IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/rseval/v22y2013i5p285-297.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Measuring the evolution and output of cross-disciplinary collaborations within the NCI Physical Sciences--Oncology Centers Network

Author

Listed:
  • Jodi E. Basner
  • Katrina I. Theisz
  • Unni S. Jensen
  • C. David Jones
  • Ilya Ponomarev
  • Pawel Sulima
  • Karen Jo
  • Mariam Eljanne
  • Michael G. Espey
  • Jonathan Franca-Koh
  • Sean E. Hanlon
  • Nastaran Z. Kuhn
  • Larry A. Nagahara
  • Joshua D. Schnell
  • Nicole M. Moore

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. Copyright The Author 2013. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com, Oxford University Press.

Suggested Citation

  • Jodi E. Basner & Katrina I. Theisz & Unni S. Jensen & C. David Jones & Ilya Ponomarev & Pawel Sulima & Karen Jo & Mariam Eljanne & Michael G. Espey & Jonathan Franca-Koh & Sean E. Hanlon & Nastaran Z., 2013. "Measuring the evolution and output of cross-disciplinary collaborations within the NCI Physical Sciences--Oncology Centers Network," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 22(5), pages 285-297, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:rseval:v:22:y:2013:i:5:p:285-297
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/reseval/rvt025
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Hackett, Edward J. & Leahey, Erin & Parker, John N. & Rafols, Ismael & Hampton, Stephanie E. & Corte, Ugo & Chavarro, Diego & Drake, John M. & Penders, Bart & Sheble, Laura & Vermeulen, Niki & Vision,, 2021. "Do synthesis centers synthesize? A semantic analysis of topical diversity in research," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(1).
    2. Stephen Webb, 2016. "Twitter use in physics conferences," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 108(3), pages 1267-1286, September.
    3. Leahey, Erin & Barringer, Sondra N., 2020. "Universities’ commitment to interdisciplinary research: To what end?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(2).

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:rseval:v:22:y:2013:i:5:p:285-297. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/rev .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.