4.1 Article

Building visualization skills through investigating the Journal of the Medical Library Association coauthorship network from 2006-2017

期刊

JOURNAL OF THE MEDICAL LIBRARY ASSOCIATION
卷 108, 期 2, 页码 229-241

出版社

MEDICAL LIBRARY ASSOC
DOI: 10.5195/jmla.2020.775

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: The primary objective of this study was to explore different dimensions of Journal of the Medical Library Association (JMLA) authorship from 2006-2017. Dimensions that were evaluated using coauthorship networks and affiliation data included collaboration, geographical reach, and relationship between Medical Library Association (MLA) member and nonmember authors. A secondary objective was to analyze the practice and practical application of data science skills. Methods: A team of librarians who attended the 2017 Data Science and Visualization Institute used JMLA bibliographic metadata extracted from Scopus, together with select MLA membership data from 2006-2017. Data cleaning, anonymization, analysis, and visualization were done collaboratively by the team members to meet their learning objectives and to produce insights about the nature of collaborative authorship at JMLA. Results: Sixty-nine percent of the 1,351 JMLA authors from 2006-2017 were not MLA members. MLA members were more productive and collaborative, and tended to author articles together. The majority of the authoring institutions in JMLA are based in the United States. Global reach outside of the United States and Canada shows higher authorship in English-speaking countries (e.g., Australia, United Kingdom), as well as in Western Europe and Japan. Conclusions: MLA support of JMLA may benefit a wider network of health information specialists and medical professionals than is reflected in MLA membership. Conducting coauthorship network analyses can create opportunities for health sciences librarians to practice applying emerging data science and data visualization skills.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据