Are network growth and the contributions to congresses associated with publication success? A pediatric oncology model

Abstract

BackgroundThe consistent focus of ‘Advances in Neuroblastoma Research’ congresses on the topic neuroblastoma sets it as a model for a circumscribed scientific community.MethodsThe contributions of authors, institutions and countries to congress abstracts and their collaborations were compared to the Hirsch index (h-index) calculated from the Web of Science publication output on the topic ‘neuroblastoma’.ResultsFrom 1975 to 2016, 18 congresses were held. 8459 authors affiliated to 553 institutions of 53 countries presented 3,993 abstracts. The number of coauthors increased over the years from 2 to 7. A considerable proportion of authors, institutions and countries presented only once (53.7%/25.7%/13.2%). Authors with a high number of abstracts and with a large local network were often among those with a higher publication rate and success (R2 = 0.508 for Pearson’s correlation between weight and h-index, R2 = 0.474 for degree centrality, R2 = 0.364 for lobby-index). Closeness and betweenness centralities were less correlated (R2 = 0.127/R2 = 0.33, resp.). The institutions showed a similar impact of local interactions on publication success (degree centrality R2 = 0.417, weight R2 = 0.308), while countries demonstrated a higher correlation of betweenness centrality and h-Index (R2 = 0.704) emphasizing their brokerage role. Of 553 institutions, 520 collaborated within 13 communities and belonged to the large scientific network. 33 satellite institutions had no connections to the central network. They attended 1–4 congresses over a period of 1–16 years.ConclusionA large scientific network has been developed during the recent 42 years. Growth and interaction at congresses were correlated to publication success. Weight is suggested as a useful and simple estimate.

A Summary on Tuberculosis Vaccine Development—Where to Go?

“…All of them are developed countries, but the output in developing countries or regions, including South Africa, China, and India, accounted for a substantial share as well. Developing countries did not perform well in the value evaluation system, but this did not fully mean that the output value of developing countries was necessarily poor [ 73 , 74 , 75 , 76 , 77 , 78 ]. To further analyze the differences in research content between developing and developed countries, we took the USA and the UK as representatives of typically developed countries and China and India as representatives of typically developing countries.…”

Urologische Forschung in Deutschland

“…Nationale Kooperationen konnten neben der Angabe von Statistik und einem prospektiven oder experimentellen Studiendesign in der dieser Arbeit vorangegangenen Analyse als prädiktive Faktoren für einen nachfolgenden Publikationserfolg identifiziert werden [29]. Die Wichtigkeit der Vernetzung für einen Publikationserfolg wird durch weitere Studien belegt [9].…”

From a single meeting to a scientific community: Quantification of the “Advances in Neuroblastoma Research Association” network

“…From 1975 through 2016, 18 “Advances of Neuroblastoma Research” (ANR) congresses were held solely devoted to neuroblastoma research, addressing basic, translational, and clinical science . None of meetings has been “diluted” by other topics, which makes them a good model to describe the development and interaction among a circumscribed scientific community.…”