4.5 Article

Visualization analysis of author collaborations in schizophrenia research

Journal

BMC PSYCHIATRY
Volume 15, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

BIOMED CENTRAL LTD
DOI: 10.1186/s12888-015-0407-z

Keywords

Schizophrenia; Collaboration; CiteSpace III

Categories

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China
  2. The Theoretical and Empirical Study of S&D Collaboration Characterized by Collaboration Prediction - Based on the Data in Biomedical Fields [71473154]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Schizophrenia is a serious mental illness that levies a heavy medical toll and cost burden throughout the world. Scientific collaborations are necessary for progress in psychiatric research. However, there have been few publications on scientific collaborations in schizophrenia. The aim of this study was to investigate the extent of author collaborations in schizophrenia research. Methods: This study used 58,107 records on schizophrenia from 2003 to 2012 which were downloaded from Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI Expanded) via Web of Science. CiteSpace III, an information visualization and analysis software, was used to make a visual analysis. Results: Collaborative author networks within the field of schizophrenia were determined using published documents. We found that external author collaboration networks were more scattered while potential author collaboration networks were more compact. Results from hierarchical clustering analysis showed that the main collaborative field was genetic research in schizophrenia. Conclusion: Based on the results, authors belonging to different institutions and in different countries should be encouraged to collaborate in schizophrenia research. This will help researchers focus their studies on key issues, and allow each other to offer reasonable suggestions for making polices and providing scientific evidence to effectively diagnose, prevent, and cure schizophrenia.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available