Size of science team at university and internal co-publications: science policy implications.

Scientific collaboration within a science team (unit, group, etc.) has been under scrutiny. Recently, science of team science has emerged to use science for deep understanding of the ways researchers jointly perform science to increase their team's performance. This article analyses internal scientific outputs with respect to the size of university's science team. The objective is to examine the science policy motive that is, if the team size increases, by encouraging academics to gather in larger teams, then their outputs increase. The method of the contrapositive of this conditional statement is adopted. Thus, 120 accredited teams, composed of about 1500 academics in four universities in Morocco, were analyzed using a cross-matrix of members' co-publications, an intra-collaboration index, Lorenz curve of both internal co-publications and sole-publications, with respect to team's size. Our findings show that internal co-publications and sole ones are higher for small size teams and that the Lorenz distributions of these two indicators are unequal in favor of small size teams. We discuss the implications of our findings for science policy, beyond size, such as the output- instead of input-based perspective to form a team, time requirement to build a collaborative team, inter- and intra-disciplinarity oriented research, team directorship, etc.

A critical assessment of INPA's scientific cooperation based on publications from 2004 to 2014 / Uma avaliação crítica da cooperação científica do INPA baseada em publicações entre 2004 e 2014

ABSTRACT In the 1990s, scientific cooperation at the National Institute for Amazonian Research (Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas da Amazônia - INPA), one of the oldest research institutions in Amazonia with the highest regional international cooperation, was dominated by research conducted by INPA's foreign partners. In this article, the evolution of this situation is evaluated, with the hypothesis that, as the internal and the external environments have changed over the past decade, this should be reflected in more symmetrical research cooperation. The analysis was based on a 2004 to 2014 Web of Science search of scientific production at INPA, from which 786 papers were recovered. The results indicated an increase in scientific production but without a corresponding increase in symmetrical cooperation. The level of symmetry varied according to the type of cooperation; it increased when Brazilian institutions were exclusively involved, although these papers tended to be published in journals with a low impact factor. However, the scientific relationships remained relatively asymmetrical when only foreign institutions were involved, although these papers were published in journals with high impact factors. Network analyses indicated that most international scientific cooperation was concentrated in just two INPA research departments: Biodiversity and Environmental Dynamics. In contrast, INPA's other two research departments, Technology & Innovation and Society, Environment & Health were peripheral, fragmented and benefited little from international cooperation.

RESUMO Na década de 1990, a cooperação científica no Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas Amazônica (INPA), uma das instituições de pesquisa mais antigas da Amazônia e que concentra grande parte da cooperação internacional regional, foi dominada por pesquisas realizadas pelos parceiros estrangeiros do INPA. Neste artigo, a evolução desta situação é avaliada, com a hipótese de que, à medida que os ambientes interno e externo mudaram ao longo da última década, isso deve refletir-se em uma cooperação cientifica mais simétrica. A análise baseou-se em um levantamento da produção científica do INPA na Web of Science de 2004 a 2014, em que foram recuperados 786 documentos. Os resultados indicaram um aumento na produção científica, mas sem um aumento correspondente na simetria da cooperação. O nível de simetria variou de acordo com o tipo de cooperação; aumentou quando estavam envolvidas exclusivamente instituições brasileiras, embora esses artigos tenham sido publicados em revistas com baixo fator de impacto. No entanto, as relações científicas permaneceram relativamente assimétricas quando apenas instituições estrangeiras estavam envolvidas, embora esses trabalhos tenham sido publicados em revistas com fatores de impacto mais altos. As análises de rede indicaram que a maior parte da cooperação científica internacional se concentrou em apenas dois departamentos de pesquisa do INPA: Biodiversidade e Dinâmica Ambiental. Em contraste, os outros dois departamentos de pesquisa do INPA, Tecnologia & Inovação e Sociedade, Ambiente & Saúde foram periféricos, fragmentados e pouco se beneficiaram da cooperação internacional.

Narrative self-constitution and vulnerability to co-authoring.

All people are vulnerable to having their self-concepts shaped by others. This article investigates that vulnerability using a theory of narrative self-constitution. According to narrative self-constitution, people depend on others to develop and maintain skills of self-narration and they are vulnerable to having the content of their self-narratives co-authored by others. This theoretical framework highlights how vulnerability to co-authoring is essential to developing a self-narrative and, thus, the possibility of autonomy. However, this vulnerability equally entails that co-authors can undermine autonomy by contributing disvalued content to the agent's self-narrative and undermining her authorial skills. I illustrate these processes with the first-hand reports of several women who survived sexual abuse as children. Their narratives of survival and healing reveal the challenges involved in (re)developing the skills required to manage vulnerability to co-authoring and how others can help in this process. Finally, I discuss some of the implications of co-authoring for the healthcare professional and the therapeutic relationship.

