BackgroundA recent review of frameworks used in dissemination and implementation (D&I) science described 61 judged to be related either to dissemination, implementation, or both. The current use of these frameworks and their contributions to D&I science more broadly has yet to be reviewed. For these reasons, our objective was to determine the role of these frameworks in the development of D&I science.MethodsWe used the Web of Science™ Core Collection and Google Scholar™ to conduct a citation network analysis for the key frameworks described in a recent systematic review of D&I frameworks (Am J Prev Med 43(3):337–350, 2012). From January to August 2016, we collected framework data including title, reference, publication year, and citations per year and conducted descriptive and main path network analyses to identify those most important in holding the current citation network for D&I frameworks together.ResultsThe source article contained 119 cited references, with 50 published articles and 11 documents identified as a primary framework reference. The average citations per year for the 61 frameworks reviewed ranged from 0.7 to 103.3 among articles published from 1985 to 2012. Citation rates from all frameworks are reported with citation network analyses for the framework review article and ten highly cited framework seed articles. The main path for the D&I framework citation network is presented.ConclusionsWe examined citation rates and the main paths through the citation network to delineate the current landscape of D&I framework research, and opportunities for advancing framework development and use. Dissemination and implementation researchers and practitioners may consider frequency of framework citation and our network findings when planning implementation efforts to build upon this foundation and promote systematic advances in D&I science.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13012-017-0628-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Why do armies sometimes surrender to the enemy and sometimes fight to the bitter end? Existing research has highlighted the importance of battlefield resolve for the onset, conduct, and outcome of war, but has left these life-and-death decisions mostly unexplained. We know little about why battle-level surrender occurs, and why it stops. In this paper, we argue that surrender emerges from a collective-action problem: success in battle requires that soldiers choose to fight as a unit rather than flee, but individual decisions to fight depend on whether soldiers expect their comrades to do the same. Surrender becomes contagious across battles because soldiers take cues from what other soldiers did when they were in a similar position. Where no recent precedent exists, mass surrender is unlikely. We find empirical support for this claim using a new data set of conventional battles in all interstate wars from 1939 to 2011. These findings advance our understanding of battlefield resolve, with broader implications for the design of political-military institutions and decisions to initiate, continue, and terminate war.

No abstract

No abstract