’s an average of 2.0 UCSF co-authors

UCSF vs External Co-AuthorsView as PDF Continue reading

UCSF dentistry collaborations, visualized

Looking at cross-institutional co-authorship networks is a useful way of seeing not only who we work with, but also where there may be gaps of interest.

I first looked at dentistry-related publications by UCSF researchers published in 2013, breaking out the institutions we co-authored with. And there we are, sitting pretty in the center of our universe, collaborating with major institutions in the US, Korea, Australia, Italy, Denmark, and more.

(Details: Institution node sizes indicate the total volume of dentistry-related articles published. Connecting line widths indicate the number of articles co-authored between two institutions. Distance between nodes indicates the tightness of co-authorship networks, and different sets of node colors help distinguish groups of institutions whose researchers frequently co-author together. Of 462 institutions that collaborated with UCSF researchers, we’re showing only 91 that had 10 or more cross-institutional articles in that time.)

View full-size visualization (PDF)

UCSF dentistry research co-authorships, Jan 1 - Dec 5 2013

Then I looked at the total universe of dentistry-related publications published in 2013 (see below). Notice a difference? I have to admit that it took me a while to find UCSF in the mess of dots. (If you look at the full-size view, we’re in the medium blue section, next to the pinks.) Of course this says more about the sheer volume of research being published by universities all over the world, than about any lack of cross-institutionally collaborative spirit on our part; in fact I hid over 80% of the institutions in the first image to keep it readable, which accounts for a a good chunk of the difference. But the sheer weight of institutions from Europe, East Asia, and Latin America in this second image that aren’t there in the first is intriguing, and something I’m going to try digging into.

(Details: Institution node sizes indicate the total volume of dentistry-related articles published. Connecting line widths indicate the number of articles co-authored between two institutions. Distance between nodes indicates the tightness of co-authorship networks, and different sets of node colors help distinguish groups of institutions whose researchers frequently co-author together. Of 2,575 institutions that we found, we’re showing only 374 that had 10 or more cross-institutional articles in that time.)

View full-size visualization (PDF)

Dentistry research co-authorships, Jan 1-Dec 5 2013

(And yes, I realize fully well that I’m probably looking at the wrong things here, privileging increasing the count of cross-institutional collaborations as an end in itself, avoiding any consideration of research quality, and giving greater visual weight to institutions that publish more, regardless of the size of the institution or the quality of work. Pretty pictures lie can hide lots of flaws. I hope you’ll bear with me as I publicly iterate through these topics, step by step, hopefully getting just a little bit less dumb every time.)

Additional uninteresting details: I searched Web of Science for dentistry-related articles published in 2013 (i.e. from January 1-December 5, 2013). I began by running a search for any articles published in 2013 matching a number of dentistry-related keywords (dental, dentistry, electrogalvanism, endodontics, jaw relation record, mouth rehabilitation, odontometry, oral, orthodontics, periodontics, prosthodontics, teeth, tooth), then filtered only those that matched the “DENTISTRY ORAL SURGERY MEDICINE” Web of Science category.

Every researcher at UCSF — by department

Co-authorship networks can help us understand internal research collaboration patterns at UCSF. I used data from UCSF Profiles to create a visualization of (almost) every researcher currently at UCSF, and how their intra-UCSF co-authorship networks break out by department.

This visualization by department bears some more investigation than the previous one by school. Department of Medicine researchers are all over, collaborating with a wide variety of external departments. But an initial visual inspection suggests that almost all major departments have co-authorship relationships with members of other departments; some, like neurology, appear to form large standalone clusters, while others, like radiology, are more enmeshed in the work of others. This visualization flattens complex relationships into two dimensions, but it’s a starting point as we work to understand how UCSF collaborates.

View full-size visualization (PDF)

Every Researcher at UCSF, by department

Every researcher at UCSF — by school

Co-authorship networks can help us understand internal research collaboration patterns at UCSF. I used data from UCSF Profiles to create a visualization of (almost) every researcher currently at UCSF, and how their intra-UCSF co-authorship networks break out by school.

Unsurprisingly, the School of Medicine takes up most of the space, and the visualization is probably most interesting in terms of what it might suggest about the smaller schools. Researchers from the Schools of Nursing and Dentistry form their own visible clusters, who often work with each other, but also have co-authorship relationships with researchers at the School of Medicine. But I was surprised by the School of Pharmacy, whose researchers form a main clusters in the bottom right, as well as additional clusters in the middle and top left, due to strong collaborative relationships with School of Medicine researchers.

View full-size visualization (PDF)

Every Researcher at UCSF, by school