Relações de colaboração na rede brasileira de avaliação de tecnologias em saúde / Collaborative relations in Brazilian network assessment of thehealth technologies

Introdução: no Brasil, a Rede Brasileira de Avaliação de Tecnologias em Saúde (Rebrats) busca estabelecer a ponte entre pesquisa, política e gestão, fornecendo subsídios para decisões de incorporação, monitoramento e abandono de tecnologias. É formada por instituições de ensino e pesquisa voltada à geração e à síntese de evidências científicas para avaliar efeitos e eficiência de tecnologias para o SUS. A atuação em uma rede como a Rebrats, é importante no sentido de reforçar a capacidade de realização de estudos de Avaliação de Tecnologias em Saúde além de, contribuir com a formação continuada dos profissionais, reduzir duplicações desnecessárias e permitir um compartilhamento mais eficiente dos conhecimentos e informações. Objetivo: Identificar as relações de colaboração científica entre os autores que produziram e disseminaram os resultados de diferentes tipos de estudos – Revisões Sistemáticas, Pareceres Técnicos Científicos, Análise Econômicas - incluídos no Sistema de Informação da Rebrats, registrados no período de 2009 até setembro 2014. Metodologia: A análise de rede social foi a metodologia empregada, com a finalidade de identificar colaboração de coautoria entre os autores dos estudos produzidos. Como critério de inclusão para esse estudo, foram analisados os autores de grau (número de colaborações) igual ou maior de 29. Resultado e conclusão: Como resultado, foi demonstrado uma rede contendo 1094 autores (nós) e 4998 arestas (relações). Para análises futuras, considera-se fundamental avaliar as influências da Rebrats no campo da gestão, regulação e atenção à saúde prestada no âmbito do SUS, com o objetivo de compreender como a colaboração em rede auxilia na otimização desses processos.

Introduction: in Brazil, the Brazilian Network of Health Technology Assessment (Rebrats) seeks to bridge the gap between research, policy and management, providing subsidies for merger decisions. It is formed by educational and research institutions focused on the generation and synthesis of scientific evidence to assess effects and efficiency of tech nology for SUS. Operating in a network like Rebrats, it is important to strengthen the capacity of conducting Health Technology Assessment studies as well as contribute to the continuing education of professionals, reduce duplication at work and allow for more efficient sharing of knowledge and information. Objective: Identify the scientific collaboration relations between the authors who produced and disseminated the results of different studies - Systematic Reviews, Rapid Reviews, Economic Evaluation - included in the Rebrats Information System, registered in the period of 2009 to September 2014. Methods: The social network analysis was the methodology employed. We analyzed the degree of authors (number of collaborations) equal to or greater than 29. Results and conclusions: As a result, a network was shown containing 1094 authors (nodes) and 4998 edges (relationships). For further analysis, it is considered essential to assess the influences of Rebrats in the field of management, regulation and health care provided under the SUS, in order to understand how collaborative network help optimizing these processes.

Social Network Analysis of the Co-authoring Network in Domestic International Classification of Diseases Field / 中华医学科研管理杂志

Objective The purpose of this article is to analyze the domestic situation of co-authorship in the field of international classification of diseases using Social Network Analysis.Methods Using UCINET to do this research from the following five perspectives,namely density,degree centrality,betweenness centrality,closeness and subgroup analysis.Results The density of co-authoring network is 0.0021.The number of nodes which made up the main component accounts for 3.46％ of the total nodes.Lin Jie-zhong possesses the highest value of degree centrality,and Guo Yun-qing's value of betweenness centrality and closeness is the highest.Forty-four 2-plexes are found in all authors.Conclusions Currently,the co-authorship is not close,but to a certain extent,the authors liked Lin Jie-zhong,Liang Yao,Li Jian-wei,Fan Wei,Guo Yun-qing,Liu Ai-min and so on constitute the core members or leaders.From the overall point of view,the authors in this field have not yet formed a subgroup phenomenon obviously.The structure of this co-authoring network is loose and isolated.